Sen. Scott Wiener — 6-foot-7 with the physique of an exclamation mark — looks like many things. But not a bad-guy wrestler.
And yet, of late, other San Francisco politicians have been more than happy to portray Wiener as the heel who’ll come flying off the top rope and bring the pain to this city in its latest political smackdown.
At forums in which concerned residents of the city’s lower-slung enclaves show up to vent about Mayor Daniel Lurie’s pending upzoning plan, San Francisco leaders’ responses seem to mirror the archetypal “Family Guy” joke: You think that’s bad?
Both Lurie and, later, Supervisor Stephen Sherrill, told constituents last week that, whatever San Franciscans’ misgivings about the upzoning plan — You think that’s bad? — to scuttle it would be infinitely worse.
Both warned their respective crowds that, if the city fails to properly upzone, the state of California will amble into town and kick us right in the ass.
And that, somewhat unsubtly, redirects the crowd’s fear and loathing to Wiener, the man who shod the state with a pair of steel-toed ass-kicking boots.
In his eight years in Sacramento, Wiener has passed numerous measures limiting local control over construction, enabling bigger and denser development, and mandating municipalities to facilitate the production of more housing — or face the music.
Wiener is not a flatterer. He is remarkably consistent in his thinking and straightforward in his speech — for a regular person, let alone an elected official. He is hard-headed (if you don’t like him) or driven (if you do).
To wit: For the better part of seven years, he attempted, Sisyphus-like, to roll a transit-oriented development bill into law that would rezone much of California in one fell swoop.
Finally, on Friday, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed SB 79. It was as if Sisyphus rolled his boulder all the way up the hill, and over anyone in the way.
So, when asked how he felt about other politicians claiming their hands are tied and rendering him the Darth Vader of upzoning, Wiener’s answer was unambiguous: “Oh, I don’t care.”
Westside residents of District 4 recalled their supervisor on Sept. 16, Wiener’s strong ally Joel Engardio, by a near supermajority.
It was a stunning display. The margin far exceeded even the lopsided outcome predicted by the recall campaign. It was, perhaps, the apotheosis of the reductive populism that has become endemic in San Francisco and beyond in recent years.
On election night, Lurie — who had assiduously avoided making any public comments about the recall — put out a statement about how he’d heard “countless Westside families say what San Franciscans have been feeling for years: that their government is doing things to them, not with them, and that government is not working to make their lives better.”
I’ll take “passive-aggressive and patronizing things to do” for $500, Alex. But that’s not the tack Wiener took. Wiener, again, is no flatterer.
At the moment of Engardio’s immolation by his own constituency, Wiener praised his ally as “a fantastic public servant.” Wiener portrayed the ouster of the district supervisor as the first domino to fall in a reactionary campaign to thwart the mayor’s upzoning plan and “stop new housing or any change whatsoever.”
On the night a near supermajority of District 4 voters made their views resplendently clear, Wiener accused them of “freezing the city in amber” and acting to “deeply harm San Francisco and San Franciscans.”
Daniel Lurie is a novice politician. His statement was political. Wiener is a veteran politician. His statement was not. How this plays out for both Wiener and his city remains to be seen.
Like a bar mitzvah for the elderly, you aren’t truly a septuagenarian San Francisco neighborhood dweller until you’ve spent an evening yelling at Scott Wiener in a recreation center social room.
“I have been in many community meetings over the years where people are pissed off and loaded for bear,” Wiener said.
“When you start bullshitting voters, it’s bad, period. People are going to see it. Better just to be transparent. Over the years, I’ve had people say ‘I don’t agree with you, but I also know you’re not bullshitting me,’” he said.
And, over the years, enough people have voted for Wiener that he’s matriculated from the Democratic County Central Committee to the Board of Supervisors to state senate. He has been a stoker in the Democratic Party’s legislative engine room.
And it is no secret that, when the time comes, he aspires to run for the once-in-a-generation Congressional seat held by Rep. Nancy Pelosi, provided she no longer wishes to fill it.
