Land use changes tucked in Prop. D
An interesting ‘hidden’ component of Proposition D is uncovered in today’s SFGate,
The battle over a Laguna Honda Hospital initiative on San Francisco’s June ballot has focused so far on health care issues — what type of patients will be treated there, who will govern admissions decisions, and whether elderly people suffering from dementia will be booted out.Now, however, opponents are also worked up over a little-noticed provision that the city attorney’s office says would open up all land zoned for public use — about 1,600 lots in all — to the development of privately owned nursing homes.
The kicker for foes of the proposal, including city Health Director Dr. Mitch Katz: The Residential Builders Association, which represents about 700 builders, is bankrolling the campaign.
“How many opportunities do you have to rezone land without anybody noticing anything?” Katz said. “It’s just plain wrong. If you’re going around town saying you care deeply about patients at Laguna Honda, you shouldn’t be slipping in other issues that have to do with your own financial welfare.”
The measure, Proposition D, would make the hospital part of a special use district set aside for patients in need of long-term nursing care. It would ban from the hospital patients whose primary diagnosis is psychiatric or behavioral, or those who pose a threat to other patients.
It would also, according to analyses by the city attorney’s office and the Planning Department, allow private builders to apply for conditional use permits to build nursing homes on publicly zoned lands and in residential areas. Public lots are zoned for public use, including for parks, schools and hospitals; they also include right-of-way spaces.
According to the Planning Department, there are nearly 1,600 publicly zoned lots in San Francisco, though 417 — including Golden Gate Park — are also zoned as open space and would be impossible to develop.
Others, such as the 11 schools closed or slated for closure, could easily be leased for nursing home development, Katz said.
I guess if developers can’t build housing, and there’s little land to build on anyhow, the opportunity to build privately-owned nursing homes (which would seem to be insurance-company-funded cash cows), would be a no-brainer…
The key here is that nursing homes are actually housing, so I can’t say that I’m against this end-around component of Prop. D, but it’s interesting how it found its way into the legislation in the first place, and how it’s being bankrolled. On the other hand, by definition, nursing homes are senior housing, right? Isn’t that what the ‘supes are trying to build more of?
Department of Elections [SFGov]
