Sunday, April 8, 2018

Facebook, Yelp clash with California homeowners over plan to dramatically boost development

Facebook, Yelp clash with California homeowners over plan to dramatically boost development


By ERIC NEWCOMER
MAR 30, 2018 | 7:30 AM



A residential area in San Jose, Calif. Silicon Valley companies helped create the state's housing crunch by attracting well-paid new workers who can outbid long-time residents. (Marcio Jose Sanchez / AP)



California is bracing for a high-profile fight over the state's housing crisis. And the clash is pitting Silicon Valley technology executives, who want to cut regulations that make it hard to build multi-story apartment buildings, against existing homeowners and affordable housing advocates.


The housing crunch, particularly acute in Bay Area cities such as San Francisco and San Jose, is a problem that the tech industry helped create by attracting well-paid new workers who can outbid longtime residents. That, combined with zoning restrictions, has helped to push up housing prices to the highest in the nation, with a median price of $1.3 million in San Jose, according to the National Association of Realtors. Los Angeles, home to Snap Inc., is in similar straits.


At the same time, the technology sector is frustrated with the limited housing supply and high prices in its home state that make it difficult to recruit workers and foster a diverse community. It has spent years building the political machinery to push for change: It has state and local lobbying groups, a long list of donors and favored politicians.


Now, it also has a sledgehammer of a bill, which would force California cities to allow new multi-story apartments to be built near public transportation. The bill — SB 827, introduced this year by state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) — is set to be one of the most contentious pieces of legislation in Sacramento this session. The Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to oppose the bill.

A new guard of powerbroker chief executives has put their names and wealth behind the pro-growth movement that's laying the groundwork for the bill, including Twitter Inc. Chief Executive Jack Dorsey, Stripe Inc. co-founders Patrick and John Collison, Lyft Inc. CEO Logan Green, and Yelp Inc. CEO Jeremy Stoppelman.

Facebook Inc. is getting on board, too. "Facebook supports legislation that spurs the creation of new housing near high-quality transportation to reduce traffic congestion on local roadways," Ann Blackwood, Facebook's state and local public policy manager, said in a statement.

They're up against neighborhood preservation groups and affordable housing activists who for years have dominated housing policy in the Bay Area.

Neighborhood councils often block new construction projects, since locals want to preserve the city's charm and, critics say, impose artificial limits on housing inventory that keep home values rising. They fear the bill would lead to the "Manhattan-ization" of the Bay Area, with towering buildings casting shade on iconic single-family Victorian homes.

It's about damn time that the tech sector started to engage in housing policy.
CALIF. STATE SENATOR SCOTT WIENER (D-SAN FRANCISCO)
Share quote & link

What's more, they argue that the new construction won't help with lowering costs because their proximity to public transportation will make them "premium" rentals.

"It's about damn time that the tech sector started to engage in housing policy," Wiener said in an interview. "This is a major industry in our state. It employs an enormous amount of people and the tech sector, like other economic sectors, relies on the health of our state to succeed."

At the end of 2017, 56% of households in the U.S. could afford the median-priced U.S. house, according to the California Association of Realtors. But only 21% of people in the Bay Area can afford the median-priced house there, which rose to a record $825,000 in November.

To address that problem, with Stoppelman at the forefront, Silicon Valley is bankrolling the YIMBY movement — Yes in My Backyard — a network of pro-housing, pro-development groups.

"In California, we have dug ourselves into a massive housing hole in the last 50 years by making it progressively harder to build housing by making it more time consuming and expensive," says Brian Hanlon, who heads the California YIMBY group. "We're past the point of viewing housing as a pure local issue. It is a statewide concern."

California YIMBY has raised more than $1 million and has a registered lobbyist on its payroll. The group hopes to collect another $1.5 million this year, Hanlon says. He estimates that about 90% of the money has come from technology executives.