Even Wiener’s political enemies believe he’s sincere. Nobody questions his smarts and diligence, and more than one adversary independently labeled him a “true believer.” Regardless, being Mr. Upzoning may not be a boffo career move, especially on the Westside.
Mission Local obtained a June poll of 600 citywide voters. When recipients were asked if they were more or less likely to favor a generic proposal if it was backed by Wiener, the state senator was in the red: 34 percent of San Franciscans said they’d be less likely to support it, versus 29 percent who said they’d be more likely to do so.
On the Westside, it was more lopsided. In District 4, he was 23 points in the hole (16-39). In District 1, he was also 23 points underwater (20-43).
San Francisco’s so-called moderate coalition has ruptured over Prop. K, the Great Highway measure: Get-off-my-lawn moderates have gone their own way, and urbanists have gone another. So polling numbers like this are plausible (progressives never much voted for Wiener).
But it’s just one poll, the district results are small sample sizes and Wiener counters that he’s doing much better in his own polling.
“My citywide numbers are strong. My numbers on the Westside are good — just not as strong,” he said. “That’s been true for me, always.”
Whatever one’s thoughts on development and upzoning, it’s hardly a surefire political winner. It’s also likely not the Fort Sumter of a populist revolt as the closing of the Great Highway turned out to be — at least, not right away. That was tangible and quick. Upzoning is esoteric, and buildings do not sprout overnight.
Should Pelosi run in 2026 and outpace her well-heeled progressive challenger, Saikat Chakrabarti, her next Congressional election would come in 2028. By then, she would be 88 years old.
This is, likely, Wiener’s time to make his bid for national office. But in three years, the effects of upzoning may be tangible, instead of theoretical. Voters — especially in the city’s lower-slung, tonier districts — may not be thrilled.
Unlike other politicians who surprised their constituents by closing highways or upzoning the city’s far-flung neighborhoods, nobody can say Wiener bullshitted them. But that doesn’t mean they owe him a vote.
So, this is Scott Wiener’s bad-guy wrestler moment. But is he in trouble with the voters? Not necessarily.
Other than that one Monty Python sketch, wrestlers don’t wrestle themselves. Bad-guy wrestlers are vanquished by good-guy wrestlers (most of the time).
How Wiener fares in a hypothetical future Congressional race depends upon who does (or does not) toss their hat in the ring. While Wiener’s stance on housing and development may turn off some voters, his stances on other matters — belittling Trump, unfailingly standing up for LGBTQ rights, transit advocacy — may win them back.
He is an eclectic politician with work in areas to appeal to, or piss off, everyone.
So far, that ratio has been in his favor. For a decade and change, voters have scoured their ballots, asked themselves that fateful question — you think that’s bad? — and filled in the circle next to his name.
“People are complicated,” he says. “They are not monoliths.”
That includes politicians. At least some of them. Whether that’s a political benefit or detriment remains to be seen.
“a June poll of 600 citywide voters. When recipients were asked if they were more or less likely to favor a generic proposal if it was backed by Wiener, the state senator was in the red: 34 percent of San Franciscans said they’d be less likely to support it, versus 29 percent who said they’d be more likely to do so.”
I’d be interested to see a poll of CA state voters on Scott. I suspect that a majority of them might support the policy idea that San Francisco hasn’t built enough housing, has instead exported its housing problem to neighboring counties, and should now be forced to build, baby, build.
SF seeking immunity from state policies might strike many people as misplaced exceptionalism.
I think a lot of California has no idea who Scott Weiner is. And if he runs for Pelosi’s seat… that’ll still be the case.
But otherwise, yeah, I think much of California would blame us for not building housing.
He keeps his seat because nobody runs against him him.Typical dem machinery trick.
None of his machiavellian proposals has resulted in housing being built that at all moves the needle on affordable housing aka the housing crisis.
Developers are not forced to build anything nor is offering them increasingly giveaway-level incentives actually moving them – costs are king and they have not subsided whatsoever. Hence, little actual development. Scott Wiener wants to take credit for something that A: hasn’t worked and B: isn’t nearly finished lest of all truly started nor attempted. When C: Builder’s Remedy Giveaway kicks in (as designed, because he’s a dishonest putz) it will be a free-for-all sht-show.
