June 2016: Vote Yes on Prop C for More Affordable Housing Construction

/
June 2016: Vote Yes on Prop C for More Affordable Housing Construction

San Francisco’s booming job markets, people’s desire to live in attractive walkable communities and the natural attractions of San Francisco’s environment has attracted population growth, tightening the housing market, increasing rents and forcing many renters out. Builders of large multi-unit housing projects are required by our Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to include a certain percentage of “affordable housing,” Prop C would raise that percentage and allow the Board of Supervisors (BOS) to adjust it further. We also support Prop C’s removal of operational requirements from the Charter.

 

Read More

June 2016: Vote Yes on Prop B for Better, Sustainable Parks

/

SFLCV’s Position

In San Francisco, we love our parks, and in this dense city, we depend on them to act as our backyards and living rooms too. Excellent parks are a critical part of a sustainable city. But San Francisco’s parks are suffering after years of shrinking funding. The SF League of Conservation Voters supports Proposition B, which would renew the city’s Open Space Fund to bring in an estimated $1 billion over 30 years for city parks, without raising taxes.

Vote YES on Prop B on June 7, 2016.

Summary of the Measure

The Sustainable Parks Funding measure, or Proposition B, is a city charter amendment that would renew the Open Space Fund first passed by San Francisco voters in 2000. That fund is set to expire in 15 years; this measure would extend it through 2045-46 and would gradually increase over time from the current level.

Measure B was placed on the ballot by Supervisor Mark Farrell and supported by Supervisors Avalos, Breed, Campos, Cohen, Farrell, Kim, Mar, Wiener, and Yee. The measure enjoys broad support.

Reasons to support Prop B

A crisis in funding

Over time, park maintenance funding in San Francisco has dwindled. In lean years, the City cut the park budget; in good years, that funding has not been restored. This has led to a crisis situation: today, according to the SF Parks Alliance, the vast majority of park maintenance funds are going to emergency repairs. That’s unsustainable, both economically and environmentally.

Though San Francisco voters have generously approved bond measures for parks in 2012 and 2008, these are only for capital improvements. By state law, bond funds cannot go toward maintenance, the day-in day-out attention that keeps our parks clean, green, and safe for everyone.

A sustainable solution

Proposition B builds upon the Open Space Fund passed by voters in 2000, which aimed to provide a sustainable funding source for parks. Proposition B will ensure the City’s General Fund set-aside for the Recreation and Parks Department cannot fall below 2015-16 funding levels, gradually increases over time, and ensures stable funding for the next 30 years through 2045-46.

Clear plans, and more equitable investment

The measure would require the Recreation and Parks Department to set goals and measures, develop a five-year strategic plan, and set annual operation and capital spending plans. These plans would also have to include a new equity analysis, comparing existing Recreation and Park services and resources in under-served communities with those in the City as a whole. The plans would have to include strategies to address the findings of the analysis. These annual plans, including the equity report, would be presented to the Recreation and Parks Commission and Board of Supervisors.

This should bring more accountability to the Recreation and Parks Department and make its spending decisions more transparent to the public. It should also make sure that public spaces in the city’s most disadvantaged neighborhoods—where parks are most needed—stay safe and clean for all.

Concerns about Prop B

Set-asides

The primary argument against Prop B is that it is a set-aside, which on good government principles is not something that the SFLCV generally supports. Set-asides restrict the ability of public agencies and elected leaders to allocate resources based on changing needs—based on more information than voters generally have. This is why Supervisors Tang and Peskin did not vote for Prop B.

However, set-asides allow voters to set general priorities for their leaders, and there are examples that work well, most notably the Library Preservation Fund. Parks, like libraries, are broadly important but easily ignored in the budgeting process; we believe that the history of chronic underfunding makes this measure worth it. Parks, like libraries, are heavily used by San Francisco residents, who will all benefit from better maintenance of public spaces.

The measure has some safety valves, too: it is based on revenue (rather than requiring a certain amount of spending), and its growth can be suspended in years where a major budget deficit is forecast.

