The Facts

When asked if SF needs more market-rate homes (which is what about 90% of SF residents live in), only Scott Wiener gave an emphatic "yes."

Wiener says the private market "has built the vast majority of new housing" in the US, and supports government subsidized housing as an additional tool to help lower income people afford to live in high-opportunity areas. Saikat Chakrabarti says market-rate housing is just "part of" the solution, but favors huge government programs. While Connie Chan argued San Francisco does not need more market-rate housing (forgetting to mention that she lives in market-rate housing like almost all of us), and SF should only build government subsidized low income housing.

Wiener’s campaign platform promises 8 million homes over ten years, while Chakrabarti’s housing plan calls for millions of new homes, faster approvals, and much larger public-housing investment.

The Context

Connie Chan voted against Mayor Lurie's Family Zoning Plan last December, and has consistently blocked construction of new homes.

Scott Wiener, on the other hand, has authored dozens of pieces of legislation to unlock new home construction, and qualifying developments in the city now get nearly automatic approval under Wiener's SB 423 bill, which sharply limits the old discretionary process for new housing.

The GrowSF Take

GrowSF’s view is simple: San Francisco cannot subsidize its way out of a shortage. It would require 100% of San Franciso's budget for five full years just to hit out 8-year construction goals. That means zero money for the airport, for roads, for schools, for libraries, for police, for healthcare, for literally anything but construction costs. Anyone who seriously pitches this as a solution is delusional, lying, or both.

The serious housing lane is one that recognizes the importance of market-rate homebuilding. Candidates who oppose market-rate supply are offering a scarcity strategy that San Francisco has already tried, and which has failed.