Posts Tagged ‘legislation’

The Empire Strikes Back: Board President David Chiu’s AirBNB Legalization Proposal Gets Opposed by the SFAA, Tenant’s Groups

Monday, April 28th, 2014

A fresh press release:

“NEWS RELEASE: SAN FRANCISCO CITYWIDE COALITION SAYS NO TO PROPOSED CHIU LEGISLATION - Board of Supervisors trying to convert residential housing to short-term rentals

Press conference Tuesday April 29, 2014 Steps of City Hall at 10:00 am

San Francisco — Organizations representing usually divergent interests ranging from tenants to landlords, and from hotel workers to the hospitality industry have joined forces with neighborhood and homeowner associations to oppose legislation introduced by Supervisor David Chiu to legalize the short term rentals of residential property throughout San Francisco.

“In the face of an unprecedented housing crisis, Supervisor Chiu’s legislation to legalize the short term rentals of residential property will only exacerbate the housing crisis. This practice is detrimental to our rent-controlled housing stock”, said Janan New, Executive Director of the San Francisco Apartment Association.

“Our studies have shown that with over 10,000 units of housing being rented out over Airbnb, HomeAway and other websites this practice is having a negative impact on hotel workers and San Francisco’s hospitality industry”, said Mike Casey, President of UNITE HERE Local 2.

“The proposed legislation would rezone the entire city from residential zoning to commercial zoning in one fell swoop. We hear complaints from almost every neighborhood about the detrimental effects of short term rentals on the quality of life of tenants and residents”, said John Bardis, former President of the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods and former San Francisco Supervisor.

“Supervisors Chiu’s legislation would repeal hard won controls on Single Resident Occupancy housing, threatens current affordable housing provisions for over 30,000 permanently affordable units, would transform newly approved “in-law units” into high priced motel rooms and make “below market rate” units lifetime luxury hotels. It is the single biggest threat to affordable housing ever proposed by a San Francisco Supervisor” stated longtime affordable housing advocate Calvin Welch.

“Airbnb and other hosting platforms owe the City millions of dollars in unpaid hotel taxes. It is high time that the City collect these taxes which pay for the arts and vital city services and programs. The proposed legislation does not clearly hold Airbnb and similar organizations responsible for collecting and remitting the hotel tax”, said former Supervisor Aaron Peskin.

All of these organizations are calling for Supervisor Chiu to withdraw his legislation at a press conference on Tuesday April 29 on the steps of City Hall at 10:00 am.”

Uh Oh, Now There’s a Lawsuit Against the City for Recent Ellis Act Legislation – SFAA & realtors Fighting Us

Wednesday, January 29th, 2014

Read it and weep, San Francisco. We’re getting sued:

“For Immediate Release, January 29, 2014:

San Francisco Housing Associations File Lawsuit to Block Anti-Family Legislation

San Francisco – On Tuesday January 28, 2014, the San Francisco Apartment Association, Coalition for Better Housing and the San Francisco Association of REALTORS® filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of legislation known as the Avalos Ellis Act and Merger Prohibition Legislation.

 The legislation was passed by the Board of Supervisors and signed into law by Mayor Ed Lee in violation of building owners’ rights under the state law known as the Ellis Act.

 The legislation prohibits owners of multi-unit buildings from combining units in a building for ten years following an Ellis Act eviction or for five years following an owner-move in eviction.

 On a practical level, the legislation prevents families who own a building from creating a home that meets their needs. For example, the legislation prevents a family from combining two small units into a larger one to provide a home for a growing family. Couples with young children often find themselves in need of additional space they did not anticipate when they purchased a rental building, yet the legislation punishes them.

 Only 2 percent of new housing built in San Francisco since 2001 are single-family homes that provide adequate space for families, often with multiple generations living together. Lack of adequate housing to meet the needs of families has contributed San Francisco losing 5,278 people younger than 18 between 2000 and 2010, according to the census.

 “The San Francisco Association of REALTORS® supports the rights of private property owners for the free use of their property as their needs suit them.  This legislation only exacerbates the problems families face in finding adequate housing and drives out the families that have created the diversity we want and celebrate in our city,” said Walt Baczkowski, CEO of the San Francisco Association of Realtors.