Marco Zappacosta, the 32-year-old CEO for the local services start-up Thumbtack Inc., is a contributor. "Technology companies have such insane margins that they're one of the few sectors that can continue to be viable in this environment — Google and Facebook and all of us are going to continue to be OK," he said. "The real question is do you want plumbers and cleaners and baby-sitters?"

A mix of self-interest and shared ideology is motivating the tech industry's housing obsession. Companies such as Lyft and Pandora Media Inc. have moved their customer support offices away from Silicon Valley to save money. Thumbtack has opened offices in Salt Lake City, where it is cheaper to live and to hire workers. The company also has a team of remote contractors in the Philippines.

And while tech workers are generally free-market minded, in the battle for housing they're also taking a moral stand. The tech industry's high-profile role championing the legislation comes amid rising scrutiny of companies — from Facebook to Google — and a tech backlash.

The bill's critics come in various stripes. Homeowners and neighborhood groups worry that the legislation will negatively alter the character of historic neighborhoods. Other opponents say the bill will just encourage teardowns and evictions and ultimately create more high-end housing. Without protections such as rent control, they say, new, taller apartment buildings will cater to the area's wealthy residents and attract more tech interlopers.

"There's a whole lot more money, as Scott Wiener has shown, in trying to gentrify communities," says Damien Goodmon, director of the Housing is a Human Right campaign. He compares the proposal to an "Ayn Rand, trickle-down" housing philosophy that assumes that more high-end housing supply will somehow help the poor.

"The market is not going to build to a level that's affordable," he said.

The bill's drafters say that they're in the process of revising the legislation to avoid unintended side effects, mitigate some local concerns, and to win over more supporters. Protections have been added that would make it more difficult to tear down housing that already has affordable units.

As proposed, the new housing could be as much as eight stories high, depending on the location, though many would be just three stories tall, Hanlon said. The bill also eliminates local requirements that new housing projects near public transportation create additional parking spaces.

"The bill is a work in progress," Wiener said. "We definitely have a winding path ahead of us and a lot of people to convince."

Saturday, April 7, 2018

YIMBYS: "We are so sorry if you are a minority, (We only target old rich white people)"

`1

Denounce the Yimby disruption: An open letter to Sen. Wiener


Denounce the Yimby disruption: An open letter to Sen. Wiener
Community leaders ask author of SB 827 to distance himself from the Yimbys who shouted down a community coalition trying to hold a peaceful rally
Dear Senator Wiener:
On April 4, on the steps of San Francisco’s City Hall, we and other representatives from more than 40 San Francisco community organizations joined together for a lawful and fully permitted press conference to express concerns regarding the negative impacts of SB 827. 
Our speakers included representatives from across the city including the Mission, Excelsior, Chinatown, Western Addition, the Northside and Westside. We included tenants, homeowners, seniors, environmentalists, and communities of color. Our intention was to raise concerns that SB 827 would exacerbate displacement, undermine our affordable housing policies, and strain our overburdened transit system. We particularly sought to bring to public awareness that SB 827 would eliminate the opportunity for the voices of disadvantaged communities to impact policies that have a direct and immediate impact on their lives.
But we were denied the opportunity to speak by the deliberate, concerted, and continuous disruptive actions of the Yimby organization which is alsothe sponsor of SB 827. 
As has been described in media accounts including the San Francisco Examiner,  a Yimby contingent including leadership of the national and state organization, shouted down our speakers and disrupted the event to the point no one, including the assembled reporters, could hear our speakers.  As a direct and foreseeable consequence of the Yimby action the press coverage of the event has centered on the disruption and not the content of our messages.     
As the principal author of SB 827 and a close collaborator with the local and state Yimby organization locally we ask you to condemn all Yimby networks’ efforts to suppress public critique of this legislation.  It is not enough, as Yimby spokespeople have assured, to change their future disruptive actions to not interrupt speakers if they are “low income people of color.” The Yimby organization needs to cease silencing critique by any and all people. 
We believe that this position should extend to the consideration of SB 827 itself.   It is no coincidence that the sponsors of SB 827 sought to deny our communities the ability to raise concerns about a bill that would institutionalize the suppression of community voices, participation, and dialog.  



