San Franciscans overwhelmingly support building more housing and making it easier to modify existing buildings. Yet the city is held hostage by NIMBY elected officials who overwhelmingly block the kinds of reforms people want. Online petitions aren’t enough—the only way to deliver the change our city wants is to win elections.
Residents from every age group, of every race, and both homeowners and renters support allowing taller buildings, streamlining the permitting process, and encouraging growth to address both housing needs and City budget shortfalls. Entrenched political interests might be resistant to change, but voters want a growing, thriving city.
GrowSF’s most recent poll of city residents found strong support for 6-8 story buildings near transit (87% in favor), new residential skyscrapers in downtown, SOMA, and Mission Bay (75% in favor) and near BART stops (70%), and reducing fees on new homes to spur development (81% in favor). Importantly, this pro-housing sentiment extends to traditionally low-density neighborhoods like the Sunset and Richmond districts, indicating a citywide shift in attitudes.
San Franciscans remain concerned about displacement, so they strongly support reasonable compensation measures for tenants affected by redevelopment. This data presents a compelling case for policymakers to enact bold housing reforms, aligning regulations with the will of the people and paving the way for a more affordable, vibrant San Francisco.
Allowing more homes citywideHere is a series of ideas about new housing production in San Francisco. For each one, please tell me if you think they should be allowed or not allowed.
Note: All of these policies are currently illegal in San Francisco. What little housing that does get built requires special approval and spot-rezoning from the Board of Supervisors.
Here is a series of ideas about modifying or replacing buildings in San Francisco. For each one, please tell me if you agree or disagree.
Here are two ideas about fees in San Francisco. For each one, please tell me if you agree or disagree.
San Franciscans support building dramatically more housing everywhere.
San Franciscans are done with the City of No, and are ready to build more homes across the city. The vast majority of San Franciscans support building more homes, even 15 to 20 story buildings near BART stops. This holds true across all neighborhoods, races, age groups, and owner-vs-renter status.
"Politicians misperceive public opinion on many issues. On housing, a few busybodies who show up to public hearings appear to have scared San Francisco politicians into thinking most voters are wary of new housing. But this poll shows that there's broad support for big increases in density citywide."
– David Broockman, UC Berkeley Professor of Political Science
Mayoral housing platformsWith the election in full swing, here's how San Franciscans feel about each Mayoral candidate's housing platform.
Note: Survey participants were not shown candidate names, they were only shown the housing policy. Candidates were linked to these positions before conducting the poll, and only added back at publication time.
Clearly, a pro-housing message is a winning message in San Francisco. The vast majority of San Franciscans support building more homes across the city, and they want to see their elected officials support that goal. Peskin trails the pack with his conservative stance opposing growth & change.
These results draw into question virtually all of the shibboleths of San Francisco land use since the 1970s—such as the notion that San Fransicans don't want "Manhattan like" density even near downtown and transit; the idea that old industrial properties should be set aside for "production, distribution and repair" uses rather than redeveloped for housing; the principle that once a property has been rent controlled or occupied by a tenant, it should never be redeveloped for additional housing; and the conception of zoning as an invitation for developers to propose something that the city will approve if neighbors and community activists like it, rather than a commitment by the city to let builders build projects that comply with the rules.
— Christopher Elmendorf, Martin Luther King, Jr. Professor of Law at the University of California, Davis School of Law
Require the city to approve homesWhich of the following statements comes closest to your personal opinion?
- If a housing development proposal follows all the rules the City made in advance, City officials should be required to approve it even if neighbors don’t like it
- City officials should be allowed to change or reject any housing development proposal that neighbors don’t like even if it follows all the rules the City made in advance
Despite the popular narrative that San Franciscans are NIMBYs, the data shows that the vast majority of San Franciscans support making it easier for them and their neighbors to modify their homes. This stands in stark contrast to how San Francisco currently works, where any neighborhood busybody can stop any of the above changes and drag their neighbors through a lengthy and expensive process.
These numbers make it clear: It's time to reform San Francisco's broken permitting process and let people make the changes they want to their homes.
Getting permission to renovateHere is a series of changes a homeowner may make to their home. For each one, please tell me if you think they should have to get their neighbors’ permission to make these changes to their home.
Here is a series of changes your neighbor may make to their home. For each one, please tell me if you think they should have to get your permission to make these changes to their home.
Despite the popular narrative that San Franciscans are NIMBYs, the data shows that the vast majority of San Franciscans support making it easier for them and their neighbors to modify their homes. This stands in stark contrast to how San Francisco currently works, where any neighborhood busybody can stop any of the above changes and drag their neighbors through a lengthy and expensive process.
These numbers make it clear: It's time to reform San Francisco's broken permitting process and let people make the changes they want to their homes.
Compensation for redevelopmentHere are some ideas on how to compensate renters when the owner of their apartment building wants to redevelop it. For each, please tell me if you agree that the owner should be allowed to redevelop the building if they offer the given compensation to current residents.
Here are the same questions, broken down by renter vs owner. Please note that the margin of error on these responses is about 13%, due to the reduced sample size.
Here are some ideas on how to compensate renters when the owner of their apartment building wants to redevelop it. For each, please tell me if you agree that the owner should be allowed to redevelop the building if they offer the given compensation to current residents.
Give tenants compensation equal to two years of rent
Tenants have accepted a 'buy-out offer' from the owner
No compensation, but with six months notice
San Franciscans want new housing, and they want current renters compensated as a condition for redevelopment.
San Franciscans are famously compassionate and generous when it comes to tenants' rights, and that holds true for redevelopment of existing apartment buildings. We want new homes, but we don't want to hurt incumbent renters. So as long as an owner offers reasonable compensation, we're ready to build.
Feasibility and BudgetsSan Francisco requires new apartment buildings to include housing for low-income people. The City doesn't pay for this housing and builders lose money on it, so this requirement ends up meaning that less new housing is built.
Some people have suggested that the low-income housing requirement should be reduced in cases where it makes a proposed housing development financially impossible to build. Does this sound like something you would support or oppose?
San Francisco is currently facing a budget shortfall. Which of the following comes closest to your opinion on how the City should address this shortfall?
- San Francisco should continue to maintain strict limits on housing growth, and raise taxes on current residents to generate additional tax revenue.
- San Francisco should avoid raising taxes on current residents by encouraging housing growth, and generate additional tax revenue by allowing more people to move to San Francisco.
San Francisco is facing a dire budget deficit, in part because we have strictly limited or stopped new housing growth. When given the choice between either raising taxes or allowing new homes to be built in order to grow the tax base, The vast majority of San Franciscans support growth.
The Direction of San FranciscoWould you say things in San Francisco are going in the right direction, or would you say they are off on the wrong track?
San Franciscans continue to be dissatisfied with the direction of the city. But keep an eye on this metric — the November 2024 election may be a turning point.
Sign up so you don't miss the next GrowSF Pulse!
Methodology
Methodology
