In direct conflict with City policy, the Board of Supervisors Budget Committee will consider tomorrow whether to sell a plot of land to a private developer for $850,000 – and use the money to renovate an old historic structure and add more palm trees along Alemany Boulevard. The vacant lot at the corner of Alemany and Ocean is part of the City’s designated “surplus property” sites – which under City policy must either be developed to provide housing for homeless people, or else sold and have the proceeds used to finance affordable housing projects.

Sponsored by Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval (whose district includes the vacant lot), the proposed legislation would explicitly exempt this land sale from the Surplus Property Ordinance and divorce it from any obligation to create affordable housing. This poses a dangerous precedent for housing development in San Francisco, and seriously calls into question the City’s commitment to solving homelessness.

In 2002, the Board of Supervisors passed the Surplus Property Ordinance – which designated city-owned “surplus property” to be prioritized for affordable housing. In 2004, the City gave the Ordinance teeth by establishing a Citizens’ Advisory Committee to offer recommendations to the Mayor’s Office of Housing on whether the City should sell – or develop – specific properties. While the Advisory Committee has faced significant road-blocks on developing properties such as 150 Otis Street into affordable housing, substantial progress has been made at identifying options for various sites.

At 3,440 square feet, the city-owned vacant lot at Alemany and Ocean is extremely narrow and not developable as housing by itself. But Walbridge Terraces LLC, which owns the adjacent property, is interested in buying the lot to create a market-rate housing complex on the two parcels – and is willing to pay $850,000 for it. At the March 2006 meeting, the Advisory Committee and the Mayor’s Office both agreed that the City should go ahead with the sale and “use the proceeds for affordable housing elsewhere.”

But now Supervisor Sandoval wants to divert the funds that are supposed to go to affordable housing for our most vulnerable population to fund the following programs: (a) $550,000 to repair the Geneva Avenue Car Barn, an historic site near the Balboa Park BART station that the City hopes to renovate and create a youth recreation center, and (b) $300,000 for “greening projects” along Alemany Boulevard, which will include installing palm trees.

“This proposal would sanction robbery,” said Sister Bernie Galvin, a member of the Citizens’ Advisory Committee and a resident of Sandoval’s district. “It would allow a Supervisor to rob the revenue intended for a specific purpose as set by one piece of legislation and to use it for a totally different and completely unrelated purpose in his own district. In this particular case, the robbery would be that of funds intended for desperately needed housing for homeless people. This is inherently disrespectful and insensitive of the City’s universally supported priority of housing for our poorest members.”

Ironically, San Franciscans already rejected the use of public funds to renovate the Geneva Avenue Car Barn in lieu of other priorities. In November 2004, voters rejected Proposition B – a historical preservation bond – that would have provided $60 million for the City to restore eleven historic buildings, including the Car Barn. Despite a well-funded campaign and two paid ballot arguments that specifically touted the Car Barn and its historical significance, Prop B failed to receive the necessary two-thirds passage for bond measures.

The City has already planned to spend $200,000 on restoring the Car Barn through its General Fund (along with another $200,000 endowment from the state) – besides the $550,000 from the sale of surplus property. Nobody is against restoring the Geneva Avenue Car Barn and converting it into a youth recreation center, but it is reprehensible to divert funds intended for affordable housing to pay for it.

Sandoval’s ordinance would completely undermine the Surplus Property Ordinance and set a dangerous precedent by allowing any Supervisor to exempt property in their district to satisfy a narrow, parochial need. “The question is whether the City wants to have a coherent policy on Surplus Property which continues to contribute to additional units of affordable housing,” said James Tracy, who serves on the Advisory Committee. At this point, only one of the 15 identified surplus property sites – at Sansome and Broadway – will materialize into true affordable housing, and some believe that it was going to become affordable housing anyway.

Some lament that the precedent was already set in 2005, when Supervisor Bevan Dufty got a vacant lot in Corona Heights removed from the Surplus Property list after residents in his district demanded that it be preserved as open space. But in that case, the City simply transferred ownership of the parcel from one city department (Housing) to another (Parks and Recreation) – rather than sell it to a private developer and steal the funds away from affordable housing to another purpose. Even if you disagree with what Dufty did at the time, Sandoval’s ordinance is much worse by taking the damage one step further.

Supervisor Chris Daly, who authored the Surplus Property Ordinance to help solve the homelessness crisis, is getting frustrated at how his colleagues have worked to undermine its actual effect. “The legislation is too much like Swiss Cheese,” he said – as property that should be slated to develop (or at least fund) affordable housing gets sliced away for completely different purposes. In the end, said Daly, a ballot measure may be necessary to preserve the Surplus Property – in order to make sure that it gets used for what the Ordinance was meant to accomplish.

Meanwhile, concerned San Franciscans should come to tomorrow’s Budget Committee hearing at 1:00 p.m. in Room 250 and oppose diverting precious funds away from affordable housing.

Send feedback to paul@thclinic.org