Yimbys shout down a rally against SB 827

As written SB 827 is a deeply divisive and disrespectful proposal.   As has been noted by community organizations in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and throughout California, SB 827 will undo the efforts of hundreds if not thousands of community organizations to improve the livability, sustainability, and affordability of their neighborhoods. Exclusionary practices that suppress the development of truly inclusionary housing need to be challenged. But it is fundamentally wrong to then conclude that all community plans are exclusionary and should be overridden by state law. Yet that was the claim of the Yimby chants interrupting our press conference and also the underlying assumption of the legislation itself.


For all these reasons we demand that you to denounce Yimby disruptive practices and we ask you to put SB 827 on hold until there is the room for the dialog that all our communities deserve
Sincerely,
Deepa Varma
Fred Sherburn Zimmer
Wing Hoo Leung
Charles Dupigny
Gus Hernandez
Ozzie Rohm
Becky Evans

Why Capitalism is Better than Socialism

Friday, April 6, 2018

Here is where the 10 story buildings may be built in Marin if SB827 passes.




Here's a link to a map that includes the "Major Transit Stops" in Marin (Sausalito, Tiburon, and Larkspur Ferry Terminals and all the SMART depots).  However, it does not show any of the "High-Quality Transit Corridors" in Marin.


If you live in the red dot areas, a building like this could be built next door with NO PLANNING REVIEW.
Under SB827 it could be 50% taller  (10 stories) and there is literally nothing that can be done to stop it.

Call Senator Mike Mcguire to stop SB827 and Sign this http://www.tinyurl.com/No-to-SB827-SB828 

The Truth about Swedish Socialism

Thursday, April 5, 2018

Marin’s Dilemma - Service Cuts or Tax Hike



Marin Coalition Presents: Wednesday April 4, 2018


“Marin’s Dilemma - Service Cuts or Tax Hikes”

Speakers:

Mimi Willard -- Founder of the Coalition of Sensible Taxpayers.

Leslie Lundgren Harlander -- President of the Board of Trustees of the Tamalpais

Union High School District.

Marin taxpayer-voters face higher taxes/fees and/or threatened service cuts from almost all local agencies and districts.  Schools are squeezed by rising costs (particularly state-mandated increased pension contributions).  In 2018, voters will consider ballot measures to raise bridge toll; increase sales taxes; and increase parcel taxes in Dixie School District and Tamalpais Union High School District (serving all of southern Marin -- Redwood, Tam, and Drake).    Some districts are planning service cuts, e.g., Novato Unified and Tam Union.  School and other essential service funding could improve if commercial properties pay more, via alternative parcel tax structures and/or a 2018 ballot initiative to change proposition 13.  Mimi Willard, President of the Coalition of Sensible Taxpayers, will discuss how all this could play out in Marin.

The Tamalpais Union High School District Board of Trustees in March is scheduled to approve placing on the November 2018 ballot a proposed increase in the existing District’s school parcel tax. District Board President, Leslie Lundgren Harlander will provide a perspective of why this tax is important and necessary for the School District.

Mimi Willard is Founder of the Coalition of Sensible Taxpayers. CO$T is a nonpartisan,
nonprofit organization advocating for the interests of Marin taxpayers. A Chartered Financial
Analyst, Ms. Willard’s professional background includes 20 years as a nationally recognized
financial analyst at prominent Wall Street firms.

Leslie Lundgren Harlander is President of the Board of Trustees of the Tamalpais Union High
School District. She has served on the Tamalpais Union School Board for two years. Leslie is
a civil engineer and has worked on a wide range of public works and environmental projects.
She has experience managing multi-million- dollar projects and programs overseeing all
aspects of the work including financial and budget management, personnel, community
outreach and quality control.

Letter to the Marin IJ and the "Dixie Measure B" supporters after todays article.


