Ah, San Francisco!
The pretty little metropolis by the bay. The town where romance lives! The political
playground of the left.
Or is it?
Gentle Kossaks, it should be a busy day for most of you, but if you have a minute, I invite
you to sit back, relax, and join me over the flip for some background and history, an
introduction to the full-contact politics of our 49-mile square, the main hub of the second
largest urban area in California.
You will come to see as I have seen that, in one little race for a neighborhood district
supervisor, progressives today are engaged in a very passionate battle; the battle to literally
save the Soul of SF.
When most Americans think of SF, they conjure up certain pictures.
But the city is more than just crazy hills, fabulous architecture, and crazy fabulous people.
No, this is a city-city, with lots of skyscrapers and plenty of people, from all different
backgrounds and all walks of life. And it's in a very very tiny place, and it is
crowded!
Let's take a closer look:
The race which threatens to tear our city apart at its progressive roots is that for
supervisor of District 6:
As you can see from these maps, District 6 is on the East side of town, just South of the
North-East corner of the city. The Bay Bridge comes over from Oakland, and right into District
6. District 6 includes many Downtown neighborhoods, including the old warehouse district South
of Market (SOMA) where much of our growth and expansion occurs. The part of the Financial
District North of Market has been developed full of skyscrapers for a long time; its density and
hilly terrain make it a much less desirable area for new development than the relatively sparse,
flat terrain in SOMA.
Market? SOMA? For those who don't know, I'm talking about that diagonal line on the district
map above. It makes up part of the Border of District 6 on the far East side, and then cuts
through the middle of the district towards the border with District 8. There are several other
diagonal streets which run parallel to it to the South.
Okay, you see it? That's Market Street:
And as I said before, it cuts right through the middle of several downtown neighborhoods,
including the Financial District on the East, before dead-ending at the Ferry Building along the
bay. It is without a doubt our "Main Street, USA." Only it's "Market Street, San Francisco."
As you may well imagine, District 6 includes many San Francisco landmarks and attractions.
For example, in the SOMA we have the Yerba Buena Gardens (a large cultural complex and
playground) and the adjacent San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, the Moscone Convention Center,
and the Sony Metreon Complex (a kind of high-tech mall and Cineplex.)
Follow Market Street over to the West Side of District 6, and you come to our other major
downtown hub, with several Government buildings, museums, and the Central Library. This is the
Civic Center.
Also in District 6, South of the Financial District along the bay,
is home of the SF Giants, Pac Bell SBC AT&T Park. And, while Union
Square is just North over the border in District 3, much of the surrounding shopping
madness is in district 6, coming South to Market and beyond.
Several large corporations are headquartered in District 6. Among these are: Del Monte Foods, Bechtel Corp., Swinerton Builders, Dolby Laboratories, Sega of America, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Barclays Global Investors, Gymboree
Corporation, and The San Francisco Chronicle.
District 6 includes SF's major centers for business, shopping, government, and tourism; as
well as residential neighborhoods both established and emerging, including the SOMA, South Park,
parts of Potrero and Mission, and Mission Bay.
Oh, yeah, lest I forget, District 6 also includes the (in)famous Tenderloin
neighborhood, and nearby mid-Market.
These neighborhoods are among the last with good proximity to downtown yet to undergo any
major redevelopment. In addition, the Tenderloin (just East and North of the Civic Center) is
our densest neighborhood, where the most people, including the most families, live in the
smallest amount of space. Mid-market is the subject of a major redevelopment initiative now, and
the Tenderloin is probably on the horizon.
Now, alot of progressives see "development", particularly "redevelopment" as a dirty word.
After all, redevelopment is tied - inextricably it seems - with gentrification and displacement.
People are displaced as their homes come down, and the new development is so fancy that these
same residents are priced out. They cannot afford to live in the redeveloped area (or anywhere
else in SF) and thus are forced out onto the streets, into shelters, or right out of town. And
that's how rich people get a nicer city to move into or in which to buy a vacation Condo, while
some long-term poorer San Franciscans get the Shaft.
Much of why the Tenderloin is "poor" and "dirty" today has to do with the redevelopment and
gentrification in other parts of the city, such as the Fillmore and Haight neighborhoods, parts
of SOMA and Mission, North Beach and elsewhere. Over the years, the less monied San Franciscans
have gotten squeezed out of one neighborhood after another - by eviction and by impossible rent
increases - to make way for the affluent. And newly yuppified neighborhoods resist the placement
of new homeless shelters, affordable-housing projects, or most any services for those they've
pushed aside. Therefore, many down-on-their-luck people find themselves in the Tenderloin, in a
shelter, perhaps on the streets, or in one of the many "Single Room Occupancy" (SRO)
residential hotels.
