Fact Check on the Inner Sunset Green Benefit Districts Draft Management Plan
11/2018 - The Inner Sunset Green Benefit District Formation Committee has decided to end efforts to form a Green Benefit District in the Inner Sunset.The following information is based on the Inner Sunset Green Benefit District Draft Management Plan that neighbors should be aware of in considering a GBD. The ISGBD draft Management Plan is a good example on how GBD Management Plan are contructed and what maybe found in future GBD Managaement Plans. Italicized sentences are from actual documents being reviewed.
The must read are highlighted in red in the index and ★ in the text.
The full Inner Sunset Green Benefit District Draft Management Plan can be download here.
The purpose is to inform neighbors about “Green Benefit Districts” so they can make a good decision for themselves. The rosy view of the proposed “Inner Sunset GBD” can be found here: https://www.innersunsetgbd.org/ The information here will be information that cannot be found on promoters of GBD websites.
Inner Sunset Green Benefit District Draft Management Plan Index
- GBD improvements must be beyond city services
- GBD boundaries determined by extensive public engagement
- GBD improvements and Article 15A misrepresented
- Change of GBD Management Plan
- Inner Sunset GBD survey results
- Vote weighted by property owner's proposed assessment
- Inner Sunset GBD Advocacy and Promotion
- ISGBD Management and Operations
- Unused assessment carry-forward rules
- Formation Cost recovery
- Bond Issuance
- Collaboration with Institution in Golden Gate Park Commercial Benefit District
- Missing Appendix A and C
- Inner Sunset Green Benefit District Term of Operation
- ISGBD Disestablishment Requirements
- Formation Committee becomes ISGDB interim Board of Directors, writes Bylaws
- Composition of ISGBD Board of Directors
- Property Owners must be over 50% of the ISGBD Board
- ISGBD Board candidates vetting
- Property Owner vote for ISGBD Board
- ISGBD Foundation member quoted on expansion plan of ISGBD in future
- Liens on Low-Income Individuals
- Proposed Projects of the Inner Sunset Green Benefit District
- Sidewalk, Landscaping, Trees, and Greenery
- Wayfinding Signs, Pedestrian Amenities
- Public art & Murals
- Connections between Parks, Open Spaces, and the Neighborhood
- Neighborhood Zone Services
- Renters/Tenants
- Other promises or supposed things that the ISGBD would tackle
INNER SUNSET GREEN BENEFIT DISTRICT DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN
Prepared for the Inner Sunset GBD Formation Committee by Build Public Assessment Engineering by Kristin Lowell, Inc.
Neither the Board of Supervisors nor the City Attorney has approved this draft plan.
ARTICLE 15A_ PUBLIC REALM LANDSCAPING, IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS (_GREEN BENEFIT DISTRICTS_) supersedes GBD Management Plans. The Formation Committee did not prepare most of the Management Plan. The Formation Committee sees the GBD as a way to improve the quality of life in the Inner Sunset by providing additional services and improvements beyond the services and improvements provided by the city, increasing community engagement and a greater political voice for services from the city. They want to maintain a vibrant village atmosphere.
Under What is a GBD? page 9.
A GBD provides enhanced improvements and activities, such as public safety, maintenance and neighborhood enhancements, in addition to baseline services provided by the local government.
This is true that a GBD can only pay for things beyond what is provided by a local government. Two problems: A 2015 document from the Dogpatch and NW Petero Hill GBD that contains a baseline cleaning and maintenance services document is the only document that lists baseline services provided by local government. There is some overlap in the draft plan of services and improvements with the baseline like crime prevention. In article 15A, activities and improvements are not limited to the list of additional services. Property can be bought for the Public Realm with no more than 50% coming from GBD assessments over the term of the GBD.
Jonathan Goldberg, Green Benefit District Program Manager at San Francisco Department of Public Works said "At its core, the function of a Green Benefit District is to create a steady, dependable, and legally enforceable funding stream to support ongoing services and improvements." andrea_jonathan_ggp_ucsf_12-14-2017.pdf
Does this sound like additional enchancements?