Fairness of Marin school parcel taxes debated



Mimi Willard, left, Coalition of Sensible Taxpayers, and Leslie Harlander, board president, Tamalpais Union High School District. (Keri Brenner/Marin Independent Journal)
Mimi Willard, left, Coalition of Sensible Taxpayers, and Leslie Harlander, board president, Tamalpais Union High School District. (Keri Brenner/Marin Independent Journal) 
Leaders of a Marin taxpayers group and one of the county’s largest school districts squared off Wednesday on how to avoid program and service cuts while keeping parcel taxes under control and surviving a rising pension cost tsunami.
“We have here ‘Sophie’s Choice,’” said Mimi Willard, a founder of the grassroots Coalition of Sensible Taxpayers. “Are we going to cut services or raise taxes and fees?”
Leslie Harlander, board president of Tamalpais Union High School District, said a district fiscal advisory committee is looking at a range of program and staff cuts and consolidations — such as having a principal oversee two high schools instead of one. On March 13, the Tam district’s board of trustees voted to issue four preliminary layoff notices to three librarians and one wellness center director — but those were not final and could be rescinded later on as per the committee’s recommendations.
“Our district revenue is not keeping pace with expenses,” said Harlander, pointing to a triple-whammy of increasing enrollment, slowing property tax revenue and rising pension costs.
Willard and Harlander made their comments before about 60 people at the monthly Marin Coalition luncheon at The Club at McInnis Park golf center in San Rafael.
The event, “Marin’s Dilemma — Service Cuts or Tax Hikes?,” produced few answers but did raise a lot of questions.
Chief among them was the methods used in the upcoming Measure B parcel tax on the May 8 mail-in ballot in the Dixie School District in San Rafael.
Willard and other COST members say a per-square-footage tax would be more fair in Dixie than a flat rate parcel tax if the district gets a lot of new apartments as expected. That’s because the apartment complexes would pay for only one parcel tax per lot, but each lot could include dozens of apartments. COST members say the per-square-foot tax is not “illegal,” as the Measure B proponents claim, and is already in use in several East Bay school districts.
But Dixie Superintendent Jason Yamashiro disputed that assertion in an email Wednesday.
See the story in the Marin IJ HERE


Our letter to the Marin IJ


Nikki Mullen says, “I would be very open to working with anyone from our community in a positive manner to improve our schools.."
I gratefully accept her request as one of the primary writers of the "No on Measure B" ballot arguments. I am a Dixie Parent, Volunteer and homeowner, just as all of the endorsers. Co$t is a Marin County based taxpayers group and they were brought in for support for their expertise and knowledge on tax matters.
1.) A good first step to "working positively" with the community is to begin with an apology to us for the personal attack as being "not being involved with the schools and don't talk with the children or understand needs" It is the first time, that anyone can remember where such attacks were allowed on a parcel tax argument. It cheapens the conversation. We are Dixie parents, volunteers, teachers and coaches with up to 45 years residency in the community. We are not anti-tax despite your claim.
2.) The Dixie Measure B proponents must stop implying that parcel taxes based on square footage uniformly applied are illegal. This is simply outrageous that they are telling the public this. As they know, parcel taxes based on square footage are legal when properly applied. Berkeley Unified School District and West Contra County School district have had parcel taxes based on square footage for years.
I issue a challenge: Please cite the exact law and case studies where parcel taxes based on square footage uniformly are illegal.
3.) Divulge the real estate holdings by the board, supporters and staff that will receive parcel tax increases if the square footage rule is applied. I know of two such ballot sponsors that have large commercial properties and apartments.
Our purpose for the "No on Measure B" argument is to make certain new parcel taxes are fair. Currently a large complex with 100 units will pay the same amount as a condo. We do not think this is fair. Apartments may have many students yet the parcel taxes will cover just one.
Currently, large apartment complexes are being discussed for Four Points Sheraton, Northgate Mall, Scotties Market, Silveira Ranch and Lucas Valley. Each complex will hold hundreds of families.
There is time to get this right. The current tax expires in 2019. Bring this tax back at a regular election with a fair "square footage" rate and you will justly earn the support of the community.
Both the Superintendent and Ms Mullens have been given our contact information if they truly want to "work on solutions" with us. Let's hope they will reconsider their political approach for the good of our community.

