Prop K Surplus Public Lands

[SK Trauss]

Surplus Public Lands Legal Text (PDF) Legislative Digest (PDF) Controller Analysis (PDF) Ballot Question (PDF)

Filed 7/30/2015

Board of Supervisors

Supervisor Jane Kim 415-554-7970

Supervisor Jane Kim

SF Taxpayers Association

Here is the thread where you talk about Prop K: Surplus Public Lands:

I'm going to vote to endorse this measure. It duplicates and strengthens the state Surplus Public Lands act. It says 33% of units built on surplus public land must be affordable for people making up to 120% AMI, and 15% for people making up to 55% AMI. It's also flexible, for a ballot measure, allowing supervisors to modify the law or waive certain provisions.

The only reason to vote against this is if you are a SF taxpayer who feels you are somehow robbed if the city doesn't get the maximum dollar value for the land it owns every time.

Please Discuss:



Then vote: http://goo.gl/forms/m0Q7htjSdd

You can edit your responses! So vote early, vote often! Voting will close Tuesday September 8th.

Notice - I will cross reference the votes here with the people who signed into the database of voters, or donated. If you want your vote to count, you have to either put yourself in the database of voters, or have donated to the Tilt, or send me $35 now on paypal (just sign the database, it's free).

[Donald Dewsnup]

I concur, I attended a luncheon where Sup Jane Kim spoke and she was very detailed and frank that from her experience being on the School Board she wanted to see SF School District lands that are unused be built with affordable apartments and the School District would have an additional revenue stream to rely on for any budget shortfalls in the future of the rent revenue.

[Kyle Huey]

This sets up a pretty obvious conflict of interest though.  The mission of SFUSD is to educate children, not to provide housing for lower-income tenants.  If SFUSD collects rent from housing developments on SFUSD owned land they will be incentivized to charge as much as they possibly can to the tenants.

I generally believe that subsidies should be explicit, rather than hidden implicitly via foregone revenue to the school district like this proposal would do.

- Kyle

--
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/fc246ed2-aa4f-4cea-b151-876224cb7ff0%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Brian Hanlon]

It's a fair point that Kyle makes, but I'd wager that most SFUSD educators understand that students who experience housing insecurity will find it harder to do well in school. Many SFUSD educators may directly benefit from such a proposal by being able to live in newly-constructed BMR housing as well. 

Brian

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/CAP045ArnF1nRAR%2Bmm_t%2B6AR-X2Ci1Oks5OKr7XAnZGLrb14-PQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kyle Huey]

IMO raising wages for teachers is better policy than trying to carve out yet another special BMR class.  We already have a shortage of BMR units, after all.

- Kyle

[Brian Hanlon]

I wasn't proposing carving out a special BMR class, just noting that among current and future BMR residents, SFUSD students and educators will be among them.

[rituvo...@yahoo.com]

I often say this " just because I have a scissor and can cut hair doesn't mean that I should". I seriously think SFUSD should stick the cause of education. But perhaps outsourcing it out might be a better way to do it. 

Sent from my iPhone

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/CAH5c7xvWnz0sm6jcE%3DWVvCBmJze8Epp-ErZnWH-wKrn3h9J%2B-A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mike Ege]

This is probably my cue to remind everyone what happened with the proposed affordable housing for teachers that was supposed to accompany Dianne Feinstein middle school. The plan faded away, at least partly because of lack of stakeholder interest: teachers didn't want to be seen as living in subsidized housing, or in a "teachers dorm".

Subsidized housing should be an absolute last resort for planning housing for wage earners. And then it should be inclusionary housing.

From my point of view, proper disposal of surplus property from SF USD would be a deed restricted sale to a developer for a combination lower end market rate/inclusionary housing project, with bonus points for using the alternative construction methods We keep jabbering about on this list.

In other words, sell the land at a slightly discounted price as an incentive to create new housing for the lower middle-class that pencils. The district will still make money, which then then can be added to the school budget.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/0EF4BCE6-3C49-4EA8-9A20-F05D8D52F8B4%40yahoo.com.

[Donald Dewsnup]

Great idea Mike!