Your Hyperlocal Analysis of 2015 Election Results from Bernal Heights


Hello Citizens!

As you know, we voted on Tuesday. Yay, democracy!

By now you’ve probably had the chance to digest some of the the overall results. Citywide, Mayor Ed Lee coasted to victory with 57% of the vote, but that was an underwhelming tally given that he had no major opposition. The progressive hot-button ballot measures, Prop F (the Short Term Rental Ordinance) and Prop I (the Mission District Housing Moratorium) were both soundly defeated.  Ross Mirkarimi, the scandal-tainted Sheriff, suffered a big (and appropriately humiliating) defeat. Prop A (the Affordable Housing Bond), Prop C (the Lobbyist Expenditure Ordinance), and Prop D (Mission Rock Development) were all approved by comfortable margins.

All politics is superhyperlocal, however, so what was the tally like for voters from Bernal Heights? And for different parts of Bernal Heights? Just as he did last year, Neighbor Adam has done us a great service by analyzing the election data from Bernal Heights to reveal how Bernal residents voted in 2015. Take it away, neighbor Adam:

Here’s a hyperlocal look at this week’s election, to follow up on the discussion that took place on Bernalwood last year about where Bernal voters fit in with the rest of the city and what, if any, differences there are between North and South Bernal.

This year, I analyzed Bernal’s vote using the election results data available at midday on November 3, 2015. This data may omit some subsequent vote counts that include late mail-in ballots, but the final results are unlikely to change significantly.

For 2015, I looked most closely three races: Mayor, Prop F (Short-Term Rentals), and Prop I (Mission Moratorium). These races probably reveal the greatest distinction in right-center-left or moderate-progressive voting patterns, and they serve as good follow-ups to last year’s Chiu/Campos race and Proposition B (waterfront development regulations).

Overall, the results clearly reflect Bernal’s left-leaning nature, with Mayor Lee failing to get a majority in either North or South Bernal, and Props F and I both receiving greater percentages of “yes” votes here than they did citywide.

Interestingly, however, the differences between North and South Bernal are more pronounced this year, with North Bernal skewing farther left than South Bernal. For example, while both Prop I and Prop F captured a majority in North Bernal (by modest margins), both were defeated in South Bernal (also by modest margins).

This is somewhat surprising. Last year’s results didn’t show as much of a difference between North and South Bernal, and based on what I think is a slightly more attractive real estate market in North Bernal, one might have expected North Bernal to head in a more centrist direction after another year of resident turnover. But in fact, the opposite happened. Perhaps the real estate market had no effect on voting patterns, (Editor’s Note: Most likely, since the total number of houses that turn over in a given year is small.) or perhaps folks moving in to North Bernal are more progressive than those moving into South Bernal. Or perhaps these numbers are all too small to draw conclusions. What is certain is that Bernal has retained its status as a very left-leaning part of the city.

The difference in the result between North and South Bernal prompted Todd to wonder how the Dep’t of Elections defines the two voting districts. As you can see in the Election Departmment map shown above, North Bernal includes the more left-leaning microhoods in west Bernal and around the summit of Bernal Hill, while South Bernal includes the more centrist St. Mary’s microhood, along with some of our ancestral kin from the Bernal Glen area on the other side of the Bernal Cut.

For the sake of completeness, I’ve also included the results of the Sheriff’s race and all the other propositions. In general, they all show the same slight lean to the left in North Bernal, but are otherwise not quite as illuminating as the big three races of Mayor, Prop F, and Prop I.

Voter Turnout:
North Bernal:  2909/8208 = 35.44% of registered voters
South Bernal:  2211/7148 = 30.93% of registered voters

NOTE: these numbers above don’t match up to the vote totals below; not sure why.  As such, percentages listed below are percentages of vote totals for each ballot item, not percentage of “turnout totals” above.

