Yes on F campaign is proof.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Friday, May 30, 2008
SFChronicle Op-ed 5/30/08: June 3rd ballot a vote on the future of San Francisco
Change begins in the neighborhood; vote yes on F
Joanne Abernathy, Ernest Jackson, Joseph Smooke
Joanne Abernathy, Ernest Jackson, Joseph Smooke
San Francisco voters are ready to vote their values and declare that we're ready to change the way that development is done in our city in order to meet the needs of our neighborhoods.
The danger in San Francisco right now is not just that we have a housing crisis - we have an affordable housing crisis, and if we don't turn it around, everything that we love about San Francisco will fade into the past. Proposition F is economically feasible, and our city leadership needs to prioritize it.
Proposition F says that our communities are more than markets for speculation. Our communities are our homes.
To preserve our communities, we have to change how and for whom our neighborhoods are being developed. We can change development in San Francisco, and it begins at the neighborhood level.
Since 1990, we've lost more than 45 percent of our African American population. Families are leaving San Francisco because of the lack of affordable housing. For one of the last remaining African American neighborhoods in San Francisco, Proposition F is a viable solution to stem the tide of displacement.
Some 70 percent of Bayview residents earn below 80 percent of area median income. In the Bayview, 1 in 6 survives on less than $10,000 a year. Proposition F requires that Lennar's plan benefit us by offering 50 percent of the proposed 10,000 housing units at levels that we can afford. Proposition F looks at specific incomes in our neighborhood to ensure that working families that contribute to our city have access to new homes, and that the families forced to leave San Francisco have the opportunity and incentive to stay.
Proposition G is not a community-developed initiative - far from it. It is Lennar's ballot initiative - an out-of-state, multibillion-dollar developer. Lennar has been the only funding support for Proposition G, making this the most expensive initiative campaign in San Francisco history by spending $3 million so far. Lennar is planning for profits; Proposition F is planning for the future.
The city establishment represents a logic that's been proven wrong: build for now, don't worry about the future. Treating our neighborhoods as commodities to be bought and sold hurts our economy and us.
South of Market condo buyers sued Lennar for faulty construction; they paid nearly $1 million for homes that began falling apart soon after the sale. They promised us 1,200 rental units in Parcel A in Hunters Point; what we got instead was 1,200 luxury condominiums. They promised us a $30 million legacy fund for the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard development; now it's down to $14 million. Values and integrity, not Lennar's profit margin, must drive neighborhood planning. That's why we need Proposition F.
Community planning means guarantees, and planning for the future with integrity and honesty. Community planning means community control.
We have a choice and a responsibility to ourselves, our children and generations to come to ensure that families will be able to live, work and raise their children in this city that we call home.
Vote yes on Proposition F and No on 98. If you are inclined to vote for Proposition G, then you must vote yes on Proposition F as well, because it's the only way that we are guaranteed its promises.
Joanne Abernathy is a Bayview Hunters Point resident and POWER leader. Bishop Ernest Jackson is the pastor of Grace Tabernacle Community Church. Joseph Smooke is the executive director of the Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center and an affordable housing developer.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/29/EDMM1105N8.DTL
This article appeared on page B - 11 of the San Francisco Chronicle
See the "open forum" at sfgate. (It's kinda' two against one, but, you know...)http://www.sfgate.com -Change begins in the neighborhood; vote yes on F
http://www.sfgate.com - What the Bayview community wants
http://www.sfgate.com - Labor and business urge yes on G, no on F
Thursday, May 29, 2008
ABC7 Coverage Props F and G
Watch the video.
Excerpt:
...Enter Prop. F. Supporters demand that half of the housing be affordable.
"Of course Lennar stands to make billions of dollars off of this development, so we think it's only fair that they give something back to the community," says Alicia Schwartz, a Prop. F supporter.
"A lot of families are having a hard time staying in San Francisco. They are getting pushed out and housing prices have the most to do with that," says Tom Jackson with Coleman Advocates for Youth and Families.
Opponents say Prop. F is designed to be a deal breaker. Lennar has said it will walk if Prop. F wins. Still, the Miami-based developer is not giving up.
Initially, Lennar said 25 percent of new homes would be built as affordable housing, but once they realized Prop. G was behind in the polls, they sweetened the deal to 32 percent.
On June 3rd, voters will decide the future of the area, hoping it will have a positive outcome on the community. Watch the Video and Read the whole story.
Yes on F in the News
Assessing the deal
SFBG.com
SFBG.com
An Excerpt: ...Lennar already has spent $3.26 million to promote Prop. G and oppose Prop. F, only to find polls showing Prop. F well ahead despite a campaign that has raised less than $10,000. The weak poll numbers clearly convinced Lennar and its backers in the political power structure that voters would be more likely to support Prop. G if Lennar came up with something that seemed legally binding.But by supporting a deal that appears to pin down Lennar on levels of housing affordability and community investment, Newsom ironically seems to be validating the concern of Daly and Prop. F's other backers that Prop. G lacks guarantees on these fronts (see "Promises and reality," 04/23/08).
Not even Newsom could deny that Prop. F's presence on the political landscape pushed Lennar to seek a community benefits agreement with the Labor Council and ACORN, a group that had been a solid part of Daly's affordable-housing constituency.
"It probably has," Newsom told the Guardian. "That said, I don't think Prop. F should suggest the deal is better because of them. Perhaps it's worse."
...Joseph Smooke, executive director of the Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center, said he believes the jobs agreements labor negotiated are good. "It's the housing stuff where they gave away the store," Smooke said. "Why didn't they stick to the jobs piece and support Prop. F?"Pointing to the Board of Supervisors' passage of policy saying that 64 percent of housing in eastern neighborhoods should be targeted at 80 percent of AMI and below, Smooke added, "There are ways to make 50 percent affordable work. This is free land. It's not rocket science. But is it city policy to protect a developer's stated desire for 18 to 22 percent profit?"
Meanwhile, Alicia Schwartz of POWER hopes SFOP and ACORN are being accountable to their base of low-income workers. "Lennar would like to tell you that if Prop. G doesn't pass, nothing happens. But in reality, the community's plan stays, plus now there is a 50 percent affordable-housing requirement," Schwartz said. "That's a win-win."
"For Newsom and Lennar to say that Prop. F is a poison pill — the irony is not lost on the Bayview," Schwartz added, recalling the city's failure to hold Lennar accountable for its promises and misdeeds. "We're looking to change the way business is done in San Francisco." Read the full story.
Labor's Lennar deal isn't good enough
SFBG.com
The following articles don't tell the whole story, but are evidence that we're starting to see a frame change around affordable housing, luxury development and the economy. All thanks to the organizing behind Prop F!
SFBG.com
EDITORIAL Excerpt: In the late 1980s, Mayor Art Agnos put forward a plan for development at Mission Bay, which at that point was an underused plot of land that used to be a Southern Pacific railroad yard. He negotiated with the developer, Catellus Corp., and cut what he insisted was the best deal the city could possibly get. He insisted that any more demands — for, say, increased affordable housing — would have so damaged the project's finances that nothing would ever be built.NY Times and Wall Street Journal:Development opponents took the issue to the voters — and the mayor's plan lost. Catellus promptly came back with a much sweeter deal.
It's worth remembering that lesson, because next week voters will be faced with a stark choice for a massive Hunters Point–Bayview redevelopment plan. Mayor Gavin Newsom and his allies say the city has squeezed major concessions from the developer, Lennar Corp. The San Francisco Labor Council and two community groups have forced Lennar to sweeten the pot even more (see "Assessing the deal," page 11). At this point, the city's supposed to have the best deal it can possibly get.
But with all due respect to the Labor Council, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), and the San Francisco Organizing Project, it's not good enough. Keep Reading.
The following articles don't tell the whole story, but are evidence that we're starting to see a frame change around affordable housing, luxury development and the economy. All thanks to the organizing behind Prop F!
NY Times: Major San Francisco Development Faces a Ballot Test
WSJ: Lennar Plans are tough sell in San Francisco
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Prop. G’s False Promises: Lennar’s $3.3 Million Chump-Change Financing May Yield Itself Billions by Patrick Monette-Shaw
Question: What do you get when you stir into the soup $3.3 million in various campaign financing by the powerful Lennar Corporation; mix in two nephews of Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (one nephew by way of marriage, Mayor Gavin Newsom, and the other nephew, Laurence Pelosi, a former vice president for acquisitions for Lennar Corporation and Newsom’s former campaign treasurer); and season the mix with Newsom’s “dream team” of political advisors?
Answer: You get Proposition G, boiled and bubbled onto the June 3 municipal ballot. Might you find ladled into the mix, potential conflicts of interest?
Mayor’s Staff Admits Why Proposition G Is on the Ballot
Michael Cohen — who was reported in April 2007 as employed with the Mayor’s Office of Base Reuse, but was later identified in April 2008 as being employed in the Mayor’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development, and who, according to public records, at last report earned $194,637 in 2007 as an attorney in the City Attorney’s office, not on Newsom’s staff — has noted Proposition G is on the ballot because “The only legal reason we are going to the voters is Monster Park.”
If Proposition G were only about overturning voter’s previously-approved financing of a new stadium at Monster Park, the City could have sponsored such pared down legislation by placing it on the ballot without a signature petition drive, and without selling out Bayview Hunters Point in a lucrative deal for Lennar.
The mayor’s office is not telling voters that one of the real reasons behind Proposition G is to authorize a swap of state park lands for new “parks” that will be flexed between “green” stadium parking surfaces for stadium events and also serve as “public playing fields” at other times. Will these new “parks” be constructed of green “Astroturf” that can flexed to accommodate both parking and public soccer fields?
Why would Lennar report campaign spending of $3.3 million on what is not a legally-binding agreement, but is instead a non-binding redevelopment measure — unless Lennar stood to gain a substantial return on its campaign financing investments? Proposition G is obviously not just about Monster Park.
Follow the Yellow-Brick-Road Money
If the phrase “follow the money” ever applied to ballot measures facing voters, the $3.3 million Lennar Homes of California, Inc. has reported financing through May 22 to convince voters to defeat this June’s Proposition F and to pass Proposition G over the Bayview-Hunters Point land-grab should be of great interest, if only because San Francisco is about to hand a gift to Lennar Homes and Lennar Urban worth billions of dollars, in both the value of the land being gifted to Lennar and the eventual sales Lennar will reap from market-rate housing. Financially-troubled Lennar will do so without being required to complete clean up the toxic Superfund site, promising pigs can fly.
Lennar, with the backing of Newsom’s political dream team, spent $52,000 to gather enough signatures to place Proposition G on the June ballot (at $4.00 per signature), suddenly subverting over a decade of community-based planning. The San Francisco Examiner, along with other major media outlets, has obscured the fact that Proposition G was put on the ballot at the last minute through a signature campaign. This is likely the largest amount ever spent to gather enough signatures to place a measure on any San Francisco municipal ballot. Greasing the wheels by spending $52,000 to place a measure before voters worth billions is chump change to Lennar.
To ensure Proposition G’s passage, Lennar has paid $106,000 to David Binder Research to conduct poll after poll, and various focus groups, to gauge public opinion about Proposition G. Given this unprecedented level of polling spending, Proposition G may be in trouble. Proposition G may be facing public opposition, but Binder’s polling results haven’t been released publically.
Despite claims to the contrary, there is nothing whatsoever in the legal text of Proposition G that guarantees any precise percentage of housing that will be designated as “affordable.” Lennar, under the non-binding Proposition G, may end up building only market-rate housing in the Bayview-Hunters Point “redevelopment” scheme.
The 750 acres in the Bayview affected by Proposition G is likely valued, at minimum, at $1 million per acre, or $750 million. But many of the acres along the waterfront are valued at much more, and depending on the eventual use sitting on top of any given acre, the 750 acres — which Lennar will acquire free and clear if Proposition G passes — are estimated to be worth several billion dollars. Do San Franciscans really want to simply hand over land worth billions of dollars to a private developer based on exceptionally vague language contained in the legal text of Proposition G?
