Pro-housing groups and moderate organizations will employ two different tactics when it comes to whom they support in the hotly contested San Francisco mayor’s race.
While SFYIMBY, the San Francisco Apartment Association and the Housing Action Coalition recommend their members vote for Mayor London Breed, moderate groups like TogetherSF, GrowSF and Neighbors for a Better San Francisco are hedging their bets given the city’s ranked choice voting system by going with an “anyone but Peskin” approach that supports multiple candidates over progressive Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin.
“I think this is one of those times where we don’t necessarily always neatly fit into our San Francisco political sorting hats,” said SFYIMBY Action Organizing Director Jane Natoli. “We’re somewhat aligned with some of the other organizations that we also work with, and sometimes a little out of step with others.”
The election is widely framed as a YIMBY versus NIMBY choice, with Breed and Peskin in their respective corners. Breed has claimed Peskin wants “to destroy housing production” in the city with legislative and litigious “shenanigans” that kill projects. Veteran developer Oz Erickson has called Peskin “very anti-housing” and “the worst supervisor in the history of San Francisco.”
For his part, Peskin has said “we can be both pro-neighborhood and pro-housing.” And the Chronicle called his voting record “nuanced” with respect to development deals.
GrowSF released its mayoral endorsements this week and included all the moderate mayoral candidates — Breed, former Interim Mayor Mark Farrell, and Levi’s heir and philanthropist Daniel Lurie. Though it did not rank them overall, the moderate group gave Breed the nod if the voter’s top issue is housing, Lurie the top spot if the issue is homelessness and Farrell if the issue is public safety.
“If you look at housing platforms, Mayor Breed clearly is saying the right things,” said GrowSF Co-Founder Steven Buss Bacio. “Where people may disagree is, are they not getting done because the board has been oppositional or are they not getting done because she’s bad at her job?”
Oppose Peskin
GrowSF Co-Founder Sachin Argwal said the organization’s main priority for mayor this November will be “keeping Aaron Peskin out” and that ranked choice voting, where second- and then third-choice votes are counted as candidates are eliminated until one candidate has over 50 percent of the vote, is “essential” to beating him.
“Breed, Lurie and Farrell have far more in common than not, and it’s critical that voters who support robust public education, homes everyone can afford, and safer streets rank all three,” Agarwal said.
A recent Chronicle poll showed that ranked choice voting could be a problem for Peksin. The poll taken the first week of August showed Breed with 28 percent of first-choice votes, Farrell at 20 percent and Lurie at 17 percent, followed by Peskin at 12 percent and District 11 Supervisor Ahsha Safai at 5 percent. When second-choice votes are also included, Peskin gets only an additional 8 percent of the vote, compared to 12 percent for Breed, 20 percent for Farrell and 22 percent for Lurie.
“His chances are dinged by ranked choice voting,” said a political insider. “If people are using ranked choice voting then his chances grow very, very small.”
Moderate political group TogetherSF Action also went with a ranked approach to endorsements, recommending that its supporters vote Farrell first, Breed second and Lurie third. Neighbors for a Better SF — which counts Kilroy Realty, Trinity Management and other developers among its industry supporters — said its members should vote for Farrell and Lurie in any order and gave Breed the third-place spot.
Peskin has been “really opposed to smart housing policy and we’re really worried that he would be someone who would set San Francisco back dramatically,” said Neighbors’ Executive Director Jay Cheng, whereas with Breed, Lurie and Farrell, “there’s a lot there to like.”
His organization ultimately supported Farrell and Lurie over Breed because they bring experience as well as “an incredibly fresh perspective to City Hall.”
“We need a trusted messenger in the mayor’s office who can deliver that the page has turned on downtown and it’s an exciting place to be,” he said.
But ranked choice voting creates “really unpredictable results,” which is why the organization decided to endorse Breed as well.
“Unless people are really voting for multiple candidates like we’re recommending, I think there’s a huge danger that you get a less ideal outcome or your vote isn’t counted in the way that you hoped,” Cheng said.
Neighbors went with a ranked choice endorsement, even though one of its big donors, multifamily owner Thomas Coates, has been very vocal in his support of Farrell. The advocacy group refunded his $500,000 donation after making its endorsements, according to campaign filings with the city.
Cheng said Neighbors “does not comment about activity around our donors,” but a source with knowledge of the organization said Coates “wanted his investment this November to be directed towards a very particular candidate and not all three,” so the refund was “the right thing to do.”
Coates and his wife ended up making a $500,000 donation to Farrell’s campaign to support a commission reform initiative that is also on the November ballot, according to campaign filings.
Breed-only approach
Despite the possible ranked-choice risks, pro-housing groups SFYIMBY, SFAA and HAC are all moving ahead with a Breed-only approach, and the mayor also recently garnered the support of the influential Democratic County Central Committee after a March takeover by moderates.
“London Breed is making strides in addressing the city’s most vexing problems, from homelessness, to public safety, to economic recovery and supporting housing production,” said SFAA’s lead for legislative affairs, Charley Goss. “She’s the best-suited candidate to continue addressing these important issues over the next four years.”
Natoli said while YIMBY welcomed hearing from all the candidates, their support for housing is untested, whereas Breed has been “walking the walk with us.”
“She has been out there fighting for housing abundance, fighting for state laws to be changed, trying to make changes at [the Planning Commission], trying to get legislation passed at a recalcitrant Board of Supervisors, and that counts for a lot,” Natoli noted.
In the end, the built-in advantage of Breed’s track record was strong enough that the group decided against a ranked endorsement, she added.
HAC Executive Director Corey Smith cited Breed’s “proven track record” as key to getting his organization’s endorsement.
“Breed has been a leader in the pro-housing urbanist movement since she became mayor,” he said. “For HAC, it’s about supporting candidates that truly understand the problems and work to solve them.”
November unknowns
Even with many major endorsements on the books, organization leaders said who ultimately prevails is still very much an unknown. As the incumbent, Breed’s chances are intricately tied to the direction voters feel the city is heading by November, Natoli said.
“You get credit when it’s good, you get blamed when it’s bad. It might not be fair but that’s the job of being in charge,” she said. “I’ll be curious to see what kinds of stories are unfolding around downtown recovery in a couple of months because I think that has a huge impact on London’s chances.”
Another big question is who Safai might throw his support behind if he ultimately decides to end his campaign.
“So far the line from Ahsha Safai has been, ‘I’m in this to win it,’ but the polls show that just doesn’t seem like it’s going to happen,” Natoli said. “Is he going to throw his support behind someone? Because that could really tip the scales depending who that someone is.”
Read more
Politics
San Francisco
Housing advocates hope election can pivot politics in San Francisco
San Francisco
How pro-development groups are building a coalition of moderates
There could be a slew of partnerships, both in the mayor’s race and the six supervisor seats, as the election nears and candidates get real about their chances. With so many viable candidates, in order for any candidate to cross the threshold with 50 percent of the vote, “you simply have to depend on someone else’s number two,” Cheng said.
“You have to pair up together, if not explicitly than implicitly, in order to succeed,” he said.