A GBD’s geographic boundaries are determined by extensive public engagement and participatory design, including a neighborhood needs assessment, a professional neighborhood survey, visioning workshops, multiple outreach events and regular public meetings.
False. The ISGBD geographic boundaries have not been “determined by extensive public engagement and participatory design”. The ISGBD geographic boundaries have been determined by a small group of non-elected people who have not shared the professional neighborhood survey data or other information that is used to determine the boundaries.
GBD improvements, services and activities may include, but are not limited to enhancements to, “Ecological, water and energy systems, pedestrian and bicycle amenities, and recreational improvements.” As defined by Article 15A, public realm areas are, “Outdoor spaces open to the public including parks, parklets, sidewalks, unimproved areas, landscaped areas, plazas, and gardens.”
In Article 15A, the word “enhancements” is not used. It simply states: “Such services, improvements and activities may include, but are not limited to, involvement with ecological systems, water and energy systems, pedestrian and bicycle amenities, and recreational improvements.”
In Article 15A, “Public Realm” has a greater definition than presented above leaving the last sentence out. “Public Realm” areas may be owned by public and/or private entities or persons.”
The Management Plan can only be changed by a subsequent vote by the assessed property owners.
The Management Plan can be changed by the Board of Supervisors. There is nothing in Article 15A that says only a vote of assessed property owners can change the Management Plan. If this is true, it must be written into the Management Plan of a GBD. It is also unclear if a change of Management Plan requires a Board of Supervisors approval. In Article 15A, a Management Plan is also known as a Management Contract. The contract is with the city that collects the assessment and resolution made possibly the forming of GBDs in the city. Since the Management Plan has to initially be approved by the Board of Supervisors, it only stands to reason that they have to approve any change or it makes the initial approval mute.
Under How was the ISGBD Management Plan developed?, page 10.
Key survey findings include:
● 69% of homeowner respondents and 47% of business owner respondents in the study area indicated willingness to pay an assessment to fund public realm improvements.
● 69% of homeowner respondents and 47% of business owner respondents in the study area indicated willingness to pay an assessment to fund public realm improvements.
Key to note here that this represents only the people that responded to the survey. All numbers based on ISBGD Survey Results Summary pfd
679 responses out of 3487 parcels of which 2,964 are zoned residential (based on 85% of total parcels are zoned residential from pfd). 19% total response rate. Of the 679 responses, 19% response rate: 51% were in favor of forming a GBD, 8% against, and 41% needed more information. Using these numbers: 346 people favored a GBD in the survey. Out of 3487 that is 1% of the people in the Inner Sunset survey area. Given the low overall response rate to the survey and only 1% of people in favor of a GBD, I do not think that is strong support for a GBD. The survey also only gave people the option of being in favor of the GBD, needing more information or against. It did not give any alternative options like paying per project.
Missing from the report is the breakdown of respondents. Raw data shows
438 homeowners
173 renters
55 businesses, non-residents
---------------------
666 respondents
Only property owners can vote the GBD into existence. Combining all respondents together, those who can vote and those who can not vote for the GBD, inflates the survey results.
The response rate of homeowners is 438/3487 = 12.6 %.
Many survey results need to be reduced to reflect the number of property owners vs combined groups. It is unclear the breakdown of positive surveys among the above group, but taking it as an even breakdown of 51% positive, 51% of 438 homeowners is 223 homeowners.
223 homeowners of 666 total respondents equals 33%
223 homeowners of 3487 total parcels in the Inner Sunset district as defined by the Formation Committee is 6% homeowners that say they are positive towards establishing an ISGBD. Note these figures come from what is available to us at this time; it is unclear why total respondents varies from 666 to 679. Most likely the higher number includes people that did not fully respond to the survey or other problems.
Back to Table of Contents
★If the ballot is approved by a weighted majority (50% +1) of property owners, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors votes to establish the GBD.
