advertisement

San Francisco Board of Supervisors President David Chiu has admonished WB Coyle, a prominent real estate broker from district. 

Article source: http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/San-Francisco-Real-Estate-Broker-Not-Welcome-in-City-215887761.html

advertisement

San Francisco Board of Supervisors President David Chiu has admonished WB Coyle, a prominent real estate broker from district. 

Article source: http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/San-Francisco-Real-Estate-Broker-Not-Welcome-in-City-215887761.html

When San Francisco Supervisor Scott Wiener went before the Planning Commission in November proposing to attach a deadline to some California Environmental Quality Act appeals, he was met by 90 minutes of strong opposition from public commenters and commissioners, who told him to come back with a better plan done with more public outreach.

Thirty-four amendments later, Wiener will be back at the commission Thursday hoping to change an appeals process that he calls unpredictable and chaotic.

“If you’re not a land-use lawyer, it’s completely opaque. It’s unclear even when the deadline is to file the appeal,” Wiener said.

San Francisco is one of few cities where smaller projects that don’t require environmental impact reports aren’t subject to a set deadline for appeals to the Board of Supervisors. Wiener wants to establish a deadline so that any appeal of the state environmental quality act would be made within 30 days of a project’s approval.

Currently the city attorney determines on a case-by-case basis whether an appeal is timely.

“The bottom line is we’re not taking away anyone’s right to appeal the CEQA decision,” said Planning Director John Rahaim, who supports Wiener’s efforts. “What this does is establish some very basic rules around deadline appeals.”

Simplifying process

Gabriel Metcalf, the executive director of San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, said that the city’s planning code is thousands of pages long and that Wiener’s legislation would simplify things without resulting in material changes for bigger projects.

“We have a system that is designed for maximum confusion and maximum frustration,” he said. “The amendments we’re talking about here would help clear up a little bit of the confusion and a little bit of the frustration for a small set of projects.”

Wiener stresses that his legislation is focused on smaller projects that can least afford to have an unpredictable environmental process, as opposed to large developers who can afford to wage long, costly legal battles.

“This isn’t about the Parkmerceds, the Treasure Islands and America’s Cups of the world,” he said. “This is the much larger category ranging from small park projects, to pedestrian projects, to people doing work on their homes.”

But some groups wary of development say they do believe the legislation puts unreasonable constraints on the appeals process.

“Scott Wiener’s legislation puts forward a time frame that will hamper our ability to effectively file an appeal,” said Michelle Myers, the director of the Sierra Club’s San Francisco Bay chapter.

Eric Brooks, an organizer for the Our City activist group that opposed past efforts by supervisors to streamline the CEQA process, said he also shares Myers’ concern about a provision in Wiener’s legislation that would allow some appeals to be heard before a board committee instead of the full Board of Supervisors.

“Basically what the legislation is doing is taking some small problems in the current law that do need some fixing and using them as a vehicle to completely gut the public’s ability to use CEQA to support San Francisco and its neighborhoods from bad real estate developments,” Brooks said.

Miss appeal window

He also worried that project opponents would miss the appeal window if the legislation is approved.

Brooks and Myers said they are working with Supervisor Jane Kim on alternative CEQA legislation that would involve the full board in appeals and push back the appeal deadlines, which Wiener said would make the process worse than it already is.

Other neighborhood leaders say they welcome clear rules for appeals on smaller projects. Raymond Holland, president of the Planning Association for the Richmond recalled that when ATT started adding utility boxes on sidewalks in his neighborhoods a few years ago, there was a debate over whether it was too late to appeal.

“It was real unclear when the decision of the exemption was made and secondly when the clock started to run,” he said. “It’s been sort of a free-for-all whenever you have an appeal, so I think codifying makes sense.”

Once the Planning Commission makes its recommendation Thursday, there will be several more public hearings before the legislation is voted on by the Board of Supervisors.

Neal J. Riley is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: nriley@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @realdealneal

Article source: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Supervisor-s-2nd-try-to-change-environmental-4352827.php

If we hadn’t been told over and over that it is an evil word that should never be uttered in San Francisco, even cynics would say it is the g-word:

Gentrification.

