Description
issues of the redevelopment project taking place at Hunters Point, San Francisco. Lennar Corp. is responsible for the construction of the project in the area. Several problems have arisen. Hunters Point is a former naval shipyard that requires special care to eliminate toxins. In response to the redevelopment project, the community is concerned with the availability of affordable housing. Lennar is concerned with company image and profitability.
1
An Analysis of the Issues Facing Lennar Corp. at Hunters Point
San Francisco State University
Introduction This report addresses the issues of the redevelopment project taking place at Hunters Point, San Francisco. Lennar Corp. is responsible for the construction of the project in the area. Several
2
problems have arisen. Hunters Point is a former naval shipyard that requires special care to eliminate toxins. In response to the redevelopment project, the community is concerned with the availability of affordable housing. Lennar is concerned with company image and profitability. Bayview Hunters Point History Bayview Hunters Point is a community located in the far southeast side of San Francisco. The neighborhood?s population is approximately 35,000 people (census, 2000). In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century the area became home to a small community sustained by two dry-docks owned by a local company. In the early twentieth century, the US Navy recognized the potential of the docks and, by 1920, had reconstructed them to become the biggest naval shipyard on the West Coast. In 1941, the shipyard included four new dry docks and a landfill extension. During World War II the Hunters Point Shipyard was a major nuclear test site which shipped materials used to construct the Atomic Bomb known as “Little Boy”. Prior to World War I the Bayview Hunters Point community was economically and ethnically diverse. Apart from the docks, the community relied on fishing and shrimping, as well as other manufacturing industries. The district had a thriving commercial area. The population at this time was a mix of European immigrants with small numbers of Mexican and Chinese immigrants living in the neighborhood as well. After 1920, labor demands induced an influx of African Americans, increasing the African American population by thousands. In combination with the changing ethnic demographics, the naval shipyard slowly destroyed the local fishing industry and relocated many small businesses. Many European immigrants moved out of the neighborhood, leaving a predominantly black population by the 1970s. The shipyard closed in 1974, leaving thousands of African Americans without jobs and living in an isolated area. The closing of the shipyard not only created an isolated neighborhood, in which the majority of the
3
residents are predominantly low income and under the poverty line. Today, the neighborhood is considered a marginalized district with high crime and prostitution rates in addition to the community?s problems with gangs and illegal drug activity (Adams & Lapin, 1961). The Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Project Soon after the naval shipyard closed, leaving more than 3,000 local residents without work, Bayview Hunters Point attracted the attention of the local government and the area was claimed by the city for redevelopment. In 2004, the U.S. Navy transferred Parcel A (one of the shipyard areas due for housing redevelopment) back to the city of San Francisco. The San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (SFRA) issued bonds under the California State Redevelopment Law to acquire the land property of Parcel A, and in 2005, transferred it to Lennar Corp. to begin construction. The Redevelopment Plan for the Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Project was adopted on June 1st, 2006. The transfer of property to Lennar under the Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Plan is conditional to specific objectives set by the SFRA. Among the many objectives set by SFRA, several have not been met by Lennar. These broken promises are causing unrest and dissatisfaction among the community. These issues include: “Increasing the community?s supply of housing by facilitating economically feasible, affordable housing for existing very low-, low- and moderate-income households and residents in the community” (Redevelopment, 2006). “Retaining existing residents and existing cultural diversity to the extent feasible” (Redevelopment, 2006).
4
“Eliminating blighting influences and correcting environmental deficiencies within the Project Area, including, but not limited to, abnormally high vacancies, abandoned, deteriorated and dilapidated buildings, incompatible land uses, depreciated or stagnant property values …” (Redevelopment, 2006). California State funded redevelopment projects are designed to benefit the areas in which the redevelopment takes place. However, the Bayview Hunters Point community is upset about how Lennar has handled the on-going redevelopment project. In early 2007, shortly after Lennar began construction, the community at Bayview Hunters Point became aware that not only were toxins present within the shipyard, but there was a strong possibility that the air had been contaminated as a result of Lennar?s construction techniques. This situation arose primarily because Lennar?s sub-constructors did not effectively monitor the air quality at the construction site. When these findings became public, there was unrest and protesting within the community. People quickly organized and formed community coalitions aiming to halt the project. Some employees who had worked at the site filed lawsuits against Lennar Corp. In addition, the company was fined by the San Francisco Environmental Protection Agency for negligence. These events significantly damaged the community?s confidence in both Lennar and the project?s purpose in general. Lennar?s late response to the community?s concerns not only made it difficult to restore dialogue with the residents, but also made it more complicated to realign community interests with the project. In light of these problems, the community started questioning other aspects of the project such as gentrification issues and, more specifically, Lennar?s adherence to the affordable housing clause of the Redevelopment Project Agreement. Today, as a result of Lennar?s social irresponsibility, the company faces strong community pressure and negative local media attention. A significant part of the Bayview Hunters Point
5
community is angry with Lennar's conduct and approach to the redevelopment project. Residents of the area are concerned with the cleanup efforts and the possible negative effects on community health. In addition, there is concern that the redevelopment project will result in a lack of affordable housing, causing displacement and gentrification issues. This report aims to describe those issues, map the relevant stakeholders, provide solutions and foresee future outputs stemming from these solutions. The first trigger of the Bayview Hunters Point redevelopment project crisis was the vagueness of what toxins were present at the site and the extent to which Lennar was taking precautions to ensure that toxins were not released into the air or the water. These concerns stem from the history of the shipyard as a former radioactive research site from 1939 to 1974. Here is what is listed on the EPA website under the section Contaminates and Risks of the Hunters Point Shipyard: Groundwater, sediments, soil, and surface water are contaminated with fuels, pesticides, heavy metals, PCBs, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). A landfill located on Parcel E contains radium dials, and soil contains naturally occurring asbestos. People who accidentally ingest or come in direct contact with contaminated soils, sediments, surface water, or groundwater may face a health risk. Potential threats may also be presented by offgas from VOCs, particularly vinyl chloride, present in hot spots in soil and groundwater. Various radionuclides, primarily radium 226 and cesium 137, have also been found at the Shipyard (Protection Agency, 2009). While EPA did not find any of the radioactive toxins in Parcel A soil, it did find that asbestos was still present. According to the EPA, “Serpentinite, a rock that underlies major parts of the hillsides and slopes at Hunters Point, contains naturally occurring Chrysotile asbestos, which could become a health hazard if released and inhaled during construction-related excavation activities” (Protection Agency, 2009). Asbestos is a natural compound of the Earth?s crust and low levels of it can be traced in food, water, and air. According to a report of the World Health Organization, asbestos is the “tiny,
6
