Supes Support Alice Griffith Tenants – But Endorse Lennar

by Paul Hogarth, 2007-02-14

The Board of Supervisors passed 8-2 a resolution yesterday to “endorse efforts” by the City, the Redevelopment Agency and the Lennar Corporation to transform parts of Hunters Point into a mixed use development – with a new 49ers Stadium, open spaces and various “tangible economic benefits” to the community’s low-income residents. Supervisors Chris Daly and Ed Jew were the only dissenting votes. Responding to an outcry from tenants at the Alice Griffith Housing Project (who fear losing their homes), Sophie Maxwell ushered an amendment to clarify that it would be a phased development with one-for-one replacement – and that the new housing units would be truly affordable for existing tenants at Alice Griffith.

But like the feeble efforts by Democrats in Congress to stop George Bush’s escalation, the Board resolution is “non-binding,” as it merely encourages Lennar and the Redevelopment Agency to protect affordable housing. Alice Griffith tenants were happy with Maxwell’s amended changes, but remain skeptical that they will truly be spared from displacement -- as past promises of “one-for-one replacement” have proven elusive at other housing projects. Meanwhile, housing advocates are frustrated that the Board introduced the resolution without any input from tenants, and whose language of “replacement” would alarm any casual reader about the future of Hunters Point.

Even with this resolution, there are no current plans to “demolish” the Alice Griffith Housing Project. While replacing these units in the future with new housing is a distinct possibility, it won’t happen until the Housing Authority has the money. If and when that day comes (i.e., voters pass a housing bond), the City will have to find a private developer willing to carry it out. And with Lennar already having real estate interests in the neighborhood, the Board effectively endorsed them as being that developer.

Meanwhile, the San Francisco 49ers have threatened to move to Santa Clara – and local politicians want to show that they’ll do what they can to stop that. The Board resolution endorses efforts by Lennar to work with the 49ers to build a “state-of-the-art stadium and associated parking,” along with a master-plan revitalization of the whole neighborhood. If you read Mayor Newsom’s letter to 49ers owner John York (which was attached with the Board resolution), it is clear that politicians will bend over backwards to yield to the team’s demands. The 49ers want a new parking lot, and the Alice Griffith Homes happen to be right in the way.

Keeping the 49ers would bring jobs to Hunters Point, say politicians, and help revitalize an economically depressed area. But the 49ers have been at Candlestick Point for decades, and their presence has not helped the neighborhood. Unlike the Giants Stadium -- whose presence has undoubtedly boosted the South-of-Market area with restaurant revenue and housing development -- 49ers fans do not patronize businesses in Bayview-Hunters Point. Besides vague threats of economic decline, how exactly would the neighborhood be hurt if the 49ers left town?

Meanwhile, Bayview residents know that the Lennar Corporation has reneged on pledges to build 400 rental housing units, and the Redevelopment Agency has let them get away with it. Even with pledges of one-for-one replacement, the concept of Lennar directly affecting the Alice Griffith Homes is hardly a comforting thought. The Supervisors will argue that they inserted language to protect tenants, but they can’t escape an inconvenient truth – they endorsed letting Lennar redevelop the neighborhood.

The Board resolution, as amended, calls for any new development at Alice Griffith to have “one-for-one replacement at existing income levels of such housing and phase the development so that residents will be provided with the new replacement housing before they are required to leave their homes.” The phrase “existing income levels” is important, said Sophie Maxwell, because “affordable housing” does not always mean “low-income” or “no-income” housing. That way, any current tenants at Alice Griffith would be guaranteed replacement housing – if and when their building gets demolished.

“Stormy,” a resident of Alice Griffith, was glad that the Supervisors put that language in the resolution – but worries that it’s “only part one” in an effort to stop any loopholes. Even if the replacement units are rented at truly affordable levels, she explains, there’s no guarantee that current tenants would be able to move into them. “They could still put up obstacles like we have bad credit – or other reasons why people end up living in public housing,” she said. Tenants who were displaced from the North Beach and Valencia Gardens Housing Projects likewise faced such problems.

Sara Shortt, an organizer at the Housing Rights Committee and occasional contributor to Beyond Chron, was frustrated at the Supervisors for even passing the “non-binding” resolution in the first place. “There was no need to pass it,” she said, “and all it does is create fear. Their idea was to demonstrate to the public that they are trying to work on solutions to the 49ers backing out. It was a mistake to have the City introduce legislation that had misleading language such as ‘replacing’ Alice Griffith.”

Regardless of what ends up happening – if the 49ers stay or leave, if Lennar’s plans ever materialize, if the affordable housing bond passes – public housing advocates and residents will have to keep a close eye on what happens to Alice Griffith. Nobody disputes that the projects are in dire condition and the tenants deserve a better place to live, but any talk of demolition needs to include the residents and allow them to control their own destiny. As Espanola Jackson explained, “the tenants need to be at the table.”

Send feedback to paul@beyondchron.org