good evening, welcome to kqed "newsroom," i'm joshua johnson. the high cost of housing is one of the bay area's biggest problems. where, how and who is going to pay for affordable housing? let's examine the battle over affordable housing in san francisco where rent and home prices are the highest in the nation. the medium rent for a one-bedroom apartment is $3,500. nowhere is the affordable housing debate more heated than in the mission district. historically,itis been home to the latino and working class

residents. long time residents say high rents are changing the character of the mission. frustrated renters and housing activists are demanding the city leaders do something to help those being pushed out or can't afford to stay. last month, san francisco supervisors heard hours of testimony to hold market rate housing while they build more affordable housing. >> i work for san francisco parks. i got evicted. i barely held on to stay in the city because my family was in the mission with my niece and nephew. it's a high proportion of their income. mine is 50%. >> i live in the mission district all my life. i got priced out. i moved, couldn't afford to

rent. but, i love my city. i'm here every day. i work for the city. >> can't afford to live here? how is that fair to me? >> let's keep more people here. they want to be here. they don't want to move to modesto tracy stockton and have to commute to san francisco to work. >> i have been notified of eviction and i have nowhere to go. my kids, i'm an honest hard working person. it pains me greatly this is happening to me and many more people. >> we want to be a city that includes latinos, african-americans includes seniors and includes people with limited income. we do not want to be a city that is just overtaken by the highest bidder. that is what the city is becoming. >> if we want to build the affordable housing that we need,

if we want to be able to preserve the rent controlled housing that we need, we can't stop all of a sudden the moratorium that makes existing units in the mission more expensive and will incentiveize more evictions. >> we have grappled with it for years. itis hard to make sense of the moratorium. in the middle of the housing affordability crisis stop everything and conduct a study. we will call it an action plan. it will tell us what to do. >> people travel from all over the world to come to san francisco because they believe this is a safe haven for them politically, culturally for them to be who they are to be free, to represent what they feel in their heart. we cannot let that die in our city. we cannot let that die in our city. >> the supervisors ultimately voted down the moritorium. this fall, they will consider a

ballot measure with a similar aim. joining me to discuss what can be done are carol galante, the director for housing innovation at uc berkeley. sonia trouss, from the renters association. and scott weaver, one of the authors of the november ballot measure. welcome glad to have you with us. scott why should they vote for the moritorium? >> san francisco's long standing housing policy of build build, build has not accomplished the goals that the various neighborhood plants and the housing element have set forth, which is approximately 64% of the housing should be built for people, 61% of san francisco people who qualify for low or

moderate. that's people with incomes under $85,000 for a single person and $120,000 for a family of four. the housing that is being build is not affordable for them. the city is just totally failed in terms of providing the support of housing. at the city, we reached half the goal of 64%. the pipeline is worse with 16% affordable. >> forcing changes in the pipeline? >> forcing the changes in the pipeline. in the mission it's worse. in the mission, 12% of the housing built in the mission in the last eight years that's been affordable. in the pipeline, ready to be built is 8% and in the pipeline 12%. >> i want to talk about the pipeline. first, sonia, why vote against it? >> san francisco never had a policy of build, build, builds. maybe in the '60s, definitely not since the 2000s.

is average population growth of the united states is 1% a year. that's an average. that includes buffalo, a place that is dying. san francisco, bay area is not dying. we should be growing our residential capacity at at least 1% a year. since 1980, we have averaged half a per cent a year. we haven't even made it to match, like, population growth in the united states, the average population growth. even if we were building at 1% a year, almost 4,000 units a year, that's not enough. itis been more like 2,000 a year. >> let's get back to the arguments. first, carol, i want to bring you in and take a step back in terms of how cities are addressing the problems. a moritorium is an option. what are some of the other options? >> sure well, i would first start by saying, this is not just a mission district problem