San Francisco’s Two Costliest Ballot Measures
Ignoring Newsom’s $6 million campaign in 2003 to buy himself election to mayor, the highest amount spent on a ballot measure in San Francisco’s history prior to the June 3 Proposition G facing voters is the $2.7 million spearheaded by PG&E in the 2002 election cycle to defeat Proposition D, a City Charter amendment that would have made the Public Utilities Commission the primary provider of electric power to San Francisco residents and businesses. Proposition D was opposed by then supervisor Gavin Newsom, who is ever deep in PG&E’s back pocket. PG&E, after all, wants to keep its business providing electricity.
In October 2004, the San Francisco Ethics Commission voted 3-to-0 to issue a $100,00 fine against the “San Franciscans Against the Blank Check – No on D Committee” and its treasurer, Jim Sutton, for the Committee’s and Sutton’s failure to file timely disclosure reports of two late contributions totaling $800,000 during the November 2002 general election. Sutton and Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Mueller & Naylor LLP, Sutton’s former law firm, took full responsibility for failing to file the required reports. The fine was contingent upon the Sacramento Superior Court’s entry of final judgment for civil penalties against The No on D Committee, Sutton, and PG&E. Between the fine paid to the San Francisco Ethics Commission and a separate $140,000 fine paid to the state’s Fair Political Practice Committee, the No on D Committee paid $240,000 in fines for violating campaign finance laws.
Now, Newsom and his political allies are backing the Proposition G transfer of City property to a private developer in what is likely the worst public-private partnership the Newsom administration has dreamed up. According to disclosure statements on the San Francisco Ethics Commission’s campaign finance database Web site, Lennar Homes of California, as an independent expenditure committee, has financed $3.3 million through May 22 in an effort to pass Proposition G ($2.26 million in independent expenditures) and to defeat Proposition F ($997 thousand between independent expenditures and non-monetary contributions), including a $52,500 monetary contribution to the San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee for unspecified purposes.
On May 20, Lennar filed a late Independent Expenditure Committee report suddenly announcing another $186,150 in spending for Proposition G, and a second late contribution of $89,534 on behalf of the “Committee for Real Solutions for Housing – A Committee Opposed to Proposition F,” and on May 22 filed additional disclosure statements bringing Lennar’s total spending to at least $3.3 million. It is unknown how much more Lennar will spend between May 23 and June 3, but Lennar’s total campaign financing promoting Proposition G and opposing Proposition F have already been the largest financing in San Francisco history to pass a ballot initiative, surpassing PG&E’s $2.7 million spending on Prop D in 2002.
Lennar’s Campaign Financing Binge and an Incestuous Web
Of the $3.3 million Lennar has financed through May 22, its binge financing is revealing.
Carmen Policy, former president of the San Francisco 49er’s, has been paid $40,915 in an effort to lure the 49er’s back to San Francisco. Fat chance.
Johnnie L. Carter, Jr., who voters just threw off of the Community College Board, has received $26,896 to enlist support among black San Francisco voters. He’s not the only African American working against the best interests of residents of the Bayview, since five black ministers have been reported to have cut development deals with Lennar to foist unwanted development on Bayview community residents, and since James Bryant’s A. Philip Randolph Institute has received funding from Lennar, too (more below).
“Social justice” lawyer Roberta Achtenberg, a former San Francisco supervisor albeit only for two years, and a former Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, Department of Housing and Urban Development under former President Bill Clinton, has been paid $20,569 by Lennar. She was appointed in 2008 to the board of directors of the Bank of San Francisco, and is chairwoman of the California State University Board of Trustees. These days, Ms. Achtenberg is reported to be the go-to-gal for contractors since resigning from San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors in 1993. Not uncoincidentally, her unsuccessful bid for San Francisco mayor in 1995 was run by then newbie Eric Jaye, now Gavin Newsom’s chief political strategist.
But these three (Policy, Carter, and Achtenberg) are small fry among recipients of Lennar’s largesse.
Four law firms have raked in $343,138 for legal services. That buys a lot of legal opinions. It is unclear how the $275,000 in new spending Lennar reported on May 20 was spent, and whether additional legal services were obtained.
At least $1.1 million has been spent by Lennar on TV ads, e-mail and voice messaging, and print campaign materials, excluding another $173,094 spent by subcontractors on the TV and print media ad campaign.
Add to that $767,607 spent through May 22 on so-called “consulting services.” Feeding at the trough of Lennar’s spending is the “dream team” of consultants assembled by Newsom, Feinstein, and Pelosi to ensure passage of Proposition G and to defeat Proposition F, a who’s-who cast of San Francisco’s political consultants, all of whom are Newsom cronies, who have been paid handsomely for Proposition G consulting gigs.
Jim Stearns, of Stearns Consulting, has received $91,374 from Lennar, and that’s not counting another $130,799 paid to Stearns’ firm for database creation, Web site development, and printing and campaign materials. But speaking of Newsom’s chief political strategist, Jaye’s political consulting firm Storefront Political Media has been paid $152,767 by Lennar. Jaye has hired Jennifer Petrucione, Newsom’s former Chief Deputy Director of Communications (also called Newsom’s deputy press secretary), to work at Storefront Political Media. Storefront Political Media received an additional $492,949 for various subcontractors related to the $1.1 million in television ads, e-mail and voice messaging, and campaign materials.
Doctor of all spin doctors, Sam Singer, of Singer Associates, has been paid $108,597 by Lennar’s independent expenditure committee. Singer has elsewhere been reported to be a Lennar spokesperson.
Another political consulting firm — Terris, Barnes & Walters — has been paid $176,733 by Lennar to provide even more consulting services. Terris, Barnes & Walters received an additional $440,629 for various subcontractors related to the $1.1 million in television ads, e-mail and voice messaging, and campaign materials.
Finally, Lennar has paid Mayor Newsom’s former Deputy Chief of Staff, Alex Tourk, $83,366 in consulting fees to Tourk’s new start-up company, Ground Floor Public Affairs. Tourk had been Newsom’s former campaign manager before the scandal erupted about Newsom’s affair with Tourk’s wife. Singer also reportedly handled public relations for Ruby Ripey-Tourk. In addition, Tourk’s Ground Floor Public Affairs group has been paid another $210,156 by Lennar for various Ground Floor Public Affairs subcontractors.
And of interest, in addition to $52,500 in monetary contribution to the San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee for unspecified purposes, Lennar has contributed either directly to, or through subcontractors, $21,250 for various slate mailer cards to a variety of political groups in San Francisco, including the Asian Pacific Democratic Club, the San Francisco Republican Party, the San Francisco Women’s Political Committee, the Alice B. Toklas Democratic Club, the Chinese American Voters Education Commission, and the Plan C Voter Guide.
As Sarah Phelan noted in “The corporation that ate San Francisco” (San Francisco Bay Guardian, March 14, 2007), the “incestuous web of political connections” involved in the project range from Redevelopment Agency commissioners appointed by Newson and his predecessor Willie Brown, to the nephews of Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi: Newsom, Pelosi’s nephew by marriage, and Pelosi’s other nephew, Laurence Pelosi, who used to be vice president of acquisitions for Lennar and now works for Morgan Stanley Real Estate, which holds Lennar stock. Laurence Pelosi also used to be Newsom’s campaign treasurer.
Phelan noted both Newsom and Laurence Pelosi are connected to lobbyist Darius Anderson, who hosted a fundraiser to pay off Newsom’s campaign debts. Phelan reported in April 2007 that former mayor Willie Brown’s former head of economic development was then Lennar Urban’s president Kofi Bonner, who while working “for the Redevelopment Agency recommended hiring KPMG Peat Marwick to choose between Catellus, Lennar, and Forest City for the Hunters Point project.” In the end, Redevelopment Commissioners ignored a consultant’s advice, voting to award the redevelopment project to Lennar.
But as late as May 21, 2008, Bonner appears to have possibly been promoted to being a Lennar Regional Vice President.
Labor’s Divided Endorsements
Predictably, labor unions are a house divided in regards to Propositions F and G. Service Employees International Union, which represents approximately 13,000 San Francisco city employees, many of whom are African American, mailed its voter guide to union members in mid-May without a recommendation on either Prop. F or Prop. G, saying only that both initiatives were “still under consideration.” It reached the no recommendation despite the fact that James Bryant, president of the A. Philip Randolph Institute (APRI), is SEIU Local 1021’s appointed political education committee chairperson, and despite the fact APRI has been paid $58,203 by Lennar as a subcontractor to Ground Floor Public Affairs. Bryant requested funding to help defeat Prop. G from both Local 1021’s political education fund and its Social and Economic Justice fund. A complaint regarding Bryant’s potential conflict of interest was filed within the Local, since Bryant hadn’t revealed Lennar had already funded APRI nearly $60,000.
For its part, the San Francisco Labor Council announced on May 16 that it struck a deal with Lennar Urban to guarantee that 3,500 affordable homes will be constructed in the Hunters Point Shipyard – Candlestick Point areas, and throughout District 10. In addition Lennar agreed to commit $27.3 million for “hundreds” more affordable homes throughout District 10; it is not yet known whether the additional hundreds of units will be placed off-site from the Bayview redevelopment area, away from the gentrified upscale market-rate condo’s planned for Parcel A.
Remarkably, on Tuesday May 20, the Labor Council’s Executive Director, Tim Paulson said the new deal’s exact terms are still “being lawyered up,” just 14 days before the June 3 election. And the so-called “shopping list” reported in the City Star newspaper on May 21 contained no provision for the clean up and toxic remediation of the Superfund site in the Bayview.
Even more remarkably, the City Star reported May 21 that “in an emotional address,” Newsom claimed the new agreement with the Labor Council will make Lennar “legally bound to build what’s right,” despite the fact that Proposition G is not a legally-binding agreement, it’s a non-binding redevelopment measure, which Newsom must surely know unless he is seriously misinformed. The City Star also reported on May 21 Newsom claimed, with Lennar’s Regional V.P. Bonner in attendance, that the Bayview project is not about Lennar as the developer, who “could be replaced by another firm [even] if [Proposition G] is passed.”
Huh? Is Newsom again speaking out of both sides of his mouth, and doesn’t that hurt? Voters have been led to believe all along that Lennar will be the developer, and now two weeks before the election Newsom is suddenly telling voters that Lennar could, and may, be replaced? I have to wonder if Newsom consulted Pelosi’s other nephew, Laurence Pelosi, before making such an about-face statement just two weeks prior to the election.
But voters are not voting on a separate last-minute deal between the Labor Council and Lennar, which deal appears to still be being written. Voters are voting on the legal text of Proposition G (albeit however vague its actual language), and there is no language in Proposition G specifying a precise percentage that will be dedicated to affordable homes. Lennar may eventually renege on its “deal” with the Labor Council, just as Lennar reneged on previous plans to build any rental units on Parcel A.
Lennar’s Expected Lucrative Sales
Although the development plan for Parcel A had initially called for including in the mix low-income rental units, Lennar single-handedly changed the composition of the first 1,600 units to be built. The first 1,600 to be sold will all be at market-rates, with no rental units for low-income residents.
At market rates, these 1,600 units are expected to each sell for the San Francisco median price of $836,000, in 2008 dollars. Lennar stands to sell $1.38 billion in homes and condos on Parcel A, with a commitment to build zero affordable housing or rental units among the first 1,600 units built.
The legal text of Proposition G waffles by vaguely claiming that somewhere “between about 8,500 and 10,000 residential housing units” will be built, but Prop. G doesn’t anywhere mention what percentage of the units will be “affordable.”
An analysis prepared by the brokerage firm CB Richard Ellis (CBRE) for Mayor Newsom claims that 25 percent of the planned 9,500 units will be affordable. Presumably the remaining 7,100 units will be sold at market rate. At the median price of $836,000 per home, Lennar stands to sell the 7,100 units for $5.94 billion.
