Finding Common Ground in Land Use

Responding to Sally Stephens’ “Overheated rhetoric won’t win the housing debate”

A few days ago, Sally Stephens wrote a column in the Examiner getting to the heart of a much-covered side of the housing debate: Boomers vs. Millennials. While I think this angle misses a lot of the nuance, intersectionality and complicated nature of access to housing, it’s an important part of the discourse. And since my grandmother’s name is also Sally, and she isn’t sure what exactly it is I’m on about, I greatly appreciate the spirit of this column and wanted to further the conversation. So here goes…

Laura Clark and YIMBY member Cliff Leventhal at the YIMBY Gala

Sally: “Housing density is a big deal in San Francisco. Emotions run high on the issue. Seniors who bought years ago want to hang onto their homes and neighborhood character. Millennials can’t buy a home or afford rent and want more housing built.”

I agree with this assessment. And this demographic of people who can’t buy a home or afford rent includes more than just millennials. People are in crisis.

Sally: “There is actually the possibility of some compromise on housing density, but it will never happen if the current level of angry rhetoric continues.”

I don’t think we can ask everyone who is in crisis not to be angry, but I think taking down the hostility is always a good idea. I speak from a very glass house. I think we’ve reached a point where everyone needs to take a breath and take it down a notch. Myself very much included.

Sally: “At public meetings in recent months, young supporters of more housing have verbally harangued seniors who oppose higher density. In particular, they have gone after seniors who oppose Senate Bill 827, state Sen. Scott Wiener’s legislation that would overrule local zoning laws and allow large buildings on nearly every street in San Francisco. Other groups, including tenant advocates and people concerned with gentrification, also oppose SB 827. But it seems the seniors have drawn the bulk of the young supporters’ wrath.”

Some of this is not accurate. In fact, opponents of SB827 were the ones repeatedly told by the Supervisors to stop hissing at supporters when they tried to give public comment. Everyone should be kinder, but I do not think it is fair to mischaracterize the overall tenor of that hearing.

Sally: “During the recent Board of Supervisors Land Use Committee hearing on a resolution to oppose SB 827, supporters of increased density repeatedly called out the seniors who spoke against the state legislation. The final speaker (a young woman) decried the ‘ageist’ remarks made against seniors during public comment.”

Ageist remarks are always unacceptable, whether it’s prejudice against seniors or folks saying millennials are acting entitled and should move elsewhere. We all need to be better.

Sally: “We’ve been called racists for supporting local zoning controls. We’re told that we should move to small apartments or nursing homes so young people can move into the houses we leave behind … or demolish them for larger apartment buildings.”

Everyone involved in every part of San Francisco’s housing debate has been called racist.

I want to make sure this point is clear: When YIMBYs say that single family zoning is a racist policy, we’re not saying that people who own single family homes or support single family zoning are racists, we’re saying it’s a policy that has a disparate racial impact. Exclusionary Single Family Home Only Zoning most often benefits wealthier and whiter people at the expense of poorer people of color and all those seeking opportunity.

We think it is important to talk about how local zoning restrictions on building apartments come directly from a legacy of racist exclusionary policies, and that this bill will be a step towards righting those wrongs. A plethora of fair housing experts have agreed with this.

Our country must come to grips with this legacy.

Sally: “At a community meeting in February, one man thanked Wiener on behalf of ‘those of us who are actually going to be alive in the next decade or two.’”

This was a disrespectful comment. We all need to be thinking about the future of our city, seniors and millennials alike. I don’t know who said it, but it’s not acceptable and I am sorry someone said that.

Sally: “To many seniors, it feels like these advocates are wishing we would just hurry up and die.”

This is absolutely not the case. I want San Francisco to be inclusive for old and young alike. I often feel like those who block housing in the name of “neighborhood character” are pushing us into this generational warfare idea. The manufactured scarcity of housing is pitting us all against one another, and I would like to end that shortage.

Supporters of SB 827 at their best. Which is what we should aim to be at all times.