Management

Prop B has also been opposed based on questions about the Recreation and Parks Department's management of funds and about privatization. We would have liked to see a plan for how additional funds will be spent. However, the reporting requirements should help address these concerns by bringing more accountability and transparency.  

Conclusion: Vote Yes on Prop B

Overall, the San Francisco League of Conservation Voters strongly supports Prop B to provide funds to maintain our parks, giving all San Franciscans access to the pleasant outdoor spaces that help make life enjoyable in our dense, sustainable city.

June 2016: Vote YES on Measure AA for a Clean and Healthy Bay!!!

/

SFLCV’s Position

Funding is desperately needed to restore San Francisco Bay’s wetlands and help protect the region from the effects of rising seas. This  modest $12 annual parcel tax would be evenly distributed among all parcels in the nine-county Bay Area. Over 20 years, it would raise $500 million to restore wildlife habitat, improve water quality, and create a buffer against storms and sea level rise. VOTE YES ON MEASURE AA on June 7th, 2016!

Summary of the Measure:

The Clean and Healthy Bay ballot measure, or Measure AA, is a region-wide $12 parcel tax that is expected to raise to $500 million dollars for wetland restoration during its 20-year lifetime. Revenue from the tax would be earmarked to restoring wetlands along San Francisco Bay (until the tax expires in 2037). Measure AA requires a two-thirds majority to pass.

Measure AA was placed on the ballot of all nine Bay Area counties by the the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority, a regional agency formed in 2008 to support the restoration, enhancement, protection, and enjoyment of Bay wetlands and wildlife habitat. The parcel tax is being championed by a broad array of supporters, including both environmental and business groups, such as Save the Bay and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. The funds raised will help meet regional wetland restoration goals, which have stalled for lack of funds, and address long-term needs to protect infrastructure and homes from sea level rise.

Arguments in favor

Scientists estimate as much as 90% of the historic wetlands around San Francisco Bay have been lost to development and agriculture. A decade-long goal to restore 100,000 acres of wetlands--to maintain vital bird habitat, enhance water quality, and protect our cities from tidal surges--has stalled in recent years, as funding has dried up. Lands are already available for restoration, particularly in the North and South Bay, but funding is needed to actually do the restoration.

Measure AA would pay for that wetland restoration. It would improve water quality and increase natural habitat for hundreds of species of wildlife, including salmon, Dungeness crab, porpoises, sea lions, and shorebirds.

Restoring San Francisco Bay’s wetlands will also protect shoreline communities from from flooding, which is likely to reach crisis proportions in the coming decades as sea level rises. More than $60 billion worth of homes, businesses, and crucial infrastructure are at risk, including ports, airports, roads, office buildings, and entire neighborhoods at or below sea level. Restoring wetlands will help with this by helping absorb and buffer against rising tides and storms.

Arguments in opposition

Measure AA is generally unopposed throughout the region, with the exception of taxpayers’ associations, which reflexively oppose taxes. The main argument against the measure is that all parcels are taxed at the same rate-- that is, Facebook and Google pay the same as owners of individual homes. Though we certainly support more funding from large tech companies for Bay restoration, the tax is a broadly affordable $12 and will support something that cannot wait--the restoration of our Bay.

November 2015: Our November 3, 2015 Endorsements

/

The November 2015 election is upon us, and as usual there are several important "Votes for the Environment"! We particularly urge you to vote No on G, Yes on H and for Aaron Peskin for D3 Supervisor. See all our endorsements below, and follow the links for more information. Note that if we did not list a Ballot measure or Race, it is not because it is not an important issue, only because we did not feel there was a clear environmental or good government reason to endorse, as per our mission.

