Not only is this rank NIMBYism par for the course throughout the *entire* city, but it is enabled constantly by San Francisco's Board of Supes unwillingness to reform the entitlement process for building housing

Let's break this infuriating letter down, bullet point by point.
First, what is the actual proposal?

It's a proposed subsidized housing development. The apartment building, built by @TNDC (a nonprofit that mostly operates out of the Tenderloin but has buildings EVERYWHERE) would offer rents pegged based on incomes:
It adds badly needed subsidized housing (subsidies come from a mix of sources, but predominantly these are funded by local SF dollars + CA dollars + federal LIHTC dollars) to one of the most exclusionary neighborhoods, the Sunset District, where apartments are banned
Again, this proposal has barely begun going through the "process" for approvals...and yet, considering that all of the money is mostly coming from governments, and the government CONTROLS THE APPROVAL PROCESS you'd think we would establish some kind of ministerial process here...
...but nope, we're going to take the precious tax dollars we've set aside for housing proposals like this and burn them, slowly...on a series of community meetings aimed at trying to mollify neighborhood opposition...

Well, we see how well that's going right out of the gate...
So, to the first point:

"Inappropriate Location - This is a family oriented location, and this apartment building is oversized and does not fit within the community"

Lol...guess what's diagonally across the street from 2550 Irving...A BIG APARTMENT BUILDING
Also, I take objection to the notion that apartments / multi-family housing isn't for families. It's completely bunk.

Hundreds of thousands of families in San Francisco live in apartment & condo buildings. Are they not families? Do they not deserve somewhere to live?
Second point:

"Parking Problem - This building will only provide 11 parking spaces for up to 300 renters, this will create more parking issues"

First off, the proposed apartment is ONE BLOCK AWAY from a highly valued, highly utilized light rail line!
Frankly, Mayor @LondonBreed put it more succinctly than I think anyone else has in recent memory:
Third point:

"Safety Concern - Increased homeless presence in the community"

This...GAH..this makes no fucking sense in the world.
Homeless people are homeless because...THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH HOMES.

Building more homes doesn't make more people homeless, perpetuating our chronic housing shortage another 30 years makes people lose their homes:
Fourth point:

"Loss of home value"

Nevermind the fact that this categorically *isn't true* "building subsidized housing near your home will not lower the value of your home...if anything, it's been proven to slightly IMPROVE the value of your home..."
But, again, why exactly should I care about preserving the values of a bunch of homes in San Francisco in the stratospheric levels of 1.5 - 1.7 million dollars?
Housing in this town is out of reach! You cannot reasonably earn a living with $50k - $90k salary and ever save enough to come REMOTELY close to getting to a place where you can put a downpayment down

Why would we want to perpetuate this nonsense?
So yes, you can put me in the column of "I could care less about your property values. The entire city's homelessness challenges is tied directly to your home values":
Point number 5:

"Congested sidewalks - There are another 135 homes proposed at 43rd & Irving and combined, both projects will bring 700+ people to the sidewalks, this is overcrowd"
Well, I'm not exactly a scientist or an urban planner, but not all of these people will be out an about at EXACTLY the same time every day...nevermind the fact that our sidewalks are currently congested and plagued by a different menace...people parking their cars on them:
So you want our sidewalks to be less congested? Let's charge more for parking, and take that money and plow it into sidewalk widening and traffic calming measures.

Wider sidewalks, & fewer people dying from senseless automotive killings. Seems like a win win to me.
Point #6:

"Decreased views - This building is four times larger than a 100 years old apartment in the sunset and it will definitely block all views for many homes"

I'm sorry...views? Views of what? @fog_karla?
It's the SUNSET District. It's foggy half of the time, and the other half of the time your view is of other single family homes on the same block!

Also, you're not entitled to block homes for other humans just so you can have a nice view! We're in a housing shortage god dammit!
Point #7:

"Public Transportation Issue - Overcrowded, this creates problems and inconveniences for current seniors and children who need to rely on public transit in their daily life"

Yes, I agree, this will add more daily riders to the N Judah and the 7 bus route...
...we should address that by doubling down on our investments in @sfmta_muni and reshaping our streets to prioritize running more buses and trains *more frequently*

Gatekeeping people out of the Sunset will not solve this, investing in transit will:
Point #8:

"No benefits for existing residents - Current Sunset residents should 100% benefit from this rental housing project, not 40% but 100% goes to current Sunset renters"

I think I hate this most of all. San Francisco is not a collection of 11 fiefdoms, we are ONE CITY
What happens in Chinatown affects us in Forest Hill

What happens in the Bayview affects us in the Richmond District

What happens in SOMA affects us in the Sunset District

Building homes on the westside will reduce suffering CITYWIDE

We are one city, we should act like it
Most importantly, (and completely lost on almost everyone in the city) is that we're part of a REGION and that REGION has been underbuilding housing for decades.

What we do (or don't do) impacts people in Oakland, Emeryville, Berkeley, San Mateo, San Leandro, Hayward, and beyond
...but does that mean we shouldn't build the badly needed housing?

The last point:

"Sets a bad precedent"

Oh, really? And what precedent is that? That people deserve homes and we should build them?
The only bad precedents that I see are the ones that are created and reinforced by the SF Board of Supervisors every damn day with their unwillingness and inability to look at this process honestly:
...and conclude what every other professional and passerby knows to be true...that this process is completely broken, and it is slowly hollowing out our city from the inside out:
I think that any elected official who bemoans this flyer has an OBLIGATION to propose legislation to reform this absolutely batty process, because San Francisco and the Bay Area cannot keep going on like this.

Something has to give:
If you want to do something to change this infuriating status quo, join me at @SFyimby where we're fighting to get these proposals approved, but we're also fighting to get these LAWS reformed and to elect lawmakers like @LondonBreed @DavidChiu @Scott_Wiener and others who GET IT.
Sign up at @yimbyaction, and help out by keeping an eye out for alerts to give public comment, write letters of support, phonebank & knock on doors for pro-housing politicians & most of all, connect with a growing community of folks who say YES to housing! 
You can follow @Bobakkabob37.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled:

By continuing to use the site, you are consenting to the use of cookies as explained in our Cookie Policy to improve your experience.