While farmworkers do get overtime, there is a much higher threshold than other professions — this bill would bring the over-time thresholds more in-line.

Supporters argue it’s a matter of fairness — that farmworkers should have the same overtime and break protections as everyone else. Opponents say farmers can’t afford it and that an industry dependent on weather, perishable goods and external price-setting can’t be regulated the same as other professions.

“This vote boils down to a moral argument,” said Sen. Bill Monning, D-Carmel, who, like many of his colleagues, added that the doomsday economic arguments that workers will lose hours or jobs were either overblown or untrue.

Of course, opponents disagreed. Sen. Jim Nielsen, R-Gerber, said that increased labor costs would force farmers to reduce those costs, especially as the minimum wage hikes begin to kick in.

“What’s been accomplished? Maybe a noble goal where we can pat ourselves on our back,” Nielsen said, adding that “the victory would be hollow.”

Gut and amend

What made this bill particularly interesting is that the last iteration died a few months ago and so Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, inserted the language into another bill — a process called gut and amend.

By gutting and amending, the San Diego Democrat’s proposal will circumvent some of the normal steps in the legislative process. However, that alone won’t change members’ minds and it’s unclear if Gonzalez or other supporters have secured enough votes in the Assembly for final passage.

The Census Bureau estimates that 23 percent of state residents meet its alternative definition of impoverished. A 2011 study done by the Public Policy Institute of California and the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality, which also took into account cost of living, put L.A. County’s poverty rate at 27 percent. With the cost of rent ballooning since then, that figure may be low. But the established data suggest that at least 2.7 million of the county’s 10.2 million residents are in poverty. That’s about the same number of people as the population of Chicago — America’s third-largest city.

Now a new study by the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs, with the help of public opinion research firm Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz and Associates, has come along that puts a face on this poverty and what it means to have so little money in a place as expensive as Los Angeles County. (Here’s the UCLA summary; here’s a slideshow.) It’s based on interviews with 1,401 county residents.

Perhaps the harshest finding was the extent of economic insecurity among Latinos, the largest ethnic group in the county. Some 44 percent of Latinos, and 54 percent of Latino men (including those of all incomes) worried about going hungry, more than double the rate of any other ethnic/racial group. Also, 44 percent of Latinos worried about going homeless, much higher than any other group, including a majority of men.

Economic fears extend to households making $90K

Other findings:

• 29 percent of all those surveyed feared becoming homeless and 31 percent worried about not having enough money for food. Almost one in four households making $60,000 to $90,000 a year — 24 percent — worried about going hungry.

• Latinos were far more concerned about the cost of living, especially housing, than any other ethnic group. Satisfaction with housing costs was highest among people over 65.

• Unhappiness with the quality of life is highest in the inland area stretching from the San Fernando Valley south through central Los Angeles to the communities surrounding Interstate 5 in south Los Angeles.

Former Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky told the Los Angeles Times that the survey findings were a stark reminder of “the clear differences by class, by economic standing, even more so than the racial divide. … Economic differences seem to be the fault line in our county. It really paints a picture of a Los Angeles that is two worlds.”

Blacks, whites most likely to be upset with public schools

On racially tinged questions, the UCLA study had some results that may surprise.

• Despite years of reports about problems with English-language learner programs, Latinos were far less likely than African Americans to be upset about the quality of public schools. Blacks, whites, college graduates, people with post-college degrees and people with household incomes more than $150,000 were most consistently critical. High school dropouts were most satisfied with public education.

• Despite a perception of racial gaps on the state of race relations, the UCLA study showed, on a scale of 1 to 100, “almost total agreement … [among the] county’s whites (78), Latinos (75), African Americans (77) and Asian-Americans (74)” about the quality of their relations with other ethnic and racial groups.

• African Americans and whites are most worried about the negative effects of immigration.

The Legislature passed it, the governor said he’ll sign it, and so a $15-per-hour minimum wage is all but a done deal.

The measure, which raises the wage from $10 per hour incrementally until 2022 and 2023 (depending on the size of the business), was approved in both chambers of the Legislature on Thursday, and Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown issued a statement of support immediately after.

Both chambers debated the measure, with proponents and opponents presenting oft-cited arguments. CalWatchdog covered the battle lines in detail in February, when two union-backed initiatives were vying to make the November ballot.

