San Francisco's real estate holdings (list and map) [1 Attachment]

Activists List
1

Here is what the city's Real Estate Division sent me today in response to my public records request (see below).

  As I expected, they did not send all the information I asked for, in some cases probably not unreasonably (the request for photos was overbroad, but I thought it possible they might send a more limited number of photos they had readily accessible -- I was really just looking for one or two photos per site that clearly depict what is there).

  The list of city land holdings and map showing their locations may be useful however, as a guide to what properties could potentially be auctioned off to builders to allow new housing to be built.

  Skimming through part of the list, a few listings I wonder about, for instance, are:

VACATED COHEN PLACE COHEN PL AND ELLIS ST. 3,438 SQ FT. (SW of Ellis and Leavenworth, owned by DPT)
CALIFORNIA OFF-STREET PARKING CALIFORNIA ST. @FILLMORE/STEINER 12,360 SQ FT. (owned by Parking Authority)
FLORENCE MARTIN CHILD CARE CENTER (CLOSED) 1155 PAGE STREET 21,656 SQ FT. (owned by SFUSD)
INNER IRVING OFF-STREET PARKING E OF 9TH AVE. & IRVING 12,000 SQ FT. (owned by Real Estate/Admin. Services)
UNDEDICATED ST. SE CARL & ARGUELLO 1,616 SQ FT. (owned by DPW)
UNDEDICATED ALLEY LAWTON & 20TH AVE. 1,900 SQ FT. (owned by Mayor's Office of Housing)

  Sites that are currently used for parking, for instance, could always be developed so as to incorporate housing while still providing the same number of parking spaces.

  Anyone else have thoughts on what was provided? It seems somewhat noteworthy that they claim not to have any information on the current value of individual parcels, or the total value of the city's land holdings. Should I follow up and ask for additional information? Let me know if you have any thoughts on what to ask.

Love & Liberty,
                                 ((( starchild )))

sfgisdb_cprop2013a_36x44_new.pdf (2.91 MB)

2

Hi Aubrey, Starchild, and All

I finally found some time to place Aubrey's Mission Moratorium Resolution on the LPSF website. But before I did, I looked over the other local political parties' websites to see what they do if anything with resolutions. The Democratic Party issues a lot of resolutions and apparently uses them to state their position on issues, and supposedly publicizes them.

I previously was not in favor of resolutions, but now I am wondering if they could be useful. Maybe besides any use for the information Starchild acquired LPSF decides, we could write a resolution on surplus government property, especially since the City is probably jittery about the recent Civil Grand Jury criticism of the surplus, and start publicizing LPSF's "official" position on issues.

Just a thought.

Marcy

3

Marcy,

  I do not see it as *harming* the LPSF's reputation to ask for information, even if we never do anything with it. It lets those officials of whom we make the requests know that we are engaged and paying attention. To the extent we share such information with other groups that may put it to good use, or put it to use ourselves in our ballot arguments or other communications, I do see it as *helping* our reputation. I also see becoming more knowledgeable and informed about local government operations as a good thing.

  I'm fine with discussing this stuff at the meeting of course. I would add to the agenda item brainstorming about what information we would like the city government to divulge, and how to ask for it. A few other possible inquiries that occur to me:

• List of cash or property seized via asset forfeiture
• List of properties seized via eminent domain
• Amount of water used to clean Civic Center Plaza and cost of such cleaning
• Any documents pertaining to police acquisition or use of "Stingray" or Automated License Plate Reader devices

  It doesn't surprise me that the city would not have a current appraised value for each piece of property they hold, and I agree with you that it would not be desirable to spend taxpayer money for this purpose. However I do find it notable -- and, frankly, less than credible -- that they claim not to have *any* estimates of value on record for *any* of their real estate holdings, not to mention having no estimate on file for the total value of those holdings for any year on record.

  My request was for the "most recent estimated current market value of each parcel". If they have appraisals or estimates on file for some parcels, even if those appraisals or estimates are not very recent, it seems to me that their reply stating "that information is not available" is non-responsive.

  Regarding your comments about land for schools -- are you suggesting that we should encourage the city government to hold resources that might be necessary to do something they should not be involved with in the first place, on the grounds that having these resources might save them money in the future?

  By that logic, should we applaud the Feds' purchase of billions of rounds of ammunition, which has been speculated to be intended for use in quelling domestic uprisings, on the grounds that buying now might be saving them money?

Love & Liberty,
                                 ((( starchild )))

4

That sounds like a good idea, Marcy. I think resolutions are a fine tool for engaging the issues.

  I'm not sure we've discussed the Grand Jury's criticism of the surplus -- that sounds worthwhile too.

  And another idea occurs to me. Perhaps asking for documents shared with the Grand Jury might be a fruitful area of inquiry.

Love & Liberty,
                                 ((( starchild )))