If CA isn’t smart enough to see through Scott Wiener’s lies, the next decade is going to be one of further catering to the wealthy while little people are forced out – and that is his actual plan all along. Look at who funds him.
Scott has won every election he has run for. Evidently the voters like him. It is just the Left that has an issue with him, not least because Scott is both effective and popular.
He could not have got his Bill passed without broad and strong support from his colleagues.
He runs against Republicans in CA.
Pay more attention. People are sick of his lies.
You’re not addressing the points made, that he didn’t actually build significant low-income housing that affects the housing crisis which is his entire rationale for pushing his “plan” to gentrify with market rate condos. He’s a liar and people see it.
Scott is the most effective politician in Sacramento. He does what he ays he’ll do and he make no secret of his agenda: Increase housing inventory in appropriate, transit-served locations (like Judah and Taraval), decrease car dependency, improve sustainable transit, etc. I voted for him because, most of the time, he gets things right.
Getting stuff done pisses spme people off. Good.
He creates a lot of paper, for sure. Where’s Scott Wiener when we need to see some water flowing down the river? And find funds to help build out the Protrero yard project? Crickets. What a failure.
More housing creates more funds as developers are forced to either have a percentage of affordable housing as part of the site or pay into a fund for affordable housing. Scott Wiener is adding more housing to CA than any other legislator. Therefore, he is adding more to the affordable housing fund than any other legislator.
That’s Affordable Housing as in, City social housing. Nothing wrong with that. However, as things stand, this does not mean housing that is affordable to the middle and working class. Who do not qualify or may not be interested in qualifying for the City’s Affordable Housing wait list.
“More housing creates more funds as developers are forced to either have a percentage of affordable housing as part of the site or pay into a fund for affordable housing.” – A pittance, 15% tops. And that’s based on 60-80% of the local income median, which is like 150k. So unless you’re making over 100k, it’s not low income housing because you’re below the threshold that their cooked books consider low-income. You don’t factor in.
“Scott Wiener is adding more housing to CA than any other legislator” – Is bullsh!t.
“Therefore, he is adding more to the affordable housing fund than any other legislator.” Is gold-plated triple-bullsh!t.
For the fiftieth time, there is no provision for maintaining and expanding public transportation in this proposal!
TOD on the east side, the Mission Area Plan, required a CEQA statement overriding the significance of impacts to transit–crowding and delay–on 7 Muni lines.
Since Eastern Neighborhoods was enacted in 2008, Muni and BART service has been cut. There are no provisions for rolling back TOD upzonings when transit service upon which TOD is predicated is cut.
Most effective liar perhaps.
“Getting stuff done” by which you mean little getting done except enriching his paymasters, of course. FTFY. Oh yeah, and the Castro nudeness ban, impressive stuff!
Puhlease.
acting to “deeply harm San Francisco and San Franciscans.”
THAT’S YOU, WIENER.
Senator Wiener is a straight shooter? His shooting seems awfully aligned with the real estate industry and not so aligned with ensuring that industry pays for infrastructure, schools, affordable housing, CEQA, or anything else. At the Sunset meeting, he only took written questions and nothing from the audience (who were told not to boo or demonstrate and actually were polite). Next time Wiener shoots straight, let voters know so they can duck.
Scott creates legislation that supports more density in appropriate locations. What amenities the developers pay for is between developers, the city, and your neighborhood groups. Stay active and make sure your neighborhood gets quality developments.
That’s NOT what Builder’s Remedy does. It’s a giveaway.
“Stay active and make sure your neighborhood gets quality developments.”
YOU WILL GET EXACTLY ZERO SAY IN IT.
BECAUSE OF SCOTT WIENER. REALIZE THAT.
The guy actually addresses the lack of housing in the state- perhaps not in the “way” you like – but he’s pushing a solution forward.
If you fear the “real estate bad guys” then you figure out how to build the housing that you want built. It takes money and it takes boots on the ground effort.