Debating the policy

Proponents of the wage increase argue businesses will ultimately absorb much of the increased labor costs, workers will have more money to put back in the economy, and the increased wages will exceed inflation in terms of buying power.

Opponents argue the inflation will reduce the purchasing power of the dollar and offset the increase in pay. They also argue the minimum wage is meant to be introductory or temporary and a more effective solution is increased opportunity for advancement. Opponents argue smaller, seasonal and low profit-margin businesses (like restaurants) will be forced to cut jobs and invest in labor-saving technology while larger companies will flee the state looking for a friendlier business climate.

Politics

The measure actually stalled last year in the Legislature over concerns that the wage was increasing too much too soon. Earlier this year, Gov. Brown warned in his budget proposal that an increase to $15 per hour would raise the state’s labor expenses by $4 billion.

But when one of the two initiatives qualified for the ballot a little over a week ago, Brown cut a deal with the union leaders that slowed the increase ladder and added “off ramps” to pause increases in tough economic times. The deal was announced Monday.

Brown was in a bind, as the measure seemed sure to pass on the November ballot. Polling showed Californians were in favor of the increase, presidential-cycle turnouts are usually favorable to Democrats, who largely support the increase, and the success of Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who has campaigned heavily on an increase, showed his message was resonating with voters.

“The basic economic problems of a minimum wage haven’t gone away, but political considerations were too strong to resist,” said John J. Pitney, a Roy P. Crocker professor of politics at Claremont McKenna College.

Slow down

Prior to the vote, the left-leaning editorial board of the Los Angeles Times, which called Brown’s compromise “good,” urged lawmakers to slow down and consider all options, arguing that little is known about the impact of a 90 percent increase over a nine-year period (which includes two prior increases), floating a regional wage increase instead.

“Lawmakers are not doing their due diligence if they don’t take the time to analyze the alternatives to a blanket $15 minimum wage, or at least take steps to mitigate the potential impacts,” wrote the board.

Brown supports

After the bill passed, Gov. Brown repeated his comments from earlier in the week calling the deal “responsible” and “careful,” and said he’d sign the measure on Monday in Los Angeles.

“California is proving once again that it can get things done and help people get ahead,” Brown said in a statement. “This plan raises the minimum wage in a careful and responsible way and provides some flexibility if economic and budgetary conditions change.”

The first increase of 50 cents per hour goes into effect at the beginning of 2017.

Gov. Jerry Brown and Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de León of Los Angeles, joined by representatives of the Service Employees International Union and its affiliates, announced the measure to raise the minimum wage each year until 2022 and 2023, with an “off ramp” in place to slow growth in the event of an economic downturn.

“It will help our entire state do much better for its citizens,” Brown said, calling the measure a matter of “economic justice.”

However, Monday’s announcement was merely an agreement between state leaders. The measure still needs to go through the Legislature before it can become law.

Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Paramount, who was not at Monday’s press conference, issued support in a statement afterwards and said a “significant number” of Assembly Democrats were on board.

Rendon also said he would have preferred a “more aggressive” path to $15 per hour, but said Monday’s deal was a “good middle ground.”

Things change

It wasn’t that long ago that Brown denounced a $15-per-hour minimum wage. During the unveiling of his budget in January, he estimated an increase of that size would saddle the state with an extra $4 billion in costs by 2021.

But Brown and de León conceded that a much more aggressive increase had already qualified for the November ballot, so legislators are wise to embrace the more “responsible” version they negotiated with labor groups.

“This is a very pragmatic decision,” said de León. “This was not made in a vacuum — there is a ballot initiative that’s already qualified.”

The measure would increase the minimum wage 50 cents per hour in both 2017 and 2018 and then raise it $1 per hour each year until it reaches $15 per hour in 2022 for employers of 26 or more employees and 2023 for employers or 25 or less employees. Following years would be tied to inflation.

The proposal gives the governor the annual power to pause the increase due to negative economic conditions.

Good policy?

There’s still a debate among economists as to whether the nominal gains to workers of an increase in the minimum wage are actually worth the costs to businesses, which will raise prices to absorb costs and potentially cut jobs (CalWatchdog wrote about this debate in greater detail earlier this year).

As it stands now, $10 per hour over a 40-hour work week comes out to $20,800 per year before taxes. With the increase of 50 cents per hour in 2017, minimum wage workers will make $21,840 per year before taxes, or around an extra $87 per month. At $15 per hour, the annual wage will be $31,200 in 2022.

