Rent-control concept conveniently absent

City tightens restrictions for removing residential units,” The City, Dec. 14
Rent-control concept conveniently absent

In your reporting on the deceptively named Affordable Housing issue, why do you make little or no mention of our most precious, irreplaceable, affordable housing stock, which are rent-controlled apartments? In the two articles on this subject on Dec. 14, the phrase rent-control is never mentioned.

How curious. Especially in view of the fact that Mayor Lee is currently trying to ram down our throats the most destructive housing bill possibly ever to be sent to the Board of Supervisors. Lee’s Density Bonus Housing Program encourages developers to demolish the only truly affordable housing left in San Francisco, rent-controlled apartments.

Under the state Costa-Hawkins law, once rent-controlled apartments are demolished, they can never be replaced.

Lee’s Density Bonus Program is nothing less than a pro-developer, mass-eviction strategy to gentrify huge swaths of The City. It’s hard to imagine any program that could make the affordability housing crisis in San Francisco worse than this one.

For thousands of San Franciscans, who lose their rent-controlled apartments, The City has no affordable program to house them. It never will. That insoluble problem is one of the causes of homelessness, but also endless hypocrisy and lying about the ugly gentrification that has come to define city housing policy here in recent years.

Rent-control is as close to a solution to our housing crisis as we will ever have.

If Mayor Lee cares at all to protect truly affordable housing in San Francisco, he must remove the ability of developers to demolish rent-controlled apartments in his Density Bonus Program.

Nick Pasquariello
San Francisco

“City preps for recreational pot,” The City, Dec. 11
Don’t limit marijuana

As a frontline cannabis activist I am vexed by the intentions to limit the scale and scope of the recreational cannabis industry by the newly appointed cannabis commission of San Francisco. That seems like big government at its worst. Our city is ground zero for market-based industries like Uber and Airbnb, and they are flourishing without oversight. Do we intend to limit them or the next big thing to come from tech marketeers by an act of commission? I think not. So, why limit marketplace access to Mary Jane?

Please don’t use crime as a reason. Colorado’s violent crime rate continues to plummet thanks to legalization.

Los Angeles has not been able to rein in and regulate cannabis dispensaries, which leaves them with more dispensaries than coffee shops. No disasters there — just well-paying jobs. I hope they aren’t going to use that tired old ruse that marijuana kills. More people die from caffeine and mayonnaise than from Mary Jane. Like in Ohio, this commission is using the power of their position to grab for a share of a multibillion dollar industry they did not earn. It needs to stop and stop now. We are a market economy, aren’t we?

Samuel Janovici
Kentfield

If you find our journalism valuable and relevant, please consider joining our Examiner membership program.
Find out more at www.sfexaminer.com/join/

Just Posted

Bill to create state public bank could jumpstart SF efforts

California may move $10 billion of its investment banking funds to rebuild… Continue reading

State hires firefighters as wildfire season begins

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday outlined the steps California has taken to… Continue reading

Supes to vote on proposal to ease restrictions on gay bathhouses

Mandelman hopes to ‘make the operation of adult sex venues more feasible.’

Breed, Walton test negative for COVID-19 after exposure to the virus

Mayor London Breed announced Thursday she tested negative for COVID-19 after notified… Continue reading

‘No timetable’ for cable car return, SFMTA says

How the temporary absence of cable cars means more than just a loss of transit routes

Most Read