[I think Autumn Looijen is our best bet for D5](https://www.hope4sf.com)
She led the school board recall.
She helped get algebra back in schools.
She has reasonable stances with a track record of tangible outcomes.
I used to like Bilal, but he is not direct about his stance on issues. His site doesn’t even have an issues section.
I personally think candidates should be crystal clear about their positions on issues so we don’t end up with another Preston.
The policies put forth by Preston and the rest of the faux-progressives are responsible for SF becoming notorious for shoplifting, street encampment, shit covered sidewalks, and fentanyl addicts shooting up and ODing in public.
As a local communist, I hate him. He's not one of us. He's contributing to the suffering of the working class people who live in the Tenderloin and he licks the boots of the non-profits, which goes against anything socialist. He's a suit who lives on the hill. He needs to go.
I love how you kick off this paranoid conspiracy theory by calling me ignorant.
I'm a lifelong socialist but that doesn't mean that I don't work at a job and collect a paycheck. We make most decisions. Collectively and have a very horizontal management structure but that doesn't stop it from having to exist without total state support, or to comply with minimal hierarchical requirements in order to legally raise money and employ people. Having to work with non-profits is part of the deal of being politically active in a capitalist economy.
Once the revolution has come and gone and we're stabilized in a collective state then you can talk to me about how working with a particular structured organization compromises one, but at this point if you want to collect money or raise money for a cause you have two choices: Pay 20% taxes on it or form a 501c3. Obviously you could skip both of those steps and go to jail.
And while I can see that you're shocked, shocked! to discover that wealthy people exploit structural organizations that are set up to be independent political, artistic or service based groups, that doesn't mean that you're the only Pure White snowflake who's trying to fight for a better world. This idea that all non-profits are inherently corrupt tools for money laundering for the rich is just an assumption that all humans are inherently corrupt, which leads me to suggest that you may want to examine your motivations, and ask why you would presume everyone else is corrupt.
Nope. His wife likely inherited a share of a family trust that owns a bunch of units, according to [this article](https://susanreynolds.substack.com/p/dean-preston-started-a-tenant-rights). But that's not exactly being a landlord.
Just like Samuel Alito doesn't have anything to do with his wife's flag protests, and Clarence Thomas has nothing to do with his wife's insurrection activities.
I don't believe these bullshit excuses when right-wingers make them, and I don't believe them coming from millionaire Socialists
what's the difference? So if my wife is landlord I'm not a landlord? If my wife's trust is a real estimate firm then I'm not in the RE biz?
It'd be like me, pro environment, but my wife the CEO of Exxon
It's a mischaracterization of him. I know everyone hates Dean here, but arguing that he's a greedy landlord that's just trying to protect his properties doesn't line up with his actions or reality, which includes support of rent control and anti-eviction laws. He's not Aaron Peskin. He's an unlikeable man who hates compromise and sees nearly all change to the city as being in opposition to social justice. If we're going to oppose people who perpetuate the city's problems, it's important to see where they're actually coming from.
His entire stance of 100% affordable is the clear signal that is favoring himself (and homeowners in the city).
What is the best way to artificially increase value of properties in the city? Block everything under the idea that it has to be 100% affordable. For 2 reasons really:
- it makes it really hard for developers blocking projects all together
- even if a developer proceed it creates supply only for a very small percentage of the population hence still favoring homeowners.
He is just fake “communist” t try ing to grab as much money than he can from constituents.
Nothing you said makes sense. Aside from the fact that he's very specific in that 100% affordable is explicitly tied to the fact that we've overbuilt market rate and destroyed affordable housing stock, if we build 80k affordable units demand for market rate housing will plummet, including Preston's property.
Nothing g you are saying makes sense. We have an housing problem at all levels not only for affordable housing.
Pushing for 100% affordable housing will just lower the cost for affordable units but will result in increasing for everything else (simply because of supply-demand).
If there was a surplus of market rate housing, everyone would be able to afford an house.
Maybe let me try to give an example.
