It isn’t often politics and go-go dancing intersect, but one group of San Francisco activists is flashing all the skin they can to get their message out. Their hope is that a local measure, Prop G, succeeds with city voters in Tuesday’s election, thereby helping to protect lower-income tenants from being squeezed out of the city.
Because a San Francisco without g0-go boys, artists and drag queens is, well, we don’t want to even imagine it.
Interestingly, Prop G’s “anti-speculation tax,” is reminiscent of the final pieces of legislation that Supervisor Harvey Milk pushed for before he was assassinated. Sadly, those efforts died with him.
Queerty spoke exclusively with Prop G activist Brett Waxdeck about what the measure means for the city, and his memorable tactic to reach voters.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Queerty: What is Proposition G, exactly?
BrettWaxdeck: Prop G, which is on next Tuesday’s ballot, is commonly referred to as the “anti-speculation tax”. It is intended to address the problem of speculation in rental real estate in San Francisco that is contributing to the city’s housing affordability crisis.
Investors, often from out of town, are buying muti-unit rental properties and immediately evicting tenants under the Ellis Act. The speculators turn a quick and enormous profit from “flipping” the properties. The formerly rent-protected tenants are left in the cold. And the city’s stock is reduced putting more pressure on everybody’s rents.
Prop G is designed to discourage speculators from buying and flipping rental properties by imposing a 24% tax on the sales price of any multi unit, non-owner occupied, property that is bought and sold within a year. The tax gradually declines to 14% for a property bought and sold within 5 years. After 5 years the tax does not apply.
The law targets true speculators (as opposed to homeowners) because the tax does not apply to any owner occupied property, for example, a home that has an in-law unit, or a duplex, in which the owner lives in one unit.
And where do the go-go boys come in?
Scantily clad go-go boys and their supporters assembled in Harvey Milk Plaza and marched through the Castro District chanting: “Save our go-go boys, yes on G.” The relationship between go-go boys and Prop G is simple: The housing affordability crisis is driving out many of the very people who make San Francisco a fun and sexy city in which to live: go-go boys, artists, musicians, drag performers, educators and other people of moderate means.
The real estate industry opposes G because it will cost them a fraction of their business — sales to speculators. G is supported by a majority of the Board of Supervisors, both candidates for State Assembly, and the city’s Democratic Club, among others. Opponents are outspending proponents by more than ten to one. Hopefully, however, the voters will do what’s necessary to protect economic and cultural diversity (and fun) in their city and pass Proposition G.
dunner
this is just like queerty no blacks or people of colour no overweight people what gives
petensfo
Really? You couldn’t find anyone to speak to why Prop G is a bad idea, go-go boys or not?
Remember when gay people didn’t like a majority voting on our equality under law? The same principle is at work in SFO; a majority renter town getting ready to pass another law that will penalize homeowners & cost renters nothing.
This is just another attempt to weaken the Ellis Act law which is often the only way a homeowner can escape the rental business. But now, the homeowner pays AND there are no plans for that money to ever impact the housing crisis.
Bad laws are never the right answer.
Cam
@dunner: I guess Latinos aren’t considered “Of Color”.
And as for overweight people, did you bother to read that the article was about Go-Go Boys?
It’s like reading an article about Playboy models and then acting surprised that their aren’t any heavy women with flat chests in the photos.
aliengod
@Cam: Rarely do I agree with you, but that was a great response. LOL
sfhally
@petensfo: If you are mixing the term “homeowner” with “apartment owner”; yes. But since it doesn’t apply to “homeowners” you’re just trying to muddy the waters.
sfhally
Also–here are the criteria where the tax would NOT apply:
The property is a single-family house or condominium and does not include an in-law unit;
An owner of the property, including a tenancy-in-common unit, has used it as a primary residence for at least one year immediately before the sale;
The property contains more than 30 separate residential units;
The property is sold for an amount equal to or less than what the seller paid for the property;
The property is sold within one year of a property owner’s death;
The property is legally restricted to low- and middle-income households;
The property is newly built housing;
The property meets the following criteria: it contains no more than two dwelling units; the seller applied on or before July 1, 2014, for a building permit for a project with a total construction cost of $500,000 or more; and the last permit was issued no more than a year before the sale of the property; or
The sale of the property is exempt from the existing transfer tax.
T
spevman
petensfo is precisely correct.
http://my.sfrealtors.com/news-menu/376-stop-the-24-housing-tax-no-on-prop-g.html
Saint Law
@petensfo: Um, evidently it is causing renters something: their homes.
SportGuy
@dunner:
LOL, well what do you expect, its Queerty. They don’t believe in that here,lol.
Ogre Magi
Jeeze, I hope this works
petensfo
The affordable housing crunch in SFO is very real & In-law units are an important part of the equation. If this law passes, watch as they start disappearing. Owners considering whether or not they’ll need to sell in the next 5 years will absolutely pull them (it only requires an anonymous call to the bldg dept from a concerned “neighbor” to trigger the code violation) It will be just like owners of multi-unit bldgs that have allowed vacancies rather than be held hostage to awful laws & tenants they don’t want to be in business with.
If the law targeted actual offenders rather than everyone, it might be worth consideration, but it doesn’t & the tax supports nothing but more taxes on somebody else.
Louis
They’ve got my vote!
Mitch8901
I want to know who is the guy that is wearing the PUMP! underwear…I know I have seen him before.