The second 50 cent increase in 2018 would add $173 per month before taxes. The gains jump after two years to an increase of $1 per hour every year. The increase of $1 per hour in 2019 would come to an additional $347 per month, and so on.

However, many economists tie an increase in the minimum wage to inflation, so the gain to workers would likely not be as high as it seems now in terms of real dollars.

Lifting people out of poverty

The measure was repeatedly hailed on Monday as a strike against poverty. However, workers aren’t below the poverty line currently unless they are trying to support a family of at least four on only one minimum-wage income.

The federal poverty line is around $24,300 for a family of four, or $11,880 for an individual. The current minimum wage is nearly double the poverty threshold for an individual and just barely exceeds the threshold for a family of three on one minimum-wage income.

Skepticism

While the unveiling was all smiles between lawmakers and labor on Monday, the Republican leaders in both chambers were skeptical in statements that the measure would have a lasting impact on the working poor.

“Poverty reduction in California is extremely important,” said Senate Republican Leader Jean Fuller of Bakersfield. “Energy, housing and health care are cost drivers that we must address to make California more affordable. I am not sure how this new legislation moves the needle in improving California’s affordability.”

“This deal may help a small number of California’s workforce, but we are concerned that it will hurt many more by contributing to our state’s already high cost-of-living, making the California dream even less attainable for our middle class and low-income families,” said Assembly Republican Leader Chad Mayes of Yucca Valley. “We have a responsibility to build a better, more affordable state for all Californians.”

Learn more:

• Minimum wage divides experts
• Years after CalWatchdog investigation, bill to end sub-minimum wage advances

California for years has lagged behind the rest of the country in terms of participation. Tied for 48th in 2013, only 66 percent of those eligible participated in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, called CalFresh in California.

The pool of Californians who are eligible for the program is shrinking. While the pool has increased from 6.36 million in 2010 to 6.98 million in 2014, it has decreased from a peak of 7.17 million in 2013, according to CalFresh estimates based on Census data.

“The good news in California is we’re going in the right direction on both lines,” said Kim McCoy Wade, chief of the CalFresh branch of the California Department of Social Services.

Outreach

For years, outreach methods, internal procedures and state policy kept the rate low, said Wade, adding the nature of California played a role too.

“We’re a very big, diverse, complicated state, so sometimes we move forward in one county and then have to take longer to move forward in another,” Wade said. “We’re not in Idaho, where you can change your call center process and all of the sudden the whole state is dramatically better.”

Wade said the state is studying whether a language/information barrier and a distrust of government among ethnic groups played a role in the low participation rates.

“We really think it’s time for a fresh look to see if immigrant communities are connecting to CalFresh, and if not, why not,” Wade said.

ACA impact

In recent years, the implementation of the Affordable Care Act hindered the process as well, in that the tsunami of new people entering the system took time to process, with so much of the state’s efforts aimed at sorting it all out. But as a result of the flood of people entering the system, CalFresh had better access to families to let them know their options.

“The Affordable Care Act was both the best thing that ever happened to low-income families in California and a real challenge,” Wade said.

Increased participation

In 2015, there was approximately 4.4 million people in the CalFresh program, receiving more than $7 billion in benefits annually. That’s compared to 2005, when there were about 2 million Californians receiving more than $2 billion in annual benefits.

Eligibility is for those less than 130 percent of the federal poverty line, which is an annual income of $24,300 for a family of four.

The average benefit is $142 per person per month, according to federal data.

Additional data can be found in a Public Policy Institute of California study published this month.

A 2013 provision in the state budget offered major relief of fines due before Jan. 2013 but not for those after. So the ACLU of Northern California and others are calling to cease the suspensions entirely, or at least until certain safeguards are established.

What happens is that drivers receive an initial fine with lots of additional fees tacked on. What could be a $100 fine is now several hundred dollars and it only swells from there, sometimes even into the thousands, according to ACLU of Northern California staff.

The ACLU of Northern California and other groups have been studying the effect this has on low-income drivers in Bay Area counties. They note the problem is only worsened if fees aren’t paid on time, because then the license is suspended, jeopardizing the driver’s ability to get to work.

And many of these citations are for minor infractions like not wearing a seat belt or not signaling on a turn.

“What we’re looking for is a system that doesn’t punish people for being poor,” said Micaela Davis, staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California, told CalWatchdog. “What we see is that the fines and fees are so exorbitant on simple traffic citations that people simply can’t afford to pay.”

