Dear Rob And Everyone Else;
Here's the thumbnail versions with Controllers statement of Prop G put on the ballot by the Lennar development corporation and Prop F put on the ballot by the people of Bayview Hunters Point.
Prop F would demand 50% of the housing be affordable Prop G would have 25%. City policy is 15% on any new developments.
In both cases the Controllers statement says it all. Prop F due to 50% affordable would generate less taxes for the City due to lower homes prices than Prop G with only 25% affordable.
Both would basically use private capital but under Prop F there would be significantly reduced revenues available to pay for the necessary transportation, utility and other infrastructure improvements.
In both cases no one says the fact that for affordable housing someone has to pay for higher housing costs and insurance and taxes and so on to cover those who got affordable housing and don't pay their fair share of the transportation, utility and other infrastructure costs.
This also ignores the facts that prevailing wages will be required to keep the trades unions happy. As an example a plumber would earn $65 an hour in pay and benefits.
This means with the fixed non-competitive wages the only place to cut costs so the development company can make a profit is in the actual labor and materials. In other words slip shod construction and second rate building materials. This means another falling down mold ridden shoddily built housing project.
As has been pointed out previously with other such projects: There ain't no such a thing as a free lunch. Somebody always pays.
Vote No on Both Prop F and Prop G.
Ron Getty - SF Libertarian
Hostis res Publica
Prop F
Place the arrow of your mouse on the highlighted url and hit CNTRL to go to the full ballot initiative details.
Affordable Housing Requirement for the Candlestick Point and Hunters Point Shipyard Mixed-Use Development Project
Shall it be City policy that any mixed-use development plan the City approves for Candlestick Point and Hunters Point Shipyard require 50% of all new housing units developed in the area be affordable, give preferences for the rental or purchase of new affordable housing to families of low and moderate income, and, if Alice Griffith housing is rebuilt, replace the units on a one-to-one basis; and shall the City be prohibited from selling, conveying or leasing any City-owned land at Candlestick Point unless the Board of Supervisors finds that the mixed-use development plan for this area incorporates these policies?
THE WAY IT IS NOW: The Bayview-Hunters Point Area Plan of the San Francisco General Plan identifies affordability as the primary housing issue facing the Bayview.
In May 2007, San Francisco's Board of Supervisors and Mayor endorsed a new conceptual framework for a mixed-use project to revitalize two areas in the Bayview: Candlestick Point and Hunters Point Shipyard. Candlestick Point includes the Alice Griffith Housing Development, the Candlestick Point State Recreation Area and the City-owned stadium leased by the San Francisco 49ers.
The new conceptual framework outlines a project that would include: thousands of new housing units, including affordable housing; hundreds of acres of public parks; job-generating commercial space; and possibly a new 49ers stadium.
Regarding affordable housing, the conceptual framework contains a guiding principle that at least 25% of the new housing units be affordable to members of the Bayview-Hunters Point community. Under City and State law, 15% of new housing must be affordable in projects such as the one outlined in the conceptual framework.
If the Alice Griffith units are rebuilt, the conceptual framework calls for at least one-for-one replacement of units at existing income levels and of the same household size. Reconstruction of the
Alice Griffith units would be in addition to the 25% minimum percentage for new affordable homes. The construction would have to be done to allow Alice Griffith residents to move to the new upgraded units, without being displaced from Alice Griffith, until the replacement units are ready for occupancy.
THE PROPOSAL: Proposition F would make it City policy that any mixed-use development plan for the project site in Candlestick Point and Hunters Point Shipyard include affordable housing requirements. “Affordable housing” is defined as housing costs that do not exceed 30% of household monthly gross income.
Under Proposition F City policy would require:
• At least 50% of all new housing units developed in the project site would be affordable so that at least:
• one-sixth of all units are affordable to households earning no more than 80% of the San Francisco median household income (SFMI);
• one-sixth are affordable to households earning no more than 60% of SFMI; and
• one-sixth are affordable to households earning no more than 30% of SFMI.
• Preferences for the rental or purchase of new affordable housing shall be given to families of low and moderate income in this priority:
(1) any Alice Griffith resident in good standing;
(2) persons entitled to residential relocation assistance;
(3) individuals paying more than 50% of their income for housing or residing in public or HUD Section 8 housing;
(4) San Francisco residents; and
(5) the general public.
• If the Alice Griffith units are rebuilt, at least one-for-one replacement of units at existing income levels and of the same household size must be provided. The construction would have to be done to allow Alice Griffith residents to move to the new upgraded units, without being displaced from Alice Griffith, until the replacement units are ready for occupancy.