This provision is in state legislation Title 5, Division 2, Part 1, Chapter 4, ARTICLE 4.6. Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act [53750 ] (b) https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV§ionNum=53753 The weighted ballot by assessment is being used to increase the likelihood of Green Benefit Districts passing. This undermines democracy. We consider it fair if taxes and assessments are proportioned by benefits received or income. If that is fair, than an equal weighted 1 to 1 vote on whether to be taxed that proportional assessment should be used. It is unfair to weight larger property owners that pay more assessments than a regular homeowner on a vote about whether people should be taxed proportionally. Larger property owners tend to not live in the GBD boundaries and are corporations.
Assessments are proportional to square feet and designated special benefit areas which can be fair, but to use that for a greater proportion of the vote is not fair in a democracy. It is the same as saying that people that have more wealth or pay more taxes have a greater say. A weighted vote based on anything is anti-democratic. We do not vote for government officials or ballot measures by a weighted vote.
If GBDs are for unnecessary things above and beyond city services than they should not be given more preferential treatment with a weighted vote than how we vote for spending and services that are necessary. If GBDs are a good idea they should be able to be passed by a majority of property owners.
To the Next Red Must Read
Under ADVOCACY & PROMOTION, page 14.
Advocacy & Outreach
● Serve as public face and primary point of contact for the GBD, especially with City departments, supervisors, Mayor’s Office and other local agencies.
● Manage GBD finances and contracts for services, capital improvements, public interface and web services
● Manage GBD corporate business, including ensuring compliance with all government and grant reporting requirements, in close collaboration with the Chairperson of the GBD Board
● Manage GBD finances and contracts for services, capital improvements, public interface and web services
● Manage GBD corporate business, including ensuring compliance with all government and grant reporting requirements, in close collaboration with the Chairperson of the GBD Board
The problem with this type of advocacy is that it puts a person or organization as a “go between” between citizens and elected officials, or city employees. It has pluses, but big minuses. Nothing motivates elected officials more than an overwhelming number of their voters contacting them on issues. Having a central person or organization that is the point of contact can undermine civic engagement. It will reduce the influence of neighbors and other neighborhood groups. It puts a separation between neighborhood voters and the Supervisors that are supposed to represent them. Supervisors have aides. It does not make sense to hire an advocate, at around the proposed $120,000.00, when the aides and Supervisors are already supposed to be our advocates. That is why we elect them and pay them.<
The other problem with this section is that it insinuates a person(s) or business that will be hired to manage and work “in close collaboration with the Chairperson of the GBD Board but does not spell out this advocate. Only later in Governance, hiring an Executive Director is spelled out.
On page 13.
MANAGEMENT & OPERATIONS
This budget allocation ensures that the District can conduct operations in an efficient and accountable manner. It may cover a variety of administrative costs, including but not limited to:
B. District Budget
The total budget to fund improvements and activities in the first fiscal year of the District is $925,000.
Table 1: 2018/19 Maximum Budget
This budget allocation ensures that the District can conduct operations in an efficient and accountable manner. It may cover a variety of administrative costs, including but not limited to:
● Accounting and audit financial review, legal and other professional services related to ISGBD overhead and administrative support of District programs
● Office expenses include rent, utilities, office supplies and insurance
● Office expenses include rent, utilities, office supplies and insurance
B. District Budget
The total budget to fund improvements and activities in the first fiscal year of the District is $925,000.
Table 1: 2018/19 Maximum Budget
| Budget Description | Budget Amount | % Total Budget |
| Neighborhood Improvements & Beautification | $385,000 | 41.6% |
| Clean & Safe | $285,000 | 30.8% |
| Advocacy & Promotion | $170,000 | 18.4% |
| Management & Operations | $85,000 | 9.2% |
| Total 2018/19 Maximum Budget | $925,000 | 100% |
27.6 % of the budget falls under advocacy, promotion, management and operations. Thus the first year budget and the amount of clawback of donations/grants to form the GBD are not readily apparent in the budget.
Back to Table of Contents
Page 14.
