Skip to content

Developers Rev Up The Lie Machine

September 24, 2015

by J. Scott Weaver (a similar version was published in El Tecolote newspaper on September 22nd –

During election time we know that moneyed interests will bombard us with spin and half-truths, but this year the No on I forces have really outdone themselves. Fearful that they will lose millions in profits if Proposition I passes, the No on I forces have already sent unwelcome emails, mailers, facebook posts, and tweets, all misrepresenting what Prop I will do. This year’s deluge is especially outrageous.

By now, most of us have heard the “billion dollar lie” – Opponents saying that Prop I will cost the City $1 billion dollars. They repeat this claim even though the City Controller has determined the cost of Prop I to be only “up to $1 million”– that’s 1,000 times less than the No on I forces claim. With their big money, the realtors and developers will continue their distortions hoping you won’t read the Controller’s Statement in your Voter Handbook.

More recently, the No on I forces have pointed to a study commissioned by Supervisors Weiner and Farrell – both foes of Proposition I, claiming that the report says Proposition I will increase rents and cause displacement. I’ve read the report several times now. It says that rents for vacant units will increase by only .3% (that’s three tenths of one percent) during the 18 month pause in luxury development. In light of the fact that rents over the past 18 years have increased at a rate of 9.2%, a year, a .3% increase is infinitesimal. As to displacement, the report said that there was “no evidence” that Proposition I would cause displacement, contradicting Prop I opponents.

It’s interesting that the report was written by Ted Egan, the City’s Economist and a chief backer of the City’s “supply-side” strategy. This “strategy” lets developers build “market-rate” housing (affordable only to the top 15% wage earners) claiming that the benefits will “trickle down” to the remaining 85% of us. But Mr. Egan has also stated that we will have to build 100,000 “market-rate” units before the City will be affordable.

San Francisco has built 30,000 units since 2007, 25,000 of which are “market-rate”, yet rents continue to climb sharply. So why hasn’t the “trickle down” trickled down?

Mr. Egan says that it makes “common sense” that luxury housing causes gentrification and displacement, but claims that since there is no “statistical correlation” between the two and therefore no connection. Really? Putting $2.5million condos on 20th and Valencia doesn’t cause gentrification, displacement or increased rents?

Mark Twain once said “there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.” Now, I’m no economist, but I can see right through Mr. Egan’s statistics. He measures displacement only by the limited number of “no fault” evictions (ie. Ellis Act, or owner move-in) reported to the Rent Board – a small fraction of all evictions. Real world displacement includes evictions ranging from non-payment of rent, “low fault” evictions, buy-outs, harassment and constructive evictions. Our Chief Economist’s use of incomplete data shows the failure in his conclusion and the bias in his report.

Big money has already given us a heavy dose of lies, damned lies and statistics. The Anti-I forces are hoping that if they say something loudly and often enough people will believe them. Let’s make sure voters learn the real facts about Proposition I… (more)

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: