Measure for Measure: Proposition E
Voting is an essential part of civic engagement, but it can be confusing, especially in local elections. There are some hyper-local issues that we’re deciding on in the upcoming election in SF on November 5th. That’s why we’re doing this round-up of the measures, to provide some insight into the 2019 ballot.
Check out our round-up page for more articles on the other measures.
What is Proposition E?
Proposition E would allow the construction of 100% affordable housing and housing for teachers on public land where these kinds of projects are currently prohibited. Parks in the city would be excluded from Proposition E.
The measure allows for affordable projects up to 120% of Area Median Income (AMI) with a targeted average AMI of 80%. 80% of the teacher housing would target households between 30 and 140% AMI, with the remaining 20% open to teachers up to 160% of AMI. The starting salary for a San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) teacher is about $63,000, while AMI in San Francisco is $86,200 for an individual and $123,150 for a family of four. At least one SFUSD or San Francisco Community College District employee would be required to live in each teacher housing unit. Proposition E would also make zoning adjustments and streamline the planning approval process, hopefully lowering costs by shortening the length of time to complete a project.
The measure grew out of a dispute between Mayor London Breed and Supervisors Sandra Fewer, Matt Haney, Shamann Walton, and Aaron Peskin. Both the Mayor and the Supervisors proposed measures to use public land for affordable and teacher housing, but the two plans differed in the details. Mayor Breed proposed a package of ballot measures that would have required the teacher housing to reserve only two-thirds of the units for teachers, while the Supervisors pushed to require a teacher in every unit. Additionally, the Mayor would have allowed more housing for middle-income residents, while the Supervisors weighted their plan more heavily towards low-income San Franciscans.
Ultimately, the Mayor was not able to secure the required approval of six Supervisors to place her plan on the ballot and negotiated a compromise to ease some height and density restrictions in the four Supervisors’ proposal. The final measure was sponsored by Supervisors Fewer, Haney, Walton, and Peskin and is supported by Mayor Breed.
Why does it matter?
Teachers are a particularly rent-burdened group in San Francisco. According to the SFUSD, 64% of their teachers pay more than 30% of their income on rent and 15% devote more than half of their income to rent. SFUSD is currently in the planning process for several teacher housing projects to address this issue.
Gaining approval for new housing projects in San Francisco, though, is notoriously difficult and lengthens the time to build new housing. These slowdowns raise the cost of new housing, which makes it more difficult to build affordable housing with limited available resources. This measure would provide welcome acceleration for the approval process, and put public land to use in addressing the housing crisis.
What are the arguments for Proposition E? Who’s funding the measure?
Advocates for Proposition E argue that it will “facilitate and expedite 100% affordable and educator housing” in San Francisco. Backers are billing the measure as part of a package with Proposition A, which provides $600 million in funding for affordable housing. They hope the measure will allow new affordable housing to be constructed on public land for both low-income residents and the city’s teachers.
Affordable Communities NOW! Yes on E! is leading the campaign in support of the measure. Major funding in support of Proposition E comes from the United Educators of San Francisco, Spencer Hudson, and the San Francisco Tenants Union. See more funding details here.
What are the arguments against Proposition E? Who’s funding the opposition?
There isn’t much organized opposition to Proposition E. The Libertarian Party of San Francisco opposes the measure arguing that it would be more appropriate to facilitate housing production by reforming the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The San Francisco Green Party opposes the measure because it would “allow private development” on public land.
There is a serious issue with Proposition E. The city has not undertaken an analysis to determine whether the new housing facilitated by this measure is financially feasible. SFUSD is currently considering building teacher housing that is cross-subsidized with market-rate housing. Those projects would not qualify for the streamlining in Proposition E, and it is not yet clear if SFUSD will change its plans or be able to secure an alternate funding source for a 100% affordable, teacher housing project. While Proposition A does provide some funding for teacher housing, some analysts believe that funding is not sufficient without additional support.
There have not been any registered financial contributions in opposition to Proposition E. See more funding details here.
What is TechEquity’s position on Proposition E?
The high cost of housing is a major obstacle for attracting and retaining essential low- and middle-income workers, like public school teachers, in San Francisco. Making sure it is possible for middle-class professionals to reside in the city is key to building the healthy communities TechEquity members want to live in. Combined with Proposition A, these measures would create a package of funding and land-use reform that will facilitate the addition of affordable housing for this important population. While we are concerned about the financial feasibility of projects streamlined by this measure, and also recognize there are many San Franciscans in other essential middle-income occupations, we still believe it is worthy of our support.
We say vote yes on Proposition E!
Check our round-up page for more measure articles as we publish them!
We’re uniting tech workers to create a more equitable economy. Join us!
We believe the tech industry, built on the internet — the most democratizing communications platform in human history — can and should contribute to broad-based economic growth that benefits everyone.
