Point-Counterpoint on Affordable Housing Debate in San Francisco (& here) (One Response)
On the Feb. 1 City Council agenda under “Communications and Reports from City Officers,” Councillor Tim Toomey has shared two articles on the affordable housing crisis in San Francisco with the suggestion to his colleagues that Cambridge “can learn from the lessons of San Francisco.” The articles blame “well intentioned” but “misguided” liberals (alternately labeled “progressives” and “NIMBYs”) that have forged “unlikely” alliances with tenant advocacy groups in creating overly restrictive zoning policies that have served to block high-density residential development to preserve neighborhoods and the environment — and property values. In placing these articles on the Council agenda, Councillor Toomey’s intent is not entirely clear. Is he tilting toward a more pro-growth stance, one that some residents of his own East Cambridge neighborhood have opposed when faced proposals for high density developments at the Sullivan Courthouse and the Volpe Center?
What’s the Matter with San Francisco” (Atlantic CityLab, Gabriel Metcalf, 7/23/15)
San Francisco’s Self Defeating Housing Advocates (The Atlantic, Conor Friedersdorf, 12/29/15)
For a different perspective (one written in direct response to the latter of the two articles above), I suggest reading this very recent Salon article, which was originally shared with me by affordable housing advocate and former council candidate Mike Connolly:
The Salon piece asserts that increasing the supply of market rate housing in one municipality, even with a generous percentage of subsidized units in the mix, will never succeed in preserving or restoring a city’s socio-economic balance, and will instead displace low and moderate income tenants as neighborhoods gentrify — even as the influx of high-wage residents creates more demand for nearby housing for workers in the lower wage service sector. This author cites an emerging tenants’ rights “rebellion” in San Francisco and elsewhere — one that would face a tough “home rule” battle in the Massachusetts state legislature, since cities cannot unilaterally restore rent control or most tenant protections.
In my view a more nuanced approach is appropriate. San Francisco’s and Cambridge’s affordable housing problem will only be solved at the macro level with a regional housing growth plan, improvements to regional transportation network, and workforce development programs to get at the root of the problem: increasing income inequality. In the meantime we municipal policymakers need to focus on building more affordable housing and planning comprehensively to mitigate the quality of life, socio-economic, and environmental impacts of growth of all kinds. Putting polarizing rhetoric aside, I hope we can strike a better balance between “no growth” and “build build build.” In this respect I agree with Councillor Toomey: these are the questions we will be asking one another in this and future terms.
{"widget_type":"comment_query","include_string":118,"exclude_string":"","page":0,"query_type":"","supplemental_filter":""}