Governor’s housing plan promoted at closed-door meeting with Mayor Lee

By Tim Redmond : 48hills – excerpt

Why is SF mayor backing plan that would undermine local ability to demand more affordable housing?

I went to the strangest press conference today. Ed Lee was there; so was Ben Metcalf, who is Gov. Jerry Brown’s director of housing and community development. We met at SPUR’s downtown headquarters, at a little after 11am…

The measure has been pending in the state Legislature, but community housing groups all over the state have tried to slow it down. It would override local laws and allow anyone who wants to build any type of housing to do that “by right” if it complies with existing zoning and has a tiny minimum of affordable housing – wiping out the ability of community groups to try to cut better deals with developers.

“While this proposal claims to merely streamline the approval process for housing projects, it will in fact cause significant negative impacts on the environment, jobs, working and low-income neighborhoods, and the public’s right to participate in decisions impacting their everyday lives,” a statement issued today by ten community groups, including ACCE California, the Chinatown Community Development Center, Tenants Together, the Council of Community Housing Organizations, and Public Advocates, noted.

And instead of holding public hearings on the legislation, the groups said, “invite-only meetings are being conducted by the administration that exclude a full presentation of the facts and open dialogue about the plan’s far-reaching implications.”

Some labor groups aren’t too happy about it, either… (more)

This article explains why there is a growing movement against Ed Lee. The backroom deals and closed meetings with state officials and SPUR do not bode well for the citizens of San Francisco. If we continue along these lines it is not a matter of IF but WHEN we will leaving San Francisco. This is a pivotal moment.

Did Airbnb Win or Lose On Prop F?

by Raz Godelnik, Triple Pundit, 11/10/15
Last Tuesday was an election day in the U.S. This is of course off-election year, and therefore this day could be easily ignored unless your kids go to public school and you had to find an alternate arrangement for them — or you’re Airbnb.

Yes, Airbnb, one of the leading companies in the sharing economy was involved in a fight over Proposition F in San Francisco: “a measure that would have imposed substantial restrictions on Airbnb rentals in the city,” including a reduction of the number of days that Airbnb hosts in the city can rent their places (from 90 to 75 per year).

So, who won? The measure was voted down 56 percent to 44 percent, and Airbnb as you could imagine was extremely happy about the results. “Tonight, in a decisive victory for the middle class, voters stood up for working families’ right to share their homes and opposed an extreme, hotel industry-backed measure,” Airbnb said in a statement that could easily be used in November 2016 with some light changes by the Clinton campaign, if it will be able to generate similar results.

But did Airbnb actually win? Even though the measure was voted down, and Airbnb wants to export its campaign strategy against the proposition to other cities around the world where it faces similar challenges, I’m not sure the company really won.

Here are five things to consider when answering this question:

Narrative change No. 1: From David to Goliath…

Narrative change No. 2: Not the nice guy anymore…

Narrative change No. 3: Airbnb has fucked up the culture…

Narrative change No. 4: Airbnb struggles with design for complex relationship…

Narrative change No. 5: The (missing) resilience factor…

If Airbnb learned the wrong lesson from the fight over Prop F, I’m not sure it actually won.

So, what do you think – did Airbnb won or lose the fight over Prop F?…(more)

Bay Area Citizens sues Plan Bay Area

By Neal J. Riley : sfgate – excerpt

Critics of a regional plan to encourage development and growth in areas with easy access to mass transit filed a lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court on Tuesday.

Plan Bay Area was approved last month by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments after a contentious three-year process involving dozens of public hearings. Its goal is to satisfy state legislation that requires plans to accommodate the more than 2 million people who are expected to move into the Bay Area between now and 2040, while at the same time lowering overall greenhouse gas emissions.

The petitioner, a group called Bay Area Citizens that says the plan will hurt their property values, is being represented in court by the Pacific Legal Foundation, a Sacramento conservative organization…

The lawsuit alleges that Plan Bay Area violates the California Environmental Quality Act by omitting alternatives to its plan to steer 77 percent of future growth near “priority development areas,” including places like Mission Bay in San Francisco, Oakland’s Jack London Square and downtown San Rafael, Walnut Creek and Fairfield…  (more)

We shall see how powerful a group is formed when the far right and the far left agree to fight on the same side of a libertarian issue. There is much distrust of Plan Bay Area by both sides of the political spectrum. ABAG and MTC have managed to do what Congress and the Administration have failed to do. They have united the tea party and occupy around a common goal.