I haven't posted in this space in a while, and it's high time I let the readers know why: since March, I've been managing the campaigns of two greatcandidates for local office here in San Francisco. The work is all-consuming and I haven't had time to keep track of stuff governments do. But the California primary election is next Tuesday, and many fellow San Franciscans have been asking me to reflect on my recent experience and provide guidance on down-ballot elections and propositions. To that end I’ve written a quick primer on the state of San Francisco politics and followed it up with my analysis of the most important local ballot questions.
The battle lines: Nearly every elected official, consultant, activist, or other person of import in San Francisco politics is a Democrat. However, among Democrats there is a huge and growing divide between two factions, known as the “Moderates” and the “Progressives,” who differ most vehemently in how they view the housing crisis and how to combat it. Moderates view housing prices as a function of supply and demand, and blame high prices on the restrictive land use and zoning policies that since the 1970s have prevented the construction of new buildings that could house newcomers. Moderates believe that having a global industry centered in our city, helping bring about a booming economy and low unemployment, is a very good thing, and we should build more housing to accommodate the population growth that it brings about.
Progressives blame high housing prices, and many of the city’s other problems, on the city’s wealthy residents, particularly these newcomers who work in the technology industry. They believe that this influx has driven up rents, causing people to be evicted (leading to a higher homeless population), and that building more housing supply will drive prices up, not down. They think the city should only allow new housing to be constructed if rents are artificially held down so that a household making under $100,000 per year can afford to live there. Given that no developer will be able to recoup their costs with such low rents, Progressives propose that the government revenues from unspecified sources make up the difference.
There’s a bit of an ugly, cultural side to this divide that goes beyond policy analysis — and you can see it in the “fuck techies” graffiti that is not hard to find on Muni buses or around the Mission. You can also see it in the barely-concealed contempt for the tech industry espoused by many leading Progressive voices in the city.
Democratic County Central Committee (DCCC): The DCCC is the governing board of the San Francisco Democratic Party. Moderates and Progressives are aggressively contesting control off the DCCC, putting millions of dollars behind their respective slates of candidates, because the DCCC determines which candidates and ballot propositions have the official Democratic Party endorsement in November. SF elects its Mayor and other elected officials on a non-partisan basis — meaning nobody has a “D” or “R” next to their name on the ballot. This means whichever slate wins control of the DCCC will, through its endorsement power, likely determine who controls the Board of Supervisors in after November.
The Board of Supervisors is SF’s legislature and has a ton of power over housing policy. So, I strongly recommend voting the following DCCC candidates, all of whom support building more housing to make San Francisco more affordable.
If you live on the east side of San Francisco, that’s these people: London Breed, Francis Tsang, Arlo Hale Smith, Jill Wynns, Scott Wiener, Zoe Dunning, Tom Hsieh, Malia Cohen, Gary McCoy, Joshua Arce, Leah Pimentel, Rebecca Prozan, Alix Rosenthal.
If you live on the west side, vote for: Joel Engardio, Keith Baraka, Mary Jung, Mark Farrell, Rachel Norton, Tom Hsieh, Emily Murase, Trevor McNeil, Kat Anderson, Marjan Philhour
Prop. A: Simple as it sounds: this is a bond issue that will provide more money to improve the health infrastructure in SF. Hard core fiscal cranks might object to more debt, but interest rates are really low right now and the SF economy is booming like crazy, so vote yes.
Prob. B: What Prop. B would do is amend the City Charter — San Francisco’s constitution— to require that a certain amount of money be set aside every year to fund parks. If unforeseen circumstances transpire and the City needs the money for another urgent priority, the Board of Supervisors will be powerless to do so. Call me old fashioned, but I think money should be allocated by elected representatives, not by the constitution, which is why I recommend voting no.
Prop. C: This proposition is really confusing because a huge part of its impact goes unmentioned on the ballot. Essentially what Prop. C does is require 25% of the units in all new large housing developments offer artificially low rents. Existing projects that don’t meet this requirement have been grandfather’d in, meaning they can proceed as planned. But all development moving forward will be much more costly.
This one is a tough call. Some developers are saying that future development under the 25% requirement will be so costly that it will bring new housing development to a halt, after existing projects are completed. On the other hand, businessmen always claim that new regulations will stifle investment — and usually end up finding a way to make a lot of money anyway. I voted no on this, but there’s a good case to be made for voting yes.
State Senate: The closely fought campaign between Jane Kim and Scott Wiener is, like the fight over the DCCC, a microcosm of the larger battle within San Francisco politics. Each candidate is a major figure in their respective factions. Kim is a Progressive, and has supported measures like a “right to rest” law that would legalize homeless tent encampments. Wiener is an hardworking wonk who is responsible for SF's new paid family leave bill -- one of the most progressive in the country. He's also one of California's most ambitious leaders when it comes to investment in infrastructure, housing, and transportation. For sensible housing policy and really forward thinking ideas, vote Wiener.