“The walls are collapsing, but Californians can’t stop arguing over the wallpaper.” That was the blunt conclusion of the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board this week as it called on lawmakers to take meaningful action on housing and voiced support for Senate Bill 79, state Sen. Scott Wiener’s proposal to require local governments to approve mid-rise apartment buildings near transit stops.
The editorial board framed SB 79 as a critical measure to begin reversing California’s deep housing shortage and political decline. In its view, the state’s reluctance to build more homes threatens not only affordability and quality of life but also California’s long-term political clout in Washington.
“When California’s leaders really put their minds to something, there’s seemingly no stopping them,” the board wrote, pointing to the Legislature’s recent scramble to pass three complex bills in less than a week to call a Nov. 4 special election on partisan gerrymandering. “If only California could summon similar guts to harness the most powerful political tool in its arsenal — housing.”
The editorial drew a direct link between housing policy and the balance of power in Congress. Texas, which has loosened its already permissive housing development laws, is projected to gain four House seats in 2030. California, meanwhile, is expected to lose four, effectively canceling out any short-term political advantage Democrats might gain through gerrymandering. “Other building-happy red states like Florida are poised to receive similar political boons as Texas,” the board wrote. “Republicans are positioning themselves for a demographic takeover that will survive even if Trump’s most authoritarian tactics are beaten back.”
Wiener’s SB 79 seeks to direct new development to areas with the infrastructure to absorb growth, reduce car commutes, and revive struggling transit systems. The bill would also allow transit agencies to more easily develop land they already own. Cities that have already committed to upzoning near transit, like San Francisco, would not have to comply until 2031, when the next housing cycle begins.
The board acknowledged the bill’s intent but criticized how it has been diluted under pressure. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and the City Council voiced strong opposition, and through the opaque “suspense file” process in the Legislature, the bill was pared back to apply only in about 15 of California’s 58 counties. Lawmakers further restricted which transit stops qualify for automatic approval. On Friday, another round of amendments added stronger labor standards for certain projects and clarified that hotels were excluded.
The Chronicle editorial board said the watering down of SB 79 highlighted the state’s broader reluctance to embrace real housing reform. “Meanwhile, naked obstructionism at the local level continues to demonstrate why efforts like SB 79 are still necessary,” the board wrote.
The editorial pointed to San Francisco as a case study in resistance. Mayor Daniel Lurie’s blueprint to rezone large portions of the city to meet the state mandate for 82,000 new homes by 2031 is encountering intense pushback. The San Francisco Labor Council voted to oppose the plan unless it is revised, and former Supervisor Aaron Peskin has reportedly been in contact with activists about the possibility of a 2026 ballot measure to challenge the rezoning. Peskin denied knowledge of such an initiative when asked by the editorial board.
Even officials who say they support more housing are pressing for major changes. Board of Supervisors President Rafael Mandelman told the editorial board he wants stronger protections for historic buildings, safeguards for rent-controlled housing, and support for small businesses affected by new construction.
Supervisor Connie Chan took a harder line, calling Lurie’s plan a “monstrosity” that would be “demolishing history” in comments to the San Francisco Standard.
Neighborhood activists have also spoken out. Lori Brooke, who leads Neighborhoods United SF, told the editorial board she wanted Mayor Lurie to “stand up” to the state housing department, which she described as “the bully behind the curtain” imposing “arbitrary” mandates.
The Chronicle editorial contrasted those positions with recent remarks by Los Angeles City Councilmember Imelda Padilla. Speaking on the Pod Save America podcast, Padilla bragged about cutting an affordable housing project from six stories down to three, which the hosts described as stunning. To the board, Padilla’s comments epitomized the contradictions of Democratic leaders who proclaim support for housing but undermine projects in practice.
The board underscored the stakes for California and Democrats nationally. Without new homes, the state risks further population decline and diminished representation in Congress, at the same time other states expand. California’s insistence on blocking housing, the board argued, undermines its own values and political future.
“This is the grave California continues to dig for itself,” the editorial concluded. “In one breath, we say we want to save American democracy from Trump. In the next, we insist on blocking the very thing — housing — that would help the state preserve its political clout and ensure the immigrants we say we want to protect can afford to live here. The walls are collapsing, but Californians can’t stop arguing over the wallpaper.”
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
The Chronicle was already a YIMBY rag.
But you know the arguments are getting desperate, when their “justification” for more housing is to ensure that there are more people to “vote like them”. (As if the place itself causes people to vote one way or another, as well.)
By the way, I noticed that the teacher association is sponsoring ads in support of Proposition 50 (redistricting). It seems that the reason for their ads is to ensure that the single-party system WITHIN California’s government becomes even more pronounced than it already is. (The reason being, of course, is that party is a rubber stamp for their interests WITHIN the state itself.)
And yet, they don’t mention that, do they?
So California is supposed to grow and keep overcrowding with resulting traffic problems and everything else that’s associated with sprawl in order to get a few more democrat votes in the House of Reps?
Really?