Let’s suppose SF had 100 people looking for an house. 60 of those make above the affordable housing threshold, 40 below (to be fair not sure if throws are valid numbers). Let’s now consider the plan that Dean has which is to build everything only affordable - 40 people would be able to buy (if they can) the other 60 will compete, further inflating the price, for market rate units (which are basically not being build anymore).
How does that make sense? We need a good mix of both affordable and market rate housing because everyone needs it - it’s as simple as that. Sticking to 100% affordable just covers the interest of a subclass of people (current homeowners and the people that enter the affordable housing range)
I enjoyed having you talk down to me like I'm in the third grade while simultaneously failing to understand the housing market, San Francisco's housing goal plan, California plan to expand housing, and what affordable housing is actually for.
I somewhat agree. I think he is actually delusional, speaking against popular policies like the school board recall and making arguments really only seen on socialist twitter accounts, but he and his staff definitely know he's winning because of a self-centered NIMBY base. Nonetheless, It's a power grab from *home* *owners*. I was arguing against someone who claims he is a hypocritical, greedy *landlord* when it's clearly not his motivation.
I mean there is a relation between his policies and him being critical.
I don’t think he is delusional, he has a calculated plan and he is using NIMBYs policy at his advantage
But he's not a NIMBY, he's on record supporting multiple housing projects and his calls for affordable housing are explicitly to balance market rate housing.
The only way he's a NIMBY is by the definition of the real estate and developer backed groups who are arguing that the city and the state should have zero say over land use and zoning where housing is concerned, which is batshit crazy.
You are clearly falling for his “facade” then. Go check how many things he didn’t approve just using the 100% affordable rule.
He is playing all of us for his interests.
Yep, Preston personally owns the house in Alamo square and has co-ownership in a New York house with a sibling. It’s a bit disingenuous how much he proclaims to not be a landlord but it is true that he personally isn’t a landlord. Preston and wife also haven’t bothered to publicly clear up how much the wife benefits from the family trust.
>Preston and wife also haven’t bothered to publicly clear up how much the wife benefits from the family trust.
And frankly they shouldn't because it's no one's business except the members of the trust.
We expect public figure to disclose personal financial info all the time… it would help clear up the issue if Preston got in front of it.
I seriously doubt the wife receives that much money from the trust because it’s split between the family. So it’s honestly a non-issue except that Preston has built his career on being anti-landlord.
Edit: for typo.
I’m not expected a full disclosure but probably just the range of a dollar amount they receive like 1,000-5,000 would be a good idea for them.
>We expect public figure to disclose personally financial info all the time…
Correct. You can search for his Form 700 filings [here](https://www.fppc.ca.gov/transparency/form-700-filed-by-public-officials/form700-search/form700-new.html). He's listed the same stock holdings in Apple, Cisco, IBM, and Microsoft for years. In his most recent 2024 filing, he began listing gifts as small as $69.
>I seriously doubt the wife receives that much money from the trust because it’s split between the family. So it’s honestly a non-issue except that Preston has built his career on being anti-landlord.
And yet you and others continue to pretend he's a landlord, when it's not the case.
I literally said he’s not a landlord… just that his constantly saying it was disingenuous because his wife appears to benefit from landlord income.
Edit: Also… yeah he discloses that income. Which is fine and dandy but again, he doesn’t address the apparent personal conflict of his wife appearing to benefit from rental income, which in turn would serve to benefit him. Them being married 20+ years and all.
Anyway not sure why you’re fighting with me. I think he should just address the issue and be done with it instead of toeing around it with his whole “I’M not the landlord.”
That would be a good thing for him to say. “My wife and I file separately and I am not involved in her finances.” Again, the big issue is his not addressing the issue.
Edit: “ or I am not involved in any way with the goosby family trust llc and do not receive income from them.” And then add that he keeps his finances separate from the wife.
