Fracking the Mission

The natural gas fracking facility at Valencia & 23rd should be online by the end of the month.


Koch Industries promises flaring will not start before 7 AM on weekdays, 8 on weekends.


34 Responses to “Fracking the Mission”

  1. Sean says:

    Seriously, does anyone know what this is? Best guess I’ve heard so far is that all of that stuff is for removing toxic gasoline remnants from the site.

  2. GeeDee says:

    Yes it is removing remnants of old gasoline/oil tanks
    Check Missionpossible Page 8.
    Valencia and 23rd shows as still being removed

  3. tack says:

    Yeah, I read someplace else (don’t remember where) that it’s soil rehabilitation or whatever the correct term is from the old gas station. Also that after that bit’s done yuppie condos are going up.

    But… this is all out of memory and I can’t remember where exactly I read it.

    • danfinger says:

      curious, if a new housing development were erected anywhere in the mission, do you automatically call it ‘yuppie[sic] condos’ ?

      You know there is a housing shortage in this city, yes?
      You do know that building new housing in the city is a GOOD thing, right?

      • Pito says:

        It is not good when these “housing developments” artificially inflates rent and prices across the whole neighborhood. I moved in four years ago, If my apartment wasn’t rent controlled I would be paying almost $1000/mo more for rent, while the things that have changed in the neighborhood are more traffic and more expensive boutique stores. Crime and living conditions are still the same. Good thing my ass.

        • SlobDog says:

          How do projects like these “artificially inflates rent . . . “? I just don’t see the connection – boutique stores? Hopefully, some of the new owners will rent them out. I would tend to say less vacancies over the last 4 years make the neighborhood safer perhaps that inflates rental prices.

          • Pito says:

            For example, rent in X block that contains 50 units is around 1500/mo for a one bedroom apt, a developer buys a corner of this block and builds a 25 unit structure with premium commercial space on the first floor where there used to be 8 units. Rent on these “luxury” units ends up being around 2000/mo for a one bedroom, but two thirds of the size of the available rentals around it. The perceived value of the older units shoots up because of their size and parking availability (which shrinks down drastically after you add this kind of new development to the area). You end up with an apartment which real value is $1500 being rented out for around $2000 because it can offer you space and parking. Nothing changed in the neighborhood you just crammed new people in, effectively reducing the quality of life of older residents, and making the developer a lot of money, which lets not forget is the actual goal of this development.

        • brooklynize says:

          Yeah…it’s way better to build more housing out in the ‘burbs where people drive everywhere.

        • Troy says:

          You moved here 4 years ago, and you’re complaining about the neighborhood becoming more expensive and crowded?


        • hot tubber says:

          Hey buddy, Marin County called and it wants its NIMBY back.

        • Whataperv says:

          Do you know what raises rent more than adding more housing units to a neighborhood?

          When you moved in four years ago, you were part of a wave of new residents that pushed rents up 25+%. Demand in the Mission has gotten higher and higher over the last decade, with astronomical rents appearing around 2007/2008. They’ve continued to ramp up ever since. This is because more people want to live in the neighborhood. Landlords have realized they can charge a shit ton and get qualified renters and so they do. The availability of shitty, yuppie attracting condos has nothing to do with that. You’re part of the problem that you’re complaining about, which is why some of us, who were living in the Mission before you, are looking at neighborhoods that are cheaper and have a better quality of life.

          • blah says:

            You know what else raised prevailing rents? When I did an OMI on my crazy tenant and took the fucking unit off the market. Bwah ha ha. Suck it, peons.

      • shemp9999 says:

        Truth is, most if not all the new construction in the neighborhood is ‘Yuppie Condos.’ The developers pay a fee to avoid rules on the mix of market rate and low income units, and I haven’t seen any rental properties built in the recent past.

        • GG says:

          Please cite your source for the provision in the law that permits paying a fee to avoid the “affordable” housing requirements.

          • here ya go says:


            I thought everyone knew this. the relevant part:

            Section 415 of the Planning Code requires residential developments with 5 or more units to pay an Affordable Housing Fee. Project sponsors may apply for an alternative to the fee in the form of providing 15% of their units on-site or 20% of their units off-site as affordable to low- to moderate-income households. These percentages are higher in certain parts of the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan Area. Project Sponsors in the certain parts of the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan Area may also apply for the alternative of dedicating land for affordable housing.

      • Snake Plissken says:

        yes, the argument is not housing vs. no housing. it’s reasonable rental property vs. owned units at top dollar. they’re not exactly building condos to do you and the city a kind service.

        • SFdoggy says:

          Well since what you would call “reasonable rental property” can’t be built without subsidies, the argument really does come down to housing vs. no housing. It is interesting that people feel entitled to rent an apartment at whatever price they happen to think is reasonable.

  4. eyeballs says:

    you guys are already on the goddamned internet and you are going to ask the commenters on missionmission what fracking is?

  5. Sfnola says:

    I’m pretty sure that’s a meth lab.

  6. Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable says:

    Oh boy, more uglyass overpriced yuppie condos, coming soon!

  7. the_cupcake_of_no_flair says:

    Since they are displacing smug trustafarians I’m actually down with it.

  8. Jesse says:

    Get the frack outta here!

  9. dude says:

    Something similar is going on at 23rd St and Potrero. It’s a many many years-long process, at least in that case. At least ten years so far. Yes, ten years. So likely don’t expect any condos any time soon.

  10. En-Chu Lao says:

    You people have it all wrong. It’s going to be the newest Café to think that it’s the be-all of coffee brewing. Some stick in a flannel shirt and five pounds of beard will take 15 minutes to annoyingly explain the “proper” way to brew a cup.

  11. Dan says:

    It’s amusing that Pito rented an apartment in the Mission 4 years ago, and is worried that condos being built now (or years in the future) are gentrifying Valencia Street. You, Pito, are one of the gentrifiers of the Mission, a process that has already happened over the last 20 years. Condos built at Valencia and 23rd St won’t make a difference one way or the other– rental vacancies near there are already snapped up at insane prices, and right now that site is just a toxic dump. Rents are going up because there are tens of thousands of new tech jobs in the area, that pay enough for people to bid up the few vacancies available. There will be stabilization or drops in rent only when the economy here slows down again. (The only developments that might be large enough to make some difference in supply and demand of rental housing are the large complexes like Trinity Plaza at 8th and Market, where 1700 rental units are being built.)

  12. ALWAYS HIGH says:


  13. En-Chu Lao says:

    This is the type of equipment they needed a few years ago when that fat woman was photographed letting go of a deluge of explosive diarrhea against the side of a building.