Lost Between the Lines

pstrongThe Mid-Market Project Area Committee holds a “community meeting” on Housing/strong/p pDIV align="left" TABLE cellpadding="5"TR VALIGN="TOP"TDIMG SRC= "../sites/default/files/arch_img/541/photo_1_feature.jpg" //td/trTR VALIGN="TOP"TD/td/trTR VALIGN="TOP"TDTR VALIGN="TOP"TD pby Gretchen Hildebran/PoorNewsNetwork/p pLuckily, it was clear and blue last Saturday morning, because I had trouble enough making it to the Federal Building on Golden Gate Avenue for the last Mid-Market PAC "Community Input” meeting that the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (SFRA) was holding. This meeting was important—the chance for residents, business owners and other concerned parties to tell the PAC what they want to have happen in this neighborhood. /p pFor this meeting, they were talking about housing, where people sleep and eat and live. I wonder how many people on the PAC have a committee that meets to decide about what will happen to their homes. Probably not too many, as only four out of more than 20 committee members are residents of this area. And whatever plan the Mid-Market PAC (Project Area Committee) develops out of this process will then likely become city policy for the area, which more or less extends from 5th to 9th Streets along Market and from 5th to 10th Streets along Mission Street. /p pOn the cover of the PAC's outreach packet it read, "This neighborhood belongs to all of us. And we all deserve a voice in shaping its future." Despite the feel good message, I still felt way out of place. This was my first time in the Federal Building, and I was scrutinized by the security guards as they scanned my bag and looked in my pant cuffs for anything metallic. Luckily I was low on change so I passed through the beepers and headed on downstairs. /p pOn entering the conference room, I was surprised to find that everyone was sitting informally around tables, sipping coffee and eating cookies (and bagels swiped from the Youth in Media conference next door). I quickly headed for the table filled with my fellow POOR staffers and interns and sat down to try and get a handle on things. On coming in we were handed the outreach packet and some feedback cards. Even though it was a relief to notice that we weren't going to be speaking in "testimony" style to a panel of people (who usually like to sit on an elevated platform if at all possible), the mood of the crowd was nervous. /p pAt our table and at the next were the POOR magazine folks, residents and some activists. The other four or five tables looked to be predominantly men in sweaters and glasses who were chatting and checking out the room more than they were reading up on the proposals. The people around me flipped through the packets and checked out the maps of the project area on the table. /p pThe PAC listed their first goal as being to preserve diversity, social and economic equity. POOR staffer Joe Bolden quipped, "Diversity? You mean different colored cars?" Parking was listed as part of the last listed project goal, and discussion soon proved that it indeed was a major priority of the plan, and it is meant to be parking for shoppers and other visitors, not parking for residents. /p pThe colorful map on our table indicated what was currently being used for residential, mixed use and retail, etc. in the neighborhood. SRO units were colored in differently than the rest of the residential properties, defined by yellow with black diagonal stripes and outlined with heavy black lines. The alarm bells that have been going off in my head for the last couple weeks, since I found out about the Mid-Market PAC plan, got a little louder./p pFinally the meeting got going when someone from the Redevelopment Agency got up to explain the agenda of the day and review the general goals of the plan. As José introduced himself, he caught the word "redevelopment" when it was halfway out of his mouth and replaced it with "revitalization". And no one dared bring up the specter of "renewal", which historically has meant the same as "removal" to the folks in its path. This brief correction made my cynicism flare up again—did the SFRA want to talk to residents just to find out what new language they need to use to make their plan sound community based and inclusive? Were we just being fooled into helping them fool everyone else?/p pJosé was a good speaker, articulate and patient in explaining everything in normal language but I found myself zoning out, circling phrases in the plan that had nothing to do with housing and getting paranoid about the stern looking man in the back of the room who seemed fixated on our table. But the gist of what José was saying came through. He explained the conditions in this part of Market street which originally made it a target for redevelopment in 1995: Vacant storefronts, unsafe buildings, high crime and "adult" uses such as peepshows and XXX video stores. All the language in the plan about diversity and vitality must have come later on in the process./p pHe also explained the three main powers of the Redevelopment Agency in an area. The first is the power to use property taxes collected from the project area to directly finance the plan. So if property values on Mid-market go up, so does the amount of cash available to subsidize further development there. The SFRA can also take out a bond to fund a project and pay it off with these taxes. /p pThe second power, he stated, was to organize the community around the redevelopment process. While the cheery SFRA representatives may be congratulating themselves on their collaboration with District 6 Supervisor Chris Daly, their lack of outreach failed to bring a decent representation of area residents to these meetings. This point was criticized repeatedly during the meeting and again undercut the supposed goal of the entire process. Tenants' unions and homeless activists have been developing the "power" to organize without much support of the government for decades. Ironically these organizations were called upon by the SFRA to do their outreach for them. Unfortunately the overworked and often volunteer labor of these groups didn't have the resources to organize folks for the PAC./p pThe third power of the SFRA is that of eminent domain. That is, they are able to force property owners to sell their land if it is deemed necessary for developments in the plan. While this might be a positive thing for poor folks in the area, for instance if the plan is to take over abandoned buildings to make low and no income housing. But what if the plan ends up demanding a