long, flexible fibrils with size of 20 to 25 nm each” (Asbestos, 2000). While naturally present, high levels of asbestos in air and water can be enhanced by several man-made activities, one of which is urban construction. According to the same report “an intensive and well documented series of case studies and epidemiological observations link past occupational exposure to asbestos with asbestosis, lung cancer, and Mesothelioma” (Asbestos, 2000). Lennar was responsible for monitoring the asbestos levels during construction, but failed to do so. This not only led to an uncertainty about the health risks associated with the redevelopment project among local residents, but also caused the local community to lose confidence in Lennar and question the company?s integrity regarding the project in general. Failure to monitor air pollution has also triggered further questions from the community concerning gentrification and whether or not Lennar would meet its obligation to provide the minimum affordable housing units, as agreed with the SFRA. In addition to the environmental issues Lennar must attend to, it also must address the problems associated with the displacement of the local residents. In its project plans, Lennar has failed to fully consider the consequences of the redevelopment. As proposed, the project will completely change the dynamics of the community, leading not only to a gentrification of the area, but also creating a lack of affordable housing for current residents. The process of gentrification can be described as “…the rehabilitation of working-class and derelict housing and the consequent transformation of an area into a middle-class neighborhood” (Atkinson, 2004). While the gentrification of poor neighborhoods can lead to better standards of living for a community, this transformation from a poorer area into one that is more affluent has several problematic issues, one of which is conflict between remaining residents and new middle-class members of the community. Conflict can occur when residents of
7
an area single out new, middle-class entrants to the neighborhood as being a problem, or when these existing residents feel anger at the changing characteristics of their neighborhood (Atkinson, 2004).These conflicts are not only bad for the overall community moral, but may even prevent new residents and businesses from coming to the area. Another problem brought on by gentrification is the displacement of community members. This displacement process occurs as a result of “…the market removal of residents either through quickly inflating rents and house prices as well as through landlord harassment to secure vacant possession” (Atkinson, 2004). As a result of the increased prices, housing becomes unaffordable for many residents in the community. These residents are not only forced to leave their homes, but are forced to leave the community altogether. This forced removal can lead not only to anger within the community, but it also can lead to increased homelessness and crime (Atkinson, 2004). The affordability of housing is a major area of concern for residents of the Bayview Hunters Point community. Although the redevelopment project is meant to improve economic development, build affordable housing, and add community enhancements, many local residents believe that the redevelopment plan will not provide enough affordable housing. The main issue between the two sides is the amount of affordable housing that will be made available upon the completion of the redevelopment project. According to the agreement signed by Lennar with the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Commission, Lennar is required to have “at least 10 percent of the homes meet the definition of „affordable,? or can be purchased or rented by residents who earn up to 120 percent of the area?s average income” (Upton, 2009). Community members feel that the proposed ten percent of affordable housing along with the definition of affordable is not sufficient. These residents believe that Lennar?s affordable housing policies
8
will not help, but will instead price out many of the low income families in the area. Opponents of the redevelopment agree saying that, “Lennar should make half of the new homes affordable to people earning 30 percent to 80 percent of the city's median income, or $64,267 for a family of four” (Knight, 2008). In its redevelopment project, Lennar is trying to bring about dramatic changes in the housing and businesses of the Bayview Hunters Point community in an attempt to gentrify the area and attract middle-class residents. At present, the residents in the community are predominantly African-American and low income and the community has come together to rally against the project. Resident conflict and displacement can be detrimental to the continued growth of a community redevelopment project. Protests, negative attitudes, and hostilities from affected residents are not only problematic for the continuance of the project, but can negatively affect economic development as well. For these reasons, Lennar must be careful in its approach to the redevelopment process and in its actions toward the Bayview Hunters Point community. Stakeholder Analysis The Stop Lennar Action Movement (SLAM) was formed over two and half years ago, and continues to gain support as Lennar?s controversial actions continue. SLAM includes the Nation of Islam, POWER, Green Action for Health, Bayview Hunters Point pastors representing their churches, and environmental justice groups. SLAM is a coalition of organizations that has joined forces to help protect the Bayview community by fighting against the actions of Lennar at the Hunters Point Shipyard. Nation of Islam As specified by its contract, Lennar was required by the city and Bay Area Air Quality Management District to monitor levels of asbestos in the air during its initial cleanup of the
9
Hunters Point Shipyard. Lennar agreed to take specific measures to ensure that community health would not be at risk as a result of the cleanup process, agreeing to mist the dirt and to shut down work when asbestos particles in the air rose to a certain level. However, Lennar did not install dust monitors at the beginning of the reconstruction project, and failed to test the air during the course of construction. When monitors were installed they did not work properly. It was not until residents complained that Lennar took notice of the problem. As a result, Lennar suffered a fine of $515,000 for its negligence. Lennar?s carelessness in monitoring the health risks associated with the redevelopment project not only angered the local residents, but also turned many members of the community against all of the company?s actions. One community member particularly displeased is Christopher Muhammed, the minister for the Nation of Islam, and principle of a school near the construction site. Muhammed is concerned with the health issues that the community is facing, and feels that a green developer should replace Lennar. Experts such as the Environmental Protection Agency have claimed that although Lennar broke its promises to monitor the level of asbestos in the air, the air quality is not hazardous and it does not pose a long term health threat. Despite these experts? opinions, many Bayview Hunters Point residents support Muhammed. These disgruntled residents created an opposition group against the company and are now filing numerous law suits, getting the navy involved, and publicly criticizing Lennar as causing intentional harm. Community coalitions pose a major threat to Lennar?s reputation as a construction company, and also make the company?s current task of building luxury condominiums more difficult. In addition to the opposition from the community, Lennar?s values are being questioned, giving the impression that Lennar is inattentive to the community concerns. It is imperative that Lennar
10
correct this negative image and replace it with one that portrays the company as socially responsible. POWER Another coalition formed to protest against the actions of Lennar is an organization called “People Organized to Win Employment Right (POWER).” POWER is a social justice organization, working to promote and protect the interests of residents in the Bayview Hunters Point area. It is one of many activist groups seeking to stop construction until a majority of the controversies surrounding the project and Lennar?s actions are resolved. Currently, POWER is opposing legislation that would give Lennar ownership and control of a recreational area at Candlestick Park, an area adjacent to Hunters Point Shipyard. POWER, along with local residents, fear that Lennar is simply participating in the redevelopment project to make a profit and do not have the best interests of the residents of Bayview Hunters Point in mind. If true, these practices are both unethical and socially irresponsible. Alicia Schwartz, one of the leaders of POWER states, Bayview deserves better…Now Lennar has stooped even lower, attempting to pit Black people against Black people, Christians against Muslims, resident against resident, all for the promise of a dollar, a seasonal job, some parks on toxic land, and some homes that 80 percent of the community won?t be able to afford (Drew & Decker, 2009). Despite its actions, Lennar is not solely responsible for the community unrest and rebellion. Lennar was contracted by the city as part of the Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Plan, and the local government is receiving similar pressure from activist groups. As the developer, Lennar shoulders a significant amount of responsibility for the project and thus is seen by activist groups like POWER as the major contributor to the current controversies.