But Newsom’s office has not revealed that CBRE has been a partner financing many of Lennar Corporation’s deals around the country. Does Newsom have an ethical conflict of interest accepting reports from CBRE (rather than Newsom soliciting reports from independent observers), at the same time CBRE may potentially end up backing Lennar’s financing in the Bayview?
Elsewhere it has been reported that Lennar has entered into a deal with Scala Real Estate to potentially build 17,000 units of housing on the Bayview-Hunters Pot sites, not the nebulous 8,500 to 10,000 housing units the legal text of Proposition G claims will be built. If 17,000 units will be crammed into the Bayview in a Lennar/Scala financing deal, and assuming 25 percent will be “affordable,” 12,750 units could conceivably be sold at market rates. At the current median sales price, Lennar and its partner Scala, potentially stand to earn $10.659 billion in market-rate sales of 12,750 units. And voters are supposed to seriously believe Newsom’s office has not been apprised by CBRE of the lucrative sales in the billions?
And why the conflicting information about the total number of planned units? The legal text of Proposition G in the voter guide says “about” 8,500 to 10,000 units. CBRE claims 9,500 units, while the Lennar/Scala financing deal stipulates 17,000. What number of units are voters actually voting on?
Will Lennar Ever Clean Up the Shipyard?
Proposition G’s tag line is “Clean Up the Shipyard.” But language in the legal text of Proposition D regarding clean up and remediation of the toxic Superfund site is limited to a single phrase that states only in the “Policies” section the project’s clean up should be “fiscally prudent,” and “to the extent feasible, use state and federal funds to pay for environmental remediation on the Project site.” “Fiscally prudent” and “to the extent feasible” are buzz words; Proposition G contains no guarantees that full remediation of the toxic Superfund site, required by Proposition P in 2000, will ever occur to clean up the Shipyard to residential standards.
In November 2000, fully 86.4% of voters who cast ballots for Proposition P on the 2000 ballot passed the measure, which was a statement of policy that San Franciscans expect the federal government and the Navy to clean up the extensive pollution at the Hunters Point Shipyard. Proposition P was put on the ballot by Supervisor Tom Ammiano and then-supervisor Mark Leno, and the 2000 voter guide featured a paid argument supporting Proposition P by then candidate-for-supervisor Sophie Maxwell, who is now District 10’s Supervisor.
The shipyard remains on the National Priorities List, a list of the most polluted facilities in the nation, and is the only federal Superfund site in the City. Eight years later, Proposition P remains on the books, requiring that the shipyard be cleaned to a level that would enable unrestricted use of the property, the highest standard for cleanup established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. But the will of the voters is now being ignored by the City in its rush to simply hand 750 acres over to Lennar Corporation without first completing cleanup of the shipyard to unrestricted use level, and in the City’s rush to get the Navy to turn the remaining five parcels in the Bayview over to the City.
To date, the Navy has only transferred to the City one of the six parcels in the Bayview, Parcel A consisting of only 63 acres. Only Parcel A has been cleaned up. When the San Francisco 49er’s announced their intention to move the franchise to Santa Clara County, Senator Dianne Feinstein was suddenly able to find a mere $82 million in federal funds to hand to an embarrassed Newsom to clean up 27 acres in the Bayview for Lennar’s proposed replacement site for a new stadium, but the Navy has estimated it will take at least $500 million to clean up the entire Superfund site. Surely Pelosi, Feinstein, and Newsom haven’t forgotten Proposition P passed by 86% of the electorate. Why haven’t Feinstein or Pelosi been able to find the remaining $412 million in federal funds needed to comply with Proposition P to clean up the remaining 687 acres? And why are Pelosi, Feinstein, and Newsom rushing to take over the shipyard before the federal government finishes the full cleanup work?
Investigative reporter Sara Phelan quoted current mayoral spokesperson Nathan Ballard in “Unanswered Questions” (San Francisco Bay Guardian, April 4, 2007): “Insisting that Lennar will not be asked to take over the cleanup, Ballard claimed that ‘if the city pursues an ‘early transfer’ with the Navy, a specialized environmental remediation firm, not Lennar, would finish certain elements of the cleanup’.” The legal text of Prop. G mentions nothing about Ballard’s claim that a special environmental remediation firm will be utilized. It is clear Proposition G will let Lennar off of the hook for cleaning up the shipyard, so Prop. G’s tag line about “cleaning up the shipyard” is offensive spin control at its worst.
Without Thorough Remediation, Worsening Bayview Health Outcomes
As Dr. Ahimsa Porter Sumchai, a medical doctor and 2007 candidate for San Francisco mayor, noted in a presentation to UCSF medical students in February 2008 titled “Black Flight” (regarding the flight of African Americans from San Francisco), a 1995 study conducted 13 years ago documented that the heavily polluted Bayview Hunters Point community had hospitalizations for chronic illnesses four times higher than the state average. This is due, in part, to the fact that although the Bayview Hunters Point district has less than four percent of the City’s residents, it has one third of the City’s hazardous waste sites, containing four times as many toxins as other City neighborhoods. The 1995 study documented that hospitalization rates for asthma, congestive heart failure, hypertension, diabetes, and emphysema were 138 cases per 10,000 in the Bayview, compared to the statewide average of 38 cases per 10,000, even after earlier San Francisco Department of Public Health studies had identified excessive rates of breast cancer, leukemia’s, childhood cancers, and cardiorespiratory diseases in the Bayview Hunters point areas. The incidence of infant mortality and birth defects in the Bayview also exceed citywide averages.
Mayor Newsom’s mother, who moved her children to Marin County following her divorce, is reported to have died from breast cancer in 2002. Marin County is thought to have a high incidence of breast cancer, just as women under age 50 in the Bayview Hunters Point area are reported to have twice the rate of breast cancer as women in the rest of San Francisco. Isn’t this a compelling reason that Newsom should ensure complete toxic remediation of the Shipyard prior to turning over 750 acres of still-not-cleaned-up land over to Lennar, and an even stronger reason voters should reject Prop. G?
Community Activists Try to Halt Black Flight
The glut of deceptive Yes on G mailers hitting San Francisco mailboxes falsely assert that Supervisor Chris Daly single-handedly put Proposition F on the ballot. But that spin control ignores the fact that it was community activists in the Bayview Hunters point who initiated placing Prop. F on the ballot by collecting the first 6,000 of the 11,000 signatures collected. Daly merely partnered with Bayview community activists, in much the same way that Newsom “partnered with” Lennar.
As Sarah Phelan also noted in “The corporation that ate San Francisco,”: “Part of the problem is systemic: the Redevelopment Agency hands over these giant projects to master, for-profit developers who can then change the plans based on financial considerations, not community needs.” If Proposition G passes, it will exacerbate displacement of African Americans from San Francisco, since African Americans are three times more likely to leave San Francisco than any other ethnic group.
When San Francisco voters head to the polls on June 3 to consider Propositions G and F, at stake will be Lennar Corporation’s and the City of San Francisco’s sell of out African American residents in the Bayview Hunters Point to the tune of billions of dollars, following the costliest initiative measure campaign in San Francisco’s history.
Handing Tax Increment Funds to the Redevelopment Agency
Dr. Sumchai also notes in “Black Flight” that tax increment financing (which Proposition G is premised on), will directly impact San Francisco’s municipal budget by diverting City revenues to the Redevelopment Agency. The part of tax increments that would otherwise go into the City’s General Fund (averaging 12 percent), will be lost and can only be used by the Redevelopment Agency. Therefore, money to build malls and hotels will be permitted, but no new financing for basic City services, such as police, firefighters, nurses, or librarians, will be generated. Sumchai rightfully notes that cities cannot use redevelopment money to pay for salaries, public safety or maintenance, by far the largest share of municipal budgets.
Jeopardizing a State Park … for a Promise of “Green Science and Technology”
Sarah Phelan also notes in “Promises and Reality,” (San Francisco Bay Guardian, April 23, 2008) that there are serious environmental concerns regarding vague promises in Proposition G that new parks will be built on other parcels in the Bayview in a land-swap for a state park that will be rebuilt to contain luxury condos. A major restoration effort to preserve the Yosemite Slough would be destroyed by trading parcels for replacement parks that don’t provide adequate habitat, particularly if Lennar’s plan to build a bridge over the Yosemite Slough is allowed to proceed.
There’s a reason that the Sierra Club and the San Francisco League of Conservation Voters took out paid arguments in the voter guide against Proposition G: Proposition G is a deceptively bad deal for the City’s Southeast parks and the environment, since it will place a nine-lane, $60 million bridge over the Slough that will endanger a bird nesting restoration area that has taken years to plan, and $11 million to create.
Proposition G promises to build two million square feet of “green” science, technology, biotechnology, or digital media offices for research and development, and industrial uses. Where does Newsom and Lennar plan to cram two million square feet of such offices, along with up to 17,000 housing units, into the Bayview without affecting valuable parks and open space?
The operating clause in Proposition G may be the single vague phrase contained on page 163 of the voter guide, that states “or a combination of these uses” will be built, without providing precise language voters can trust.
“G” is for Gentrification and False Promises
Who knows what San Franciscans will eventually get — since the Bayview Hunters Point redevelopment plan developed over the last decade has been suddenly usurped by the vaguely-defined Proposition G that was only first discussed in public late in 2007, and then rushed to the ballot?
A lesson should be learned from the 1999 Proposition A to rebuild Laguna Honda Hospital. Voters were led to believe 1,200 skilled nursing beds would be built, but the vague language of the Prop. A bond measure guaranteed no such thing.
Proposition G stands for gentrification and giveaway of the Bayview: Gives away 750 acres free of charge, gives away the health of Bayview residents, gives away a requirement to clean up the shipyard, gives away a state park, and gives away tax increment financing to the Redevelopment Agency. Voters should reject the vaguely-worded, open-ended, non-binding and giveaway language of Proposition G.
While Lennar’s recent mailers turn reality inside out claiming Proposition F contains false promises, it may be Proposition G itself that is riddled with false promises. Don’t be fooled: Six City supervisors, including Mirkarimi, Ammiano, McGoldrick, Sandoval, and Peskin, along with Supervisor Daly, have not endorsed Proposition G. It has only been supervisors Maxwell, Alioto-Pier, Chu, and Elsbernd, along with Bevan Dufty who recently admitted to casting “boneheaded” votes, who have gone along as Newsom loyalists endorsing Proposition G, hoping to ride the mayor’s coat tails to higher elected office.
As prominent African American activist Espanola Jackson has noted: “I know a scam when I see one. Don’t buy their lies. Vote No on G!”
Answer: You get Proposition G, boiled and bubbled onto the June 3 municipal ballot. Might you find ladled into the mix, potential conflicts of interest?
Mayor’s Staff Admits Why Proposition G Is on the Ballot
Michael Cohen — who was reported in April 2007 as employed with the Mayor’s Office of Base Reuse, but was later identified in April 2008 as being employed in the Mayor’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development, and who, according to public records, at last report earned $194,637 in 2007 as an attorney in the City Attorney’s office, not on Newsom’s staff — has noted Proposition G is on the ballot because “The only legal reason we are going to the voters is Monster Park.”
If Proposition G were only about overturning voter’s previously-approved financing of a new stadium at Monster Park, the City could have sponsored such pared down legislation by placing it on the ballot without a signature petition drive, and without selling out Bayview Hunters Point in a lucrative deal for Lennar.
The mayor’s office is not telling voters that one of the real reasons behind Proposition G is to authorize a swap of state park lands for new “parks” that will be flexed between “green” stadium parking surfaces for stadium events and also serve as “public playing fields” at other times. Will these new “parks” be constructed of green “Astroturf” that can flexed to accommodate both parking and public soccer fields?
Why would Lennar report campaign spending of $3.3 million on what is not a legally-binding agreement, but is instead a non-binding redevelopment measure — unless Lennar stood to gain a substantial return on its campaign financing investments? Proposition G is obviously not just about Monster Park.
