As dozens of slides on the evils of new housing construction flashed on the screen, the 100 or so residents gathered Wednesday night at the Scottish Rite Masonic Center agreed on one thing: Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin best represents their views, while the local district supervisor Myrna Melgar does not.
Peskin — who is running for mayor and spoke skeptically of new market-rate housing for about 10 minutes — was a clear winner for the crowd. District 7 Supervisor Melgar, who represents the area in which the meeting was held and is running for re-election there, attended but did not speak. She was not a fan favorite — and she made it clear the feeling was mutual.
“These are not my people,” said Melgar about the event put on by Neighborhoods United, a coalition of more than 50 neighborhood associations across the city.
Melgar said the group’s meeting exaggerated the adverse effects of new housing construction, and was often factually inaccurate. “I think the presentation was deliberately designed to be provocative, to incite fear.”
While Peskin’s participation elicited rounds of applause, some members of the audience criticized Melgar for not speaking, and for leaving the meeting early. “I’m disappointed to see that Melgar left the meeting,” said Jim Herlihy, an attendee. “She should be here.”
In one sense, the presentation preached to a choir of homeowners who do not want change in the suburban-like feel of their neighborhoods, with their spacious front gardens and garages. But it also indicated that for some Westside voters, housing — their kind of housing — is a critical issue.
Michael Antonini, a former planning commissioner and a Republican, and Lori Brooke, a neighborhood organizer, spent upwards of an hour presenting what they considered the “ill effects of upzoning.”
District 4 Supervisor Joel Engardio gave a short speech making the case for more housing, and emphasized building on corner lots.
Peskin offered his take as well. Although he did not specifically endorse any of the group’s far-flung notions, he did not disabuse anyone of them either.
“Today, much is being justified under the banner of housing and a housing crisis,” said Peskin, before delving into some of the historical context of zoning in the city. He spoke about “colossal planning mistakes” with racist undertones when speaking about redevelopment in the Fillmore and Japantown.
But he did not mention instances of racism stemming from low-density areas, like those on the city’s Westside. Large swaths of the city have had a history of exclusionary zoning policies, and neighborhoods like Forest Hill — a few blocks from the meeting hall — were deliberately built with deeds and covenants that prevented non-white homeownership.
Today, those areas are some of the lowest-density areas in the city which, some argue, are better placed to absorb additional housing.
But presenters Antonini and Brooke painted a dire picture of such change: A “sea of towers,” obstructed views, plummeting property values and gentrification. They argued that having more market-rate development would only lead to housing that is unaffordable.
“Your value of your house will fall precipitously if any of the zoning passed,” said Antonini, who came under attack in 2015 for calling the Mission a “low-income neighborhood” and saying that a proposal to halt market-rate housing there was “reverse racism.”
The presenters failed to point out that most of the areas slated for upzoning are along commercial and transit corridors, such as 19th Avenue and Geary Boulevard, and most would have building height limits increased to eight stories.
The city’s proposal for upzoning aims to address the state-mandated housing element, which requires the construction of 82,000 new housing units in San Francisco by 2031. It also specifies that housing should be built at all income levels, including affordable housing.
Antonini specifically disputed the notion that such construction is necessary, “in a state that is losing population and would lose a lot more if it weren’t for immigration,” he said. He likened the measure to Soviet-era Eastern Europe and said it was “draconian.”
Peskin said that building has far outpaced population growth since 2005, but that has not been true in recent years: Between 2010 and 2019, before pandemic-era outmigration, San Francisco saw a 9.4 percent bump in population, but only 7.2 percent more housing, according to a 2022 city report.
Peskin also touted other strides the city has made in housing since he first became supervisor in 2000, such as increased investment for affordable housing, and upzoning to increase density. He also noted that there are more than 70,000 housing units waiting to be built, and said the state’s housing mandate was a “continued march of preemption” that “remains unchecked.”
“I think San Francisco can grow and can evolve without destroying the neighborhoods that we love,” he said. “We have to get away from the polarizing YIMBY-versus-NIMBY rhetoric.”