or a san francisco problem, it really is a regional problem. it starts with the fact that we have generated, you know close to 500,000 new jobs since the recession and fewer than that on a net basis. we have built, you know a fraction of the housing needed to accommodate just that new job growth, let alone the natural, you know, population growth that you would see. i would start there and say that cities cooperating and looking at this on a larger scale on a regional basis would be one thing that i think would be an important thing to do because the jobs aren't being generated just in san francisco. there's certainly a lot of job generation here, but also silicon valley and other places that, you know, san francisco is

ending uptaking the pressure for the regional challenges. >> you heard the gentleman during the tape we ran talking about people driving from tracy and stockton and all over the place to get to san francisco for work. that just creates all kinds of challenges in terms of not being able to live where you work, which speaks to the point of being a regional issue. >> absolutely. we have ambitious climate goals in this state. we are all in agreement, whether you are for or agreement with the moritorium, people with diverse incomes can work close to their jobs. otherwise they are driving from tracy and under mining the work we are doing by trying to bring the growth into the core urban area. >> is there a regional organization that has the teeth to make that happen? >> i think it's a challenge. there's the association of bay area governments, but they don't

have a lot of teeth. there's some carrots perhaps relative to transportation dollars that get allocated. but, really, we don't have a regional government in the way that you would need nor do we have some of the state frankly, powers that might help some of the situation relative to insuring that communities are fulfilling their fair share of obligations to produce housing. >> i think that speaks to your point, scott, of why the moritorium is necessary. it raises a question brought up in the tape. the gentleman who said this would make the housing problem worse. plenty of people argue this would make rent higher in the mission and push the problem to other neighborhoods of san francisco, if not other cities. >> first of all, it's an 18-month moritorium. it's not permanent.

but, the point is, we are not building enough housing for our teachers and for our policemen and for our day laborers and for our government, people who work for san francisco the city and county can't afford to live here. it's not just build, we are not against building, it's what you build. under the moritorium, if you have 100% affordable, in other words 100% available to a family of four making $120,000, you can build that. what's happening in the mission as i said earlier is it's being crushed with luxury housing. housing that demands rends requiring incomes over $200,000. that has an impact in the rents in the neighborhood and has driven out legacy businesses and you saw by the outpouring of citizens in may and in june,

1,000 and 800 respectively. the people in the mission are concerned about themselves being squeezed out due to luxury development. we are not saying luxury development is the only cause but it is a cause. what we need the moritorium for is to stop the bleeding and stop the negative effects. let me add one thing. >> briefly. >> i understand. we have known for a long time now that when you build luxury housing, it's market rate housing, but in san francisco, of a luxury price, you create a need for affordable housing because of the extra goods and services that the occupants of these units are going to demand. by building more luxury units, and by the way, there are 1300 of them in the pipeline right now, you are creating additional pressures on the demand for housing in san francisco. what we need to do is we need to set it right. we need to figure out strategy

so we can build housing that teachers can live in. >> let me give sonia a chance to respond. >> teachers and police officers don't qualify for affordable housing because they make too much. the place middle income people live is go back in time 20 years and build something 20 years ago and wait. we have a problem now, 20 years ago, 15 years ago, eight years ago five years ago we weren't moving. anyone that lived through the 2008 bubble and recession knows that financing for housing comes in the country in waves. so, part of the strategy is to wait out the crash. i mean we are going to -- it's going to be a two-year thing. the first 18 months, after that, you can extend it six months and hopefully wait out this crash and then there will be another period of not building. >> what you are saying is the

moritorium strategy is basically hoping time will be on our side 18 months from now. >> time on our side is a nihilistic way. we have this incredible crushing need for housing units of any kind. we are basically 30,000 units behind. >> do we need housing units of any kind or affordable? >> affordable housing is existing housing old housing. >> carol? >> i would jump in and say there is the basic law of supply and demand. we have added all these jobs. we have added people. if you add supply in general you will start slowly, to bring down the overall cost of housing you know, in the region. i do think that market rate housing you know, does impact affordability in the short run. and i think that's, you know that's the basic laws of supply and demand. i think that's undeniable.

