Jon Schwark
SAN FRANCISCO – File this under "Shooting yourself in the face to save the Mission".
Last month, while flailing under pressure from the Mission Moratoriumist Mafia, the city threw down BIG MONEY on a 72-unit "lux-fordable" Mission District development at the 490 Van Ness gas station site. The land price was so high, despite the impending moratorium, that the units will cost almost $900k each to create.
At the same time, the San Francisco Planning Department is about to approve a SoMa developer's project to increase our housing deficit by 1,600 units in one building...ON CITY LAND. That project alone, had it been residential as intended instead of office, could have triggered the creation of 200 affordable units while offsetting the need for 1400 market-rate units throughout the city.
Guess what neighborhood those hundreds of techies will be wanting to live in now? Hint: It has a BART station. Guess what overloaded transit systems they will be taking to work?
Now here's the kicker, and Socketsite missed this: If you multiply the per unit land price that the city paid for 490 Van Ness ($285k) times 600 units on the SoMa site, the city could have made ALMOST THE EXACT SAME AMOUNT ($171M) selling it for housing as they did for office. If it wasn't possible to make that much from land Downtown, why the hell are we paying that much for land in the Mission?
We literally could have had 2.5x more AFFORDABLE HOUSING units + 400 techie storage units, AND saved $18M for another project.
It's your money folks. Demand some accountability and sanity in how it is spent.
- Jon Schwark (@vjon on twitter)
Kate Vershov Downing
OMG, the usually "just the facts" Socketsite got a little snarky about 490 Van Ness while I've been on vacation.
My comments from the out facebook post today:
SAN FRANCISCO – File this under "Shooting yourself in the face to save the Mission".
Last month, while flailing under pressure from the Mission Moratoriumist Mafia, the city threw down BIG MONEY on a 72-unit "lux-fordable" Mission District development at the 490 Van Ness gas station site. The land price was so high, despite the impending moratorium, that the units will cost almost $900k each to create.
At the same time, the San Francisco Planning Department is about to approve a SoMa developer's project to increase our housing deficit by 1,600 units in one building...ON CITY LAND. That project alone, had it been residential as intended instead of office, could have triggered the creation of 200 affordable units while offsetting the need for 1400 market-rate units throughout the city.
Guess what neighborhood those hundreds of techies will be wanting to live in now? Hint: It has a BART station. Guess what systems they will be taking to work?
Now here's the kicker, and Socketsite missed this: If you multiply the per unit land price that the city paid for 490 Van Ness ($285k) times 600 units on the SoMa site, the city could have made ALMOST THE EXACT SAME AMOUNT ($171M) selling it for housing as they did for office. If it wasn't possible to make that much from land Downtown, why the hell are we paying that much for land in the Mission?
We literally could have had 2.5x more AFFORDABLE HOUSING units + 400 techie storage units, AND saved $18M for another project.
It's your money folks. Demand some accountability and sanity in how it is spent.
- Jon Schwark (@vjon on twitter)
--
This list too heavy for you? Join the ANNOUNCEMENTS ONLY list: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/sfbarentersfed-announce and unsubscribe from this list. Instructions immediately below \/ \/ \/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SFBA Renters Federation" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to SFBArentersfe...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/42613008-f990-4c7a-9a80-e3c98421b4eb%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Jon Schwark
On Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 5:22:08 AM UTC+8, kate.vershov wrote:
Not sure what's up with the "techie storage units" line. Why insult people that way? Lots of people in SFBARF aren't techies, but some are.
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 4:25 AM, 'Jon Schwark' via SFBA Renters Federation <SFBArentersfed@googlegroups.com> wrote:
OMG, the usually "just the facts" Socketsite got a little snarky about 490 Van Ness while I've been on vacation.My comments from the out facebook post today:SAN FRANCISCO – File this under "Shooting yourself in the face to save the Mission".
Last month, while flailing under pressure from the Mission Moratoriumist Mafia, the city threw down BIG MONEY on a 72-unit "lux-fordable" Mission District development at the 490 Van Ness gas station site. The land price was so high, despite the impending moratorium, that the units will cost almost $900k each to create.