And it’s happening with surprisingly little grumbling.

“Or,” says 30-year real estate veteran Joske Thompson, “I think it is a different kind of grumbling. Even the long-termers in neighborhoods are appreciating the changes. Those people in the Mission like the fact that they can walk the neighborhood and feel safer.”

The difference this time is that the push is coming from the bottom up. Rather than fat-cat developers promoting ugly skyscrapers, the demand is coming from young techies who work here or in the Silicon Valley and want to preserve the feel of unique neighborhoods. Their presence is being felt not only in the Mission, where Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg now has a home, but to areas that were once considered downtrodden.

“Young people with talent are the new movers and shakers in the city,” says Thompson, who says the city sells itself. “Last weekend I had some clients who were looking in the Mission. We drove by Dolores Park, and it was packed. They said, ‘Is there a street fair?’ “

Nope, just another afternoon in trendy town.

“This is a small city of 800,000 people,” says Supervisor Scott Wiener, who chairs the Board of Supervisors’ Land Use and Development Committee. “And 2 to 3 million people want to live here. We just need to make sure we don’t kill that quirkiness and uniqueness.”

Displacement in ’70s, ’80s

While the city experienced a similar boom in the ’80s, the concern then was “Manhattanization” – and that’s when gentrification became a dirty word.

“In the ’70s and ’80s there was massive displacement of residents in the Haight, Noe Valley and the Castro,” says Randy Shaw, executive director of the Tenderloin Housing Clinic. “But now you are seeing a massive influx of upper-income people into previously unoccupied areas.”

This boom has its share of concerned activists, but we have yet to see the stop-any-kind-of-development movement we saw in the ’80s.

Still, higher rents are higher rents, and if monthly rates top $2,000, that will affect the entire rental stock.

“In over 30 years of doing this, I have never seen rents like this,” says Delene Wolf, executive director of the city’s Rent Stabilization Board. “My surmise is those Google buses must be fueling that. The whole demographic has changed. I just think about what people on the low end of the economic ladder are feeling.”

Tenants feel at risk

Sara Shortt, executive director of the Housing Rights Council of San Francisco, says the booming rents create a climate that encourages landlords to drive out rent-controlled tenants.

“I am hearing from people who are feeling like survivors in isolated pockets,” she said. “Don’t be fooled. There are still big-money real estate developers creating that market.”

But, those changes are largely happening in neighborhoods that have made the progression from urban blight to uber-hot.

Take Dogpatch, an obscure right turn off Third Street south of ATT Park. Until recently, it was best known as home to the clubhouse of the San Francisco chapter of Hells Angels.

In 2002, Arienne Landry moved her Just for You Cafe from Potrero Hill, but not before she parked her truck on the street for a few days to check out the vibe.

“It was pretty sketchy, almost industrial,” says Landry, who had to shoo drug users away from the cafe entrance after she opened.

Now there’s a line out the door for weekend brunch, and she says weekdays have gone from “whatever to craziness.”

Susan Eslick, an artist, has lived in Dogpatch since 1996. Now she can walk down 22nd Street and call out the changes on every corner. There’s Chocolate Lab, a local chocolate maker, Rickshaw Bagworks, which makes custom messenger bags, a cheese shop, a gourmet ice cream store and Olivier’s, a French butcher shop. And perhaps most important to the transformation, Puccino Restaurant. It opened in 2006, attracting both foodies and good reviews.

“When I got here, you’d have been hard-pressed to find a woman pushing a baby stroller,” says Eslick, vice president of the Dogpatch Neighborhood Association. “Now we have three preschools and a baby gym. It all happened around the time Puccino opened.”

Dogpatch hasn’t lost its funk. The Hells Angels are still there, and they’re active members of the Dogpatch Neighborhood Association.

So don’t try to tell her that upscaling of the neighborhood is a bad thing.

“The term gentrification is loaded,” she said. “I say bring it on. It just has to be designed well. There’s no tolerance for schlock.”

