Stop calling it ‘luxury’

As the former executive director of the San Francisco Housing Action Coalition, I’d like to throw in my two cents’ worth. I object to using the term “luxury housing” as a catchall when describing new housing production. It’s inflammatory and does little to illuminate the debate around our housing affordability crisis.

I suspect little of San Francisco’s paltry current production is actually luxury housing, which generally includes amenities like sweeping views, concierges, fancy fitness rooms, etc. It is also limited to certain neighborhoods. There is no luxury housing being built in the Tenderloin, Sunset, Western Addition, Bayview and many other city neighborhoods.

Unfortunately, for a variety of complex reasons, ALL new multifamily housing in San Francisco is really expensive to build. The culprits are stratospheric costs for scarce skilled labor and building materials, high land costs, expensive and lengthy process and permitting costs, and the very high taxes and fees we put on new marketrate housing to subsidize “affordable housing.” A modest 30-unit building in the Richmond District with smallish unit sizes, no views or amenities, and limited parking generally faces the same obstacles as a 30-story glass and steel tower on the waterfront.

The problem with calling all new housing “luxury” is that most of it simply is not. In public debates, what we call things matters. No matter how it’s approached, solving our housing crisis demands that we dramatically increase housing production in of our neighborhoods. Using false arguments to oppose this should not be accepted. Besides, it’s perverse that folks who live in neighborhoods where homes run for $1.5 million (San Francisco’s median sale price) or more should be taken seriously when they oppose new housing on the grounds that it is too expensive.

Tim Colen, San Francisco