The phrase “a crisis is a terrible thing to waste” is attributed to a few people because it’s clever and true. The usual resistance to change can be countered by an emergency or unforeseen situation, so why not seize the opportunity? (Stanford economist Paul Romer said it in 2004.)
San Francisco has been dealing with crises of unaffordable housing and homelessness, among others, for many years, with changes few and far between. The COVID-19 pandemic, though, has made progress imperative and, perhaps, even inevitable.
We’ve reported on the economic challenges of life through lockdown and beyond, and the pervasive uncertainty over what comes next for SF.
To help guide us into the murky future, the most powerful officials in town, Mayor London Breed and Board of Supervisors president Norman Yee, put together the COVID-19 Economic Recovery Task Force, packing it with a who’s who of movers and shakers.
It includes politicians and officials (supervisors Rafael Mandelman, Aaron Peskin, and Dean Preston; assessor Carmen Chu and treasurer José Cisneros), along with dozens of representatives from various civic and social circles: academia, arts, business, labor, and others.
Last week the task force issued its report. For the moment, let’s look at its policy recommendations:
Notice the laudable push toward greater equity and investment in jobs, justice, and social services. But there is another remarkable theme that emerges from these eight points: “streamlining permitting processes,” “provide clear and accessible information to businesses and workers,” “create flexibility,” “reducing or eliminating regulatory burdens.”
Such phrases pop out because they speak to reforms needed to get us through this crisis, and because they address issues that have been thorns in San Francisco’s side for a long time, well before the pandemic.
The more you dig into the report, the more glaring the realization that San Francisco’s leviathan bureaucracy has stymied progress even as the city buckled from broad shifts. Now we need extraordinary measures to give our neighborhoods a shot at survival. The task force’s report puts one regulation after another on the table for reconsideration, such as redesigning or nixing building permits (section 1.2), repurposing outdoor spaces (section 4.2), and reviewing onerous mandates for employers (section 4.6).
It’s not just rules for merchants and businesses, though. The report also calls out reforming how we impose fines and fees from citations (section 5.3) so that people aren’t locked into a poverty trap. One recommendation proposes that SF change the way it allows for the construction of multifamily housing, aka apartments (section 6.3). These recommendations not only highlight the damage wrought of sclerotic bureaucracy, but also underscore the report’s emphasis on equity: San Francisco can be a more equitable, affordable, inclusive city if it allows for more housing opportunities, a faster path to opening and operating a business, and judicial relief.
The Frisc has devoted many pixels to describe how neighborhoods were coping with empty storefronts before lockdown, how incredibly insane it’s been to blow two decades to begin improving a bus line, and how a hint of shadow on a private patio can throw a wrench in housing development, no matter that the shadow rules are for public parks. In addition, there has been great coverage on how brutal it can be to open a business when one or two individuals don’t want you to, and how precarious your attempt at enterprise can get even when everything is done right.
The health crisis of COVID and the death and economic destruction loosed on the city have, at least on paper, focused the minds of our decision makers on the mess of a process that’s convoluted, easily abused, and ripe with potential for corruption. Most agonizing is the fact that it’s entirely self-imposed.
Will the crisis be wasted? Voters don’t have to sit on the sidelines and wait for officials to act. There are measures on the November ballot that resonate with the recommendations of the COVID recovery task force. Everyone says we need more affordable housing, right? Well, Proposition K would allow the city, in accordance with state law, to own or develop up to 10,000 low-income rental housing units.
Local stores and merchants have been walloped; Proposition F would change how certain commercial taxes are collected, exempting a greater number of small businesses. (Note that The Frisc operates under nonprofit rules and does not endorse measures or political candidates.)
If you want to follow the thrust of what needs to be done in the task force report, there is no better option on the ballot than Proposition H, which would make it a heck of a lot easier to open and operate a storefront in neighborhood corridors. If it passes, Prop H would allow for greater permitted uses, including arts, social services, and restaurants, as well as expedite the approval and inspection process for permits, among other revisions. Basically the initiative would undo the bureaucratic layers that City Hall has built and enabled for years.
We already know that the issues in question aren’t new, and when you look at the arguments against Prop H, which are solely from one David Pilpel, you might hear the faint ringing of a bell. The Frisc first came across him in 2017 talking nonsense about Geary bus rapid transit. (Quick refresher: He’s a guy who likes to give comment in as many public meetings as possible, and he told the SFMTA board back then he was “not convinced one way or the other” that the costs of improving service through capital projects like BRT are worth the benefits, a ridiculous notion for a municipal agency to contemplate.)
Pilpel may be the lone voice of opposition in the official voters’ guide, yet he’s a notorious pain in our civic buttocks. He and another busybody were recently skewered by SF Chronicle columnist Heather Knight for seeking to block the Slow Streets program, which opens up street space for bikes and pedestrians and strollers and jugglers and whatnot — kind of important during a pandemic when you have to practice social distancing to avoid contagion.
I hate to dump on a single San Franciscan who’s made a vocation of chiming in on everything he can, just because he can. In fact, I compliment Pilpel on entertaining two contradictory ideas at the same time, like in his argument against Prop H: “We can help existing small businesses adapt by cutting red tape and streamlining the lengthy permitting process, and we can do it through the legislative process at City Hall.” (Italics are mine; Pilpel is the pro at stalling legislative process.)
It would also be unfair to paint Pilpel as a single-issue spokesperson. So here he is arguing in opposition, again, to Prop F, the business tax overhaul: “I’m not at all convinced that changing complicated tax rates is needed during a pandemic.” Really, what’s the rush? (The sarcasm’s mine, but trust me, this slow-down comment is heard at every public meeting.)
Coronavirus and its concomitant disruption have brought San Francisco to a turning point. The goal isn’t to best a couple of officious boobs or the NIMBY groups who can’t countenance any change. It’s to meet an existential challenge to make the city function for the sake of the future instead of for the sake of process. If we want to make it easier to live and work and reopen and build and enjoy San Francisco, detangling the procedural hairball at City Hall makes for the heartiest and essential lift.
The COVID task force cuts out work for the mayor, the Board of Supervisors, agency leaders, and everyone else, including voters. Let us not waste time and exhaust our energy anymore. Fix our city now.