Citywide: LEE (57%)
North Bernal:   LEE: 1156 (37.4%)  OTHER: 1770 (57.3%)
South Bernal:  LEE: 1021 (43.1%)    OTHER: 1224 (51.7%)

Prop F – (Short Term Rental Ordinance)
Citywide: NO (55%)
North Bernal: YES – 1605 (50%)   NO – 1577 (49%)
South Bernal: YES 1115 (46%)   NO – 1288 (53%)

Prop I (Mission District Housing Moratorium)
Citywide: NO (57%)
North Bernal: YES – 1670 (52%)   NO – 1472 (46%)
South Bernal: YES – 1171 (48%)  NO- 1189 (49%)

Citywide: Hennessy (61%)
North Bernal: Hennessy – 1554 (50.3%); Robinson – 109 (3.5%); Mirkarimi – 1205 (39%)
South Bernal: Hennessy – 1258 (53%);  Robinson – 117 (4.9%); Mirkarimi – 1148 822 (35.7%)

And here are the rest of the 2015 ballot propositions:

Prop A (Affordable Housing Bond)
Citywide: YES (73.5%)
North Bernal: YES – 2512 (83%) NO – 481 (15.9%)
South Bernal: YES – 1784 (78.2%) NO – 464 (20.3%)

Prop B (Paid Parental Leave for City Workers)
Citywide: YES (66%)
North Bernal: YES – 2393 (79%) NO – 566 (18.7%)
South Bernal: YES – 1677 (73.5%) NO – 555 (24.3%)

Prop C (Lobbyist Expenditure Ordinance)
Citywide: YES (75%)
North Bernal: YES – 2178 (72%) NO – 715 (23.6%)
South Bernal: YES – 1614 (70.8%) NO – 556 (24.4%)

Prop D (Mission Rock Development)
Citywide: YES (73%)
North Bernal: YES – 2287 (75.6%) NO – 677 (22.4%)
South Bernal: YES – 1623 (71%); NO – 606 (26.6%)

Prop E (New Public Meeting Requirements)
Citywide: NO (67%)
North Bernal: YES – 782 (25.8%) NO – 2140 (70.7%)
South Bernal: YES – 635 (27.8%) NO – 1556 (68.2%)

Prop G (Renewable Energy Disclosures)
Citywide: NO (77%)
North Bernal: YES – 437 (14.4%) NO – 2424 (80.1%)
South Bernal: YES – 400 (17.5%) NO – 1729 (75.8%)

Prop H (Clean Energy Right to Know Act)
Citywide: YES (79.5%)
North Bernal: YES – 2477 (81.9%) NO – 359 (11.9%)
South Bernal: YES – 1793 (78.6%) NO – 325 (14.2%)

Prop J (Legacy Business Historic Preservation Fund)
Citywide: YES (57%)
North Bernal: YES – 1892 (62.5%) NO – 1027 (33.9%)
South Bernal: YES – 1367 (59.9%) NO – 812 (35.6%)

Prop K (Housing Development on Surplus City Land)
Citywide: YES (73%)
North Bernal: YES – 2458 (81.2%) NO – 475 (15.7%)
South Bernal: YES – 1733 (76%) NO – 462 (20.3%)

Wow! That’s fantastic. Thank you, Neighbor Adam, for crunching the data.

One final (and fascinating) detail: Despite all the bluster and noise, Prop F and Prop I didn’t do so well in the Mission either. For comparison’s sake, in the Mission, Prop F garnered just 55% of the vote, while Prop I — The Mission Moratorium! — squeaked by with just 56%. That puts Prop I in Ed Lee territory, which is to say that with those levels of support on their own home turf, the NIMBYs of the Mission don’t enjoy much of a mandate either.

71 thoughts on “Your Hyperlocal Analysis of 2015 Election Results from Bernal Heights

    • I’m not saying this is right or wrong because my parents and wife came from places where they were not allowed to vote in just recent years(my wife just voted for the first time in her life), but do we really want everyone to vote? I know that’s blasphemy but if you aren’t informed should you be out voting for whatever name you saw on a billboard? That’s how we end up with incompetent incumbents over and over.