Wednesday, April 4, 2018

YIMBYS shout down Tenants Activists opposing SB827


SB 827 rally Affordable Divis from g fujioka on Vimeo.

SF Supervisors oppose Wiener real-estate bill

SF supes oppose Wiener real-estate bill

Breed sides with Wiener as debate shows clear differences among candidates for mayor
The Board of Supes voted today to oppose State Senator Scott Wiener’s real-estate bill, SB 827, which would upzone most of San Francisco. 
The discussion over the bill became a debate about much larger housing issues – and demonstrated the sharp distinctions between political leaders who want to rely on the private market to solve housing problems and those who say that market has failed.
A coalition of neighborhood groups, tenants, and small businesses rallied against SB 827. Photo by Dan Raile
Peskin argued that the bill “fundamentally disrupts communities. We need to send a signal to Sen. Wiener and [co-sponsor] Assemblymember Phil Ting that the discussion needs to start here.” He called for a “full stop, let’s start this over.”
If the state wants to address housing, he said, the legislators could start by sending cities more money and repealing Costa-Hawkins and the Ellis Act.
Sup. Hillary Ronen went further, saying that “I don’t believe that increasing the supply of luxury housing will trickle down” and provide affordable units. “It’s never going to happen.”
And, she noted, the bill “gets rid of the entire discipline of city planning.”
Sup. Sandra Lee Fewer pointed out the bill would not provide funding for the public amenities, particularly the schools, that would be needed for all the new residents. “We are five schools short of what we need” with the existing approved new housing, she said.
Sup. Jane Kim said: “When you confer value to land, you are giving those landowners and developers money. This is a giveaway without asking anything back.” In her district, she said, she has sought to get some of that money back by demanding more affordable housing, parks, transit funding and other amenities.”
In the case of the recent Giants project, she said, by demanding that some of the new wealth the team received from upzoning be shared with the city, we got an agreement to build 40 percent affordable housing instead of 12 percent.
A local planning process, she said, allows for that.
“Government used to be in the business of building housing,” Kim said. “In 1980, Ronald Reagan decided that the private market should be responsible for building housing for all of us.” That’s been the policy ever since (through both Republican and Democratic administrations). The result: Homelessness and displacement.
Peskin argued that this sort of upzoning is going to run up land costs. The land on Haight and Stanyan, where a McDonald’s will be replaced with affordable housing, would have cost the city a lot more than $15 million if it were zoned at 85 feet.
Sup. London Breed, who yesterday refused to take a stand on the bill as she was being endorsed by Wiener (across from Leno’s Castro campaign headquarters), today said that she wouldn’t vote to oppose it. “The intent of the bill is to promote more housing near transit,” she said. “We aren’t doing enough to build housing and we aren’t doing it fast enough.”
Her position directly conflicts with what Ronen was saying and puts her on record supporting market-rate housing as a solution to the crisis.
It also has an impact on the mayor’s race: Kim and Mark Leno are opposing SB 827, and with Breed taking a public position in support of the bill’s basic idea and declining to oppose it, the three major candidates have a clear difference.
Peskin proposed amendments to the ordinance, which had been watered down in committee; he asked that the measure specifically put the city on record opposing SB 827. That amendment passed 7-4 with Breed, Ahsha Safai, Katy Tang, and Jeff Sheehy in opposition.
Then Breed said she would vote against the resolution and would work closely with Sen. Wiener to create more housing for San Francisco.
The final measure passed 8-3, with Katy Tang voting this time in favor.
So the San Francisco Board of Supes has taken a stand against SB 827, joining Los Angeles as a major city that doesn’t want to see the Wiener bill pass.
The vote came after a rally on the steps of City Hall by a broad coalition of neighborhood, tenant, housing, small business and community groups – disrupted repeatedly by a small group of Yimbys.
The coalition brought some 60 people to the event, with Sup. Aaron Peskin, Sup. Jane Kim, and former Mayor Art Agnos among the speakers. Also represented were leaders of community organizations from the Mission, Chinatown, Cow Hollow and Excelsior, the Sierra Club, the local chapter of Democratic Socialists of America, and tenant rights groups.
Things quickly devolved into cacophony as the outnumbered Yimbys chanted over every speaker who took the podium. In the merciful pauses between chants, speakers could be heard decrying the projected impacts of the bill. 
“I want to announce that we have the votes!” said Supervisor Peskin early in the proceedings. Yet chants continued unabated.
A small group of Yimbys tried to shout down the No on SB 827 rally. Photo by Dan Raile
“Look at these people and look at us, the people they are chanting over,” Shanti Singh of the DSA SF Housing Committee said from the podium. “Do you see any differences?” 
The Yimby delegation was overwhelmingly composed of young white men shouting over a diverse series of speakers at the podium. As Singh wrapped up her comments the Yimbys chanted “Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho, the status quo has got to go!” The larger group quickly countered with a chant of “You are the status quo!” 
Following is the letter that this unusual coalition sent the board:
We, the undersigned residents and organizations, represent communities across San Francisco— rich and poor, tenant and homeowner, newcomers and old-timers.  We stand together with others across the State of California to urge defeat of SB 827 (Wiener) in any form. 
