Sponsored link
Saturday, July 12, 2025

Sponsored link

ElectionsCampaign TrailMayor's race gets ugly ... and weird

Mayor’s race gets ugly … and weird

Suddenly, Farrell is against billionaires? Plus the Yimby attack on Peskin and rent control.

-

The mayor’s race is becoming a sprint to the finish, with ballots getting mailed out to voters this week—and it’s getting predictable nasty … and weird.

That’s not a surprise when the polls show the race is really close. Daniel Lurie’s campaign released a poll today showing Lurie winning in ranked-choice voting. A poll by Growsf shows Breed beating Lurie—but also shows that Mark Farrell, Lurie, and Sup. Aaron Peskin are essentially tied after the first round, which means any of them could emerge as the second-place candidate and win with Ranked-Choice Voting.

So the gloves are off.

Farrell clearly sees Lurie as his biggest threat. That’s why I got this door hanger:

Umm … Farrell’s biggest donors are also billionaires trying to buy the election.

Which is particularly interesting since the biggest donor to Farrell’s campaign (actually, an independent expenditure campaign supporting Farrell) is billionaire (and noted GOP donor) William Oberndorf. Farrell is, in other words, supported by billionaires who are trying to buy the election.

So is Breed—but Farrell isn’t attacking her over her campaign donors.

Meanwhile, Farrell and Sup. Ahsha Safai have made an alliance, of sorts. They’ve agreed to endorse each other as second choices—a move that won’t help Safai, who is so far behind in the polls that he will almost certainly be the first major candidate eliminated, but might help Farrell.

Right now, according to the Growsf poll, 51 percent of Safai’s second-place votes go to Peskin, 16 percent to Breed, and 18 percent to Lurie. None of them go to Farrell.

Sponsored link

Help us save local journalism!

Every tax-deductible donation helps us grow to cover the issues that mean the most to our community. Become a 48 Hills Hero and support the only daily progressive news source in the Bay Area.

It’s a big lift to change that, particularly since Safai’s voters are more likely to be working class and union folks, and Farrell is a rich white guy and the candidate labor unions most distrust.

But clearly Safai thinks there’s a chance Farrell can win, and if you are out of work in January and looking for a nice city job, having a close alliance with the new mayor would not be a bad thing.

The Yimby folks are, of course, attacking Peskin, and the Chron is giving them a forum.

My first thought is to be shocked, shocked that something political is happening at City Hall. Tenants are a key constituency in the election, and it’s not surprising that the most pro-tenant candidate would be looking for an issue that forces the others, particularly the mayor, to take a stand on rent control.

It’s worked, too: Breed has made clear that she does not support repealing the Costa-Hawkins Act, which limits local rent control options, which gives Peskin a valid argument against her.

But set the politics aside for a moment: The piece by two Yimby leaders takes the exact same line that big landlords have been peddling for decades, every time anyone suggests expanding rent control:

Oh, no, we can’t do that! It might discourage new housing!

Developers would be incentivized to build for-sale condos instead of rental housing, or more likely, they simply won’t build in a city where they know they can’t cover their costs or make a reasonable return on investment. Housing construction — which has already significantly slowed due to high costs and inflation — will grind to a halt. This will push prices higher as the demand for housing continues to significantly outpace the supply.

Let’s parse that for a moment. Developers are the ultimate capitalists, and so are the lenders who finance their projects. Every single rental housing project that is proposed or built in San Francisco starts off with market-rate housing. Rent control doesn’t do anything to address the initial rent that a landlord charges.

When developers go to get financing, they give the lenders a pro forma that shows what rent they are going to charge—on opening day, not five years from then. Nobody knows what market-rate rent will be in the future. So the profit is based on Day One, not on whether the rent is limited in the future.

Besides, Peskin’s bill specifically stops at Nov. 5, 2024; anything built after that would be exempt from rent control anyway.

And an honest discussion about rent control starts with the idea that the opponents have been wrong for half a century:

As recent empirical work has shown, the neoclassical account’s core assumptions—one, that rent control restricts the supply of new housing; and two, that it misallocates existing housing, thereby causing an irrecoverable collective loss—fail to hold when it comes to the real world.

And a growing number of economists are arguing that rent control is a positive policy.

So this is nonsense.


The Yimbys also argue suggest that rent control could be imposed after 30 years, when the original financing has been paid off. Again, as Sup. Dean Preston, who has worked for decades on tenant legislation, pointed out at the hearing on this bill, the landlord lobbyists constantly suggest this as an alternative to rent control—and then after they’ve defeated the latest tenant bill, they disappear and so does this idea.

Oh, of course the Yimbys cite studied by the Tener Center at US Berkeley. They don’t say that institution is funded in part by the same folks who argue for more market-rate housing and no rent control.

Take a look at the record. San Francisco is the only one of the nine Bay Area counties that has expanded its market-rate housing stock every decade since the 1960s. And most of that has happened under rent control.

What’s really going on here is the Chron’s ongoing efforts to make sure Peskin isn’t mayor—and the Yimbys finally admitting that they are on the side of the big landlords on the most essential tenant issues.

Full disclosure: Both of my kids work on the Peskin for Mayor campaign.

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.
Sponsored link
Sponsored link

Featured

Britney blackout: Author Jeff Weiss relives the ’00s pop culture cataclysm

Music journalist's gonzo new book 'Waiting for Britney Spears' dives into the tabloid-strewn wreck of the schlocky decade.

Under the Stars: Madlib’s sonic crystal ball spins again

Plus: Kendra Morris scores a reggae-tinged 'Flat Tire,' Jay Som rocks back with 'Float,' Directions in Stereo dips into the wax stacks

Good Taste: An obsessive early guide to the Outside Lands food multiverse

Fun bevs, free samples, fries as meals, super splurges, and more: It’s not too soon to plan your festival menu.

More by this author

Will supes oust one of the most effective members of the Homeless Oversight Commission?

And what does this say about the mayor and the board changing policy on Prop C and 'housing first?'

Supes to vote on Billionaire Budget deal amid protests over housing money

Plus: A crackdown on RV parking that will make more families homeless, and will the Police Commission do a real national search for the next chief? That's The Agenda for July 6-13

Wiener-Newsom CEQA ‘reform’ is a dangerous fraud

Lithium battery factories without environmental review. Miami Beach development along the coast. And it's not going to make housing more affordable
Sponsored link

You might also likeRELATED