      • Low turnout also results in nonsense like this (from my hometown, alas) – only the misinformed showed up to vote because their megachurch pastors pushed them to:

        I have faith that if more people voted, the results would overall be sane, even if I personally did not agree with every result. It’s embarrassing that in a place like SF, where so many people are privileged, that only 25-35% can be bothered to read up on the issues and vote. I’m sure a much higher percentage of people voiced opinions on one or more ballot measures or candidates.

        And, in conclusion, David Foster Wallace had something to say on this: “By all means stay home if you want, but don’t bullshit yourself that you’re not voting. In reality, there is no such thing as not voting: you either vote by voting, or you vote by staying home and tacitly doubling the value of some Diehard’s vote.”

  1. It was shown that barely above 25% of SF registered voters went out to vote. What a shame when people do not vote. The missed votes might have changed the outcome of the election results. Do not complain then when things do not get done. There were some pretty important issues put on the ballot. Yet the people who did not vote apparently think they were important enough.

  2. It’s interesting to me that Bernal had a stronger turnout than the Mission…which was directly affected by Prop I. Maybe if they had shown up to the polls the outcome would have been different.

  3. Regarding: “That puts Prop I in Ed Lee territory, which is to say that with those levels of support on their own home turf, the NIMBYs of the Mission don’t enjoy much of a mandate either.”

    It’s insulting to call people trying to protect themselves from displacement NIMBYs. The Mission Moratorium was about preserving the cultural and economic character of a neighborhood much more than its physical character, and would have left the Mission wide-open for development as long as the resulting units were affordable.

    Doesn’t sound too NIMBY to me. Check yourself.

    • How does not building on a lot that hosts a closed gas station that is now just an empty lot with a cyclone fence protect the culture and character of the mission?
      Same goes for the 16’th St. Bart station. Do we need mission hunan and the burger king or do we need more housing units?

    • Check yourself? Really? Nimbyism is all about people trying to protect their turf. It’s always about keeping other people out. That’s uncomfortable to hear, and if there were easy answers to insufficient housing, we’d have them.

      • Nimbyism historically has been about middle-class or rich people upset about a new development that they view will adversely affect their property values. Funny enough, this is the basis for Todd’s opposition to Prop F. Nimbyism is generally not applied to people concerned about affordability of a neighborhood. Todd’s self-aggrandizing distortion of the context of the term is really confounding.

      • Don’t be so shallow. By that reasoning the residents of Oakland opposing a coal exporting terminal are also NIMBYs.

      • Danny, the people opposing the coal exporting terminal in Oakland are NIMBYs. Worse yet, they are uneducated NIMBYs reacting out of ignorance. The coal is simply passing through. It is not harming anyone on its journey. It will employ port workers.

        Further, coal is the only (please understand that) energy source that allows non-industrialized countries to improve their standards of living. We should be helping spread cleaner coal technology. Instead, once again, rich white people want to tell impoverised people of color they need to suffer for our imaginary fears.

      • All kinds of energy sources can help developing economies grow, coal is not the only one. Coal is used because it is cheapest. If it is hard to ship or if it had appropriate carbon taxes, people would use something else. Unfettered use of coal is not harmless, the consequences will likely be billions of deaths in the upcoming century.

      • This may have wandered off topic, but thank you for having a civil discussion, SecretGuest, instead of assuming and name calling.

        In brief: I don’t know of anyone who doesn’t look forward to the end of coal as an energy source. The issue of it being cheap is THE issue, however. The cost of any other source is astronomical. The alternative is to remain impoverished and unhealthy. What you may not realize is that something like a third of the world cooks their food and heats their shelter by burning wood and animal dung. Those are infinitely dirtier than coal.

        If you think about it for a minute, for those people, switching to coal is the first step UP the ladder towards cleaner fuel.

