Sponsored link
Wednesday, October 20, 2021

Sponsored link

News + PoliticsShould the regional transportation agency be elected?

Should the regional transportation agency be elected?

A new twist in the power struggle over Bay Area planning

This fancy ABAG graphic shows the commute flows into and out of the nine Bay Area counties.
This fancy ABAG graphic shows the commute flows into and out of the nine Bay Area counties.

The power struggle between the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments got a lot more complicated over the past week.

Since MTC voted in late June to fund ABAG’s planning staff for only the first half of fiscal year 2015-16—an action followed by revelations that the regional transportation planning agency wants to take over ABAG’s land-use planning functions before their joint December move into fancy new digs in San Francisco—the two entities seemed destined to consolidate by the end of the year. Only the Sierra Club had registered its opposition to a merger.

But with ABAG’s Executive Board meeting on September 17 and MTC convening on September 23, several other influential parties, including SPUR, the League of Women Voters of the Bay Area, SF Planning Director John Rahaim, and ABAG Executive Director Ezra Rapport, have come out against hasty action, if not against consolidation, while the SF Labor Council has warned MTC not to take over ABAG’s planners, period.

Meanwhile, the state Legislature could be dramatically changing the entire regional planning picture. A bill by Assemblymembers Phil Ting and Marc Levine, ABX1-24, would turn MTC into an elected board, forcing the organization to accept a level of democracy that has never remotely existed in the past.

The bill would re-name MTC the Bay Area Transportation Commission and replace the body’s current 21 appointed members with commissioners elected by districts of about 750,000 residents. Each district would elect one commissioner, except a district with a toll bridge, which would elect two. A citizens’ redistricting commission would draw the district boundaries, and the campaigns for commissioners would be publicly financed. Elections would be held in 2016, with new commissioners taking office on January 1, 2017.

“It’s time to take a hard look at reforming this agency,” Ting told us. “We need to make it more accountable to the voters, the state, and the region.”


Last Thursday, ABAG Executive Director Ezra Rapport posted a lengthy response to MTC’s proposal to take over his agency’s planning staff. Appearing on the September 17 agenda of the ABAG Executive Board, the memo details the severe damage that ABAG would suffer if MTC fails to fund ABAG’s planners for the rest of FY 2015-16. The land-use planning agency would face insolvency along with a default in its pension program. People would have to be laid off. State and federal grants worth millions of dollars could be lost.

Rapport concludes that MTC’s proposal “should not be fast-tracked.” At the same time, he entertains the possibility of a merger, along with three other organizational scenarios. His four recommendations:

  • Restore ABAG’s budget for the whole fiscal year
  • Hire a third-party consultant to evaluate existing conditions and develop proposals
  • Establish a subcommittee from ABAG and MTC boards to prepare an action plan
  • Schedule regular progress reports to the joint MTC Planning Committee/ABAG Administrative Committee.

Other than the reference to FY 2015-16, no dates appear in Rapport’s memo.

SPUR, the pro-growth planning group, also thinks MTC should fund ABAG for the full FY 2015-16. But the white paper posted on its website last Friday and authored by its Regional Planning Director, Egon Terplan, also advocates merging the two agencies’ planning departments and eventually their entire operations after the completion of the 2017 edition of Plan Bay Area. As a provisional step toward consolidation, “the core decision-making body for the evaluation and approval of the 2017 Plan Bay Area update” should be the Joint MTC Planning Committee/ABAG Administrative Committee. Meanwhile, a “study commission with a wide range of regional stakeholders” should be formed “to develop options for a single regional planning agency that combines the functions of ABAG and MTC,” with its work completed by 2017.

SPUR’s proposal that no major reorganization should occur until the completion of Plan Bay Area 2017 makes excellent sense. As anyone who soldiered through the planning process for PBA 2013 knows, the preparation of a Sustainable Communities Strategy—mandated by SB 375—is a tortuous and often trying experience. Before any administrative reconfiguration takes place, the preparation of the update of the SCS should be seen through to the end.

What doesn’t make much sense is SPUR’s rationale for consolidating the two agencies: greater efficiency. That’s MTC’s rationale as well.

But MTC has never specified the alleged inefficiencies of the current arrangement; the agency’s executive director, Steve Heminger, has not replied to my requests for specifics. Rapport told me that he has “seen no factual evidence” that supports the inefficiency argument.

