AdviceArts and CultureFinanceNewsSan FranciscoShopping, Style and BeautySlider

5 SOULutions to San Francisco’s Housing Crisis -Pt 2

Sign up for the best newsletter EVER!

WARNING: There is no easy fix to the San Francisco Housing Crisis that does not inevitably piss someone off.  If you followed “Has San Francisco SOULed Out: Part One”, then you have read why its so important that we face the hard truth about who really is to blame for this mess. Surprise: we, the residents of this city, who are not voting, are ultimately responsible. But the good news is, our voice is mighty. Its time to unify that voice to vote for more supply. Only then, can we begin to work towards solutions that dig ourselves out of this hole and towards affordable housing for all.

Screen Shot 2014-04-09 at 12.11.20 PM
*courtesy of Modern Luxury

 Step #1 – Vote for Supply

There is no better way to make housing affordable than increasing supply. We need to incentivize building and allocate even more money towards affordable housing. What is this magic number that would finally relieve the housing demand, making rent control superfluous and the housing market affordable? SPUR estimates that 5,000 new housing units a year should be enough to not only arrest rising housing prices, but help make housing more affordable and available. To ensure this, we could aim to quadruple the current 16,000 affordable housing units, with a model similar to how the city of Vienna has supported affordable developments.

Red tape is strangling those who try to build. Many times, despite plans being approved, the city rejects, and delays progress. In underdeveloped and ex industrial areas such as Mission Bay, the Dogpatch and Bay View, rezoning would allow us to tackle the high demand, while still maintaining the historic character of San Francisco in other neighborhoods. Mayor Lee, who started his political career as a housing-rights advocate says “we want more money for affordable housing, but too often we oppose or scale back the very projects that generate those funds.”

Mayor Lee announced his goal of building or rehabilitating 30,000 homes by 2020, the equivalent of 5,000 each year. Lee has said he wants one­ third of the new units to be “permanently affordable” to lower­ income residents. Lets face it, San Francisco only has so much land, so we have no choice but to build up in certain areas or stay stagnantly trapped in rental purgatory. What can you do? Make your voice heard at hearings to add more supply to counter the demand.

Screen Shot 2014-04-09 at 12.20.44 PM

*courtesy of Bold Italic

Step #2 – Rent Control Reform­

In a city where 64% of the population rents, politicians know it is political suicide to even utter the words “rental control reform”.  However, reform does not mean getting rid of rent control! To the contrary, a reform can help rent control actually live up to its intended purpose, while supporting growth and stability.

The truth is, our current rent-control laws gives us no real long term security or protection or guarantee that the people who really need it to stay here benefit from it.  It may be costly and arduous, but landlords still have the ability to evict tenants — and with the market conditions as they are, they do. So not only do rent control laws ultimately fail the tenants long-term, the unintended consequences breed a frozen, rigid market,  making it near impossible for property owners to develop and  increase supply – which we have established as an economic necessity in correcting this Housing Crisis.

In order to actually protect those of us long term who currently depend on rent control, we need a market solution that allows an individual’s right to rent control on a unit to be decoupled from that unit when there are opportunities for development. For example, what if there was a program that  bestowed “property rights” or “rent control rights” to the current renters, rather than the unit itself?

Imagine your landlord wanted to develop their property into more units (hence creating much needed supply). Now imagine, however,  you have  lived in this landlord’s $900 rent-controlled 1-bedroom for the last fifteen years. Lets assume you don’t make above the median income.  In this day and age, all you can do is cross your fingers and hope that you don’t eventually get evicted. Is that a way to live?

However, what if long-term renters, like you,  qualified to trade in their rent control for a contract on an equivalent or better $900 1-bedroom in a affordable housing new construction within 1 mile? This would be funded by taxing a percentage of the new developments,  similar to the way that currently all new construction in San Francisco requires a percentage of all units to be Below Market Rate.  This means,  with every new development, there is also more benefit to creating more affordable housing.

This would give those with rent control the incentive and means to move to better units, freeing up the original owner to develop more units.  If the tenant has no affordable housing to move to, then things stay as they are, and the property owners must fulfill their rent control obligation.  Right now rent control essentially acts as a major barrier to using any property for the highest and best use. This approach allows tenants to realize upside in moving from a unit, a much needed incentive that helps markets remain liquid.