11
The main issues concerning POWER are Lennar?s negligent handling of the shipyard cleanup, its broken promises relating to affordable housing, and the protection of community pride and tradition in the Bayview Hunters Point area. Lennar?s approach has put the area and its residents in a defensive position. In response to Lennar?s actions, Flint, an organizing member of POWER said, “I love this community and have been coming here since I was a child. They promised us 30 percent affordable housing, and they have found a way to weasel out of that. I decided to take an organizing job with POWER to combat their avaricious practices” (Drew & Decker, 2009). Members of POWER believe that Lennar should take into account the opinions and attitudes of local residents before decisions are made. Due to the efforts of activist groups like POWER, the Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Project has encountered numerous delays and work stoppages. These delays have cost Lennar financially both in terms of government fines and loss of future project opportunities. The Navy was informed about the situation at the shipyard and provided cleaning solutions. Community members felt that if the Navy knew that the shipyard was not being cleaned of toxins properly that it would step in and help the situation. The Navy?s response was to cap the project and not let Lennar work in the shipyard anymore. Even though it seemed that discontinuing the project was what the community wanted, this was not the type of help the community was seeking. Instead of a positive reaction to the Navy?s proposal, the community believed that if Lennar abandoned the project now, the community itself would have to deal with the toxins later. This indicates that the community actually prefers Lennar keep working on the redevelopment project. However, Lennar must first ensure that the site is cleaned up and that its continued construction is safe and healthy for everyone. A Bayview resident states, “We're asking them not
12
to cap, but to clean it. I grew up here as a kid. I worked in the shipyard. There are lots of toxins in there. All we want is clean air and for them to clean up these toxins” (Drew & Decker, 2009).
Community Some members of the community are not a part of the organized activist groups, yet still voice their opinion on the matter. These residents attend community meetings where representatives from Lennar are present to defend the company and its actions. Many local residents perceive Lennar as a greedy corporation, taking on the redevelopment projects only to make a profit. Davu Flint is an 80 year old man and resident of Bayview. Flint states, “Going into boardroom meetings with them and seeing their environmental practices -- seeing their bottom-line profit margins -- that is all they care about” (Drew & Decker, 2009). Some local community members are concerned primarily with the health issues, and are less worried about Lennar breaking their affordable housing promise. While the shipyard is a place of known toxins, these toxins were not causing anyone harm before the beginning of the redevelopment project. It was only when Lennar began the shipyard cleanup, releasing toxins into the air, that health issues became a problem. Complicating matters is the fact that Lennar promised to install asbestos monitors and did not do it. This outraged the community and made it seem that Lennar did not care about the health and safety of the local residents. Several times different analysts were brought in and it was determined that the toxins in the air did not pose long-term health threats. This, however, did not ease the community?s concerns. Many residents still seek medical treatment for their children, claiming the inhalation of toxins from the shipyard is causing bloody noses and lung damage.
13
Lennar does not understand how the community can be so outraged when many times it was proven that toxins at the Hunters Point Shipyard do not pose extreme health risks. However, Lennar failed to fully research community expectations and concerns prior to beginning construction. Lennar did not take into consideration the characteristics of Bayview Hunters Point: a community of mainly low income African-Americans. These residents wish to maintain a sense of pride in their area and their people, and feel threatened by the changes proposed by Lennar. Not addressing the needs of these people now would not only lead to further protesting, but would also hinder Lennar?s ability to complete the project. “Complaints from the black community go mostly unheard,” one resident said. “A citywide movement needs to rise up, if we are going to do something about Lennar” (Drew & Decker, 2009). This disconnect seems to stem from the fact that community concerns and complaints are not being handled properly. The Bayveiw Hunters Point community residents should be allowed to be a part of the redevelopment process in their community. While the community continues to rally and protest, Lennar continues to take no action. Should Lennar continue to completely ignore residents and their concerns, there will be continued strikes and protests, which could potentially lead to more severe problems in the future. Local City Officials The actions of San Francisco?s politicians have shown steady support for Lennar throughout the decade. Not only did the Mayor?s office supported Lennar?s bid for the Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Project, but numerous city commissions approved Lennar as well. To this day, the city government continues to stand by its support of Lennar in the redevelopment project efforts.
14
Among local city officials, Michael Cohen, the director of San Francisco?s Office of Economic and Workforce Development, as well as a previous head of the Real Estate and Finance group of the San Francisco City Attorney's Office, is the most vocal supporter of Lennar and the Bayview Hunters Point project. On his blog, in line with Lennar?s website, Cohen describes a picturesque future for the neighborhood and demands that the project continue even against the wishes of the community: To keep the naysayers from pushing us backwards, demanding studies of alternatives that ignore the laws of economics, demanding that we ignore the conclusions of respected scientists from around the country that the project is safe, demanding that we do anything but...actually move forward with change (Cohen, 2009) Michael Cohen also posts on his personal blog, “Don't get me wrong, this project - the redevelopment of the Hunters Point Shipyard and Candlestick Point - will get built” (Cohen, 2009). As of today Michael Cohen is still actively involved with Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Project, as well as with similar projects at Treasure Island and other Bay Area redevelopment sites. All of these redevelopment sites have been granted to Lennar and its subcontractors. The mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, has supported the project by signing legislation, but has been less publicly supportive of Lennar in particular. However, local newspaper reports show numerous links between Newsom and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi?s family. The article from the local leftish newspaper San Francisco Bay View, “Singing in the Rain: Hunters Point Shipyard Enriches SF?s Most Powerful Families” reveals that Laurence Pelosi, the son of Ronald Pelosi and Barbara Newsom, is related to Gavin Newsome. In addition, Laurence Pelosi was the Vice President of Naval Acquisitions for Lennar, but
15