Terplan, for his part, alludes to “challenges associated with different agencies overseeing a merged product where feedback, timelines and priorities differ” and to associated problems in producing Plan Bay Area 2013. He, too, offers no particulars.

He does offer particulars with respect to other work undertaken by MTC and ABAG, citing “some duplication of activities across the agencies.” His example is ABAG’s State of the Region Report and MTC’s Vital Signs website. “Both are great products,” Terplan writes.

But a combined and unified product with data on the economy, transportation, land use and other important variables would be more useful for the region. Having two separate efforts is wasteful.

I asked ABAG Chief Economist Cynthia Kroll if the State of the Region Report, which she oversees, duplicates MTC’s Vital Signs website. Kroll noted that the two projects have a working relationship. Indeed, Vital Signs introduces itself online as “an innovative monitoring initiative…[l]ed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission” that “relies on extensive collaboration with the Association of Bay Area Governments, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission.”

Collaboration aside, Kroll said that compared with Vital Signs, the State of the Region Report “takes a much deeper dive” into the data and provides “more analysis.” The MTC website enables people “to look at a specific item.” By contrast, ABAG’s report “is focused on relationships among different aspects” of regional life—for example: “how does employment relate to population growth,” or how do demographic changes affect housing in the Bay Area? In a follow-up email, Kroll added that the State of the Region Report “provided a new baseline overview of the region as we began the regional forecast associated with Plan Bay Area [2017].”

Or, as ABAG Deputy Director Brad Paul put it, Vital Signs provides “ ‘snapshots’ ”; the State of the Region offers a narrative.”

MTC staffer David Vautin, who oversees the Vital Signs project, has not replied to my query about how the two projects relate and differ.


Terplan’s other example of inefficiency at the MetroCenter (ABAG/MTC current headquarters in Oakland) concerns the “many overlapping committees and advisory boards.” He presents this list:


Joint ABAG/MTC bodies: Joint MTC Planning and ABAG Administrative Committee, Regional Advisory Working Group (RAWG), Regional Equity Working Group (REWG)

MTC bodies: Commission, Planning Committee, Partnership Technical Advisory Committee (PTAC), Policy Advisory Council (PAC)

ABAG bodies: Executive Board, Administrative Committee, Regional Planning Committee (RPC), Housing Methodology Committee for RHNA (as needed), and Bay Area Planning Directors Association (BAPDA)

Terplan suggests that “many of these committees could be combined and strengthened,” a move that would lead to greater efficiency, given the cost of sending staff to so many committees,” and greater accessibility “for outside stakeholders and advocates. There are simply too many committees to attend and track, and it is difficult to know when and where it is most effective to plug in.”

I myself have been bewildered by the alphabet soup of groups that convene at the MetroCenter. But after Paul went over the list with me, Terplan’s roster of redundancy seemed dubious.

Start with the MTC bodies: the Commission and the Planning Committee are peculiar to MTC (the latter is effectively the commission’s executive board). The Policy Advisory Council comprises “stakeholders” and deals mainly with transportation.

ABAG bodies: the Executive Board and the Administrative Committee are peculiar to ABAG, with the Executive Board corresponding to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission proper and the Administrative Committee serving as ABAG’s executive board. The Regional Planning Committee differs from MTC’s Policy Advisory Committee in that it comprises a large number of elected officials and focuses on land use and housing. The Housing Methodology Committee for RHNA meets only three or four times every eight years; in other words, it’s not really a standing committee. The Bay Area Planning Directors Association is not an ABAG committee, though it is staffed by the agency.

Terplan himself notes that ABAG’s Regional Planning Committee— “a forum…where regional leaders in the private and public sector, city and Congestion Management Agency staff, elected officials, ABAG/MTC board members and others come together as equals to discuss regional policy”—is singular. “MTC,” he writes, “offers no similar venue for regional discussion where board members and outsiders sit as equals.”

He makes this observation in the context of a broader acknowledgment of ABAG’s distinctively local orientation—“local” referring to city councils and county boards of supervisors, not the public at large. “ABAG,” he writes,” is a place for local governments to engage with each other and with regional land use issues.” He also flags the “set of unique services” that ABAG provides to local jurisdictions:

  • liability and property insurance for 35 cities
  • a natural-gas buying club for 39 cities and local districts
  • more than $1 billion in tax-exempt financing for affordable housing, schools, city and local districts
  • a regional energy efficiency program
  • conference and training services
  • a resilience program that helps prepare local jurisdictions for earthquakes, flooding, sea level rise and climate change


Terplan concludes that these “valuable programs…do not exist elsewhere in the region and should be preserved.”