        India, China… they have said plainly and repeatedly that they will do the same thing every other nation has done: industrialize with coal. Then, presumably, transition to cleaner fuels as they become wealthier.

        That’s what we (as compassionate environmentalists) should be encouraging. Not telling them to continue clearing forests, remain poor and die young.

      • ^
        takebackthegreen – “It is not harming anyone on its journey”

        Completely, flat-out wrong. You obviously haven’t heard of coal dust, diesel, or mercury. Even a coalition of Utah physicians is against this. Several climate scientist testified at the Oakland hearing on this. Who testified in favor? A bunch of people that KTVU discovered were paid to be there, some of them homeless who were given a sandwich and a t-shirt. You’re basically alone on this, except for the company of Phil Tagami and TLS.

        And your “moral” argument is support of US coal exports is a joke, and a sad one at that. countries can produce their own coal; this is merely a business deal.

        There is a serious amount of carbon that needs to remain in the ground in order to reach climate goals, and it is the US’ moral responsibility (as a historically large and already industrialized emissions producer) to make that happen our own soil.

      • Ahh… to be so sure of oneself… How long did you think about whether what you believe to be true is true or not before completely dismissing an alternate viewpoint?

        No. I’ve never heard of coal dust or mercury. No. I’ve never studied physics or chemistry and don’t understand Paracelsus’s principle of toxicology. No. I’m not aware that science is not a popularity contest and appeal to authority is a cognitive bias. No. I don’t know how to properly assess the validity and relevance of scientific “studies.”

        Meanwhile, why not listen to actual people from India, Africa and China regarding their energy needs? Care for video links? Nahhh. Why bother when you already know what is best?

        Be sure to never question your received wisdom. That method promises a future full of learning and discovery.
        If you change your mind (decide to open it), I suggest the 2010 documentary “Cool It” about Danish political scientist Bjørn Lomborg. It is an uplifting, positive challenge to “consensus” that raises important questions about how our best intentions affect the world.


      • Wow Todd, you seem to have attracted your own climate denialist troll! #takebackthegreeniscoalblack

      • Hello, Alisa. “Climate denialist troll” certainly sounds like the start of a well-reasoned, productive and civil conversation. Count me in!

        Demonizing and dismissing those who think even a little bit differently about common goals is a successful strategy used by religious people all the time.

      • Bjorn Lomborg?! The Koch funded climate-denier who Exxon likes to cite? Well, you’ve officially exposed yourself as a nut. No need to argue further with someone who is clearly detached from scientific reality….

        But finally, here’s something else you don’t understand – why calling the people of West Oakland “uneducated and ignorant” is ignorant on your part. The people of West Oakland have been educated far more than you have about pollution – they know it because they suffer from it. Calling them NIMBYs, for the purposes of demonizing them, goes to show how far you -and this blog for that matter – have distorted the term.

        Funny how in both instances it’s in the service of a massively profitable development.

      • Well, Danny, when the name-calling starts, it’s time to stop trying to discuss. So you can have the last word after this. Hopefully someone with a more open mind will read Lomborg’s work and be exposed to an energetic, compassionate and original thinker.

        You cannot possibly have an opinion about Lomborg without watching and hearing what he has to say. Do you fear hearing information you might not have heard before?

        The reasons I recommended the documentary to you (and how I know you aren’t familiar with his work) are that he is a believer in AGW (anthropogenic global warming), NOT funded by the Koch brothers and NOT a “climate denier” which is a nonsensical term. His work regards the best use of financial resources for the best possible outcomes, with his main focus being children and the impoverished people of the world. Everyone I know who has watched the film comes away uplifted and optimistic about humanity.

        You’ve also been misled about oil company interests. Do you know who pushed hardest for cap and trade markets in the West? Enron. Can you figure out why?

        Your comfort zone has done you a disservice.


