Mayor London Breed didn’t show up for the live, televised KPIX/SF Examiner debate Wednesday, but she played a large role in the discussion. All the challengers said Breed was doing a terrible job, and for whatever reason, she decided not to appear and defend herself.
Breed had confirmed in writing that she would appear when the debate was scheduled; a few days before the event, she cancelled, saying that she’s too busy running the city to participate.
But we learned a few things from the discussion:
—None of the candidates except Peskin would expand rent control if state Prop. 33 passes in November. Both Daniel Lurie and Mark Farrell said that expanding rent control was the worst thing the city could do because it would discourage new housing.
—Both Lurie and Farrell have gone full Yimby, with both saying that allowing more density for market-rate developers would bring down prices so working-class people could afford to live here. There is absolutely no evidence that’s true or will work.
Farrell: “We should build new housing across the city, have more density in every neighborhood.:
Lurie: “It takes 33 months to get a permit, that’s why we have an affordability crisis.”
—Sup. Ahsha Safai said the theme of his campaign is “you shouldn’t have to be rich to live in San Francisco.” But he also said that if the 40,000 new market-rate units that are in the pipeline get built, prices will come down to the level they were when the janitors he worked for as a union rep could buy a house in District 11.
—Both Farrell and Lurie said some incredibly harsh things about the unhoused. Farrell: “We have enough shelter beds (untrue).” When he was interim mayor, he said, “we’d take away their tents. After a second or third encounter … some people left San Francisco because we made it inconvenient for them to sleep on the streets.” Lurie: “I will stand on the steps of City Hall every day and say, you can’t come to San Francisco to sell drugs or do drugs and you can’t come here to sleep on the streets.”
—Peskin, who has a new ad running contrasting him to the candidates who are “running to the right,” tried to make that difference clear. When Examiner reporter Adam Shanks asked him if he believed in the “fundamental laws of supply and demand,” (a weird question since those “laws” rarely work as economics 101 teachers describe them), Peskin talked about his record—and affordable housing.
“I have voted to approve 100,000 units by working with the neighborhoods, not against them,” he said. “There are 70,000 shovel-ready homes that are not being built because of high interest rates.”
That was the only bit of sanity in the entire housing discussion: The 33 months, the zoning, none of that is holding up massive new housing development. It’s the market; money goes where the return is highest, and thanks to the federal reserve, building market-rate housing in San Francisco right now doesn’t give investors enough return.
Peskin has proposed an innovative idea, which is to use the city’s ability to issue revenue bonds to fund new housing for middle-class people at a lower interest rate.
Peskin made clear at the end where he differs from the others:
“I will protect elderly renters from eviction. They won’t. I am a champion of affordable housing; they prefer luxury. I have a comprehensive homeless strategy; they prefer sweeps, which are ineffective. I am a grassroots candidate; my opponents are supported by billionaires.” (Safai correctly noted that he has no billionaire backers. He’s also polling far below the others.)
The only way Peskin wins this election is if he gets the solid support of the 25-28 percent of voters who identify as progressives. That’s what his messaging is about right now.
Full disclosure: My son and daughter both work on the Peskin for Mayor campaign.