Board of Supervisors, District 3: Aaron Peskin - A long time environmental champion! Yes on A: Affordable Housing Bond - More affordable housing NOW! No on C: Lobbyists Ordinance - Badly drafted ethics reform which will unfairly harm small non-profits Yes on D: Misson Rock Development - On balance, a good development proposal for Mission Rock No on E: Public Meetings - A deeply flawed attempt at more public access which would make our local democracy worse, not better Prop F: Short Term Residential Rentals - A flawed solution to the big problem of short term residential rentals. (Read for why we can neither support nor oppose) No on G: Bad Definition of Clean Energy - A cynical, restrictive & disingenuous attempt to slow down SF's CleanPowerSF initiative. Yes on H: Good Definition of Clean Energy - A measure to protect CleanPowerSF from Prop G. No on I: Mission Luxury Housing Moratorium - The moratorium will definitely make some parts of the Mission's housing problems worse, and very unlikely to make any of them better. Yes on J: Legacy Business Preservation Fund - An interesting effort to support San Francisco businesses that make up our social fabric Yes on K: Surplus City Property Ordinance - Prioritize the City's Surplus Lands for Affordable Housing

Don't forget to VOTE on Tuesday, November 3rd!

November 2015: Aaron Peskin for Supervisor (D3)

/
SFLCV President, Amandeep Jawa with Supervisor Aaron Peskin

SFLCV President, Amandeep Jawa with Supervisor Aaron Peskin

The San Francisco League of Conservation Voters endorses Aaron Peskin for the Board of Supervisors for District 3. Aaron is a long-time environmental champion, and we have enjoyed working with him over the years, both on and off the Board. As a Supervisor, and then President of the Board, Aaron took strong positions on protecting the Bay, funding public transit, and enhancing San Francisco’s open spaces. We look forward to working with him again on the Board of Supervisors and urge you to Vote for Aaron Peskin for District 3 Supervisor.

November 2015: NO on Proposition I

/

No issue in San Francisco seems more acute than our current housing crisis, and to be sure it is an environmental issue. Vibrant, socioeconomically, diverse cities are the best way to prevent suburban sprawl and its attendant environmental problems such as resource-intensive living and habitat destruction. Unfortunately, cities across the country are facing similar problems of housing demand outstripping housing supply. Proposition I is a well-meaning attempt to address part of this crisis in the Mission district, one of the San Francisco neighborhoods most affected. Long term residents and businesses in the Mission are dealing with a dramatic increase in property values which is, in turn, leading to a high number of evictions and a rapidly changing neighborhood character. Prop I would establish an 18 month moratorium on housing projects that do not contain 100% affordable housing (with possibility of a 1 year extension). In that time, the City would be required to come up with a Neighborhood Stabilization Plan which would propose ways to help the Mission reach 50% affordable on new construction going forward.

While we strongly believe more must be done to address San Francisco's housing crisis and the affordability issues it creates, we believe Prop I will likely not improve much and will more likely cause greater harm. By stalling new housing construction, even for luxury units, without addressing demand, Prop I will most likely cause the already sky-high value of existing housing stock to increase, fueling still more speculation, and more evictions. While it is critical to build more affordable housing in San Francisco, and in particular to the Mission, Prop I does nothing to actually address the issue of creating more affordable housing.

In addition to this measure's practical limitations, we also dislike the fact that this is essentially ballot-box planning. However much we may agree with the intentions behind the measure, to protect the City's affordability, socio-economic diversity, and character, we urge you to vote No on Proposition I.

November 2015: YES on Prop D

/

Proposition D is a vote for the Mission Rock project, a waterfront development proposed on what is now a large parking lot, across Lefty O'Doul Bridge from AT&T Park. Specifically, Prop D would raise waterfront height limits from 40 feet, to up to 240 feet, on a piece of SF Port property mostly zoned for open space. Proposition D reached the ballot due to voter approval of Prop B in 2014, which required voter approval whenever a development plans on exceeding the 40-foot height limit along the waterfront. The site, known as Lot A, is currently a vast surface parking lot that holds 2,300 cars. The rezoning would allow the Giants to move ahead with a plan that calls for 1,500 units of housing, 8 acres of parkland, 1.5 million square feet of commercial space and a new brewing facility for Anchor Brewing Co. at Pier 48. The parking will be replaced by a garage on the southern end of the property.