People mean change

There are surely more changes to come. The Tenderloin’s Shaw says the neighborhood has been relatively untouched by the surge, but thousands of residential units near Eighth Street are under construction, and with the arrival of both Twitter and Dolby Labs, it seems impossible that area won’t be transformed.

Those who have already ridden the wave say it is best to go with the flow. Now that her cafe has become a hot spot, startup millionaires stop by for lunch regularly.

“We just ignore them,” she says.

C.W. Nevius is a San Francisco Chronicle columnist. His columns appear Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays. E-mail: cwnevius@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @cwnevius

Article source: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/nevius/article/Gentrification-no-longer-a-dirty-word-4302093.php

Where are the DINK couples most populous, and powerful?  According to DINK Life, San Francisco is the best place for dual income, no kids couples, aka DINKs.  Here are the top 3 cities we share honors with.

<!– –>

Unless you’ve had your head in the sand, you know DINKs flock to San Francisco, a city famed for having more dog-raising families than kid-raising ones. So perfect is this fair city that DINK Life headquarters in San Francisco (they’re even writing a book about the DINK lifestyle).

DINK Money and Real Estate

DINKs are so powerful a demographic they got their own acronym sometime in the 1980s; along with that acronym came a flood of targeted marketing and spending-habit studies. No surprise that with a much freer expendable income than their child-rearing brethren, these American adults spend money differently. That includes how they spend it on real estate.

San Francisco DINKs and Dogs

Here in San Francisco where inventory is tight, we have to expect some overlap between parent homebuyers and DINK homebuyers, especially dog owners. Both groups, as homebuyers, will want yards.

But families with children are fast leaving the city, per the Huffington Post: “According to statistics presented to a special hearing of the Board of Supervisors on Thursday, San Francisco has the lowest percentage of children of any major city in the country. Only 13.4 percent of the city’s approximately 800,000 residents are under the age of 18.”

That leaves the yards wide open for DINK buyers, who might compete for something like this, a 3 bedroom, 2 bath condo on California Street. Note the smallish kitchen, sexy bath, and shared yard– all very DINK- listed at $995K.

<!– –>

DINK Demands

Today’s  DINK buyers want to be able to walk to as many essential services as possible. Alex Clark, a Realtor® in San Francisco confirms: “DINKs are definitely different than San Francisco families with kids looking to purchase.  Walkability is important, as is access to recreation.  Big on the list is close access to restaurants, and low on the list are designer kitchens…as they tend to cook less. Parking is less and less of a priority, hence the importance of walkability or the increasingly more popular “bike-ability.”

This demand has real force on the industry.  The George Washington University School of Business reports that walkable neighborhoods have now exceeded suburban ones in terms of demand.  Their study found that for each 6% improvement in a neighborhood’s walkability score, rent prices for office and retail space increase 7%, apartment rents increase 6%, and home sale prices go up $133/ft2. So in a sense, DINKs demanding close-in property help keep the price of said property in this city as expensive as it is—and getting more so.

For example, take this tenancy in common. Formerly thought to be a troublesome type of property to sell or buy (due to fractional financing, which this unit requires), this Castro/Duboce area TIC lists at $899K.

<!– –>

Message to Developers

With no kids and need for less space overall and a strong desire for walk-(or bike)-ability to both work and daily essential services and amenities, DINKs have potential to influence future housing construction. Their priorities—and buying power—encourage small scale homes, closely centered near an already established retail/business area. This preference for a more close-in, clustered style of living has already made its stamp on American real estate. As pointed out in DINK Life’s recent article “DINKs Quickly Becoming the Power Couples of Real Estate,” the performance  of suburban property in this country during the recent recession shows that “as U.S. home values declined from 2008- 2011, areas located far from urban hubs have lost value most dramatically. Areas close-in, however, have either held their value or increased it.”

Confirming this information, The Brookings Institute, in an economic analysis of “walkable” neighborhoods, explains: “This distinction in housing proximity is particularly important since it appears that the United States may be at the beginning of a structural real estate market shift….. a preference for mixed-use, compact, amenity-rich, transit-accessible neighborhoods or walkable places.”