Detractors may argue that it’s the driver’s actions that incurred the fine in the first place, but Davis dismissed that notion, saying there are more effective ways of handling the issue.

“We can hold people accountable without also ruining their lives,” Davis said.

On Monday, the ACLU of Northern California, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and the Western Center on Law and Poverty sent a demand letter to the San Mateo County Superior Court arguing that it change its policy. The coalition argued that judges have an option to suspend, not a mandate.

The coalition, along with Bay Area Legal Aid, also on Monday sent a letter to the the California Judicial Council, which is the policy-making board of the California court system, urging it to instruct the courts to stop.

There will be plenty of anecdotes in between now and November about the fruit picker or dish washer whose wages would rise 50 percent if the minimum wage were to jump from $10 to $15 per hour. But experts say that’s not the only factor to consider.

Experts agree that increased wages will increase prices, as employers are forced to compensate for increased labor costs. This means minimum-wage workers will lose some of their new-found earnings to inflation.

“Obviously, when minimum wage goes up, businesses try, if they can, to pass the extra costs to consumers,” said Dr. Esmael Adibi, director of the A. Gary Anderson Center for Economic Research at Chapman University. “So, a person who got a higher minimum wage will be paying higher for the products or services that they received, and as a result they may not be as well off.”

Some industries are more reliant than others on minimum-wage workers, so price increases won’t be universal, said Adibi, adding that not all of the increase will be passed on as higher costs, as businesses “cannot really proportionately pass all that cost onto consumers.”

Experts at the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education estimated in a 2015 study for the city of Los Angeles that increasing the minimum wage to $15 per hour incrementally over a five-year period would increase prices overall by less than 1 percent, and just under 8 percent in the restaurant industry, with the cost of the increased wages being absorbed through savings from lower turnover and increased productivity (better paid workers are happier workers).

“The increase in prices reduces overall demand for goods,” said Ken Jacobs, chair of the UC Berkeley Labor Center. “On the other side of the equation, workers have more money to spend, which increases the overall demand for goods. As a result, the net effect on economic activity is very small.”

What Does It Mean For Workers?

The UC Berkeley study on Los Angeles estimates that once all factors are considered, the average earnings for low-wage workers will increase 30 percent.

“That represents a very real economic gain for the workers,” said Jacobs.

UC Berkeley experts point to research highlighting how an increase in the minimum wage reduces dependency on public assistance programs, like food stamps, and how this, plus the increased minimum wage, would have a positive effect on poverty.

The Public Policy Institute of California reported in 2014 that 16.4 percent of Californians were living below the poverty line, which was at $24,000 per year for a family of four. That comes to $11.54 per hour for one income.

“Raising the minimum wage is not a cure-all, especially in the face of larger forces generating inequality that require national attention,” wrote the UC Berkeley experts. “Still, our assessment of the research evidence is that these policies have worked as intended in raising the incomes of low-wage workers and their families.”

But another study, by the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation, estimated that because of increased wages, employers may turn to automation, may reduce hours, may substitute the lowest-skilled workers with those who are more productive and may reduce thier share of the profits.

And as a result, prices will increase, employment for those at the bottom of the skills ladder will be diminished, employment growth will slow, and “there will be little impact, if any, on poverty in Los Angeles,” according to the LACEDC report.

What Does It Mean For Employers?

Many experts point to a ripple effect. As those at the bottom wage scale are paid more, workers slightly ahead of them — the shift supervisor, for example, who makes a few dollars more per hour than the minimum-wage workers — would have their status diminished as they’d be no longer making as much compared to those below them.

Even if the increased minimum wage bumps these workers up, employers may still have to give them another increase to compensate for their higher level of responsibility, tenure or skills.

Also, the minimum wage requirement for exempt employees (exempt from overtime) is based on the minimum wage. State law requires, in most instances, they be paid at least twice the minimum wage, so even employers with no minimum wage employees may see labor costs rise.

“That does affect everybody,” said Peter Tateishi, president and CEO of the Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce.

And in some instances, the negative effects of an increased minimum wage are already being felt. An Oakland city councilman told the San Francisco Chronicle last month that when Walmart decided to close some local locations as part of nationwide downsizing, it was partially due to Oakland’s increased minimum wage.

The Chronicle also pointed out that a San Jose location — also subject to a higher minimum wage — would close as well, while two stores in San Leandro — where the minimum wage was no higher than the state’s — would remain open.

