Happy to be part of SF YIMBY who also endorsed Wong. Its tough to get the urbanist crowd out to D4, a notoriously "suburban" and anti density district in the context of SF, for canvassing but we are gonna try. Hope the GrowSF Endorsement gets Wong the positive media and we can provide some volunteers
First of all Noah, I must commend you for taking on your home team. We need more people in both parties to take them on.
I also wish you luck. While I was born in SoCal, I loved SF. Brunch in Sausalito was spectacular on sunny days.
One final note, your desire for a center left pragmatic public official is highly understandable. I would love to see a Rockefeller Republican run, a Nikki Haley. MAGA is flat out nuts.
Anyway, for your party, I have to believe that in order to stave off the aggressive progressive wing of your party, Moderates are going to have to get a little aggressive, call them out. Explain why their polices fail, but most of all, they have themselves been incompetent in managing a city.
As for Republicans? I must admit I don't get them. As a Reagan Republican, I am lost. I don't understand populist economics on the right or the left. Apparently, it is untethered from simple math. In words of my native SF language of yesteryear. Keep on Keeping on
As for me, I will no longer vote for any Republican, no matter how sensible they appear to be, because to them party solidarity is more important than principle. They can say nice things then support the Trump party brand. Looking at Susan Collins as Exhibit A.
I am not sure Nikki Haley qualifies as a “Rockefeller Republican.”
The “Rockefeller” or Eisenhower Republicans are now all independents or centrist/conservative Democrats.
As for populist economics, while I agree that some of their positions are dumbfounding, others make a lot of sense. For example, a system for national healthcare, well funded public education, including trade and vocational education, and robust support for young families all would make much sense and cost much less than the summation the current patchwork that tries to solve these problems now.
Many props (and thanks!) to Mayor Lurie, but much of the improvement in permit issuance and the pressure for up-zoning came after SF's egregiously bad under-building led to the loss of its powers of discretionary building approvals under SB 423, courtesy of State Senator (and soon Congressman, I hope) Scott Weiner, patron saint of California YIMBYs.
Wong will likely win imo and Mandelman has been a reliable enough vote that pragmatic technical reforms—like the Downtown Revitalization District or Bilal’s Build Act—will probably continue to pass. That said, more ambitious upzonings (sans those mandated by the state) are unlikely to occur without more progressives who support development at least to the level of Mamdani—a phenomenon that doesn’t exist much in SF beyond oddball cases like Melgar. And there are so many NIMBYs in the Mod’s voter base that, with declining crime and increased development, they may start to increasingly prioritize blocking new housing.
I’m curious but what are your thoughts on State Sen. Scott Weiner? I don’t live in SF but I know he’s like a legend in YIMBY circles. He seems like a great choice to fill Pelosi’s seat.
I loved SF. I lived there for a couple decades. I still go back to visit because a dear friend lives there. But the city just got *gutted* post-COVID. I don’t know how much of it was COVID and shifting buying patterns (fewer people working in the office, more people shopping online), a how much was the crime wave, but the retail sector just went poof. No more Nordstrom, no more Barney’s (not like it was in my price bracket but oohing and aahing are free), a million little stores just closed down. Really, when one is supposed to be enjoying a lovely Christmas-season afternoon out with friends, one isn’t supposed to ruin the fun by sitting down and bawling in the middle of Powell Street, but, I sat down and bawled in the middle of Powell Street. (Or rather, on a bench, if I’m going to soil my pants I’ll do it myself, thanks.)
I know crime, per se, was higher in the 80’s and 90’s, but things didn’t feel as *destroyed*. And while there were a lot of homeless, there weren’t the “fent tent cities” which are thankfully now gone. The bus stop island at 7th and Market used to actually be one huge homeless encampment!
I wish I could move back to SF; maybe if they built housing I could afford it! Thanks for fighting the good fight, or donating the good money, Noah.
as someone from the outside and only having been to SF once in 2013, it’s a bit hard for me to understand what the interest is in allowing public disorder. I stayed in NYC for a month for work in 2024 and was shocked by the anarchy in the subway and on the streets.
why would “progressives” find this kind of chaos favorable to actually improving things? in NYC I saw fire hydrants slashed open so that the homeless could drink and cool off in the heat.