resigned from the post shortly before Lennar won the bid for the Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Project. Today, Laurence Pelosi is a Morgan Stanley Real Estate Executive Director, a fund that owns Lennar stock. Laurence also serves on the board of directors of SPUR (San Francisco Planning and Urban Research), a local development think tank (Sumchai, 2009). The article goes into further detail about Sen. Barbara Boxer?s husband Richard Blum, whose companies benefited billions of dollars from military reconstruction contracts, suggesting that Sen. Boxer used her influence to help Nancy Pelosi speed the transfer of the shipyard to Lennar while chairing the Senate Subcommittee on Military Contraction Appropriations (Sumchai, 2009). None of these accusations are proven true or have been investigated. Yet there is a sense in the Bayview Hunters Point community Lennar?s contract was driven by major conflicts of interest in the Pelosi and Newsom families. Solutions Now that the main issues and relevant stakeholders have been identified, Lennar can begin to create effective solutions to the problems associated with the Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Project. By addressing these issues, Lennar will not only be able to ease the pressure from local residents and community activists, but it will also be able to avoid future fines and penalties. Lennar can begin its socially responsible program by first becoming actively engaged with the issues concerning the community. Only when Lennar becomes aware of the problems they are facing will they be able to begin finding solutions. In order to do this, Lennar should include community members and activist groups in future development discussions. According to Laura Solitare, community participation is extremely important to successful redevelopment projects. In her article “Prerequisite Conditions for Meaningful Participation in Brownfields Redevelopment”, she states:
16
In terms of benefits, participation could promote democracy, improve the quality of decisions, educate the public, legitimize decisions, promote community empowerment, break gridlock and minimize costs. Additionally, by having environmental decision making open to citizen participation, the process gains legitimacy in the eyes of the public. If lay citizens participate in the process, they tend to accept the outcomes of the process as valid and fair, even if these are not to their own advantage (Solitare 2005). To effectively implement this strategy, Lennar should hold quarterly meetings with community leaders and activist groups and provide progress reports and statistics regarding environmental monitoring. The company should also create a “Liaison Window,” or someone who is responsible for handling the concerns of community leaders and activist groups and works to maintain good relationships with the broader community. This strategy will help to both alleviate tensions and give the community a sense of involvement in the decision making process. In addition to addressing community involvement, Lennar must also clean up the shipyard and keep its promise to provide affordable housing. These two issues are at the heart of the controversy, and only when they are addressed will the redevelopment project be able to successfully continue. By being irresponsible in its cleanup practices and revoking promises of affordable housing, Lennar has created a sense of mistrust within the Bayview Hunters Point community. To regain the community?s trust and cooperation, Lennar must actively listen to the community?s needs or worries and honor the contracts it has signed with the city. In doing so, Lennar should seek the expertise of both environmentalists and activist groups to help come up with creative and cost effective solutions to the shipyard cleanup. Specifically, to restore confidence that the construction is done sustainably and responsibly Lennar can take some simple, affordable actions. To start, Lennar can install air pollution monitors on and around the site of the shipyard together with air pollution level legends. Residents could then monitor the air pollution for themselves and notify Lennar of any
17
continuing problems. Moreover, Lennar could institute a hotline in which residents could call to alarm the company of air pollution or any community issues regarding construction. Lennar can further ensure the local community that it is taking meaningful action by financing a health care reimbursement plan for employees and members of the community who live close to the construction site. If it is proven that these residents? health problems have been caused by air pollution, these residents would be reimbursed for all health expenses. To ensure that sufficient affordable housing units will be available for the Bayveiw Hunters Point community, Lennar can provide different housing payment plans for different demographic segments of the community one the construction is finished. Such affordable payment plans can be based on individual or household income level, in addition to discounts for income groups that fall below $30,000 annual income level. Unresolved Issues Lennar will have to continue to invest funds into the shipyard cleanup effort. Going back to profitability and further maximizing profits may take more time than previously anticipated. Also, it will likely take more time before the market value of Lennar?s stocks recovers to pre2008 levels; stockholder interest may not be alleviated in the near future. Despite Lennar declaring that there will be affordable housing, the company?s actions could still contribute to displacement of part of the community. Such displacement will mainly affect African Americans, and if not handled properly it could result in the further erosion of Lennar?s reputation in San Francisco and the Bay Area. The issues of health hazards and affordable housing, together with the subsequent protests from several activist groups have raised serious questions about the ability of Lennar to continue the redevelopment project. Although costly, the proposed solutions should be implemented into
18
Lennar?s redevelopment strategy. In the short run, these actions will help to alleviate community pressure and help Lennar avoid further fines and lawsuits. In the long run, Lennar?s push towards becoming more socially responsible will help both its reputation and future contracting prospects.
19
References 100 Hunters Point Families Out. The Virtual Museum of the City of San Francisco. Retrieved December 5, 2009 from http://www.sfmuseum.org/hist9/hpseize.html Adams, B., Lapin, N. (1961). San Francisco; An Informal Guide. New York: Hill and Wang. Asbestos. (2000). World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe. Retrieved November 16, 2009, from www.euro.who.int/document/aiq/6_2_asbestos.pdf Atkinson, R. (2004). The Evidence on the Impact of Gentrification: New Lessons for the Urban Renaissance?. European Journal of Housing Policy, 4, 104-131. Cohen, M. (2009). Hunters Point Shipyard and Candlestick Point: A Dream Deferred is Not a Dream Denied. SFGate Blogs. Retrieved December 5, 2009 from http://www.sfgate.com/cgibin/blogs/cohen/index#ixzz0YSv2ryW5 Cohen, M. (2009). Michael Cohen Bio. SFGate Blogs. Retrieved December 5, 2009 from http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cohen/bios#ixzz0YStAIV23 Drew, H. Decker, P. ( 1 July 2009). The Public Press: Shipyard Protest Targets Lennar, Navy Plans for Toxic Land. Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. (n.d.). Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved December 4, 2009, from http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/db29676ab46e80818825742600743734/23b69b19 b13d34c488257007005e9421!OpenDocument#threats Knight, H. (2008). Props. F, G split longtime Bayview residents. San Francisco Chronicle: SFGate. Retrieved October 2, 2009, from http://www.sfgate.com/cgi bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/31/BA5N10QFAC.DTL
20 Porter Sumchai, a. M.D. (2009). Singing in the rain: Hunters Point Shipyard enriches SF?s most powerful families. San Francisco Bay View: SFBayView.com. Retrieved December 5, 2009 from http://www.sfbayview.com/2009/singing-in-the-rain-hunters-point-shipyard-enriches-sf?s-mostpowerful-families/ Redevelopment plan for the Bayview Hunters Point redevelopment project. (2006). City and County of San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. Retrieved September 18, 2009, from http://sfredevelopment.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/Projects/RecordedBVHPRedevPlanWeb.pdf Solitare, L. (2005). Prerequisite Conditions for Meaningful Participation in Brownfields Redevelopment. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 48, 917-935. Upton, J. (2009). Shipyard homebuilding rules relaxed | San Francisco Examiner . San Francisco Examiner. Retrieved November 14, 2009, from http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/underthe-dome/Shipyard-homebuilding-rules-relaxed-69036862.html US Census 2000.
doc_133869622.docx
issues of the redevelopment project taking place at Hunters Point, San Francisco. Lennar Corp. is responsible for the construction of the project in the area. Several problems have arisen. Hunters Point is a former naval shipyard that requires special care to eliminate toxins. In response to the redevelopment project, the community is concerned with the availability of affordable housing. Lennar is concerned with company image and profitability.
