By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
San Francisco, CA – If we are looking at issues that might resonate just over a month from now elsewhere in the state, the lessons of the special Assembly election point to an important issue—housing.
This week Matt Haney overwhelmingly defeated David Campos to win the Assembly seat vacated by David Chu, when he was appointed as San Francisco City Attorney. What was striking was the margin of victory 63-37, when the margin in the February primary with four candidates was almost dead even at 37-36.
There are a lot of factors here, including very strong labor backing, with Haney calling the endorsements from both AFSCME and SEIU “the most pivotal moment in this campaign.”
But a huge factor was housing.
The San Francisco Standard noted that “housing discussions dominated the race, and YIMBY Action’s Endorsement of Haney received a lot of 
attention.
The Standard noted that Haney faced a YIMBY in his 2018 supervisor race and “his evolving stance on building more homes over the last year or so—some political observers called it a calculated shift—played a huge role in differentiating himself from Campos.”
Indeed, in that 2018 race, he won his seat easily despite opposing Senator Wiener’s SB 35 housing bill and “offering limp support of development projects outside of District 6.”
The Standard noted, “His more recent about-face on housing helped him secure the support of YIMBY Action and other pro-housing groups in the city, a crucial step in differentiating himself from Campos.”
“It took [Haney] a while,” said Laura Foote, the executive director of pro-housing group YIMBY Action, which endorsed Haney after working with him during his three-plus years as a supervisor. “He had to go through the experience of seeing all the roadblocks to building housing in San Francisco.”
In an interview with the Standard, he told them that “his previous agnosticism on building more housing outside of District 6—as well as his temporary opposition to Scott Wiener’s aggressive housing bills in the state Senate—should be viewed as part of the legislative process.”
“A narrative catches and it holds, but the reality is I’ve been pro-housing, and I will continue to be in a different role,” Haney said. “My version of progressivism has always been rooted in listening to people and responding to the real concerns that they have, and not governing in a way that dismisses the concerns and experience of my constituents.”
Mission Local went further, arguing this was a wake-up call for progressives to more strongly support housing.
Joe Eskenazi argues, “On a local level, it’s still not a winning proposition for an aspiring Board candidate to call for more market-rate construction in his or her district.” However, “On a citywide level, however, it’s a no-brainer: It’s hard to come up with counter-arguments for broad, ambiguous calls for more housing. Haney read the room. Progressives will have to do this, too.”
Those of you in Davis reading this should keep this in mind as well. And it may explain why voters in Davis will oppose housing proposals but support councilmembers willing to build more housing.
The key in San Francisco: “It is not enough to discount why construction is a negative. Progressives, on a citywide level, will have to have answers for the many city residents who, even with decent incomes, cannot dream of buying a home and cementing a future here. Progressive solutions will have to be that—solutions. It’s not enough anymore to deflect.”
Eskenazi notes, “When I asked leading progressives what they’d tell people who can’t plan for futures in San Francisco—people for whom the strident simplicity of ‘build more housing’ holds a tantalizing appeal—I receive a barrage of responses. “
He said that the responses include: “Combat evictions, squeeze out inclusionary housing in any and all ways possible, establish a vacancy tax, and lean heavily into social housing.”
But he argues, “None of these is as cogent as ‘build more housing.’”
Or as Supervisor Aaron Peskin, a leading progressive, put it, “We need to have a snappy answer to the vexing issues du jour: Those are housing/housing affordability and homelessness… It’s got to be better than ‘we’re trying.’”
How will this dynamic play out in places like Davis? That’s an interesting question. The majority of the residents are, of course, renters—but in terms of voters, homeowners are more likely to vote and in a smaller election like the one expected on June 7, they could dominate.
For a project like DiSC then, people who are directly impacted by the project back in 2020 overwhelmingly voted against it. The rest of the city supported it but not by near enough margins to overcome that resistance.
However in the same election, in the two districts where a more pro-housing incumbent faced a slow growther, the pro-housing side won overwhelmingly.
The Vanguard has received reports that mailers in both Dan Carson and Gloria Partida’s districts have heavily targeted the incumbents.
Can a message that Davis needs more housing—that housing is unaffordable to young workers and Davis needs more jobs and more revenue—resonate? It’s possible.
The voters were willing to overwhelming support Nishi in 2018—the difference was that seemed to have very limited impacts on near neighbors and the city.
Still, is housing is a concern to voters that could very well help shape the dynamics of the last six weeks of the DiSC campaign as well as the potential council races this fall.
There were, though The Chronicle attempted to “sell” the story in the same way that the Vanguard does, as usual.
Housing did not dominate The Chronicle’s comment section regarding in articles regarding this race, as it often does in other articles.
Right – with Haney in there, housing prices will drop and everyone who wants to buy a house in San Francisco will have no problems doing so. 🙂
And they’ll continue recruiting companies whose employees are paid better than everyone else.
https://48hills.org/2017/11/housing-crisis-caused-much-growth/
I’ve never had any problems in doing so. For one thing, California is not growing anymore. The YIMBYs are trying to force it to do so. The same thing that development interests have always done.
