Thanks, but No Thanks
Upzoning is for Who?
• • • • • • • • • • February 2026 • • • • • • • • • •
Once again, California tax-paying residents are being played, only this time under the guise of supplying more rental housing to meet our “supposed” shortage for the millions of people just dying to rent here!
Don’t buy into it, it’s just the latest scam being shoved down our throats by none other than ever-charging East Coast transplant State Senator Scott Weiner and several other power mongers who haven’t even had the decency to let the people who are most affected vote on it. It’s classic government overreach.
For many, a home and property are the largest single investment of their lifetime, and now we are being told under what conditions that investment must conform.
Last October, Governor Newsom signed SB 79 into law. This bill allows the State to override all local jurisdictional planning and zoning laws with greatly increased building heights and densities. It will satisfy Wiener’s one-size-fits-all State Mandated Housing Element, which calls for 2.5 million new housing units in California by 2030.
Under these non-voter-approved state-dictated mandates and laws, absolutely no consideration is allowed for the radically different landscapes or lifestyles that exist throughout California.
Every California city, town, village, and residential area is treated the same! As such, it is not an intelligent, in-depth, or sophisticated approach to our housing needs and wants. This is what happens when we elect representatives who are only concerned with their own road up the political ladder, not their constituents’ concerns.
Although the ensuing problems are statewide, for the sake of this article, I will focus on San Francisco.
San Franhattan
The current housing up-zoning mandate for San Francisco, as dictated by our housing geniuses in Sacramento, calls for 82,000 new rental units. Our new Mayor, as well-meaning as he appears to be, has ruled out challenging the State because of the possibility of massive financial penalties.
That’s a bit of a stretch — as Newsom isn’t going to penalize San Francisco, especially during his run for the White House. Of course, Newsom was only too anxious to sign SB 79 into law because he is salivating over the boatloads of campaign donations he will receive in his lifelong dream of occupying the White House. Sorry, he never was for San Francisco anyway.
hat the mandate does is completely destroy the unique qualities found only in San Francisco’s diverse residential neighborhoods. These are qualities that no other major City in the US has. It will drastically change the landscape and character that so many San Franciscans have put their dreams and life savings into. Folks, this is all being dictated by a few carpetbaggers”
The state mandate and SB 79 were designed — not to meet our true housing needs, but to pad the re-election coffers of those running for higher office in collusion with chosen developers — and all on the backs of single-family property owners.
It is especially impactful in San Francisco, where working-class families in already over-dense neighborhoods have neither the time nor the resources to fight this government overreach. That’s what we elect and expect our Supervisors to do for us.
It is difficult to see how the new 82,000 rental units to be built in SF will lower rents when they are projected to cost $1 to $1.2 million each to build, and, of course, landlords must charge rents that cover their costs. Affordability seems out of the question in the Mayor’s misnamed “Family Zoning Plan.” Sorry, low-income renters, you’re out of luck.
Digging into the legislation and understanding how politics plays out in this state, it becomes obvious that supply and demand no longer matter in housing policy.
Here’s the deal, and you really must hand it to these Sacramento “geniuses.”
Impossible Goals
While they care nothing about intelligent and effective housing planning that truly meets the needs of the people, they are not stupid. They know how to construct impossible mandates that the private-sector developers can’t possibly meet.
Again, of the 82,000 to be built, 40,000 must be “affordable” to low-income renters. While the new laws call for greatly increased density in already dense neighborhoods, there is nothing in the legislation that actually eases the draconian burden and excessive costs, like impact and inclusionary fees, and below-market subsidies that builders and developers must absorb. As a result, savvy private builders and property owners most likely won’t engage in the scam because it doesn’t pencil out.
The mandated 40,000 “affordable” units are estimated to cost about $19 billion. The “geniuses” know that private-sector builders and banks will not fund their mandates for more affordable rentals under current local restrictions, so they will turn to selected non-profits as their preferred builders.