Follow the Yellow-Brick-Road Money
If the phrase “follow the money” ever applied to ballot measures facing voters, the $3.3 million Lennar Homes of California, Inc. has reported financing through May 22 to convince voters to defeat this June’s Proposition F and to pass Proposition G over the Bayview-Hunters Point land-grab should be of great interest, if only because San Francisco is about to hand a gift to Lennar Homes and Lennar Urban worth billions of dollars, in both the value of the land being gifted to Lennar and the eventual sales Lennar will reap from market-rate housing. Financially-troubled Lennar will do so without being required to complete clean up the toxic Superfund site, promising pigs can fly.
Lennar, with the backing of Newsom’s political dream team, spent $52,000 to gather enough signatures to place Proposition G on the June ballot (at $4.00 per signature), suddenly subverting over a decade of community-based planning. The San Francisco Examiner, along with other major media outlets, has obscured the fact that Proposition G was put on the ballot at the last minute through a signature campaign. This is likely the largest amount ever spent to gather enough signatures to place a measure on any San Francisco municipal ballot. Greasing the wheels by spending $52,000 to place a measure before voters worth billions is chump change to Lennar.
To ensure Proposition G’s passage, Lennar has paid $106,000 to David Binder Research to conduct poll after poll, and various focus groups, to gauge public opinion about Proposition G. Given this unprecedented level of polling spending, Proposition G may be in trouble. Proposition G may be facing public opposition, but Binder’s polling results haven’t been released publically.
Despite claims to the contrary, there is nothing whatsoever in the legal text of Proposition G that guarantees any precise percentage of housing that will be designated as “affordable.” Lennar, under the non-binding Proposition G, may end up building only market-rate housing in the Bayview-Hunters Point “redevelopment” scheme.
The 750 acres in the Bayview affected by Proposition G is likely valued, at minimum, at $1 million per acre, or $750 million. But many of the acres along the waterfront are valued at much more, and depending on the eventual use sitting on top of any given acre, the 750 acres — which Lennar will acquire free and clear if Proposition G passes — are estimated to be worth several billion dollars. Do San Franciscans really want to simply hand over land worth billions of dollars to a private developer based on exceptionally vague language contained in the legal text of Proposition G?
San Francisco’s Two Costliest Ballot Measures
Ignoring Newsom’s $6 million campaign in 2003 to buy himself election to mayor, the highest amount spent on a ballot measure in San Francisco’s history prior to the June 3 Proposition G facing voters is the $2.7 million spearheaded by PG&E in the 2002 election cycle to defeat Proposition D, a City Charter amendment that would have made the Public Utilities Commission the primary provider of electric power to San Francisco residents and businesses. Proposition D was opposed by then supervisor Gavin Newsom, who is ever deep in PG&E’s back pocket. PG&E, after all, wants to keep its business providing electricity.
In October 2004, the San Francisco Ethics Commission voted 3-to-0 to issue a $100,00 fine against the “San Franciscans Against the Blank Check – No on D Committee” and its treasurer, Jim Sutton, for the Committee’s and Sutton’s failure to file timely disclosure reports of two late contributions totaling $800,000 during the November 2002 general election. Sutton and Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Mueller & Naylor LLP, Sutton’s former law firm, took full responsibility for failing to file the required reports. The fine was contingent upon the Sacramento Superior Court’s entry of final judgment for civil penalties against The No on D Committee, Sutton, and PG&E. Between the fine paid to the San Francisco Ethics Commission and a separate $140,000 fine paid to the state’s Fair Political Practice Committee, the No on D Committee paid $240,000 in fines for violating campaign finance laws.
Now, Newsom and his political allies are backing the Proposition G transfer of City property to a private developer in what is likely the worst public-private partnership the Newsom administration has dreamed up. According to disclosure statements on the San Francisco Ethics Commission’s campaign finance database Web site, Lennar Homes of California, as an independent expenditure committee, has financed $3.3 million through May 22 in an effort to pass Proposition G ($2.26 million in independent expenditures) and to defeat Proposition F ($997 thousand between independent expenditures and non-monetary contributions), including a $52,500 monetary contribution to the San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee for unspecified purposes.
On May 20, Lennar filed a late Independent Expenditure Committee report suddenly announcing another $186,150 in spending for Proposition G, and a second late contribution of $89,534 on behalf of the “Committee for Real Solutions for Housing – A Committee Opposed to Proposition F,” and on May 22 filed additional disclosure statements bringing Lennar’s total spending to at least $3.3 million. It is unknown how much more Lennar will spend between May 23 and June 3, but Lennar’s total campaign financing promoting Proposition G and opposing Proposition F have already been the largest financing in San Francisco history to pass a ballot initiative, surpassing PG&E’s $2.7 million spending on Prop D in 2002.
Lennar’s Campaign Financing Binge and an Incestuous Web
Of the $3.3 million Lennar has financed through May 22, its binge financing is revealing.
Carmen Policy, former president of the San Francisco 49er’s, has been paid $40,915 in an effort to lure the 49er’s back to San Francisco. Fat chance.
Johnnie L. Carter, Jr., who voters just threw off of the Community College Board, has received $26,896 to enlist support among black San Francisco voters. He’s not the only African American working against the best interests of residents of the Bayview, since five black ministers have been reported to have cut development deals with Lennar to foist unwanted development on Bayview community residents, and since James Bryant’s A. Philip Randolph Institute has received funding from Lennar, too (more below).
“Social justice” lawyer Roberta Achtenberg, a former San Francisco supervisor albeit only for two years, and a former Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, Department of Housing and Urban Development under former President Bill Clinton, has been paid $20,569 by Lennar. She was appointed in 2008 to the board of directors of the Bank of San Francisco, and is chairwoman of the California State University Board of Trustees. These days, Ms. Achtenberg is reported to be the go-to-gal for contractors since resigning from San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors in 1993. Not uncoincidentally, her unsuccessful bid for San Francisco mayor in 1995 was run by then newbie Eric Jaye, now Gavin Newsom’s chief political strategist.
But these three (Policy, Carter, and Achtenberg) are small fry among recipients of Lennar’s largesse.
Four law firms have raked in $343,138 for legal services. That buys a lot of legal opinions. It is unclear how the $275,000 in new spending Lennar reported on May 20 was spent, and whether additional legal services were obtained.
At least $1.1 million has been spent by Lennar on TV ads, e-mail and voice messaging, and print campaign materials, excluding another $173,094 spent by subcontractors on the TV and print media ad campaign.
Add to that $767,607 spent through May 22 on so-called “consulting services.” Feeding at the trough of Lennar’s spending is the “dream team” of consultants assembled by Newsom, Feinstein, and Pelosi to ensure passage of Proposition G and to defeat Proposition F, a who’s-who cast of San Francisco’s political consultants, all of whom are Newsom cronies, who have been paid handsomely for Proposition G consulting gigs.
Jim Stearns, of Stearns Consulting, has received $91,374 from Lennar, and that’s not counting another $130,799 paid to Stearns’ firm for database creation, Web site development, and printing and campaign materials. But speaking of Newsom’s chief political strategist, Jaye’s political consulting firm Storefront Political Media has been paid $152,767 by Lennar. Jaye has hired Jennifer Petrucione, Newsom’s former Chief Deputy Director of Communications (also called Newsom’s deputy press secretary), to work at Storefront Political Media. Storefront Political Media received an additional $492,949 for various subcontractors related to the $1.1 million in television ads, e-mail and voice messaging, and campaign materials.
Doctor of all spin doctors, Sam Singer, of Singer Associates, has been paid $108,597 by Lennar’s independent expenditure committee. Singer has elsewhere been reported to be a Lennar spokesperson.
Another political consulting firm — Terris, Barnes & Walters — has been paid $176,733 by Lennar to provide even more consulting services. Terris, Barnes & Walters received an additional $440,629 for various subcontractors related to the $1.1 million in television ads, e-mail and voice messaging, and campaign materials.
Finally, Lennar has paid Mayor Newsom’s former Deputy Chief of Staff, Alex Tourk, $83,366 in consulting fees to Tourk’s new start-up company, Ground Floor Public Affairs. Tourk had been Newsom’s former campaign manager before the scandal erupted about Newsom’s affair with Tourk’s wife. Singer also reportedly handled public relations for Ruby Ripey-Tourk. In addition, Tourk’s Ground Floor Public Affairs group has been paid another $210,156 by Lennar for various Ground Floor Public Affairs subcontractors.
And of interest, in addition to $52,500 in monetary contribution to the San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee for unspecified purposes, Lennar has contributed either directly to, or through subcontractors, $21,250 for various slate mailer cards to a variety of political groups in San Francisco, including the Asian Pacific Democratic Club, the San Francisco Republican Party, the San Francisco Women’s Political Committee, the Alice B. Toklas Democratic Club, the Chinese American Voters Education Commission, and the Plan C Voter Guide.
As Sarah Phelan noted in “The corporation that ate San Francisco” (San Francisco Bay Guardian, March 14, 2007), the “incestuous web of political connections” involved in the project range from Redevelopment Agency commissioners appointed by Newson and his predecessor Willie Brown, to the nephews of Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi: Newsom, Pelosi’s nephew by marriage, and Pelosi’s other nephew, Laurence Pelosi, who used to be vice president of acquisitions for Lennar and now works for Morgan Stanley Real Estate, which holds Lennar stock. Laurence Pelosi also used to be Newsom’s campaign treasurer.
Phelan noted both Newsom and Laurence Pelosi are connected to lobbyist Darius Anderson, who hosted a fundraiser to pay off Newsom’s campaign debts. Phelan reported in April 2007 that former mayor Willie Brown’s former head of economic development was then Lennar Urban’s president Kofi Bonner, who while working “for the Redevelopment Agency recommended hiring KPMG Peat Marwick to choose between Catellus, Lennar, and Forest City for the Hunters Point project.” In the end, Redevelopment Commissioners ignored a consultant’s advice, voting to award the redevelopment project to Lennar.
But as late as May 21, 2008, Bonner appears to have possibly been promoted to being a Lennar Regional Vice President.
Labor’s Divided Endorsements
Predictably, labor unions are a house divided in regards to Propositions F and G. Service Employees International Union, which represents approximately 13,000 San Francisco city employees, many of whom are African American, mailed its voter guide to union members in mid-May without a recommendation on either Prop. F or Prop. G, saying only that both initiatives were “still under consideration.” It reached the no recommendation despite the fact that James Bryant, president of the A. Philip Randolph Institute (APRI), is SEIU Local 1021’s appointed political education committee chairperson, and despite the fact APRI has been paid $58,203 by Lennar as a subcontractor to Ground Floor Public Affairs. Bryant requested funding to help defeat Prop. G from both Local 1021’s political education fund and its Social and Economic Justice fund. A complaint regarding Bryant’s potential conflict of interest was filed within the Local, since Bryant hadn’t revealed Lennar had already funded APRI nearly $60,000.
For its part, the San Francisco Labor Council announced on May 16 that it struck a deal with Lennar Urban to guarantee that 3,500 affordable homes will be constructed in the Hunters Point Shipyard – Candlestick Point areas, and throughout District 10. In addition Lennar agreed to commit $27.3 million for “hundreds” more affordable homes throughout District 10; it is not yet known whether the additional hundreds of units will be placed off-site from the Bayview redevelopment area, away from the gentrified upscale market-rate condo’s planned for Parcel A.
Remarkably, on Tuesday May 20, the Labor Council’s Executive Director, Tim Paulson said the new deal’s exact terms are still “being lawyered up,” just 14 days before the June 3 election. And the so-called “shopping list” reported in the City Star newspaper on May 21 contained no provision for the clean up and toxic remediation of the Superfund site in the Bayview.
Even more remarkably, the City Star reported May 21 that “in an emotional address,” Newsom claimed the new agreement with the Labor Council will make Lennar “legally bound to build what’s right,” despite the fact that Proposition G is not a legally-binding agreement, it’s a non-binding redevelopment measure, which Newsom must surely know unless he is seriously misinformed. The City Star also reported on May 21 Newsom claimed, with Lennar’s Regional V.P. Bonner in attendance, that the Bayview project is not about Lennar as the developer, who “could be replaced by another firm [even] if [Proposition G] is passed.”
