In late February, San Francisco YIMBY endorsed the appointed District 4 Supervisor Alan Wong in the June supervisor’s race, calling him a “pro-housing champion” for supporting Mayor Daniel Lurie’s upzoning plan.
The pro-housing group urged San Franciscans to celebrate Wong’s campaign-headquarters opening, and its members went out doorknocking for him on Irving Street and near McCoppin Square just last weekend.
But now, the YIMBYs are publicly chastising their endorsed candidate, objecting to his position on toxins near one affordable housing project at 2550 Irving St. and his stance on another at 1234 Great Highway in the Outer Sunset.
“His decision to create an inflammatory, NIMBY petition purporting risks to public health is based on scientifically unfounded claims that were thoroughly disproven during the permitting process,” read a statement from SF YIMBY obtained by Mission Local.
The chapter urged the supervisor to withdraw his petition on 2550 Irving St. and fully support the project at 1234 Great Highway. If things get more heinous, said Dane Willette, a lead at the chapter, rescinding the endorsement could be on the table, though so far the chapter is still “comfortable” with its choice.
The statement expressing disappointment with Wong referred to his move last week to circulate a petition calling for “a complete cleanup of toxic vapors” beneath a block of Irving Street between 26th and 27th avenues, where tenants will move into an affordable housing project at 2550 Irving St. this week.
The developer and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control said they’ve installed a Vapor Intrusion Mitigation System — essentially, a barrier between the site’s foundation and the building to mediate the toxic vapors.
But Wong and a Sunset neighborhood group want more thorough testing and cleaning on and around the site.
The petition for “a comprehensive cleanup” was spearheaded by the Mid-Sunset Neighborhood Association, a group that has consistently moved to stop the project from breaking ground since 2021, citing inadequate monitoring of toxins.
The goal, Wong wrote, is to ask the developer, the Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation, and other stakeholders to “fund and support a comprehensive cleanup plan for the entire neighborhood.”
The Mid-Sunset group has filed a lawsuit and several appeals to stop the development and asked for a complete soil cleanup to remove PCE, a chemical used by dry cleaning businesses that may increase risks of cancer at high concentrations
The developer and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control said they have conducted extensive tests — though not the tests that the neighborhood group requested — and created a barrier between the soil and the building to keep out toxic vapors on site.
But those measures, Wong wrote in a statement, were only meant to protect residents of the building, but “neighbors in the surrounding affected areas remain concerned” and want “more than a narrow, site-only response.”
With the project already built, Wong wrote, “we should do more than satisfying what is technically required and clean up contamination.”
‘We expect better’ on 1234 Great Highway
SF YIMBY is also disappointed at Wong’s position on a proposed senior affordable housing project at 1234 Great Highway in the Outer Sunset, which stalled due to funding challenges.
Wong, when asked by Mission Local if he would move the project forward, cited residents’ concerns over the formerly homeless population who may move in. The ambiguity wasn’t encouraging to YIMBYs, who wanted an enthusiastic yes.
“We expect better from a city supervisor than peddling NIMBY conspiracy theories and opposing affordable housing projects in his district,” the YIMBY statement continued.
When the SF YIMBY chapter was making its endorsements, the members voted firmly to endorse Wong, Willette said. None of the declared District 4 candidates have a huge pro-housing record to run on, and Wong, uniquely, supported the upzoning plan — a big factor in the endorsement decision.
But at the time, the Irving project was not on people’s minds.
“To see it pop up again, especially from Wong, was a shock,” Willette said.
Wong circulating the petition “disrupted our discussions in terms of how much more to push the candidates,” he said.
The June elections in District 2 and District 4 are of higher priority for the YIMBYs. They are facing a similar dilemma in District 2, where Supervisor Stephen Sherrill, who supported the upzoning plan and won the chapter’s endorsement, is opposing the Marina Safeway development.
“We are a big constituency,” said Willette. “We hope that for Wong, being pro-housing is not just for election chances but for the future of our city.”
Willette, however, said he will continue canvassing for Wong.
“We do stand by Wong. We still believe he’s the best and most pro-housing candidate in District 4,” he said. “That could change if more things come out. But we are still confident.”
