State Senate District 11

I’m proud to have voted for Scott Wiener in my first San Francisco election in 2016. As a result of his narrow win, the debate around housing policy has changed around the world; I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say he’s had a greater impact on this policy area than anyone else in the country.

Wiener’s first major bill, SB 35, streamlined approvals of new housing projects in cities that failed to meet housing production targets. This enabled developers to replace a mall in Cupertino with 2,400 homes, overcoming the exclusionary city’s NIMBY leadership; it has also produced affordable housing in San Francisco and other cities.

In 2018, Wiener pushed for SB 827, the most significant land use bill in California, attracting national media attention. The bill would have legalized apartments in transit-rich areas, but it died in committee. Wiener introduced its successor, SB 50, in 2019, expanding its scope to include job-rich areas and carving out vulnerable communities, and while it also failed to pass, it continued major momentum for pro-housing legislation, arguably creating room for less controversial bills like SB 330 to pass.

Wiener is a productive legislator who has worked hard on other issues as well. He has passed multiple bills relating to HIV and LGBT issues, and has sought to increase state funding for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.

His opponent, Jackie Fielder, is aligned with the democratic-socialist wing of San Francisco politics. She’s branding herself as the “progressive” in the race, but her policy stances reveal that she’s anything but. Fielder:

• Opposes SB 50, just as Wiener’s 2016 opponent opposed SB 827.
• Opposes Measure RR to save Caltrain with a sales tax.
• Opposes gas taxes, critical for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution.
• Opposes California’s carbon pricing system, which has reduced emissions and raised billions to fight climate change and help low-income communities.

It doesn’t matter how progressive the effects of a policy are, if it involves markets, Fielder opposes it. Her housing plan condemns market-rate housing, instead seeking to print $100 billion to add 100,000 homes over a decade. This is both wildly unrealistic---California’s General Fund is only $150 billion---and wildly insufficient---California is short 3.5 million homes, which will require at least a trillion dollars of investment to build. Apartment legalization would help either way, but because it allows some of those apartments be market-rate (the kind of homes the vast majority of Californians live in), she’ll side with wealthy NIMBYs, conservatives, and Donald Trump in opposing it.

However Fielder describes herself, the result of her policy preferences would be higher housing costs, more carbon emissions, and more poverty. Between her and the most effective, progressive pro-housing legislator in the country, the choice is clear.