Fine. But that’s the easy part of consolidation.


What’s missing from SPUR’s white paper is any recognition of the hard part—namely, the distinctive and even conflicting missions and outlooks of MTC and ABAG. The tensions between the two agencies involve more than administrative problems that could be addressed by streamlining operations and coming up with a neater flow chart. They reflect divergent attitudes toward democratic governance, and social and economic equity.

Rapport hints at those divergent attitudes in his white paper. “The SCS process,” he writes,

has highlighted some frictions within MTC and ABAG about joint regional planning activities. For example, MTC has raised concerns about inefficiencies in the process, while ABAG is concerned with retaining local input in housing and land use planning.

Translation: MTC disdains public participation. You won’t find that in any memo from MTC Executive Director Steve Heminger. But you can get a strong whiff of such disdain from Heminger’s testimony to the California Assembly Select Committee session on improving Bay Area transportation, an event that MTC sponsored at the MetroCenter on August 21.

Responding to 16th District (Lamorinda and the Tri-Valley) Assemblymember Catharine Baker’s request that he name “the biggest reform changes that we should be considering in terms of revenue,” Heminger mentioned Caltrans’ highway repair program. Then turned to public participation.

…[T]his is a consistent refrain that you hear from transportation folks all the time—and to some extent it’s the Pogo comic strip: we have met the enemy, and he is us. I mean, we love public input, we love public hearings, we love having everybody have their say, but what we tend to do in the Bay Area especially is, everybody has their say eight different times, and we go over and over and again the same round. The vast majority of the work that we’re doing now is either public transit or highway work on the existing facilities, and I don’t know why we need to spend so much time evaluating the environmental impact of these activities—I just don’t. And so I’m afraid I’m going to vote for CEQA reform, which is something I know many of you have been working on, but that really is a major cost driver in California.

“CEQA reform” is code for the rollback of the California Environmental Quality Act, the state’s premier environmental law, via legislation coming out of Sacramento.

If the public transit at issue is, say, a second BART tube, environmental impact seems totally relevant—indeed imperative. And when it comes to land use, CEQA provides the legal basis for grass-roots opposition to inappropriate development. In fact, the spate of new laws weakening CEQA—starting with SB 375, the 2008 law that mandates the creation of regional Sustainable Community Strategies, and continuing with SB 226, SB 743, and AB 744—variously exempts transit-oriented, infill development from environmental review.

Not that ABAG is a model of civic participation. On the contrary: people who come before ABAG without the aegis of a non-profit organization that has standing at the MetroCenter can expect their voices to be ignored, no matter how well-researched or righteous their views. And ABAG has also embraced CEQA “reform,” albeit not as enthusiastically as MTC.

That said, ABAG is a more democratic institution than its partner agency, simply by virtue of its makeup. In the words of its executive director, “ABAG is a local government dues-paying membership organization” that was created by local governments in the Bay Area in 1961. Its General Assembly comprises a representative of every city and county in the region. It’s also true, however, that the General Assembly meets only once or twice a year, and, at least based on my observations, it’s hardly a hive of activism. In any case, no such body exists at MTC. The regional transportation agency was created in 1970 by the state legislature. Its 21-member policy board is dominated by the most populous counties and cities. The electeds who sit on both ABAG and MTC are appointed by their respective city councils and county boards of supervisors.

ABAG is the more democratic of the two agencies in another respect: it has a greater commitment to social justice. That became evident last summer, when, over ABAG staff’s objections, MTC staff sought to remove the anti-displacement policy that appears in Plan Bay Area 2013. Thanks to the vigorous protest mounted by the 6 Wins for Social Equity Network, which had successfully campaigned for the policy’s inclusion in the first SCS, MTC staff have now endorsed retention of the disputed language.

But given MTC’s vastly greater financial resources—it has an annual budget of $900 million, ABAG’s is $23 million—if consolidation occurs, would such a dispute even become public? It seems likely that the ABAG position would be internally overruled from the start.