        1) You speak as if making a profit is immoral. Do you not profit from your job? Is providing well-paying blue-collar jobs that CAN’T BE OUTSOURCED an immoral act? How lost the extreme Left has become… It happens when you live in an echo chamber, never having your ideas questioned, or challenged.

        2) I never used the term NIMBY.

        3) Why do you attack commenters, and bloggers, who share your general concerns but simply advocate for trying different ways to achieve them?

        4) You are simply wrong about pollution, especially in regards to particulate matter. You can’t know why you are wrong until you are willing to educate yourself from academic, not political, sources.

        5) I don’t think you are a nut. I think you are passionate to the point of rudeness, and unaware that the words “ignorant” and “uneducated” do not imply moral judgement. They apply to each and every one of us, depending on the subject at hand.


      • ^ PSYCHO

        The only point I’ll address – because the others are so laughable I’m not worried that anyone here will give them any credence – is that you did use the term NIMBY. Just read 2 comments up [takebackthegreen
        NOVEMBER 6, 2015 AT 19:52]

        Are you so dissociative that you don’t even know what you yourself are saying?

      • You are right. I was wrong.

        I forgot I used the term in response to your use of it. I should’ve been more clear: I don’t like to use the term because it makes a serious social problem sound cute, therefore trivializing it.

        Rhetorical questions (meaning… I’m not really interested in your answers):

        1) How old are you?

        2) Do you think it is helpful or advantageous to call people who disagree with you “psycho” or “nuts?”

        3) Do you also call people names face-to-face? Or only when protected by anonymity?

    • Building new housing doesn’t displace anyone, in fact it allows the opposite: a place for newcomers without displacing the people already there. Every economist in the world agrees with me on this, only a few crazy Progressives feel otherwise.

      • Yeah, I’m sure a new luxury building with $4,000 2 bedrooms on 16th and Mission won’t cause a landlord down the street housing employees of Rainbow Grocery let’s say to think, hey, maybe this place is worth a little more money than what I’ve been renting it for. It’s called gentrification.

      • You are correct, that is not how economics works. I can point you to dozens of studies proving my point of view, you have none that support yours. A ratty poorly maintained hovel does not suddenly become more desirable because it has shiny new neighbors.

        What really happens with housing is that it tends to acquire deferred maintenance over time and becomes more affordable. We have had a near moratorium for 40 years, thanks to NIMBYs and Progressives, so now we don’t have enough run down affordable housing. You policies caused this shortage.

      • I don’t think Prop-I was about not wanting new housing. It was about keeping the beautiful & historic culture of the Mission intact. If you actually read the proposition, it didn’t impact people wanting to repair or renovate their homes or (existing) apartment buildings. It stopped contractors from knocking down art studios, wood shops, etc. to put up luxury condos. The artists are what make SF and the Mission magical. We don’t need more giant condos in the mission to replace those craftsmen that make this area desirable to live in in the first place.

      • It is exactly this sort of attitude that has led to the housing shortage we are currently experiencing. I guess if prefer an “oh so precious” San Francisco that only the wealthy can afford, then you should vote for I. I am environmentalist and I want people to live in healthy cities, where they use less energy, less water and pollute less greenhouse gases. I believe we can do that without destroying the character of our city.

      • And if you can’t afford to live in a city….

        Since you assumed I have nothing to support my argument. How about that conservative rag the Wall Street Journal?

        You know who you remind me of noevalleyjim? Keith Rubenstein: ““We’re not displacing anybody,” he said. “We’re bringing people who might not otherwise come to the Bronx.”

        I think when you said “Every economist in the world agrees with me on this,” you meant, every *dead* economist.

      • There is nothing in that Wall Street Journal article to support your premise that building high end causing causes rents to go up in general. They do say that not enough middle income housing is being built, which I agree with 100%.

        Krugman agrees with me:
        “… high housing prices in slow-growing states also owe a lot to policies that sharply limit construction.”
        Last I checked, Krugman was still a living liberal economist.