In a conversation after the meeting, Melgar said that Peskin’s comments — on the pace of housing development — were “factually incorrect” and do not account for other factors, such as the number of new jobs created. She called his presence alongside Antonini “the frosting on this cake.”
Slide after slide showed architectural renderings of windowless, monochrome blocks overlaid onto images of different streets. “The question to all of us should be, you know, is that our future?” said Brooke.
Most of the crowd nodded in agreement, but occasionally some vocal members of the audience disagreed. For instance, Brooke, who was presenting, said at one point that there were 40,000 vacant units in the city.
“That’s not true,” said Anthony Lazarus, a reporter and co-founder of news outlet The Frisc, who interrupted Brooke’s presentation. The number of vacant units is, in fact, much lower, according to a city report: About half of the city’s vacant units are in the process of being sold or rented.
Melgar left the meeting as the Q&A began. “If I lose this election on this issue [housing], then that’s the right thing to do,” she said.
Meanwhile, Peskin stayed to take questions from the audience, and remained more skeptical about the city’s plans. “Let me say that when we make these land use mistakes, they last forever.”
I’m curious how former Planning Commissioner Antonini thinks that new market-rate construction on the westside would simultaneously cause both gentrification and plummeting property values. Current rules that severely restrict new multifamily housing in much of the city have certainly done nothing to slow gentrification.
It’s not about having coherent arguments, it’s about throwing everything at the wall in the hopes that whoever is listening is swayed by at least one thing you said.
I think the you must adopt the mindset of a extremely selfish and greedy person to grasp the rationale. Buyers who have means to pay $1.4M+(gentrifiers?) will see new modern housing with fashionable features, views, and amenities as more desirable than older buildings with quirky features and/or in need of renovation. So new housing will skim off the cream of wealthier buyers leaving only buyers with less means to purchase existing housing. I think it’s not really about existing housing prices plummeting but about their future prices not rising at a higher rate than inflation as they have been. In other words, existing housing will no longer be a lucrative investment gold mine for their current owners.
As a D3 resident for 13 years it’s been wild to see people tout Peskin as the “progressive” candidate. This article is a more accurate representation of what my experience as a resident of his district has been like.
How can more housing cause property values to plummet AND gentrification? This group is ridiculous.
Excellent reporting by Kelly Waldron! Covered the meeting thoroughly, and fact-checked the arguments made by the neighborhood groups. Especially as it relates to the hypocrisy behind a lot of low-density zoning.
Thank you for this thoughtful summary of the event. Very much appreciated.
So the REPRESENTATIVE of the district said ““These are not my people,”
She certainly is not giving anyone a reason to be on her side with that attitude.
Never forget: Myrna Melgar got her start as London Breed’s appointee (to the Planning Commission). Based on her record, her votes and her actions on the Planning Commission and as D7 Supervisor, Myrna cares more about her kids being able to buy homes when they grow up (a YIMBY trope) than she cares about our low income elders and artists who are targeted by real estate investors and market rate developers. Where in SF will they live? Remember too Myrna Melgar’s bizarre support and actions during the recent “redistricting” (aka gerrymandering) Task Farce, where she was a full throated champion of sketchy Task Farce Pres. Arnold Townsend (another Breed appointee) who allowed 2 AM “votes” with few in the room and back door convos about splitting up established communities. Total power grab against the People. That redistricting allowed Engardio to win and parceled the Tenderloin from D6 (and the 2 Matts, Dorsey and Haney) into Dean Preston’s D5 district. No accident. Entirely premeditated.
Myrna got her start with a long term gig at the Jamestown Center, a city funded nonprofit in the Mission.
You’d think that the city’s so-called progressives would occasionally think about how their opposition to basically all new housing development in SF puts them on the same side as Trump-loving Republicans, but they never will, will they. So many greedy homeowners in this town, committed to keeping future generations out and turning the entire city into a tomb for them, and them alone, to rest in.
Thanks to Sup. Melgar, who actually does seem to care deeply about the future of this city, for enduring through this mess.