The SRO's keep thousands of San Franciscans off the streets, and several cities have
noticed how the loss of SRO's to development has led to more visibly homeless people. The shot
at right is from an SF SRO in 1974. For more images of SF's SROs and tenderloin district, please
see here, here, here, and here.
How can good progressives deal with this problem? Certainly development only for the benefit
of the rich cannot be our goal, but do we veto all development efforts? This is primo
real-estate, here, and alot of people want a piece. And the city can't expand to the North,
East, or West, so the only way to go, especially downtown, is UP! We don't want to be Manhattan,
but we don't want our city to stagnate and crumble either.
What progressives have been trying to do here for about 30 years is come up with bold and
creative solutions. Strong solutions with teeth, which empower all San Franciscans to resist the
effects of gentrification while still allowing smart development to continue, to improve our city
for established residents as well as new.
It is for these reasons that San Francisco long ago instituted Eviction
Protection, Rent Control, Condo-Conversion limits, and
tight administrative procedures with considerable public input to vet any proposed major
development.
RENT
CONTROL
The San Francisco Rent
Ordinance was passed in 1979 as emergency legislation to help with the housing crisis in SF.
According to the Supervisors'
findings written into the law (SF Administrative Code Sec. 37.1(b)):
(1) There is a shortage of decent, safe and sanitary housing in the City and
County of San Francisco resulting in a critically low vacancy factor.
(2) Tenants displaced as a result of their inability to pay increased rents
must relocate but as a result of such housing shortage are unable to find decent, safe and
sanitary housing at affordable rent levels. Aware of the difficulty in finding decent housing,
some tenants attempt to pay requested rent increases, but as a consequence must expend less on
other necessities of life. This situation has had a detrimental effect on substantial numbers of
renters in the City, especially creating hardships on senior citizens, persons on fixed incomes
and low and moderate income households.
(3) The problem of rent increases reached crisis level in the spring of
1979. At that time the Board of Supervisors conducted hearings and caused studies to be made on
the feasibility and desirability of various measures designed to address the problems created by
the housing shortage.
* * *
The rent control solution was really rather simple. (Although complex in execution!)
Landlords are prevented from arbitrarily evicting their tenants whenever they feel the market has
increased enough that they could make a killing with new, richer tenants. Furthermore,
rent-increases are carefully controlled and limited to keep up with inflation. A landlord is
not allowed to just jack up the rent on current tenants. If s/he could, such rent increases
would functionally equal eviction for most.
The rent ordinance has several exceptions and allowances, so as not to be a choke on property
owners. Temporarily displacing tenants to make Capital Improvements on one's property is
allowed, and some costs of the improvements may be passed through onto the tenant's rent.
Furthermore, the ordinance only applies to residential property which was standing when the
ordinance went into effect in 1979. Newer construction is not covered. In this way, tenants in
older buildings are protected, but when the building becomes vacant, the owner of property may
still move forward (re)developing the property. This deliberately slows the pace of growth here,
which is important in a city where land-use is such a constant and tough issue. But the law
doesn't freeze growth or progress, while it does help to minimize displacement.
Rent and eviction control has done alot to make this city accessible to artists, activists,
students, and workers in our service-oriented economy -- including restaurant workers, store
workers, nurses, youth counselors, bike-messengers, and others. It's still not cheap to rent
here, but young people around town make it happen by piling into those charming Victorian
"painted ladies," sharing costs, and keeping put for awhile.
Also, Rent Control has helped to protect long-term tenants, including single-parent families,
the elderly, and the disabled. Many of these people can't just "Move back East" like younger
transplants. These people have been here decades, perhaps their whole lives, and have no
extended family network of support. Their little apartments keep them sheltered, independent,
often productive members of our town. If they could be pushed out for the next yuppie, they well
could end up in a shelter, in a hospital bed, in a jail cell, or in a cardboard box. And
everyone pays for their care.
Perhaps the yuppie doesn't care what happens to these people, so long as s/he doesn't have to
step over them on the Street or avoid meeting one's eyes so as not to be solicited for
change.
CHRIS DALY
I'm going to skip forward on the history here, as I never intended to write a manifesto.
For a fuller treatment, see this article.