Huh? Is Newsom again speaking out of both sides of his mouth, and doesn’t that hurt? Voters have been led to believe all along that Lennar will be the developer, and now two weeks before the election Newsom is suddenly telling voters that Lennar could, and may, be replaced? I have to wonder if Newsom consulted Pelosi’s other nephew, Laurence Pelosi, before making such an about-face statement just two weeks prior to the election.
But voters are not voting on a separate last-minute deal between the Labor Council and Lennar, which deal appears to still be being written. Voters are voting on the legal text of Proposition G (albeit however vague its actual language), and there is no language in Proposition G specifying a precise percentage that will be dedicated to affordable homes. Lennar may eventually renege on its “deal” with the Labor Council, just as Lennar reneged on previous plans to build any rental units on Parcel A.
Lennar’s Expected Lucrative Sales
Although the development plan for Parcel A had initially called for including in the mix low-income rental units, Lennar single-handedly changed the composition of the first 1,600 units to be built. The first 1,600 to be sold will all be at market-rates, with no rental units for low-income residents.
At market rates, these 1,600 units are expected to each sell for the San Francisco median price of $836,000, in 2008 dollars. Lennar stands to sell $1.38 billion in homes and condos on Parcel A, with a commitment to build zero affordable housing or rental units among the first 1,600 units built.
The legal text of Proposition G waffles by vaguely claiming that somewhere “between about 8,500 and 10,000 residential housing units” will be built, but Prop. G doesn’t anywhere mention what percentage of the units will be “affordable.”
An analysis prepared by the brokerage firm CB Richard Ellis (CBRE) for Mayor Newsom claims that 25 percent of the planned 9,500 units will be affordable. Presumably the remaining 7,100 units will be sold at market rate. At the median price of $836,000 per home, Lennar stands to sell the 7,100 units for $5.94 billion.
But Newsom’s office has not revealed that CBRE has been a partner financing many of Lennar Corporation’s deals around the country. Does Newsom have an ethical conflict of interest accepting reports from CBRE (rather than Newsom soliciting reports from independent observers), at the same time CBRE may potentially end up backing Lennar’s financing in the Bayview?
Elsewhere it has been reported that Lennar has entered into a deal with Scala Real Estate to potentially build 17,000 units of housing on the Bayview-Hunters Pot sites, not the nebulous 8,500 to 10,000 housing units the legal text of Proposition G claims will be built. If 17,000 units will be crammed into the Bayview in a Lennar/Scala financing deal, and assuming 25 percent will be “affordable,” 12,750 units could conceivably be sold at market rates. At the current median sales price, Lennar and its partner Scala, potentially stand to earn $10.659 billion in market-rate sales of 12,750 units. And voters are supposed to seriously believe Newsom’s office has not been apprised by CBRE of the lucrative sales in the billions?
And why the conflicting information about the total number of planned units? The legal text of Proposition G in the voter guide says “about” 8,500 to 10,000 units. CBRE claims 9,500 units, while the Lennar/Scala financing deal stipulates 17,000. What number of units are voters actually voting on?
Will Lennar Ever Clean Up the Shipyard?
Proposition G’s tag line is “Clean Up the Shipyard.” But language in the legal text of Proposition D regarding clean up and remediation of the toxic Superfund site is limited to a single phrase that states only in the “Policies” section the project’s clean up should be “fiscally prudent,” and “to the extent feasible, use state and federal funds to pay for environmental remediation on the Project site.” “Fiscally prudent” and “to the extent feasible” are buzz words; Proposition G contains no guarantees that full remediation of the toxic Superfund site, required by Proposition P in 2000, will ever occur to clean up the Shipyard to residential standards.
In November 2000, fully 86.4% of voters who cast ballots for Proposition P on the 2000 ballot passed the measure, which was a statement of policy that San Franciscans expect the federal government and the Navy to clean up the extensive pollution at the Hunters Point Shipyard. Proposition P was put on the ballot by Supervisor Tom Ammiano and then-supervisor Mark Leno, and the 2000 voter guide featured a paid argument supporting Proposition P by then candidate-for-supervisor Sophie Maxwell, who is now District 10’s Supervisor.
The shipyard remains on the National Priorities List, a list of the most polluted facilities in the nation, and is the only federal Superfund site in the City. Eight years later, Proposition P remains on the books, requiring that the shipyard be cleaned to a level that would enable unrestricted use of the property, the highest standard for cleanup established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. But the will of the voters is now being ignored by the City in its rush to simply hand 750 acres over to Lennar Corporation without first completing cleanup of the shipyard to unrestricted use level, and in the City’s rush to get the Navy to turn the remaining five parcels in the Bayview over to the City.
To date, the Navy has only transferred to the City one of the six parcels in the Bayview, Parcel A consisting of only 63 acres. Only Parcel A has been cleaned up. When the San Francisco 49er’s announced their intention to move the franchise to Santa Clara County, Senator Dianne Feinstein was suddenly able to find a mere $82 million in federal funds to hand to an embarrassed Newsom to clean up 27 acres in the Bayview for Lennar’s proposed replacement site for a new stadium, but the Navy has estimated it will take at least $500 million to clean up the entire Superfund site. Surely Pelosi, Feinstein, and Newsom haven’t forgotten Proposition P passed by 86% of the electorate. Why haven’t Feinstein or Pelosi been able to find the remaining $412 million in federal funds needed to comply with Proposition P to clean up the remaining 687 acres? And why are Pelosi, Feinstein, and Newsom rushing to take over the shipyard before the federal government finishes the full cleanup work?
Investigative reporter Sara Phelan quoted current mayoral spokesperson Nathan Ballard in “Unanswered Questions” (San Francisco Bay Guardian, April 4, 2007): “Insisting that Lennar will not be asked to take over the cleanup, Ballard claimed that ‘if the city pursues an ‘early transfer’ with the Navy, a specialized environmental remediation firm, not Lennar, would finish certain elements of the cleanup’.” The legal text of Prop. G mentions nothing about Ballard’s claim that a special environmental remediation firm will be utilized. It is clear Proposition G will let Lennar off of the hook for cleaning up the shipyard, so Prop. G’s tag line about “cleaning up the shipyard” is offensive spin control at its worst.
Without Thorough Remediation, Worsening Bayview Health Outcomes
As Dr. Ahimsa Porter Sumchai, a medical doctor and 2007 candidate for San Francisco mayor, noted in a presentation to UCSF medical students in February 2008 titled “Black Flight” (regarding the flight of African Americans from San Francisco), a 1995 study conducted 13 years ago documented that the heavily polluted Bayview Hunters Point community had hospitalizations for chronic illnesses four times higher than the state average. This is due, in part, to the fact that although the Bayview Hunters Point district has less than four percent of the City’s residents, it has one third of the City’s hazardous waste sites, containing four times as many toxins as other City neighborhoods. The 1995 study documented that hospitalization rates for asthma, congestive heart failure, hypertension, diabetes, and emphysema were 138 cases per 10,000 in the Bayview, compared to the statewide average of 38 cases per 10,000, even after earlier San Francisco Department of Public Health studies had identified excessive rates of breast cancer, leukemia’s, childhood cancers, and cardiorespiratory diseases in the Bayview Hunters point areas. The incidence of infant mortality and birth defects in the Bayview also exceed citywide averages.
Mayor Newsom’s mother, who moved her children to Marin County following her divorce, is reported to have died from breast cancer in 2002. Marin County is thought to have a high incidence of breast cancer, just as women under age 50 in the Bayview Hunters Point area are reported to have twice the rate of breast cancer as women in the rest of San Francisco. Isn’t this a compelling reason that Newsom should ensure complete toxic remediation of the Shipyard prior to turning over 750 acres of still-not-cleaned-up land over to Lennar, and an even stronger reason voters should reject Prop. G?
Community Activists Try to Halt Black Flight
The glut of deceptive Yes on G mailers hitting San Francisco mailboxes falsely assert that Supervisor Chris Daly single-handedly put Proposition F on the ballot. But that spin control ignores the fact that it was community activists in the Bayview Hunters point who initiated placing Prop. F on the ballot by collecting the first 6,000 of the 11,000 signatures collected. Daly merely partnered with Bayview community activists, in much the same way that Newsom “partnered with” Lennar.
As Sarah Phelan also noted in “The corporation that ate San Francisco,”: “Part of the problem is systemic: the Redevelopment Agency hands over these giant projects to master, for-profit developers who can then change the plans based on financial considerations, not community needs.” If Proposition G passes, it will exacerbate displacement of African Americans from San Francisco, since African Americans are three times more likely to leave San Francisco than any other ethnic group.
When San Francisco voters head to the polls on June 3 to consider Propositions G and F, at stake will be Lennar Corporation’s and the City of San Francisco’s sell of out African American residents in the Bayview Hunters Point to the tune of billions of dollars, following the costliest initiative measure campaign in San Francisco’s history.
Handing Tax Increment Funds to the Redevelopment Agency
Dr. Sumchai also notes in “Black Flight” that tax increment financing (which Proposition G is premised on), will directly impact San Francisco’s municipal budget by diverting City revenues to the Redevelopment Agency. The part of tax increments that would otherwise go into the City’s General Fund (averaging 12 percent), will be lost and can only be used by the Redevelopment Agency. Therefore, money to build malls and hotels will be permitted, but no new financing for basic City services, such as police, firefighters, nurses, or librarians, will be generated. Sumchai rightfully notes that cities cannot use redevelopment money to pay for salaries, public safety or maintenance, by far the largest share of municipal budgets.
Jeopardizing a State Park … for a Promise of “Green Science and Technology”
Sarah Phelan also notes in “Promises and Reality,” (San Francisco Bay Guardian, April 23, 2008) that there are serious environmental concerns regarding vague promises in Proposition G that new parks will be built on other parcels in the Bayview in a land-swap for a state park that will be rebuilt to contain luxury condos. A major restoration effort to preserve the Yosemite Slough would be destroyed by trading parcels for replacement parks that don’t provide adequate habitat, particularly if Lennar’s plan to build a bridge over the Yosemite Slough is allowed to proceed.
There’s a reason that the Sierra Club and the San Francisco League of Conservation Voters took out paid arguments in the voter guide against Proposition G: Proposition G is a deceptively bad deal for the City’s Southeast parks and the environment, since it will place a nine-lane, $60 million bridge over the Slough that will endanger a bird nesting restoration area that has taken years to plan, and $11 million to create.
Proposition G promises to build two million square feet of “green” science, technology, biotechnology, or digital media offices for research and development, and industrial uses. Where does Newsom and Lennar plan to cram two million square feet of such offices, along with up to 17,000 housing units, into the Bayview without affecting valuable parks and open space?
The operating clause in Proposition G may be the single vague phrase contained on page 163 of the voter guide, that states “or a combination of these uses” will be built, without providing precise language voters can trust.
“G” is for Gentrification and False Promises
Who knows what San Franciscans will eventually get — since the Bayview Hunters Point redevelopment plan developed over the last decade has been suddenly usurped by the vaguely-defined Proposition G that was only first discussed in public late in 2007, and then rushed to the ballot?
A lesson should be learned from the 1999 Proposition A to rebuild Laguna Honda Hospital. Voters were led to believe 1,200 skilled nursing beds would be built, but the vague language of the Prop. A bond measure guaranteed no such thing.
Proposition G stands for gentrification and giveaway of the Bayview: Gives away 750 acres free of charge, gives away the health of Bayview residents, gives away a requirement to clean up the shipyard, gives away a state park, and gives away tax increment financing to the Redevelopment Agency. Voters should reject the vaguely-worded, open-ended, non-binding and giveaway language of Proposition G.
While Lennar’s recent mailers turn reality inside out claiming Proposition F contains false promises, it may be Proposition G itself that is riddled with false promises. Don’t be fooled: Six City supervisors, including Mirkarimi, Ammiano, McGoldrick, Sandoval, and Peskin, along with Supervisor Daly, have not endorsed Proposition G. It has only been supervisors Maxwell, Alioto-Pier, Chu, and Elsbernd, along with Bevan Dufty who recently admitted to casting “boneheaded” votes, who have gone along as Newsom loyalists endorsing Proposition G, hoping to ride the mayor’s coat tails to higher elected office.