With plenty of all of the above, no wonder San Francisco made the #1 best city for DINKs. Can’t you just see them in this Valencia St. condo, strolling to the bars and restaurants, partying on the roof deck, and generally enjoying child-free fun in the Mission?

<!– –>

The city is rife with DINK-worthy real estate- that we all must agree. All that’s left to debate is what’s the best neighborhood in which to live the DINK lifestyle. So we leave that to DINK readers to decide– the comment section awaits.

Anna Marie Erwert writes from both the renter and new buyer perspective, having (finally) achieved both statuses. She focuses on national real estate trends, specializing in the San Francisco Bay Area and Pacific Northwest. Follow Anna on Twitter: @AnnaMarieErwert

Article source: http://blog.sfgate.com/ontheblock/2012/12/06/sf-top-city-for-dink-couples-rich-in-dink-worthy-real-estate/

Where are the DINK couples most populous, and powerful?  According to DINK Life, San Francisco is the best place for dual income, no kids couples, aka DINKs.  Here are the top 3 cities we share honors with.

<!– –>

Unless you’ve had your head in the sand, you know DINKs flock to San Francisco, a city famed for having more dog-raising families than kid-raising ones. So perfect is this fair city that DINK Life headquarters in San Francisco (they’re even writing a book about the DINK lifestyle).

DINK Money and Real Estate

DINKs are so powerful a demographic they got their own acronym sometime in the 1980s; along with that acronym came a flood of targeted marketing and spending-habit studies. No surprise that with a much freer expendable income than their child-rearing brethren, these American adults spend money differently. That includes how they spend it on real estate.

San Francisco DINKs and Dogs

Here in San Francisco where inventory is tight, we have to expect some overlap between parent homebuyers and DINK homebuyers, especially dog owners. Both groups, as homebuyers, will want yards.

But families with children are fast leaving the city, per the Huffington Post: “According to statistics presented to a special hearing of the Board of Supervisors on Thursday, San Francisco has the lowest percentage of children of any major city in the country. Only 13.4 percent of the city’s approximately 800,000 residents are under the age of 18.”

That leaves the yards wide open for DINK buyers, who might compete for something like this, a 3 bedroom, 2 bath condo on California Street. Note the smallish kitchen, sexy bath, and shared yard– all very DINK- listed at $995K.

<!– –>

DINK Demands

Today’s  DINK buyers want to be able to walk to as many essential services as possible. Alex Clark, a Realtor® in San Francisco confirms: “DINKs are definitely different than San Francisco families with kids looking to purchase.  Walkability is important, as is access to recreation.  Big on the list is close access to restaurants, and low on the list are designer kitchens…as they tend to cook less. Parking is less and less of a priority, hence the importance of walkability or the increasingly more popular “bike-ability.”

This demand has real force on the industry.  The George Washington University School of Business reports that walkable neighborhoods have now exceeded suburban ones in terms of demand.  Their study found that for each 6% improvement in a neighborhood’s walkability score, rent prices for office and retail space increase 7%, apartment rents increase 6%, and home sale prices go up $133/ft2. So in a sense, DINKs demanding close-in property help keep the price of said property in this city as expensive as it is—and getting more so.

For example, take this tenancy in common. Formerly thought to be a troublesome type of property to sell or buy (due to fractional financing, which this unit requires), this Castro/Duboce area TIC lists at $899K.

<!– –>

Message to Developers

With no kids and need for less space overall and a strong desire for walk-(or bike)-ability to both work and daily essential services and amenities, DINKs have potential to influence future housing construction. Their priorities—and buying power—encourage small scale homes, closely centered near an already established retail/business area. This preference for a more close-in, clustered style of living has already made its stamp on American real estate. As pointed out in DINK Life’s recent article “DINKs Quickly Becoming the Power Couples of Real Estate,” the performance  of suburban property in this country during the recent recession shows that “as U.S. home values declined from 2008- 2011, areas located far from urban hubs have lost value most dramatically. Areas close-in, however, have either held their value or increased it.”

