City Officials, Not Activists, Deserve Blame for Construction Delays

by Randy Shaw, 2008-02-20

John King wrote an article in yesterday’s San Francisco Chronicle that blamed activists for delaying the revitalization of the Market/Octavia neighborhood. King and others have essentially accused Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi of halting progress last week by pushing for increased development fees in the area. Since the Market/Octavia planning process began in 2002, its understandable that people are frustrated by the prospect of further delay. But what has really occurred in Market/Octavia, and in many other San Francisco neighborhoods, is that administrative/political bodies unrepresentative of the electorate control the planning process until it reaches the Board of Supervisors. It is only then that activists’ concerns, ignored throughout this skewed process, are given weight.

For the past thirty years, San Francisco’s Planning Department has been more “pro-development” than the city’s electorate. The only exception was during the Agnos years of 1988-1991, but even this Commission approved an Underwater World project for Pier 39 that would have been unlikely to secure voter approval.

During the Feinstein and Brown years, activists routinely opposed planning department/commission decisions to little avail. The Planning Commission’s willingness to uphold the infamous “Bryant Square” project in 2000 showed how city officials were disconnected from much of the electorate.

As a result of a 2002 ballot measure, the President of the Board of Supervisors got to select three of the seven planning commissioners. Subsequent commissions have been more responsive, but nobody would conclude that even the current body---which is as good as any in recent years---reflects the political views of a majority of the Board of Supervisors.

In fact, the Planning Commission, which oversaw and approved the Market/Octavia Plan, has little base in activist communities. This has long been the case. The only current Commissioner with close grassroots connections is Christina Olague, appointed by Board President Peskin.

What this means is that regardless of how many years a planning process continues, many activists have had their ideas rejected and their voices not heard until the matter reaches the Board of Supervisors.

This is what happened with Market/Octavia plan. Activists opposed the major upzoning of the community when it emerged in 2004, and have since been raising the same concerns then as they are now.

Activists were left with no choice but to ask District Five Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi to promote their ideas. A lengthy planning process that did not involve the diverse set of political players necessary to forge agreement could hardly deter them.

During our battle against the proposed (and now dead) Mid-Market Redevelopment Area, we met with many of the Planning Commissioners, some of whom expressed great sympathy for our position. But when the Commission voted, only one member sided with the community---an all too frequent occurrence for decades at Planning when development issues are involved.

What’s interesting is that most developers and activists both want a faster process, and are equally frustrated by the delays that John King and others bemoan. But decades of poor planning department leadership, worsened by political interference from mayors, have left all stakeholders unhappy.

And it is not only those involved with the planning process that should be angry. While Mayor Newsom proposes cuts to critical programs to address a looming city budget deficit, development projects that would bring millions of dollars into city coffers are stuck in Planning for years awaiting approval.

Had projects not remained in purgatory in recent years, these cuts and proposed layoffs would not be necessary.

Regardless of one’s view of any of these projects, all deserve a timelier up or down vote than they have been getting. And when the already glacial Planning process involves a neighborhood rezoning---as in Market/Octavia---those seeking to build good projects in the community understandably give up hope.

Fortunately, San Francisco has recently installed of a new Planning Director, creating a long-overdue opening for change. One thing new Director John Rahaim can do is to bring the Supervisors into the neighborhood planning process earlier, so nobody will be surprised when a Supervisor seeks changes to a plan after it reaches the Board.

There is something wrong with a process when so many people are unhappy with the Market/Octavia plan as it reaches the Board. Mirkarimi worked out a deal that ended the long fight over the UC Extension site, and can hopefully reach a similar outcome here.