And then there’s the unionization issue. In a September 15 letter to MTC, Tim Paulson, the executive director of the San Francisco Labor Council, expressed concern over the possible loss of up to 60 union jobs resulting from an MTC takeover of ABAG’s planning staff.  Unlike ABAG workers, MTC staff have no union representation. “The planning department of ABAG,” Paulson wrote,

consists of approximately 20 unionized employees. This one department accounts for 15% of ABAG’s overall budget, and removing it could leave ABAG without the necessary funding to support the remaining departments in the agency, which may impact another 10 unionized employees in support positions.

He also warned that 51 current retirees “could see their pensions and health benefits adversely affected.” He asked MTC to vote against the proposed takeover,

to take some time to consider all aspects and repercussions of this proposed action and  work with SEIU 1021 as the representative for these workers on any proposed future changes to the agency.


Paulson attached part of letter from SEIU Local 1021’s law firm, Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld, that noted “legal problems that would arise from a transfer of ABAG’s planning and research department to MTC.”

  • SB 375 designates ABAG as the agency that performs the land use, housing and eocnomic planning for the region’s Sustainable Community Strategy. “In other words, MTC does not have the jurisdiction to take over these functions under the law.”
  • “MTC committed to a long term funding agreement that allows the parties to fulfill their respective responsibilities under SB 375.” In September 2012 it “unanimously adopted a funding formula” that it has “unanimously affirmed…each fiscal year since, which provides a multiple year budget for ABAG to do its work, including fiscal years 2015-16 and 2016-17.
  • The Metropolitan Transportation Commission Act “requires the MTC to consider ABAG’s regional land use planning when MTC develops regional transportation plans…As a matter of law, the MTC is not permitted to displace ABAG’s regional land use planning role.”
  • It follows that “MTC would not be able to take over those planning activities without an act of the California Legislature amending the law. SEIU is active in legislative campaigns and could oppose any such legislation.”
  • Since current law requires that ABAG perform the region’s land use, housing, and economic planning functions, ABAG would need to maintain direction and review of the planning staff performing such functions even if the planners were employed by MTC. That could give rise to a host of other legal issues regarding the identity of the employer and the responsibilities of each agency under the collective bargaining agreement with the Union.”

Rapport attached to his white paper a memo from ABAG’s legal counsel, Kenneth Moy, that makes some of the same arguments as the Labor Council’s lawyers. “In my opinion,” Moy wrote, “transferring the Planning and Research staff from ABAG and MTC does not change SB 375’s requirement that ABAG be responsible for [the land use, housing, and economic] elements of the SCS.”

My hunch is that next week MTC will follow SPUR’s recommendation that “[t]he question of ABAG’s budget and funding needs should be separated from exploring the benefits of a merged department,” and that it will vote to fund ABAG for the rest of FY 2015-16.

I also suspect that both MTC and the ABAG Executive Board will “explor[e] the benefits of a merged department.”

What remains to be seen is how such an exploration will proceed. Rapport’s white paper includes a detailed consideration of the pros and cons of four different organizational scenarios, ranging from full consolidation to improving cross-agency collaboration under the current division of regional planning labor. He envisions a subcommittee that would “conduct a transparent six-month process evaluating the options to ensure appropriate and efficient collaboration between planning departments and ABAG and MTC.” It would include commissioners and Executive Board members appointed by the commission and Executive Board, respectively.

SPUR argues however that “[a]ny model for the future must not be based on the individuals in leadership positions today” [emphasis in the original]. That model would assume “a single regional planning agency for the Bay Area” and involve either a merged MTC/ABAG “or the creation of a wholly new agency that subsumes both…and has functions in addition to land use and transportation.” In any case, its staff “should come from the civic world, not current regional agency personnel.”

In a September 15 letter to Heminger and Rapport, San Francisco Planning Director John Rahaim writes that for nearly 60 years, “planners have discussed, studied, and dreamed about consolidation and unification of Bay Area regional agencies.” Like Rapport, Rahaim seeks “transparen[cy].” Like Terplan, he recommends “a merger process that involves a broad range of stakeholders.” Specifically, “planning professionals should be asked to advise on best practices so that our policymakers can achieve integrated goals.” Urging the extension of ABAG funding “through at least June of 2016,” Rahaim says that “[a] deliberate, collaborative process and the public accountability it demands will take time and should not be rushed.”

The president of the League of Women Voters in the Bay Area, Linda Craig, writing to ABAG President Julie Pierce on September 16, states that “LWVBA has been an advocate of a consolidated regional planning agency in the San Francisco Bay Area for more than 50 years. Nevertheless, the League “is concerned that the recent move by MTC to announce it will withhold 6 months of contracted funds to ABAG to force a discussion of a consolidated planning staff is the wrong way to move ahead.”

