McGoldrick and Maxwell Control Fate of Housing Amendment

by Randy Shaw, 2007-12-11

After all of the public hearings, strategy sessions, and organizational meetings, the fate of a proposed set-aside for affordable housing at the Board of Supervisors today comes down to the votes of either Jake McGoldrick or Sophie Maxwell. With Gerardo Sandoval agreeing to support the charter amendment last Friday, either supervisor can provide the necessary sixth vote. Although both McGoldrick and Maxwell have expressed opposition to new set-asides, their votes to kill the measure would disappoint many of their longtime supporters. Both were elected as part of the progressive sweep of 2000, both turned to progressives when faced with recall efforts, and both pride themselves on their commitment to affordable housing. Considering that their vote simply gives the electorate the opportunity to make the real funding decision, supporting the charter amendment appears most consistent with their desired political legacies.

After publicly stating a desire for additional hearings, Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval changed course last week and became the 5th vote in favor of putting a charter amendment for a housing set-aside on the November 2008 ballot. This leaves either Supervisors McGoldrick or Maxwell to provide the necessary 6th vote at today’s December 11 Board meeting.

McGoldrick spent last week in England, and thus missed the public hearing on the amendment at the December 4 Board meeting. Given his long history as a housing activist, one would have assumed he would have quickly supported a measure that provides $33 million annually to affordable housing.

But the recent passage of Prop A, which set aside $28 million for MUNI, has left McGoldrick skeptical of supporting future measures that limit the Board of Supervisors’ discretion to allocate funds. But proponents of the housing set-aside note two key differences between this measure and others.

First, much of the housing set-aside funds will be invested in real estate, rather than spent annually on services. This set-aside is more akin to an infrastructure bond than the set-asides for libraries, children services, and other funding allocations that address ongoing program needs.

Second, the Board of Supervisors will retain primary control of how the housing set-aside money is spent. So this is not a case of divesting the Supervisors of budgetary authority, but actually of increasing its power over the housing budget in relation to the Mayor’s Office.

Because McGoldrick has been out of the country, proponents have not had a recent opportunity to sit down with him to address his concerns. But given that he sees himself as a strong advocate for affordable housing, something should be worked out to secure his deciding vote.

The last time McGoldrick was the deciding vote on an affordable housing issue involved 3400 Cesar Chavez. He voted against affordable housing activists on that occasion, and can now help to regain their favor by backing the set-aside.

Maxwell may be a more difficult vote, since she has heard all the testimony regarding need and was not swayed. Unlike McGoldrick, who leaves office in 2008, Maxwell’s term continues until 2010, and she may see greater benefit in siding with Mayor Newsom on this issue rather than with lead charter amendment sponsor Chris Daly.

Maxwell’s vote also may be unlikely because Daly secured Sandoval’s vote by agreeing to sponsor legislation repealing an ill-advised law that limited the building of off-site affordable units to a one-mile radius from the market-rate project. This law effectively prevented off-site inclusionary units from being built anywhere in Sandoval’s district.

It is my understanding that it was Maxwell who pushed for the one-mile limit. The Daly-Sandoval deal seemed to imply that Daly realized Maxwell was a lost cause, and that getting Sandoval and McGoldrick on board was the best strategy.

If McGoldrick were to request a substantive change in the amendment as a condition of his vote, a new hearing would be required and the final Board vote pushed over to January. That’s why proponents would greatly prefer that if any deal is necessary, it follows Sandoval’s lead and involves terms outside the amendment’s text.

All agree that the charter amendment represents only one part of what is necessarily a series of measures necessary to deal with San Francisco’s affordable housing crisis. And building affordable housing takes time, meaning that additional short-term strategies are needed.

Consider that if the measure qualifies for the November 2008 ballot and is approved, the first funding allocations would be in July 2009. Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corp. (TNDC) currently owns three family housing sites, and none is slated for occupancy until 2012. This means that the first family housing built with set-aside funds would not be available until at least 2014.

Daly noted at last week’s Board meeting that nobody should expect the charter amendment to end the city’s affordable housing problem. But it is also true that had San Francisco adopted such a housing set-aside 15 years ago, we would have many more working-families in the city, and the exodus of the working and middle-class would have been slowed.

Send feedback to rshaw@beyondchron.org