Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition - Revision history

Ccarlsson at 01:03, 11 April 2026

2026-04-11T01:03:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:03, 10 April 2026
Line 19:		Line 19:

	MAC also reflected the shift taking place within several of the neighborhood’s nonprofits away from a service-delivery model in favor of community-based organizing. The limits of the direct-service model were becoming increasingly clear as the NASDAQ boom took off. Increased numbers of lower-income, often immigrant, Mission District residents were facing eviction threats as speculative capital flooded the neighborhood. Real estate speculation, often taking the form of housing purchases followed by eviction to convert units into private condominiums, had become more common. Rents were skyrocketing, and the housing stock of the Mission was coming under intensifying pressure from a younger, primarily white, group of newly arriving urban immigrants drawn by the dot-com boom. Activists understood that contesting gentrification would require building and sustaining a legitimate base of popular neighborhood opposition.		MAC also reflected the shift taking place within several of the neighborhood’s nonprofits away from a service-delivery model in favor of community-based organizing. The limits of the direct-service model were becoming increasingly clear as the NASDAQ boom took off. Increased numbers of lower-income, often immigrant, Mission District residents were facing eviction threats as speculative capital flooded the neighborhood. Real estate speculation, often taking the form of housing purchases followed by eviction to convert units into private condominiums, had become more common. Rents were skyrocketing, and the housing stock of the Mission was coming under intensifying pressure from a younger, primarily white, group of newly arriving urban immigrants drawn by the dot-com boom. Activists understood that contesting gentrification would require building and sustaining a legitimate base of popular neighborhood opposition.

			[[Image:SF-Monopoly-board-c-2000 20260125 225009542.jpg\|800px]]

			'''A Monopoly game for San Francisco c. 2000.'''

			''Image courtesy Mission Graphica''

	Parallel organizing efforts were transpiring among artists and a cluster of predominantly white activists, many of the latter having no particular organizational affiliation. Community forums held at the local performing and visual arts venue Cellspace in 1999 were attended by upwards of one hundred people. Early anti-gentrification forums were put on by the Center for Political Education that drew participation from a range of diverse neighborhood constituencies. While these forums were important in starting a dialogue, they had not as yet yielded any clear organizing strategy or coherent conception about how to unify a widely disparate set of social actors and thereby transform neighborhood anger into effective resistance.		Parallel organizing efforts were transpiring among artists and a cluster of predominantly white activists, many of the latter having no particular organizational affiliation. Community forums held at the local performing and visual arts venue Cellspace in 1999 were attended by upwards of one hundred people. Early anti-gentrification forums were put on by the Center for Political Education that drew participation from a range of diverse neighborhood constituencies. While these forums were important in starting a dialogue, they had not as yet yielded any clear organizing strategy or coherent conception about how to unify a widely disparate set of social actors and thereby transform neighborhood anger into effective resistance.

Ccarlsson at 03:38, 30 November 2021

2021-11-30T03:38:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:38, 29 November 2021
Line 94:		Line 94:
	[[A Decade of Displacement\|Prev. Document]] [[Rezoning the Eastern Neighborhoods in Early 2000s\|Next Document]]		[[A Decade of Displacement\|Prev. Document]] [[Rezoning the Eastern Neighborhoods in Early 2000s\|Next Document]]

	[[category:Dissent]] [[category:Mission]] [[category:1990s]] [[category:2000s]] [[category:gentrification]] [[category:housing]] [[category:SOMA]] [[category:Public Art]] [[category:Bay Area Social Movements]] [[category:Technology]] [[category:~~Local Protest, Global Movements~~]]		[[category:Dissent]] [[category:Mission]] [[category:1990s]] [[category:2000s]] [[category:gentrification]] [[category:housing]] [[category:SOMA]] [[category:Public Art]] [[category:Bay Area Social Movements]] [[category:Technology]][[category:Book Excerpts]]

Ccarlsson at 00:22, 25 November 2021

2021-11-25T00:22:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:22, 24 November 2021
Line 94:		Line 94:
	[[A Decade of Displacement\|Prev. Document]] [[Rezoning the Eastern Neighborhoods in Early 2000s\|Next Document]]		[[A Decade of Displacement\|Prev. Document]] [[Rezoning the Eastern Neighborhoods in Early 2000s\|Next Document]]