1
An Analysis of the Issues Facing Lennar Corp. at Hunters Point
San Francisco State University
Introduction This report addresses the issues of the redevelopment project taking place at Hunters Point, San Francisco. Lennar Corp. is responsible for the construction of the project in the area. Several
2
problems have arisen. Hunters Point is a former naval shipyard that requires special care to eliminate toxins. In response to the redevelopment project, the community is concerned with the availability of affordable housing. Lennar is concerned with company image and profitability. Bayview Hunters Point History Bayview Hunters Point is a community located in the far southeast side of San Francisco. The neighborhood?s population is approximately 35,000 people (census, 2000). In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century the area became home to a small community sustained by two dry-docks owned by a local company. In the early twentieth century, the US Navy recognized the potential of the docks and, by 1920, had reconstructed them to become the biggest naval shipyard on the West Coast. In 1941, the shipyard included four new dry docks and a landfill extension. During World War II the Hunters Point Shipyard was a major nuclear test site which shipped materials used to construct the Atomic Bomb known as “Little Boy”. Prior to World War I the Bayview Hunters Point community was economically and ethnically diverse. Apart from the docks, the community relied on fishing and shrimping, as well as other manufacturing industries. The district had a thriving commercial area. The population at this time was a mix of European immigrants with small numbers of Mexican and Chinese immigrants living in the neighborhood as well. After 1920, labor demands induced an influx of African Americans, increasing the African American population by thousands. In combination with the changing ethnic demographics, the naval shipyard slowly destroyed the local fishing industry and relocated many small businesses. Many European immigrants moved out of the neighborhood, leaving a predominantly black population by the 1970s. The shipyard closed in 1974, leaving thousands of African Americans without jobs and living in an isolated area. The closing of the shipyard not only created an isolated neighborhood, in which the majority of the
3
residents are predominantly low income and under the poverty line. Today, the neighborhood is considered a marginalized district with high crime and prostitution rates in addition to the community?s problems with gangs and illegal drug activity (Adams & Lapin, 1961). The Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Project Soon after the naval shipyard closed, leaving more than 3,000 local residents without work, Bayview Hunters Point attracted the attention of the local government and the area was claimed by the city for redevelopment. In 2004, the U.S. Navy transferred Parcel A (one of the shipyard areas due for housing redevelopment) back to the city of San Francisco. The San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (SFRA) issued bonds under the California State Redevelopment Law to acquire the land property of Parcel A, and in 2005, transferred it to Lennar Corp. to begin construction. The Redevelopment Plan for the Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Project was adopted on June 1st, 2006. The transfer of property to Lennar under the Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Plan is conditional to specific objectives set by the SFRA. Among the many objectives set by SFRA, several have not been met by Lennar. These broken promises are causing unrest and dissatisfaction among the community. These issues include: “Increasing the community?s supply of housing by facilitating economically feasible, affordable housing for existing very low-, low- and moderate-income households and residents in the community” (Redevelopment, 2006). “Retaining existing residents and existing cultural diversity to the extent feasible” (Redevelopment, 2006).
4
“Eliminating blighting influences and correcting environmental deficiencies within the Project Area, including, but not limited to, abnormally high vacancies, abandoned, deteriorated and dilapidated buildings, incompatible land uses, depreciated or stagnant property values …” (Redevelopment, 2006). California State funded redevelopment projects are designed to benefit the areas in which the redevelopment takes place. However, the Bayview Hunters Point community is upset about how Lennar has handled the on-going redevelopment project. In early 2007, shortly after Lennar began construction, the community at Bayview Hunters Point became aware that not only were toxins present within the shipyard, but there was a strong possibility that the air had been contaminated as a result of Lennar?s construction techniques. This situation arose primarily because Lennar?s sub-constructors did not effectively monitor the air quality at the construction site. When these findings became public, there was unrest and protesting within the community. People quickly organized and formed community coalitions aiming to halt the project. Some employees who had worked at the site filed lawsuits against Lennar Corp. In addition, the company was fined by the San Francisco Environmental Protection Agency for negligence. These events significantly damaged the community?s confidence in both Lennar and the project?s purpose in general. Lennar?s late response to the community?s concerns not only made it difficult to restore dialogue with the residents, but also made it more complicated to realign community interests with the project. In light of these problems, the community started questioning other aspects of the project such as gentrification issues and, more specifically, Lennar?s adherence to the affordable housing clause of the Redevelopment Project Agreement. Today, as a result of Lennar?s social irresponsibility, the company faces strong community pressure and negative local media attention. A significant part of the Bayview Hunters Point
5
community is angry with Lennar's conduct and approach to the redevelopment project. Residents of the area are concerned with the cleanup efforts and the possible negative effects on community health. In addition, there is concern that the redevelopment project will result in a lack of affordable housing, causing displacement and gentrification issues. This report aims to describe those issues, map the relevant stakeholders, provide solutions and foresee future outputs stemming from these solutions. The first trigger of the Bayview Hunters Point redevelopment project crisis was the vagueness of what toxins were present at the site and the extent to which Lennar was taking precautions to ensure that toxins were not released into the air or the water. These concerns stem from the history of the shipyard as a former radioactive research site from 1939 to 1974. Here is what is listed on the EPA website under the section Contaminates and Risks of the Hunters Point Shipyard: Groundwater, sediments, soil, and surface water are contaminated with fuels, pesticides, heavy metals, PCBs, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). A landfill located on Parcel E contains radium dials, and soil contains naturally occurring asbestos. People who accidentally ingest or come in direct contact with contaminated soils, sediments, surface water, or groundwater may face a health risk. Potential threats may also be presented by offgas from VOCs, particularly vinyl chloride, present in hot spots in soil and groundwater. Various radionuclides, primarily radium 226 and cesium 137, have also been found at the Shipyard (Protection Agency, 2009). While EPA did not find any of the radioactive toxins in Parcel A soil, it did find that asbestos was still present. According to the EPA, “Serpentinite, a rock that underlies major parts of the hillsides and slopes at Hunters Point, contains naturally occurring Chrysotile asbestos, which could become a health hazard if released and inhaled during construction-related excavation activities” (Protection Agency, 2009). Asbestos is a natural compound of the Earth?s crust and low levels of it can be traced in food, water, and air. According to a report of the World Health Organization, asbestos is the “tiny,
6
