In reply to Thomas Douting.

Private developers can’t solve the housing affordability crisis by definition because they exist to profit off the construction of housing. It’s already not profitable to build affordable housing, which is why we have such a deficit of affordable housing. When it becomes less profitable to build market-rate housing, development stops. Construction of market-rate housing has already slowed down due to market forces– there’s tons of vacant market-rate/luxury units already.

The only way to increase the supply of housing that working people can afford is MASSIVE public investment in affordable housing construction.

In reply to Geo.

100% affordable isn’t going to happen, not even close. Community groups such as these are to blame for housing crisis we are in. “Community interest” to gatekeep future Latin residents if this project doesnt get built ?

In reply to Damon Pastorini.

Landlord could have prevented this if he hired an actual contractor. He was not forced to cut corners. He chose to. Marxism has anything to do with this how?

In reply to Candace.

Candace, I love your comment and I also miss that video store.
Change is inevitable and it is just about the only thing we can count on. The Mission has had many different inhabitants. It started out with the Yelamu tribe who were Native Americans and part of the Ohlone people. They were in the area for 2000 years until the Spanish arrived during the 18th century. When the Spanish arrived it was horrible for the Ohlone people. The gold rush brought German, Irish, and Italian immigrants. The Mission District had California’s first baseball stadium. In the 1970’s immigrants from Central America, the Middle East, and South America came to the Mission which didn’t make the German, Irish and Italian immigrants happy. So the Mission has had many different inhabitants and no one owns it and change is inevitable. We need housing and at the end of the day it comes down to a simple supply and demand issue. We need supply because we have major demand. The more supply we have the cheaper housing will become.

Can we bring back the best food court in the city with the fresh fish and chicken on one side the the beef and other meats on the other? And the wonderful fresh produce and specialty items? That is what I miss the most. And re-house everyone who lost their homes due to the fire.

Lou should be cooling his heels in prison, not rapaciously profiting from the neglect of his former building that led to displacement and the loss of life. That said, no project — let alone this one — should move forward in this this city unless it meets the needs of the city. We have THOUSANDS of vacant market rate units. We don’t need more of those. What we’re lacking is affordable housing. And lest the YIMBYs start whining, how exactly do you think businesses like restaurants and retail will ever find the workers they need if those workers cannot afford to live here? Expecting to people to commute in for those and other jobs on the lower pay scale is as ridiculous as it is offensive. And every one of those jobs is necessary. We have spent YEARS building a glut of housing for the investor class to leave so often empty. It’s time for that to stop and making that line in the sand for a criminal landlord is a fine place to start.

In reply to Harrison.

Longtime, Latino, (not latinx), resident here. I say this time and time, again: “I was to think I was liberal, and then I moved to San Francisco.”

They should be building more than 10 stories here, more like 20 or 30.

Latinx ??
WTF, cant use Latino/Latina ?

The city should take the lot and turn it into a park. Mission street is the longest street in the City, and has ZERO greenspace along its entire length. This is a perfect spot for a park, considering it’s right next to a weekly farmer’s market, directly next door to one school, and less than two blocks away from ANOTHER elementary school.

In reply to Candace.

Gentrification leads to abysmal and predictable infusion of high end businesses that are unoriginal. We need alternatives . The Mission used to be more full of palces thagt were chaeper and had niche business models. I think San Francisco has rsisted paving over paradise and putting a new gift shop/gym/ceramicsstudio…thx

In reply to Harrison.

They’re not socialists, they’re contras, they’re not community groups, they’re city funded nonprofits running an extortion racket for their own agencies’ economic benefit.

The only base of support they have is their symbiotic relationship with electeds where electeds fund the nonprofit and the nonprofit engineers political work for electeds’ campaigns.

If it wasn’t for rent control, he might leave been able to afford better upgrades.
The death of the tenant is the fault of anyone that votes for Marxist laws.

Ideally Lou would sell but there is nothing wrong with this plan. There are plenty of vacant commercial spaces on Mission. The arrogant response from Hernandez… he’s lost my vote. Very disappointing. Roberto, if you’re reading there are many wonderful spots to buy flowers and enjoy a cafecito in the neighborhood. Go support these businesses.

Does anyone take Calle 24 seriously? More blight, more funding from the city to “better the neighborhood.”

I welcome those posting their displeasure at the brown people of this community attempting to use their little shreds of political influence to seek social justice. I’m glad that you’re reading Mission Local (you are subscribers, of course) and assume you read a paragraph or two of this article before enlightening your fellow readers.

But did you read on to today’s next post?
“SF developer Sia Tahbazof, two other execs charged by feds with bribery“

If so, please try to connect the dots between your entitled and condescending comments on how capitalism works —when it’s crystal clear how the system actually works.

The developers, the city politicians & administrators, the financiers: Their pay-to-play system works just great for them. Never mind in the inconvenience of a federal indictment once a decade or so, that’s what lawyers are for.

But apparently it’s the community organizers in the Mission that are the culprits for SF housing cost. Really nailed it, didn’t you?

