The Apothecarium’s June 8 hearing before the SF Planning Commission has been
postponed to July 13 by the SF Planning Department.
Although we are disappointed by the delay, we are eager to make our case before the SF
Planning Commission for our application to open a medical cannabis dispensary at
2505 Noriega St.
The dispensary will be co-owned by former Oakland Mayor
Jean Quan and her husband, Floyd Huen, M.D. Our vision is for a bicultural, bilingual
(Cantonese) dispensary where staff are trained to work in tandem with traditional
Chinese medicine. If all goes well, the dispensary will open in 2018.
Eliot Dobris, Head of Community Outreach, The Apothecarium
Thanks for your mention of the Inner Sunset Green Benefit District (GBD) project in the
Spotlight section of your May 2017 issue. I’m a longtime resident of the Inner Sunset
involved in the GBD project and I’d like to provide additional details and clarification.
The Inner Sunset Green Benefit District project is a grassroots effort led by a group of
Inner Sunset residents and merchants, who envision a cleaner, greener, safer
neighborhood using the structure of a “benefit district” to do so.
While we thought it prudent to seek the advice of groups like Build Public
and the SF Department of Public Works, which successfully helped Dogpatch and
northwest Potrero Hill to form their GBD, they are not “spearheading” the project, as was
stated in your article.
The GBD will only happen if a majority of Inner Sunset property owners, both residential
and commercial, feel the project is important and agree to pay a property assessment.
We are currently testing the idea of a GBD by asking Inner Sunset residents to take an
online survey, which asks people to weigh in on possible neighborhood
improvement projects. The survey also tests acceptance of both the concept and possible
No algorithm has been decided upon for the assessment amount, but the survey
tests a range of possibilities from $150 to $500 per year for residential property owners.
Our goal, from the beginning, has been to be able to make simple improvements to our
neighborhood with a nominal fee that people are willing to make, but is
We have been able to reach out to many neighbors via two well-attended large public
meetings and many small house parties, as well as tabling at the
Inner Sunset Farmers’ Market, Inner Sunset Sundays Flea Market and
There will be additional public meetings in June and we enthusiastically welcome
neighbors who want to get involved!
Thank you for covering this important project. People can learn more about the GBD, as
well as upcoming events and survey results, at http://www.innersunsetgbd.org.
Al Manville, Inner Sunset Resident
Columnist John M. Lee puts forth the not so subtle argument that 1970 San Francisco
Rent Control provisions have had the unintended consequences of escalating
rents, increasing home prices, as well as the inability of landowners to do
This is not really true. It has been 47 years since 1970, there have been upturns and
downturns in the city’s economy and rental/property market during that time.
To say rent control explains the reason for the massive uptick in rent and real estate
prices since 1995 or 2009 is cherry picking a time frame and ignoring the external
economic factors responsible for these increases.
When increasing employment by Silicon Valley is not met by increases in high-density
housing, then the demand for whatever housing stock is available is going to increase.
Tenants paying rent do not influence this reality at all, so when Lee mentions
having to make hard choices based upon a false issue of unintended consequences,
what exactly does he mean?
Landowners can and do pass on property improvement costs. The expenses have to the
go through the Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitrations Board, but these costs are
not prohibitive (or inhibitive) and to say landowners are refusing to re-invest because of
rent control is ridiculous. Look at every single city in the United States with a population
without rent control. Owners also do not re-invest or upgrade their property.
The main reason housing and pricing in the Bay Area is the highest in the U.S.A. is
because of the limited supply of land. We are not like Kansas City, Denver,
Houston, Chicago or St Louis surrounded by flat plains. The Bay Area also does not
have a lot of high-density residential complexes, such as Manhattan, so when there is an
influx of people prices are going to go up, regardless of rent control.
First and foremost, rent control is about what kind of community you want to create in
the city. Do you want a lot of transient young professions, who make their mark and then
move elsewhere? What about the artists, writers, teachers, sub-median wage workers
and musicians? Where will they live when they are priced out and have to move
somewhere and then commute one or two hours a day?
Measured growth is already happening. Look at the apartment condo
development on Market and Buchanan streets, or over by 16th and Owens streets in the
Mission Bay. Rent control did not appear to inhibit these developments.
So, why bring up this “unintended consequences” argument when it is a false argument?
Fact is, Lee belongs to The SF Round Table, a networking group consisting of top Realtors
in the City. So, his viewpoints should be seen in that context. With all due respect,
Lee should disclose these matters when his opinion is printed in the Richmond Review and the Sunset Beacon.
Some 460,000 residents will get degraded tap water. The SF Public Utilities Commission’s
(SFPUC) Steve Ritchie presented the plan to add minimally treated ground water (well
water) in increasing amounts to our treated Hetch Hetchy water. The SFPUC says the City
needs an emergency “alternative water” source.
Residents attending a May 24 SF Board of Supervisors’ Public Safety and Neighborhood
Services Committee meeting opposed the plan due to effects on children, people with
sensitive health conditions and higher levels of contaminants, such as nitrates
and chromium-6, etc.
The board postponed its decision, but the chair can decide when to hold a meeting,
possibly on June 7. There’s a petition against using well water that’s circulating:
Also contact the supervisors (www.sfbos.org website) to voice your position and to call
for another hearing.
I live on Lake Street, between 26th and 27th avenues. In April I noticed that my tap water
didn’t taste right, even after being filtered by a Brita unit with a new
filter. I’m now drinking bottled water. It seems that the new program
is not working well.
John de Forest