Mission District housing moratorium defeated

Sam Ruiz, left, and Ingrid Mesquita set up for the election party at Mission Neighborhood Centers Inc. in San Francisco , Calif. on Tuesday, Nov. 3, 2015. Prop I aimed to slow the construction of homes in the Mission. less Sam Ruiz, left, and Ingrid Mesquita set up for the election party at Mission Neighborhood Centers Inc. in San Francisco , Calif. on Tuesday, Nov. 3, 2015. Prop I aimed to slow the construction of homes in the ... more Photo: James Tensuan, Special To The Chronicle Photo: James Tensuan, Special To The Chronicle Image 1 of / 32 Caption Close Mission District housing moratorium defeated 1 / 32 Back to Gallery

An initiative that would halt construction of market-rate housing in the Mission District for 18 months lost at the polls Tuesday after an impassioned campaign that set the desire of many residents to preserve their neighborhood against the economics of a fast-growing city.

The impetus behind Proposition I was the loss of working-class residents, Latinos and families who have been priced out of the area or evicted as well-paid tech workers flock to the neighborhood.

The measure’s proponents wanted to use the construction break to come up with a long-term plan to address the displacement. Opponents argued that halting construction would have been the wrong move when the city is facing a severe housing shortage and would have made the neighborhood more expensive.

With 100 percent of the precincts counted, the measure fell short 57 percent to 43 percent. An unknown number of mail-in ballots have yet to be counted.

Prop. I supporters at the election night party at a community center in the Mission expressed disappointment at the loss but were glad the measure received more than 40 percent of the vote. Some were dancing to salsa on the patio.

“This is the beginning of the next chapter — we will continue to fight luxury development,” said Scott Weaver, the measure’s author.

“We are not conceding anything. This is the beginning of a movement. We will continue to fight for the integrity of the Mission,” said former Supervisor Christina Olague.

Prop. I opponents expressed relief that the proposal failed.

“If the measure had passed many people would have suffered the very negative consequences and hundreds if not thousands of people would have faced eviction,” said Eric Jaye, the “No on I” campaign manager. “The voters embraced basic economics rather than basic politics tonight.”

Prop. I was one of the most contentious measures on the November ballot. Developers and real estate interests were staunchly opposed. Affordable-housing activists in the Mission campaigned heavily for it.

What remained to be seen was how voters in parts of the city outside the Mission would respond. On one hand, halting housing construction in one part of the city could exacerbate the market-rate pressures in other neighborhoods. On the other hand, Prop. I proponents said, the measure could be a model for other parts of the city dealing with similar dynamics.

To some degree, Prop. I became bigger than the specifics of the proposal. Supporting it became a way for residents unhappy with Mayor Ed Lee and the direction of the city to express their displeasure.

Today, more than 63 percent of homes in San Francisco are valued at $1 million or more, up from 39 percent in 2010, according to a study done for the real-estate website Trulia. Once working-class neighborhoods like the Mission and Bernal Heights have become unaffordable to low- and middle-income families.

The measure was a long time in the making.

In May, Supervisor David Campos introduced the first iteration of the proposal in legislation before the Board of Supervisors. The board rejected the plan in June, prompting Mission housing activists to gather signatures to get the measure on the November ballot.

The measure would have affected an approximately 1½-square-mile area in the Mission bounded by Guerrero Street, Cesar Chavez Street, Potrero Avenue and Highway 101.

In addition to halting construction of market-rate housing, it would have prohibited permits for the conversion of buildings designated for PDR — production, distribution and repair. It would have delayed plans by the owner of the Armory, the brick building that once housed the National Guard and is now home to porn company Kink.com, to convert the 40,000-square-foot Drill Court into a full-time entertainment venue.

Time and again, Prop. I supporters framed the measure in stark terms — a chance to save the culture and fabric of the historically Latino neighborhood before it was too late.

They highlighted a report issued last week by the city’s budget and legislative analyst that concluded that if current demographic trends continue in the Mission, the percentage of Latinos in the neighborhood will decline from 48 percent in 2009-13 to 31 percent by 2025, and the number of households with children will drop from 21 to 11 percent.

Yet the report also underscored the city’s tremendous housing shortage. It found that for San Francisco to have achieved a rate of housing appreciation commensurate with the rest of the country, the city would have needed to build 459,000 units between 1980 and 2010 instead of the 60,344 units that were built — an increase of 661 percent.

Proponents and opponents of Prop. I drew very different conclusions from that finding.

Campos said it showed the city cannot build its way out of the housing crisis and needs to come up with alternative solutions to help working-class families. Supervisor Scott Wiener, an opponent of Prop. I, said it highlighted the need for more housing in the city. To halt construction would be the worst option, he said.

There are between 1,200 and 1,452 units at various stages in the planning and permitting process within the area designated by Prop. I, according to city estimates. Ted Egan, the city’s chief economist, said roughly 800 units would be delayed for some amount of time if the measure passed.

Emily Green is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: egreen@sfchronicle.com

Twitter: @emilytgreen