long, flexible fibrils with size of 20 to 25 nm each” (Asbestos, 2000). While naturally present, high levels of asbestos in air and water can be enhanced by several man-made activities, one of which is urban construction. According to the same report “an intensive and well documented series of case studies and epidemiological observations link past occupational exposure to asbestos with asbestosis, lung cancer, and Mesothelioma” (Asbestos, 2000). Lennar was responsible for monitoring the asbestos levels during construction, but failed to do so. This not only led to an uncertainty about the health risks associated with the redevelopment project among local residents, but also caused the local community to lose confidence in Lennar and question the company?s integrity regarding the project in general. Failure to monitor air pollution has also triggered further questions from the community concerning gentrification and whether or not Lennar would meet its obligation to provide the minimum affordable housing units, as agreed with the SFRA. In addition to the environmental issues Lennar must attend to, it also must address the problems associated with the displacement of the local residents. In its project plans, Lennar has failed to fully consider the consequences of the redevelopment. As proposed, the project will completely change the dynamics of the community, leading not only to a gentrification of the area, but also creating a lack of affordable housing for current residents. The process of gentrification can be described as “…the rehabilitation of working-class and derelict housing and the consequent transformation of an area into a middle-class neighborhood” (Atkinson, 2004). While the gentrification of poor neighborhoods can lead to better standards of living for a community, this transformation from a poorer area into one that is more affluent has several problematic issues, one of which is conflict between remaining residents and new middle-class members of the community. Conflict can occur when residents of
7
an area single out new, middle-class entrants to the neighborhood as being a problem, or when these existing residents feel anger at the changing characteristics of their neighborhood (Atkinson, 2004).These conflicts are not only bad for the overall community moral, but may even prevent new residents and businesses from coming to the area. Another problem brought on by gentrification is the displacement of community members. This displacement process occurs as a result of “…the market removal of residents either through quickly inflating rents and house prices as well as through landlord harassment to secure vacant possession” (Atkinson, 2004). As a result of the increased prices, housing becomes unaffordable for many residents in the community. These residents are not only forced to leave their homes, but are forced to leave the community altogether. This forced removal can lead not only to anger within the community, but it also can lead to increased homelessness and crime (Atkinson, 2004). The affordability of housing is a major area of concern for residents of the Bayview Hunters Point community. Although the redevelopment project is meant to improve economic development, build affordable housing, and add community enhancements, many local residents believe that the redevelopment plan will not provide enough affordable housing. The main issue between the two sides is the amount of affordable housing that will be made available upon the completion of the redevelopment project. According to the agreement signed by Lennar with the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Commission, Lennar is required to have “at least 10 percent of the homes meet the definition of „affordable,? or can be purchased or rented by residents who earn up to 120 percent of the area?s average income” (Upton, 2009). Community members feel that the proposed ten percent of affordable housing along with the definition of affordable is not sufficient. These residents believe that Lennar?s affordable housing policies
8
will not help, but will instead price out many of the low income families in the area. Opponents of the redevelopment agree saying that, “Lennar should make half of the new homes affordable to people earning 30 percent to 80 percent of the city's median income, or $64,267 for a family of four” (Knight, 2008). In its redevelopment project, Lennar is trying to bring about dramatic changes in the housing and businesses of the Bayview Hunters Point community in an attempt to gentrify the area and attract middle-class residents. At present, the residents in the community are predominantly African-American and low income and the community has come together to rally against the project. Resident conflict and displacement can be detrimental to the continued growth of a community redevelopment project. Protests, negative attitudes, and hostilities from affected residents are not only problematic for the continuance of the project, but can negatively affect economic development as well. For these reasons, Lennar must be careful in its approach to the redevelopment process and in its actions toward the Bayview Hunters Point community. Stakeholder Analysis The Stop Lennar Action Movement (SLAM) was formed over two and half years ago, and continues to gain support as Lennar?s controversial actions continue. SLAM includes the Nation of Islam, POWER, Green Action for Health, Bayview Hunters Point pastors representing their churches, and environmental justice groups. SLAM is a coalition of organizations that has joined forces to help protect the Bayview community by fighting against the actions of Lennar at the Hunters Point Shipyard. Nation of Islam As specified by its contract, Lennar was required by the city and Bay Area Air Quality Management District to monitor levels of asbestos in the air during its initial cleanup of the
9
Hunters Point Shipyard. Lennar agreed to take specific measures to ensure that community health would not be at risk as a result of the cleanup process, agreeing to mist the dirt and to shut down work when asbestos particles in the air rose to a certain level. However, Lennar did not install dust monitors at the beginning of the reconstruction project, and failed to test the air during the course of construction. When monitors were installed they did not work properly. It was not until residents complained that Lennar took notice of the problem. As a result, Lennar suffered a fine of $515,000 for its negligence. Lennar?s carelessness in monitoring the health risks associated with the redevelopment project not only angered the local residents, but also turned many members of the community against all of the company?s actions. One community member particularly displeased is Christopher Muhammed, the minister for the Nation of Islam, and principle of a school near the construction site. Muhammed is concerned with the health issues that the community is facing, and feels that a green developer should replace Lennar. Experts such as the Environmental Protection Agency have claimed that although Lennar broke its promises to monitor the level of asbestos in the air, the air quality is not hazardous and it does not pose a long term health threat. Despite these experts? opinions, many Bayview Hunters Point residents support Muhammed. These disgruntled residents created an opposition group against the company and are now filing numerous law suits, getting the navy involved, and publicly criticizing Lennar as causing intentional harm. Community coalitions pose a major threat to Lennar?s reputation as a construction company, and also make the company?s current task of building luxury condominiums more difficult. In addition to the opposition from the community, Lennar?s values are being questioned, giving the impression that Lennar is inattentive to the community concerns. It is imperative that Lennar
10
correct this negative image and replace it with one that portrays the company as socially responsible. POWER Another coalition formed to protest against the actions of Lennar is an organization called “People Organized to Win Employment Right (POWER).” POWER is a social justice organization, working to promote and protect the interests of residents in the Bayview Hunters Point area. It is one of many activist groups seeking to stop construction until a majority of the controversies surrounding the project and Lennar?s actions are resolved. Currently, POWER is opposing legislation that would give Lennar ownership and control of a recreational area at Candlestick Park, an area adjacent to Hunters Point Shipyard. POWER, along with local residents, fear that Lennar is simply participating in the redevelopment project to make a profit and do not have the best interests of the residents of Bayview Hunters Point in mind. If true, these practices are both unethical and socially irresponsible. Alicia Schwartz, one of the leaders of POWER states, Bayview deserves better…Now Lennar has stooped even lower, attempting to pit Black people against Black people, Christians against Muslims, resident against resident, all for the promise of a dollar, a seasonal job, some parks on toxic land, and some homes that 80 percent of the community won?t be able to afford (Drew & Decker, 2009). Despite its actions, Lennar is not solely responsible for the community unrest and rebellion. Lennar was contracted by the city as part of the Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Plan, and the local government is receiving similar pressure from activist groups. As the developer, Lennar shoulders a significant amount of responsibility for the project and thus is seen by activist groups like POWER as the major contributor to the current controversies.
