The old canard that “supply and demand does not exist in San Francisco’s housing market” is on its way out. After 30 years of failing to build enough housing to meet the needs of residents and newcomers, San Francisco is now moving to build 5,000 units of housing per year to keep up with the demand, thanks to the legislative efforts and advocacy of Mayor’s office, Senator Scott Wiener, and pro-homebuilding advocates at YIMBY Action (and, yes, ourselves at SFHAC).
Seeing the writing on the wall, the anti-growth forces that have fostered high housing prices and gentrification are now changing their obstructionist rhetoric to the claim “We don’t have enough infrastructure to support the homes” that the inclusive, pro-housing movement advocates for.
The head of the Coalition of San Francisco Neighborhoods openly and proudly states, “You have to fight the transit too, because it brings housing with it.” Housing and transportation infrastructure are the opposite sides of the same coin. Just as we are on the path to winning the fight for more housing at all income levels of San Franciscans, we must be advocating simultaneously for the infrastructure that supports that housing: transportation, public education, open space, and sewer lines.
For those familiar with San Francisco’s land use policies, the “Supply and Demand” conversation is not new. It’s so prevalent that elected leaders actually have to clarify their position on the topic. For decades, it’s been a powerful tool for NIMBYs to justify their opposition on creating new homes for the people we claim we want to welcome. What’s happened, due to our massive housing shortage, is that only the privileged can access our wonderful City. The stereotype of today’s privileged has become the young, white tech worker. However, the supply and demand deniers have finally been publicly rebuked as snake oil salesmen. Not to be deterred, they will now grasp at infrastructure arguments as a means to stop home creation.
In the 1940s, San Francisco had a robust and efficient streetcar system. Unfortunately, the era of the car and lack of environmental advocacy resulted in the removal of streetcars in exchange for the future of automobiles. I’m not quite sure when we realized that a mistake was made, but I’d wager the significant majority of people under 50 would prefer a MUNI map of 1940 compared to today (with a few more underground routes). Because of our lack of vision, the City doesn’t have the public transportation infrastructure to manage the new residents we need to build homes for.
San Francisco can walk and chew gum at the same time. We must not allow the simultaneous need for more homes and more infrastructure to stop the creation of either.
San Francisco welcomes immigrants, the LGBTQ community, and anyone who doesn’t quite feel like they belong in their far-away home. We’ve always said, “San Francisco is for you.” We thoughtfully accept everyone. So make no mistake, when you hear someone question whether San Francisco has enough infrastructure to support additional housing, it is reasonable to ask yourself if they are advocating for more infrastructure or simply trying another NIMBY argument to stop new people from moving into their neighborhood.
So what do we do? Fortunately, those who believe in a truly inclusive San Francisco also believe that we should always be building a subway. Would it be expensive? Yes. Would it be disruptive to current residents already frustrated by constant construction? Yes. Is it necessary and ultimately realistic due to the immense economic opportunity that exists? 100%.
Looking historically at infrastructure investments, there is not one major infrastructure project in the history of the Bay Area where people did not question the cost or temporary inconvenience of it. The Golden Gate and Bay Bridges are perfect examples. Furthermore, residents of the Bay Area today bemoan that BART does not extend north and south from Marin to San Jose. We look at infrastructure and ask “Why didn’t we do more of that?” Not less.
So let’s build something under Van Ness from Fort Mason to City College. On Geary from Ocean Beach to the Financial District. From “The Hub” through the Haight and Golden Gate Park. Let’s create a quick route from the Legion of Honor to Lake Merced in under 20 minutes. At the very least, let’s have the vision and foresight to realize the Central Subway needs to go to Washington Square Park, then Pier 39 and into the Marina. Let’s think about earthquake safety and protection of current residents while we create a world class 21st (and 22nd) Century city. But let’s not let the NIMBY argument prevent us from growing.
We all need to ask ourselves, “What type of City does San Francisco want to be?” Pursuing a no-growth mindset in an interconnected mega-region is irresponsible. It doesn’t allow for the San Francisco value of inclusiveness that we claim we want. Creating homes and the transit to accommodate the population are not easy tasks. Creating the political will to make it happen is even harder.
What can we do? Understanding the urgency and supporting policies that create an inclusive and welcoming future and well functioning city is key. At the end of the day, the City needs to walk and chew gum at the same time. Let’s make San Francisco the City we all want it to be: a place for everyone. Let’s create the housing and infrastructure to accomplish exactly that.
Todd David is the Executive Director of the SF Housing Action Coalition.
Sign up for the Bay City Beacon weekly newsletter! It's a free way of getting the best of political gossip and cutting-edge culture in your inbox every Friday.