As prominent African American activist Espanola Jackson has noted: “I know a scam when I see one. Don’t buy their lies. Vote No on G!”
Monday, May 26, 2008
PROPOSITION F: A FIGHT FOR THE HEART AND SOUL OF SAN FRANCISCO
There is a fight happening for the heart and soul of San Francisco: Bayview Hunters Point. Bayview Hunters Point, during World War II, was the heart and soul of San Francisco, as the district was the center of the wartime industry, drawing thousands of African Americans from the south to work on the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard.
Bayview Hunters Point was once the home of the Black Panther Party free breakfast programs. It was the site where, 40 years ago, the community rose up in resistance to police brutality against a young man named Matthew Johnson who was shot in the back by the San Francisco Police Department. Bayview Hunters Point was second only to the Harlem of the West, the Fillmore District, in terms of the center for African American life.
Over the last 15 years, however, the African American population in San Francisco has dropped by 45%. That means nearly 1 in every 2 Black folks in this City have left. The reasons vary, but the most common reasons are 1) the lack of affordable, accessible, safe housing in San Francisco and 2) the feeling that San Francisco couldn’t care less whether Black folks stay or go.
Try and fill Candlestick Stadium (otherwise known as Monster Park), which holds 70,207 people, or AT&T Park, which holds 41,503 people, with African Americans in San Francisco, and you would not be able to do it. That’s the seriousness of the crisis of Black displacement, or should we say, Black disappearance, from the City and County of San Francisco. We live in a City that, while once a hub for African American life and culture, now has more dogs than children, and more dogs than Black people. Imagine that.
It’s almost as if Bayview Hunters Point has been forgotten. When tourists come to our City, they’re given maps that don’t even say that Bayview Hunters Point exists, much less is a place to visit. The only exception is when the police logs show another tragedy in the neighborhood, or when greedy developers, like Lennar, start eyeing this land to build multi-million dollar condos and stadiums where we can’t afford to even attend the games. Then, all of a sudden, Bayview Hunters Point is back on the map.
Lennar is an out of state, Miami based developer worth more than $16 billion. This is a developer that has a horrible track record throughout the country, for skirting environmental regulations and building poor-quality homes that sell for top price. In Florida, Lennar built brand new condominiums on top of an old World War II bombing range that still contained undetonated bombs underneath, and failed to disclose such a fact to the people who bought their homes. In South Carolina, environmental advocate Erin Brockovich (known for her groundbreaking work with low-income residents in Hinkley, California, who were poisoned by PG&E) is investigating Lennar for building homes on contaminated land and failing to disclose it to new homeowners. Right here in San Francisco, Lennar caused a stir in the South of Market area amongst those who’d recently bought million dollar condos, only to find that the work was half-done, if done at all. And here, in Bayview Hunters Point, Lennar, with intent, failed to install air monitors and follow environmental regulations to protect residents and elementary school children from asbestos laden dust.
Huttoparke, Texas residents recently posted a You Tube video linked to a “Yes on Proposition F” commercial, detailing their troubles with Lennar (to view this video for yourself, go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPvesq4TgAM&feature=related). There are hundreds and hundreds of stories, just like this one, that detail the ways in which this company has lied to community residents, lied to new homeowners, lied to the Environmental Protection Agency, and used their deep pockets to get them out of hot water. And, if they have their way, Proposition G will turn over this community to the lowest bidder—them.
Lennar has used their multi-million dollar profits to buy off community groups, pay community residents as “consultants,” and sell a set of wolf tickets that would have shamed even the wolf himself. Proposition G would allow them to gain control over nearly 800 acres of waterfront land, and use public monies to build a stadium for a team that has already declared that they are leaving San Francisco. The worst part of Proposition G is that it has absolutely, positively, no legally binding language. Riddled with words like “should,” “anticipates,” “encourages,” and so on, Proposition G is composed of a lot of hot air with little, if any, REAL returns for San Francisco, and least of all, for Bayview Hunters Point (see the proposition for yourself: http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/elections/candidates/Jun2008_LT_Mixed-UseDevelopment.pdf).
Speaking of wolf tickets, ask Proposition G supporters if they have even read the proposition, and most will tell you that they haven’t, but they believe what Lennar says. The question is: why? When and where has Lennar proven itself to be a trustworthy company? Was it when they intentionally poisoned low-income Bayview residents and elementary school children for more than 384 days? Or was it when they promised a $30 million dollar legacy fund, which has now been whittled down to merely half of its original amount? Or was it when Lennar promised to build 1,200 rental units on Parcel A, only to break that promise and instead move forward on building a gated community right in the middle of the hood? Needless to say, Lennar cannot be trusted, and we cannot afford to leave our future in the hands of a company that’s in the business of telling lies.
Proposition F, however, is a community backed, grassroots proposition that has beat the odds to even make it this far. Qualified by gathering 11, 818 signatures in less than 10 days, Proposition F says NO to developer’s greed, and YES to real benefits for Bayview residents. Proposition F is not in the business of making deals—instead, Proposition F holds developers accountable to the future of our city, by saying that we deserve better. We deserve more than 75% of the housing built in our neighborhood to be sold at market rate, which currently hovers around $700,000. We deserve more than a sad attempt to, as one Proposition G supporter said, “bring the Marina into the Bayview.” We deserve more than the same old politics, the same old backroom deals, and the same old stuff with the same sad results.
Proposition F is more than a fair deal. In exchange for nearly 800 acres of waterfront property, more than $300 million in community dollars, $82 million in federal clean up monies, all we’re asking is that 50% of the 10,000 new housing units built be made affordable to those who live in the community right now. No gimmicks. No fine print. Clear and simple. We’re also demanding that if Alice Griffith is part of the development plan, that it be rebuilt without moving out current residents. No “shoulds,” no “anticipates,” no “encourages,” but instead, “Lennar must,” “Lennar will,” and “Lennar is required to.” Proposition F is a proposition that you can trust, because it uses City law and legally binding language to hold developers accountable to our futures.
Not only is Proposition F a fair deal, but also it’s the only deal that wasn’t brokered in a backroom without community input, participation, or support. 11, 818 San Franciscans determined that another Bayview is possible, but NECESSARY to ensure the survival of African Americans and working class families in our city. Proposition F was developed out of more than a year of Town Hall meetings, averaging 100 people in attendance every time. Proposition F was developed out of 4 years of knocking doors and talking with low-income homeowners and public housing residents about what it would take to make Bayview Hunters Point even better than it is. Proposition F did not have to pay people to voice their support or appear on mailers. Proposition F did not have to include a “severability” clause in our initiative. That’s because Proposition F stands for families, a fair deal, and the future.
On June 3, voters in our City have a critical choice to make. Will we sell the heart and soul of San Francisco to the lowest bidder for little return? Or will we stand up and demand that developers who come to our City play by the rules and protect the future of all of San Francisco?
A vote for Proposition F means that you believe that Lennar could do better by our children, and by our communities. Even if you decide to vote for Proposition G, you MUST vote yes on Proposition F to make sure that the future is secured for Bayview Hunters Point.
Alicia Schwartz
People Organized to Win Employment Rights (POWER)
For more information on Proposition F, or to get involved, please visit our website at www.PropositionF.com, or visit our blog at http://yesonF.blogspot.com.
Bayview Hunters Point was once the home of the Black Panther Party free breakfast programs. It was the site where, 40 years ago, the community rose up in resistance to police brutality against a young man named Matthew Johnson who was shot in the back by the San Francisco Police Department. Bayview Hunters Point was second only to the Harlem of the West, the Fillmore District, in terms of the center for African American life.
Over the last 15 years, however, the African American population in San Francisco has dropped by 45%. That means nearly 1 in every 2 Black folks in this City have left. The reasons vary, but the most common reasons are 1) the lack of affordable, accessible, safe housing in San Francisco and 2) the feeling that San Francisco couldn’t care less whether Black folks stay or go.
Try and fill Candlestick Stadium (otherwise known as Monster Park), which holds 70,207 people, or AT&T Park, which holds 41,503 people, with African Americans in San Francisco, and you would not be able to do it. That’s the seriousness of the crisis of Black displacement, or should we say, Black disappearance, from the City and County of San Francisco. We live in a City that, while once a hub for African American life and culture, now has more dogs than children, and more dogs than Black people. Imagine that.
It’s almost as if Bayview Hunters Point has been forgotten. When tourists come to our City, they’re given maps that don’t even say that Bayview Hunters Point exists, much less is a place to visit. The only exception is when the police logs show another tragedy in the neighborhood, or when greedy developers, like Lennar, start eyeing this land to build multi-million dollar condos and stadiums where we can’t afford to even attend the games. Then, all of a sudden, Bayview Hunters Point is back on the map.
Lennar is an out of state, Miami based developer worth more than $16 billion. This is a developer that has a horrible track record throughout the country, for skirting environmental regulations and building poor-quality homes that sell for top price. In Florida, Lennar built brand new condominiums on top of an old World War II bombing range that still contained undetonated bombs underneath, and failed to disclose such a fact to the people who bought their homes. In South Carolina, environmental advocate Erin Brockovich (known for her groundbreaking work with low-income residents in Hinkley, California, who were poisoned by PG&E) is investigating Lennar for building homes on contaminated land and failing to disclose it to new homeowners. Right here in San Francisco, Lennar caused a stir in the South of Market area amongst those who’d recently bought million dollar condos, only to find that the work was half-done, if done at all. And here, in Bayview Hunters Point, Lennar, with intent, failed to install air monitors and follow environmental regulations to protect residents and elementary school children from asbestos laden dust.
Huttoparke, Texas residents recently posted a You Tube video linked to a “Yes on Proposition F” commercial, detailing their troubles with Lennar (to view this video for yourself, go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPvesq4TgAM&feature=related). There are hundreds and hundreds of stories, just like this one, that detail the ways in which this company has lied to community residents, lied to new homeowners, lied to the Environmental Protection Agency, and used their deep pockets to get them out of hot water. And, if they have their way, Proposition G will turn over this community to the lowest bidder—them.
Lennar has used their multi-million dollar profits to buy off community groups, pay community residents as “consultants,” and sell a set of wolf tickets that would have shamed even the wolf himself. Proposition G would allow them to gain control over nearly 800 acres of waterfront land, and use public monies to build a stadium for a team that has already declared that they are leaving San Francisco. The worst part of Proposition G is that it has absolutely, positively, no legally binding language. Riddled with words like “should,” “anticipates,” “encourages,” and so on, Proposition G is composed of a lot of hot air with little, if any, REAL returns for San Francisco, and least of all, for Bayview Hunters Point (see the proposition for yourself: http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/elections/candidates/Jun2008_LT_Mixed-UseDevelopment.pdf).
Speaking of wolf tickets, ask Proposition G supporters if they have even read the proposition, and most will tell you that they haven’t, but they believe what Lennar says. The question is: why? When and where has Lennar proven itself to be a trustworthy company? Was it when they intentionally poisoned low-income Bayview residents and elementary school children for more than 384 days? Or was it when they promised a $30 million dollar legacy fund, which has now been whittled down to merely half of its original amount? Or was it when Lennar promised to build 1,200 rental units on Parcel A, only to break that promise and instead move forward on building a gated community right in the middle of the hood? Needless to say, Lennar cannot be trusted, and we cannot afford to leave our future in the hands of a company that’s in the business of telling lies.
Proposition F, however, is a community backed, grassroots proposition that has beat the odds to even make it this far. Qualified by gathering 11, 818 signatures in less than 10 days, Proposition F says NO to developer’s greed, and YES to real benefits for Bayview residents. Proposition F is not in the business of making deals—instead, Proposition F holds developers accountable to the future of our city, by saying that we deserve better. We deserve more than 75% of the housing built in our neighborhood to be sold at market rate, which currently hovers around $700,000. We deserve more than a sad attempt to, as one Proposition G supporter said, “bring the Marina into the Bayview.” We deserve more than the same old politics, the same old backroom deals, and the same old stuff with the same sad results.