I don’t want to sound like the snobby European here but why not just build public showers and shelters for the homeless? wouldn’t that make it better for everyone? I’m not trying to say everything is so much better here in Europe (although the cities arguably are) but genuinely curious what political faction would actively want this and why?
Sadly I dont actually think this is really limited to our big blue cities - its just very noticeable in NYC and SF because people walk around a lot more there. It is anti-intuitive but NYC is legitimately one of the safest places in the country. Every time I see deadly dangerous driving I tjink of that as the same symptom - we are just far too tolerant of anti social behavior all over this country.
In Japan, yes the cities and trains are clean but also drivers take their craft seriously. It is easy to point at blue cities but truly this problem is bigger and wider and all-American.
I disagree with Noah that progressives see anarchy as a form of "welfare", but there is a strong bias against criminalizing vagrancy and disorderly behavior because laws of that kind were long used as tools to imprison poor and minority populations. The bias is reflected in laws that make it very difficult to commit mentally ill people involuntarily, and until recently, an astonishing Circuit Court opinion that preventing people from campiing overnight on public property was "cruel and unusual punishement" under the 8th Amendment of the Constitution unless there are publicly-provided shelter beds available.
Ultimately, the problem is that we live in a very low-trust political equilibrium: progressives don't trust that conservatives won't use the law to oppress and punish the less-well off (and obviously the Trump administrations seem to demonstrate this), and conservatives don't trust that progressives won't waste money on badly-constructed social programs that don't work (for which there is also a lot of evidence). Liberal moderates want to build state capacity and strengthen the competence and effectiveness of our governmental institutions as a way to re-build trust in those institutions... which neither the conservatives nor the progressives like.
The paradox of progressive-run cities. If you build shelters, food banks, and methadone clinics, a minority of the users will cause crime that progressives leaders won't address. Therefore, residents will use the usual NIMBY levers to ensure none of this stuff is built and the problem is pushed elsewhere.
I think progressives see arresting people for public disorder like smoking on the train or sleeping on the sidewalk as an "equity" issue. Usually the people being arrested are poor and/or a minority and the progressive viewpoint is they have been kicked when down their entire lives so they don't deserve being arrested for a mere "quality of life" issue.
Good for you for donating to GrowSF, Noah. If you’re a San Franciscan that values economic vibrancy, public safety, and good governance in general donating to GrowSF is one of the highest leverage ways to deploy your money.
We had them in the '80s-'90s, when district elections were thougth to be "divisive" after the Dan White murders of Mayor Moscone and Harvey Milk. I don't think it made a lot of difference, as it congealed into organized slates of candidates running city-wide on platforms like "slow growth", etc. I guess it's possible to build a sustainable moderate voting majority that can maintain power city-wide, but I think you'd need to see the polling on that. Mayoral elections are not necessarily a good guide, because we've seen San Franciscans "balancing" a moderate mayor with a progressive BoS before.
Noah, this is a persuasive case for local power being the real lever. A one seat swing on the Board can decide whether “we are fixing this” turns into “we are debating this forever.”
I appreciate the clarity on the mechanism: mayors get the headlines, supervisors control the chokepoints. That’s a useful reminder for anyone who thinks city politics is just vibes and photo ops.
My one caution is the story compression. The improvement on crime and street disorder feels real, and the permitting speedup numbers are encouraging, but “progressives caused it, moderates fixed it” is still doing a lot of work. Pandemic shocks, fentanyl dynamics, state housing pressure, and the post tech slump all matter too.
That said, your core warning stands: if the city wants the housing agenda to survive long enough to become actual homes, the Board majority matters more than almost anything else.
I dont think SFs problems were/are the same as other blue cities. I think they were much worse before the pandemic, and worse after and other blue cities kinda got painted with the brush of SF, which wasnt fair to them.
But nice piece. Hope the sunset keeps its current leadership
Happy to be part of SF YIMBY who also endorsed Wong. Its tough to get the urbanist crowd out to D4, a notoriously "suburban" and anti density district in the context of SF, for canvassing but we are gonna try. Hope the GrowSF Endorsement gets Wong the positive media and we can provide some volunteers
First of all Noah, I must commend you for taking on your home team. We need more people in both parties to take them on.
I also wish you luck. While I was born in SoCal, I loved SF. Brunch in Sausalito was spectacular on sunny days.
One final note, your desire for a center left pragmatic public official is highly understandable. I would love to see a Rockefeller Republican run, a Nikki Haley. MAGA is flat out nuts.
