The Yerba Buena Neighborhood Consortium, the advocacy arm of the South of Market affordable housing developer TODCO Group, commissioned a poll of likely San Francisco voters by David Binder and Associates last week to research public opinions about the City’s Inclusionary Affordable Housing laws. Two competing proposals are now pending legislative action by the City’s Board of Supervisors. One is proposed by the Mayor’s Office, the other by Supervisors Kim and Peskin. Here are the key findings of that poll. For further information, contact John Elberling at 415-892-1880 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
Only 42% support reducing the current 25% Inclusionary Housing requirement set by approval of Proposition C in June of 2016 to 18%, as now proposed by the Mayor and market-rate housing developers. 51% oppose this.
Now that you’ve heard more, do you support or oppose the proposed ordinance changing affordable housing requirement for large developments from 25 percent to 18 percent?
But 56% support the higher 24% currently proposed by Supervisors Jane Kim and Aaron Peskin.
Now that you’ve heard more, would you vote ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ on a ballot measure that would change the overall affordable housing requirement to 24 percent?
Head-to-head, voters support the Kim/Peskin proposal vs. the Mayor’s proposal by a blow-out majority of 53% to just 33%!
And now that you’ve heard about two policy proposals regarding the inclusionary housing requirement for large developments in San Francisco, which do you prefer – the ordinance that would change the affordable housing requirement to 18% or the ballot measure that would change the affordable housing requirement to 24%?
These results reflect the voters’ very strong support for maintaining or increasing Inclusionary Affordable Housing requirements. 58% want 24% or more of market rate projects’ housing units to be affordable, while only 39% want the requirement to be reduced to 18% or less.
And regardless of whether you support or oppose any of the specific proposals we’ve talked about, what comes closest to your view about what should be the proportion of affordable housing required in new residential buildings? Should it be 12 percent, 18 percent, 24 percent, 33 percent, higher than 33 percent, or should there not be any requirement at all?
In particular, voters strongly support increased Inclusionary Affordable Housing requirements for new market rate projects in the Mission and Tenderloin Neighborhoods, and also for luxury high-rise towers or when parts of the City are up-zoned (for example, as currently proposed for Central South of Market).
And voters especially want to see greater Inclusionary Affordable Housing requirements for development of public property (for example, 30 Van Ness).
Voters also overwhelmingly agree with the criticism that the Mayor’s proposal sets an “in lieu” fee that is too low.
Is the following statement convincing?
While very strongly supporting the Kim/Peskin measure’s proposal to increase this fee.
Finally, voters support increasing the Inclusionary Affordable Housing requirement for market-rate projects by a steady 1% per year (the Mayor’s proposal includes a 0.5% per year rate increase).