As we have seen over the years with our homeless funding corruption, non-profits have a “special” way of doing business with our current crop of politicians. For the framers of SB 79 and the state mandates, non-profit builders, especially if they can be funded by the “Municipal Banks” (your tax dollars!) that they are talking about now, are the perfect solution. The framers of the bogus SB 79 and ill-fated state mandates have finally got what they wanted all along — total government control over our housing needs.
Sorry, private property owners and for-profit developers, you will have to take a back seat to government-funded non-profit builders.
Whether Homeownership?
As none of the projected 82,000 units are slated for homeownership, nor available as a deeded unit, it does nothing for the 10% of renters that have left our City in the past few years, or the more than 3 million who have left our State in hopes of actually owning a home somewhere, somehow. It is designed for more “rent-slavery.”
For those who eventually would like to own their home, sorry, you’re out of luck too!
(Are you getting the picture here? Remember what Newsom’s care-not-cash did to support the homeless industrial complex in San Francisco?)
Infrastructure Drain
The State mandate does nothing to address the multi-billion-dollar infrastructure needs, such as water, sewer, and electrical, that have plagued the western end of the City since the early eighties. Infrastructure needs that were so brilliantly articulated in a voluminous 1985 report by then SF CAO Roger Boas, who warned that no more construction should be allowed in SF without addressing crumbling infrastructure.
If you want those infrastructure needs met — after being ignored for so long — sorry, you’ll now have to pay more in special assessments, parcel taxes, etc. What’s that old saying about a pot to …?
Distinctive Neighborhoods
What the mandate does is completely destroy the unique qualities found only in San Francisco’s diverse residential neighborhoods. These are qualities that no other major City in the US has. It will drastically change the landscape and character that so many San Franciscans have put their dreams and life savings into. Folks, this is all being dictated by a few carpetbaggers.
Sorry to those of you who are here because of San Francisco’s uniqueness, but you’re going to be “Manhattanized!”
I am not one to criticize or be negative without offering at least partial solutions. I would like you to consider a few facts and alternative approaches.
There is no evidence to show, or any legitimate studies to indicate, that increasing the high-end rental stock will ever lower rents. Even the City’s chief economist agrees to that.
Undoing the Done Deal
The up-zoning plan has been voted in, and it’s a done deal. The only way to mitigate the damage it will cause is to file a legal action to delay its implementation until our Governor is no longer a contender for President. At which point, I will predict that the entire up-zoning scam will fall like a house of cards.
It is time to think of a new way to provide housing that leaves no losers and makes the benefits of true homeownership attainable for those who want them. Benefits that pride of ownership encourages, like better maintenance, safer streets, better schools, and a larger shared tax base. Giving people a piece of “The Rock” instead of rent slavery.
The reality is that we are running out of room to build a lot more housing in San Francisco without sacrificing a very unique and high-quality way of life. Is it possible that the Inn is Full?
More brick, mortar, glass, steel and wood in San Francisco’s confined area will only exacerbate the problems caused by a lack of infrastructure and overcrowding, while ruining the landscape for all — tenants and property owners alike.
A Home of One’s Own
Why not allow landlords of multiple-unit buildings to sell their apartment units as deeded homeownership units, only to those tenants who wish to purchase them? This would go a long way toward satisfying what is needed most in the housing market, and that is Homeownership.
In most cases, under such a program, tenants would be paying a mortgage lower than their current rent and would own a “piece of the Rock,” so to speak.
Landlords, especially older ones, could enjoy a return on their long-term investment if they choose, and tenants would have something to build on, much like a starter home. This concept is based on a ballot initiative that I put forth in 2002 called HOPE, ( Home Ownership Program for Everyone).
I will be detailing the essence of such a program in my next article, so look forward to it here only in the Westside Observer.
Tony Hall is a former Supervisor for the City and County of San Francisco. He has held executive and administrative positions across seven City departments in all three branches, with 35 years of experience. His columns regularly appear in the Westside Observer and Epoch Times and can be accessed at: Tony Hall ARCHIVES - WordPress.com
February 2026
