This is an extremely charitable take. As far as can be observed by the consequences of their policy, the progs don’t actually care about maximizing new affordable housing production. If they did, they would not have referred to SB35 as genocidal policy. It also squares with their coalition which is basically NIMBYs and nostalgic boomers.
I was trying to be as "extremely charitable" to both sides here as I could, because the point is to broadly characterize the two groups for the information of people unfamiliar with SF politics, not to push my own personal message. (For reference, Wiener, who wrote SB35, used to be my supervisor and I am generally a fan.)
It's not fair to say that the progressive group primarily consists of "NIMBYs and nostalgic boomers", nor is the group cohesive enough to label anyone's individual comments as representative of a "they"; if you are going to characterize either of these groups negatively you should try to quote specific comments and attribute them to specific people, rather than making vague insinuations.
The position on SB35 was taken by CCHO, which is not a wacky fringe organization but instead of the most influential progressive policymaking bodies around housing policy.
I think you offered charity to the point of being misleading. There is only one side who wants to make housing more affordable. The charitable view of progressive policy making is that they reject any demand for San Francisco to be a commercial center and want to preserve the lifestyle, built environment, and composition of residents to what it was in the 80s.
> As currently written, the practical outcome of SB 35 will be to further expedite and accelerate market-rate approvals in the small handful of California communities where the real estate market is already hot – communities that are overwhelmingly urban, low-income, and predominantly people of color. These are the same communities that are currently grappling with displacement and gentrification, and typically have terrible imbalances of market-rate housing development compared to affordable housing. Simply accelerating approvals in those communities is just a recipe to spur even more aggressive gentrification.
I personally think folks like the CCHO are taking a misguided policy approach to solving/ameliorating the problems they worry about, and sometimes behave disingenuously (and should be called out, with specific details, when they do so). But that doesn't make their concerns illegitimate.
> This housing crisis will never be solved without a solution that includes a significantly increased supply of all types of housing, at all income levels, in every community throughout California, both subsidized and non-subsidized. The devastating eviction crisis and rapid displacement of low- and middle-income people from cities results, in large part, from failing to build enough housing for the past half century. SB 35 empowers the state to take action and ensure that every single community is approving its fair share of housing – especially those communities currently punting their housing needs to neighboring jurisdictions.
If you want to characterize Welch specifically as a "nostalgic boomer" I'm not going to argue. (He might even be pre-boomer?)
Calling these proposals "ethnic cleansing" is ridiculous hyperbole. Not as stupid as a death-threat song lyric tweet, but definitely unhelpful. Welch was rightly called out for that one.