At the same time, the San Francisco Planning Department is about to approve a SoMa developer's project to increase our housing deficit by 1,600 units in one building...ON CITY LAND. That project alone, had it been residential as intended instead of office, could have triggered the creation of 200 affordable units while offsetting the need for 1400 market-rate units throughout the city.
Guess what neighborhood those hundreds of techies will be wanting to live in now? Hint: It has a BART station. Guess what systems they will be taking to work?
Now here's the kicker, and Socketsite missed this: If you multiply the per unit land price that the city paid for 490 Van Ness ($285k) times 600 units on the SoMa site, the city could have made ALMOST THE EXACT SAME AMOUNT ($171M) selling it for housing as they did for office. If it wasn't possible to make that much from land Downtown, why the hell are we paying that much for land in the Mission?
We literally could have had 2.5x more AFFORDABLE HOUSING units + 400 techie storage units, AND saved $18M for another project.
It's your money folks. Demand some accountability and sanity in how it is spent.
- Jon Schwark (@vjon on twitter)
--
This list too heavy for you? Join the ANNOUNCEMENTS ONLY list: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/sfbarentersfed-announce and unsubscribe from this list. Instructions immediately below \/ \/ \/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SFBA Renters Federation" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to SFBArentersfed+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Adina Levin
Uhm, if i offended andy tecies i'm sorry? I should have used the <sarcasm> tag.;)
Jon
On Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 5:22:08 AM UTC+8, kate.vershov wrote:
Not sure what's up with the "techie storage units" line. Why insult people that way? Lots of people in SFBARF aren't techies, but some are.
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 4:25 AM, 'Jon Schwark' via SFBA Renters Federation <SFBAren...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
OMG, the usually "just the facts" Socketsite got a little snarky about 490 Van Ness while I've been on vacation.My comments from the out facebook post today:SAN FRANCISCO – File this under "Shooting yourself in the face to save the Mission".
Last month, while flailing under pressure from the Mission Moratoriumist Mafia, the city threw down BIG MONEY on a 72-unit "lux-fordable" Mission District development at the 490 Van Ness gas station site. The land price was so high, despite the impending moratorium, that the units will cost almost $900k each to create.
At the same time, the San Francisco Planning Department is about to approve a SoMa developer's project to increase our housing deficit by 1,600 units in one building...ON CITY LAND. That project alone, had it been residential as intended instead of office, could have triggered the creation of 200 affordable units while offsetting the need for 1400 market-rate units throughout the city.
Guess what neighborhood those hundreds of techies will be wanting to live in now? Hint: It has a BART station. Guess what systems they will be taking to work?
Now here's the kicker, and Socketsite missed this: If you multiply the per unit land price that the city paid for 490 Van Ness ($285k) times 600 units on the SoMa site, the city could have made ALMOST THE EXACT SAME AMOUNT ($171M) selling it for housing as they did for office. If it wasn't possible to make that much from land Downtown, why the hell are we paying that much for land in the Mission?
We literally could have had 2.5x more AFFORDABLE HOUSING units + 400 techie storage units, AND saved $18M for another project.
It's your money folks. Demand some accountability and sanity in how it is spent.
- Jon Schwark (@vjon on twitter)
--
This list too heavy for you? Join the ANNOUNCEMENTS ONLY list: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/sfbarentersfed-announce and unsubscribe from this list. Instructions immediately below \/ \/ \/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SFBA Renters Federation" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to SFBArentersfe...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/42613008-f990-4c7a-9a80-e3c98421b4eb%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
This list too heavy for you? Join the ANNOUNCEMENTS ONLY list: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/sfbarentersfed-announce and unsubscribe from this list. Instructions immediately below \/ \/ \/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SFBA Renters Federation" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/1a506ec8-43a7-4ac5-a2b4-00afaef8ccd3%40googlegroups.com.To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to SFBArentersfe...@googlegroups.com.