      • What led to the housing shortage was years of bad choices by the planning department. It had nothing to do with San Francisians treasuring the culture of SF. Given that you’re from Noe Valley, I wouldn’t expect you to know what a treasured neighborhood culture is like.

      • “Yeah, I’m sure a new luxury building with $4,000 2 bedrooms on 16th and Mission won’t cause a landlord down the street housing employees of Rainbow Grocery let’s say to think, hey, maybe this place is worth a little more money than what I’ve been renting it for.”

        If you actually believe this, then I have an easy get-rich-quick scheme for you: go get a loan, find a random economically depressed small town in the Midwest, buy some dirt cheap land, and build a bunch of big expensive high rises. According to your logic, the land around it should magically skyrocket in value.

        The problem is that you have it completely backwards: the thing that inspires a developer to put those $4,000 2br apartment plans out there in the first place is the fact that the land around there – including the building holding your Rainbow Grocery employees – is _already_ valuable.

      • “Given that you’re from Noe Valley, I wouldn’t expect you to know what a treasured neighborhood culture is like.”

        Wow. Apparently a “treasured neighborhood culture” is xenophobic at a truly microscopic level.

      • “Since you assumed I have nothing to support my argument. How about that conservative rag the Wall Street Journal?

        Well, Danny B, I read your article, and this quote from it stood out:

        “But in past construction cycles, as new apartment buildings came online, landlords in older buildings sometimes reduced rents or at least didn’t raise rents, providing a steady supply of moderately priced apartments.

        That pattern isn’t occurring in the current cycle, say economists, due in part to a supply shortage.”

        Please note that last sentence, especially.

      • BP – Yes, let’s compare a “depressed small town in the Midwest” to San Francisco… because that makes sense.

        If anyone wants to know more about the level of though BP is capable of, or the amount of research she does before commenting with absolute certainty, take a look at this comments section:

        I can’t engage with you further BP because it’s always a complete waste of time.

      • Edward L. Glaeser Joseph Gyourko
        Department of Economics The Wharton School
        Harvard University University of Pennsylvania

        The price of housing is significantly higher than construction costs only in a limited number of areas, such as California and some eastern cities. In those areas, we argue that high prices have
        little to do with conventional models with a free market for land. Instead, our evidence suggests that zoning and other land use controls, play the dominant role in making housing expensive.

        Click to access w8835.pdf

        Glaeser is a liberal, 48 and still quite alive. Gyourko is also alive.

      • “BP – Yes, let’s compare a “depressed small town in the Midwest” to San Francisco… because that makes sense.”

        When you start to actually understand _why_ it’s different, we’ll actually be getting somewhere. Anyways, hopefully you’ll at least pay attention to your own sources – as per that quote above from your preferred WSJ article – if you don’t pay attention to me.

      • “Given that you’re from Noe Valley, I wouldn’t expect you to know what a treasured neighborhood culture is like.”

        This is literally the most parochial thing I have ever seen anyone say. Thanks for the chuckle.

      • Don’t forget Enrico Moretti. Economist. Not old, not dead. Bonus: He even lived in the Mission for 12 years.

        “A common misconception is that new market-rate housing only helps high-income newcomers. People see new pricey condos on Valencia Street and think the only beneficiaries are well-paid, high-tech workers. But when 1,100 new condos or apartments are not built in the Mission, there are 1,100 more families competing with existing residents for fixed housing stock. Everyone suffers.

        “Economic research on this topic is unanimous. All existing academic studies — including work done at Harvard University, the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania and by me at UC Berkeley — find that less housing supply results in higher rents and house prices, everything else being constant.

        “If it passes, Prop. I will be like a reverse Robin Hood. It will increase the value of existing units, benefiting wealthy homeowners, and increase the cost of rent, hurting renters.

      • How about The City’s Economist Ted Egan?

