Sunday, July 10, 2011

SFGate: S.F. board considers building housing for teachers

This from SFGate:

The San Francisco school board is looking to get into the affordable housing business to help teachers and other district employees who might not otherwise be able to afford to live in the city.

For years, the district has sat on a largely vacant lot at 1950 Mission St., a piece of blighted property in the Mission District.

The land is valued at upward of $9 million, and leasing the property to a market-rate

housing developer could yield $300,000 to $500,000 in annual revenue for city schools, district officials said.

But in the late spring at a committee meeting, a majority on the school board balked at a proposal by Superintendent Carlos Garcia to lease the land and use the cash to build a housing fund that would support mortgage down payments or rent payments for teachers and district employees.

Read the full story


  1. Can SFUSD just focus on educating our children? Lease the land and use the extra 500k to keep class size down, hire tutors, lay off 5-6 fewer teachers. We don't need to get involved in providing housing for a few lucky-to-be-selected teachers randomly, probably by seniority, no, we need to help all kids, just spend the money on the children, don't try to fix the world.

  2. I thought you wanted to spend education money on a massive "war on ignorance" media campaign - to drill home for the dunces the values of discipline, sacrifice, and a life- long love of learning.

  3. I don't think you'd have to spend SFUSD money on the media effort. You have a captive audience. I just think teachers and counsellors should work together to emphasize statistics and how to be successful, not the vague, kumbaya mentality most kids get. Do you favor the district spending on housing for a few lucky teachers?

  4. SFUSD was advised by the Civil Grand Jury to divest part of its massive and unnecessary real estate portfolio. There will never again be 93K student in SFUSD, like in days of old. The aging population doesn't have enough child-bearers for that and SF is no mecca for young up and comers. Besides, why live in a shack when you can have a mansion elsewhere and live around sane people to boot?

    Instead of raising revenue to fund education, the "leaders" want to use subsidized real estate as a carrot to attract teachers. That is not the answer to developing a quality teaching staff. A couple dozen residences is a drop in the bucket. It's all politics and back room deal making with the developers - business masquerading as San Francisco's beloved socialism.

  5. I agree with you Don. There's no reason to fight over this. I think they should sell the land to private developers and create foundations with all the money they get, so that going forward our children can benefit from the interest. I'm sick of the crazy people too. Outside my door some guy is just screaming and screaming about I don't even know what, just insane!