Take the old low ­income housing stock between City Hall and Fillmore for example. Most of those buildings could be torn down and developed at 3­-4x the height/density, so that not only the current residents could continue to live there, but could accommodate 2­-3x more residents on the same piece of land. It’s entirely possible to increase the height of buildings in many but not all parts of the city 2­-4x without altering the physical character of the city much. This is certainly preferable to altering the personality of the city that we’ll suffer as more of us are priced out. After all, San Francisco maintains more of its character when there are more locals over newcomers.

Step #3 ­ – Incentivize In Law Units

By an 8-2 vote, the legislation from Supervisor David Chiu was approved, allowing property owners with “Illegal In law units” built before January 1, 2013 to voluntarily apply to legalize them. These once Illegal In law units, an estimated 30,000, were a visible presence of the black market,  predominantly driven by price ceilings. These could be apartments that are converted garages, unglamorous but livable spaces, that aren’t technically up to code, but do technically house people.

In order to get legalized, these “don’t-ask-don’t-tell” units would have to be  brought up to code, with costs all  paid by the owner. Then the property would be reassessed, prompting a  significant tax increase. Although this is a huge step in the right direction,  this can only be effective if landlords apply and can afford to legalize.  What we can do, is support to vote for  incentives, such as tax breaks for homeowners creating more rent-controlled housing , so we can actually take advantage of this new legislation.

Please click on the infographic below to see it bigger and in higher detailhousing_FINAL (3)Infographic created by Marissa Mossberg, local GraphicsTender for
Citations: US Census Bureau, SPUR.ORG, Mayors Office of Housing.

Step #4 – Get vacant units back on the market

There are 36,000 underutilized, vacant units in this city.  Although there are a plethora of contributors behind this number, a huge reason is that rent control laws are so biased to renters, many landlords would rather keep their properties vacant than take a risk on a lifetime tenant or baby mama rental drama. Also, property values are rising so quickly that holding on to the property is considered a great investment.

We need to create conditions where the current 36,000 vacant units have incentives to become occupied. One way is to prompt the sale or use of these buildings is a multiple non-residence ownership tax. This isn’t a landlord tax. This is a tax on those units owned by someone who lives elsewhere, but keeps a housing unit as an investment. The goal is to make the tax on non-lived in units high enough that the owner loses money relative to the appreciation on the home.  Either use it, share it, or pay the price for taking up much needed, underutilized space.

Step # 5 – Regulate Airbnb & platforms that enable short term or illegal rentals

As an artist, filmmaker, teacher, or anyone making under the median household income, like myself, we often have to make the tough choice between following our passions or having a secure lifestyle. Rent control used to be our dear friend, but with staggering Ellis Act evictions, many of us live in constant fear of getting forced out of our only opportunity to live in this promised land. Many of us have to decide between spending the majority of our time working at a job that pays the bills but delays passion projects or moving to slightly cheaper living situations (*cough* Oakland) in order to work less and have more time. When I discovered AirBnB, I thought I had found my golden ticket.

When my roommate moved out of our apartment, I started renting out my second bedroom to what I like to call “air-beibers” for $100 a night. I was paying my entire rent plus making profit with minimal time commitments and doing what I do best, being a quirky and hospitable San Francisco native.  This was technically illegal according to the rent control laws, but all I knew is that I was able to save money for the first time in my life.

I went back to having a long-term roommate when I started to see how my greed was not morally just and contributing to the very housing problem I was complaining about. The opportunity cost haunted me at first, as I could make so much more money with short term rentals, but I felt like opening the room back to long term locals was the right thing to do considering the scarce rental market.
Screen Shot 2014-03-29 at 11.18.36 AM.png

The trend, however, quickly caught on to the point that AirBnB in San Francisco has the highest concentration of users in the world. I started hearing of more and more folks who not only rented their extra space, but would go as far to keep their name on old leases, making thousands of dollars profit on these apartments. Some would use the money to live in better apartments or make a living off it!

This is where the line has to be drawn. What first seemed like a brilliant solution to ease affordability has quickly revealed itself as a growing contributors to the housing crisis.  Having SF residents rent their underutilized space, if they reside in their apartment, have landlord permission, and pay proper hotel taxes, is perfectly legal. Its a win-win opportunity for all parties. However, keeping ones name on a lease and running an illegal hotel or taking advantage of rent control laws for your benefit, negatively driving up prices, should be deemed as an abuse considering the drastic demand for housing –and should be regulated.

