Prop C Argument, Finally [1 Attachment]

Hi All. Here’s myargument against C, getting rid of the 12% inclusionary housing requirement so theBoard of Supervisors can tinker with the housing market some more. I was about 10 words over the limit, so I’vebeen doing my own tinkering and it’s down to exactly 300 words now. As always, I don’t mind if anyone wants tomake any improvements to it, as long as it’s ready to go to the Department ofElections by 10:00 AM today (need to allow time to get down there and submitthe paperwork on all the ballot measures). I’m attaching the Word version too.
Why make SF’s housing situation even worse? Prop C removes the current mandated 12 % inclusionaryrate for affordable housing and lets the Board of Supervisors raise the rate ashow as they want. And they will beincreasing it—the only question is how high. Inclusionary housing mandates don’t have a great record formaking housing affordable for most folks. While a few lucky people—who don’t mind waiting in a very long line—do benefitfrom getting into affordable housing, every other homebuyer and renter faceshigher costs. Because the mandates forcebuilders to set aside a specified portion of new development at below-marketprices, the other units built have to subsidize the affordable units throughhigher prices. This leads to upwardpressure on prices for all new construction and less units end up being built. With less supply, even current housing stockprices are pushed higher. This is greatfor home sellers—not so great for home buyers and renters. Raising the mandated percentage forsubsidized housing will lead to even higher prices and discourage newconstruction. Try as they will, we doubtthe Board of Supervisors can repeal the laws of supply and demand. Even Governor Jerry Brown had this to say aboutinclusionary housing: “As Mayor ofOakland, I saw how difficult it can be to attract development to low andmiddle-income communities. Requiringdevelopers to include below-market units in their projects can exacerbate thesechallenges, even while not meaningfully increasing the amount of affordablehousing in a given community.” The current 12% inclusionary rate is bad enough as is andhas only added to The City’s housing woes. Don’t let the Board of Supervisorsmake things worse by allowing them to increase the mandate. VoteNO on Prop C. Libertarian Party of San Francisco