In a piquant aside, Craig adds: “(Of course we do not know what is really going on; only what we can observe from public meeting records.)” Hear, hear.

Her organization “favor[s] developing a plan for the consolidation of planning efforts that will be shared with the public and a process that will allow the public to understand the plan and share its comments with MTC and ABAG.”

In the meantime, the League suggests that “at the very least, MTC should honor the existing contract and provide ABAG full funding for its planning efforts, until a mutual solution is reached.”

Finally, since it seems to be open season on regional planning improvements, here are my top recommendations:

  • Fully fund ABAG for the foreseeable future.
  • Until someone can demonstrate how MTC would not run roughshod over ABAG, forget a merger.
  • Let’s be honest: the vast majority of Bay Area residents have never heard of Plan Bay Area. In behalf of real public understanding and democratic accountability, and in keeping with the spirit of ABX1-24, put Plan Bay Area 2017 to a regionwide popular vote.


Sponsored link


  1. “A degree in planning does not make you an expert in economics, transportation and business. ”

    It doesn’t even make you an expert on planning.

    A lot of these programs are run like art schools.

  2. I am glad to see that you see no evidence of corruption or incompetence by elected officials.

    So is Willie Brown.

    Mirk spent $100,000 on lawyers to get his DV charges pled out to one that was technically not DV, although the sentence was identical to DV convictions, and nobody was fooled by it.

  3. But wait – I was just gonna say that BART is an example of ‘direct democracy’ and I don’t think it functions that well.

    Oh, it “functions”. But its design is crimped; it doesn’t expand or fill easily, and sucks a huge amt of money. Look at the Oakland Airporter, a $500,000,000 white elephant. (Ok, much like the $2,500,000,000 Central Subway elephant, MUNI board sucks too)

    In one sense, the MTC and ABAG are already ‘democratic’ – in that many positions are held by electeds. But if we have an elected regional board, you can’t stop the IEs – even with ‘pubic financing’. So developer (and Union) interests will tend to dominate – to the detriment of the riding, and driving, public.

  4. Mirk doesn’t have a DV conviction. And while I find what he did despicable, there isn’t any evidence of corruption or incompetence by him, unlike Mel Murphy and many other appointees.

  5. I wonder what percentage of SF voters, in any given election, can state one fact about every single school board candidate they cast a vote for.

  6. Yes and, for many people, direct elections for board positions and things like judges are the least informed of any. I often end up voting for the guy with the funniest name. I’ll vote for anyone whose occupation is a small business owner because they tend to be more practical and realistic. Avoid union officials, activists and non-profit employees. But it’s all fairly random.

    Or people just vote a slate which is as biased and corrupt as anyone else.

    “Choose five names from this list of 30 people you’ve never heard of” is unlikely to work out as well as having elected officials take advice based on expertise.

  7. What is it with the San Francisco obsession with direct democracy? Do you not see the problems inherent with everyone voting on everything?

  8. Democracy is good, but when too many decisions are left up to the voter it’s no longer democratic in effect. We should consolidate our agencies and let the voters elect one or maybe one representative per county at most which could then appoint additional positions. The average voter does not have time to make an educated opinion regarding the nuances of urban planning. Uninformed voting is very exploitable, and results in easier avenues for corrupt groups to install their politicians.

    Democracy is good, I’m not arguing against personal choice, but we need to be smart as to how we go about this. A smaller group that’s more understood by the voter would be more effective in enacting the will of the people than opening up every position to election and no one caring.

  9. You may have a point there…..but I’ll take my chances. Regional coordination should be possible with direct democracy. But cheap oil is skewing the equation…..

  10. Maybe we can agree with some transportation planning. The problem is that they basically want a regional government and plan housing, etc. When you are planning interconnecting systems, then regional planning makes sense. That was the original mission of MTC.

  11. All I know is this. The one transit system that works well is BART, and that was designed and is managed regionally.

    The balkanized transit systems that are subject to local democratic control, like SF Muni, are a disaster.

  12. That is the current situation. The real issue is that citizens need representation. The politicians who simply comply with staff requests are useless. Again, I think we have a fundamental different idea of democracy. So called “experts” on transportation may be totally oblivious to local transportation needs and realities. A degree in planning does not make you an expert in economics, transportation and business. Only the people and the market understand the true needs.

