They would walk away. And i know when one of the reasons and i did my homework and you remember for two years, i worked in joint development doing feasibility studies in the land use and so i worked with joint development. I worked with planning and i found out that the 25 that the mission had put in place, not one project was built. So when were looking at that, thats where thats the one amendment im a little worried about, right . , is having that actually could kill a project, if we put it too high. As far as community process, i absolutely agree with you. We should have that community process, community should be involved. As a neighborhood activist, legislative aid and supervisor, i have seen so many of the Development Projects come through that are so much better when the community is involved. But i dont want to put a situation where the community could just kill project after project. I feel Like Community should be there making a project better. So this is kind of my read on t
Model. Let it was figure out what the state can do to help, not hurt. Thank you. Next speaker. Good afternoon, supervisors. George wooding, coalition for San Francisco neighborhoods. I support Affordable Housing, and i also am in very much agreement with the board and supervisor mars resolution. I object to the false choice that scott weiner presented the board of supervisors saying if you are not for sb50 you must be antigrowth. I think that was a terrible position to put you in because i know that you are doing the best for the city. As peter just stated, i dont think one size fits all, and definitely the amendments have to take care of different aspects of the city and the character of San Francisco. I think sb 50 billions the market rate housing much more so when you look at arena than it ever did build Affordable Housing. There is no profit in building Affordable Housing so it forces developers, even wellmeaning once, to build a market rate. Rate. It is a massive give away to deve
Service to those who need it. Thank you. Next speaker. I have lived in the city since 1976. I basically totally oppose sb50. It is so flawed it shouldnt be considered. I support the resolution opposing it. I think it is a good way to deal with a bad thing. I think we have a housing problem decades in the making, and now it is an emergency. That emergency is being used to basically just create or developer give away. I agree it is capitalism out of control, i think. A bigger problem we keep Digging Deeper into the hole. We keep building more and more office space that we dont have housing to support people working in the offices. I think what we should do is stop the development of the offices, play the same game the developers are playing with us, and threaten them with loss of work and huge amounts of money they are making for themselves and investors and get them to the table with us. Another thing that bothers me the only good thing is getting housing close to transit. As another sp
Model. Let it was figure out what the state can do to help, not hurt. Thank you. Next speaker. Good afternoon, supervisors. George wooding, coalition for San Francisco neighborhoods. I support Affordable Housing, and i also am in very much agreement with the board and supervisor mars resolution. I object to the false choice that scott weiner presented the board of supervisors saying if you are not for sb50 you must be antigrowth. I think that was a terrible position to put you in because i know that you are doing the best for the city. As peter just stated, i dont think one size fits all, and definitely the amendments have to take care of different aspects of the city and the character of San Francisco. I think sb 50 billions the market rate housing much more so when you look at arena than it ever did build Affordable Housing. There is no profit in building Affordable Housing so it forces developers, even wellmeaning once, to build a market rate. Rate. It is a massive give away to deve
Item four, 865 Market Street is proposed for continuance, and Office Development authorization until december 5th. Item five a and b. 41846 grove street item five a and b. For 1846 grove street are proposed for continuance. Further under your regular calendar, item 14, the water supply informational presentation is proposed for continuance until some book until december 12th. I do have several speaker cards. Okay. We will now take Public Comment on the items proposed for continuance. [calling names] please come up and give Public Comment. Good afternoon, commissioners long time. Im here to request a continuous in item 21 on item 21. The united to save the Mission Group has asked for the d. R. To be considered and we are a volunteer organization and we divide up the work and kevin actually had this assignment. I dont feel that i could do it justice. He is out of town in l. A. For an unavoidable conflict of scheduling. Im asking that could be delayed until next session or whenever is con