The wrong housing solutions

San Francisco’s housing problems — and the wars over solving them — are spilling over to the ballot again. This fall’s election features two measures that change the rules on building and occupying subsidized units in a crowded, expensive city.

Proposition P is backed by the local Board of Realtors, who believe city rules on selecting affordable-housing builders should include competitive bidding to get the best deal. The second measure, Prop. U, raises the income limits for winning a below-market rental to draw in more middle-income applicants. It’s also backed by the real estate group.

Both are served up as good-government ideas designed to prod city officials to improve housing. But these claims are skimpy and do nothing about the central problem: a lack of housing across the board.

The political subtext is just as troubling. Recent city ballots have featured progressive fixes, including a flat ban on market-rate housing in the Mission district, which thankfully lost, and a plan to boost affordable units from 12 to 25 percent in new projects, which unfortunately passed. Both plans were opposed by the real estate world.

Whether it’s payback or an effort to win credibility, real estate forces are advancing their ideas in these two measures. Realtors bankrolled the signature gathering to put the propositions on the ballot.

Prop. P obliges the city to seek three bids when offering city land to affordable housing builders. But City Hall already beats the bushes for multiple contenders. By one count, the last 10 projects had at least two bidders. Locking in a three-bid minimum could kill projects which don’t attract that threshold number of entrants. The measure has the potential to stop promising deals, the last thing San Francisco needs.

Prop. U plays on another aspect of the housing crisis. In awarding subsidized units to the crowds lining up for rentals, there are two categories: Some units are set aside for a family of four with an income of up to $59,250 and other units are set aside for families with incomes of up to $107,700. This measure changes the process to just one category of $118,450.

Backers say this would help middle-income families compete in a market that’s skewed toward rewarding lowest-income applicants. Housing costs are invariably cited as a reason families flee the city, and there’s appeal in offering housing breaks to a wider range of renters.

But the proposed shift will only worsen tensions because a larger pool of housing hunters will be competing for a very limited supply. Prop. U adds to the backlog of would-be renters, but does nothing about the underlying need for more units.

The guidelines for competitive bidding and income qualifications are better left to a process of legislative hearings, study and political compromise that balances the competing goals and concerns. These are not issues to be settled at the ballot box.

San Francisco voters should reject Props. P and U.