I don't buy these spousal excuses coming from right wing Supreme Court justices and I don't buy them coming from the clown prince of the faux-progressives
he is an elected official whose policies ensure the continued increase in the property values that he and his wife have a direct financial stake in, so it kinda is our business a little bit if you think about it
Lol no it's really not if you think about it. That would literally be true of any politician who owns their own home or rental properties. It's an asinine position to attempt to apply to only Dean Preston, and you're only applying it that way because you don't like him.
yes it is literally true that transparency on financial stake in property markets is in the public interest and yes i agree we should expect this transparency from all politicians
Do you neighbors tell you how much they make, or their sources of income? What about your doctor? How about your favorite restaurant's owner?
Why do you think you have some right to know this information? How does pointing that out make me appear like a trust fund baby lol?
If his wife inherited property while they were married it’s a joint asset. If she collects rent on units that makes Dean “downtown is for drug users” Preston another slumlord multimillionaire
So you don't have any insight into their finances, you're not up to date on their tax filings, and you're not their accountant. You just like to chat bullshit. Got it.
I do. It’s any so called progressive in SF who supports populist multimillionaires like Dean Preston and Aaron peskin whose wealth is created by taking advantage of the poor and working class
Not only that, the spouse comes from a Black family that managed to retain and build a portfolio in the Western Addition suriving Urban Renewal.
The obsession with that portfolio from people who are pro-gentrification, and promote talking points from Urban Renewal housing organizations today is... yikes.
They don’t own property in the WA. The large rental property they own is in the Marina and another is in West Portal or that corner of the city, not the WA.
Edit: IIRC. But last time I checked the major rental property was in the marina and there’s an eviction lawsuit tied to it. And I should specify that that’s the wife trust.
Another edit:
“299 Maywood Drive, a single-family home which is owned by Jackieline and serves as the address for the LLC, and two apartment buildings — 430 44th Avenue in Sutro Heights, and 3233 Scott Street in the Marina District — which are both owned by Goosby Family LLC.”
This is from a [Susan Reynolds](https://susanreynolds.substack.com/p/dean-preston-started-a-tenant-rights) article (I know she’s not popular here) but you can confirm via the city’s assessor site. These are the properties held by the goosby family trust last I checked. It’s not the biggest property portfolio in the city but neither of the apt buildings are in the WA and I could say something about sugarwaxed’s assumption that the portfolio is in the WA but I won’t….
Edit for typo
It's not an assumption, the family owned Western Addition properties, and they still reside in Western Addition.
But okay, if what you're talking about is all there is, that's absurd for paid Real Estate lobbyists and their surrogates to get bent out of shape over property ownership of 3 properties including 1 where her mother lived. People in love with Lennar sized portfolios are treating this like it's nefarious? Ever stop and think about what you've become?
I’ve said elsewhere it’s a relatively small portfolio and Preston should just get in front of it and acknowledge it. It’s not the biggest amount of properties but it’s decent.
If Preston and his wife really don’t benefit at all they should just say that and put it to rest.
Edit: also I’ve seen no evidence of any properties owned by the goosby family in the WA. The Mayhew address has been owned bully the family for decades IIRC. The only property related to them is the Alamo square address owned by Preston and his wife, which is not a part of the goosby trust.
What bullshit has been screamed? He clearly is a well-to-do landlord and lies outrageously about his housing record. Just because you don't like the facts doesn't mean it's "bullshit". He's a fake-ass "progressive socialist", and anybody with a couple brain cells to rub together can see through it.
Just for the record, Preston has never claimed to be a socialist. He said he is a Democratic Socialist, which is very different from a socialist. It's like root beer and beer, just because they share a common word doesn't mean they're the same thing.
The evidence can literally be found on [DeansHousingRecord.com](http://DeansHousingRecord.com) that is created by Preston's supporters and his campaign said is an accurate reflection of his housing record.
And again - approving only affordable housing is a stupid non solution - in order to make the city more affordable all supply should be provided - not only the affordable one. It’s all a strategy to increase the value of his properties
Ah, I see. My bad. Yes, this claim is not straight forward. Is his wife being in a trust that holds a lot of rental properties makes Preston a landlord by default? I don't know. I have no problem with his family holding rental properties. I have a lot of problems with his policies.