Annual Carry-forward and Budget Roll-over: This Management Plan outlines the annual budgets for services and improvements provided by the District. At the end of the fiscal year, all assessment revenues from that fiscal year must be appropriated to District services, activities, and improvements to be provided within the following fiscal year. The GBD must spend these outstanding funds within the following fiscal year, as mandated by the City. Failure to appropriate District funds to provide the services, activities, and improvements specified in the Management Plan may trigger a reduction in the annual assessment levy.
This is a very questionable incentive to have to find projects to use all the money up or face a reduction in annual assessments levied. The cost of services and improvement projects can vary from period to period. In determining the quality and need of projects to fund a possible trigger of reduction in funds should not be a factor. The statement says this is mandated by the city but I do not know where. The mandate does not appear in Article 15A or Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994
Page 15.
Formation Costs: In Fiscal Year 1 of the GBD, up to $50,000 to recover costs incurred in forming the GBD (“Formation Costs”) may be allocated.
It is good this is capped at $50,000 as the actual formation cost will probably be north of $50,000. There is one Build Public estimate of a need to raise $226,000.00 from donors to establish an ISGBD.
Page 15.
Issuance of Bonds: No bonds or other bonded debt is to be issued to finance activities and improvements envisioned in the Management Plan.
Currently in the Management Plan, it states no debt can be issued, but Management Plans can be changed in the future and Article 15A allows for debt against GBD assessments.
Page 15.
D. Collaboration with Institutions in Golden Gate Park
In tandem with the Inner Sunset neighborhood’s effort to form a property-based District, it is envisioned that cultural institutions in Golden Gate Park will form a parallel but separate business-based District. The property-based and business-based Districts will have separate finances, and will be united by a single non-profit entity and Board of Directors (see “Governance” section for more details). This joint structure will facilitate collaboration on shared initiatives and projects, thereby strengthening connections between the Park, commercial corridor, and residential neighborhood.
In the event that a parallel Park District is not formed, the Inner Sunset GBD will continue to function as a stand-alone entity.
In tandem with the Inner Sunset neighborhood’s effort to form a property-based District, it is envisioned that cultural institutions in Golden Gate Park will form a parallel but separate business-based District. The property-based and business-based Districts will have separate finances, and will be united by a single non-profit entity and Board of Directors (see “Governance” section for more details). This joint structure will facilitate collaboration on shared initiatives and projects, thereby strengthening connections between the Park, commercial corridor, and residential neighborhood.
In the event that a parallel Park District is not formed, the Inner Sunset GBD will continue to function as a stand-alone entity.
More information on Golden Gate Park Institutions being in an Inner Sunset GBD can be found in the is e-mail exchange between Jonathan Goldberg and Andrea Jawin, a co-chair of the ISGBD Formation Committee: andrea_jonathan_ggp_ucsf_12-14-2017.pdf
In 2014, there was an attempt at a Commercial Business District (CBD) that failed. This failure is partly why bringing homeowners into a Green Benefit District that would include commercial properties is being tried. It is unclear that if a CBD is formed whether the boundaries of an ISGBD will change to exclude the CBD boundaries. Survey result (below), from a survey done by the Inner Sunset Foundation Committee, show there is still little support for an “Improvement and Maintenance Assessment District” along the Irving and 9th Ave. corridor.
Page 16.
See Appendix C for detailed information on the City’s existing cleaning and maintenance services for the Inner Sunset.
Appendix C is missing from the draft Management Plan. For that matter so is appendix A and B.
Page 17.
Please see Appendix A: ISGBD Engineer’s Report for a detailed discussion of the general benefit analysis.
Missing in the draft Management Plan.
District Term
The proposed term for the ISGBD is 10 years. The City will levy assessments beginning Fiscal Year 2018/19 up through and including Fiscal Year 2027/28.
The proposed term for the ISGBD is 10 years. The City will levy assessments beginning Fiscal Year 2018/19 up through and including Fiscal Year 2027/28.
