"The irony here is when people say 'Let's build affordable housing on-site, we going to build less affordable housing in San Francisco than if we built it elsewhere in our city. With redevelopment having gone away, we are in a crisis here in San Francisco about affordable housing and we have less public funds than ever. And if we can take some of the most expensive real estate in Northern California and in San Francisco and extract the maximum amount of money to buy housing elsewhere... "

Host Dave Iverson:

"Let me ask the question this way, to go with Mayor Agnos’ 1 percent versus the 99. Is your argument, Tim Colen, that ‘Yeah, you bet, we’re going to have this be for the 1 percent because actually that’s what would benefit the 99, because it would raise more money to support those 99’?”

Tim Colen:

“In simple terms, yes. And the idea that this is some working-class waterfront is sort of alien because 50 yards from the project site you’ve got some very, very fancy condos, a couple of plutocrats who are protecting their views, chip in what, half a million dollars to protect their view? So the idea that there are no people of means, or we’ve got to keep these people out — this is the waterfront, some very valuable land.”

Jon Golinger, campaign director for No Wall on the Waterfront:

“There’s another word for what Tim Colen just agreed is his philosophy here: It’s called trickle-down. And it hasn’t worked in other places and it doesn’t work in San Francisco either. Their plan and what they’re doing, what the Board of Supervisors and the Lee administration is doing now is approving, almost exclusively, luxury, high-end housing with this idea that they’ll build affordable housing someday.”

Iverson:

“Jon, let me press you on that because it’s not exactly trickle-down because it’s creating x amount of money that would be used to create affordable housing. It’s not just saying, ‘We’re going to toss you a few crumbs.’”

Golinger:

“Oh, that is what it’s saying. Let’s talk about this project: $500 to $600 million is what these condos are going to sell for. The developer who before the Board last year said they’d be the most expensive condos in the history of San Francisco: $2 million for a studio, $10 million at the top. They’re planning on putting $11 million in [to affordable housing]. That’s a fraction – if this is their argument that they’re going to put money into a fund, especially on public land, they should put in $100 million if they’re going to claim it’s neighborhood housing.”

Whether you care at all about what goes up along the Embarcadero or whether you hate the current tennis court/parking lot at the site , it's hard to ignore that Props. B and C embody, at least partially, the topic on everyone's minds: housing.

You can listen to the full discussion by clicking here.

Is Trickle-Down Economics the Real Issue in SF Props. B and C?