	[[category:Dissent]] [[category:Mission]] [[category:1990s]] [[category:2000s]] [[category:gentrification]] [[category:housing]] [[category:SOMA]] [[category:Public Art]] [[category:Bay Area Social Movements]] [[category:Technology]] [[category:Local ~~Protests~~, Global Movements]]		[[category:Dissent]] [[category:Mission]] [[category:1990s]] [[category:2000s]] [[category:gentrification]] [[category:housing]] [[category:SOMA]] [[category:Public Art]] [[category:Bay Area Social Movements]] [[category:Technology]] [[category:Local Protest, Global Movements]]

Ccarlsson at 00:22, 25 November 2021

2021-11-25T00:22:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:22, 24 November 2021
Line 94:		Line 94:
	[[A Decade of Displacement\|Prev. Document]] [[Rezoning the Eastern Neighborhoods in Early 2000s\|Next Document]]		[[A Decade of Displacement\|Prev. Document]] [[Rezoning the Eastern Neighborhoods in Early 2000s\|Next Document]]

	[[category:Dissent]] [[category:Mission]] [[category:1990s]] [[category:2000s]] [[category:gentrification]] [[category:housing]] [[category:SOMA]] [[category:Public Art]] [[category:Bay Area Social Movements]] [[category:Technology]]		[[category:Dissent]] [[category:Mission]] [[category:1990s]] [[category:2000s]] [[category:gentrification]] [[category:housing]] [[category:SOMA]] [[category:Public Art]] [[category:Bay Area Social Movements]] [[category:Technology]] [[category:Local Protests, Global Movements]]

Ccarlsson: added to new category Technology

2020-11-01T22:39:44Z

added to new category Technology

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:39, 1 November 2020
Line 94:		Line 94:
	[[A Decade of Displacement\|Prev. Document]] [[Rezoning the Eastern Neighborhoods in Early 2000s\|Next Document]]		[[A Decade of Displacement\|Prev. Document]] [[Rezoning the Eastern Neighborhoods in Early 2000s\|Next Document]]

	[[category:Dissent]] [[category:Mission]] [[category:1990s]] [[category:2000s]] [[category:gentrification]] [[category:housing]] [[category:SOMA]] [[category:Public Art]] [[category:Bay Area Social Movements]]		[[category:Dissent]] [[category:Mission]] [[category:1990s]] [[category:2000s]] [[category:gentrification]] [[category:housing]] [[category:SOMA]] [[category:Public Art]] [[category:Bay Area Social Movements]] [[category:Technology]]

Ccarlsson: added photos

2019-10-07T16:55:20Z

added photos

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:55, 7 October 2019
Line 23:		Line 23:

	Two specific events were crucial catalysts in the formation of MAC and would inform the subsequent tactics of the organization. The first was a seemingly minor conflict, which occurred in 1999 over a neighborhood flower shop, that provided an important lesson to an emerging generation of younger activists about the regulatory powers vested in local government over land use. Carmen Ramirez, a first-generation immigrant, began receiving complaints from several neighbors about the location of her flower shop on a sidewalk in front of an abandoned lot at Twenty-Third and Shotwell Streets. Ramirez went to the Mission Economic Development Association (MEDA) seeking assistance. News of the dispute reached activists in PODER, who were engaged in organizing campaigns among low-income immigrants and community organizers at Mission Housing. Members of MEDA and Mission Housing jointly went to the Planning Department to begin to investigate the zoning issues raised by the home owners. Ramirez was ultimately able to retain the site; what was significant about this skirmish, beyond the immediate victory, was that it began to reveal to neighborhood organizers the importance of zoning and local government’s land use powers as a potential terrain of engagement in seeking to determine the course of neighborhood redevelopment (Quezada 2002).		Two specific events were crucial catalysts in the formation of MAC and would inform the subsequent tactics of the organization. The first was a seemingly minor conflict, which occurred in 1999 over a neighborhood flower shop, that provided an important lesson to an emerging generation of younger activists about the regulatory powers vested in local government over land use. Carmen Ramirez, a first-generation immigrant, began receiving complaints from several neighbors about the location of her flower shop on a sidewalk in front of an abandoned lot at Twenty-Third and Shotwell Streets. Ramirez went to the Mission Economic Development Association (MEDA) seeking assistance. News of the dispute reached activists in PODER, who were engaged in organizing campaigns among low-income immigrants and community organizers at Mission Housing. Members of MEDA and Mission Housing jointly went to the Planning Department to begin to investigate the zoning issues raised by the home owners. Ramirez was ultimately able to retain the site; what was significant about this skirmish, beyond the immediate victory, was that it began to reveal to neighborhood organizers the importance of zoning and local government’s land use powers as a potential terrain of engagement in seeking to determine the course of neighborhood redevelopment (Quezada 2002).