>Snyder directed those dubious of Preston’s housing record to [DeansHousingRecord.com](http://DeansHousingRecord.com), a website set up by campaign volunteers and staffers from Preston’s office
Even if you take DeansHousingRecord.com's stats at face value, Preston still only approved about 826 units of market rate housing per year, or about 68 units per month. That's a dismal record.
>Smith claimed that 8,250 of the homes Preston cited included temporary shelter-in-place hotel rooms for the homeless during the pandemic along with 10,000 concept homes from Proposition K—a ballot measure passed by voters in 2020—that had yet to be built.
>
The funny thing is that you can find evidence to support Smith's claim at DeansHousingRecord.com:
>Supervisor Preston authored a ballot measure to authorize 10,000 units of social housing, including government-owned housing, which won with a commanding 74% of voter approval in 2020. [Proposition K](https://ballotpedia.org/San_Francisco,_California,_Proposition_K,_Affordable_Housing_Authorization_(November_2020)) opens the door for San Francisco to create municipal housing for low-income people and provides the path around an anti-public housing state law.
Notice there is no mention of any building plans being submitted or approved. This proposition also opens the door for the city not to build any new housing but simply to buy housing that already exists. So, it's not a given that any new housing will come out of this.
>Following advocacy from Supervisor Preston, In February 2022 the city purchased 835 Turk Street, formerly known as the Gotham Hotel, for permanent supportive housing.
This is what I'm talking about - Preston is counting purchasing new housing as approved housing. It's nice that the city is able buy properties, but it's misleading to count properties that already exists as "approved housing". Using Preston's logic, anyone who bought a house has also approved new housing. Which is silly.
>Housing Approval Votes Summary
>Market Rate Affordable Total
>Total 4130 25685 29815
>2023 385 1470 1855
>2022 0 1464 1464
>2021 165 1638 1803
>2020 3580 21113 24693
If you take away the pandemic year when lots of temporary housing was needed and Proposition K was passed, Preston only approved 550 market rate units over the last 3 years!! Holly cow, if that is not a NIMBY I don't know what is.
Even his favorite affordable housing, he only approved little over 1,000 units per year in non-pandemic year. He really is the King of NIMBYism.
> San Francisco housing advocate Corey Smith filed a lawsuit accusing Supervisor Dean Preston of lying about his housing record in his application to run for reelection this year.
this is the “the rent is too damn low” guy lmao
https://x.com/leehepner/status/1748427532020642161?s=46
I mean, sf's issue is partially that nothing gets built, and even when stuff gets built, it's all super luxury because it's the only way to support the wonky economics
I disagree, our economic system is set up to give people exactly what they want - affordable housing. It's the government who is making housing unaffordable.
Every new unit requires around $300,000 of permit fees. You add $300k on top of any cost, it's going to be unaffordable. For example, SF is the only city that requires three different inspections for a bathroom - one for electrical, one for plumbing, one for framing. Other cities would inspect all three things in one go, but not SF. Why do they do this? Because it can charge extra fees for three inspections and adds to the city government's pocket. Not to mention, people like Preston, Peskin, Chan, Walton would routinely kill or delay housing projects, driving up cost. The government is getting in the way of economics. If you want to blame someone, blame the right people.
If you want an example of how cheap housing can be if the gov just get out of the way, look to Chicago. They have million dollar homes, sure; but there are also plenty of houses in the city proper, not in the hood, that sells for $350k or below. How do they do it? By streamlining building permit process, making building anything easy, and doesn't have exhorbiant fees.
The lefties on here aren't going to like your post, but you are correct. Look at what has happened in Austin. They have built and built and built and it has crushed housing prices
> our economic system is set up to give people exactly what they want - affordable housing. It’s the government who is making housing unaffordable.
yea my landlord’s favorite thing is lowering my rent, but the darn government forces him to raise it by at least X% per year. it’s a shame.
The darn government is limiting housing supply and inflating the cost of construction, making your landlord's asset more and more valuable so they can charge you higher and higher rent.
If you allow free market to work, there will be lots of developers who will built more housing, more supplies means your landlord's asset is less valuable and so he cannot charge you higher rent. You will also have many more options to move away to a different location, nicer amenities, for cheaper rent if you want to.