        “One of the key arguments forwarded by Prop. I supporters is that market-rate developments contribute to skyrocketing rent and housing prices. Egan’s report rejects that argument and says evidence shows just the opposite: “that new market-rate housing, in the Mission and across the city, tends to reduce, rather than raise, the value of nearby properties.””

      • The supply and demand argument is as old and stale as the dead economists I was referring to.

        Everyone here can agree that the the few units offered by the “monster in the Mission” will do nothing but raise rents nearby, since it’s not alleviating demand, aka it’s a pittance. It’s the Naomi Campbell sipping Dom of the Mission. Now a wholesale change in the amount of affordable housing required for development would be something else. Things would still get built and we’d be stabilizing neighborhoods instead trying to solve it from the perspective of rich people’s demands.

        “The new stuff hasn’t affected them at all,” he said. “Rents are going up. And up and up.”

        We can do this all day.

      • No I do not agree that building much needed housing on 16th and Mission will raise rents nearby. It is a kooky notion, similar to the one that vaccines cause autism.

        None of your sources are economists and I think you have made the classic logical error of confusing correlation with causation. Of course developers build more housing when prices go up, their profit margins increase, encouraging them to do so. That does not mean that construction cranes cause rent increases.

        “Ask anyone” indeed. How did Prop I turn out? I know people in The Mission grateful for the new construction and the relief it is has provided on prices. Maybe you should widen your circle of acquaintances a bit.

      • Tim Egan is flat out wrong. But what would you expect from him?

        Ask anyone in the Mission if the new luxury condos on Valencia have lowered their rent.

      • I’m not saying that a ton of supply wouldn’t help the housing affordability crisis in SF.

        And I agree that 1 or 2 luxury buildings in the mission may depress rents…. LUXURY rents. Middle-class and low-income rents will continue to rise.

        To pretend that the monster in the mission will make the mission more affordable is pure fantasy and fallacy. And believing in this lie in order to foreclose the political space necessary to rethink affordable housing.

        It makes me wonder what people like you and Todd have at stake to stick your head so deep in the sand for the sake of corporate profits. It’s precisely the capitalist coup d’grace to convince you that you have skin in their game.

      • I told you before, I am an environmentalist with children. I am convinced that we are headed to destruction as a species unless we all make the sacrifices necessary to reduce our carbon footprint. For those of you in The Mission, that sacrifice might include having to tolerate a neighbor who makes a bit more than you. I don’t think it is too much to ask. In case you are wondering, I absolutely think that Noe Valley needs to upzone, especially on the Church Street corridor where there is good transit. I am sure my neighbors would be after me with pitchforks if they knew. I have attended neighborhood meetings where I have argued that a duplex should not be downzoned (?) to a single family home.

        I believe that we need to be building more housing at *all* income levels. Not just the poor, like the Progressives believe. Not just the wealthy, like the capitalists believe. But housing for everyone. Blocking the construction of new housing does not move us toward that goal one bit, in fact it makes it worse. We need to do a whole lot more, especially for middle income people, but I don’t know if that is really a topic that can be covered appropriately in the comments section of a blog.

      • noevalleyjim – You obviously don’t understand climate science. Is it better to live in a city than in the suburbs? Yes. A building boom in SF will do nothing to help out a global climate crisis. That’s like saying restaurants are going to solve CA’s drought problem instead of us focusing on regulating groundwater. We’re talking about parts per billion here, industrializing countries, and methane. Your environmentalism in this context is a smokescreen.

        Todd – Moretti? Talking about Seattle doing it right? Does he know anyone in Seattle? They had the largest rental increase in the country amid arguably the largest construction boom in their history, and even this year rents are projected to rise 5%.

      • We all have to do our part. A green, environmentally friendly, dense walkable San Francisco with bicycle lanes and good transit can set an example for the nation. 25% of green house gases are used for transportation. How ironic that you use the word “smokescreen” to describe your self-interested preservationist desires. Your policies lead to more suburban sprawl.