			[[Image:Bill-Sorro-and-Betty-Traynor-on-City-Hall-steps-during-1999-Grant-Bldg-protest-with-MAC-sign.jpg]]

			'''Bill Sorro and Betty Traynor on City Hall steps during Grant Building protest, 1999.'''

			''Photo: Chris Carlsson''

	The second event was a public split within the ranks of the Mission’s old guard nonprofit sector that had originally been consolidated under the Model Cities program between 1968 and 1973. The immediate context of this split was the sale of the Armory building, a large multistory structure, to property developers who proposed converting the site into a digital incubator and startup server farm. In February 2000, several nonprofits—Mission Neighborhood Centers, MEDA, Mission Hiring Hall, and Arriba Juntos—with roots in the [[MCO and Latino Community Formation\|Mission Coalition Organization]], which was formed in 1968, convened a meeting of the Mission Planning Coalition to discuss the projected impact of the [[Armory\|Armory]] on the Mission. Representatives from Mission Housing, St. Peter’s, PODER, and Mission Agenda were also present. When discussion turned to developers’ attempts to garner support for the proposed redevelopment through promises of monetary donations and jobs to local nonprofits, Sam Ruiz, director of Mission Neighborhood Centers, stood up and publicly accused David Bracker, director of Arriba Juntos, of “selling out the community” over deals cut with SKS Investment in return for support for a large office complex then being proposed at a site on Twentieth and Bryant Streets (Quezada 2002). The confrontation revealed a split in the older generation of established community organizations. This fissure undermined any presumption of consensus behind the pursuit of patronage strategies that sought to extract minor concessions from developers. Most important, the denouncement by Ruiz, a longtime member of the old guard, conferred legitimacy to organizations seeking to adopt a more confrontational posture in response to developers. Ruiz’s statement thus made it easier to discredit those like Bracker, who were advocating for a more conciliatory, and corporatist, approach, and allowed younger organizers to credibly claim to represent the interests of the neighborhood’s Latino constituencies in future negotiations with the local land use bureaucracy.		The second event was a public split within the ranks of the Mission’s old guard nonprofit sector that had originally been consolidated under the Model Cities program between 1968 and 1973. The immediate context of this split was the sale of the Armory building, a large multistory structure, to property developers who proposed converting the site into a digital incubator and startup server farm. In February 2000, several nonprofits—Mission Neighborhood Centers, MEDA, Mission Hiring Hall, and Arriba Juntos—with roots in the [[MCO and Latino Community Formation\|Mission Coalition Organization]], which was formed in 1968, convened a meeting of the Mission Planning Coalition to discuss the projected impact of the [[Armory\|Armory]] on the Mission. Representatives from Mission Housing, St. Peter’s, PODER, and Mission Agenda were also present. When discussion turned to developers’ attempts to garner support for the proposed redevelopment through promises of monetary donations and jobs to local nonprofits, Sam Ruiz, director of Mission Neighborhood Centers, stood up and publicly accused David Bracker, director of Arriba Juntos, of “selling out the community” over deals cut with SKS Investment in return for support for a large office complex then being proposed at a site on Twentieth and Bryant Streets (Quezada 2002). The confrontation revealed a split in the older generation of established community organizations. This fissure undermined any presumption of consensus behind the pursuit of patronage strategies that sought to extract minor concessions from developers. Most important, the denouncement by Ruiz, a longtime member of the old guard, conferred legitimacy to organizations seeking to adopt a more confrontational posture in response to developers. Ruiz’s statement thus made it easier to discredit those like Bracker, who were advocating for a more conciliatory, and corporatist, approach, and allowed younger organizers to credibly claim to represent the interests of the neighborhood’s Latino constituencies in future negotiations with the local land use bureaucracy.
Line 31:		Line 37:

	The set of events that triggered an upsurge in neighborhood mobilization and projected MAC into the citywide political debate involved the Planning Commission’s approval of an office conversion project at Twentieth and Bryant Streets. The site had been purchased in 1999 by SKS Investment and slated for conversion into a 159,000-square-foot office complex. SKS displaced nearly sixty small businesses, nonprofits, and artists from the building, including a sweater factory, a furniture factory, a sex toy factory, a custom garment maker, a nonprofit publisher, four dozen photographers, graphic artists, sound designers, and filmmakers, including the award-winning Latina filmmaker Lourdes Partillo. Anger over the mass eviction was widespread. A Planning Commission hearing on the project was convened on May 4 at which twenty-seven activists testified against the proposed development by pointing to a host of negative “externalities” that would result if the Planning Commission approved the plan (Feldman 2000a). It was estimated that the project would generate approximately 510 new jobs but without adequate provisions made to absorb an estimated demand of 172 additional units for prospective employees seeking to reside in San Francisco. Activists cited a Planning Department Environmental Impact Report (see San Francisco Planning Department 1999a) that estimated 68 percent of those employed at the site would drive to work, in contrast to a then-citywide average of 28 percent of San Francisco residents commuting by car within the city limits. This would lead to increased traffic flow and negatively affect an already worsening parking situation in the neighborhood (San Francisco Planning Department 2000; for an analysis of options regarding land use, see San Francisco Planning Department 1999b).		The set of events that triggered an upsurge in neighborhood mobilization and projected MAC into the citywide political debate involved the Planning Commission’s approval of an office conversion project at Twentieth and Bryant Streets. The site had been purchased in 1999 by SKS Investment and slated for conversion into a 159,000-square-foot office complex. SKS displaced nearly sixty small businesses, nonprofits, and artists from the building, including a sweater factory, a furniture factory, a sex toy factory, a custom garment maker, a nonprofit publisher, four dozen photographers, graphic artists, sound designers, and filmmakers, including the award-winning Latina filmmaker Lourdes Partillo. Anger over the mass eviction was widespread. A Planning Commission hearing on the project was convened on May 4 at which twenty-seven activists testified against the proposed development by pointing to a host of negative “externalities” that would result if the Planning Commission approved the plan (Feldman 2000a). It was estimated that the project would generate approximately 510 new jobs but without adequate provisions made to absorb an estimated demand of 172 additional units for prospective employees seeking to reside in San Francisco. Activists cited a Planning Department Environmental Impact Report (see San Francisco Planning Department 1999a) that estimated 68 percent of those employed at the site would drive to work, in contrast to a then-citywide average of 28 percent of San Francisco residents commuting by car within the city limits. This would lead to increased traffic flow and negatively affect an already worsening parking situation in the neighborhood (San Francisco Planning Department 2000; for an analysis of options regarding land use, see San Francisco Planning Department 1999b).

			[[Image:No-hollow-city 1999.jpg]]

			'''Graffiti reflecting the emptying out of the city during the dotcom boom of 1999-2000.'''