 Because so few single family homes are being constructed, families rely on improving buildings they own, including tenancies in common to add living space. This legislation prohibits them from creating the home they need in a building they own.

 “Families are fleeing San Francisco due to a multitude of reasons that include a lack of adequate space for growing families that often include multiple generations. This legislation exacerbates that problem by punishing and limiting options for families who simply seek to create a home that meets the needs of their family,” stated Janan New, Executive Director of the San Francisco Apartment Association. “This legislation punishes hard working families, while doing little to protect renters.”

 The lawsuit states that the legislation is pre-empted by state law known as the Ellis Act, which allows building owners to take a building off the rental market and convert those units to condominiums or single -family homes. Under the law, building owners are already required to give occupants up to one year advance notice and provide relocation fees of $5,210 per tenant, up to a maximum of $15,632, plus $3,473 additional for tenants who are senior or disabled.

 “My clients are seeking relief from this just-passed legislation which unfairly takes away the right of individuals and families who simply want to create a home for themselves and their family in a building they own,” stated Jim Parrinello, attorney for the plaintiffs.

“SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT PTA LEADERSHIP AGAIN URGES STATE PTA TO MAKE A DUAL ENDORSEMENT ON PROPS 30 AND 38″

Tuesday, October 23rd, 2012

The headline says it all, but here’s the entire release:

“SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT PTA LEADERSHIP AGAIN URGES STATE PTA TO MAKE A DUAL ENDORSEMENT ON PROPS 30 AND 38

San Francisco — The Second District (San Francisco) PTA leadership recommended in July a dual endorsement of state ballot measures, Propositions 30 and 38, to the California State PTA after hearing from PTA members across the City that funding education was a high priority. At that time, the State PTA held its “Yes” on Prop 38 and voted to approve a “Neutral” position on Prop 30.

In light of recent public polling and campaign dynamics with both initiatives, and again with the encouragement of its members, the District PTA leadership is re-recommending the State PTA take a “Yes” position on Prop 30 to add to its current “Yes” on Prop 38 at the State PTA Board of Managers Meeting October 27.

It is critical that education be funded at a higher level, or at the minimum, maintain current funding in order for all of California’s children to be prepared to be successful in college, career and life. Either Prop 30 or Prop 38 must pass for this to happen. The District PTA also strongly encourages both campaigns to refrain from negative messaging about the other to increase the possibility that at least one measure will receive the required 50% + 1 votes.

Prop 30 would prevent further cuts to K-12 public schools and higher education funding through an increase of around $6 billion per year for 7 years to the state’s general fund budget. Prop 38 would increase funding to K-12 schools, early education and school bond debt payments by $10-11 billion per year for 12 years. Prop 38’s increase in funding would greatly mitigate the result of state education budget cuts of over $20 billion statewide and the laying off of over 40,000 educators over the last three years alone.

For more information: http://www.prop38forlocalschools.org/ and http://www.yesonprop30.com/

For a comparison of both propositions go to http://www.edsource.org/infographic-initiatives.html

I don’t know, if San Francisco’s Nate Ballard and Planet Neptune’s Molly Munger want to drive over the cliff* holding hands ala Thelma and Louise, that’s their business:

Image Photoshopped slightly, courtesy of the Gavin Newsom for Governor Lt. Governor campaign

But I’ll tell you, the People of the State of California are not going to follow them.

Hey Molly, if you’re so great, why don’t you just give all your inherited money to the California Teachers Association no strings attached?

You know, instead of driving over the cliff with Prop 30 stashed in the trunk?

*In a Porsche paid for by Daddy, of course.

 

Supervisor John Avalos Throws Down: Regulation of the Google Bus is Coming – Legislation for Corporate Shuttles

Wednesday, October 17th, 2012

Here’s the news:

“Supervisor Avalos Moves to Regulate Private Shuttle Stops

San Francisco, CA – Today San Francisco Supervisor John Avalos requested that the City Attorney draft legislation to create a permit process to regulate shuttle stops for private employer shuttles in San Francisco.