MSNA’s first objection to the 2550 Irving project was the threat of crime from poor folks. When shamed for that, they switched to lawsuits over height and traffic. Only when those cases were dismissed, did we start hearing about toxins. That’s why the pretextual concern over an issue that the DTSC is already handling looks like a NIMBY in environmental clothing.
Putting this work on TNDC, a non profit affordable housing builder that’s been supporting San Francisco’s most vulnerable citizens for going on 50 years is absolutely anti affordable housing. If Alan Wong wants to clean up the surrounding area then he can do this thing called “being a supervisor” and find the public funds to do that.
Says the YIMBY ED of MHDC whose construction project at 16th and Mission is going to be an abandoned fentanyl magnet construction site for the next five years or more.
This CCHO/YIMBY hybrid is a public nuisance.
Alan Wong is against toxic vapors? Someone tell Alan Wong, the guy who wants to bring machines that spew toxic vapors back next to Ocean Beach.
YIMBY like to perform calling out elected officials, planning commissioners and San Franciscans for what raising a peep on an affordable housing project, but talk is cheap.
YIMBY don’t just “call out,” they go to the mat with resources to make market rate upzonings and entitlements actually happen.
That soil should have been properly removed before anything was constructed on that site.
If there’s no scientific basis that there’s a public health risk from PCE in the ground, if this a conspiracy theory – the question deserves asking how the developer and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control have come to find it necessary to install (and operate) a Vapor Intrusion Mitigation System for the building.
Yeah this hits a nerve of course. There’s a long history of gaslighting the Westside when operators from elsewhere don’t want to spend the money. Right off the top of the head: Letting Great Highway fall into the ocean and claim global warming is to blame for beach erosion (nothing that can be done then), years of stonewalling on the expansion of the Auxiliary Water Supply System (you don’t need that), BRT on Geary instead of a proper underground service (the world looooves BRT).
Yeah, except nobody said that “there’s no scientific basis that there’s a public health risk from PCE in the ground.” The links to prior articles in this article do a pretty solid job of explaining the actual situation out there.
The question remains: Why spend the money on mitigation when there’s supposedly no problem?
The affordable housing project is not the cause of any (potential) toxins on anybody else’s property.
If surrounding property owners want to conduct extensive studies and implement any mitigations, they can do so on their own dime — period; end of story.
It wasn’t the neighbors who disturbed the ground as part of the construction of the new building. Also let’s remember how boneheaded backwards it is to put a building like this in place without cleaning up the soil first when it was abundantly clear upfront that there’s PCE below. 0 0 votes. Sign in to vote
2550 Irving is already complete and ready for new residents. Alan Wong supports neighbors’ concerns about health risks, even after the project is finished. Calling his support for removing toxins a NIMBY move makes no sense. The project is done. Alan Wong cares about public health. The YIMBY group should move on instead of using this kind of rhetoric.
The dry cleaning toxins in the soil were released by several neighborhood businesses decades ago. PCE can stay in the soil for decades, long after the original dry cleaning businesses that put in the soil have closed their doors. Making the affordable housing project pay for cleaning up the entire neighborhood (for a problem that it didn’t even cause in the first place) is unreasonable because it would impose substantial costs on the project, rendering it infeasible. It’s a NIMBY trojan horse that would functionally stop the project, while still allowing proponents of this position to say that they aren’t opposed to affordable housing (they just care about public health after all). If Alan Wong is serious about cleaning up the mess in the soil, he should get the city to pay for it, or track down the original proprietors (or their successors) of the dry cleaning businesses that contaminated the soil in the first place and make them pay for the clean up.
Were the PCEs not included in the disclosures that are required to be provided to sellers at land sales time? Once the parcel is purchased, then the buyers hold the bag.
That comment makes a lot of sense. Just because Supervisor Wong wants to clean-up toxins does not mean he’s against affordable housing. The building is already built. Why leave any toxins in the ground if you can remove them and protect the public?
Fine, but the affordable housing project should not be compelled to pay for a (potential) problem that it didn’t create. The neighboring property owners should pay for their own clean-up and/or mitigation costs — not the affordable housing developer; nor the general public, for that matter.