			''Photo: Chris Carlsson''

	The Planning Commission ignored neighborhood concerns and approved the Twentieth and Bryant project. Opponents immediately filed an appeal of the Planning Commission decision that deferred final project approval to the Board of Supervisors. The board initially indicated that public hearings on the issue would take place in July or August. Backstage lobbying efforts by SKS succeeded in moving the hearing to June 26, with public notice being sent out only three days prior to the rescheduled date (CELL 2000). Outraged, MAC activists organized a protest at the June 26 hearing and asked for a two-week continuation in order to work out a compromise. The motion failed, and the eight board members, closely aligned with Mayor Brown, voted to approve the project (Newinski 2000).		The Planning Commission ignored neighborhood concerns and approved the Twentieth and Bryant project. Opponents immediately filed an appeal of the Planning Commission decision that deferred final project approval to the Board of Supervisors. The board initially indicated that public hearings on the issue would take place in July or August. Backstage lobbying efforts by SKS succeeded in moving the hearing to June 26, with public notice being sent out only three days prior to the rescheduled date (CELL 2000). Outraged, MAC activists organized a protest at the June 26 hearing and asked for a two-week continuation in order to work out a compromise. The motion failed, and the eight board members, closely aligned with Mayor Brown, voted to approve the project (Newinski 2000).

Ccarlsson: added photo

2019-04-09T03:21:08Z

added photo

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:21, 8 April 2019
Line 63:		Line 63:

	'''This mural ironically juxtaposing a fallen Statue of Liberty and its promise to the reality of mass homelessness was painted in the early 1990s by Joanna Poethig in the South of Market neighborhood.'''		'''This mural ironically juxtaposing a fallen Statue of Liberty and its promise to the reality of mass homelessness was painted in the early 1990s by Joanna Poethig in the South of Market neighborhood.'''

			''Photo: Chris Carlsson''

			[[Image:Homeless-mural-SOMA-Poethig 20150301 122844.jpg]]

			'''Same mural in 2015, restored.'''

	''Photo: Chris Carlsson''		''Photo: Chris Carlsson''

Ccarlsson at 00:49, 12 July 2018

2018-07-12T00:49:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:49, 11 July 2018
Line 72:		Line 72:
	<hr>		<hr>

	[[Image:Karl-book-2258 reg.gif\|left]] ''Excerpts from pages 88-75 and pages 85-91 from [http://www.temple.edu/tempress/titles/2258_reg.html '''Local Protest, Global Movements: Capital, Community, and State In San Francisco'''] by Karl Beitel. Used by permission of Temple University Press. © 2013 by Temple University. All Rights Reserved.''		[[Image:Karl-book-2258 reg.gif\|left]] ''Excerpts from pages 68-75 and pages 85-91 from [http://www.temple.edu/tempress/titles/2258_reg.html '''Local Protest, Global Movements: Capital, Community, and State In San Francisco'''] by Karl Beitel. Used by permission of Temple University Press. © 2013 by Temple University. All Rights Reserved.''

	[[A Decade of Displacement\|Prev. Document]] [[Rezoning the Eastern Neighborhoods in Early 2000s\|Next Document]]		[[A Decade of Displacement\|Prev. Document]] [[Rezoning the Eastern Neighborhoods in Early 2000s\|Next Document]]

	[[category:Dissent]] [[category:Mission]] [[category:1990s]] [[category:2000s]] [[category:gentrification]] [[category:housing]] [[category:SOMA]] [[category:Public Art]] [[category:Bay Area Social Movements]]		[[category:Dissent]] [[category:Mission]] [[category:1990s]] [[category:2000s]] [[category:gentrification]] [[category:housing]] [[category:SOMA]] [[category:Public Art]] [[category:Bay Area Social Movements]]

Lisaruth: Protected "Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition" ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))

2015-03-30T04:24:32Z

Protected "Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition" ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))

← Older revision	Revision as of 21:24, 29 March 2015
(No difference)

Lisaruth: added abstract

2015-03-30T04:03:26Z

added abstract

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:03, 29 March 2015
Line 7:		Line 7:
	''Poster: San Francisco Print Collective, Photo: Chris Carlsson''		''Poster: San Francisco Print Collective, Photo: Chris Carlsson''