Disestablishment
State law provides for the disestablishment of the ISGBD pursuant to an annual review process. Each year that the ISGBD is in existence, there will be a 30-day period during which district property owners will have the opportunity to request disestablishment of the District. This 30-day period begins each year on the anniversary day that the District was first established by the Board of Supervisors. Within that 30-day period, if a written petition is submitted by owners of real property who pay more than 50 percent (50%) of the assessments levied, the ISGBD may be disestablished. The Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing on disestablishing the ISGBD prior to actually doing so. The Board of Supervisors, by a majority vote (six or more members) may disestablish the ISGBD at any time if it finds there has been misappropriation of funds, malfeasance, or violation of law in connection with the management of the District. The Board of Supervisors by a supermajority vote (eight of more) may disestablish the ISGBD for any reason. All outstanding obligations, finances, leases, or other similar obligations of the City, payable from or secured by assessments levied within ISGBD must be paid prior to disestablishment of the ISGBD.
State law provides for the disestablishment of the ISGBD pursuant to an annual review process. Each year that the ISGBD is in existence, there will be a 30-day period during which district property owners will have the opportunity to request disestablishment of the District. This 30-day period begins each year on the anniversary day that the District was first established by the Board of Supervisors. Within that 30-day period, if a written petition is submitted by owners of real property who pay more than 50 percent (50%) of the assessments levied, the ISGBD may be disestablished. The Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing on disestablishing the ISGBD prior to actually doing so. The Board of Supervisors, by a majority vote (six or more members) may disestablish the ISGBD at any time if it finds there has been misappropriation of funds, malfeasance, or violation of law in connection with the management of the District. The Board of Supervisors by a supermajority vote (eight of more) may disestablish the ISGBD for any reason. All outstanding obligations, finances, leases, or other similar obligations of the City, payable from or secured by assessments levied within ISGBD must be paid prior to disestablishment of the ISGBD.
These provisions are in accordance with ARTICLE 15A_ PUBLIC REALM LANDSCAPING, IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS (_GREEN BENEFIT DISTRICTS_) and Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994. One thing to note is that the percentage to disestablish is lower (50%) than what is needed to establish a GBD (51%+).
Back to Table of Contents
Under Governance, Page 22.
★If a majority of ballots received and tabulated are in favor of District formation, the Formation Committee transitions to become the Owners’ Non-Profit Association Interim Board of Directors. The Interim Board is responsible for filing documents to create a new 501(c)3, procuring insurance, and setting up financial systems in order for the ISGBD to enter into agreement with the City to receive assessment funds.
The Interim Board is also responsible for writing the Bylaws for the ISGBD Board of Directors.
A non-elected group of people will write the bylaws or another way to look at this is that by voting for an ISGBD you are also voting the Formation Committee members to be the Interim Board to write the bylaws. This is important as to how ISGBD board members are placed on the board. The board composition as written further down in the Management Plan has homeowners, commercial businesses, renters, specialists, and maybe two CBD representatives and it is unclear who votes for whom, how it will be conducted, and whether some will even be voted in.
Page 22.
★Size & Composition
For Fiscal Year 1, the Inner Sunset GBD’s Board of Directors will include a minimum of 15 members. The Formation Committee determined following percentage breakdown for the inaugural Board of Directors:
● Approximately 53% property owners
For Fiscal Year 1, the Inner Sunset GBD’s Board of Directors will include a minimum of 15 members. The Formation Committee determined following percentage breakdown for the inaugural Board of Directors:
● Approximately 53% property owners
○ Of which 6 are residential property owners
○ Of which 2 are commercial property owners
● Approximately 33% tenants○ Of which 2 are commercial property owners
○ Of which 3 are residential tenants
○ Of which 2 are commercial tenants
● Approximately 14% program area specialists○ Of which 2 are commercial tenants
○ Program area specialists are people who have demonstrated expertise in the core services and activities provided by the ISGBD, for instance, in social services and outreach, landscaping, public realm enhancements, or neighborhood livability issues.
If a business-based District is successfully formed by cultural institutions in Golden Gate Park, the GBD Board of Directors would expand by two seats, dedicated to these assesses. Thus, the new total for the ISGBD’s Board of Directors would be 17 members.