11
The main issues concerning POWER are Lennar?s negligent handling of the shipyard cleanup, its broken promises relating to affordable housing, and the protection of community pride and tradition in the Bayview Hunters Point area. Lennar?s approach has put the area and its residents in a defensive position. In response to Lennar?s actions, Flint, an organizing member of POWER said, “I love this community and have been coming here since I was a child. They promised us 30 percent affordable housing, and they have found a way to weasel out of that. I decided to take an organizing job with POWER to combat their avaricious practices” (Drew & Decker, 2009). Members of POWER believe that Lennar should take into account the opinions and attitudes of local residents before decisions are made. Due to the efforts of activist groups like POWER, the Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Project has encountered numerous delays and work stoppages. These delays have cost Lennar financially both in terms of government fines and loss of future project opportunities. The Navy was informed about the situation at the shipyard and provided cleaning solutions. Community members felt that if the Navy knew that the shipyard was not being cleaned of toxins properly that it would step in and help the situation. The Navy?s response was to cap the project and not let Lennar work in the shipyard anymore. Even though it seemed that discontinuing the project was what the community wanted, this was not the type of help the community was seeking. Instead of a positive reaction to the Navy?s proposal, the community believed that if Lennar abandoned the project now, the community itself would have to deal with the toxins later. This indicates that the community actually prefers Lennar keep working on the redevelopment project. However, Lennar must first ensure that the site is cleaned up and that its continued construction is safe and healthy for everyone. A Bayview resident states, “We're asking them not
12
to cap, but to clean it. I grew up here as a kid. I worked in the shipyard. There are lots of toxins in there. All we want is clean air and for them to clean up these toxins” (Drew & Decker, 2009).
Community Some members of the community are not a part of the organized activist groups, yet still voice their opinion on the matter. These residents attend community meetings where representatives from Lennar are present to defend the company and its actions. Many local residents perceive Lennar as a greedy corporation, taking on the redevelopment projects only to make a profit. Davu Flint is an 80 year old man and resident of Bayview. Flint states, “Going into boardroom meetings with them and seeing their environmental practices -- seeing their bottom-line profit margins -- that is all they care about” (Drew & Decker, 2009). Some local community members are concerned primarily with the health issues, and are less worried about Lennar breaking their affordable housing promise. While the shipyard is a place of known toxins, these toxins were not causing anyone harm before the beginning of the redevelopment project. It was only when Lennar began the shipyard cleanup, releasing toxins into the air, that health issues became a problem. Complicating matters is the fact that Lennar promised to install asbestos monitors and did not do it. This outraged the community and made it seem that Lennar did not care about the health and safety of the local residents. Several times different analysts were brought in and it was determined that the toxins in the air did not pose long-term health threats. This, however, did not ease the community?s concerns. Many residents still seek medical treatment for their children, claiming the inhalation of toxins from the shipyard is causing bloody noses and lung damage.
13
Lennar does not understand how the community can be so outraged when many times it was proven that toxins at the Hunters Point Shipyard do not pose extreme health risks. However, Lennar failed to fully research community expectations and concerns prior to beginning construction. Lennar did not take into consideration the characteristics of Bayview Hunters Point: a community of mainly low income African-Americans. These residents wish to maintain a sense of pride in their area and their people, and feel threatened by the changes proposed by Lennar. Not addressing the needs of these people now would not only lead to further protesting, but would also hinder Lennar?s ability to complete the project. “Complaints from the black community go mostly unheard,” one resident said. “A citywide movement needs to rise up, if we are going to do something about Lennar” (Drew & Decker, 2009). This disconnect seems to stem from the fact that community concerns and complaints are not being handled properly. The Bayveiw Hunters Point community residents should be allowed to be a part of the redevelopment process in their community. While the community continues to rally and protest, Lennar continues to take no action. Should Lennar continue to completely ignore residents and their concerns, there will be continued strikes and protests, which could potentially lead to more severe problems in the future. Local City Officials The actions of San Francisco?s politicians have shown steady support for Lennar throughout the decade. Not only did the Mayor?s office supported Lennar?s bid for the Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Project, but numerous city commissions approved Lennar as well. To this day, the city government continues to stand by its support of Lennar in the redevelopment project efforts.
14
Among local city officials, Michael Cohen, the director of San Francisco?s Office of Economic and Workforce Development, as well as a previous head of the Real Estate and Finance group of the San Francisco City Attorney's Office, is the most vocal supporter of Lennar and the Bayview Hunters Point project. On his blog, in line with Lennar?s website, Cohen describes a picturesque future for the neighborhood and demands that the project continue even against the wishes of the community: To keep the naysayers from pushing us backwards, demanding studies of alternatives that ignore the laws of economics, demanding that we ignore the conclusions of respected scientists from around the country that the project is safe, demanding that we do anything but...actually move forward with change (Cohen, 2009) Michael Cohen also posts on his personal blog, “Don't get me wrong, this project - the redevelopment of the Hunters Point Shipyard and Candlestick Point - will get built” (Cohen, 2009). As of today Michael Cohen is still actively involved with Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Project, as well as with similar projects at Treasure Island and other Bay Area redevelopment sites. All of these redevelopment sites have been granted to Lennar and its subcontractors. The mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, has supported the project by signing legislation, but has been less publicly supportive of Lennar in particular. However, local newspaper reports show numerous links between Newsom and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi?s family. The article from the local leftish newspaper San Francisco Bay View, “Singing in the Rain: Hunters Point Shipyard Enriches SF?s Most Powerful Families” reveals that Laurence Pelosi, the son of Ronald Pelosi and Barbara Newsom, is related to Gavin Newsome. In addition, Laurence Pelosi was the Vice President of Naval Acquisitions for Lennar, but
15