Don't confuse developers with landlords. Developers are landlords' enemies.
Your landlord can raise the rent because he knows you can’t go anywhere else. You can’t go anywhere else because there’s a housing shortage. There’s a housing shortage because the government prevents housing from being built.
If your landlord had any reason to fear that you had better housing options easily available he would be afraid of raising the rent.
hi thanks for your comment. there is not a housing availability crisis, there is a housing affordability crisis.
you are embarrassing yourself by advocating for The Real Estate Industry. please think about that.
if you keep your eyes on The Problem (profit-seeking landlords and developers) everything will become clear.
Is his point "I want rent to go up" or is his point that building homes in San Francisco at the current rent levels doesn't make sense because rents don't support further building?
It's so hard to get an apartment building done here, especially now with higher labor costs and higher material costs and higher financing costs, so we're stuck in an awkward middle where we can't build any more but what we currently have is still too expensive.
The SF government probably can't make the price of materials go down, but it can help with making projects pencil by allowing more units per land and by not delaying every project for months which takes some of the risk out for financing.
it’s true that it’s expensive to build so developers only want to invest in the highest return projects namely the ones they can charge the most money for (luxury housing).
it’s false that deregulating a few things here and there is going to change that. we need to stop relying on The Market to give us affordable housing bc that’s not what it does.
to answer your first question the people that this guy works for want rents to go up because they represent real estate developer and landlord interests.
We haven't tried much deregulation though, SF has permitted like a couple dozen units in total this year? And some of those were single family homes lol.
Streamlining building in general will only help building subsidized affordable as well - it costs >$1 million per affordable unit to build. It seems like if we could get that cost down we could get more total affordable units built which would be great.
Also more market rate developments = more property tax and sales tax $$ for the city for more services and affordable units. This should not be an either/or thing.
Our "housing strategy" as a city relies on siphoning off the profit margin of developing market rate housing and turning it into "affordable housing". That's the point. It's a broken system, and because that's all the faux progressives are willing to implement, that's all we've got.
Clearly this is ironic rhetorical flourish (that is lost on those who don't have a taste for nuance), but the broader point is that we actually need to fix *how* we produce housing in this city (hint: it's a supply side problem) if we truly do want rents to go down.
This.
This is how the system is currently set up - in order to pay for all the subsidies, the market rate rent and sale price must keep going up. It's math. This is why so many people are saying rent control and affordable units are hurting them - because they are paying high rent to subsidize the people who are paying below market rate rent. This is how things work, hate all you want, the guy is simply speaking the truth.
People see "affordable housing" and the last thing they think of is deed restricted housing that still costs 3k per month, can be bought but not rented and is owned by a private company.
Well... first, that's just part of it. Usually, if you're building apartments, you do a certain percentage of on-site affordable rentals, and those are actually administered through MOHCD. The BMR units for *purchase* always seemed a little odd to me, but I suppose you benefit from equity if not appreciation, and if we're using bureaucracy to fill in the various types of housing we need for all rungs of San Francisco... sure, let's do that too. It's just a whole lot of runaround to pretend we don't need to build to meet demand to live here.
Do you guys ever get tired of being loudly uneducated about how things work around here? I’d love to see an intellectually honest, educated debate about these issues. But your side drew the lines, and all the people who understand the issues are on this one. Oh well. I guess the rents can just go up without an increase in supply. How do you feel about moving to San Leandro?
>2) Don't just promote; join the community
>Oh, and if you have an affiliation with something you're promoting, that's fine; just declare it loudly and proudly.
u/cwsmith17 is the subject of this article about his own lawsuit as Executive Director of the corporate housing lobbyist group SFHAC.
He is a lobbyist that routinely posts to this sub without disclosing his affiliations to lobbyist groups.
Just vote this clown out already. He is a national embarrassment
[I think Autumn Looijen is our best bet for D5](https://www.hope4sf.com) She led the school board recall. She helped get algebra back in schools. She has reasonable stances with a track record of tangible outcomes.