Confirming this information, The Brookings Institute, in an economic analysis of “walkable” neighborhoods, explains: “This distinction in housing proximity is particularly important since it appears that the United States may be at the beginning of a structural real estate market shift….. a preference for mixed-use, compact, amenity-rich, transit-accessible neighborhoods or walkable places.”

With plenty of all of the above, no wonder San Francisco made the #1 best city for DINKs. Can’t you just see them in this Valencia St. condo, strolling to the bars and restaurants, partying on the roof deck, and generally enjoying child-free fun in the Mission?

<!– –>

The city is rife with DINK-worthy real estate- that we all must agree. All that’s left to debate is what’s the best neighborhood in which to live the DINK lifestyle. So we leave that to DINK readers to decide– the comment section awaits.

Anna Marie Erwert writes from both the renter and new buyer perspective, having (finally) achieved both statuses. She focuses on national real estate trends, specializing in the San Francisco Bay Area and Pacific Northwest. Follow Anna on Twitter: @AnnaMarieErwert

Article source: http://blog.sfgate.com/ontheblock/2012/12/06/sf-top-city-for-dink-couples-rich-in-dink-worthy-real-estate/

Up to two people will be allowed to live in the micro-apartments, which legislation sponsor Supervisor Scott Wiener said would help those who want to live alone but can’t afford most of the studio apartments on the market.

“To confront San Francisco’s rising housing affordability crisis, we must be creative and flexible,” Wiener said in a statement. “Allowing the construction of these units is one tool to alleviate the pressure that is making vacancies scarce and driving rental prices out of the reach of many who wish to live here.”

But for the legislation to pass, Wiener had to agree to cap the number of micro-apartments at 375. Under the legislation, the City Planning Department will analyze the effects of the new units once 325 of them are built.

“Family-sized housing is important and its development should be encouraged,” Wiener said. “But many – including seniors, students and transition age youth – do not need as much space or cannot afford it. These units will be a viable alternative for those who don’t want to live with roommates.”

The SoMa neighborhood and other densely populated city locations would be the likely location for the new units, which include a living room, kitchen and bathroom. Supervisor Jane Kim, who represents SoMa, said that neighborhood’s population could increase by 32 percent as a result of unlimited micro-apartments.

The cap seemed to satisfy skeptics who say that micro-units are not the solution to the city’s housing problem. Supervisor David Campos, who supported the measure, said he visited one of the proposed units and was struck by how expensive rent would be for such a small space.

Concern about rents

The micro-units are estimated to go for $1,300 to $1,500 a month. The average studio apartment in San Francisco rents at $2,075 a month, according to real estate service RealFacts.

“It’s not a lot of space for $1,500,” Campos said, adding that he was concerned it could raise rents across the city. “If 220 square feet is going to rent for $1,500, what does that do for the rest of the places in San Francisco?”

Supervisor John Avalos was the lone vote against the proposal, arguing that the city should be more focused on keeping families from moving.

“This doesn’t make a lot of sense for the San Francisco I know,” he said.

Mayor Ed Lee, who still must sign the measure, told reporters after his monthly question-time session before the board that he hadn’t taken a position on micro-apartments yet.

“I’m always concerned whenever people are changing the standards, but I do think there might be good policy reasons,” he said.

When the Planning Commission reluctantly approved a cap on the number of units last week, some commissioners worried that limitations would confuse developers. But tenant and affordable housing advocates said the cap was crucial to their support.

“We still have concerns, but this way, the impact would be softened if those problems came to fruition,” said Sara Shortt, executive director of the Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco.

Looking at tenants

Ted Gullickson, director of the San Francisco Tenants Union, said he hoped the Planning Department study conducted before the cap is reached would shed light on who is moving into the units.

“If they become urban crash pads for high-tech employees, then we fear they could have a gentrifying effect on the neighborhoods as they get built,” he said. “We do have a strong need for family-size housing as well as affordable housing, and we have limited development sites in San Francisco.”