So 14% of the board are “program area specialists” that are non-elected (?), not accountable, maybe not even live in the inner sunset, and may have a conflict of interest. What democratic grassroots organization allows for this? It’s fine for consulting, but actually, have a vote? It is unclear how they get on the board, but what is clear is that unless they live in the GBD area, they are not taxed. These types of board members are found in non-membership corporate nonprofits.
Another problem is how will a CBD made of park institutions and commercial businesses be satisfied with two board members but separate assessment and financing of a CBD and GBD and yet all board members vote on projects and spending for each district?
It should also be noted that if two CBD members are placed on a board of 15 members the percentage voting power of property owners in a GBD would fall below 50% which violates ARTICLE 15A_ PUBLIC REALM LANDSCAPING, IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS (_GREEN BENEFIT DISTRICTS_).
Under Management of District, page 4.
★
(1) Management by Owners' Nonprofit Corporation. If so provided by the management district plan, the Board of Supervisors may contract with an existing or new owners' nonprofit corporation (California Streets and Highways Code Section 36614.5) to administer or implement services, improvements and activities specified in the management district plan ("Management Contract"). If so, the management district plan shall ensure that on the governing body of the owners' nonprofit corporation:
(i) a majority (over 50%) are district assesses; and,
The proposed GBD and CBD have separate assesses and finances that count against each other if voting on the same board. Another way to put this is Park Institutions are not part of the GBD and along with “program area specialist” are not assesses of a GBD and therefore lower GBD property owner’s percentage on the board.
From Selection Process, Page 23.
★Candidates must submit a bio and statement to the website to a District Stakeholder Advisory Committee, demonstrating understanding of Board responsibilities. Candidates are vetted by the Stakeholder Advisory Committee, consisting of Board members and other District stakeholders.
It is unclear how a District Stakeholder Advisory Committee is formed or what the vetting standards are. It is also possible that if factionalism occurs, a faction can control who is on the board. Considering the bios across the GBD from homeowners to tenants is going to be very diverse and the candidates should represent that diversity, I do not see bios vetting as a good determination of who should be allowed to run. Alternatives are to allow people to file to run and run all people that file and /or require that they get a certain number of verifiable signatures of people that live in the district. Getting signatures would show that they have some possibility of being voted on to the ISGBD board.<
From Selection Process, Page 23.
★District property owners discuss candidates and cast votes for open Board seats at the Annual Property Owners’ Meeting. If a property owner cannot attend, s/he can designate a proxy to cast a vote on his/her behalf.
Even though the board has to include people other than property owners only property owners can cast votes. This means that if tenant representatives, “program area specialists” are put on the board by a vote than only property owners will be able to vote for them.
Back to Table of Contents
★Other Inner Sunset Green Benefit District Issues ISGBD Expansion
In this article: https://sfrichmondreview.com/2017/03/09/green-benefit-district-proposed-for-inner-sunset/
Andrea Jadwin, an Inner Sunset GBD Formation Committee Member said, “There is also the possibility that the benefit district could be extended to the Outer Sunset District. Once completed, it will empower the neighborhood and hopefully, at some point, will include the Outer Sunset as well,” Jadwin said.
This would be quite an extension of the ISGBD from the neighborhood village atmosphere that the Formation Committee espouses in the cover letter of the draft Management Plan. This should be a wake up call to everyone that is outside the current boundaries of the ISGBD that there are intentions to expand the boundaries even far outside the neighborhood.
Liens on Low-Income Individuals
This issue of assessing aditional property taxes on low-income, fixed income property owners is problematic and has not been solved. The below is from Toral Patel e-mail timeline2018_12-8-2017.pdf:"Jonathan is following up with the City Assessor today for more information about liens. More details later.
For now, please note that the Management Plan cannot outline provisions for low-income individuals (deferred assessment as liens or otherwise). This is something that can be operationalized post-formation. If the established GBD chooses to do so, it can create guidelines for accommodating low-income individuals in the district. One common option is establishing a "fund," to which individuals can apply for assessment assistance.
A few caveats: (1) The assessment cannot be presented as optional, so you''ll need to be careful in how you talk about this. (2) You'll need to think about how you'd like to define criteria for who qualifies for this assistance."