This bill unilaterally removes the opportunity of residents in every part of this city to participate in basic decisions about land use, zoning, and the livability and sustainability of our communities.  It is fundamentally and irreparably flawed.
SB 827 forces a top-down, one-size-fits-all strategy that would destabilize the character of many of our neighborhoods, revoking power from our local elected representatives and planning departments, and silencing public input on new development — input that can and has resulted in more affordability, more jobs, and stronger communities.
In the name of ‘transit friendly housing’, SB 827 undermines the ability of San Francisco, the most transit friendly city in the state, to plan and support our publicly financed transit system and  it would discourage other cities from creating or expanding their own systems to avoid triggering SB 827.  In the name of affordability, it would reward real estate speculators with enormous windfalls and weakens our city’s ability to incentivize and create more affordable housing.  It would not require the actual building of a single affordable unit, but instead allows entitled projects to be bought and sold over and over again; making money for speculators and not producing critically needed housing.  And while it would include limited protections for tenants who are directly displaced by new market rate projects, it completely fails to address indirect displacement caused by rising real estate prices and higher rents.
Furthermore, SB 827 would incentivize the destruction of established commercial spaces and the displacement of neighborhood-serving businesses.  Such losses would accelerate the widespread cultural and economic displacement that many of our communities are already experiencing.
In addition to the direct and physical harm it would cause to our neighborhoods, SB 827 would more generally undermine our democratic processes and ability to protect the environment.
By overriding local planning and environmental requirements, SB 827 would also override our city’s efforts to be sustainable.  If the bill is adopted, new growth would be imposed by developers at almost any city location of their choosing, increasing demands on existing water and sewer systems, roads, utilities, schools, parks, and other public services and infrastructure. Such developments would be approved with minimal public review, without full disclosure or analysis of impacts, and without consideration of more sustainable and environmentally sound alternatives.
Advocates of SB 827 have created a false narrative.  The bill promises smart growth, but it would deliver the opposite.  It would require unplannedgrowth imposed by Sacramento at the behest of for-profit developers and real estate investors.  Yet contrary to the claims of those developers and their allies, there are better, more inclusive, and more sustainable alternatives when we are able to work together as a city. 
San Francisco has more housing density and more affordable housing per square mile than most cities in the country — not because of a mandate by Sacramento — but because of decades of action at a local level.  We have the most intensive public transit systems in the state —  not because of politicians in Sacramento — but because our residents vote to support and pay for it.  Through our own locally controlled planning process we have more than 60,000 fully approved new units of housing awaiting construction.  And we can do even more together.
Indeed, if it were not for restrictive laws imposed by politicians in Sacramento, San Francisco would have stronger protections for tenants against excessive rents and evictions, and we would require for-profit developers to build more inclusionary housing. 
Consensus building and local democracy can work if we are allowed to practice it.
For all these reasons, the assumptions, values, and logic of SB 827 are fundamentally flawed.  We therefore urge the Board of Supervisors to adopt a resolution to oppose SB 827.
Respectfully,
ART AGNOS, Former Mayor
AFFORDABLE DIVIS
Gus Hernandez and Charles Dupigny, Co-Chairs
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ALLIANCE
Mitchell Omerberg, Executive Director
ALLIANCE OF CALIFORNIANS FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT (ACCE) ACTION
ANTI EVICTION MAPPING PROJECT
ASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING JUSTICE — CALIFORNIA
Andrew Medina
THE BOOKSMITH
Christin Evans, Owner
CATHEDRAL HILL NEIGHBORS
CAUSA JUSTA :: JUST CAUSE
Vanessa Moses, Executive Director
CHINATOWN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CENTER
Rev. Norman Fong, Executive Director
CHINESE PROGRESSIVE ASSOCIATION
Alex Tom, Executive Director
COALITION FOR SAN FRANCISCO NEIGHBORHOODS
George Wooding, President
COMMUNITY TENANTS ASSOCIATION
Wing Hoo Leung, President
CORBETT HEIGHTS NEIGHBORS
Sponsored link
Gary Weiss, President
COW HOLLOW ASSOCIATION
Lori Brooke, President
CULTURAL ACTION NETWORK\
D5 ACTION
Tes Welborn, Coordinator
DOLORES HEIGHTS IMPROVEMENT CLUB
Carolyn Kenady, Chair
DOLORES STREET COMMUNITY SERVICES
BECKY EVANS, Chair, SF Group, Sierra Club*
FACTORY 1 DESIGN
Larisa Pedroncelli and Kelly Scott Hill, Owners
FAYE LACANILAO, Communities United for Health and Justice*
GOLDEN GATE VALLEY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION
Bob David, Director
GROW POTRERO RESPONSIBLY
HAIGHT-ASHBURY NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL
Bruce Wolfe, President
MATT HANEY, School Board Commissioner
HOMIES ORGANIZING THE MISSION TO EMPOWER YOUTH (HOMEY)
Roberto Eligio Alfaro, Executive Director
HOUSING RIGHTS COMMITTEE OF SAN FRANCISCO
Fred Sherburn-Zimmer, Executive Director
LIBERTY HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION
Dr. Elizabeth Fromer Valenzuela, President
LITTLE HOUSE COMMITTEE
Nancy Wuerfel
LIVABLE CALIFORNIA
ERIC MAR, Educator,  Former Supervisor