Suffice to say for now that there are interests and activists on all sides of these issues, and
they play hardball. Yes, that means large corporations and the GOP.
During the Willie Brown
years (1996-2004), our city was losing ground. The "Dot Com" boom brought a new era of unchecked
growth, and new loopholes such as the Ellis Act/TIC Condo Conversion Scheme and the Luxury Live/Work loft concept were again
causing unacceptable levels of eviction and displacement. Willie Brown and Downtown growth
interests were packing the Board of Supervisors, either through appointment or by expensive and
sophisticated campaigning in the city-wide Supervisors election races.
Progressives fought back on several fronts. One of the most effective measures was getting on
the ballot in 1997 an initiative to return to neighborhood district elections of Supervisors.
After that passed, in 2000 a slate of progressive, neighborhood-preserving, slow-growth
Supervisors swept onto the Board, defeating candidates backed by Mayor Willie Brown. Since each
campaign focused on only one district, the possibility for a locally-known activist to succeed
on a grassroots, people-powered campaign was quite high. In that election a Veto-proof majority
of 8 (out of 11) Supervisors took their seats. Among them was District 6's Chris Daly.
Chris came to town in the 1990s as an organizer, a homeless advocate, and a housing-rights
activist. He quickly gained a name for himself as a strong, passionate leader through his work
with "empty the shelters" and the "Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition." He won the Supervisor's
seat in 2000 with over 80% of the vote in District 6.
The Progressive SF Board is a bigger force for executing policy in SF than our current pro-growth millionaire
mayor,
Gavin Newsom. And the foremost policy leader is Chris Daly. Although Newsom has a few
Supervisors on his side and in Downtown's pockets, notably Brown-Burton-Alioto machine heiress
Michela Alioto-Pier in the Marina district, the Progressives are regularly able to gather 7-8
votes or more in support of their initiatives.
Let me highlight one example of how adherence to progressive principles in practice has worked
for Chris Daly and his constituents in district 6, against the big-money development forces, but
for the benefit of all of SF.
TRINITY
PLAZA
Trinity Plaza, near 8th and Market in the heart of
the Mid-Market neighborhood, is a pretty large apartment building with a restaurant, parking lot,
and a couple of small businesses. It's 366 studios and one-bedroom apartments have been home to
what is among the most diverse populations in SF, including many Korean and Philippine San
Franciscans.
Building Owner Angelo Sangiacomo (known as the "Father" of Rent Control because his rent hikes
during the 1970s spiked the tenants-rights movement to organize) announced in April 2003 that he
intended to demolish the building, and put up a new Construction with 1900 units. The tenants
were all facing eviction, and most were in no financial position to find comparable housing at
the current market.
Chris Daly, the Tenants of Trinity, and progressive groups around the city all came to the
same bold conclusion: NO ONE MAY BE DISPLACED.
Now, I know what you're thinking; you're thinking such a hard-line stance either failed, and
the development continues; or you think that Daly and his anti-growth crusaders killed the deal
to save the tenants. Right?
Wrong.
Sangiacamo and his backers certainly raised a big stink. He claimed Daly was trying to hold
back much needed redevelopment. He appealed to Administrative Boards, the Supervisors, the
Mayor,
the Courts, and the people to let him demolish and build.
But Chris Daly was stubborn and he held his ground, annoying much of the Downtown business
community. NO ONE MAY BE DISPLACED was the message. It's radical, I know.
Then you know what happened?
Sangiacamo
dealed.
In a
deal brokered by Daly, Sangiacamo agreed to lifetime leases on high floors of the new
construction, for all of his existing tenants. He also agreed to set aside
a percentage of the rest of the units for people earning 60% of the median income.
And with that agreement, brokered to the satisfaction of the tenants, now the development can move
forward. The city gets more housing, at market rate and at more affordable levels,
mid-Market begins its facelift, Sangiacamo and the speculators make their money, and NOBODY is
displaced.
Sangiacamo's profits would've been yet higher if he had dealed from the start with the
tenants, rather than push through with legal wrangling. The irony is that, as it is now clear
that these projects are economically feasible even when making concessions in the name of
anti-displacement and affordable housing, why do the Big Developers and Real Estate Interests
fight so hard and spend so much money to destroy the progressive coalition?
FIGHT FOR THE SOUL
OF SF
They've been conspiring to take down our progressive Board of Supervisors, replacing it with
bought-and-paid-for hacks, for years. The mayor's on their side. Alioto-Pier is a plant, as is
Supervisor Sean Elsbernd. The Editors at the San Francisco Chronicle have been utterly
shameless, spinning events again and again to create a scandal out of thin air.