The disingenuous appeal to the emotional tug of the prevailing, reductive bilateral ideological paradigm speaks to the uselessness of red-blue/left-right/lib-con linear models for anything other than gaslighting and propagandizing purposes.
In this inverted world, libertarian tax-cutting venture capitalist billionaires are called “moderates” as long as they support gay marriage, and people are considered rightwing if they try to preserve neighborhood character and affordability by opposing gentrification in the form of endless blocks of “market rate” studios and 1BRs for high-income software coders, speculators, short-term rentals, foreign capital flight, and pieds-a-terre.
NIMBYs are Red;
“Market-rate” condos are Blue;
If you’re against construction of more towers of unaffordable, destined-to-be-vacant units for young affluent singles, you’re a Trumpist;
But if you’re a Galtian “free market” corporate developer, you’re apparently a Leftist, too!
I may be quoting this on Reddit over the next few days: “If you’re against construction of more towers of unaffordable, destined-to-be-vacant units for young affluent singles, you’re a Trumpist;
But if you’re a Galtian “free market” corporate developer, you’re apparently a Leftist, too!”
You would think that so-called YIMBYs would recognize that they’ll get more houses built if they stop pretending that progressives are in any way stopping them from building more houses. It’s like you literally cannot tolerate any *notes* without acting like the sky is falling.
Most all San Franciscans have more in common with Trump loving Republicans than any of us do with the Wall Street interests, finance, insurance and real estate, that are funding the YIMBY astroturf operation and have occupied the Democrat Party. Not enough for me to vote for Trump, but Wall Street Left Washing should get no truck in SF.
Campers,
I like Melgar’s big heart but it allowed her to evict a long-time vehicle village from roads out around the zoo with no place to go on Christmas it was planned.
She gave em another couple of weeks when pressed.
Gerrymandering and Gentrification have flipped Political stripe in both districts 4 and 7 and 6 big time and now threatens one and three giving Commissions Moderate BOS appointees beginning in January with 1 in the wind.
Mods got DA and CA offices by default so things are getting tougher and tougher on the Poor.
Peskin for Mayor !!
h.
YIMBY self identify as such and are characterized by demanding that others say yes in their backyards, not the backyard of the YIMBY.
YIMBY conjured an antagonist, the dreaded NIMBY, and imbued NIMBY with all of the negative characteristics that you might imagine, most of which is projections from the YIMBY of their insecurities.
There are self declared YIMBY orgs. There are no self declared NIMBY orgs. YIMBY is a slur, hate speech, against those who want comprehensive urban planning that has all urban systems growing together for the benefit of residents, but which might crimp developer profits.
When a journalist uses the negative framing of a well funded astroturf corporate campaign in their reporting, they abandon any sense of objectivity in favor of running that narrative.
Mission Local is the best news outlet in the city because it almost always does better than this category error.
If housing is considered a good investment, it must compete with the 10% average return of the stock market. At the same time, if incomes increased at that rate it would be considered inflation and it would be stopped at all costs. Do you not see why housing has become unaffordable? Those two lines (income growth and investment growth) have been diverging for decades. This name calling and finger pointing is completely missing the point: Regardless of how much housing you build, it will only be affordable to those whose income at least matches stock market returns.
“Do you not see why housing has become unaffordable?”
Yes, because people like you treat it as a commodity.
IMO your assumption that housing should be seen as or considered a guaranteed “good investment” is the fundamental problem that’s causing housing to be unaffordable to people who provide necessary and needed essential products and services . Housing like a car, is a depreciating durable good providing utility and carries ongoing expense. Both housing and cars can appreciate only through scarcity. I also take issue with your assumption the stock market is a monolith with guaranteed return. Money has been both made and lost on the stock market. What you neglect to consider is time frames. Over the long term the stock market as a whole reflects money inflation.