Anyway, for your party, I have to believe that in order to stave off the aggressive progressive wing of your party, Moderates are going to have to get a little aggressive, call them out. Explain why their polices fail, but most of all, they have themselves been incompetent in managing a city.
As for Republicans? I must admit I don't get them. As a Reagan Republican, I am lost. I don't understand populist economics on the right or the left. Apparently, it is untethered from simple math. In words of my native SF language of yesteryear. Keep on Keeping on
Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying.
As for me, I will no longer vote for any Republican, no matter how sensible they appear to be, because to them party solidarity is more important than principle. They can say nice things then support the Trump party brand. Looking at Susan Collins as Exhibit A.
I am not sure Nikki Haley qualifies as a “Rockefeller Republican.”
The “Rockefeller” or Eisenhower Republicans are now all independents or centrist/conservative Democrats.
As for populist economics, while I agree that some of their positions are dumbfounding, others make a lot of sense. For example, a system for national healthcare, well funded public education, including trade and vocational education, and robust support for young families all would make much sense and cost much less than the summation the current patchwork that tries to solve these problems now.
I was giving examples of Republicans I could vote for
Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying.
Many props (and thanks!) to Mayor Lurie, but much of the improvement in permit issuance and the pressure for up-zoning came after SF's egregiously bad under-building led to the loss of its powers of discretionary building approvals under SB 423, courtesy of State Senator (and soon Congressman, I hope) Scott Weiner, patron saint of California YIMBYs.
Somewhat related: I wrote a bit about the structural dangers of SF relying on its slim moderate majority to get housing built here: https://boredofthesfboard.substack.com/p/2025-proved-moderates-cant-tackle?r=ajg5u&utm_medium=ios
Wong will likely win imo and Mandelman has been a reliable enough vote that pragmatic technical reforms—like the Downtown Revitalization District or Bilal’s Build Act—will probably continue to pass. That said, more ambitious upzonings (sans those mandated by the state) are unlikely to occur without more progressives who support development at least to the level of Mamdani—a phenomenon that doesn’t exist much in SF beyond oddball cases like Melgar. And there are so many NIMBYs in the Mod’s voter base that, with declining crime and increased development, they may start to increasingly prioritize blocking new housing.
Mr. Smith,
I’m curious but what are your thoughts on State Sen. Scott Weiner? I don’t live in SF but I know he’s like a legend in YIMBY circles. He seems like a great choice to fill Pelosi’s seat.
For what it’s worth I’m a huge fan of Scot Weiner. He gets more shit done than five regular politicians.
The guy is just a machine that never stops. Like where does all that energy and stamina come from lol.
I loved SF. I lived there for a couple decades. I still go back to visit because a dear friend lives there. But the city just got *gutted* post-COVID. I don’t know how much of it was COVID and shifting buying patterns (fewer people working in the office, more people shopping online), a how much was the crime wave, but the retail sector just went poof. No more Nordstrom, no more Barney’s (not like it was in my price bracket but oohing and aahing are free), a million little stores just closed down. Really, when one is supposed to be enjoying a lovely Christmas-season afternoon out with friends, one isn’t supposed to ruin the fun by sitting down and bawling in the middle of Powell Street, but, I sat down and bawled in the middle of Powell Street. (Or rather, on a bench, if I’m going to soil my pants I’ll do it myself, thanks.)
I know crime, per se, was higher in the 80’s and 90’s, but things didn’t feel as *destroyed*. And while there were a lot of homeless, there weren’t the “fent tent cities” which are thankfully now gone. The bus stop island at 7th and Market used to actually be one huge homeless encampment!
I wish I could move back to SF; maybe if they built housing I could afford it! Thanks for fighting the good fight, or donating the good money, Noah.
as someone from the outside and only having been to SF once in 2013, it’s a bit hard for me to understand what the interest is in allowing public disorder. I stayed in NYC for a month for work in 2024 and was shocked by the anarchy in the subway and on the streets.
why would “progressives” find this kind of chaos favorable to actually improving things? in NYC I saw fire hydrants slashed open so that the homeless could drink and cool off in the heat.
I don’t want to sound like the snobby European here but why not just build public showers and shelters for the homeless? wouldn’t that make it better for everyone? I’m not trying to say everything is so much better here in Europe (although the cities arguably are) but genuinely curious what political faction would actively want this and why?
