A couple of weeks ago, I saw a flyer posted on Nextdoor for a town hall about the proposed development of the La Playa Safeway in the Richmond District. The Planning Association for the Richmond was hosting it at St. John’s Presbyterian Church, not far from me. I thought the project was already a done deal, so I was curious what was left to talk about, and I decided to walk over and listen in.

The flyer made a few key points that were repeated by the speakers at the town hall before opening it up to residents for comments. The first concern was that 80% of the units were market rate apartments and only 20% would be affordable. Secondly, the development would demolish the Safeway with no guarantee of it returning. And finally, no public hearings would be required.

After about two hours of presentations and public comments, I came away thinking their objections were less about affordability and groceries, and more about residents losing their leverage over the process. Here's what I heard at the town hall and what I found when I looked into each concern.

The first point was that only 113 of the 562 apartments (about 20%) would be affordable and the rest would be market rate. The affordable units would go to households earning 50% to 80% of the area median income (AMI). The other units would be market rate , which means the rent is whatever people are willing to pay, and in San Francisco there's no shortage of people willing to pay up. The residents made the point that market rents are out of reach for a lot of people who don't qualify for the affordable units, and they have a valid point here. When speakers and attendees called for more affordability, the audience cheered.

I personally didn't know PAR's overall position on affordability, so I wanted to know what affordability threshold would be enough for everyone to support the project: would 50% be enough? Mission Local reported that an attendee asked the audience whether they would all support the project if it were 100% affordable. That attendee was me.

Earlier, when a pro-housing attendee spoke, several people made rude gestures while he was speaking. One of them made a “cut him off” throat gesture, and another one did the talking hand “yapping” gesture. Others even rolled their eyes at him. This made me a bit nervous about even speaking, and I forgot to introduce myself. 

The reaction to my question was mixed and came from all directions, so it was hard for me to get a clear answer. A couple of people around me said yes, but many shook their heads no, and some said only if it’s 4 stories. The moderator said I would need to talk to people individually around the room. Afterward, a woman came up to me and said this wasn't a monolithic group, and that I'd hear different answers from different people.

Later it was clear to me that some people cared more about issues that weren't on the flyer at all. Some mentioned height, some mentioned neighborhood character, another person brought up shadow studies, and someone else mentioned environmental review. One woman even said there's no public transportation out there yet, which surprised me since I’ve ridden the 5 Fulton and 31 Balboa down there before. Another woman mentioned that a friend of hers owns three flats but keeps them vacant, because she's afraid of being a landlord and would need more incentive to rent them out.

Speakers said that the Safeway is currently the neighborhood's only full-service grocery store, and warned that losing it would create a "food desert" during construction. When asked “How many of you live within 5 blocks of the Safeway?”, about half the room raised their hands. So the closure would definitely make getting groceries less convenient for a lot of people there.

But I question whether a temporary closure makes this a “food desert.” The Safeway is right by the ocean and Golden Gate Park, so nearly everyone who shops there lives east of it, closer to other stores in the neighborhood. Andronico's on 32nd Avenue (which Albertson’s also owns) is just over a mile from the La Playa Safeway. I rode my bike over there yesterday. Grocery Outlet on Geary is a bit farther down the street at around 28th Ave. As far as I can tell, nearly every block of the Richmond is within a mile of a supermarket. Some attendees I spoke to even mentioned they get their groceries delivered despite living a couple of blocks away.

I was curious whether "food desert" has a specific definition, and turns out it does. The USDA uses it for low-income areas where a substantial share of residents live more than a mile from a supermarket. According to Census data analyzed by SF Standard, only three San Francisco neighborhoods have poverty rates above the 20% threshold that defines a food desert, and the Richmond isn't one of them.

I came away skeptical that access to food was the real issue. The Richmond is known for its food, and I often feel lucky to live close to so many food options. The San Francisco Chronicle has even called the Richmond "one of San Francisco's best eating neighborhoods," and anyone who has been down Clement Street knows that there are tons of produce markets and small grocers. Sure, the temporary closure is inconvenient, but calling this neighborhood a food desert is a bit of a stretch.

The flyer's final claim was that no public hearings would be required for the project to move forward. This is true, and I think this is the point most people in the room really cared about. Because the project uses state streamlining laws, it can move forward without a Planning Commission hearing as long as it meets the city's objective standards. Bridget Maley of Neighborhoods United SF asked whether this was really how democracy works, and said laws like these "squash our voices."

The upcoming election was also present at the town hall, as it seems to be at every block party, farmers market and window in the neighborhood lately. In November, Supervisor Connie Chan and State Senator Scott Wiener face off for Congress, and they've often been on opposite sides of the housing debate. A few attendees wore Chan buttons, and two aides from her office were there as well. At one point, someone asked who was responsible for all this legislation. When a speaker said she wasn't going to name names, someone in the audience called out, "I'll name names, Senator Scott Wiener!"

While Wiener has become the face of the state's push for more housing, I later learned from Mission Local's writeup that the project uses SB 330, which was authored by former State Senator Nancy Skinner. Opponents often describe these laws as a giveaway to developers, pushed by moderates and tech money. So I was surprised when I looked up Skinner's background and found out she was a Berkeley progressive who was a member of the Democratic Socialists of America while on the Berkeley City Council in the 1980s.

Either way, it was a democratic process. The Legislature passed these laws, and the Board of Supervisors voted to speed up housing approvals. In previous elections, voters elected and re-elected Wiener to both the Board of Supervisors and the state Senate, and he came in first in the primary for Pelosi’s seat. At the end of the day, I don't think their voices were squashed and I don’t think anything was undemocratic. The town hall attendees were vocal, and plenty of people spoke. I think they were just frustrated that their voices no longer had veto power over housing.