The number of private shuttles on San Francisco streets has increased dramatically in recent years. The San Francisco Transportation Authority reports that there are approximately 36,000 one-way trips per day taken on private shuttles. These shuttles stop at over 200 different locations in the City. There are currently no regulations governing the locations of these shuttle stops. The majority of these stops are using Muni curb zones, which is currently illegal and impacts Muni service.

“I appreciate how private shuttles help reduce congestion and greenhouse gas emissions,” Supervisor Avalos said, “but their rapid growth makes it clear that we need sensible City policy to prevent this from growing into an unregulated Wild West era of shuttles competing with Muni for curb space.”

As a member of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s Mobile Source Committee, Supervisor Avalos recognizes that private shuttles are becoming an important part of the City’s transportation and environmental policies.

Despite their benefits, private shuttles present challenges that the City must manage. In addition to delaying Muni service, these shuttles increase the wear and tear on City streets and impact neighborhood’s quality of life. As chair of the Public Safety Committee Supervisor Avalos says, “I recognize the need to address the safety hazards posed by large, double-decker shuttle buses navigating narrow and hilly City streets.” Less direct impacts, such as the dramatic increase in housing costs near shuttle stops, also warrant study.

Supervisor Avalos is encouraged by the work of the Transportation Authority’s San Francisco Integrated Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Partnership Project in coordination with the Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA), the Planning Department, the Department of the Environment, and the shuttle operators. He looks forward to working with all of these groups to develop a comprehensive City policy to foster additional growth in private shuttles while minimizing their adverse impacts.”

Now here’s how we handled things a half decade back, or at least here’s how Supervisor Bevan Dufty handled the NIMBYs of Noe Valley back in 2007. (I think he was holding a photo of a Google Bus but I never saw the photo any closer.)

On It Goes…

PS: MUNI sucks. 

San Francisco Corruption Revealed on the Floor of the House – Central Subway to Nowhere – A Short Speech

Friday, July 6th, 2012

The Subway to Nowhere. House Chamber, Washington, D.C. June 27, 2012. Remarks by Congressman Tom McClintock (R-CA).”

“Mr. Chairman:

This amendment forbids further federal expenditures for the Central Subway project in San Francisco.

The project is a 1.7 mile subway that is estimated to cost $1.6 billion –– and those cost estimates continue to rise.  Its baseline budget has more than doubled in nine years and shows no signs of slowing.  The current estimate brings the cost to nearly $1 billion per mile.  That’s five times the cost per lane mile of Boston’s scandalous “Big Dig.”

It was supposed to link local light rail and bus lines with CalTrain and Bay Area Rapid Transit, but it’s so badly designed that it bypasses 25 of the 30 light rail and bus lines that it crosses.  To add insult to insanity, it dismantles the seamless light-rail to BART connection currently available to passengers at Market Street, requiring them instead to walk nearly a quarter mile to make the new connection.  Experts estimate it will cost commuters between five and ten minutes of additional commuting time on every segment of the route.

The Wall Street Journal calls ita case study in government incompetence and wasted taxpayer money.”

They’re not alone.  The Civil Grand Jury in San Francisco has vigorously recommended the project be scrapped, warning that maintenance alone could ultimately bankrupt San Francisco’s Muni.  The former Chairman of the San Francisco Transportation Agency has called it, “one of the costliest mistakes in the city’s history.

Even the sponsors estimate that it will increase ridership by less than one percent, and there is vigorous debate that this projection is far too optimistic.

I think Margaret Okuzumi, the Executive Director of the Bay Rail Alliance put it best when she said,

Too many times, we’ve seen money for public transit used to primarily benefit people who would profit financially, while making transit less convenient for actual transit riders.  Voters approve money for public transit because they want transit to be more convenient and available…it would be tragic if billions of dollars were spent on something that made Muni more time consuming, costly and unable to sustain its overall transit service.”

