The Board of Supervisors Should Work Together to Produce a Plan to Build Housing—Before It’s Too Late

The State of California has mandated that San Francisco build about 82,000 units of housing by 2031, and the plan for how to get it done is due in January. That means the pressure is on for the Board of Supervisors and the San Francisco Planning Commission to submit a compliant housing element (more about what that means here). On Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors held a hearing to discuss the latest version of the Housing Element that the planning commission submitted. The meeting encapsulated the ideological arguments that keep our city in deadlock over housing, and there was plenty of bad behavior from our elected officials—who are supposed to be working together to solve this problem for us.

Board President Shamann Walton allowed two anti-housing groups, the Council of Community Housing Organizations (CCHO) and Race and Equity in All Planning (REP) to speak at the meeting before the Planning Commission was supposed to speak on the Housing Element. Given that the nature of the meeting was for the Planning Commission to give an update on the Housing Element, it is strange that Walton would prioritize the voices of these special interest groups above the practical purpose of the meeting.

This speaks to an ideological divide on the Board of Supervisors and among affordable housing organizations. One camp tends to believe that new housing should go first to the poorest San Franciscans, while the other believes that building housing for all income levels is the best way to house the most people. CCHO and REP both share an ideology more similar to the first camp, so centering them made Supervisor Walton’s affiliations clear.

Both groups, but particularly the CCHO, urged the city to prioritize public input when it comes to housing. But that’s the problem with our housing approval process in the first place. Local efforts to streamline housing, like Proposition D, have focused on cutting out the onerous amount of public comment required for every project so that the majority of the city are not negatively impacted by a very vocal minority of political agitators who show up and slow everything down. Like so many other issue areas in San Francisco, housing progress is stymied by an ideological bent toward letting perfect be the enemy of the good.

Another argument that surfaced during the meeting was the debate over whether funds for affordable housing should come primarily from the city of San Francisco or the state. Those who believe in producing 100 percent affordable housing projects before any other type of housing, like District 9 Supervisor Hillary Ronen, believe the best way to raise the funds for such projects is for the state to provide those funds. “Shame on you, state of California for not providing the money to build more affordable housing,” Ronen said at the meeting, asking the state for $5 billion every year to meet those goals—just as the state is forecast to be in a $25 billion deficit. 

However, Ronen’s actions, from blocking the project at 469 Stevenson to supporting 2022’s Proposition E to even causing friction in this meeting, have actually slowed down progress on getting a compliant Housing Element approved. What’s at stake? Hundreds of millions in state funding for housing and transit. Isn’t state funding for housing what Ronen says she wants most? Developers aren’t lining up to build in a city notorious for shooting down projects. The best way for Ronen to unlock the funds she demands would actually be to stop wasting time shaming the state and start working with her colleagues to submit a coherent plan.

District 5 Supervisor Dean Preston blamed Sacramento for setting such high housing goals, saying that the state is beholden to real estate interests. He claimed that the state’s affordable housing targets are just “window dressing,” while the state attempts to deregulate housing. This diversion tactic is increasingly tired and out-of-touch. The housing goal is high because the city has made so little progress on building for decades. And for better or worse, San Francisco is home to the most innovative companies in the world, temperate weather and gorgeous nature, and a thriving cultural scene. Demand to live here is high, and we must meet the demand for the city to thrive. Thoughtless deregulation of markets is nobody’s goal, but in order to meet the rising demand for housing, removing or at least lowering some of the barriers to progress like discretionary review, community input, and CEQA laws has to be part of the conversation. 

Chris Elmendorf, a law professor at UC Davis, wrote about the impending deadline—and the looming threat of the builder’s remedy—for the San Francisco Chronicle. “The supervisors have put a target on their backs,” Elmendorf wrote. “Given Prop. E, their ratcheting up of affordability requirements to choke off development and their sheer indifference to the fact that San Francisco has a more cumbersome permitting process than any other jurisdiction in the state, saying ‘trust us’ won’t cut it any longer. If they want to avoid the builder’s remedy, they need to adopt a housing element that binds their own hands.”

We’ll be keeping you up-to-date on what’s unfolding in City Hall regarding the Housing Element from now until January. Stay tuned!