Income Inequality

Throughout the presidential debate, voters are reminded of the widening gap in income inequality. The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer and the middle class is shrinking.

While proponents, like the experts at UC Berkeley, argue that increasing the minimum wage is worthwhile, detractors say that raising the minimum wage does nothing to increase upward mobility and fill in the gap.

According to Adibi, worker training, education and opportunity for advancement is the “fundamental issue,” so that the minimum wage is more “transitory.” According to Adibi, the increased minimum wage would certainly help, but isn’t going to make minimum-wage workers substantially more prosperous.

“The public policy should address the core policy here rather than put a band-aid on by increasing the minimum wage,” Adibi said.

Effective January 1, the state’s minimum wage increased from $9 to $10 an hour. But, not all workers in the state benefited from that minimum wage increase.

It’s legal in California to pay some workers less than the minimum wage. As CalWatchdog.com has reported for years, a Depression-era loophole in federal law, Section 14 (c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, allows employers to obtain a special wage certificate to pay workers with disabilities less than the minimum wage.

Critics say that the law allows for the legal exploitation of people with disabilities, creates a separate system of worker rights for the disabled and is “humiliating,” “degrading” and makes people with disabilities feel like “second-class citizens.”

A 2012 CalWatchdog.com investigation first reported that five California-based Goodwill charities used the special wage certificate program to pay hundreds of employees less than minimum wage, while also providing lucrative compensation packages to top executives.

“Anyone who believes that all work is dignified and all workers deserve fair treatment, has to be outraged by these practices,” Lorena Gonzalez, then secretary-treasurer of the San Diego-Imperial Counties Labor Council, told CalWatchdog.com in 2012.

Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez leads on minimum wage equity

Now a member of the state Legislature, Gonzalez is doing something about that injustice — by advancing legislation that would end the practice completely in California.

Assembly Bill 488 would eliminate an exemption for employees of sheltered workshops and rehabilitation centers with special minimum wage licenses under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, extending the law’s protections against discrimination and harassment to workers in those environments.

“This bill guarantees these employees the same civil rights that all other workers, including interns, already receive,” Gonzalez said. “There’s no reason these workers should receive less protection from discrimination or harassment on the job.”

On Wednesday, the Assembly Committee on Labor and Employment passed AB488 on a 5-0 vote. Republican Assemblyman Matthew Harper of Huntington Beach joined Democratic Assembly members Roger Hernández of West Covina, Evan Low of Campbell, Kevin McCarty of San Diego, and Tony Thurmond of Richmond in backing the bill.

Goodwill Industries: Biggest Name in Special Wage Program

In recent years, Goodwill Industries has become the poster-child for exploitation of workers with disabilities. More than 100 Goodwill entities nationwide have employed workers through the Special Wage Certificate program. A 2013 Watchdog.org investigation revealed that these same Goodwill entities that use the special wage program simultaneously spent $53.7 million in total executive compensation.

“Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act authorizes employers, after receiving a certificate from the Wage and Hour Division, to pay special minimum wages — wages less than the Federal minimum wage — to workers who have disabilities for the work being performed,” the Department of Labor explains on its website.

Goodwill justifies the practice as a tool to hire people with severe disabilities, who would otherwise be unable to find work. Other supporters of the special wage certificate program contend that people with disabilities are not as productive as able-bodied individuals.

However, labor experts dispute those claims. Samuel R. Bagenstos, a professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School and a former deputy attorney general for civil rights, has detailed numerous examples of how workshop employers automatically assigned jobs “without any connection to the abilities and background of the individuals.”

In 2014, Gonzalez and State Senator Ben Hueso introduced Assembly Joint Resolution 36 to increase pressure on Congress to repeal the Depression-era law.

The fact that about 23 percent of state residents are barely getting by has helped fuel the push for a much higher minimum wage and prompted renewed interest in affordable housing programs. It’s also put the focus on regional economic disparities, especially the fact that Silicon Valley and San Francisco are the primary engine of state prosperity.

While the tech boom and the vast increase in housing prices it has triggered in the Bay Area are national news, prompting think pieces and thoughtful analyses, the poverty picture in the state’s largest population center isn’t covered nearly as fully. Although the fact is plain in Census Bureau data, it’s not commonly understood that Los Angeles County is the capital of U.S. poverty. A 2013 study by the Public Policy Institute of California and the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality based on 2011 data found 27 percent of the county’s 10 million residents were impoverished, the highest figure in the state and the highest of any large metro area in the U.S. The study questioned long-held assumptions about poverty being worst in rural areas.