  13. The real issue here, is keeping these boards to appointed seats only, is so that Pols can reward their friends and cronies with seats and stipends.

  14. The other side of that is that we have been stuck with a sheriff who has never worked in LE and who has a DV conviction. Had he not been elected, he would have been fired.

    If you do not like the mayor’s appointments then vote for a different mayor.

  15. I am not, although I think it can be overdone. Do you really want every new building or bus line subject to a popular vote? Should every department head be elected? Where do you stop with that?

    Then again, it was “more democracy” that gave us Prop 13. The problem here is that Tim etc. only want more democracy when they think it will lead to more left-wing outcomes.

  16. _You_ should probably be afraid of democracy, in this case. The results of region-wide voting on these matters will probably turn out quite badly for the residents of SF – no region-wide public transit improvements whatsoever and more suburban Boomer car culture.

  17. I agree that the regional boards are very politicized. The problem is that we have no accountability. As far as so called “expertise”. I’d rather a few people from my neighborhood making decisions that affect my neighborhood than a bureaucrat or a politician from a far flung county. You seem to advocate for “technocracy” where I favor “democracy” over local matters. The left vs. right thing is superfluous. The real issue is having people decide their own fates.

  18. Seriously – how many board and commission members are there as a result of patronage appointments? Why is it that Mel Murphy was appointed to the Port Commission and nobody forced him out? And remember disaster of the appointment of AnneMarie Conroy to head Emergency Services? How about Julie Lee’s appointment to the Housing Authority Commission? There are hundreds (yes hundreds) of political appointments to department head, commissions, boards, etc, that reflect political patronage and not expertise.

    Sorry, the corrupt San Francisco politics that have incompetents and crooks appointed to important positions require us to take this function away from our elected leaders.

  19. There is just as real a danger with elected too many officials as with electing too few. Some jobs are not inherently ideological but require competence and subject matter expertise.

    That is why we do not elect the city’s fire chief, for instance. Or the chief finance or tech guys. I really don’t understand why we elect the sheriff given that that job is mostly routine administration. Why elect the sheriff and not the police chief?

    The danger with too many elections is that you have ideological activists in power instead of professionals who know how to balance interests. An election is a “winner take all” system where 51% can close out the needs of the 49%. It’s a crap shoot.

    And in fact the BA regional bodies are not out of step with the people at all. They may appear that way from liberal enclaves like SF and Berkeley. But from the perspective of conservative suburban parts of the Bay Area, they look like hotbeds of progressivism.

    The reality is that the Bay Area is much more conservative than SF voters. And elections might rebound on those who wish to politicize these boards with direct elections. They may end up being more conservative as a result.

  20. Because the regional boards shape the policy that shapes our communities, it is essential that our representatives be directly accountable to the voters. There is nothing democratic about appointed boards. They are shapeless, perpetual mass of bureaucracy and political honchos. Essentially the regional boards are an extra constitutional body that does as it pleases even if it is at odds with the citizens it serves. Such institutions are more aligned with the old soviet model of governance than representative democracy.

  21. By your own admission, the members are appointed by those we elect. Therefore it is democratic.

    The idea that every political board should be directly elected is overkill. What we really want on these boards are subject matter experts and not ideologically-polluted activists.

    That said, I’d like to see the region have more power and authority, at the expense of the dozens of petty fiefdoms that comprise the Bay Area.

Comments are closed.

Sponsored link

Top reads

No, Walgreens isn’t closing stores because of massive shoplifting in SF

The Agenda: Protecting tenants from predatory ADUs, where will people tossed of our SIP hotels go, and the start of local redistricting.

School Board recall election set; Assembly candidates could run four times

Plus: Some very sketchy moves by signature gatherers for Boudin recall effort.

Arts Forecast: SF International Arts Fest, Litcrawl, Lumpialooza, Bearrison…

A burlesque Prince tribute, a round of queer horror, Mattilda Sycamore Bernstein, and more great events this week.

More by this author

Wiener’s housing bill could encourage even more sprawl

Read the fine print: Obscene development in Tassajara Valley could qualify for special protection under SB 10.

State housing agency says it’s ‘listening’ — but in closed sessions

Limited format for housing planning sessions dilutes community authority and input.

Facebook’s housing echo chamber

Zuckerberg money funds news outlets that repeat Zuckerberg group's supply-side position on the housing crisis.
Sponsored link

You might also likeRELATED