MARINA COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
Jason Pelligrini, President
MISSION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Luis Granados, Executive Director
MISSION NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER
Sam Ruiz, Executive Director
NOE NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL
Ozzie Rohm, Co-founder
PEOPLE ORGANIZING TO DEMAND ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC RIGHTS (PODER)

PRESIDIO HEIGHTS ASSOCIATION OF NEIGHBORS
Charles Ferguson, Board President
REDSTONE TENANTS ASSOCIATION
Gary Gregerson, Board President
RUSSIAN HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
Kathleen Courtney, Chair Housing & Zoning
SAN FRANCISCO INFORMATION CLEARINGHOUSE
Calvin Welch, Board member
SAN FRANCISCO TENANTS UNION
Deep Varma, Executive Director
SAVE THE HILL
 SAVE MUNI
SENIOR AND DISABILITY ACTION
SHANTI SINGH, SF Democratic Socialists of America, Steering Committee*
SUNSET-PARKSIDE EDUCATION AND ACTION COMMITTEE (SPEAK)
Eileen Boken, President
TELEGRAPH HILL DWELLERS
Judy Irving, President
*Affiliation for identification only
Additional reporting by Dan Raile

Tuesday, April 3, 2018

Herb Caen: Those endearing old charms




Photo: RUSSELL YIP


Herb Caen in the Crown Room atop the Fairmont Hotel in 1996.




