If there's one thing San Franciscans agree on, it's that there needs to be a solution to the city's unaffordability. Sacramento did nothing, so voters this year are presented with two options to remedy the situation: Prop. G, an antspeculation tax, and Prop. K, a plan for more affordable housing. Unfortunately, both appear inadequate to the task.
Prop. G would levy a gradually decreasing surtax on buildings that are resold within five years of purchase or transfer. Its reach is riddled with exceptions and comes with a poison pill: allowing the supervisors to add even more exceptions, something some renters' advocates would prefer. Better Housing Policies' Josephine Zhao said G lacks "exemptions for people who have emergencies and need to cash out. Even if the home has been in the family for ages, an heir will have to hold onto it for another five years. That's not about speculation."
That clause has raised concerns among even some supporters. Real estate interests have amassed more than $1.5 million to sink the measure.
The measure all but tore the county Democratic Party in half, eking out an endorsement only because a rash of abstentions lowered the threshold. It's possible that Supervisor David Chiu, who initially voted not to place it on the ballot, ended up supporting it solely because his Assembly race with Supervisor David Campos is so tight that Chiu couldn't risk giving Campos the opportunity to tie him to greedy landlords. Moreover, since Supervisor Harvey Milk pushed for something similar just before his death, his memory has been used to sell this milder version. Prop. G, it seems, failed upward.
Prop. K is simpler, theoretically. While all 11 supervisors approved it, its promise to construct or rehabilitate 30,000 units (half of which would be affordable) is still a weaker version of Supervisor Jane Kim's original proposal. K is polling well, doesn't antagonize Realtors or landlords, and has strong support from housing advocates.
But the proposal's text reveals all, or, rather, nothing. The goals are merely that: goals. There is no guarantee to enforce them and no mechanism to pay for them. Prop. K, nearly as meaningless as a city resolution denouncing terrorism, seems like a cop-out by elected officials who may realize the economics of the housing crisis extend far outside their purview but lack the courage to come out and say so.
Comments are closed.
