Reject Opponents False Claims
San Francisco voters regularly approve housing bonds and other strategies to expand affordable housing. So what should opponents of affordable housing measures like San Francisco’s Prop I do?
Tell the truth about Prop I and likely lose the election? Or increase their chances by relying on falsehoods and misrepresentations?
Opponents of the Affordable Housing Guarantee Act have chosen the latter approach. They are filling mailboxes, social media and television ads with falsehoods. Falsehoods about Prop I that could dampen support for two other housing measures, Prop 1 and Prop C.
Let’s break down what’s happening here.
“Nonprofit Slush Fund”
No on I mailers claim that “It’s not an affordable housing fund. It’s a nonprofit slush fund.”
Really? Prop I funds will be controlled by the Mayor’s Office of Housing.
The same Mayor’s Office of Housing that will administer funds from state measure Prop 1 and San Francisco’s Prop C Both of which Mayor Lurie supports.
Why are allies of Mayor Lurie claiming that his housing office runs a nonprofit slush fund? If true, why isn’t closing this alleged slush fund part of his campaign to “Clean Up City Hall”?
The answer, of course, is that Prop I opponents are lying. There is no nonprofit slush fund. Prop I funds will be administered in the same way as the other housing ballot measures.
“Nonprofits Will Permanently Take Homes Off the Market.”
Opponents also attack Prop I for allowing nonprofits to purchase buildings. I know this argument well.
The late Ted Gullicksen and I pushed Mayor Brown’s Administration to adopt a Small Sites Acquisition Program to purchase small buildings whose longterm tenants faced Ellis Act evictions. The Tenderloin Housing Clinic, which I head, was defending three generations of tenants on Guerrero Street from an Ellis Act eviction. The owner’s attorney suggested we purchase the building to save the tenants. Unfortunately, Brown’s team didn’t think the numbers worked so passed on our plan. It was later picked up by Mayor Ed Lee.
The rest is history. The Small Sites Program has kept hundreds of tenants in their homes. But it currently lacks funding. Prop I provides these essential funds.
Funding nonprofits to buy existing buildings with ample vacancies and longterm tenants is a smart affordability strategy. People complain that building new affordable housing costs too much. Many seek alternatives to spending $750,000- $1million per unit to build new units.
Buying existing buildings adds a critical strategic option to the city’s affordability toolbox.
An Honest Basis for Opposition
Opponents of Prop I could have raised valid policy objections. For example, Prop I takes away the power exercised by Mayors Breed and Lurie to spend most of these transfer tax funds for other purposes other than housing.
Many private developers and YIMBYs oppose Prop I because they claim it “cements in” a real estate transfer hike they feel deters new construction. Let’s break this argument down.
In November 2020, voters approved a transfer tax hike on properties over $10 million. In July 2020 the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously for a resolution stating it was “the Board of Supervisor’s intent to appropriate revenue generated by a November 2020 transfer tax ballot measure to a COVID-19 Rent Resolution and Relief Fund and a Social Housing Program Fund.” This was necessary because the city attorney ruled that transfer tax hikes cannot be directly connected to a specific purpose.
Most of the transfer tax funds did not go for affordable housing. That’s why Prop I is on the ballot.
Mayor Breed’s Prop C on the June 2024 ballot was sold as encouraging office to housing conversions by reducing transfer taxes. But the fine print gave the Board of Supervisors the power “to amend, reduce, suspend or repeal the transfer tax without voter approval.” Voters would have to approve increases in the transfer tax but not decreases.
The Board could have reduced transfer taxes in the eighteen months since Mayor Lurie took office. It chose not to do so. That inaction speaks volumes. It should encourage YIMBYs to reconsider their opposition to Prop I.
Prop I’s passage does not prevent opponents of the transfer tax hike from putting a repeal measure on a future ballot.
Social Housing
I’ve supported social housing since San Jose Assemblymember Alex Lee first introduced AB11, the Social Housing Act, in 2023. A limited pilot program passed the legislature but was vetoed by Governor Newsom. A more comprehensive measure passed the Assembly in 2025.
I raise this because opponents of Prop I are portraying social housing as akin to a hippy commune. To the contrary, it is a savvy strategy to combine tenants of different income levels in the same building. It also gives the majority of San Francisco tenants—most of whom will never be able to afford a home in the city— the opportunity for a greater say over their living situation.
People constantly criticize San Francisco’s affordable housing strategy. Yet when innovative new approaches like social housing are proposed, these same critics attack it. Makes you wonder how much they really support affordable housing.
Who Builds Affordable Housing in San Francisco?
San Francisco’s 100% permanently affordable housing is overwhelming provided by nonprofit housing development organizations. There’s no legal impediment to for-profit builders constructing 100% affordable housing. Yet few find it economical to do so in San Francisco.
Don’t be Deceived! As vacant studio apartments rent for $4000 and up, San Francisco needs to seize every opportunity to expand its affordable housing. Prop I, along with Prop C and Prop 1, is the right choice.
