Articles

Liveability

October 2018

When my client, a very smart and observant brain surgeon, commented to me 10 months ago that our City’s “liveability” was being destroyed, I sat up and took notice. This was important! I then started interviewing others, following population movement, and tracking jobs, housing and political changes in the bay area. Daily, I listened to numerous and, preferably, conflicting media, watching for what was the same, different or missing within all that data. Was there something obscured by media’s endless drama, urgency, and misleading (or withheld) information that was important to property owners and small businesses and might adversely affect my clients’ worlds or my industry? Deductive reasoning finally paid off and the answer was a resounding yes. My client was correct.

We San Franciscans like to enjoy our lives with minimal stress. Yet, we are presently surrounded by seemingly endless and questionably useful upheaval and change from the Municipal Transportation Agency (“MTA” – Possibly, THE most vilified Department ever!). And, underneath all that has appeared a less-than-subtle movement (intended or not) against property and business owners’ rights.

The two biggest topics in media are: 1) Homelessness, and, 2) The lack of affordable housing. They are our “hot potato” topics that obscure a multitude of sins and distract from the other issues. They are our decades-old shell game.

Past Supervisor Angela Alioto offered fast and effective solutions for solving a majority of our homeless needs rapidly, but then lost to Mayor Breed in our recent district elections.

Regarding affordable housing, I’ll address its perceived shortage in a future article.

Importantly, the arguable “lack of affordable housing” is the platform that Mayor Breed, many Supervisors and the Planning Department stand on with future stealth goals: 1) Add approximately 30,000 more housing units into the sleepy southwestern quadrant of San Francisco’s subdivisions. 2) Possibly fine owners of vacant homes (like Oakland’s Mayor recently discussed), at a potential boon to the City approximating $6,000+/home. 3) Possibly fine homeowners for empty rooms in their homes that could be rented out (roommates). (Some of these might now be tabled, but keep a watchful eye, please. There is still time for citizen input.)

Also, in Fall 2017, the State approved increasing density and altering zoning (which sometimes requires conditional use permits) through Additional Dwelling Units (ADUs), meaning you can add a unit or more to your home. All of this is futuristic planning that rarely reflects the present-day needs or desires of a majority of our citizens, and nor does it reflect potential housing market downturns. Yet, it is an opportunity for some.

And let’s not forget statewide Proposition 10 (NO on Prop 10), which I addressed in my last article, relating to rent control changes that adversely affect small property owners.

In addition to all those potential housing changes, is the need for public outcry over the city-wide “taking” that is underway by the MTA. It affects most of us daily. Our small businesses are now more dependent than ever on people who live right nearby them, because those that used to travel in for their product or service no longer want to battle for parking. Presently, many of our citizens now drive outside SF to buy items, visit friends and for entertainment. Afterall, it’s only 7 miles across town in any direction. It’s easy to access, plenty of parking, minimal ticketing and low stress. Our City leaders need to remember this.

When was the last time you attempted to buy bakery bread? Make a key? Get a gift? Enjoy a film? View a property for sale? It is nearly impossible, depending on the time of day, unless you walk or bike in. For vehicle drivers, once you’ve managed running the ceaseless and ever-changing construction gauntlet to arrive at the movies (15 minutes late!), you linger for just a moment near someone leaving a parking space. Almost immediately, you receive a $110 ticket for “double parking” (even though you’re in your car and your intentions are clear). You go around the block, still seeking parking, but instead find newly-painted, block-long red zones. You’re now, unfortunately, idling in a poorly-marked bus zone while pondering your options. Voila, another Interceptor magically appears, snapping your photo ($288 ticket). You finally find a spot (with newly-installed meter and higher rates than last month), realize your MTA card has $1.75 left on it, you have no change or charge card with you and you’re late. So you beg for change, and get just enough to view only half the film. Sound familiar?

No one can tell me that our neighborhood businesses and surrounding areas aren’t being damaged and leaving town due to this. I listen to it constantly.

I heard a joke recently that, to me, says it all: “What’s the best thing to come out of San Francisco? Interstate 80.”

Maybe it’s time to throw down the gauntlet and challenge our City. Let’s have them prove these huge City-wide changes and excessive spending are necessary. Do we really need so much removal of driving lanes and parking, along with increased costs for meters and such aggressive ticketing? Many of our bike lanes seem very dangerous, and they are clearly not needed in every area, while, oftentimes, greatly impeding vehicle traffic flow that IS currently needed there. What we lack is site-specific, common sense decision-making. And let’s not forget the removal of door zones (which allow you to safely open your car door and exit without being maimed or injuring another). Or bulb-outs, which theoretically aid pedestrians crossing streets faster (so long as they survive standing inches away from heavy vehicles moving 25 mph).

As you know, we are a City of hills. Extreme sports people can easily bike or hike them, but the majority cannot. Bike lanes appear to work best the closer you get towards downtown (in flat areas), but, based on their continued lack of use in the outlying areas, it seems they are not needed everywhere and those lanes should then be returned to their previous use as soon as possible. Laguna Honda Boulevard, across from Forest Hill Christian Church, is a perfect example of form over function.

Also, oddly, the City seems to have completely ceased with its stated duty to provide smooth movement of vehicle traffic across town (and especially along transgential and transpreferential streets and crossings).

If we feel these extreme changes are damaging our neighborhoods, we need to look towards decisions made by our Mayor(s), our Supervisors and their appointed Commissions (such as the Planning Department, MTA and Department of Public Works (“DPW”)). Most importantly, we need to monitor the City’s General Plan or Master Plan each time it’s updated, and which could be soon. It determines goals for zoning, street traffic, neighborhood planning, building height and size, occupancy, housing developments, commercial strips, etc. In all the rewrites, it’s very easy to just disappear something super important to our liveability, and I do believe that has already happened, but maybe it can be repaired at next update.

What exactly has been spent and is planned to be spent from our budget for MTAs debatable improvements city-wide? Do we really need to spend millions or even billions on streetcar lines that are, presently, in good repair in order to save one or two minutes of MUNI travel time across town? (Per MTA, this is what’s gained in their expensive upgrades on West Portal and on Taraval.) Common sense should dictate our actions, and not self-serving political agendas. Isn’t the goal “for the good of the people”? Since we are rated very low (statewide), as a City, on street repair maintenance, maybe, instead, we could focus on improving our basic infrastructure so the average vehicle owner doesn’t incur an estimated $900+/year on damage repair. The happier our citizens are, the fewer will move away and the fewer will spend their dollars across City borders.

A reputable source told me recently that Supervisor Peskin and possibly other Supervisors are actively looking into the MTA’s business model and considering splitting it apart again, to reduce its power, due to the extreme number of citizen complaints. Remember, MTA issues are not necessarily ballot-box issues. The MTA (along with the Rent Board, DPW, Planning Commission, Building Inspection, Business Commission, School Board, etc.) are all appointed positions, and that includes committees and subcommittees that then follow. All these departments need better vetting of qualified appointees (instead of favoritism) so we get the highest caliber of balanced, skillful workers we can find.

If we want to be a destination City for our renters, owners and workers, then we need to make our choices wisely. Those acquiring appointed positions should reflect the needs of everyone, including business and property owners. Presently, most do not. Instead, appointees are chosen because they are “in agreement” with those appointing them. Yet, it is through disagreement that we learn, grow and improve for one and all.