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

Just Posted

Community-led efforts to monitor air quality in Bayview, Eastern neighborhoods gain traction

San Francisco community groups are working to install high-quality sensors in the… Continue reading

Fire department drill finds traffic around Chase Arena could slow response time

For years, some have feared the future home of the Golden State… Continue reading

Did Scoot ‘redline’ SF neighborhoods? Chinatown group says ‘we asked for it’

The talk of the transportation world is a Los Angeles Times story… Continue reading

New hires solve SF school crossing guard shortage — for now

San Francisco has gone on a school crossing guard-hiring binge, hoping to… Continue reading

SF sets a high bar for Lyft on electric bike rentals

Newly spelled out city requirements could open the door for other e-bike providers

Most Read