Proposed Projects of the Inner Sunset Green Benefit District
The Articles and Ordinances that govern the establishment of a GBD do not require a GBD Formation Committee to be very specific as to the projects that they envision, though it would probably help their cause if they could give specific examples. The ISGBD website of envisioned improvement and projects is vague.
★
● Enhanced sidewalk landscaping & greenery: planting and maintenance of new trees, sidewalk gardens, planters, and landscape improvements.
In November 2016, 79% of San Francisco voters passed Proposition E, which set aside $19 million annually from the city’s general fund for Public Works to maintain the trees and any sidewalk caused by the trees. https://sfpublicworks.org/streettreesf-faq
Friends of the Urban Forest provide trees for free or up to a typical cost of $135.00 https://www.fuf.net/programs-services/greening/free-trees/
The GBD wants $750/tree based on their budget description of planting 200 trees/year for $150,000/year every year for ten years. Prop. W drafted by Supervisor Jane Kim and passed last last year provides $20,000,000/year to DPW for tree care. BUT DPW is promoting GBDs to transfer tax supported services to prviate non-profits, while collecting the Prop. W $20 million and urging individual owners pay added tax assessments.
The city baseline services require the city to water its new trees for three years. Property owners can have new trees watered and planted by themselves or through Friends of the Urban Forest. Friends of the Urban Forest will plant and water a new tree for three years in the Inner Sunset for $135.00 or less and less than what ISGBD is budgeting. Do we need a homeowners association to mandate that property owners put a tree in front of their house?
Sidewalk gardens- The sidewalks are already way too cluttered. There are many places along Irving and 9th where people must walk single file to pass each other because of all the sidewalk “furniture”.
To the Next Red Must Read
● Pedestrian amenities: advocacy for and investment in pedestrian-scale lighting in underlit areas, landscaped medians, wayfinding and directional signs, decorative crosswalks, street furnishings, and/or other tools to enhance pedestrian safety.
Landscape medians- It is unclear where? Lincoln Way? New medians were added and landscaped by DPW on Kirkham, seems to fall under baseline services provided by the city.
Wayfinding and directional signs are not a benefit to homeowners but to tourists. There may be interest by large institutions but they should pay for such signage. Given how most tourists now use phone digital maps to navigate and that this will continue to increase, wayfinding signs would be obsolete now and into the future. They would also be another cost to maintain. But again we have too much street “furniture” in the area where these would likely be placed so putting up wayfinding, street furnishings, and/or other tools would not enhance pedestrian safety, just more things to avoid hitting or tripping over. Decorative crosswalks should be under “art”.
● Public art & murals: provide grants to support temporary or permanent neighborhood art installations, including but not limited to murals, mosaics, and banners.
This can be funded on a per project bases as has been done with the tiled steps.
● Strengthen Connections between Parks, Open Spaces and the Neighborhood: Collaboration with RPD, institutions in Golden Gate Park, and stewardship groups to implement community-driven improvements that enhance neighborhood access to parks and open spaces.
An organization would be helpful but a GBD does not need to be that organization.
Commercial zone clean and safety should fall under a CBD. In 2014 a CBD failed. The Inner Sunset survey done by the Formation Committee shows little to counter support for an assessment district in the commercial zone of the Inner Sunset.
Neighborhood Zone
● Sidewalk steam cleaning: As-needed in residential areas, including along high- pedestrian traffic corridors.
● Sidewalk & gutter sweeping: As-needed in residential areas, including high- pedestrian traffic corridors.
● Graffiti abatement: Address graffiti hotspots and provide on-call response.
Frequency of services to be determined by GBD staff and Board of Directors.
● Outreach services & crime prevention: To deploy on an as-needed or part-time basis, for instance, during major events or holidays. Activities may include monitoring public areas, reporting safety issues, and connecting individuals in need to available City services.
● Sidewalk steam cleaning: As-needed in residential areas, including along high- pedestrian traffic corridors.
● Sidewalk & gutter sweeping: As-needed in residential areas, including high- pedestrian traffic corridors.