But there are reasons to think the rate in Los Angeles County is significantly higher than the 27 percent reported in 2013.

The first is that many surveys of poverty struggle to account for undocumented immigrants, who often work for cash and don’t show up in wage surveys. The Pew Research Service in 2009 estimated that undocumented individuals face poverty rates “nearly double” those of Americans in general. Los Angeles County has by far the most undocumented immigrants, estimated by PPIC to be 815,000 in 2013.

The second is that the cost of housing has surged in Los Angeles County over the past four years even as wages have stagnated. The average rent of an apartment countywide is expected to be $1,800 by year’s end, with the biggest percentage jump in poorer communities in the San Fernando Valley.

Poverty-related stress takes heavy toll

A summer report by Southern California Public Radio laid out a grim picture of the toll this mass poverty takes on the young.

New research shows the mere fact of being poor can affect kids’ brains, making it difficult for them to succeed in school.

 

Los Angeles public schools — where more than 80 percent of students live in poverty — illustrate the challenges for these students. …

 

Children living in poor neighborhoods are more likely to suffer traumatic incidents, like witnessing or being the victims of shootings, parental neglect or abuse. They also struggle with pernicious daily stressors, including food or housing insecurity, overcrowding and overworked or underemployed, stressed-out parents.

 

Untreated, researchers have found these events compound, affecting many parts of the body. Studies show chronic stress can change the chemical and physical structures of the brain.

 

“You see deficits in your ability to regulate emotions in adaptive ways as a result of stress,” said Dr. Cara Wellman, a professor of neuroscience and psychology at Indiana University.

 

Dendrites, which look like microscopic fingers, stretch off each brain cell to catch information.  Wellman’s studies in mice show that chronic stress causes these fingers to shrink, changing the way the brain works. She found deficiencies in the pre-frontal cortex – the part of the brain needed to solve problems, which is crucial to learning.

 

Other researchers link chronic stress to a host of cognitive effects, including trouble with attention, concentration, memory and creativity.

SCPR had a follow-up report that showed Los Angeles schools simply didn’t have the resources to help affected students in a comprehensive way.

A

But opponents say it will have the opposite effect.

Proposition I would forbid the city from issuing permits for 18 months for the demolition, conversion or construction of Mission District housing projects with five or more units. It places a similar ban on certain Mission commercial properties, including wholesalers and auto repair shops – unless the business is replaced with a 100 percent affordable housing project.

The measure’s proponents are concerned that long-time residents can no longer afford to stay in San Francisco as rents and housing prices skyrocket.

Evictions on the Rise

There were 2,120 eviction notices filed in San Francisco from March 2014 through February 2015, according to the latest San Francisco Rent Board Annual Eviction Report. That represents a 67 percent increase from 2010. In 16 percent of the latest evictions, tenants were replaced by building owners or their relatives, up from 9 percent in 2010.

Supervisor Eric Mar, speaking at the June 2 Board of Supervisors meeting in which a moratorium ordinance was debated, said he is concerned that too many minorities are being pushed out of the Mission District.

Seven of the 11 supervisors voted for the moratorium, falling short of the nine votes needed to pass. After the moratorium failed before the board, activists gathered enough signatures to place it on the ballot.

During the debate, Mar warned that if the moratorium is not put into effect, “we will see an ethnically cleansed, racially cleansed Mission District that Latino and Chicano people are pushed out of, low-income families and seniors are pushed out of as well.”

It would be a repeat of the displacement of Filipinos from the city’s Manila Town in the 1970s, he said, and of blacks from the Fillmore District in the 1950s and ‘60s due to urban renewal.

“I call this ethnic cleansing because we know that in the past decades the African American population has been pushed out with unchecked out-migration that’s left us with the lowest number of African Americans of any large city in the country,” said Mar.

“We are facing the same cleansing with Latinos and Chicanos, and we have to learn from those mistakes. This is about saving the Mission District, saving San Francisco and saving the heart and soul of our city.”

‘Shooting ourselves in the foot’

But the supervisors who voted against the moratorium argued that it would actually result in the opposite of its intended effect by further limiting housing supply and driving up prices. The city would forego certain fees on new development that boost affordable housing.

