Publications & Reports

HOUSING & LAND USE POLICY

An infographic/report by CCHO breaking down the innovative framework of Jobs-Housing Fit, which examines how the population is growing and changing in an area to determine the types and affordability of housing needed within the same geography.  This allows us to understand what the housing needs of an area actually are and evaluate how housing production is or is not meeting those needs.

The fifth Housing Balance Report released by the Planning Department, spanning the ten years from January 1, 2007 – December 31, 2016.  The numbers say it all: the affordable housing balance for the past ten years is only 13.6%. (One note: The calculations used in the Housing Balance Report differ slightly from the deeper dive we publish each year with our annual Housing Snapshot Report, soon to be released.)

An article by George W. McCarthy of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy on the principles behind and importance of land value capture.

The latest UN report on housing focuses on the increasing financialization of housing and the negative ways this is impacting individuals and communities.

Behind a number of the recently proposed policy “solutions” to San Francisco’s housing crisis is the theory of “filtering.”  To explain why these policies that rely on market-rate housing and deregulation won’t actually make housing more affordable, CCHO created an infographic that breaks down the basics of filtering, the assumptions behind it, and the reasons it doesn’t work the way some say it does.  

CCHO’s annual report, published following the latest Housing Balance Report and Housing Inventory, that analyzes on a finer-grain level where affordable housing was produced and lost in neighborhoods across the City in 2015.  This report shows the balance (or rather, imbalance!) of housing production as residents are experiencing it currently on the ground.

The latest research from UC Berkeley’s Urban Displacement Project (Dr. Miriam Zuk and Professor Karen Chapple) calling into question the validity of a controversial report released by the Legislative Analyst’s Office in February 2016, and providing strong evidence that the most effective strategies for fighting displacement are the construction of affordable housing and policies to stabilize existing tenants – not simply building market-rate housing.

A brand new graphic chart designed by CCHO’s Fernando Martí showing who affordable housing serves, including what different “Area Median Income” (AMI) levels mean in terms of actual San Francisco wages, how affordable housing for those different income levels gets built, and where the gaps are.

Though CCHO has not formally taken a position on the City’s middle-income height bonus proposal, we do see a number of questions that should be more clearly worked out before the program is ready to be seriously considered.  This document contains those questions and our analysis.

CCHO’s very own report, published in anticipation of the first ever Housing Balance Report, that analyzes on a finer-grain level where affordable housing was produced and lost in neighborhoods across the city in 2014.  This report shows the balance (or rather, imbalance!) of housing production as residents are experiencing it currently on the ground.

The first-ever Housing Balance Report released by the Planning Department in accordance with the Housing Balance Monitoring & Reporting Ordinance and fulfilling one of the mandates of last year’s Prop K.  The numbers are dismal: the affordable housing balance for the past ten years is only 16%! (Not even close to the minimum goal of 33% set by Prop K.)  This report will be updated every 6 months.

The San Francisco Anti-Displacement Coalition’s report on the current eviction crisis in San Francisco, including data on the increasing rate of eviction citywide and trends in types of evictions.

Read [people.power.media]’s two-part series on public sites in San Francisco, which explains how designating public sites for public use would serve a broad range of residents who are being priced out of the City.

Fernando Martí’s latest presentation on the market’s inability to solve the affordability crisis and stop displacement, and CCHO’s alternative solutions (from UC Hasting’s conference, “What’s the G? Gentrification and the Myth of Fair Housing”).

CHPC’s latest report on the dire need for affordable housing in San Francisco, including local policy recommendations based on CCHO’s work.

A report by CHPC and TransForm that underscores the importance of locating affordable housing by transit (and providing the state funding to make this possible!). Includes statics that show that lower income households near transit reduce their greenhouse gas emissions more than higher income households near transit.

[people.power.media]’s latest report debunking several of the “supply-side” arguments made about the housing crisis, and offering an alternative list of practical and immediate solutions.

The success of design or social innovation “solutions” to San Francisco’s housing crisis will depend on a framework for housing affordability that addresses fundamental issues underpinning the practical realities of achieving Housing for All. That housing framework should address four fundamental questions: 1) the BALANCE of housing affordability that the City should be compelled to maintain; 2) ways to take housing out of the speculative market and under the OWNERSHIP and control of tenants and communities; 3) dedication of surplus public LAND for deeply affordable housing, and market incentives linking any value added through zoning changes to increased affordability; and 4) new private and public financing mechanisms, including dedicated private CAPITAL, pension funds, and the creation of a municipal community development bank. We face a choice: do we let the market continue to lead us down a path toward a segregated urban region, or do we prioritize public investment and market regulations to build out our dense, mixed-income, human-scaled, and transit-oriented neighborhoods? If we can’t move beyond the ingrained ideologies that lead us down paths of false solutions, all our creative innovations will be reduced to simple marketing or consumer niches trapped within the same market dependencies rather than systematic changes that result in meaningful public policy solutions. By Fernando Martí.

 

REGIONAL POLICY & APPLIED SMART GROWTH

Urban Habitat’s latest report on the ways that growing inequality is reshaping the Bay Area, creating new areas of racial and economic segregation.

The Silicon Valley Institute for Regional Studies’ detailed report on income inequality around the Bay Area, which shows, among other things, how inequality has increased more rapidly here than in the US as a whole and reveals the extreme gap between high- and low-income households in the Bay Area.

The Regional Prosperity Plan Consortium provided funding for researchers at the University of California, Davis to analyze the links between job growth and housing affordability across wage levels and affordability thresholds in the region.

The Regional Early Warning System for Displacement (REWS) is a project of the Center for Community Innovation at University of California, Berkeley to develop and implement a regional system to identify and track local communities that are likely to experience gentrification, putting low-income residents and local businesses at risk of displacement.

The Neighborhood-based CDC Coalition has written a report that highlights how key locating affordable housing near transit is to increasing ridership, clean air and reducing traffic congestion and greenhouse gasses.

A presentation by the Dukakis Center’s Stephanie Pollack on displacement pressures caused by transit-oriented development (TOD) and how we can ensure equitable TOD.

  • Whose Future? “Smart Growth” in San FranciscoSan Francisco Communities of ConcernIn July 2013, ABAG and MTC approved Plan Bay Area, which proposes to put 92,000 new housing units, 190,000 new jobs, and 73,000 more cars into San Francisco over the next 30 years. The projected pace of housing construction would average around 3,100 units annually, a rate that has been reached only twice over the last 50 years. Is the plan for this pace of growth even realistic, and will this “smart growth” plan have the hoped-for benefits, or is it simply, in planner-speak, “aspirational”? How will that level of growth impact existing communities, the local economy, and already stretched transportation and city infrastructure? It is clear that we desperately need a plan for cutting carbon emissions and linking housing, jobs, and transportation. Can we even accomplish this within the current paradigm of profit-driven development? By Fernando Martí.