Proposition F is more than a fair deal. In exchange for nearly 800 acres of waterfront property, more than $300 million in community dollars, $82 million in federal clean up monies, all we’re asking is that 50% of the 10,000 new housing units built be made affordable to those who live in the community right now. No gimmicks. No fine print. Clear and simple. We’re also demanding that if Alice Griffith is part of the development plan, that it be rebuilt without moving out current residents. No “shoulds,” no “anticipates,” no “encourages,” but instead, “Lennar must,” “Lennar will,” and “Lennar is required to.” Proposition F is a proposition that you can trust, because it uses City law and legally binding language to hold developers accountable to our futures.
Not only is Proposition F a fair deal, but also it’s the only deal that wasn’t brokered in a backroom without community input, participation, or support. 11, 818 San Franciscans determined that another Bayview is possible, but NECESSARY to ensure the survival of African Americans and working class families in our city. Proposition F was developed out of more than a year of Town Hall meetings, averaging 100 people in attendance every time. Proposition F was developed out of 4 years of knocking doors and talking with low-income homeowners and public housing residents about what it would take to make Bayview Hunters Point even better than it is. Proposition F did not have to pay people to voice their support or appear on mailers. Proposition F did not have to include a “severability” clause in our initiative. That’s because Proposition F stands for families, a fair deal, and the future.
On June 3, voters in our City have a critical choice to make. Will we sell the heart and soul of San Francisco to the lowest bidder for little return? Or will we stand up and demand that developers who come to our City play by the rules and protect the future of all of San Francisco?
A vote for Proposition F means that you believe that Lennar could do better by our children, and by our communities. Even if you decide to vote for Proposition G, you MUST vote yes on Proposition F to make sure that the future is secured for Bayview Hunters Point.
Alicia Schwartz
People Organized to Win Employment Rights (POWER)
For more information on Proposition F, or to get involved, please visit our website at www.PropositionF.com, or visit our blog at http://yesonF.blogspot.com.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Yes on F Supporter's Rally
PRESS ADVISORY: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
WHAT: Yes on Proposition F Supporter’s Rally
WHEN: Tuesday, May 27, 2008, 3pm
WHERE: corner of Third Street and Palou Street
WHY: With less than 10 days left until the June 3rd election, Proposition F is positioned to make San Francisco history by requiring that 50% of 10,000 new units to be built on Candlestick Point be made affordable to San Franciscans at or below 80% of area median income. Proposition F would make development accountable to the people who live in the community, and begins to address San Francisco’s affordable housing crisis.
WHO: POWER (People Organized to Win Employment Rights), local community residents, SFSU students, performances by Youth in Power, Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth, Colored Ink, JT the Bigga Figga, and several other speakers and performances
VISUALS: Solidarity March in support of Proposition F through Bayview, Proposition F materials, signs, etc.
CONTACT: Alicia Schwartz, POWER (415) 864-8372 ext. 305, cell phone (510) 759-3843
WHAT: Yes on Proposition F Supporter’s Rally
WHEN: Tuesday, May 27, 2008, 3pm
WHERE: corner of Third Street and Palou Street
WHY: With less than 10 days left until the June 3rd election, Proposition F is positioned to make San Francisco history by requiring that 50% of 10,000 new units to be built on Candlestick Point be made affordable to San Franciscans at or below 80% of area median income. Proposition F would make development accountable to the people who live in the community, and begins to address San Francisco’s affordable housing crisis.
WHO: POWER (People Organized to Win Employment Rights), local community residents, SFSU students, performances by Youth in Power, Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth, Colored Ink, JT the Bigga Figga, and several other speakers and performances
VISUALS: Solidarity March in support of Proposition F through Bayview, Proposition F materials, signs, etc.
CONTACT: Alicia Schwartz, POWER (415) 864-8372 ext. 305, cell phone (510) 759-3843
Friday, May 23, 2008
Great story on Proposition F on Wiretap Magazine!
Check out Jamilah King's FABULOUS story on BVHP and the fight for affordable housing.
She aptly points out that SF has more dogs than children...could San Francisco's housing policies have something to do with that?
Here's an excerpt:
She aptly points out that SF has more dogs than children...could San Francisco's housing policies have something to do with that?
Here's an excerpt:
In a city that boasts more dogs than children, citizens fight for affordable housing amid competing redevelopment ballot measures.There are more dogs in the city of San Francisco than there are children.
An April 2006 National Geographic article featured the city's posh amenities for canines of all breeds. "San Francisco is home to 745,000 people and an estimated 110,000 dogs," writes the author, "packed into an insular fiefdom just seven miles long and seven wide."
Perhaps not coincidently, San Francisco also has the fewest number of children per capita of any major U.S. city. Children under the age 18 currently make up a mere 15 percent of the city's population.
But most longtime S.F. residents didn't need a national story to shed light on its shrinking youth population and the parallel rising costs of living that continue to push families out of the city. For low and moderate-income folks, the news was yet another example of how hostile the city has become to working class families of color. It's a cruel irony for a metropolis that's built a strong reputation as a beacon of equality. While many working class children of color face school closures and social program budget cuts, the city's well-to-do canines dominate public recreation facilities, have access to emergency pet care and a homeless pet shelter that boasts televisions in each "private condo."
Continue reading at http://www.wiretapmag.org/race/43555/
Yes on F! It's Good Public Policy
It's easy to find a critic of the Redevelopment strategies of the 1950's and 60's. Derided as "urban removal", Redevelopment Agencies around the US, including San Francisco, adopted strategies to declare urban areas as blighted, then proceeded to raze them in order to develop large scale commercial and market rate housing. This strategy has had a disproportionately damaging impact on communities of color especially in the Western Addition and Yerba Buena Center areas.
The "No on F" campaign represents a return to these "bad ol' days" but is much less direct because there is no direct, immediate displacement. This portion of Hunters Point is currently a wasteland of environmental devastation, but Prop G envisions a fantasy land of parks and shiny new condos. Proposition F, also on this June 3 ballot, would require that residential development at the Shipyard have 50% of the units be affordable to households at or below 80% of the Area Median Income.
Measure F appropriately raises the question of "for whom is development in San Francisco?". If we look at the fact that San Francisco supposedly learned from its poor Redevelopment policies and started committing 50% of the tax increment revenue raised from Project Areas to support affordable housing development Citywide, then we have some hope. If we look at the fact that the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution sponsored by Supervisor Maxwell in 2007 that it be the City's policy for development of the Eastern Neighborhoods (currently undergoing rezoning) that 64% of all new housing be affordable, then we have even more cause for hope.
So, who lives in the Bayview now? 2007 per capita income is $18,080 as compared to $34,946 for San Francisco as a whole. 21% of Bayview residents live below the poverty line while 11% of San Francisco lives in poverty. The average household size is 3.5 while the average San Francisco household is 2.3. And, in the Bayview, 21% of households are paying more than 50% of their income toward housing, and if per capita income is so low, then this becomes a desperate situation. Based on these statistics, from the Department of Public Health's Healthy Development Measurement Tool, one might conclude that the Bayview needs affordable family housing.
Instead, Lennar Corporation's response to this situation is to develop 10,000 units of housing, only 15% of which would be affordable to households at 60% of the Area Median Income ($50,900 for a 3-person household) and another 7.7% of the housing affordable to households between 80% and 120% of Area Median Income. According to the 2000 Census (SF Prospector), the entire Bayview District currently has 10,035 units and 35,760 people, and since most of this housing stock was build before 1979, if it's rental, it's subject to rent control which any new housing is not. Lennar's development would, therefore, double the population of the Bayview, while nearly all that housing would not even be affordable to those who live currently in the Bayview, creating an economic and physical divide between the "old Bayview" and the new Hunters Point development not unlike the Geary Blvd "freeway" that 1950's Redevelopment used to divide Pacific Heights from the Western Addition!
Proposition F DOES work. Lennar is spending millions of dollars to convince us that Proposition F will kill development in Hunters Point, but really it's just that they don't want to do it. Lennar wants to make a 20% profit on their development, and for them, that's not negotiable, so they're willing to spend millions of dollars on a campaign against F to protect those profits; Second point-this is public land. Yes, there are remediation costs (some of which will be offset by federal grants), and yes there are infrastructure costs. We have similar infrastructure issues at Mission Bay but the Redevelopment Agency was still able to get a tremendous amount of affordable housing, primarily on sites that non-profits are developing. That's right, the burden for developing most if not all of the affordable units would NOT be on Lennar! In addition, Lennar has the ability to profit from the affordable housing developments as an equity investor through the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program. This helps to get the amount of affordable up from 30+% (Mission Bay) to 50% (Proposition F) while Lennar's deal is still feasible.
Instead of thinking creatively and critically, opponents of Proposition F are willing to sell out our City to the highest bidder regardless of the long term social and economic costs. The ripple effect of building so many thousands of $600/ $700,000 condos-the amount of an entire new neighborhood-is staggering. Proposition F not only works but is essential to the long term sustainability of a diverse San Francisco which is a social, economic and environmental imperative.
Joseph Smooke
Executive Director, Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center
The "No on F" campaign represents a return to these "bad ol' days" but is much less direct because there is no direct, immediate displacement. This portion of Hunters Point is currently a wasteland of environmental devastation, but Prop G envisions a fantasy land of parks and shiny new condos. Proposition F, also on this June 3 ballot, would require that residential development at the Shipyard have 50% of the units be affordable to households at or below 80% of the Area Median Income.
Measure F appropriately raises the question of "for whom is development in San Francisco?". If we look at the fact that San Francisco supposedly learned from its poor Redevelopment policies and started committing 50% of the tax increment revenue raised from Project Areas to support affordable housing development Citywide, then we have some hope. If we look at the fact that the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution sponsored by Supervisor Maxwell in 2007 that it be the City's policy for development of the Eastern Neighborhoods (currently undergoing rezoning) that 64% of all new housing be affordable, then we have even more cause for hope.
So, who lives in the Bayview now? 2007 per capita income is $18,080 as compared to $34,946 for San Francisco as a whole. 21% of Bayview residents live below the poverty line while 11% of San Francisco lives in poverty. The average household size is 3.5 while the average San Francisco household is 2.3. And, in the Bayview, 21% of households are paying more than 50% of their income toward housing, and if per capita income is so low, then this becomes a desperate situation. Based on these statistics, from the Department of Public Health's Healthy Development Measurement Tool, one might conclude that the Bayview needs affordable family housing.
Instead, Lennar Corporation's response to this situation is to develop 10,000 units of housing, only 15% of which would be affordable to households at 60% of the Area Median Income ($50,900 for a 3-person household) and another 7.7% of the housing affordable to households between 80% and 120% of Area Median Income. According to the 2000 Census (SF Prospector), the entire Bayview District currently has 10,035 units and 35,760 people, and since most of this housing stock was build before 1979, if it's rental, it's subject to rent control which any new housing is not. Lennar's development would, therefore, double the population of the Bayview, while nearly all that housing would not even be affordable to those who live currently in the Bayview, creating an economic and physical divide between the "old Bayview" and the new Hunters Point development not unlike the Geary Blvd "freeway" that 1950's Redevelopment used to divide Pacific Heights from the Western Addition!
Proposition F DOES work. Lennar is spending millions of dollars to convince us that Proposition F will kill development in Hunters Point, but really it's just that they don't want to do it. Lennar wants to make a 20% profit on their development, and for them, that's not negotiable, so they're willing to spend millions of dollars on a campaign against F to protect those profits; Second point-this is public land. Yes, there are remediation costs (some of which will be offset by federal grants), and yes there are infrastructure costs. We have similar infrastructure issues at Mission Bay but the Redevelopment Agency was still able to get a tremendous amount of affordable housing, primarily on sites that non-profits are developing. That's right, the burden for developing most if not all of the affordable units would NOT be on Lennar! In addition, Lennar has the ability to profit from the affordable housing developments as an equity investor through the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program. This helps to get the amount of affordable up from 30+% (Mission Bay) to 50% (Proposition F) while Lennar's deal is still feasible.