Forty percent of the new homes will be affordable. About half of this will target middle-income families earning more than 120 percent of area median income, $122,300 for a family of four. The rest will start at 55 percent of AMI, $56,000 for a family of four, and go up from there.

Prop. D is opposed by the Sierra Club, San Francisco Tomorrow, Livable Cities and the Coalition of San Francisco Neighborhoods. Opponents say the proposed buildings are too tall, the project has too much parking, and the property should be used for open space, in keeping with the state public trust laws that preserve public access and limit use of the public waterfront lands to mainly maritime and water-related recreational uses.

SFLCV shares these concerns, yet we respect that the developers have incorporated numerous public concerns and designed a project that could provide a model for future development across the city. In addition to the 40% affordable housing standard, some of the sustainability features include:

  • Mission Rock will be San Francisco’s first Type 1 Eco-District – the city’s highest environmental standard, meaning that a community has a set of energy, water, transportation, and waste targets to achieve.
  • All buildings shall be designed to the LEED Gold standard (with specific requirements for water targets above and beyond LEED).
  • Implementation of integrated stormwater management in the street design
  • Integration of infrastructure across all buildings, allowing for enhanced water and energy efficiency. For example process water from the Anchor facilities can be used for toilet flushing in the buildings. Or waste heat from Anchor may be used to heat the buildings
  • Consideration of sea level rise and implementation of open space parkland along the waterfront.

SFLCV urges you to vote YES on Prop D.

November 2015: YES on Prop J

/

Small businesses are suffering in the current rental market. They, like residents, are being priced out. Prop J is a new idea to help, by supporting “legacy businesses.” The City is already creating a Legacy Business registry. To be considered for the registry, a business or nonprofit must meet three criteria: they must have been in San Francisco for at least 30 years and founded or headquartered here; they must have contributed to neighborhood history or identity; and they must commit to maintaining their defining physical features or traditions.

Prop J proposes to create a fund to provide grants to legacy businesses and to landlords that sign long-term leases (at least 10 years) to legacy businesses. Prop J would also cover 20-year-old businesses that meet the same criteria and are at risk of displacement.

This is an interesting idea and worth a try. It is a pilot program: the funding is only guaranteed for the first year. If voters support it and it works, the Board of Supervisors is likely to continue to support it.

We’ve all seen beloved businesses close or move out of San Francisco. Prop J could help support businesses that bring our communities together. SFLCV recommends a Yes vote on Prop J.

November 2015: No position on Prop F

/

The San Francisco League of Conservation Voters is extremely concerned about the growing unaffordability of San Francisco housing, especially for renters. The boom in short-term rentals, driven largely by platforms such as AirBnB, is worsening the city’s affordable housing crisis and reducing the number of rental homes available to local workers and families. While we are very sympathetic to the goals of Prop F, we believe it goes too far. Prop F would limit all short-term home rentals to 75 days per year and enforce this with fines on both the hosting platform and owners, and allow interested parties (e.g., neighbors) to sue. The main problem with Prop F is that it would be impossible for the Board of Supervisors to change the legislation in response to unintended consequences. The explosion in the short-term rental market is a new phenomenon, and dealing with it legislatively requires flexibility. Supervisors should be able to change the law as needed.

There are clear problems with the status quo. People are being forced out and priced out. AirBnB doesn’t seem to want to work with the City to find a workable solution. For example, it can and should share hosting data. It’s also not clear how the City will enforce the rules it’s adopted (or the ones Prop F proposes).

The Supervisors recently adopted new legislation to address this problem. Let’s give it time to work.

An unaffordable city is an unsustainable one. We agree that San Francisco needs to address this issue, so while we cannot endorse Prop F, we are also unwilling to oppose it.

