A short history of the effort(s) so far (also see past campaigns)
October 2022. With the preliminary Berkeley Center for Law, Energy & the Environment (CLEE) report already circulating, we talked with Supervisor Mar's office about pushing for the recommendations in the report, which included several bond proposals for the near term, i.e., the next 1 to 3 years.
November 2022. CLEE report is released. One of its near-term bond proposals is to increase the size of an existing affordable housing GO bond (now scheduled for the March 2024 ballot), adding $50M to $100M for existing affordable housing retrofits and electrification.
December 2022. Board of Supervisors votes unanimously to recommend that the Capital Planning Committee place some form of climate bond into the queue.
March 2023. During Supervisor Mandelman's scheduled hearing on the CLEE report at Budget & Appropriations, it becomes clear that no one (none of the Supervisors) has acted to follow up on their December vote. it seemed to be just a feel-good appeasement vote. The Office of Resilience & Capital Planning indicates that there is no room in the bond schedule. They offer no suggestions, only barriers - and they seem unclear on the difference between resilience in the face of climate disasters and mitigation of the emissions causing such disasters.
April 19, 2023. Budget & Appropriations had been scheduled to vote on the bond schedule, which includes no climate bonds per se. Supervisors comment that all bonds should be "climate bonds." Advocates strongly react, wanting an actual climate bond. Supervisor Ronen suggests that every bond should be content-labeled to indicate how much reduction or increase in GHG emissions it would produce. Board President Peskin wants the Affordable Housing Bond to switch places with the Public Health Bond: the former in March, the latter now in November.
April 26, 2023. President Peskin finds another $140M to add to the Affordable Housing Bond, previous protestations of "no available capacity in the bond schedule" to the contrary. Advocates want the $140M dedicated to improving existing housing, per the Clee report recommendation and its subsequent endorsement by the Supervisors.
May 3, 2023. Budget & Appropriations approves the March 2024 Affordable Housing Bond with the $140M added, and with a murky promise to utilize some bond money for existing affordable housing.
August 2023. We learn a few things about strategy...stay tuned!
October 2023. We expressed our profound disappointment that not even the smallest actual, required commitment to reduce SF’s greenhouse gas emissions has been included in this bond proposal. The Supervisors say they want to reduce emissions and we believe them. And yet, as written, this measure fails to meet that goal. Because it has no teeth, no real obligations, just general recommendations. Phrases like “strongly encouraged to work collaboratively,” "It is in the best interest of the City,” and the oft-repeated “to the extent feasible” are all, in effect, gaping loopholes. The entities strongly encouraged to work with “local climate advocates” like us - MOHCD, recipients of bond funding, project developers - are under no obligation to do so at all, let alone to commit to electrifying any units that would be rehabbed with bond funds. It's sort of a mini-win that climate issues are mentioned at all - but the proverbial can, sadly, looks like it's again being kicked down the road. That poor can. Our City’s poor potential as a climate leader.
2024. Onward to the Regional Housing Bond, scheduled for the November ballot.
November 2022. CLEE report is released. One of its near-term bond proposals is to increase the size of an existing affordable housing GO bond (now scheduled for the March 2024 ballot), adding $50M to $100M for existing affordable housing retrofits and electrification.
December 2022. Board of Supervisors votes unanimously to recommend that the Capital Planning Committee place some form of climate bond into the queue.
March 2023. During Supervisor Mandelman's scheduled hearing on the CLEE report at Budget & Appropriations, it becomes clear that no one (none of the Supervisors) has acted to follow up on their December vote. it seemed to be just a feel-good appeasement vote. The Office of Resilience & Capital Planning indicates that there is no room in the bond schedule. They offer no suggestions, only barriers - and they seem unclear on the difference between resilience in the face of climate disasters and mitigation of the emissions causing such disasters.
April 19, 2023. Budget & Appropriations had been scheduled to vote on the bond schedule, which includes no climate bonds per se. Supervisors comment that all bonds should be "climate bonds." Advocates strongly react, wanting an actual climate bond. Supervisor Ronen suggests that every bond should be content-labeled to indicate how much reduction or increase in GHG emissions it would produce. Board President Peskin wants the Affordable Housing Bond to switch places with the Public Health Bond: the former in March, the latter now in November.
April 26, 2023. President Peskin finds another $140M to add to the Affordable Housing Bond, previous protestations of "no available capacity in the bond schedule" to the contrary. Advocates want the $140M dedicated to improving existing housing, per the Clee report recommendation and its subsequent endorsement by the Supervisors.
May 3, 2023. Budget & Appropriations approves the March 2024 Affordable Housing Bond with the $140M added, and with a murky promise to utilize some bond money for existing affordable housing.
August 2023. We learn a few things about strategy...stay tuned!
October 2023. We expressed our profound disappointment that not even the smallest actual, required commitment to reduce SF’s greenhouse gas emissions has been included in this bond proposal. The Supervisors say they want to reduce emissions and we believe them. And yet, as written, this measure fails to meet that goal. Because it has no teeth, no real obligations, just general recommendations. Phrases like “strongly encouraged to work collaboratively,” "It is in the best interest of the City,” and the oft-repeated “to the extent feasible” are all, in effect, gaping loopholes. The entities strongly encouraged to work with “local climate advocates” like us - MOHCD, recipients of bond funding, project developers - are under no obligation to do so at all, let alone to commit to electrifying any units that would be rehabbed with bond funds. It's sort of a mini-win that climate issues are mentioned at all - but the proverbial can, sadly, looks like it's again being kicked down the road. That poor can. Our City’s poor potential as a climate leader.
2024. Onward to the Regional Housing Bond, scheduled for the November ballot.