This should be on every San Franciscan’s mind as they head to the polls. Blocking housing by endless delaying tactics comes with a huge penalty

A piece of math that seems to elude the BOS. If you block 50,000 units of housing, half of which are below market and 1/4 of which are for low income folks, in favor of 5.000 units of pure LE housing, which results in more LE units? a) 5,000 units b) 12,500 units

Now, you can tell your constituents "I only back 100% low-income affordable housing" and they may buy that but in fact you could have had twice as much affordable housing if you'd backed plans that created more of it. This is the central housing argument in CA today.

This is "letting perfect be the enemy of the good" and look around, it's a failing strategy.

Another factor: The Supes who've taken a "I only back affordable housing" stance not only block huges amounts of it, when it *is* built in their district, it's often b/c they've traded set-asides with other districts that build more. They get to look pure, but it's a mirage.

Anyway, a block of the @Board of Supervisors is supposedly planning to block/reject whatever the state plan and even if the state winds up prevailing, it's another example of predatory delay.

Who wins in this game? Well, landlords and homeowners, historically. But blocking so much housing has fueled homelessness which (along with fentanyl and pandemic) is now mortally threatening downtown, and the city's tax base of tech workers/tourism with it.

If the tax base craters, so does funding for...schools, services, everything. And so then will home values. So the people who did well by—or didn't see the impacts of—predatory delay will also lose. Just hubris all the way around.

Just read this, as an example of why the people who claim to be progressive are failing the city. What an ethics and accountability shit show: sfstandard.com/politics/san-f…