Neal J. Riley is a San Francisco staff writer. E-mail: nriley@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @realdealneal

Article source: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-supervisors-back-micro-apartments-4055493.php

Worried that the city’s 14 postsecondary schools are pushing low-income individuals and families out of apartment buildings and residential hotels to provide beds for their students, the Board of Supervisors is looking to ban almost all conversions of existing residential space into student housing.

“We want to encourage construction of new student housing and block the cannibalization of our existing residences,” said Supervisor Scott Wiener, author of the ordinance that will go before the board’s Land Use and Economic Development Committee on Monday.

Although Wiener and other affordable housing advocates are reluctant to name names, the restrictions are aimed directly at the fast-growing Academy of Art University, which has been taking control of buildings across the city as its enrollment has soared from 2,300 10 years ago to more than 16,000 today.

“The academy has grown a lot in the past decade, with a continuing need for more space,” said Rebecca Delgado, a vice president at the school.

While the for-profit university was founded in 1929, it never had the traditional central campus of other schools like San Francisco State University, UCSF and the University of San Francisco. Without land, expansion has meant buying, not building.

In an October 2011 letter to the city Planning Commission, a university spokesman described its plan for growth.

The university “plans to expand by leasing buildings within the city that become available,” said the cover letter for the university’s institutional master plan.

That’s a strategy that threatens housing for the city’s low-income residents, housing advocates say.

Of the 17 residential buildings Academy of Art University owns or operates, five were former residential hotels, according to a May 10 report to the Planning Commission, “representing a loss of 263 residential hotel units.” Other schools, like the much smaller San Francisco Art Institute, also told planners that they plan to lease student housing from “tourist or residential or mixed residential-tourist hotels and similar quarters.”

No one is denying there’s a housing crunch for college students in San Francisco. The San Francisco Housing Action Coalition estimates that 40,000 to 50,000 of the city’s more than 120,000 college students are scrambling for off-campus housing every year.

“San Francisco’s official student housing policy is Craigslist; come here and hope,” said Tim Colen, the coalition’s executive director.

But when schools try to satisfy that demand by buying existing buildings or negotiating exclusive leases with residential hotels, it pits students against other, often older and poorer, city residents.

“It’s a policy issue,” said Brad Paul, an affordable housing advocate who was deputy mayor for housing and neighborhoods under Mayor Art Agnos. “We have to decide how to encourage schools to build student dorms and take the pressure off city housing.”

The proposed ordinance is the second part of the city’s carrot and stick effort. Two years ago, the board passed an ordinance that exempted any newly constructed student housing from the city’s low-income housing fee, which typically adds $50,000 to $60,000 a unit in building costs.

The new proposal also encourages new construction by exempting new student housing from the city’s requirement for a mix of various-size units, allowing greater density and cutting open-space requirements for developments with small, 350-square-foot or less apartments.

But there’s also a stick in the ordinance. Except for limited exceptions, it bars conversion of existing dwelling units into housing limited to students.

While the city’s residential and apartment buildings “can rent to students individually, schools can’t put together a master lease and remove (the buildings) from the general housing market,” Wiener said.

The new ordinance is the product of long discussions between college officials, housing advocates, landlords and city planners, all working for an agreement that both serves student needs and protects other renters in the city, the supervisor added.

Discussions already are under way with developers interested in building new student housing in the city, said Colen, who sees it as a potentially profitable market for local builders.

The new ordinance “is a real good start,” he added. “Let’s pass it and see how the market responds.”

John Wildermuth is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: jwildermuth@sfchronicle.com

Article source: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SF-proposes-new-rules-on-student-housing-3725276.php

Lee’s no dummy. He knows there’s little, if any, chance such a policy would pass political muster in San Francisco. But that was never the point. He was planting a seed.

“It’s controversial. I will be tagged – as the minority mayor of this city – for racial profiling,” Lee, a former civil rights attorney, said at the meeting. “But I’m going to let everybody know that if it works … I’m going to do something in that direction.”

In his first term, Lee’s displaying the characteristics of real leadership. His decision to boldly go where no San Francisco mayor has gone before underscores both his confidence and control. He’s the captain of this vessel.