>> the san francisco chief economist has determined that it will require 100,000 -- >> let's build 100,000 units. >> he says will require 100,000 market rate units to have affordability because of the economics. there are plenty of other alternatives we can look at in terms of funding for affordable housing. we can have higher inclusionary levels for affordable housing. >> i agree that building some of these, we are not going to totally build our way out of this, particularly for the lowest income. the people who are extremely low income they don't make enough money to pay a rent that covers an operating expense on a building right? there needs to be subsidy for the very lowest income. i would also say that not

building though, as a strategy, isn't going to help the problem over the long term. i get that you are looking for a pause, right for a strategy. but, you know over the long haul, we need to keep building not just in san francisco in the rest of the region as well. i keep going back to this. this is not just san francisco or a mission district problem. it really needs to get solved at some level beyond that. >> let me try to dice into part of the moratorium proposal. if a building comes along in the area it covers if it is 100% affordable housing based on the income brackets of the city it would be built? i don't see how any builder would do that. they are leaving money on the table they could be getting if they waited a year and a half and said, okay we will buy our

time and then swoop in. what does it take to make those kind of units to get built? to entice a builder? >> if you are talking creating 100% affordable under the classic definition of affordability you know you are going to need some subsidy soft money, we call it, from the city, from the state, in order to help subsidize the cost of building that so you can have the rents at a level that someone can afford in those affordability categories. the first issue is, is there enough money. >> public money? >> public money to help support those affordable housing developments. i haven't seen, in -- i was doing this kind of building before i was at uc berkeley. i haven't seen a situation where you can build an affordable

housing development unless it's part of a market rate development where you are getting some offset without some public money. >> sonia how do we -- absent this moritorium. suppose it gets voted down. who you do we protect san francisco? the mission district, i drive through there every day. i see clearly what are new residents. they are barely missing one another all the time. there are two communities butting against one another but they don't become one. that drives the heart of the problem about the character of the community changing. absence is moritorium. how do we do it? >> it's true. we have an immigration problem. it's interesting. a lot of anxiety is immigration anxiety. we learned from history it

happened in the '60s. false. we have not even begun. >> it's a very different story. >> i would like to find the people active in desegregation in the 1960s and ask how they did it. i think there were living room meetings. i like that you are bringing it up. i think it's about keeping a certain type of people out, which i'm uncomfortable with. >> i have to interrupt you. in the last 15 years it latino population has been reduced by a third. i don't think luxury housing is going to make that number or that percentage go up. that community is fighting to survive and this is one means we are going to try to stop the bleeding, so that we can, you know, when you are going down the wrong road and we are going down the wrong road here. we are not reaching our destination. we are not reaching the goals that even the city set out for. when you are going down the

wrong road you stop. that's what you do. you stop. you look around and try to figure out what am i going to do so i can go under the right path down the road i want. you don't continue to go down the wrong road. >> we are almost out of time in this segment. in the event this does not succeed, what is the next move? >> you can expect mission residents to appear at every planning commission meeting to oppose at least some of the market rate developments some of the larger ones especially. if they get passed you will see them at the board of supervisors. if they don't overturn the planning commission, we will go to court, we will go to ballot. this is not going to be tolerated anymore. >> what if it does pass, what is your next move? >> um, hmmm -- >> or are you not expecting it? >> we are going to keep doing what we have been doing.

it's not just in the mission that housing needs to be built. we are pushing accessory dwelling units. a great way to add low income units. >> we will keep an eye on this and hopefully invite you back. sonia carol and scott thanks everybody. >> thank you. kate was beautiful kind, happy, caring, loving, deep in faith. kate had a special soul, a kind and giving heart, the most contagious laugh and a smile that would light up a room. >> 32-year-old kate was shot and killed walking with her father along pier 14. the man convicted was deported

from the u.s. on five occasions. her death reignited the debate over so-called sanctuary policies that limit cooperation from federal enforcement efforts. sanchez had been transfered from federal prison to san francisco's jail to face a 20-year-old drug charge. when that drug was charged, the sheriff's depment released him without notifying federal authorities. san francisco sheriff says his department was following city policy. this week her father asked congress to pass a law requiring local governments to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. >> the day she was killed, we were walking arm-in-arm, enjoying a wonderful day together. suddenly a shot rang out. kate fell. she looked at me and said help me, dad. those are the last words i will