You can’t just block market rate / high rise housing because you don’t like the concept. If you want to shut Wiener down find the money and the organization to build what you think should be built.
That’s fine, Als. The problem with upzoning is the record on the books. The vast majority of the housing recently built in SF mainly served the upper income folks. The problem is the average to lower income earners need affordable housing now. Scott would be wise to showcase efforts and results on that front if he wants to be promoted to higher office.
It’s not a solution. The problem requires low-income housing to be built, he is building essentially zero and forcing us into a situation where more condo towers are built instead. That only benefits gentrification and the wealthy, not to mention the Billionaire PAC money that pushes it for business reasons.
Helping low-income people get homes is exactly what he’s NOT doing.
The man is a liar.
To clarify, no “condo towers” are buildable under proposed zoning or SB-79 in the northern and western neighborhoods. Don’t these heights max out under 8 stories?
Until builder’s remedy hits in a few years you mean.
No, the problem is not just building low-cost housing. The problem is building housing at all price points, because the demand is at all price points.
Public policy should not be driven solely by the poorest 10%.
We’re a city of about 825,000 people.
Using what is probably AI:
San Francisco had 406,628 housing units in 2020
There are approximately 550 to 600 condos for sale in San Francisco,
We need housing – there’s no surplus at some “magic” price point.
You are clueless about what the housing crisis actually refers to as hundreds and thousands of expensive condos sit vacant. Period.
The housing crisis that he’s predicating his “rush to build” BS on, that affects the poorest working class residents. No YIMBY plan has ever brought housing or rent prices down in SF or anywhere.
It’s a lie. Pretending the poorest 10% are “dictating policy” or something, that’s indicative of someone not paying attention.
Thousands of empty condos?
Citation needed. AFAIK every new condo is either sold or rented out.
Again, we need housing at all levels and not just for the dirt poor. Most housing has to pay its own way.
David thinks the poorest 10% are “deciding” for us.
That is a cluelessness about SF I have not seen.
Ever.
WORD.
David are you a tourist in SF?
Yes there are hundreds to thousands of empty condos.
Do your own research, go outside for a change.
David is truly a pawn of rhetoric and slogans.
Keyword: Unfunded mandates. At least in San Francisco – he does nothing to solving any aspect of the housing crisis other than enabling ultra-luxury prestige projects.
These “ultra wealthy prestige projects” are the single family homes that get renovated, lifted, and expanded because single family zoning requires a single family home on the lot. These are the houses selling for 3-4M in my Bernal neighborhood.
New condo buildings produce many units that sell for <1M. That’s not cheap but it’s far less expensive than the single family zoning status quo, and they sell or rent to working San Franciscans who need to live in the city.
Anti-density folks complain about luxury projects (single family homes are the real sf luxury good), and they complain about “microunits” and “cramming units in for profits”. Making smaller units is how you make units that cost less, and the fact that studios go for 2500+$/month is proof enough that there is high demand for such units. Wiener’s hard work makes it possible to build less expensive dense units where it’s currently only allowable to build a luxury SFH.
You understand there is a glut of smaller units sitting empty today. Chasing Wiener’s unit count does nothing to the working families who need two and three BRs to raise their families
“New condo buildings produce many units that sell for <1M. That’s not cheap but it’s far less expensive than the single family zoning status quo, and they sell or rent to working San Franciscans who need to live in the city. "
Ah, so instead of building low-income housing to actually make stuff affordable for the working class, let's cater to the Millionaire class because they deserve more. Got it.
They want to end private property and private vehicle ownership in SF. Why? Ask them, it’s all about the future they see for us – paying huge rents, living in towers, beholden to the Billionaire class that funds ALL of Wiener’s initiatives.
I doubt that Wiener can be recalled over upzoning, but I do think there’s a fair chance that upzoning will cost him Pelosi’s seat.
If Pelosi’s seat isn’t available in the next election, I’d like to see this – and his history of damage to SF – make him lose his state assembly seat. While I’m one of those who loves a lot of what he does and hates the rest, we need to get him out of government.
