District 2 supervisor candidates Stephen Sherrill and Lori Brooke squared off on Tuesday night, offering sharply different views on housing.
Sherrill, who was appointed as sitting supervisor by then-Mayor London Breed in December 2024, favors building new housing of all flavors, including market-rate and affordable. But Brooke, a longtime community activist, is far more skeptical of new development.
With the June 2 election fast approaching — mail-in ballots were sent out last Friday — the debate was one of the last chances for candidates to make their case as to why they should be the ones to fill out the remainder of Catherine Stefani’s term. Win or lose, they will stand for election again in November for a full four-year term.
Brooke was particularly critical of the upzoning plan the city passed last December, which allows six- to eight-story buildings on commercial corridors in the city’s west and north. Previously, buildings up to four stories were permitted.
The upzoning, Brooke said, has “no guarantee of affordability. Ironically, what it ends up producing is a lot of luxury units and towers.”
Instead, Brooke said, the city should focus on “low-hanging fruit,” like helping “small” landlords who are holding their units vacant.
Many, she said, do so because they are worried about the forever tenant or the difficult tenant.
Her solution is a mediation board that the landlord could go to if a tenant is presenting problems. That, she said, would save the landlord from an expensive buyout or hiring a lawyer.
“I don’t think that, in any way, lessens the rights of the tenants. I think it just bolsters some of the rights of the small landlords,” she said, adding that she also thinks tenants rights are important.
Sherrill, however, voted in favor of the upzoning.
“For 30 years we have said ‘no,’ ‘no,’ ‘no,’ ‘no,’ ‘no,’ ‘no’ and ‘no’ again,” Sherrill said. “We have to say ‘yes’ to some things.”
But Sherrill’s yes is only for new buildings in line with the scale of the neighborhood — not the “crazy, insane 25-story building” currently being proposed on the site of the Marina Safeway. A four-story building he could’ve gotten behind, but not a 25-story one, he said.
Sherrill worries that the Marina Safeway proposal may turn residents against new development.
“We spent a year building trust with residents” about upzoning, Sherrill said. “And then this came and just popped that trust.”
That’s why he’s formally objecting to the project, and is going up to Sacramento to make his case to the top brass in California’s Department of Housing and Community Development next week, he told the audience, to delighted claps and cheers.
But Brooke wouldn’t let him off so easily, pointing out that Sherrill can do little to block this project now, because state laws don’t allow local input, and he is aligned with the people who wrote those very laws. That includes San Francisco’s State Senator Scott Wiener.
“I am not endorsed by Senator Wiener, Grow SF, or the YIMBYs, and I know you are,” Brooke said, listing pro-housing organizations.
“I do think those types of endorsements put a lot of pressure on an elected official, because the seven supervisors who voted for the zoning plan were all endorsed by Senator Wiener. Call it a coincidence,” Brooke said, eliciting more claps and cheers.
“Endorsements don’t mean agreement,” Sherrill interjected, to an incredulous ripple of laughter.
But with housing out of the way, the remaining 45 minutes of the debate, hosted by the Marina Community Association at Marina Middle School, were friendly, with the candidates agreeing on most issues.
Brooke had positive things to say about the direction of the city. “I think we have seen significant improvement in our community with the homeless situation and with public safety,” she said.
During the lightning round, Brooke, quiet on the issue up until Tuesday, said, like Sherrill, she opposed the CEO tax, which increases taxes on businesses whose top executive earns more than 100 times what their median worker earns.
It was placed on the ballot by unions hoping to stave off layoffs and cuts to city services. But business leaders in the city fear it will drive business out of the city and are fighting it.
Later, there was a question about the F1 event that brought tens of thousands of people to the Marina. Many people’s homes were damaged as drunk viewers did whatever they could to see the cars zoom past. No elevated viewing platforms had been set up.
“If you just logically thought about it, it was never going to work,” said Brooke. However, she did not directly blame Sherrill for failing to prevent the mess, saying simply, “it won’t be done that way under my watch as supervisor.”
Sherrill, for his part, said that the night after the F1 event, “I went to the mayor’s house and I said, ‘We need to do an after action, because that was unacceptable.’” Since then, he said, he’s asked the emergency, police, fire, and transportation departments to commit to organizing future events differently.
At the end of the debate, when the moderator asked the candidates what single political issue they were most passionate about, it was no surprise when both candidates mentioned housing.
“It’s what I’ve spent so much time on,” Brooke said. “And it’s why I got into this race.”
I don’t understand. Is a tenant who doesn’t move after an unspecified length of time, a “forever tenant”, a “problem tenant”? What does that mean? I’ve lived in the same apartment for years. I like it, I don’t want to move. Ideally I’d like to own my own home, but that will never happen. I’m getting old. If I was forced to move I’d have to leave SF, probably California, since there is no way I could afford current market rates. I could end up homeless. I follow the law, I pay my rent, I cause no one any problems, but now I’m a “forever tenant”, or a “problem tenant”? It’s nothing more than a way to get around rent control.
“Sherrill, who was appointed as sitting supervisor by then-Mayor London Breed in December 2024, favors building new housing of all flavors, including market-rate and affordable. But Brooke, a longtime community activist, is far more skeptical of new development. ”
If he doesn’t support the funding sources to actually build affordable, this is fairly meaningless. There was very little discussion in this forum about affordability at all. Where do the two candidates stand on the BUILD Act which would cut 100s of millions in affordable/social housing funding?
This NIMBY thing is such a strawman. It’s supposed to be “not in my back yard” and it is referring to people protesting things like homeless shelters and public housing in their neighborhoods, not luxury condos. There’s this theory called “filtering” which is basically supply side economics for housing, where you build a new luxury condo and the people who live in existing luxury homes that are ready to step up to something new will buy those, and their homes will sell to people with slightly less luxury homes, and their homes, etc.. etc.. basically, as long as the population stays static, the enlarged supply will reduce costs after a decade or so. *BUT* there are very critical issues, such as people coming to your city buying the luxury condos an NOT the rich people. So, instead the rich people just renovate their homes and increase their value. Go ask anyone who has bought one of those new luxury condos in the city. I’ve bought and sold them. I know a lot of real estate investors who buy and sell them. You know who has bought them from me? People from out of town. My mother in law has units in the Rincon, the Met, and several other places. You know who rents them? Rich out of towners. SF, NYC, Sinapore, Tokyo, Paris, Milan, these places around the world are destination cities with limited boundries where living in that city is a point of pride, not a necessity. Housing Filtering in SF doesn’t work.
Anyway…. I’m just tired of listening to people who honestly have been sold this idea by investors (like Michael Moritz and other local billionare real estate investors) and construction companies and real estate companies. For me, honestly, it doesn’t affect me too much, it just irritates me to have people like Weiner, who used to be so good at pushing for reasonable rent rates and construction designed for normal people, pitching luxury housing as a solution for people who need cheaper rent *now* and not “maybe this will work in a decade” solutions.
I’ve known plenty of people who’ve lived in new “luxury” condos in SF. Every one of them already lived in the city.
Which makes sense as the pattern, because people don’t usually choose at random what city to live in. If they’re buying a place in SF, it’s because they have a reason to be in SF, like their work or being near family. If they unit they bought didn’t exist, their plan B is very unlikely to be Singapore or Paris, because their job and family aren’t there. Rather it’s going to be somewhere in the Bay Area, and probably in SF.