	[[Image:Addressing-injustice.png\|left]] The Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition (MAC) would emerge as the city’s most vocal and militant opponent of [[Dot.com Meltdown Real Estate Frenzy Subsides at end of 2000\|displacements]] brought about by the digital office conversion boom and, by the summer of 2000, was the principal protagonist leading a groundswell of neighborhood opposition to the digital makeover of the Mission. The origins of MAC can be traced back to a series of regular Monday lunch meetings in the spring of 1999 among Mission Housing, St. Peter’s, Mission Agenda, and People Organized to Demand Environmental and Employment Rights (PODER) to discuss how to respond to gentrification pressures (Feldman 2000a). Feelings of distrust had developed among these organizations over Mission Housing’s involvement with the HOPE VI renovation of Valencia Gardens, a large public housing project in the northern section of the Mission. Mission Agenda and the Eviction Defense Network, in particular, harbored suspicions that Mission Housing, in sponsoring aspects of the HOPE VI renovation, was acting as an agent for carrying out HUD policy, which was serving to expel large numbers of households from one of the city’s last remaining stocks of low-income housing. Accordingly, a goal of these meetings was to rebuild a sense of trust and begin identifying strategies that would forge a broader base of community opposition to gentrification.		[[Image:Addressing-injustice.png\|left]]


			{\| style="color: black; background-color: #F5DA81;"
			\| colspan="2" \| '''The Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition (MAC) formed in order to fight neighborhood displacement brought upon the neighborhood by the tech start-ups and evictions of the dot-com boom in the late 1990s. MAC quickly learned the importance of zoning and local government’s land use powers as a potential terrain of engagement in seeking to determine the course of neighborhood redevelopment. Neighborhood mobilization and real estate interests went head-to-head, artists began to organize around rising rents, and the MIssion increasingly became a high-tech playground with class and community tensions running high.'''
			\|}



			The Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition (MAC) would emerge as the city’s most vocal and militant opponent of [[Dot.com Meltdown Real Estate Frenzy Subsides at end of 2000\|displacements]] brought about by the digital office conversion boom and, by the summer of 2000, was the principal protagonist leading a groundswell of neighborhood opposition to the digital makeover of the Mission. The origins of MAC can be traced back to a series of regular Monday lunch meetings in the spring of 1999 among Mission Housing, St. Peter’s, Mission Agenda, and People Organized to Demand Environmental and Employment Rights (PODER) to discuss how to respond to gentrification pressures (Feldman 2000a). Feelings of distrust had developed among these organizations over Mission Housing’s involvement with the HOPE VI renovation of Valencia Gardens, a large public housing project in the northern section of the Mission. Mission Agenda and the Eviction Defense Network, in particular, harbored suspicions that Mission Housing, in sponsoring aspects of the HOPE VI renovation, was acting as an agent for carrying out HUD policy, which was serving to expel large numbers of households from one of the city’s last remaining stocks of low-income housing. Accordingly, a goal of these meetings was to rebuild a sense of trust and begin identifying strategies that would forge a broader base of community opposition to gentrification.

	MAC also reflected the shift taking place within several of the neighborhood’s nonprofits away from a service-delivery model in favor of community-based organizing. The limits of the direct-service model were becoming increasingly clear as the NASDAQ boom took off. Increased numbers of lower-income, often immigrant, Mission District residents were facing eviction threats as speculative capital flooded the neighborhood. Real estate speculation, often taking the form of housing purchases followed by eviction to convert units into private condominiums, had become more common. Rents were skyrocketing, and the housing stock of the Mission was coming under intensifying pressure from a younger, primarily white, group of newly arriving urban immigrants drawn by the dot-com boom. Activists understood that contesting gentrification would require building and sustaining a legitimate base of popular neighborhood opposition.		MAC also reflected the shift taking place within several of the neighborhood’s nonprofits away from a service-delivery model in favor of community-based organizing. The limits of the direct-service model were becoming increasingly clear as the NASDAQ boom took off. Increased numbers of lower-income, often immigrant, Mission District residents were facing eviction threats as speculative capital flooded the neighborhood. Real estate speculation, often taking the form of housing purchases followed by eviction to convert units into private condominiums, had become more common. Rents were skyrocketing, and the housing stock of the Mission was coming under intensifying pressure from a younger, primarily white, group of newly arriving urban immigrants drawn by the dot-com boom. Activists understood that contesting gentrification would require building and sustaining a legitimate base of popular neighborhood opposition.