Marc —
You can’t recall a state senator.
Best,
JE
According to Chapter 1 of the Secretary of State’s “Procedures for Recalling State and Local Officials”, State Legislators may be recalled, so I am confused by this comment.
https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/recalls/recall-procedures-guide.pdf
Joe —
Well, I am surprised. But nobody anticipates this and it’s not mentioned in the article.
JE
Joe I appreciate a man who admits when he’s wrong, that’s ENTIRELY REFRESHING in the age of Trump, Engardio and Wiener. Kudos Sir.
I think that the northern and western neighborhoods are having buyer’s remorse over Wiener. Some Engardio recallers have been floating a recall of Wiener and Lurie for that matter. How serious they are, who knows?
How SB-79 upzonings and Lurie’s upzonings play out for a potential CD-11 race is the more interesting and likely question. Given Wiener’s historical relative weakness on the east side and an antagonized previously supportive rest of the district, Icarus Wiener might have flown too close to the sun.
A product of the progressive reforms of the turn of the 19th/20th century, all elected officials in California can be recalled by explicit constitutional provisions.
Marc —
Fair enough, I learned something today. But there’s as good a chance he’ll be elected pope as recalled. Nobody is anticipating it or calling for it. But what comes next will be interesting.
JE
Joe–I can recall Quentin Kopp and Milton Marks.
They’re out of office!
I was joking.
Did it not occur to you that the term “recall” has more than one meaning, and that since neither Kopp or the late Marks have been in office for decades, that the “remember” connotation should apply?
Did the joke just fly silently over your head?
Look at these 3 idiot YIMBY upvoting Joe on one of his rare factual errors!
Like most dogmatic people, Wiener’s approach to increasing housing and housing density has skewed his thinking. Not too long ago, he even tried to exempt San Francisco from California’s Coastal Commision oversight, which was so outrageous that he should have been removed from office for that.
And he seems to have Ronald Reagan’s teflon skin. He benefits from millions of dollars of donations from the real estate industry and all of his bills benefit them, and give them the power to delay building so we do not meet the state mandates, allowing them to later build whatever they want.
Finally, I think I remember that Wiener wrote policies that specifically target and punish San Francisco, which is nuts. Density-wise, San Francisco is one of the achievers among California cities. Can we do better? Of course. But where is the money for increased infrastructure, transit and other city services needed to accommodate the 183,360 new residents who will live in the 82,000 housing units mandated by 2031 in the Housing Element? (simple math – right now there are 2.24 people per housing unit in San Francisco).
Recall Scott Wiener.
This is precisely the problem with Wiener. He’s fond of telling us what we need rather than listening to us and doing what’s right for the residents of San Francisco. This is right – at some level – for many areas in California that have sufficient area to be built up and where public transit can, and should, be expanded to.
But not in San Francisco. And not today.
The issue you raise that I think is critical is the lack of funding for any expansion and improvement in the required infrastructure; not just here in SF (where our infrastructure is in constant need of maintenance anyway) but probably anywhere this gets implemented.
So, while I don’t think we need to recall him, I think he’s going to have an uphill battle for whatever his next election is. We cannot simply allow him to fail upwards and represent San Francisco in Congress. We need better representatives at all levels of city, state, and federal government.
Securing funding for public transit has been one of Wiener’s highest priorities. If it hadn’t been for his efforts, public transit would be in much worse shape than it is. And he led the successful effort to get tax measure on next year’s ballot to secure long-term funding for Bay Area public transit.
You get the money for new infrastructure from taxes, bonds and fees on new development. More residents means a higher tax base. More customers means more sales tax revenue. More residents means more control in the legislature. The infrastructure part is not as hard as the rest of it.
That’s after the fact. Infrastructure needs to built prior to occupancy and paying taxes. So it’ll be bonds and those of us already living in SF will pay for it. Not acceptable.