In order to regulate, SPUR concurs, that we need to create a new Rent Control Enforcement office charged with ensuring that policies comply with laws protecting tenants, monitoring enforcement, and supporting research on rental housing.  Currently there is not enough manpower to follow up on Ellis Act Evictions or Airbnb Subleasing abuse and this is a key part of the problem. A more simple solution, would be to require airbnb or any housing platform to only allow listings on their website with landlord permission.

Screen Shot 2014-03-29 at 12.29.43 PM.png
*SF Characters: ”Manny-Poppins”, “Frank Chu”, “Tamale Lady”, and “The Original Bushman”

In Conclusion

In 1847, San Francisco was home to 459 people and just two years later it had ballooned to 25,000 after the discovery of gold by James Marshall. If history had taken a different course those 459 souls living here back in 1847 had decided to act as we are today with archaic zoning laws, draconian regulations and the ability to abuse the California Environmental Quality Act via litigation over issues that are at best tenuously related to the environment, we would not have the city we love today. Think about those gold rush numbers for a moment. For the very few of us that can trace our history to an ancestor living in San Francisco in 1849, a whopping 98.2% would have to admit that their ancestor share an eery similarity to the techies arriving in the current “gold rush”.

Ask yourself, “What if those who had arrived in the city before I did had acted towards me with the same animosity I subject the current newcomers?” San Francisco used to be such a welcoming place. What happened? If Mark Twain had arrived today, would he be treated as he deserved? Had Rudyard Kipling arrived today, would he instead be lamenting that San Francisco’s only drawback is that it’s hard to stay? If Oscar Wilde were to arrive in here in a few years, would he still claim that San Francisco possesses all the attractions of the next world, or would he leave feeling that its desperately clinging to nostalgia? H.L. Mencken praised us for being a place where he and thousands of other newcomers with him could get a subtle but unmistakeable sense of escape from the United States. I doubt he’d say the same since, we’ve drawn up the planks and told everyone arriving now that the ark is full.

We need to share the space, vote, build up:  or pay the price.  Our skyline is beautiful, but lest we forget, cities are not cities without the people:  the artists, bohemians, the disenfranchised, the eccentric locals, the small businesses, yes – even the techies, the creatives, and the crazy­. Oh yes, we do need a little bit of crazy to keep San Francisco sane.


Like this article? Make sure to sign up for our mailing list so you never miss a goddamn thing!
Previous post

Searching for Sports in Hipster-Land: The East Village

Next post

The Newark Airport is a terrible place. Here are a bunch of funny tweets to prove it.

Alexandra Liss - Couchsurfer Extraordinaire

Alexandra Liss - Couchsurfer Extraordinaire

Alexandra Liss is a San Francisco native, Entrepreneur Whisperer, Sharing Economy Evangelist. Just Vagenius. Co-author of, & Videographer for hire, Director of


  1. wmyl
    June 21, 2014 at 10:23 pm

    What about this? Why not make it $10K/year? If you do the math, many of these vacant properties are increasing in “capital” value by more than $1 million per year.

    Vacant Buildings Are Mostly Ignoring Their Annual $765 Fee

    • wmyl
      June 21, 2014 at 10:26 pm

      If you could adjust the fee, not by value… but what about by square feet of land? You could charge those enormous lots in downtown $2 million per year and that would still be less than the appreciation.

  2. Sabbie
    May 11, 2015 at 6:20 pm

    How about an extra hefty transfer tax on purchases by non-US citizens? How about we stop making developers put in “affordable” housing units that only serve to lower the supply of market rate housing and let some people cut in line in front of others?

  3. December 3, 2015 at 3:19 pm

    Good luck, Ed Lee, calls me “Babbler gums” laugh irony gotten secondary term beside antics of Mr.Lee
    not free to be challenge stop measures. Advocates, get Ellis Act on ballot 2016, where going to concede favor measures retain rent control effecting California Ed going increase 30,000 guess accurate 2nd term!

  4. sugarntasty
    July 2, 2016 at 3:31 pm

    Props K,C and A passed only minor upon, the crisis…”rent control” answer. Global presences going to destroy,fair housing why ratio those able. To pay “market rate” besides rentals wage needs, to increase
    irony bureaucracy don’t favor. Affordability this not Ed fault, institution sadly, majority decrying “gentrification” ignored