November 2015: SFLCV opposes Propositions C and E

/

The SF League of Conservation Voters agrees that greater transparency and increased participation are worthwhile goals for good government. However, we believe that these two propositions are flawed and would actually end up suppressing diverse perspectives. Oppose Prop C: Expenditure Lobbyists

Prop C would require "any person, other than any government entity, or officer or employee of a government entity acting in an official capacity, who, directly or indirectly, makes payments totaling $2,500 or more in a calendar month to solicit, request, or urge other persons to communicate directly with an officer of the City and County in order to influence local legislative or administrative action" to "register with the Ethics Commission, pay a $500 registration fee, and file monthly disclosures regarding their lobbying activities." It applies to City employee unions, prospective City contractors and non-profit organizations.

Paid lobbyists are already required to register and report their lobbying activities. Prop C would extend that requirement to individuals or groups who spend $2,500 a month on advertising, public relations, public outreach, investigations, reports, analyses and studies urging others to contact city officials in order to influence a city decision.

This proposition would increase transparency about the money spent to influence city government decisions. This is especially useful for profit-driven businesses.

However, requiring nonprofits, many of whom are small, to meet the same complex requirements could drain their limited funds, stigmatize them and drive them out of public policy debates, depriving the city of the input of the communities they organize and represent.

Prop C was put on the ballot by the Ethics Commission, and if enacted by the voters cannot be easily amended. It would be much better for this to go through the Board of Supervisors deliberative process, which includes public comment, discussion and recorded voting.

SFLCV urges you to vote NO on Prop C.

Oppose Prop E: Requirements for Public Meetings

Prop E would require City policy bodies to "publicly post an agenda at least 72 hours before a meeting" and would allow the "public to submit pre-recorded video testimony 48 hours or more before a meeting" to be played during public comment, allow the "public to provide live written, video, or audio comments ... electronically" from anywhere, with translation into English, during public comment. It would also allow a member of the policy board or 50 members of the public to set a time certain for taking up any agenda item. It would also require all meetings to be broadcast live on the internet.

While it contains some interesting ideas, allowing this variety of live and recorded input from anywhere could extend meetings enormously, especially when private interests organize to influence decisions.

SFLCV urges you to vote NO on Prop E.

November 2015: Vote Yes on A & K

/

Affordable housing is arguably the most important issue for San Francisco’s voters. Two ballot measures in November 2015 seek to address this. The San Francisco League of Conservation Voters endorses both Prop A and Prop K. Proposition A would authorize the City to issue up to $310 million in general obligation bonds to: - acquire, build, or renovate affordable rental housing near established transit corridors, including in the Mission Area Plan; - rehabilitate or reconstruct public housing; - fund middle-income rental housing; and - assist middle-income City residents in purchasing their first home in the City.

This proposition is sponsored by Mayor Lee and supported by the Board of Supervisors, as well as labor, affordable housing advocates and the SF Chronicle.

Another proposition that seeks to help increase affordable housing options in SF is Proposition K. Prop K would support the policy that at least one third of the housing units built on the surplus property sold by the City be affordable to low- and moderate-income households. In addition, Prop K would enforce a 120-day waiting period before the City can sell a property, if the Board of Supervisors is already considering affordable housing development on it.

The proposition is sponsored by Supervisor Jane Kim, and is supported by the Board of Supervisors, as well as labor, affordable housing advocates, and the South Beach Bay Business Association.

At a time when housing prices continue to escalate, Propositions A and K will create financial assistance and land opportunities to increase the supply of affordable housing and provide relief for many San Franciscans who are priced out. Please Join the San Francisco League of Conservation Voters and Vote YES on Prop A and YES on Prop K!

November 2015: Vote No on G and Yes on H for Clean Power in SF

/

[Ed. Note: This is the first of several posts on our endorsements for the November 2015 election. Check back for more soon!] The two competing ballot measures Proposition G & H are both about the same thing: Controlling how “Clean Energy" is defined for purposes of the upcoming CleanPowerSF power system.

Prop G is sponsored by PG&E’s union and is an attempt to force the CleanPowerSF system into a more restrictive & disingenuous definition of clean power, and to limit what sources CleanPowerSF can use, all to advantage PG&E’s own dirtier power distribution. Why?  To limit loss of customers from PG&E to CleanPowerSF.