When I was on the Western SOMA Citizens Planning Task Force and we were upzoning the neighborhood immediately to the north of the Mission for transit oriented development, we asked Muni to provide “loss leader” transit service so that when newcomers arrived, there would be transit on the ground for them to take. Muni said they could not afford to do this.
Prop 13 puts a limit on residential property tax revenues. This is why so many cities have fiscalized land use, as commercial business taxes are not limited by Prop 13.
In 2008, Eastern Neighborhoods upzonings reports showed that market rate housing only paid 1/3 of the infrastructure costs required to service the new residents. That means that 2/3 of the cost to service new residents is borne by existing residents, not the developers who are in effect printing money. Market rate housing under these financial and regulatory conditions is the biggest scam.
Joe is using a few metaphors that are beyond my comprehension, but this one point I totally agree with and have been saying it for over a long time.
“Whatever one’s thoughts on development and upzoning, it’s hardly a surefire political winner. It’s also likely not the Fort Sumter of a populist revolt as the closing of the Great Highway turned out to be — at least not right away. That was tangible and quick. Upzoning is esoteric and buildings do not sprout overnight.”
Warnings do not work. People live in the present, not the future and politicians live in the future. They only understand arguments based on what is causing their pain now.
With all due respect, a point of clarification in the photo of Mayor Laurie and Senator Wiener, the gentleman at their side, Mr. William Cartagena, is a proud member of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, but he is not the founder of the chamber. Thank you for correcting the statement, Carlos Solorzano, CEO, Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of San Francisco
“While Wiener’s stance on housing and development may turn off some voters, his stances on other matters — belittling Trump, unfailingly standing up for LGBTQ rights, transit advocacy — may win them back.”
Scott Wiener has made transit a centerpiece of his political career since he was D8 supe.
Over the time that Scott Wiener has centered transit, the quality of transit in San Francisco, measured by BART and Muni coverage, has deteriorated steadily.
Not only has transit deteriorated, but the “war on cars” has alienated motorists. With transit in permanent Wiener Era crisis, and driving more difficult, I can’t see how mobility plays for Scott in upcoming elections other than downward.
I am sure that a state loan and a regressive sales tax to finance transit are going to be sure fire winners in a Congressional race, lol.
I’m admire Weiner. While I was reading this, I thought what if they built one of those new 5-over-1 complexes across the street from my single family dwelling, the thought was horrific. Then I remembered I actually have three large apartment complexes across my street and then I laughed.
You laughed at the low-income renters you support displacing?
I like Senator Winenor, because he’s very hands on and approciable. You see him on the streets,on public transportation, in all the stores, however some of his ideas are now very good, like putting that $$$ bathroom in Noe valley, when folks, were just fine with either using the bathroom, before they left home, or using the local businesses. His upzoning of the Avenues is another example of, If it’s not broken, don’t fix it. Plus, he lives in the Castro.
“You see him on the streets,on public transportation” Public Relations.
That’s all it is, he doesn’t listen but he pretends to.
Jane Kim ran against Wiener and lost.
If she runs again I hope she defeats him.
I hope anyone defeats him. He’s a tool.
Great reporting and interesting discussion in the comments.
One thing that I don’t see coming up as much as it should is the idea that in these times that successful politicians actually have to be charismatic and liked by voters. And I don’t think Weiner has that or is capable of that. Sure he has backing of influential lobbies, but do his constituents like him? Are they inspired by him? Largely, no. Engardio had the same issue. We need to move away from these establishment dem candidates that have the personality of a wet noodle.
Social media is a driving force in the campaigns of these times and Scott has 33K followers on Instagram, despite being in the public eye for what, a decade+? Mayor Lurie, a political novice has 5x as many.
Maybe I’m wrong and there’s some charisma in the tank that he’s been hiding all these years, but I think his political career maxes out at he assembly level, unless there are major missteps by political opponents (always a possibility in SF!).
I’m a fan of Wiener’s work on making it legal to build larger buildings. I have a few family members that couldn’t afford to live in a single family home after divorce, and I appreciate there were apartment buildings nearby they could move into without having to leave their neighborhood.