Excerpted from a Herb Caen column — June 27, 1971

I KEEP READING in learned journals that nostalgia is the hottest movement in the land these days, but I’m not buying. It all seems phony to me, just another exercise in merchandising, a high-pressure plot to put our ladies back in wedgies and ankle-strap shoes, not to mention those awful suits with padded shoulders and nipped-in waists (I’ll take the beautiful hippie girls who let it all hang out). Not a tear came to my eyes as I read Life’s “Nostalgia” issue, and as for the vaunted revival of “No, No, Nanette” on Broadway, that’s a bore, too. Can you really get choked up in 1971 over a song with such lyrics as “Day will break and you’ll awake and start to bake a sugar cake for me to take for all the boys to see”? What’s a sugar cake? Why does she have to get up at dawn to bake it? And I’d rather not think about the kind of “boys” who’d want to see it.

THE MAIN REASON I think the Big Nostalgia Kick is synthetic is that we don’t see any signs of it in San Francisco. If it were really happening it would have happened here first. We’ve led the way in so many wonderful things — rock music, Love Children, cirrhosis, bridge-jumpers, bare boobs, junk art, junk clothes, turning on at the Opera House — that it’s ridiculous to think we couldn’t have kicked off a nostalgia boom if we’d really wanted to. After all, San Francisco practically invented nostalgia. It’s just that we played “Remember when?” for so many years — while the rest of the country was going crazy with progress — that we’ve tired of the game.

WELL, NOBODY can accuse San Francisco of living in the past any longer. In fact, where we seem to be is in a mad rush to destroy every vestige of The City That Was, The City That Knows How, Poor Pitiful Pearl of the Pacific. We can’t tear down old buildings fast enough to make room for new ones that are every bit as distinctive as Pittsburgh’s or Atlanta’s. As the man said when he first entered the restaurant atop Bank of America’s World Headquarters: “Instant Cleveland!” And now the rusty steel bones of the Transamerica pyramid are beginning to rise, its lower extremities already girdled in white Plastic Inevitable that puts you in mind of hotel bathrooms. When the pyramid was first announced, Mayor Alioto, drawing on his rich Florentine background, enthused: “It will be our Giotto Tower!” Well, he may have meant Irving Giotto.

WHILE NOSTALGIA is said to be sweeping the country, it’s a dirty word in San Francisco ’71 (watch out, here comes M. Justin Herman again with his swinging steel ball!). Redevelopment is the name of the game, and if you just had your old house shot out from under you, it’s for your own good, old-timer. “You have to be realistic,” as this big building said to me just the other day over lunch at Jack’s, an old restaurant that survives, miraculously. “Realistic.” I didn’t know how to answer him. Realism to him apparently means congestion, confusion, sterility. One antiseptic building, bustling by day, stone cold dead by night — replacing dozens of little buildings where mama and papa ran a grocery, Joe had a bar, Sam did the laundry, George owned a bookstore and hundreds of people lived, laughed, loved and rejoiced in a “neighborhood.” Gone, all of them, to where?

MAYBE NOSTALGIA is out here because it’s too painful to contemplate the dream and consider the reality. Once there were giants who built well — for the ages, they thought — but their landmarks, the solid evidence of their achievements, could disappear overnight, and they did. Now, it’s only when the fog steals in to blot out their ersatz replacements that you dare think of the past — alone, in a bittersweet reverie.