Sponsored link
Tuesday, February 27, 2024

Sponsored link

News + PoliticsHousingPeskin, Chan want to know if SF can sue the state over...

Peskin, Chan want to know if SF can sue the state over impossible housing rules

Letter to city attorney seeks advice on how to deal with mandates from Sacramento that almost everyone agrees SF can never meet.

-

Supervisors Aaron Peskin and Connie Chan are asking the city attorney for advice on whether San Francisco can sue the state to block the punitive actions set in motion by Sen. Scott Wiener’s housing bills.

In a Dec. 26 letter, the supes challenge

The State’s unfair legislative mandates that are diminishing our City’s ability to build the affordable housing our residents desperately need, and eroding our ability to meet our legal obligations to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing.

The argument is politically solid: The state is threatening to take away funding for essential city services, including affordable housing, and take away almost all local land-use controls, if developers don’t build a huge amount of new market-rate housing in San Francisco—but developers aren’t building much of anything right now, and the city can’t force them to.

Sup. Aaron Peskin wants to know if SF can sue the state to stop punitive measures for mandates that are impossible.

The Planning Commission and the supes have already passed all of the “constraint reduction” bills the state asked for. That’s all they can do.

“We cannot force developers to build and yet new legislation would seek to penalize San Francisco anyway,” the letter states.

Sup. Connie Chan wants to push back on the state’s impossible rules

In fact, it notes:

70,000 units of housing are approved and ready to be built. Developers have chosen not to build. Yet the City is being penalized by allowing these same developers to essentially have peremptory powers over regular local processes.

Meanwhile, 46,000 of the new units the city is supposed to have under construction in the next six years by law have to be below-market-rate—and nobody at City Hall, including the mayor, sees any path to make that happen without state or federal funding.

Senator Wiener’s legislation, SB 828 which was signed into law in 2018, forced cities to rezone land and resulted in an explosion of San Francisco’s RHNA goals, 57% of which are made up of the three below market rate categories, with no additional State funding. This sets San Francisco up to underperform in all four RHNA categories. Not only has Senator Wiener set up San Francisco to fail, despite all our legislative and funding efforts, he added a last minute amendment to SB 423 that singles out San Francisco for streamlining in 2024, which is years earlier than every other jurisdiction in California. As a result, San Francisco is forced to approve unaffordable market rate housing developments across the City without any public input, well ahead of any other jurisdiction in the State. Instead, what we need from the State is a major investment in affordable housing.

It concludes:

We believe that SB 423 discriminates against San Francisco, contravening our status as a Charter City, diminishes our ability to build the affordable housing our residents desperately need, and thwarts our legal obligations to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing. This new law will create undue hardship on San Francisco and ultimately lead to displacement of small businesses, residential tenants, and homeowners in San Francisco. We respectfully ask that you present the Board of Supervisors with our legal options, including but not limited to litigation against the State.

Wiener told the Examiner that market-rate housing has to be central to the solution:

“Anyone who tells you that we can subsidize our way out of this disaster also has a bridge to sell you,” Wiener said. “The argument that we should only be building subsidized housing is an argument for a perpetual, severe housing shortage.”

Peskin told me that’s an argument “from a senator who hates his own Senate district.” The city has already approved 70,000 units of market-rate housing, and has cleared the way for a lot more. It’s the state Regional Housing Needs Assessment, not the Board of Supes, that insists that San Francisco needs 46,000 new units of affordable housing.

And yet nothing in any of Wiener’s bills provides a dime for new affordable housing.

Here’s the problem: Peskin and Chan can ask for advice, but San Francisco’s city attorney is an independently elected officer, and the supes alone can’t force him to sue anyone. It’s not entirely clear under the City Charter whether even the supes and the mayor together can direct Chiu to take legal action.

Chiu is a longtime Wiener ally and a friend of the Yimbys. The odds that he would challenge SB 432 are pretty low.

The supes could seek to hire outside counsel for the case—but again, under the charter, the city attorney would have to approve that.

Could a San Francisco citizen, or organization, sue? “That,” said Peskin, “is a very good question.”

48 Hills welcomes comments in the form of letters to the editor, which you can submit here. We also invite you to join the conversation on our FacebookTwitter, and Instagram

Tim Redmond
Tim Redmond
Tim Redmond has been a political and investigative reporter in San Francisco for more than 30 years. He spent much of that time as executive editor of the Bay Guardian. He is the founder of 48hills.

Featured

Live Shots: The Beaches’ post-breakup pop-rock triumph thrills the Fillmore

Powered by a breakout sophomore album, longtime Toronto indie darlings were on their victory lap.

Tommy Guerrero’s psychedelic vamp at 4-Star Theatre was quintessential SF

Noise Pop show put the revival of a beloved neighborhood cinema on display.

Desperate times call for ‘Anna Karenina’

Joffrey Ballet's triumphant return to Cal Performances revives a literary tale that centers love after loss.

More by this author

Prop. C won’t produce much housing—but could cost the city a lot of money

Breed's plan is probably worthless, city economist says—but if it works, it will cost millions.

PG&E keeps charging us more for worse service; there’s a much better alternative

Plus: A direct indictment of the state's housing policy (mandates, but no funding). That's The Agenda for Feb. 25 to March 3

Three of Breed’s police commissioners suddenly reverse on racist pretext stops

Bizarre excuses as commission votes 4-3 to limit traffic stops that have no public safety value
Sponsored link
Sponsored link

You might also likeRELATED