The apartment units are at market rates, destroying long-term rent controlled housing and replacing it with top of market units that the poorest groups can’t possibly afford. It’s gentrification in the open and you’re falling for it.
That’s the housing nonprofits’ falsehood scare for the western and northern neighborhoods but demolitions of rent controlled buildings for luxe condos has not been observed in the upzoned Mission. There have been a smattering of fires. But developers have not purchased a rent controlled building, filed plans, evicted, demolished and build new market rate construction.
There is virtually NO low or median income housing being built at this time in San Francisco. There’s plenty of NO income housing being built. His housing mandates are nothing more than forced integration.
Thank you! He’s a charlatan!
It doesn’t take too much brain power to figure out the easiest way to higher political offices is collecting donations from the Real Estate Industrial Complex and returning the favor by dispensing one developer-friendly legislation after another like a Pez dispenser. That’s the simple strategy that Wiener has adopted all these years and hence, his success but I won’t go as far as calling him smart or intelligent for that matter.
The problem in SF has always been finding someone with an ounce of political savvy to run against him and that’s why he keeps winning. When novice Jackie Fielder ran against him, she made sure she pissed off and alienated the West siders but she still garnered 42% of the votes.
Wiener is vulnerable indeed and if a savvy politician emerges in SF that can correctly point out what Wiener’s Pez dispensing legislation prowess has done to tenants, small business owners, and middle class residents of the City, they can definitely win and put an end to his political career. Then maybe he can go back to his day job and get paid for what he does best: Real estate and construction sector lobbyist!
Wiener writes legislation based on what he campaigns. Whether you like him or not, he’s one of the few politicians to actually do what he says. Voters seem to like what he says and does. Real estate money be damned. He’s a rare honest bird in this dishonest jungle. People seem to like that.
Knowing that Scott Wiener has a reputation for not being a bullshitter doesn’t impress me.
Marc Wells, writing today at the World Socialist Web Site:
“SB 79 represents not a social reform but a calculated concession to the construction and financial industries that dominate California politics. Behind the technocratic rhetoric of “density,” “climate efficiency,” and “transit-oriented development” lies a naked transfer of power and profit to corporate developers and hedge fund-backed real estate trusts served by the Democratic Party machine.” Source: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2025/10/13/umbt-o13.html
Meanwhile, many political insiders in the mainstream media pretend to marvel that Marc Benioff, who recently dined with Trump and King Charles at Windsor Castle, is amenable to President Trump’s strategy of sending troops into American cities on the bullshit pretext of fighting crime.
You have to consider that “developers” are the folks who build the houusing we need. They probably built your house or apartment. Of course they support politicians who support ttheir industry. All the “naked transfer of power” ranting…that bus left the station decades ago!
My house that I rent was built 100 years ago, are you claiming that the real estate development industry is substantially the same now? Like how ibm used to manufacture mechanical adding machines or whatever? What are you trying to say?
Yes, real estate development has not dramatically changed in the past 100 years.
100 yr ago serialized mortgages emitting from the deregulated FIRE economy did not exist.
100 yr ago was the wake of the progressive reform era.
100 yr ago antitrust law was fresh and enforced.
100 yr ago the Federal Reserve had just gotten cranked up and did not backstop enormous financial institutions.
You really have no clue as to economic and political history as relates to finance, insurance and real estate.
You’re making Marco’s point for him.
If real-estate developers run California then why is California 49th out of 50th in housing per-capita, constantly ranked near the bottom in annual home construction, and 94% of the state zoned to ban multi-family housing? San Francisco and California have some the least residential construction in the developed world.
“San Francisco and California have some the least residential construction in the developed world.”
BECAUSE OF COSTS. It’s not like it can’t be done, it’s that doing it here has a cost of time and money and they’re wanting a better deal constantly. Which is understandable. But Wiener proposes we just throw out local input and CEQA studies, things we need.
He’s a trojan horse for big business interests, not little people’s rights or needs.
