|
|
|
San Francisco Voters Likely Approve Strict Limits on Growth
|
|
Saski Traill, 27 (left), and Amie Fishman, 30, both of San Francisco, prepare signs at the Yes on L campaign headquarters in the Mission district. |
|
San Francisco voters Tuesday night appeared to have narrowly approved a strict anti-growth measure. Voters also trounced Mayor Willie Brown's pet slow-growth plan, Proposition K. Election results for 93 percent of the precincts show Proposition L approved by 50.6 percent of the voters. There is a possibility that absentee ballots filed on election day and not yet counted will defeat the measure. "As they say, it's not over till it's over, but it looks really good for us. If I were betting a person, I would bet on us," said Debra Walker of the Yes on L campaign. "I'm really proud of the people that worked on the campaign and the voters of San Francisco for not buying the bull of the other side. It's to everyone's credit that we got the votes," said Walker. On one side of the anti-growth debate were grassroots neighborhood groups backing Proposition L. On the other was Mayor Brown and his allies who spent more than $2 million to squash Proposition L and put their Proposition K on the ballot. Both propositions curb the dot-com infusion into residential neighborhoods by redefining dot-coms as "office space" subject to the same restrictions as more traditional offices, meaning dot-coms development will be limited by the existing annual growth cap of 950,000 square feet. But Proposition L, placed on the ballot by a voter petition drive, more tightly restricts growth than Proposition K. · Measure
L stops all new office development in parts of the Mission, South
of Market, and Potrero Hill districts, while measure K would have
placed a two-year moratorium on big office development in these
areas. Proponents argued that measure L balances office development downtown and in other specific areas while preserving housing in certain neighborhoods. "Our ban in those areas protects those areas for housing construction," said Debra Walker, co-chair of the Yes on L campaign, before the election. Developers, realtors and construction companies disagreed with the office development ban, opposing L by pouring more than $2 million into a campaign focused more on defeating L than promoting K. "Nothing less than the future of San Francisco is at stake. Proposition L would absolutely cut the economy off at the knees...it is an across-the-board ban on development. K is a step back, a chance to look at where and how we need to regulate growth," said Frank Gallagher, spokesman for the Yes on K campaign, before the election. Walker of the Yes on L campaign said under either measure office development will continue, with about 10 million square feet built in the next three to four years under L, and 15 million square feet built under K. Walker added that L would require live/work loft developments to put money aside for affordable housing. "Out of the 5,000 live/work lofts that have been approved so far, none of them are affordable," said Walker before the election. When asked, before the election, about the sum of money spent to defeat Prop. L, Gallagher replied: "Nothing less than the future of San Francisco is at stake here. I think that's worth at least 2.5million...I think it's worth more than that."
|
||