Instead of thinking creatively and critically, opponents of Proposition F are willing to sell out our City to the highest bidder regardless of the long term social and economic costs. The ripple effect of building so many thousands of $600/ $700,000 condos-the amount of an entire new neighborhood-is staggering. Proposition F not only works but is essential to the long term sustainability of a diverse San Francisco which is a social, economic and environmental imperative.
Joseph Smooke
Executive Director, Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Prop F: Families vs. Lennar
Conservative pundit C.W. Nevius tried to scare San Franciscans into thinking that without Lennar, the financially troubled developer behind Proposition G, Bayview residents’ hopes of a renewed community will be lost forever.
Lennar’s Proposition G is non-binding and guarantees ABSOLUTELY nothing to a community long-neglected by developers and our City. Recently, Lennar negotiated yet another non-binding agreement that raises the levels to 35%.
Lennar said unequivocally they couldn’t build more than 25% affordable housing. With enormous community support for Proposition F, they’ve raised it to 35% in another non-binding agreement. Proposition F creates a binding agreement through City law, not developer’s promises, so that Bayview can TRULY benefit. Lennar’s spent $3 million to defeat Prop F—to line their own pockets, not to help families stay in our City.
If political pressure raises the levels of affordable housing for Bayview residents and keeps families in SF, then keep it up! Proposition F will force Lennar to give back to Bayview Hunters Point, from which they stand to make BILLIONS. Without it, the only thing we’re guaranteed is more broken promises and non-binding agreements. Vote Yes on Proposition F!
People Organized to Win Employment Rights (POWER)
Lennar’s Proposition G is non-binding and guarantees ABSOLUTELY nothing to a community long-neglected by developers and our City. Recently, Lennar negotiated yet another non-binding agreement that raises the levels to 35%.
Lennar said unequivocally they couldn’t build more than 25% affordable housing. With enormous community support for Proposition F, they’ve raised it to 35% in another non-binding agreement. Proposition F creates a binding agreement through City law, not developer’s promises, so that Bayview can TRULY benefit. Lennar’s spent $3 million to defeat Prop F—to line their own pockets, not to help families stay in our City.
If political pressure raises the levels of affordable housing for Bayview residents and keeps families in SF, then keep it up! Proposition F will force Lennar to give back to Bayview Hunters Point, from which they stand to make BILLIONS. Without it, the only thing we’re guaranteed is more broken promises and non-binding agreements. Vote Yes on Proposition F!
People Organized to Win Employment Rights (POWER)
Monday, May 19, 2008
YouTube videos for Yes on F
Check out these YouTube videos, where Building Inspection Commissioner Debra Walker, San Francisco School Board member Jane Kim, Housing activist Julian Davis, DCCC member Michael Goldstein, Harvey Milk Democratic Club Chair Raphael Mandelman, San Francisco Sierra Club political chair John Rizzo, and Supervisoral candidate for District 9 Eric Quesada say Yes on F!
http://www.youtube.com/user/fogcityjournal
See District 9 candidate Eric Quezada's testimonial below:
http://www.youtube.com/user/fogcityjournal
See District 9 candidate Eric Quezada's testimonial below:
Saturday, May 10, 2008
June elections hold future of Bayview Hunters Point
An Update from the Bayview Hunters Point Organizing Project
This year, many voters have their attentions turned toward the Obama/Clinton struggle for the Democratic nomination. However, June isn’t just about picking a presidential nominee—the upcoming elections on June 3 carry two propositions critical to the future of San Francisco’s last remaining African American community.
POWER has been organizing and mobilizing people in Bayview Hunters Point to exercise their rights and get out to vote this summer.
Proposition G, otherwise known as the Mixed Use Integrated Development Plan for Candlestick Point and Hunters Point Shipyard, would repeal voter-approved limits on how much money the City can spend to build a new stadium. This initiative aims to replace state park land in order to build nearly 10,000 luxury condominiums, complete with a six-lane freeway that would shuttle new residents from US 101 directly to Candlestick Point.
Proposition G is backed by multi-billion dollar developer Lennar Homes, known for its egregious disregard for the health and safety of community residents in Bayview Hunters Point. The proposition is opposed by environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club.
[http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/Newsom_s_Feud_With_Progressives]
Proposition F, otherwise known as the Affordable Housing requirement for the Mixed Use Integrated Development Plan for Candlestick Point and Hunters Point Shipyard, was developed by residents of Bayview Hunters Point. Proposition F would require the City to set aside 50% of the proposed housing units to be built to be affordable to those who clean our streets, feed our families, and teach our children. It would also require that Alice Griffith public housing be rebuilt with no displacement of current residents.
Proposition F is backed by affordable housing organizations, environmental justice organizations, and social justice organizations in San Francisco.
With development in San Francisco pricing out low income, working and middle class families, the June elections will play an important role in deciding the future of the last remaining African American community in our City.
This year, many voters have their attentions turned toward the Obama/Clinton struggle for the Democratic nomination. However, June isn’t just about picking a presidential nominee—the upcoming elections on June 3 carry two propositions critical to the future of San Francisco’s last remaining African American community.
POWER has been organizing and mobilizing people in Bayview Hunters Point to exercise their rights and get out to vote this summer.
Proposition G, otherwise known as the Mixed Use Integrated Development Plan for Candlestick Point and Hunters Point Shipyard, would repeal voter-approved limits on how much money the City can spend to build a new stadium. This initiative aims to replace state park land in order to build nearly 10,000 luxury condominiums, complete with a six-lane freeway that would shuttle new residents from US 101 directly to Candlestick Point.
Proposition G is backed by multi-billion dollar developer Lennar Homes, known for its egregious disregard for the health and safety of community residents in Bayview Hunters Point. The proposition is opposed by environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club.
[http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/Newsom_s_Feud_With_Progressives]
Proposition F, otherwise known as the Affordable Housing requirement for the Mixed Use Integrated Development Plan for Candlestick Point and Hunters Point Shipyard, was developed by residents of Bayview Hunters Point. Proposition F would require the City to set aside 50% of the proposed housing units to be built to be affordable to those who clean our streets, feed our families, and teach our children. It would also require that Alice Griffith public housing be rebuilt with no displacement of current residents.
Proposition F is backed by affordable housing organizations, environmental justice organizations, and social justice organizations in San Francisco.
With development in San Francisco pricing out low income, working and middle class families, the June elections will play an important role in deciding the future of the last remaining African American community in our City.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Beyond Chron: The Case Against Proposition G
Well, it's really a case for F...From Beyond Chron.
Claim: Voters are told that this measure will result in 8,500 to 10,000 units of new housing, with 25% of the units affordable for moderate to low-income buyers.
Fact: The real wording voters are asked to approve has no written agreement that requires 25 percent of the housing be affordable, or even that requires 8,500 to 10,000 new units of housing be built. It merely states “this Initiative encourages the development of new housing in the Project Site with a mix of rental and for-sale units, both affordable and market-rate.”
Claim: Voters are told that this measure will result in 8,000 permanent new jobs for San Francisco residents.
Fact: The real wording voters are asked to approve actually repeals an earlier written commitment for as much as 50 percent of the jobs to be targeted for San Francisco residents in building out this site. Instead, the language weakly states “this Initiative encourages and anticipates construction and permanent jobs for local economically disadvantaged residents, particularly in the Bayview, and a range of economic development opportunities, including retail and commercial space.”
Claim: Voters are told that this measure will result in new parks and open space.
Fact: The real wording voters are asked to approve will result in the loss of valuable waterfront parks and open space which now could be converted into commercial office space. The promised parks are actually replacements elsewhere of the lost parks and open space.
“This Initiative will permit the City’s park property at Candlestick Point, including land currently used for Monster Park and associated surface parking, to be transferred for development….At the same time, this Initiative requires that any park property transferred by the City be replaced with other public park and open space property of at least the same size in the Project Site….” As news accounts confirm, park of the “parks” to be built include an astro-turf like area of grass embedded into synthetic mesh to double as stadium parking.
Claim: Voters are told that there will be no new taxes required.
Fact: The real wording voters opens the way for General Fund dollars to be used and specifically taps into other city funds. The language states that this project should “minimize any adverse impact on the City’s General Fund relating to the development of the Project Site by relying to the extent feasible on the development to be self-sufficient.” Other provisions state that the Project will tap into the City’s Affordable Housing Fund, use tax allocation bonds, rely on the issuance of community facilities bonds, and tax exempt financing tools.
Claim: Voters are told that the new owner will pay to clean up toxics at this site.
Fact: The real wording voters are asked to approve calls for the cleanup to be paid from state and federal funds. It states “To the extent feasible, use state and federal funds to pay for environmental remediation on the Project Site and help pay for transportation and other infrastructure improvements, and provide ways for other development project outside the Project Site to pay their fair share for new infrastructure improvements.” In short, taxpayers will pay to clean up the site.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
F is what we're For
If you're having a hard time remembering which way to vote on June 3...
F is what we're For!
F is what we're For!
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
SF Chron: M & R says Prop F out-performing Prop G in the polls
Lennar "gearing up for costly" negative ad campaign against Prop FWell, the Chronicle still calls F a "poison pill," still frames it as solely Chris Daly's baby (which is Lennar's spin) and still spends more ink on Lennar spokespeople and Prop G proponents than anyone else. But the Bay Area's largest daily is letting folks know that the city's voters aren't buying it.
Sorry Lennar, but "highlighting" Daly is not going to be enough to derail the Yes on F train. This is about values. The city's voters understand that affordable, workforce housing is issue # 1 for working and middle class families living (or trying to live) in San Francisco.Measuring up: It was all smiles for the cameras a few days back as San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and Sen. Dianne Feinstein held a rally in Bayview-Hunters Point in support of Proposition G, the June ballot measure backing a big development at Candlestick Point that could include a new home for the 49ers.
But with vote-by-mail balloting already getting under way this week, there is a growing fear behind the scenes that the measure is in danger of going down far short of the goal line.
A lack of unified support from the Board of Supervisors, the absence of a deal with organized labor over how much "workforce housing" should be included, and a rival "poison pill" initiative by Supervisor Chris Daly that would require half the homes built to be affordable housing, threaten to upend the mayor's big development before it even gets off the ground.
"You can always count on a certain number of folks to line up and do the wrong thing," said Prop. G and mayoral campaign adviser Eric Jaye. "It's really destructive ... but I don't think anyone is surprised."
Recent polls conducted by developer Lennar Corp.'s "Yes on G" campaign show that while the measure is ahead 50 percent to 30 percent, Daly's "companion" Proposition F is leading by an even wider margin - 58 percent to 31 percent. And even if Prop. G gets more votes, Prop. F needs only simple majority approval to take effect. (emphasis added)
If that happens, "it's all over - we absolutely can't do the project at 50 percent (affordable hous-ing)," said Kofi Bonner, head of Lennar's San Francisco office.
The mayor's City Hall point man on the project, Michael Cohen, calls Daly's initiative "reckless and dishonest" - arguing that it will kill development in the city's southeast corner for years.
Daly, whose initiative has the backing of the weekly Bay Guardian and the local chapter of the Sierra Club, said the Lennar plan - at least in its present form - deserves to die.
"This out-of-state developer should play by the rules and meet the needs of everyday San Franciscans," he said.
Not surprisingly, with millions of dollars already invested in the project, Lennar is gearing up for a costly campaign against Prop. F that highlights Daly - not exactly the town's most popular politician - as its biggest backer.
Meanwhile, Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin is also holding back his endorsement of the mayor's plan, and instead is turning up the heat on Lennar to bend more for the unions.
Put it all together, and what once looked like a sure thing for Lennar is shaping up more as a 50-50 bet at best.
F is simply the only prop that guarantees affordable, workforce housing for families who want to live, work and raise their children in The City.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