ever hear from my daughter. unfortunately, due to disjointed laws and confidence on many levels the u.s. suffer add self-inflicted wound in the murder of our daughter, by the hand of a person that should have never been on the streets of this country. >> earlier this week san francisco supervisor mark farrell brointroduced legislation and joins me now. what would it do? >> we need to make sure public safety is a priority in city hall. it's always been a priority of mine. we need to continue to ensure san francisco residents we will focus on that. not only the board of supervisors, but the city as a whole. a resolution that would reaffirm our support for existing sanctuary city policy. that calls for the sheriff to

take away and rescind a gag order for cooperating or coordinating with federal or state law authorities which led to what happened last weekend. second of all announce a drafting request to put a law in place to make sure before our sheriff's department goes to another jurisdiction to bring a prisoner into the city or county of san francisco they check with the district attorney and confirm the d.a. will prosecute against the warrant to bring them back to our own jurisdiction. it makes zero sense to bring someone that is going to be deported from outside san francisco into our city limits, four days later, have the d.a. dismiss the charges and release that individual on to our streets. to me that is common sense policy. lastly, ask our sheriff's department why, after the charges were dismissed, how was that person held in custody for over two and a half weeks without charges? >> it sounds like you agree with

what jim said in his statement referring to disjointed laws and incompetence. you said that you would be reaffirming san francisco's status as a sanctuary city, but things need to be fixed in the process. >> that is exactly right. the sanctuary city has been a pillar in san francisco for decades. i was passed in 1989 and served our city well. what is baked in there and it was baked in federal law and mandated that our law enforcement officials have the discretion to communicate with federal and state law enforcement when they deem necessary. they went above and beyond that and issued a gag order saying you may not communicate under any circumstances with the authorities. >> what do you make of the federal political debate that emerged from all of that. san francisco got more attention on fox news than they would prefer to have. just this week, the u.s. house

voted to take funding away from sanctuary cities mostly a party line vote. it remains to be seen if it will pass the house. >> a lot of hysteria and the ability for a news channel or presidential candidate to take advantage of the situation, to me they should be ashamed. this is a tragedy that happened. everybody agrees with that. we don't need hysteria or political spectacles. we need a look at our parties in san francisco to make sure they are working and when they are not working to call people out on them. put policies in place. >> what about the internal politics of this. the sheriff asked for clarification from the board of supervisors, that did not happen. he is going to run for re-election. how do we prevent city politics from preventing the way we make the policies to prevent future

cases from the same thing. >> great question. we need to look at the facts and law that is are written and have a discussion of where to go from here. the law as written gives our sheriff's department the discretion when necessary to communicate with federal and state law enforcement personnel. what they did was go above and beyond that and take that discretion away from their own department. from my perspective it violates local and federal law and was against the intent of what it was put in place for. >> for people who don't understand the idea, does san francisco need to be a sanctuary city? what do we get out of calling ourselves that? >> our country and san francisco was founded on immigrants. my parents my mother is an immigrant from another country. my grandparents on my father's side were immigrants to the united states. we need to make sure in the city of san francisco, i believe across the country, over 320

cities across the united states are sanctuary cities. we are not alone. we are not a pioneer. we join most other major u.s. cities in doing this. we need to not unfairly target those on our streets based on immigration. it's not what we are about as a country or city. >> we'll keep an eye on the legislation and find out how it fairs. san francisco supervisor mark farrell, thanks for talking to me. >> thanks for manager me. >> thank you for watching tonight's show. for more coverage, go to kqednews. i'm josh johnson, good night.

are among the most exotic in the world. what do students take away from such a trip? we'll examine what san jose state students learned after trekking to a hidden gem of the middle east... on this edition of equal time. san jose state is encouraging students to study abroad. but why? can't they learn lessons right here on campus? we're going to answer that question by exploring what a group learned as students, when they left the cozy confines of this university for more than two weeks in oman and the united arab emirates. they helped conduct interviews