This week, I asked the candidates about housing legislation that would limit the development in some historic District 3 areas, such as Jackson Park and east of Columbus Avenue. The legislation is sponsored by Supervisor Aaron Peskin, who has termed out and is likely going to run for mayor. The density bill may be remembered as Peskin and Breed’s first election-year fight. The bill was vetoed by Mayor London Breed on March 14 and yesterday, the Board of Supervisors overturned the veto with a supermajority.
Question this week: What do you think about the housing density bill Peskin and Breed are battling over?
JConr B. Ortega
Self-described formerly homeless, leatherman, boxer
I am truly disappointed that the housing debate has turned into an all-or-nothing fight. We all agree: We must build housing and make it affordable but, at the same time, we must also protect current residents. I stand with every other common-sense resident who chooses not to get sucked into the YIMBY-NIMBY debate and say: I disagree with the veto, and I disagree with the veto override. What I support is a compromise that both sides can agree on and, unfortunately, we are not close to that.
Danny Sauter
Executive Director, Neighborhood Centers Together
San Francisco is decades into a severe housing crisis that has pushed tens of thousands of low and middle-income residents out and hurt our neighborhoods. We need to respond to this crisis by making it easier to quickly build all types of housing.
As Supervisor, I would bring forward a plan to add more housing in District 3, including areas in the northern waterfront from Fisherman’s Wharf to the Financial District. We can provide incentives, such as adding a few additional stories, for projects that provide additional benefits or greater affordability while including robust tenant and historic protections.
Matthew Susk
Former lead with Divvy Homes
I am a third-generation San Franciscan and a homeowner, who first moved to District 3 in middle school. I love San Francisco’s unique character, and I believe District 3 is a shining example of how a dense district can maintain many distinct neighborhoods.
We must build more housing so (1) our firefighters don’t have to commute 1.5 hours each way to work, (2) our teachers don’t have to sleep on their friends’ couches while they teach our children, and (3) our elders can age in place and enjoy the communities they helped create.
Moe Jamil
Deputy City Attorney, San Francisco City Attorney’s Office
I oppose the veto. Mayor Breed’s housing policies have become entirely radical, including her proposition to erect 25+ story ultra-luxury towers, three times the height limit, along the waterfront. It’s unacceptable to impose top down, one-size-fits-all up-zoning and shut neighborhoods out of the planning process.
I support neighborhood self-determination to build housing within our existing height limits and, as a long-time neighborhood leader in District 3, I have a pragmatic track record of fighting for neighborhood voices. We must protect and preserve our existing affordable housing, and not allow the Mayor and her allies to demolish rent-controlled buildings.
Sharon Lai
Economic recovery leader at the World Economic Forum, former board member at the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency
SF needs more housing, but we need to manage density thoughtfully and equitably. We can do that without damaging the integrity of our nationally registered historic neighborhoods, which is only 1% of the city. Growth that’s multiple times the expected density in a sensitive area that bypasses impact assessments, like infrastructure demands, was not the intent, so I supported the legislation and opposed the veto. The Mayor’s Planning Department and Commission, and the BOS, all approved this zoning correction.
Something can and should be developed, but extreme density at all cost without a process of evaluation is going too far.
Eduard Navarro
Tech startup founder
This is a trick question. I’ll explain why:
• Down-zoning does not achieve Board President Peskin’s objectives of limiting change in our district.
• Up-zoning does not guarantee fulfilling our state’s mandate to create housing.
Zoning is an imperfect and blunt instrument. As a result, the tug of war is pointless and gets no one what they want. As supervisor, I will use my expertise in the subject to lead with alternative but time-tested city design and development tools; to simultaneously meet our quota of new housing and to protect and preserve our historic architecture, neighborhoods and views. We can and should have both.
Between now and the November election, Mission Local is asking each District 3 candidate one question per week, and candidates will get 100 words to respond. We will compile all responses to the 40-odd questions on a “Meet the candidates” page, so that voters can get a full picture of their stances.
Answers may be lightly edited for formatting, spelling, and grammar. If you have questions for the candidates, please let us know at yujie@missionlocal.com.
Illustrations for the series by Neil Ballard.
You can register to vote via the sf.gov website.
READ MORE CANDIDATE ANSWERS
Meet the Candidates: San Francisco’s District 3 supervisor race
YUJIE ZHOU
REPORTER. Yujie Zhou is our newest reporter and came on as an intern after graduating from Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism. She is a full-time staff reporter as part of the Report for America program that helps put young journalists in newsrooms. Before falling in love with the Mission, Yujie covered New York City, studied politics through the “street clashes” in Hong Kong, and earned a wine-tasting certificate in two days. She’s proud to be a bilingual journalist. Follow her on Twitter @Yujie_ZZ.More by Yujie Zhou