That the mere mention of Lee’s plan has made San Francisco Police Chief Greg Suhr and some members of the Board of Supervisors nervous means he may be on to something.

Across the bay, Oakland residents desperately need a mayor with as much resolve.

Whenever Oakland Mayor Jean Quan hears the word “controversial,” she starts moving in the other direction, away from the potential danger. Luckily for Quan, her travel plans have often coincided with controversy at City Hall.

Because otherwise some people might have gotten the false impression that Quan was unwilling – or worse, afraid – to tackle issues head-on, especially when they involve violent crime. When controversy struck last week, Quan cracked like a walnut at a squirrel party.

At a press conference she held to reaffirm the credibility of a crime reduction plan based on bad statistical data, Quan was soon fending off questions about whether she is really committed to fighting crime.

A reporter brought up Quan’s reluctance last year to support gang injunctions and curfews, and the mayor – true to form – revised history. “I’d actually support a curfew that was aimed at hot-spot areas and not a citywide curfew, because I don’t think we have the resources for a citywide curfew,” Quan said.

Really? Because last year, Quan dismissed a proposal from former Oakland Police Chief Anthony Batts, who wanted the city to impose a curfew for underage teens. She outright rejected the idea of using gang injunctions to reduce crime before a court approved their use in two Oakland neighborhoods. A few months later, Batts resigned, saying City Hall was making it difficult to do his job.

In San Francisco, Lee knows he’ll never get the political support needed to enact a stop-and-frisk policy, but he just might get a modified, lesser version that can be used as an effective law enforcement tool.

He has started a buzz, fired a hot potato in the air and opened the door to a public debate about further law enforcement remedies.

It doesn’t matter whether they’re mashed, boiled or french-fried and served with onions, Lee has made it clear that come dinnertime, he expects to see some kind of potatoes on his plate. Period.

Quan has shown none of the same political strength or individual courage needed to do the job of taking on one of the toughest urban crime problems in the nation.

It’ll take the kinds of radical steps proposed by Lee, and used in other cities, for Oakland to get results and achieve a respectable level of safety on its meanest streets. It will also take leadership, which has been the rarity instead of the rule in the Oakland mayor’s office.

Chip Johnson is a San Francisco Chronicle columnist. His column appears on Tuesday and Friday. E-mail: chjohnson@sfchronicle.com

Article source: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/johnson/article/For-bold-ideas-on-crime-look-to-S-F-not-Oakland-3680370.php

advertisement

Technology firms are the economic engine of the Bay Area. But so are real estate and restaurants, which would be asked to pay more taxes under a plan pushed by technology companies and investors.

San Francisco’s tax plan is due to be overhauled, and one way to do it is to institute a gross receipts tax instead of a payroll tax. Tech firms and investors like Ron Conway, a Silicon Valley billionaire, like that plan because tech firms spend much more on payroll than they do on sales of products, according to the San Francisco Examiner.

Tech firms pushed a gross receipts tax “hard” during a meeting at City Hall with Mayor Ed Lee and Board of Supervisors President David Chiu, according to reports.

San Francisco-based companies currently pay a 1.5 percent tax on their payrolls, the newspaper reported. Twitter, however, convinced city leaders to write laws allowing for a special payroll tax exemption zone, and Zynga also convinced the city to write an exception on taxation of stock option compensation.

If the payroll tax is replaced with a gross receipts tax, retail, restaurants and real estate would pay almost double the tax currently paid, the newspaper reported. They’d pay 26 percent of the total tax revenue, compared to 16 percent now, the newspaper reported.

The payroll tax currently brings in $400 million a year, the newspaper reported.

“The tech companies don’t seem to be team players,” small-business advocate Scott Hauge told the newspaper.

Any final language on taxation issues will be fleshed out by June, when city leaders would have to make moves to place a change in the tax structure before voters in November.

Copyright NBC Owned Television Stations

Article source: http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/SF-Tech-Firms-Want-Retail-Real-Estate-To-Bear-Tax-Burden-149547085.html