Sally: “But setting that aside, the attacks show a tone-deaf lack of understanding of why seniors resist downsizing. For many, our homes are full of memories we don’t want to lose. The prospect of having to sort through a lifetime’s accumulation of papers and mementos is incredibly daunting for many. Isolation is a major problem for seniors, and moving to a new, unfamiliar place can make it worse.”

My father was trapped in a similar situation, and extremely resistant to downsizing. He lived for years in a house he could no longer maintain, driving when it was no longer safe, isolated from people in a neighborhood that lacked sufficient community.

It would have been nice if there had been apartments in that community, so he could have safely downsized without losing the community he had. If apartments had been near his home, there would have been more families in the area to help him. If there had been more families in the area, there might have been a grocery store he could have walked to.

When he finally totaled a car and had no choice to but move into an unfamiliar facility, it was a dramatic and tragic event in all our lives. It is something I would never wish on any family.

It is my firm belief that if we want communities of all ages, we need communities of all housing types. When there are more housing options, both seniors and millennials will benefit. With strong tenants protections, we can allow more apartments to be built to create welcoming, integrated communities.

So long as people see apartments as disrupting their established neighborhood character, we are locked in a battle of who will get access to this limited resource.

We don’t want you to move. We want to be your neighbor. A new apartment building may block your view, but it will also build up your community.

Sally: “Hundreds of companies have sprung up in recent years to help seniors “age in place” and stay in their homes while battling illness and old age. Apparently, some think this national trend shouldn’t apply in San Francisco.

But there can be problems even for those seniors who want to downsize. Because property taxes are lower for people who’ve lived in their home for decades, moving to a smaller condo can sometimes mean paying higher property taxes. That may not be possible for those on fixed retirement incomes.”

Being trapped in an oversized house in not what we want for anyone. If the cost of housing could be brought down by building many more units, this would be less daunting. This kind of flexibility for those who want to downsize would be helpful for everyone.

The biggest problem is that many people don’t want to allow the building of those condos in their neighborhood. If I had to guess, for most older homeowners, there’s no condo nearby, and the ones that might be on the market are just as out of reach for a senior on a fixed income as they are for a millennial with debt.

Passionate pro-housing folks getting rowdy at the YIMBY Gala!

Sally: “The California Association of Realtors is sponsoring a ballot initiative that it claims would remove some of these tax issues for seniors who move. But allowing seniors to keep their low property taxes — or even pay less than they’re currently paying — to encourage them to downsize could have a significant negative impact on schools, firefighting and other services that rely on property taxes for support.”

You’ve outlined the societal cost very well here. I have to believe there is another way for us to offer support to seniors who want to downsize while not bankrupting the state. The biggest problem we have to solve, in my very focused mind, is to increase housing availability. This perpetual shortage makes us fight over a pie that refuses to grow.

Sally: “I can understand the frustration of millennials who feel they are being denied access to the dream of home ownership that we seniors have enjoyed for decades. I know I might not be able to afford my house if I had to buy it at today’s prices.”

Thank you for empathizing with this plight. I think you underestimate the scale of the crisis, but I appreciate your efforts to see things from other’s perspectives.

Sally: “But overheated rhetoric is not the way to win the housing debate.

After a recent neighborhood association meeting about SB 827, a young male supporter of increased housing density cornered a senior woman and harangued her about her opposition. He was so strident he scared her. She told me later she was terrified he would follow her home.”

I’ve been screamed at, told to go die, had signs ripped out of my hands, been asked to show my ID to prove where I live — all by senior citizens! I don’t know who was so strident with your friend, but I completely empathize with her experience. It’s horrible to be attacked like that. I’m so sorry it happened to her.

Sally: “Did he really think he would change her opinion by getting in her face? If anything, he may well have hardened her position against increased housing density.”

Certainly much of the anti-housing rhetoric that has been screeched at me has hardened my resolve for increasing density. So I empathize.

Sally: “I do think all sides in the housing debate can find some common ground — especially on transit lines, although not blocks away.”

We will have to do much more than that to deal with the scale of the problem, but I deeply appreciate your effort to find common ground.

Sally: “But that will never happen if we don’t tone down the angry rhetoric and start listening to the very real concerns of those on the other side.”

Completely agree. I hope you will explore the very real concerns of people who believe we need big changes in our housing policies.