      • Your drop-in-the-bucket argument IS a smokescreen for what it will really take to combat climate change. It is literally probably the thousandth consideration we should consider when dealing with affordable housing. But hey, when you have no meat to go on, why not set up a strawman?

      • what it will really take to combat climate change

        The Earth’s climate has always changed and always will. You can’t “combat” it. Have you thought about why you use the term “climate change” now, even though the predictions of disaster are predicated on warming temperatures?

        Your words show how little thought you’ve put into them. Or how little you understand the concepts. You are parroting phrases from trusted sources. We all do it. It’s human nature.

        The important thing is what we do with the understanding of our nature. Again, I recommend an enjoyable and eye opening documentary that will harmlessly expose you to an alternate view on this subject.

        “Cool It” 2010. Don’t read about it. Just watch it.

      • Don’t give me that rhetorical bs. Driving your gas powered car down the street is subsidized. “Subsidized” as some political boogey-man argument is just plain lame.

      • No, Danny. Rhetorical bs is calling subsidized housing “affordable.” Especially when it costs taxpayers nearly 900 thousand per unit.

  4. For Prop I, this doesn’t make sense: South Bernal: YES – 1171 (48%), NO- 1108 (49%). How can 1171 be a smaller % than 1108?

    • Transcription error on my part. The correct numbers for Prop I:
      South Bernal:
      Yes: 1171 (48%)
      No: 1189 (48.7%)

      This has been corrected above as well. Thank you for catching this.

  5. Thanks for the interesting detail on Bernal voting patterns.
    In regard to the slightly more conservative/less progressive South:
    I’m a Southie of 40 years. I believe there are slightly more long term neighbors left south of Cortland such as myself who tend more centrist than the newer, wealthier, liberal and white neighbors. In SF higher income does not necessarily track with more conservative voting.

    In regard to the slightly lower turnout in the South:
    Many of my long time and “working class” neighbors are more involved in their private lives and do not take much interest in the larger political issues, feel disempowered and don’t vote. Also, I believe both SFHA are included in the South breakdown. Lower voter turnout has always and everywhere been associated with lower SES.

    • YES.

      One thing “Get Out The Vote” co-called “progressives” can’t grasp is that if every single person voted, the results would be far more conservative than they wish. It is simple inexperience (through lack of contact) with lower income and/or non-white people that causes them to suppose their grand ideals are shared by the “masses.”

      They are not.

  6. How did the mayor “coast to victory with 57%” while prop I “squeaked by with just 56%”? 1% makes that much of a difference that one’s a landslide and the other is a fluke?

    • Haha, yes. Because it seems universally the media characterized the other five candidates as non-starters without ever having conducted a serious interview with all contenders. They did their part in shaping public sentiment on the Mayoral race, leaving many to believe that no one (or no one serious) was running against Lee. That is lazy journalism at best, acting more like pundits than objective reporters.

    • Lee ran in a field of 6 (plus write ins, albeit negligible), so his 57% victory is worth a stronger adjective than something that got 56% in a yes/no-only vote.

      • If the media wasn’t toting Lee as running unopposed and the other candidates had name recognition I’d accept that as an explanation.

  7. I can understand the low voter turnout. Voting in California is insane. The propositions are confusing, deliberately so in many cases. And a crazy amount of money goes into promoting or undermining them. I say follow the money and be very suspicious, but well-funded campaigns usually do win. For each “Yes on I” flier you got, how many “No on I” fliers landed in your mailbox? And I don’t think I saw even one “Yes on F” TV ad, while each night I got to watch handsome, twinkly-eyed Gavin Newsome telling me the prop was “just too extreme.”

  8. Pingback: Bernalwood 2015: The Year in Superlatives | Bernalwood

  9. Pingback: Your Hyperlocal Analysis of 2016 Primary Election Results in Bernal Heights | Bernalwood

Comments are closed.