“Whether or not we like it, market-rate housing right now in San Francisco is directly tied to the production of affordable housing,” said Supervisor Mark Farrell. “By stopping market-rate construction, the facts are that you are directly taking away from one of the primary resources the city has, over $100 million in the next few years, to create affordable housing in our city.

“We are literally going to be shooting ourselves in the foot.”

Farrell blames the city’s regulatory policies for causing the housing crisis.

“It’s the consequences of the policies that we have had for decades here in San Francisco,” he said. “From my perspective, it’s simply not building enough housing to deal with the crisis that we have in front of us today. This crisis didn’t start just a few weeks ago; our housing crisis started quite a while ago.”

The city’s population was 852,469 last year – a 5.9 percent increase since 2010. During the same period the number of housing units increased at less than half that rate, 2.5 percent, according to census data. The Mission District has added about 100 units annually in that time.

The Mission, which is a short bus or BART ride from jobs in the financial district and Giants games at AT&T Park, is known for its ethnic restaurants and lively music and arts scene.

It’s “arguably the area to watch,” according to the San Francisco Association of Realtors, and “one of San Francisco’s most promising, up-and-coming areas to invest in real estate.”

Housing Prices Exploding

As with all of San Francisco, housing prices and rents have exploded in the Mission District in recent years. The median price of a Mission District home was $1.3 million as of March 31. That’s nearly double the $700,111 median price five years ago, according to a legislative analyst’s report.

The average rent for a two-bedroom apartment in the Mission District is $4,500 per month, according to Supervisor David Campos, whose district includes the Mission.

The median household income in the Mission District is $60,156, according to the realtors association. If that household were living in an average two-bedroom apartment in the Mission, it would have just over $6,000 for all other expenses, including food, utilities and health care, over the course of a year.

“Middle and working class people, the very people who have made the Mission what it is today, are having a hard time staying in this community,” Campos said. “They can no longer afford to live here. Housing is no longer affordable to the very people who made the community the unique and wonderful place that it is.

“People are terrified – terrified that the culture and the diversity of this neighborhood will be lost forever.”

The board room, the hallway outside the chambers and an overflow room were packed with Mission residents and anti-displacement activists, who frequently disrupted the meeting with applause, hissing and chanting. The public comments portion of the meeting lasted seven hours.

Initiative on the Ballot

Proposition I states that the moratorium could be extended an extra year with a majority vote of the supervisors. It also requires development of a plan to ensure that at least half of new housing in the Mission is affordable for low, moderate and middle-income households. As part of that plan, Campos has said he would want the city to increase fees on developers and target for affordable housing the remaining 13 sites in the Mission where buildings with 40 or more units can be built.

Developers of housing projects with 10 or more units are required to reserve 12 percent of their units for affordable housing or pay in-lieu fees for the city to build affordable housing projects. There are currently 1,574 units slated to be built in the Mission District, according to AnMarie Rodgers, a senior policy advisor in the San Francisco Planning Department. If built, those projects would bring the equivalent of 189 new affordable housing units to the market, or $2 million in fees.

In addition to providing affordable housing, the fees on new development also help pay for other city projects. The moratorium would eliminate nearly $125 million in funding slated for improvements in Mission area rapid transit, an aquatic center, park, playgrounds and a recreation center, according to Rodgers.

Several measures are underway to increase affordable housing in San Francisco.

Affordable Housing Measures

Last year voters passed Proposition K, which makes it city policy to help construct or rehabilitate at least 30,000 homes by 2020.

More than half must be affordable for middle-class households, or 120-150 percent of the area median income. The median income is $61,160 for a family of four.

At least a third must be affordable for low-income households, or 50-80 percent of median, and moderate-income, 80-120 percent of median.

Proposition A, a $310 million affordable housing bond measure, is on this November’s ballot.

Mayor Ed Lee is working to recapture $500 million of the city’s dissolved redevelopment funds. That would increase the affordable housing budget to $1.6 billion over the next six years, according to Olson Lee, director of the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development.

The mayor’s staff is also looking at administrative measures to speed up approval of affordable housing projects. The administration is considering incentives such as allowing higher density or taller buildings in exchange for more affordable units.

Proposition I appears to have a good chance to pass if a poll taken in February is accurate. It showed 65 percent support for a ballot measure halting new project approvals in the Mission District for one year, according to the San Francisco Examiner. Only 26 percent were opposed.