Sadly I dont actually think this is really limited to our big blue cities - its just very noticeable in NYC and SF because people walk around a lot more there. It is anti-intuitive but NYC is legitimately one of the safest places in the country. Every time I see deadly dangerous driving I tjink of that as the same symptom - we are just far too tolerant of anti social behavior all over this country.
In Japan, yes the cities and trains are clean but also drivers take their craft seriously. It is easy to point at blue cities but truly this problem is bigger and wider and all-American.
I disagree with Noah that progressives see anarchy as a form of "welfare", but there is a strong bias against criminalizing vagrancy and disorderly behavior because laws of that kind were long used as tools to imprison poor and minority populations. The bias is reflected in laws that make it very difficult to commit mentally ill people involuntarily, and until recently, an astonishing Circuit Court opinion that preventing people from campiing overnight on public property was "cruel and unusual punishement" under the 8th Amendment of the Constitution unless there are publicly-provided shelter beds available.
Ultimately, the problem is that we live in a very low-trust political equilibrium: progressives don't trust that conservatives won't use the law to oppress and punish the less-well off (and obviously the Trump administrations seem to demonstrate this), and conservatives don't trust that progressives won't waste money on badly-constructed social programs that don't work (for which there is also a lot of evidence). Liberal moderates want to build state capacity and strengthen the competence and effectiveness of our governmental institutions as a way to re-build trust in those institutions... which neither the conservatives nor the progressives like.
The paradox of progressive-run cities. If you build shelters, food banks, and methadone clinics, a minority of the users will cause crime that progressives leaders won't address. Therefore, residents will use the usual NIMBY levers to ensure none of this stuff is built and the problem is pushed elsewhere.
I think progressives see arresting people for public disorder like smoking on the train or sleeping on the sidewalk as an "equity" issue. Usually the people being arrested are poor and/or a minority and the progressive viewpoint is they have been kicked when down their entire lives so they don't deserve being arrested for a mere "quality of life" issue.
Good for you for donating to GrowSF, Noah. If you’re a San Franciscan that values economic vibrancy, public safety, and good governance in general donating to GrowSF is one of the highest leverage ways to deploy your money.
"Now, most of that is gone — the streets aren’t clean, but they’re closer to NYC than to ____"
Fill in the blank? Bartertown.
Thanks, fixed!
Longer term, I think SF really needs to make supervisors at-large.
Yep
We had them in the '80s-'90s, when district elections were thougth to be "divisive" after the Dan White murders of Mayor Moscone and Harvey Milk. I don't think it made a lot of difference, as it congealed into organized slates of candidates running city-wide on platforms like "slow growth", etc. I guess it's possible to build a sustainable moderate voting majority that can maintain power city-wide, but I think you'd need to see the polling on that. Mayoral elections are not necessarily a good guide, because we've seen San Franciscans "balancing" a moderate mayor with a progressive BoS before.
Give "em hell, Noah!
I'd rather give em housing!!
You're too young to remember, "Give 'em hell, Harry!" The 1948 presidential campaign slogan.
Great choice. 30 years in SF for our family and we support growth! I donate consistently to GrowSF as well.
Noah, this is a persuasive case for local power being the real lever. A one seat swing on the Board can decide whether “we are fixing this” turns into “we are debating this forever.”
I appreciate the clarity on the mechanism: mayors get the headlines, supervisors control the chokepoints. That’s a useful reminder for anyone who thinks city politics is just vibes and photo ops.
My one caution is the story compression. The improvement on crime and street disorder feels real, and the permitting speedup numbers are encouraging, but “progressives caused it, moderates fixed it” is still doing a lot of work. Pandemic shocks, fentanyl dynamics, state housing pressure, and the post tech slump all matter too.
That said, your core warning stands: if the city wants the housing agenda to survive long enough to become actual homes, the Board majority matters more than almost anything else.
The “old San Francisco” supervisors who stand in the way of development and progress are regressives. Definitely not progressive.
The east coast example of this is Burlington Vermont. Except it is still years behind San Francisco.
I dont think SFs problems were/are the same as other blue cities. I think they were much worse before the pandemic, and worse after and other blue cities kinda got painted with the brush of SF, which wasnt fair to them.
But nice piece. Hope the sunset keeps its current leadership