San Francisco is the second most densely populated city in the US, after NYC. It was built up starting in 1849. I used to live in an apartment building that survived the 1906 earthquake. If it’s already built, and built well, there’s not as much free space to build. Re CA as a whole: blame Prop 13
Because real estate developers would rather build a few towers with $3 million condos instead of anything the working class can afford.
Real estate developers benefit from high housing prices because that means their units sell for more.
Real estate developers have every interest in keeping supply constrained and dribbling out units to keep high prices sustained because that’s where the biggest profits are.
Financing is relatively constrained. Lenders are not going to finance projects when prices are not stable and rising nor are they going to flood the market and crater the REITs or send their residential mortgage portfolios under water.
Wouldn’t this “calculated concession” to construction interests help union construction work?
Unions today are not what they once were. Today they are run by bureaucrats whose chief role is to enforce labor “peace”.
They do this by isolating workers, limiting strike actions, and delivering sellout labor contracts that enrich stockholders and company managers (and themselves), but contribute to the immiseration of workers who cannot afford to live here.
Observe the powerful labor challenge of Kaiser Permanente workers in coming days.
How democratic and transparent will negotiations be? Will the strike threat, set for tomorrow, be miraculously called off, with officials and the media bleating that a “historic victory” has been achieved?
Will nurses and healthcare workers achieve anything close to what they are willing to fight for?
Workers in San Francisco are proud of its union past and typically shout on the picket that the city is a union town. As the political machine knows well, yes, indeed it is. Just not the ideal union town workers imagine.
Pshaw. Rank and file can vote bad leadership out. Kaiser nurses strike often because 1) they’re plenty militant and 2) they’re getting screwed. Time to shut down Kaiser till they do right by the people who actually run it.
BTW, this is nothing compared to what’s about to go down on the labor front at UC up and down the state.
Gave you shit about Lenin and what not but we agree here. Labor movement has unilaterally disarmed and we see the results. Refusing to work is an option, no matter what anyone says.
Meaning he’s a republican big business. There is no such thing as building low cost housing, it is for profit and someone’s pockets are getting lined.
My condolences. It’s a shock to discover you live in capitalism.
Capitalism includes CEQA.
He is delivering on what he campaigned on and on what he was overwhelming voted in on. As noted, there’s been nothing underhanded or from left field; he’s always been very direct about how he’s thinking and what he wants to accomplish.
He will continue to have my vote and support. I enthusiastically voted for elected officials who were going to take the housing crisis problem seriously instead of just providing meek, ineffective policies, and I voted for someone who’s fiercely pro-transit.
I am very grateful to have Scott represent me in our state senate. The failed policies of yesterday and lack of leadership got us into the housing crisis we are in. There is no way out other than opening the floodgates and building as many housing units at every income level as quickly as we can.
Senator Wiener is, hands down, the best/most forward thinking legislator in Sacramento.
If you can’t stand naked dudes in the Castro sure!
Is a laughable statement.
Scott Weiner is a self proclaimed “strong supporter of Israel”. That leads to his policy positions being consistent with the support of genocidal actions of the state of Israel.
That also contributes to him being polarizing.
All Scott did while he was here was ban nudity. Having added a bullet point to his resume, he moved on to the state level. What a pressing problem that was for San Francisco. Now there aren’t three naked old dudes hanging around in Castro all day “traumatizing children” who, by the way, we have to remind incessantly not to take their clothes off. Real trauma. I’m so glad he spent time solving the city’s REAL issues. The cycle of wiener on wiener violence continues.
In 2013 Scott Wiener decided San Franciscan’s were too irresponsible to be out in our parks after midnight so he proposed to shutter city parks from midnight to 5 a.m. The supervisors eventually agreed.
This was his first milestone in shoving crap down our throats.
Actually, there are still quite a few naked guys in the Castro. So I’d say Weiner didn’t even manage to accomplish the ban.
That’s not the only thing he did. He expanded the sidewalks on Castro between 18th & Market so much that traffic there is now a constant disaster. Was that done so the old naked guys (who nobody wants to see…ever) have more space to wander aimlessly day after day? That’s unclear to me. But SFMTA didn’t even have to lift a finger for this particular abuse of traffic.