● Graffiti abatement: Address graffiti hotspots and provide on-call response.
Frequency of services to be determined by GBD staff and Board of Directors.
● Outreach services & crime prevention: To deploy on an as-needed or part-time basis, for instance, during major events or holidays. Activities may include monitoring public areas, reporting safety issues, and connecting individuals in need to available City services.
Cleaning and Steaming of Sidewalks – Similar issues as graffiti removal and not really a problem in most of the Inner Sunset. I doubt most homeowners think that they need their sidewalks regularly steam cleaned. If this is an issue it is mainly an issue along the commercial corridor and should be handled by a CBD.
Graffiti Removal – Graffiti removal is required by city ordinance to be removed by the property owner. While this could be a service a GBD could provide, it would require paint matching, which complicates who provides the paint and would the GBD just provide someone to paint over it? Also if this problem exists, it is mostly along the Inner Sunset commercial corridor and close to the park. I do not see a GBD doing much more than trying to enforce city code. Is it necessary to have another bureaucracy that property owners pay for to enforce this?
Bike Improvements (listed on the ISGBD website) - The city’s Vision Zero initiative and the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition’s advocacy seems to have this covered very well. I do not see any additional services or improvements that an ISGBD could provide.
Crime Prevention - The above insinuates that a service will be hired during major events or holidays. First, the city provides a crime prevention service called the police. Second this may be just a small part of the Inner Sunset that “needs” this service. Alternatives include coordinating neighborhood watches and home security cameras. This does not require a GBD with its overhead.
Renters/Tenants and GBDs
Renters have zero votes in the petition or final vote in establishing the Green Benefit Districts.There is a good chance that any assessment paid by your landlord will eventually be passed on to their renters.
Furthermore, as the ISGBD engineering report states on page 14:
Each parcel will specially benefit from:
• Cleaner sidewalks, streets and common areas
• Real and perceived public safety improvements
• Greater pedestrian traffic
• Enhanced rental incomes
• Improved business climate
• New business and investment
• Well managed GBD programs and services
• Real and perceived public safety improvements
• Greater pedestrian traffic
• Enhanced rental incomes
• Improved business climate
• New business and investment
• Well managed GBD programs and services
Note that GBDs will "Enhance rental incomes". The ISGBD engineering report has to be submitted along with the Draft Management plan to the city attorney’s office to get a GBD to the petition stage. It has not yet been submitted, as far as I know, The ISGBD engineering report has not been released to the public on the ISGBD website that I know of but you can download the report here: https://innersunsetsf.org/docs/isbgd/engin_plan_draft_27dec17.pdf
As far as renters are concerned, they should have a talk with their landlords about which way the landlord should vote on the ISGBD. This goes for even the big commercial landlords. If enough renters get together and express their feelings, they will probably follow. Also remember, all GBDs have to eventually be approved by the Board of Supervisors who are voted by all the citizens of San Francisco with a 1 equals 1 vote. So eventually, renters can vote Supervisors out if they approve of GBDs.
One of the things about paying on a “per project bases” for projects and services to make the neighborhood better is that renters can also participate along with property owners.
Other promises or supposed things that the ISGBD would tackle:
Homelessness - San Francisco does have good homeless advocacy. The homeless problem is complex, large and ongoing. I doubt an ISGBD can do more than say we have a problem. I feel that having heard some Formation Committee members tout that an ISGBD would take on the homelessness problem in the Inner Sunset. It is a huge over promise.Placing overhead wires below ground – This was done from Arguello to Sixth Ave in the Inner Sunset without a GBD. This would require homeowners in the area to agree to do this. The assessment needed would be in addition to a GBD assessment. It is unclear as to how necessary the role of an ISGBD would be.
Oversight to make sure city services are provided - This makes me wonder why DPW supports the formation of GBDs. Do they require /want oversight? Currently, DPW has a plan for improvements in the Inner Sunset it can be found here: https://sfpublicworks.org/innersunsetimprovements
Some of this improvement will be for pedestrian safety. They seem to be doing a good job implementing their plan at this point in time.
Back to Table of Contents