First, take the all-but-approved Trinity Plaza project on the corner of 8th & Market (which happens to be the first new project to have ever grandfathered in existing rent-controlled tenants, PLUS the affordable housing requirement on top of that), and throw an unnecessary wrench in the spokes. And this is to the bewilderment of affordable housing’s court jester, Chris Daly.

From today’s Chronicle,

In exchange for the city allowing him to construct three towers that would be taller and larger than what is permitted in the mid-Market neighborhood, Sangiacomo would not only set aside 12 percent of the project to be leased at below-market rates, but also permit current occupants of Trinity Plaza to remain, without paying more, in apartments that would continue to be covered by the city’s rent-control law.

But as the agreement comes back before the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors early this year for what were expected to be routine approvals, a deal once celebrated by both the developer and tenants in a city with a continuing affordable-housing shortage now appears to be in trouble.

“This is agony,” Sangiacomo said in a recent interview, using an expletive to describe unspecified officials now arguing that the city is not demanding enough affordable housing from of one of San Francisco’s wealthiest landlords. “What can you do with them? They’re beyond reproach. They should be building a bronze statute out on that corner for me — instead they want more.” [more...]

Next, take the opportunity that you have in your own district and other Eastern neighborhoods and throw another wrench in the system by attempting to halt any and all new construction indefinitely with a completely ridiculous request that 64% of all new units be made affordable. Never mind the newly passed decision that all new construction include 15% affordable housing. That’s right. 15%. Not 64%. The best description of this came to me in an email from Plan C SF…

Supervisor Sophie Maxwell has proposed a resolution that would make it the policy of the City of San Francisco to increase the percentage of new new housing built that must be “affordable” from 15% to 64% in the “Eastern Neighborhoods” (the eastern half of the City, including formerly industrial areas in SOMA, Bayview/Hunter’s Point, the Mission, Dogpatch and the Central Waterfront, that have most of the City’s best locations for new housing). That’s right, 64% of new housing would have to be sold at prices significantly below market value. It’s very clear what would happen if this 64% requirement becomes city policy – housing construction would come to a screeching halt in these areas. The Bay Guardian, which is pushing Maxwell’s proposal, admits that requiring 64% of new units to be sold at below-market prices would amount to a moratorium on new construction in the eastern half of the City – and says “that’s fine with us”. We suspect that what they really don’t like is that residents of newly constructed housing don’t vote the way they like (witness how new residents of District 6 voted overwhelmingly against Chris Daly in his recent re-election effort). Although Maxwell’s proposed policy would be nonbinding, it would move San Francisco in the wrong direction – towards a housing moratorium in neighborhoods where more housing is needed.

[Unfortunately, there is no web link for this content... Sorry.]

All Maxwell needs to do is read a little bit of history, perhaps take a look at South Korea, and she’d realize that this is complete lunacy. But then again, perhaps this isn’t about common sense or reason. Hell, if it works for Daly, why not throw a little asylum-behavior into District 10?

And who wins? Nobody. No new housing will only tilt everybody’s favorite supply/demand equation even further to favor those who already own property. And we all know that can’t be what Maxwell (or the SF Bay Guardian) are aiming to accomplish.

Trinity deal hits a snag [SFGate]
Board rejects Trinity Plaza deal [SFHomeBlog]
Trinity Plaza gets OK [SFHomeBlog]