Prop H is the competing ballot measure, placed on the ballot by Supervisors London Breed, John Avalos, Scott Wiener and Julie Christensen to protect CleanPowerSF. Prop H fixes the clean power definition back to the state standard & allows for using more sources, though it sets City policy to prefer locally generated sources.

Please Join the San Francisco League of Conservation Voters & the Sierra Club & Vote NO on G and YES on Prop H!

For more info we recommend this article from KQED.

November 2014 Endorsements

/

Here are our endorsements for the November 4th, 2014 election in San Francisco. Make sure you check back, as we will be posting more information & videos in the following weeks.

A Transportation & Road Improvement Bond YES
B Population-based funding for Muni YES
E Soda Tax YES
F Pier 70 Development Site Height Limit Increase YES
G Surtax on Transfers of Residential Real Property YES
H Requiring Certain Athletic Fields in Golden Gate Park to be Maintained as Natural Grass YES
I Park Code - Children's Playgrounds, Walking Trails, Athletic Fields NO
L Policy Regarding Transportation Priorities in San Francisco NO

Candidate Races:

Race 1st choice 2nd choice 3rd choice
Supervisor D2 Juan-Antonio Carballo (sole endorsement)
Supervisor D6 Jane Kim Jamie Whitaker
Supervisor D8 Scott Wiener (sole endorsement)
Supervisor D10 Malia Cohen Tony Kelly
 
BART Board Nick Josefowitz

Vote NO on Propositions B & C on November 5th!

/
This November 5th, San Francisco voters will decide on Propositions B & C, two ballot measures regarding the proposed development at 8 Washington along the Embarcadero.  The San Francisco League of Conservation Voters urges you to vote NO on both measures B & C for environmental reasons.In short, the proposed project will build 134 luxury condominiums in a high-rise near the Embarcadero Center buildings downtown, across from the waterfront itself.  The development will be built on what is currently a private tennis club & a parking lot.  If either of the two measures pass, the development will go forward.Proposition B was placed on the ballot by the developer and will give the developer the entirety of the deal they seek, without discretionary review by the City’s planning department.Proposition C was placed on the ballot by opponents of the development and is a referendum on the exception that has been granted for this project to be taller than the currently allowed height limits for waterfront construction.  A “yes” vote would mean that the exception will stand, and a “no” vote would mean the exception would be rescinded.

Proponents argue that the new space will enhance civic life by opening more street space, ground floor retail & some park space to the public, and that the project will contribute significantly to the City's affordable housing fund.

Meanwhile, those who oppose the development focus on the increase in the height limits and characterize it as a "wall on the waterfront" that must be stopped.

While these buildings are significantly higher than the currently allowed height limits for the waterfront, we don't believe they are out of place in the context, given that the highest parts are set away from the water, and are not nearly as high as the nearby Embarcadero Center buildings. Building higher, if done carefully, will allow us to build more densely.  And if San Francisco really wants to address our continuing housing crisis, we will need to build more densely, especially in transit rich areas such as downtown.

That being said, we find this project’s transit & transportation effects to be the most problematic part, and therefore, we oppose the development.

The project includes one parking space for every condo & an additional 200 spaces above and beyond those. We feel strongly that projects in San Francisco’s most transit rich neighborhood do not need one parking space for every unit., This approach to parking violates our Transit First Policy: by building so much parking we encourage people to drive when there are many better options nearby.  More parking will lead to additional cars in our already heavily congested downtown, which will badly impact Muni, create more air and carbon pollution, and reduce the quality of life for everyone.Please Vote NO on both Propositions B & C this November 5th!

 

 

.ps Here are some pro & con args we've read  & found informative: NO: San Francisco Bay Guardian YES: San Francisco Chronicle

Sign Up to our NEW Mailing List!

/

Friends - We're starting an email list! If you're interested in San Francisco's environment and the politics that shape it, we hope you sign up!

Our promises to you:

  • We'll be mindful of how much we're sending you.
  • You'll never be sent something not worth receiving :-)
  • We'll never sell our list. We promise!

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required

Email Format