BCNA NEWS
(Editorâs note: This is part 2 of a two-part series on affordable housing by June A. Osterberg for the Barbary Coast Neighborhood Association. Click here for part 1.)
The 2013-2014 Civil Grand Jury selected several unquestionably timely subjects for study, including “The Mayor’s Office of Housing…Under Pressure and Challenged to Preserve Diversity.” The 18-member Grand Jury’s job is government oversight – particularly relevant in rapidly-changing San Francisco.
While the Jury’s final report on Housing, published in June, is primarily about Affordable Housing, it repeatedly refers to the continuing need for moderately-priced housing.
It should be mentioned that “affordable” has many different meanings, depending on one’s frame of reference. The report defines “affordable housing” as “paying only 30% of your income for rent and utilities.”
On page 16 of the 62-page report is: “The most serious aspect of the 2007-2014 construction trend illustrates the problem faced by middle class families in the City.”
MARKET RATE HOUSING – NO PROBLEM
Under Findings: “New production overwhelmingly delivered market rate units despite having need targets for a broader income spectrum. This has reduced the number of opportunities affordable to the majority of citizens.”
The report stated that “the Housing Trust Fund resulted from passage of Proposition C in 2012 with approval of 65% of the voters.” Continuing, “… Proposition C was for creation, acquisition, and rehabilitation of rental and ownership housing affordable to households earning up to 120% of the Area Median Income.
“…The HTF can be used to provide financing for projects supporting moderate income populations.”
The report was not without favorable comment. For example:Â “Anecdotes relayed to the Jury during our investigation indicate that the MOHCD (Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development) has done a very good job of facilitating projects and has successfully worked to sustain a vibrant Affordable Housing community.”
THE PUBLIC A ‘STAKEHOLDER’
However, “The Jury notes that the public is also a stakeholder in defining Affordable Housing policy, and the lack of readable documents and failure to provide easy and timely access to data on their website is a serious deficiency.”
Finding 2 in “Response Matrix,” with the response required of the MOHCD, is:
“Housing construction for Middle Income households is not meeting regional housing targets. Local government programs to address the situation are limited.”
Recommendation 2 is:
“The Jury recommends that MOHCD articulate strategies to improve achievement of regional housing targets for Middle Income households and establish incremental targets by year. The Jury also recommends that MOHCD report annually to the Board of Supervisors on progress in achieving these targets and include best practice research from other municipalities about Middle Income policy solutions.”
CONCLUSION
In opening paragraph. . .”the Jury does subscribe to the notion that the availability of housing that is available to the widest spectrum of socio-economic levels fasters a more vital and dynamic urban environment and is in the best long-term interest of all our citizens.
“San Francisco population increase toward one million by 2032, and its role as a job center and transit, will mean more and more need for housing and competition for funds with a host of other infrastructure needs.”
“Public investment in Affordable Housing results in a common public good and this resource benefits more than just affordable housing tenants. Leadership and results backed by data will allow the City to prepare itself politically and financially to nurture policies that can sustain a culturally and economically diverse population.”
Finally:Â “The Jury feels that recommendations for improving transparency and citizen access to housing will lead to the City of the future that all San Franciscans will be proud to call home.”