In reply to Dan.

These professional whiners are children. Someone needs to let them know, they don’t own the property. No one owes them anything. And insisting upon 100% below market housing is a fantasy, unless government subsidies are being offered. It is precisely this socialist-inspired NIBYism that has created the housing crisis and lack of affordable housing. Progressives never learn.

In reply to Candace.

I agree with all your comments.

I am a renter. There never has been, and never will be a time I can own my own home in SF. If I were to lose the apartment where I’ve lived for a long time, I’d don’t know what I’d do. I’d probably be on the street or have to leave for parts unknown. But even so, it seems to me that ANY housing built, even if only some of it is “affordable” (a relative concept; I couldn’t afford to buy even what passes for “affordable” now) is a good thing. The more housing built, the more there is to go around. Supply and demand. At some point the economics of that would start to kick in. Unless you’re a Marxist, of course, in which case you don’t live in the real world anyway.

I hope this architect can design an appropriate looking building–one that acknowledges the human scale expressed in older architecture. For example, a 10 story building on Mission Street that was built in the 1920s did not look out of place despite being surrounded by 3 story buildings. It’s because it was proportioned and detailed to appeal to the human eye. Why not design such a humane building now? I leave the economics of market rate vs BMR to the geniuses.

In reply to Harrison.

Bingo!

In reply to benefit of the doubt?.

Very good. I wish I could say I had written this comment.

In reply to Cynthia.

You clearly don’t understand how the law works. RHNA are minimums and only used for planning. San Francisco would not be in violation of any law if a million market rate units were constructed with 0 deed-restricted affordable housing. It would also be a lot more affordable than it is today if that happened.

Besides, more market rate development is the only chance at hitting the affordable housing minimums, since the city doesn’t want to spend tax money on building housing.

In reply to Cynthia.

Exactly, the same type of full court press was applied to a project on Stevenson Street in Soma a couple years back – where the development of residences on the parking lot of a department store was blocked. I am under the impression that TODCO tried an angle where the lot would ultimately have ended up in their hands. Meantime though, new State rules have gone into effect that enable developers to navigate around such tactics, as we see here.

In reply to j.

I’d be a little late to that party. I’ve been in the area long enough to know the gentrification happened long ago.

“Gentrification” is a swear word for some people. What it means is that properties are worth more, and often that brings with it benefits such as better shops, cleaner streets and lower crime. You hate that, but not everyone does.

Do you remember when you could get shot or stabbed on the street for wearing the wrong-color shirt in a Sureño or Norteño neighborhood? I do. It wasn’t better. Though I do miss Leather Tongue Video.

In reply to j.

Gentrification is a human right…

In reply to Geo.

Evil? Overreact much?

I read Mission Local partly to keep up with local news, and partly to keep up with whatever silliness local progressives are pushing these days.

Re your comment about negotiating space: I take it you have never done any negotiating professionally. No developer is going to build 100% non-market-rate housing. Period. That’s not how capitalism works.

If you hate capitalism, North Korea is hiring.

This bad actor owner, (did anyone read article? The fire 2015 from cheap electrical work contracted by owner?The loss of affordable family housing? Children moved out of local schools away from friends and caretakers? A death!) All displaced residents and businesses should be offered similiar apartments at same rent controlled price! And this owner of 17 other probably substandard dangerous buildings (this should be investigated) can afford to subsidize the whole building at 100% VERY affordable – the least he can do for whats needed in the community and SF. This is not nimby – its about affordable housing for the glaring need!

I’d be concerned that this guy would be allowed to build a 160 unit building when it’s been shown he hired cheap contractors to work on his fire system and there was a ton of negligence found on his properties during the lawsuit. Too bad he can’t be banned from building and forced to sell to someone else.

“Despite the outrage, the state has made it harder to allow community input to curtail housing in recent years. Save for eminent domain, it appears Lou may well achieve his project without the risk of city intervention or compromises with locals.”

Music to my ears. Sick of all of these entitled busybodies making our housing crisis worse every day, and so grateful the state is coming in to set things right.

“Community input” is just another way of saying “Only listen to the people privileged enough to still be here, and ignore all of the people who you displaced with your anti-housing obstinance”. It’s anti-democratic and it’s time we start ignoring them and following state housing law.

The owner and builder has a responsibility to restore what was lost by the fire caused by landlord neglegence. At minimum, it should be below market retail space equivalent to what was lost and 40+ units for very low income people. Plus it can’t be more of this ugly cookie cutter crap being put up around this neighborhood. The previous building was an architectural beauty.

Reduce the percent of affordable housing for every one of these meetings designed to delay they have to hold.

I am all for development but this dude had a dangerous fire trap in which a man died. When the fire didn’t destroy the building he let it rot in the rain. Now he wants to profit from that? This isn’t about building housing, it’s about doing what’s right. The city should sieze the property through eminent domain and develop the property in a way that’s fair to those who lost their homes and their businesses.