parking structure where SROs now stand? Eminent domain is the power that was used to clear out homeowners from the Fillmore when urban renewal “revitalized” that area. /p pAfter the introductions and review of the plan, breakout groups were formed to discuss and rework the goals, plans and projects around housing in the plan. I moved to a table on the other side of the room to get an idea of what different people’s ideas were. Our group had a PAC member, a representative from a housing and SRO management organization, a SFSU college student, a rep from the Department of Health and a couple of other men who identified themselves by name only. /p pThe conversation centered on the wording of the goals of the plan, with a drift into issues of accountability and “focus.” Some important issues were raised, especially in the definition of “affordable housing”. Affordable to whom? And how much would there be? While everyone agreed that low-income housing should be the top priority (except for one guy who kept on insisting on the importance of “mixed income”), no one had a clear idea of how much housing should be created. The statements in the plan about preserving existing low-income units made sense, but even the PAC rep pointed out that these units are not currently meeting the needs in this neighborhood (or the entire city). Despite this acknowledgement, every time I asked if it was the PAC’s intention to assess need in the area, everyone would start talking about financing and market need./p pThroughout the discussion we touched on most of the important points in the plan such as preventing displacement of residents during renovation or rebuilding of units and at least managed to convince the SFRA rep that yes, SROs are an important part of the housing stock (he kept on asking…). We debated how to make owners accountable for SRO living standards and the need for transitional housing and services. Unfortunately our talking didn’t dispel my basic fears of the plan, such as the SFRA’s accountability and control over the places where people live as well as the obvious intent to incorporate this area into the downtown area as a tourist/shopping and theater destination (complete with parking). /p pOur SFRA facilitator started out taking notes on a easel pad but soon switched to jotting notes on his own paper. While someone from the group offered to take over the official note taking, I kept having to remind people to actually write down what we were talking about. They weren’t recording the meeting and these notes were going to be passed on to the PAC, right? Most PAC members weren’t there to take note of the debating issues and feelings. Were all my basic questions and objections going to be lost between the lines?/p pWhen reviewing the “Proposed Projects and Programs” for housing we questioned the presence of “Economic Development Programs”, which seemed to belong in a different area. But while everyone agreed it was a low priority, no one questioned the item described as “Acquire land; construct parking structure”. As I doubt this is a parking structure intended for vehicularly housed folks, in retrospect I don’t see why it is there at all. Who is this parking for anyway?/p pClose to the beginning of the meeting, an SRO resident spoke out against turning her neighborhood into “one big parking lot”. She has a reason to fear this. As it was described in the meeting, the plans for the new federal office building at 7th and Mission include destroying 600 existing parking spaces. While the building would create only 45 new parking spaces, they expect 1600 employees and 500 to 600 visitors to be coming to this building every day. The bureaucrats in the room insisted that they are only trying to strategize this new demand (along with parking demands from Nordstrom’s, new glass-enclosed street-level retail stores, as well as the proposed “theater district”). POOR magazine co-editor Tiny spoke up to question why this impoverished neighborhood was expected to make up the difference and provide this parking./p pThis major issue seemed to be competing with housing as a priority in the plan but wasn’t sufficiently addressed by most of the groups. After the discussion sessions the groups reported their feedback to the meeting. While residents’ substantial issues such as potential parking lots, policing, safety and standards of living in SROs were touched on by the attendees of the meeting, the overall goals and objectives of the PAC and its plan went basically unquestioned. /p pOne group made an excellent suggestion that all parking structures be required to also include low-income housing. This kind of creative thinking was challenged by the bureaucrats and developers but seems to be the only solution for the kinds of opposing viewpoints and interests that showed up to give input. It was heartening to hear so much emphasis placed on low-income housing in general, the actual need for shelters and NO-income housing was quickly brushed over. It seems that if the people who are so in need of shelter and support couldn’t find out about the meeting and represent this need, then their needs will basically not be considered. /p pBut the PAC has a lengthy process. After digesting all the input from the meetings they will rework their plan and present it again for reaction and more input. It is up to them to stay true to the multitude of poor folks who were represented by the few sleepy residents and activists who made it to this first meeting. Once this plan is reissued, it is up to us to respond and keep up the fight to let the PAC know just what they are missing. /p pOne resident stated in her group’s summary, the color she sees “is green. It’s all about economic justice.” While the PAC proposal puts diversity and social and economic equity first on their list, it still remains to be seen if they can learn to see things the way Mid-Market residents and poor folks in SF do./p pI Editor’s Note from Dee/ibAnother important creative idea mentioned at this meeting was the concept of creating a system for SRO residents to purchase their hotel rooms. Homeless people who RESIDE on the sidewalk in the Mid-Market area, especially on Jessie St., should also have the right and opportunity to purchase the space in which they reside. Gaining equity in their rooms and in their neighborhood would prevent the displacement that the PAC claims to want to avoid. We at POOR magazine strongly support these ideas and urge the SFRA to not lose these and other important new solutions in the bureaucratic/developer shuffle./bbr / /p/td/tr/td/tr/table/div/p