The Downtown effort to "Dump Daly" began years ago.
Alioto Pier and the Chronicle editors have never wasted an opportunity to ridicule and try to
politically trap Chris. One memorable event was when Alioto-Pier suggested an official censure
of Daly for telling a landlord lobbyist at a land-use committee hearing to
"fuck off." Incidentally, the lobbyist
was one of a team there who had been incessantly goading Chris. Although only Alioto-Pier and
Sean Elsbernd ended up voting for censure, the Chronicle had a heyday taking quotes from
Alioto-Pier about how she "felt threatened" and making no mention to the fact that the lobbyists
at the hearing were deliberately trying to enflame Chris (in fact, nowhere does the Chronicle
mention
that they were
lobbyists at all.)
This election eve, the downtown propaganda machine has gone into overdrive, targeting our
strongest, most effective, and most outspoken leader, Supervisor Chris Daly in district 6. They
are building on their history of lies and smears about Chris, but really
all they are interested in is streamlined development and profits.
They say he does nothing about crime in the tenderloin. But he's raised the police budget
significantly over his term leading the Budget committee, and he's responsible for over $70
million into violence prevention, much of it for good progressive long-term services to keep
youth and at-risk persons away from crime and violence in the first place.
And Chris Daly co-sponsored the bill for a Pilot program of foot-patrols and community
policing in high-crime neighborhoods including the Tenderloin. It passed the board of
supervisors with only three votes against, including: Michela
Alioto-Pier; and Sean Elsbernd. Just this last Friday, Mayor Newsom vetoed the bill,
while seemingly
taking credit for getting more cops to walk the beat. Now, who's playing politics with
the lives of San Franciscans?
There are some seven opponents trying to oust Chris tomorrow. All are taking money and using
it to scare and confuse SF voters. Only one, Rob
Black, is mounting any kind of positive campaign, and the attacks against Chris, coming from
all sides, have made Black look like an attractive alternative to many, especially newer,
District 6 San Franciscans.
Black's campaign is sophisticated and he has no shortage of cash (he's paying his "volunteers"
$15/hour to stand on street corners holding signs). But he comes directly out of
Alioto-Pier's office, where he has been working as her legislative assistant, and
he previously worked for a REPUBLICAN law firm.
In support of Black, shadowy organizations have been sending out Daly hit pieces anonymously,
without reporting who they were or how much money they were spending. All of this violates SF
Ethics and Election Law, as the Ethics Commission has recently held. The Ethics Commission had
to then lift the spending caps associated with our election-financing system, and criminal charges may be filed.
And these hit pieces also have
been tied to the GOP.
Horrible anti-Daly viral propaganda has sprouted up everywhere. Here's just one example. This guy thinks a photo of an overturned
garbage can, with no way to check the context, will cause progressives to abandon their
principles. Even on dKos, we find some people spreading propaganda. Daly
is not against TREES! He wouldn't have the endorsement of the Sierra Club if he
was.
Chris Daly is our tried and true champion of progressive causes from universal
healthcare to smart growth to alternative energy to public transit to medical marijuana, and
especially for the rights of poorer San Francisco families and elderly and disabled citizens to
withstand displacement under the forces of development and gentrification.
He has the endorsement of The SF Democratic Party, The SF Green Party,
The Bay Guardian, The Sierra Club, The League of Conservation Voters, The California Nurses
Association, The SF Tenants Union, The Labor Council, The Deputy Sheriffs Association, The
Firefighters union, the Young Democrats, the Alice Toklas LGBT Club, the Harvey Milk LGBT Club,
the Young Democrats, the SF Women's Political Committee, the Bicycle Coalition, and the SF Late
Night Coalition, among others. It's an unprecedented progressive coalition, because an
unprecedented progressive politician faces an unprecedented threat.
Rob Black has Mayor Newsom and Supervisor Alioto-Pier on his side, and not too much else.
Any District 6 San Franciscans on dKos, don't buy the Rovian
whisper-bullshit, swiftboat tactics, here in our progressive SF. Any Kossacks who
know a D6 resident, please pass this message along. Politics here is complicated, but we have a
duty to follow the money, to figure out what's really happening. We owe it to our city.
Tomorrow, we must SAVE THE SOUL OF SAN FRANCISCO
(Images from
Wikipedia Commons,
Beyond Chron,
SFGov.org, and
Google Maps.)