Multi unit corner housing with no backyards,just a small center courtyard is not what most people want.The idea that a cafe or corner store would be the ground level is ludicrous. Not many people want to live above such .These are Engardio ‘s ideas.He also did not even realize soon there will be no parking near corners.How are these businesses going to get deliveries?He also left out where he lives in district 4 .Engardio never includes in his joyful and happy newsletters any mention of his rezoning and SUD meetings.i believe the rezoning of the parcel currently known as The Irish Cultural Center newly made into The Cultural Center on 45/Wawoma is a scam.I do not believe they can get the insurance to build the chrome and glass building that is described. There are many different types of insurance needed.With a many companies leaving California getting insurance that digging a hole 3 floors down will not damage the other buildings on the block is not likely to happen.This is about secretive rezoning. The only notices are small pieces of paper on a door45/ Wawoma.
Interesting take on the meeting. There are a few comments that seem a little off, but, we appreciate that coverage. Look forward to hearing more on the subject in more publications. The hour is getting a bit late when it comes to informing the public. There appears to be a lot of concern over lack of cultural community concerns, and the “homogenous” quality of design standards. There is a need to consider why there are so many the empty units. Is there no market for those designs? Small, dense properties that lack outdoor space and/or parking may not be as desirable as some people think. I am listening to the Planning Commissioners as I am writing this so my comments reflect some of their comments.
With a headline playing off the phrase popularized by Toole’s “Confederacy of Dunces”, and invocation of the NIMBY epithet, the author instantly insults and attacks people whom she is supposedly reporting on.
The article claims that the room was full of homeowners and cynically refers to “far-flung notions” and “suburban-like feel”. No evidence, no facts, just opinion.
The tired old tropes about “exclusionary zoning” in 100-year-old neighborhoods are well-worn yimby talking points, as if nothing in San Francisco has changed since the Prohibition era. Here’s a hint: black and brown people are no more interested in cramming their families into dingy little apartments on noisy commercial streets than white people are.
The Westside of San Francisco is already filled with tons of dingy little apartments. They’re called “in-laws” or “granny flats”, and most of them are of dubious legality because of how absurdly anachronistic our zoning code is. I personally spent part of my childhood in one, just off of West Portal Ave, when my mom was trying to get back on her feet after my parents got divorced. We didn’t have a stove in our kitchen because that was our landlord’s way of trying to remain in technical compliance with the property’s RH-1D (single family, detached) zoning, while renting out space in their house as a second unit.
More recently I have had several friends who have lived in similar situations on the Westside. At one point a close friend of mine was sleeping next to a water heater in a basement apartment that he was subletting from someone who was subletting the basement from the tenants upstairs. From the street the building still looked like a very large and stately single family home, but for all intents and purposes it had been subdivided into an apartment building, or a boarding house.
You’re right, a lot has changed about San Francisco over the past 100 years. It’s our zoning code that needs to get with the times.
“ Here’s a hint: black and brown people are no more interested in cramming their families into dingy little apartments on noisy commercial streets than white people are.”
People who choose to live in SF did not come here to live in some provincial, suburban fantasy. San Francisco is a big city at the center of a metro area of 9 million people. People come here to be part of a vast, rich, and unique experience that no other city can offer. Many of us love the apartment lifestyle that this city is known for.
By forcing people to compete for dwindling number of living spaces, you are condemning them to a future of poverty and class division.
People “who choose to live here” and people who already live here are here for a wide variety of reasons, many of which change. Many of ud *do* tolerate the apartment lifestyle, and many of us cannot fit out families into apartments, nor can we tolerate life without pets or adequate sunlight.
By fording people to choose between an overpriced shoebox in the TL and moving to Antioch you are… You get the point.
We invested billions in BART to take housing pressure off of San Francisco. Build the BART line up to SF densities and we will see if we still need high rise luxe condo towers in SF for anything other than investment opportunities.
Hey, now, wait a minute. “Confederacy of NIMBYS'” has now become “Coalition of NIMBYS”. Credit where credit is due, but still doesn’t smell very good.
Sir or madam —
While “A Confederacy of Dunces” is my favorite book, not enough people have read it to get the reference. But people did thing an allusion was being made to the Confederate States of America, which was not the intention.
JE