San Francisco Chronicle - (Sunday)
Haney has the ideas S.F. needs
The race to fill David Chiu’s open seat in California Assembly District 17 didn’t receive much attention in the Feb. 15 primary. Only 36% of registered voters participated. And the results were close, with San Francisco Supervisor Matt Haney earning a less than 1,000-vote plurality over former Supervisor David Campos.
And yet events since the primary have demonstrated how San Franciscans can ill afford to be so apathetic about this seat.
Consider the recent ruling that would have frozen an enrollment increase at UC Berkeley under the guise of a dubious California Environmental Quality Act (known as CEQA) challenge. Only last-minute action from the state Legislature saved thousands of kids from being unfairly rejected. Then, there was Supervisor Gordon Mar’s stunning admission this month that he views four-plex legislation in San Francisco “as a way to circumvent” state housing law.
Clearly, we need an aggressive legislator in District 17 willing to close loopholes that allow the status quo to fester.
Thankfully, there remains a candidate in the race who we believe can rise to that challenge: Haney.
A politically savvy progressive with nuanced views on mental health, criminal justice and transportation, Haney has been a leading voice for compassion on addiction issues in San Francisco and for more public toilets for homeless residents. He entered office years ago with a recalcitrant approach to building housing, but has since become a reliable supporter of pragmatic solutions to the regional housing crisis. We commended him for this evolution.
Though we have criticized Haney in the past for authoring headline-seeking legislation, we believe that his changing views on housing are emblematic of his maturation as a politician. His campaign has offered a detailed list of policy prescriptions that reflect this growth, many bold and innovative. He is an enthusiastic supporter of California entering the real estate business to build “social housing” — mainly mixedincome developments that would allow residents across the class spectrum the opportunity to rent and own beside one another.
In his endorsement interview with The Chronicle, Haney did not shy away from sharing his views on politically fraught issues such as amending CEQA to better bring it into compliance with a 21st century understanding of environmental harm. He was clear that he viewed reform as essential, while still expressing a desire to preserve the most meaningful aspects of the law that protect vulnerable communities. Among the ideas he proposed was a legislative fix to expedite the approvals process when municipalities abuse CEQA to stymie development — such as what San Francisco supervisors did with the infamous 469 Stevenson development.
Haney’s opponent, Campos, meanwhile, was vague on CEQA, saying in an interview that he was “open to reform” while failing to offer specific fixes. Campos has been a fierce advocate for social, racial and economic justice throughout his career in politics, but his vagueness on CEQA was largely characteristic of his current campaign, which has been short on ideas. Campos’ past work in pushing for homeless navigation centers throughout San Francisco was laudable, as was his effort to secure free Muni for the city’s youths. And yet, months into the campaign, he largely failed to outline a substantive new vision beyond a state housing bond to provide a dedicated stream of funding for affordable housing. To be clear, this is a fine idea. But, as illustrated by the recent “no slums in the Sunset” debacle — where neighborhood residents opposed the construction of a 100% affordable development on ostensibly aesthetic grounds — California’s housing fight is often less about funding than obstinance.
Campos described himself in an interview as an “only Nixon can go to China” progressive — with the cache to talk reluctant communities into accepting bold plans for new housing, because of his own track record on the issue; he was an architect of the Mission Moratorium, which would have halted, possibly for years, any housing development in that neighborhood that wasn’t 100% affordable. Overcoming anti-housing intransigence at the state level, however, will demand more than one politician’s personal touch. It will require ideas and vigilance.
Haney offers such ideas. Campos offers assurances. We’ll take ideas every time.