Through the late 1950’s, San Francisco’s Market Street was the city’s “Great White Way,” and the Bay Area’s entertainment hub. But the rise of television, increased suburbanization, and ill-conceived “beautification” schemes by urban planners ended Mid Market’s historically successful use. It has not revived over the past forty years, which makes Prop D on San Francisco’s November ballot so intriguing. Prop D seeks to bring back the bright lights to Mid-Market by allowing the installation of boldly lit advertising signs, and would boost arts in the area by allocating 40% of ad proceeds to nonprofit arts groups. Critics of the measure question the process for allocating funds, the value of illuminated signs, and the motives of its backers. But opponents have not offered a competing, real-world alternative vision for Mid-Market, or their own plan for art funding arts in the area. That’s why the concept of Prop D deserves further discussion even if the measure loses at the polls, and why the Supervisors should begin fashioning a similar but more publically acceptable strategy for Mid-Market after the election.

Mid-Market’s Problem

What happens to an area when its historic use is gone? The Cannery and Ghiradelli Chocolate factory became retail outlets, as did much of San Francisco’s waterfront after the shipping industry moved to Oakland. The abandoned warehouses of the northeast mission became housing (to great controversy), while arts and housing uses are slated for the long closed Hunters Point Naval Shipyard.

Historically a theater and entertainment district, Mid-Market between 5th and 7th Streets (the area covered by Prop D) never attracted developers despite San Francisco’s many real estate booms since the late 1970’s. During the 1990’s a large condo project was approved in the area -- the St. Francis Theater site on the south side of Market -- but never moved forward, and was sold to developers who will shift the site to retail.

Mid-Market has suffered from a collection of property owners’ content to sit on their properties rather than develop them. The ownership mix has improved in the past five years, but there remain too many owners who bought their properties cheap and will only sell at prices nobody will pay.

Prop D: A Step for Change

Prop D must be understood in this historic context. It covers a stretch of Market that has had enormous difficulty attracting investment even in boon times, has few development opportunity sites due to negligent owners, lacks a positive identity, and is not a place where San Franciscans come to congregate.

The opening of the CityPlace retail establishments at 935-965 Market is still years away (it has not even had its Planning Commission approval hearing), and the exciting Market Street development for the new Trinity Plaza at 8th and Market is also a few years off. This means that, other than Prop D, there is nothing out there that will inject new money, public interest, or energy into this stretch of Mid-Market for at least the next three years.

Further, the many vacant storefronts on Market and in the adjacent Uptown Tenderloin and 6th Street areas has led many to push for increased arts uses in these spaces. The revival of arts would positively alter the public image of the areas on and around Market, making it more attractive for residents.

But there is no money available for arts groups to capitalize on the lower rents in the vacant storefronts now available. Because 40% of the revenue generated by Prop D goes to art groups working with youth in these areas, the measure would boost arts uses in communities otherwise unable to secure such funding.

That’s why I endorsed Prop D, despite knowing it faced a steep uphill fight.

Prop D’s Challenge

I realized from the outset that my “Five Rules for Successful Initiatives” has proved almost 100% successful at predicting outcomes, yet Prop D violated two of the five.

Violating my rule, “Keep it Simple,” was unavoidable given the nature of the measure, and could be overcome by a big picture campaign about reviving Mid-Market. Instead, my chief concern was Prop D’s breaching my rule, “Create the Initiative Through Due Process.” As I foresaw, this “process” question has become the major point of attack, and will likely cause Prop D’s defeat.

Prop D’s process problem is two-fold.

First, Prop D is the brainchild of David Addington, the owner of the Warfield Building. Addington is not well known in San Francisco’s activist community, is little known outside the Mid-Market and adjacent areas, and, under the unofficial rules of San Francisco politics, he is, a priori, not to be trusted.

Second, while Addington ran his initiative idea by clearly interested parties, he did not have Board of Supervisors hearings on his plan. Nor did he engage in a broader, pre-initiative effort to foster public understanding of why Prop D was needed.

As a result, most people did not learn about Prop D until it qualified for the ballot, and were immediately distrustful of the process. People are also distrustful of Addington’s own profit motives, although as the Warfield owner he could cut his own deals with advertisers without going to the cost and trouble of trying to improve the entire area.

This process problem and distrust was heightened by Addington’s decision to allocate the Prop D funds through the already existing Central Market Street Community Benefits District. This decision was designed to take the politics out of the allocation process, yet because few had heard of the CBD, and Addington’s reasoning for choosing it was not explained in a public hearing, the CBD’s role has become a major target for opponents.

The San Francisco Bay Guardian said many good things about Prop D, but urged a No vote after focusing on the CBD factor: “But the process this measure describes isn't at all democratic. The CBD board selects its own members, and the only oversight the city has is the ability of the Board of Supervisors to abolish the agency.”

Of course, any funding allocation process used by Prop D could have been similarly attacked. Would the Guardian prefer that the Mayor’s Office allocate Prop D funds? If so, its editorial board should reread my pieces on the Newsom Administration’s rigged RFP/RFQ processes.

Prop D, Post-Election

If, as I believe, the main objections to Prop D involve trust and process, its likely defeat should propel Supervisors who backed the measure like David Chiu and David Campos to set a hearing for addressing the funding allocation issue in legislation. While the voters would still have to approve the new signs for Mid-Market, many of the details that troubled Prop D opponents would have been resolved.

Otherwise, it’s not clear to me what opponents of Prop D “win” by defeating the measure. Arts groups will remain without the funds necessary to capitalize on the lower rents caused by the economic downturn, and the stretch of Market between 5th and 7th will remain a problem spot.

Instead, let’s hope that even in defeat, Prop D can spur action toward expediting Mid-Market’s revival.

Randy Shaw is the Editor of Beyond Chron and the Director of the Tenderloin Housing Clinic