resigned from the post shortly before Lennar won the bid for the Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Project. Today, Laurence Pelosi is a Morgan Stanley Real Estate Executive Director, a fund that owns Lennar stock. Laurence also serves on the board of directors of SPUR (San Francisco Planning and Urban Research), a local development think tank (Sumchai, 2009). The article goes into further detail about Sen. Barbara Boxer?s husband Richard Blum, whose companies benefited billions of dollars from military reconstruction contracts, suggesting that Sen. Boxer used her influence to help Nancy Pelosi speed the transfer of the shipyard to Lennar while chairing the Senate Subcommittee on Military Contraction Appropriations (Sumchai, 2009). None of these accusations are proven true or have been investigated. Yet there is a sense in the Bayview Hunters Point community Lennar?s contract was driven by major conflicts of interest in the Pelosi and Newsom families. Solutions Now that the main issues and relevant stakeholders have been identified, Lennar can begin to create effective solutions to the problems associated with the Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Project. By addressing these issues, Lennar will not only be able to ease the pressure from local residents and community activists, but it will also be able to avoid future fines and penalties. Lennar can begin its socially responsible program by first becoming actively engaged with the issues concerning the community. Only when Lennar becomes aware of the problems they are facing will they be able to begin finding solutions. In order to do this, Lennar should include community members and activist groups in future development discussions. According to Laura Solitare, community participation is extremely important to successful redevelopment projects. In her article “Prerequisite Conditions for Meaningful Participation in Brownfields Redevelopment”, she states:
16
In terms of benefits, participation could promote democracy, improve the quality of decisions, educate the public, legitimize decisions, promote community empowerment, break gridlock and minimize costs. Additionally, by having environmental decision making open to citizen participation, the process gains legitimacy in the eyes of the public. If lay citizens participate in the process, they tend to accept the outcomes of the process as valid and fair, even if these are not to their own advantage (Solitare 2005). To effectively implement this strategy, Lennar should hold quarterly meetings with community leaders and activist groups and provide progress reports and statistics regarding environmental monitoring. The company should also create a “Liaison Window,” or someone who is responsible for handling the concerns of community leaders and activist groups and works to maintain good relationships with the broader community. This strategy will help to both alleviate tensions and give the community a sense of involvement in the decision making process. In addition to addressing community involvement, Lennar must also clean up the shipyard and keep its promise to provide affordable housing. These two issues are at the heart of the controversy, and only when they are addressed will the redevelopment project be able to successfully continue. By being irresponsible in its cleanup practices and revoking promises of affordable housing, Lennar has created a sense of mistrust within the Bayview Hunters Point community. To regain the community?s trust and cooperation, Lennar must actively listen to the community?s needs or worries and honor the contracts it has signed with the city. In doing so, Lennar should seek the expertise of both environmentalists and activist groups to help come up with creative and cost effective solutions to the shipyard cleanup. Specifically, to restore confidence that the construction is done sustainably and responsibly Lennar can take some simple, affordable actions. To start, Lennar can install air pollution monitors on and around the site of the shipyard together with air pollution level legends. Residents could then monitor the air pollution for themselves and notify Lennar of any
17
continuing problems. Moreover, Lennar could institute a hotline in which residents could call to alarm the company of air pollution or any community issues regarding construction. Lennar can further ensure the local community that it is taking meaningful action by financing a health care reimbursement plan for employees and members of the community who live close to the construction site. If it is proven that these residents? health problems have been caused by air pollution, these residents would be reimbursed for all health expenses. To ensure that sufficient affordable housing units will be available for the Bayveiw Hunters Point community, Lennar can provide different housing payment plans for different demographic segments of the community one the construction is finished. Such affordable payment plans can be based on individual or household income level, in addition to discounts for income groups that fall below $30,000 annual income level. Unresolved Issues Lennar will have to continue to invest funds into the shipyard cleanup effort. Going back to profitability and further maximizing profits may take more time than previously anticipated. Also, it will likely take more time before the market value of Lennar?s stocks recovers to pre2008 levels; stockholder interest may not be alleviated in the near future. Despite Lennar declaring that there will be affordable housing, the company?s actions could still contribute to displacement of part of the community. Such displacement will mainly affect African Americans, and if not handled properly it could result in the further erosion of Lennar?s reputation in San Francisco and the Bay Area. The issues of health hazards and affordable housing, together with the subsequent protests from several activist groups have raised serious questions about the ability of Lennar to continue the redevelopment project. Although costly, the proposed solutions should be implemented into
18
Lennar?s redevelopment strategy. In the short run, these actions will help to alleviate community pressure and help Lennar avoid further fines and lawsuits. In the long run, Lennar?s push towards becoming more socially responsible will help both its reputation and future contracting prospects.
19
References 100 Hunters Point Families Out. The Virtual Museum of the City of San Francisco. Retrieved December 5, 2009 from http://www.sfmuseum.org/hist9/hpseize.html Adams, B., Lapin, N. (1961). San Francisco; An Informal Guide. New York: Hill and Wang. Asbestos. (2000). World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe. Retrieved November 16, 2009, from www.euro.who.int/document/aiq/6_2_asbestos.pdf Atkinson, R. (2004). The Evidence on the Impact of Gentrification: New Lessons for the Urban Renaissance?. European Journal of Housing Policy, 4, 104-131. Cohen, M. (2009). Hunters Point Shipyard and Candlestick Point: A Dream Deferred is Not a Dream Denied. SFGate Blogs. Retrieved December 5, 2009 from http://www.sfgate.com/cgibin/blogs/cohen/index#ixzz0YSv2ryW5 Cohen, M. (2009). Michael Cohen Bio. SFGate Blogs. Retrieved December 5, 2009 from http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cohen/bios#ixzz0YStAIV23 Drew, H. Decker, P. ( 1 July 2009). The Public Press: Shipyard Protest Targets Lennar, Navy Plans for Toxic Land. Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. (n.d.). Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved December 4, 2009, from http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/db29676ab46e80818825742600743734/23b69b19 b13d34c488257007005e9421!OpenDocument#threats Knight, H. (2008). Props. F, G split longtime Bayview residents. San Francisco Chronicle: SFGate. Retrieved October 2, 2009, from http://www.sfgate.com/cgi bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/31/BA5N10QFAC.DTL
20 Porter Sumchai, a. M.D. (2009). Singing in the rain: Hunters Point Shipyard enriches SF?s most powerful families. San Francisco Bay View: SFBayView.com. Retrieved December 5, 2009 from http://www.sfbayview.com/2009/singing-in-the-rain-hunters-point-shipyard-enriches-sf?s-mostpowerful-families/ Redevelopment plan for the Bayview Hunters Point redevelopment project. (2006). City and County of San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. Retrieved September 18, 2009, from http://sfredevelopment.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/Projects/RecordedBVHPRedevPlanWeb.pdf Solitare, L. (2005). Prerequisite Conditions for Meaningful Participation in Brownfields Redevelopment. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 48, 917-935. Upton, J. (2009). Shipyard homebuilding rules relaxed | San Francisco Examiner . San Francisco Examiner. Retrieved November 14, 2009, from http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/underthe-dome/Shipyard-homebuilding-rules-relaxed-69036862.html US Census 2000.
doc_133869622.docx