Proposition F would prohibit the Board of Supervisors from approving the sale, conveyance or lease of any City-owned land at the project site until the Board finds that the mixed-use development plan incorporates the policies summarized above. This prohibition includes the existing 49ers stadium and related parking areas.
A “YES” VOTE MEANS: If you vote yes, you want it to be City policy that any mixed-use development plan the City approves in Candlestick Point and Hunters Point Shipyard include these requirements: 50% of all new housing units developed in the area be affordable, preferences for the rental or purchase of new affordable housing be given to families of low and moderate income, and, if Alice Griffith housing is replaced, units are replaced on a one-to-one basis. You also want to prohibit the City from selling, conveying or leasing any City-owned land at Candlestick Point unless the Board of Supervisors finds that the mixed-use development plan for this area incorporates these policies.
A “NO” VOTE MEANS: If you vote no, you do not want it to be City policy to require at least 50% of all new housing units developed in Candlestick Point and Hunters Point Shipyard to be
affordable or meet certain other specific affordability requirements. You also do not want to prohibit the City from selling, conveying or leasing any City-owned land at Candlestick Point unless the Board of Supervisors finds that the mixed-use development plan for this area incorporates these affordable housing policies.
City Controller Edward Harrington has issued the following statement on the fiscal impact of Proposition F:
Should the proposed initiative be approved by the voters, in my opinion, in and of itself there would be little direct impact on the cost of government.
However, should both this ordinance and Proposition G, the ordinance proposing a development plan for the Bayview Hunters Point and Candlestick areas be approved by the voters, and development occurs in those areas that would not have otherwise, this ordinance would result in the City eventually collecting less property tax revenue than it would have under Proposition G. Future property tax revenues that would be generated under the development plan would range widely depending on market conditions and other factors, but the assessed value of the project with the affordable housing units specified by this ordinance would be lower. The amount of revenue that would be foregone is unknown, but certainly significant.
The initiative would change the affordable housing requirement specified in the proposed development plan for the Bayview Hunters Point and Candlestick areas. Currently, the City’s framework plans call for 25% of the housing units to be affordable. This initiative would specifically require that 50% of the units be affordable for persons earning from 30% to 80% of San Francisco’s median household income (currently $24,100 to $64,250 for a family of four).
Current estimates are that approximately $1.5 billion for transportation, utilities and other infrastructure improvements will be needed over a multi-year period to develop the Bayview Hunters Point and Candlestick areas under any scenario. These costs would be primarily funded through private capital and through taxes and fees generated directly by the project. The Initiative would significantly reduce revenues available to pay for these necessary transportation, utility and other infrastructure improvements.
This statement does not address the potential impact of the development plan or the affordable housing requirement on retail businesses or the local economy.
On March 5, 2008 the Department of Elections certified that the initiative petition, calling for Proposition F to be placed on the ballot, had qualified for the ballot.
7,168 signatures were required to place an initiative ordinance on the ballot. This number is equal to 5% of the total number of people who voted for Mayor in 2007. A review of all signatures submitted by the proponents of the initiative petition prior to the February 4, 2008 submission deadline showed that more than the required number of signatures was valid.
Prop G
The highlighted section is a click through to the actual ballot document. Put mouse arrow or pointer on highlighted url and hit CNTRL and click.
Mixed-Use Development Project for Candlestick Point And Hunters Point Shipyard
Shall it be City policy to encourage timely development of a mixed-use project in the Bayview on Candlestick Point and Hunters Point Shipyard, including a new 49ers stadium or a non-stadium alternative; shall the City be authorized to transfer park land in Candlestick Point for non-recreational use if the land is replaced with new public parks or open spaces of at least equal size and the transfer meets the measure’s policy objectives; and shall Propositions D and F, approved by the voters in June 1997, be repealed?
THE WAY IT IS NOW: In May 2007, San Francisco's Board of Supervisors and Mayor endorsed a new conceptual framework for a mixed-use project to revitalize two areas in the Bayview: Candlestick Point and Hunters Point Shipyard.
Candlestick Point includes the Alice Griffith Housing Development, the Candlestick Point State Recreation Area and the City-owned stadium leased by the San Francisco 49ers. That lease will expire in 2013 unless the 49ers extend it. In late 2006, the 49ers announced their intent to explore relocating to Santa Clara. The new conceptual framework endorsed by the Board and Mayor includes both a site in Hunters Point Shipyard for a 49ers stadium and a non-stadium alternative.