This administration is attempting to put federal taxpayers – our constituents — on the hook for nearly a billion dollars of the cost of this folly through the “New Starts” program – or more than 60 percent.  We have already squandered $123 million on it.  This amendment forbids another dime of our constituents’ money being wasted on this boondoggle.

Now here is an important question that members may wish to ponder:  “Why should your constituents pay nearly a billion dollars for a purely local transportation project in San Francisco that is opposed by a broad, bi-partisan coalition of San Franciscans, including the Sierra Club, Save Muni (a grassroots organization of Muni Riders), the Coalition of San Francisco Neighborhoods, and three of the four local newspapers serving San Francisco?

Why, indeed.

I’m sorry, I don’t have a good answer to that question.  But those who vote against this amendment had better have one when their constituents ask, “What in the world were you thinking?”

# # #

This amendment to the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act (HR 5972) was approved by the House on June 29th.  The legislation next goes to the Senate.

Supervisor Eric Mar Introduces “Healthy Meal Incentive” Legislation for Happy Meals

Tuesday, August 10th, 2010

If your meal comes with a toy, then it could be affected by the Healthy Meal Incentive legislation that was introduced by Supervisor Eric Mar and co-sponsored by Board of Supervisors President David Chiu and Supervisor David Campos.

Here’s a summary of today’s bill:

“Supervisor Mar introduces Healthy Meal Incentive legislation, which sets nutritional standards for restaurant food that is accompanied by toys or other youth focused incentive items. This legislation is aimed at promoting healthy eating habits and to address issues related to childhood obesity.  Fast food restaurants target children and youth by offering toys and other incentive items.  The Healthy Meal Incentive legislation would encourage restaurants to provide healthier meal options. To provide an incentive item, meals must contain fruits and vegetables, not exceed 600 calories or 200 calories for a single food item and must not have beverages that have excessive fat or sugar.”

The kind of Happy Meal swag that would activate HMI:

Via Andagi

And here’s the gritty nitty:

Healthy restaurant meals

Healthy restaurant incentives

Well, there’s blowback already. They’re calling this legislation a “toy ban.”

Check it out, after the jump.

(more…)

Supervisor Eric Mar Has a Green Financing Program for Energy and Water Retrofits

Tuesday, July 21st, 2009

San Francisco Supervisor Eric Mar has a new plan to reward homeowners for green upgrades.

Read all about it from this afternoon’s press release, below.

Eric just loves the sun. Maybe you will love it just as much, if his program gets voted in by the full board.

img_9787-copy

Supervisor Mar Introduces a Green Financing Program

Green Financing Program to help with energy and water retrofits for building owners

Supervisor Mar is working with Mayor Gavin Newsom, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, the Controller’s Office of Public Finance and the Department of the Environment to establish a program to allow San Franciscans to finance environmental improvements to the buildings they own. Today, Supervisor Mar introduced the first of a series of legislation to enable the green financing program.

“With almost half of San Francisco’s greenhouse gas emissions being produced by our homes and local buildings, this new green financing program will drastically curb San Francisco’s carbon footprint and reduce the strain on our regional water supply,” said Supervisor Eric Mar.  “It will also help put San Franciscans to work through our growing green jobs academies and programs.”

This legislation will set up a Mello-Roos Special Tax District that would be available to finance privately–owned energy efficiency, renewable energy and water conservation improvements.  The repayment obligationis attached to the property, rather than the individual, and is paid back through property taxes over the useful life of the improvements. 

Currently, the largest barrier to building owners increasing their energy and water efficiency is the large up-front cost of improvements.  Even with various government incentives and rebates, many home owners find it impossible to make energy or water efficiency improvements due to cost.

“It is my hope that many homeowners and building owners will opt into this great program and reap the benefits of lower utility and water bills while also helping our city achieve its ambitious climate action plan goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and conserving water,” said Supervisor Eric Mar. “San Francisco will be the nation’s first large city to implement a program of this type,” said Mar. 

This legislation is the first of a series of enabling pieces of legislation and Supervisor Mar will continue to work with community and environmental groups, the Mayor’s Office, Public Utilities Commission and other city departments to develop the green financing program.

More deets – read the FAQ, after the jump.

(more…)