DiSC is being sold as a housing project by the Vanguard, now? After the Vanguard repeatedly denied it, over the years?
In any case, DiSC creates a housing shortage, if the commercial is actually successful. Says so, right in the EIR itself. (Additional demand for 1,269 housing units, in addition to the 460 units onsite.)
How much do you suppose the cost of housing will “drop”, when additional demand for housing is created? Isn’t this the exact same “model” that places like San Francisco use?
You can be sure that the YIMBYs and SACOG would take note of the additional demand, in future RHNA fair share housing allocations.
California isn’t growing because of housing.
Even if that’s part of the reason (e.g., in addition to taxes, etc.), your point with that comment?
That i’ts a self-fulfilling prophesy, you are reasoning that we shouldn’t build more housing because we aren’t growing but ignoring that the reason we aren’t going is because we have insufficient supplies of housing.
Still lost as to your point.
(Though you continue to ignore the causes of demand in the first place – e.g., additional jobs.)
So yes, if you add jobs and housing there will be more growth. That’s news to you, and compelled you to point that out? And that’s your goal?
And in areas in which job growth outpaces housing unit construction, housing prices rise – especially when new workers earn more than existing ones, as is the case in San Francisco. Again, that’s your goal?
If a person working in a locale petitions for housing, and somehow the city is at capacity, then an *organic* city would look into what space is being wasted and convert those spaces to house the worker.
The term organic here refers to the community’s ability to adapt predictably to address housing issues, such that no one in power/authority is needed to decide what happens. Everyone knows what should happen according to the community *genetics*, which are the principles that allow each person to judge the following:
1. Does the petitioner have a moral right to be part of the community? (Should the community help to accommodate the petitioner, or should the community require the petitioner to *fight* its way in?)
2. Does the community have wasted living space if utilized as a better living space, the overall sustainability of the community is improved? (Are there *tumors* in the community that are hurting its sustainability?)
3. Would individual autonomy in the community be extended to the new comer? (Would the result maintain a situation where each individual has enough autonomy to decide what can be done for the next eligible new comer without central decision?)
Example of a community that would fail #3:
A community let people buy property as long as they can pay, and allows the property owners to rent out properties. Some property owners then buy property as much as they can because people cannot be without housing. As a result, in order to stay alive, a propertiless person is driven to work for someone with property directly or indirectly. This coercive force is anti individual autonomy (aka not free to pursue happiness). This community fails #3, the individual autonomy test.
Example of a community that would pass #3:
When a new comer needing housing, the new comer may choose any unoccupied location or any location occupied by someone who is occupying more than one location. The new comer may then directly work on improving the land of their choice without working for anyone else (aka free to pursue happiness). This community passes the individual autonomy test.
Thought I’d see what “48 Hills” has to say about the SF election:
And here’s another article from 48 Hills. I think I clicked on one of the links in the first article, which brought me to this:
https://48hills.org/2014/09/investigation-new-condos-arent-owned-san-francisco-residents/
Too bad that the Vanguard has injested the Kool-Aid. Kind of sad, really. And ultimately, the reason it really doesn’t qualify as “progressive” – for what that’s worth.
Maybe just get rid of all federal income taxes and replace with simple real estate tax, the housing situation would right itself over a few years. Part of a larger picture (full employment, job guarantee) but takes the incentive of REITs and other corporate entities from driving up housing costs due to induced scarcity tied to increasing corporate and financial industry profits. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkYEBJcaLrs
https://www.levyinstitute.org/topics/job-guarantee
Or maybe not…
We could replace the income tax with a broader wealth tax. Of household assets, 90% are in either registered securities (stocks & bonds) or real estate, both of which now we have available market valuations. Such a tax would be much more progressive, in a natural way that doesn’t require arbitrary tax brackets. A 2% net asset tax could replace the entire income tax at the federal level.
I keep pointing out how Robb Davis said in comments here last year that when he was in office, he felt he represented all of Davis’ interests and not just a specific area or region. I kind of think that the council members believe the same when the issue doesn’t directly effect their districts.
I’ve been saying all along that this vote will come down to if voters believe the economic benefits of the project will outweigh screwing over East Davis with traffic problems (either just in the short term or more depending on if you believe in the traffic mitigation plans).
Solution: Never, ever use the Mace boulevard access point (or the one near the fruit stand, adjacent to the bypass)?
And “hope” that others don’t have that same thought, regarding whatever access point they do use. Keep it on the down-low.
Even more so, when Shriner’s, the “other half” of DiSC, Palomino Place, and the space inside of Mace curve proposals come forth.
New slogan: “Screw East Davis”! (And hope that this “saves” our side.) Also, let’s hope that those pesky, low-life Woodlanders don’t start commuting down Road 102 or Highway 113 to DiSC, etc.