In June 1997, the voters approved two measures related to developing Candlestick Point: Proposition D, which allowed the City to issue lease revenue bonds of up to $100,000,000 for a stadium development; and Proposition F, which changed City zoning to allow a stadium and related shopping/entertainment center to be built (see legal text beginning on page 167). The City did not issue the bonds or develop the project.
THE PROPOSAL: Proposition G would make it City policy to encourage, subject to public input and the environmental review process, the timely development of Candlestick Point and Hunters Point Shipyard with a mixed-use project including:
• over 300 acres of public park and open space improvements;
• between 8,500 and 10,000 homes for sale or rent;
• about 700,000 square feet of retail uses;
• about 2,150,000 square feet of green office, science and technology, research and development, and industrial uses;
• a possible arena or other public performance site;
• a site in Hunters Point Shipyard for a new stadium if the 49ers and the City determine in a timely manner that the stadium is feasible;
• additional green office, science and technology, research and development, and industrial space, and/or additional housing if a new stadium is not built.
The measure would further make it City policy that the project be consistent with these objectives:
• producing tangible community benefits for the Bayview and the City;
• reconnecting the Hunters Point Shipyard and Candlestick Point with the Bayview and protecting the Bayview's character for existing residents;
• producing substantial new housing in a mix of rental and for-sale units, both affordable and market-rate, and encouraging the rebuilding of the Alice Griffith Housing Development;
• incorporating environmental sustainability;
• encouraging the 49ers to remain in San Francisco by providing a new stadium site and supporting
infrastructure; and
• requiring the project to be financially sound, with or without a new stadium.
Proposition G also would authorize the City to sell, convey or lease park land in Candlestick Point under the Recreation and Park Department's jurisdiction and allow non-recreational uses on this land. The City must ensure that the project creates new public parks or open space of at least equal size in the project site. The Board of Supervisors must find that the transfer of land is consistent with the measure's objectives.
Proposition G would repeal Propositions D and F, approved by the voters in June 1997.
A “YES” VOTE MEANS: If you vote yes, you want City policy to encourage timely development of a mixed-use project in the Bayview on Candlestick Point and Hunters Point Shipyard. This project would include a new 49ers stadium or a non-stadium alternative. You also want to authorize the City to transfer park land in Candlestick Point for non-recreational use if the land is replaced with new public parks or open spaces of at least equal size and the transfer meets the measure’s objectives. You also want to repeal Propositions D and F, approved by the voters in June 1997.
A “NO” VOTE MEANS: If you vote no, you do not want City policy to encourage timely development of a mixed-use project in the Bayview on Candlestick Point and Hunters Point Shipyard, including the possibility of a new 49ers stadium or a non-stadium alternative. You do not want to authorize the City to transfer park land in Candlestick Point for non-recreational use even if the land is replaced with new public parks or open spaces of at least equal size. You do not want to repeal Propositions D and F, approved by the voters in June 1997.
City Controller Edward Harrington has issued the following statement on the fiscal impact of Proposition G:
Should the proposed initiative be approved by the voters, in my opinion, in and of itself there would be little direct impact on the cost of government.
The ordinance proposes a development plan for the Bayview Hunters Point and Candlestick Point areas which would encourage new business, housing, retail and parkland development and allow for construction of a new football stadium and other development projects. The development plan would eventually require changes to the land uses, height and density limits and other elements of the City’s Planning Code and other laws. If the plan results in development that would not have occurred otherwise in the designated areas, property tax revenues and sales tax revenues to the City would certainly increase.
Current estimates are that approximately $1.5 billion for transportation, utilities and other infrastructure improvements will be needed over a multi-year period to develop these areas under any scenario. These costs would be primarily funded through private capital and through taxes and fees generated directly by the projects themselves.
The Planning Department, the Economic and Workforce Development Department and other City offices would incur added costs to administer the plan, however, as is the case for most City planning processes, these costs can be recovered through fees charged to development projects.
This statement does not address the potential impact of this development plan on retail businesses or the local economy.
On February 20, 2008 the Department of Elections certified that the initiative petition, calling for Proposition G to be placed on the ballot, had qualified for the ballot.
7,168 signatures were required to place an initiative ordinance on the ballot. This number is equal to 5% of the total number of people who voted for Mayor in 2007. A random check of the signatures submitted by the proponents of the initiative petition prior to the February 4, 2008 submission deadline showed that more than the required number of signatures was valid.