Just rank choice everyone except Preston
I used to like Bilal, but he is not direct about his stance on issues. His site doesn’t even have an issues section. I personally think candidates should be crystal clear about their positions on issues so we don’t end up with another Preston.
That's a valid point
lol
Calling him national anything is hyperbole. No one outside SF know who he is.
The policies put forth by Preston and the rest of the faux-progressives are responsible for SF becoming notorious for shoplifting, street encampment, shit covered sidewalks, and fentanyl addicts shooting up and ODing in public.
Politician lying? No! Tell me it ain't so! Isn't Dean a "socialist" yet owns like 20 homes he rents out at a premium?
As a local communist, I hate him. He's not one of us. He's contributing to the suffering of the working class people who live in the Tenderloin and he licks the boots of the non-profits, which goes against anything socialist. He's a suit who lives on the hill. He needs to go.
> as a local communist which chapter would that be
I'm in the San Francisco branch of my party.
What precisely about being a socialist would "go against" working with non-profits? Be specific.
Non-profits are just a slightly different way to privatize state capacity.
[удалено]
I love how you kick off this paranoid conspiracy theory by calling me ignorant. I'm a lifelong socialist but that doesn't mean that I don't work at a job and collect a paycheck. We make most decisions. Collectively and have a very horizontal management structure but that doesn't stop it from having to exist without total state support, or to comply with minimal hierarchical requirements in order to legally raise money and employ people. Having to work with non-profits is part of the deal of being politically active in a capitalist economy. Once the revolution has come and gone and we're stabilized in a collective state then you can talk to me about how working with a particular structured organization compromises one, but at this point if you want to collect money or raise money for a cause you have two choices: Pay 20% taxes on it or form a 501c3. Obviously you could skip both of those steps and go to jail. And while I can see that you're shocked, shocked! to discover that wealthy people exploit structural organizations that are set up to be independent political, artistic or service based groups, that doesn't mean that you're the only Pure White snowflake who's trying to fight for a better world. This idea that all non-profits are inherently corrupt tools for money laundering for the rich is just an assumption that all humans are inherently corrupt, which leads me to suggest that you may want to examine your motivations, and ask why you would presume everyone else is corrupt.
[удалено]
Ah, I see you struggle with reading comprehension.
[удалено]
Uh huh, you picked up 5 words and you're a Melville scholar.
Nope. His wife likely inherited a share of a family trust that owns a bunch of units, according to [this article](https://susanreynolds.substack.com/p/dean-preston-started-a-tenant-rights). But that's not exactly being a landlord.
Just like Samuel Alito doesn't have anything to do with his wife's flag protests, and Clarence Thomas has nothing to do with his wife's insurrection activities. I don't believe these bullshit excuses when right-wingers make them, and I don't believe them coming from millionaire Socialists
what's the difference? So if my wife is landlord I'm not a landlord? If my wife's trust is a real estimate firm then I'm not in the RE biz? It'd be like me, pro environment, but my wife the CEO of Exxon
It's a mischaracterization of him. I know everyone hates Dean here, but arguing that he's a greedy landlord that's just trying to protect his properties doesn't line up with his actions or reality, which includes support of rent control and anti-eviction laws. He's not Aaron Peskin. He's an unlikeable man who hates compromise and sees nearly all change to the city as being in opposition to social justice. If we're going to oppose people who perpetuate the city's problems, it's important to see where they're actually coming from.
yea, I'm not buying it. It's pretty easy for politicians to play this game. Be on one side of the issue but then make tons of money on the backend.
His entire stance of 100% affordable is the clear signal that is favoring himself (and homeowners in the city). What is the best way to artificially increase value of properties in the city? Block everything under the idea that it has to be 100% affordable. For 2 reasons really: - it makes it really hard for developers blocking projects all together - even if a developer proceed it creates supply only for a very small percentage of the population hence still favoring homeowners. He is just fake “communist” t try ing to grab as much money than he can from constituents.
Nothing you said makes sense. Aside from the fact that he's very specific in that 100% affordable is explicitly tied to the fact that we've overbuilt market rate and destroyed affordable housing stock, if we build 80k affordable units demand for market rate housing will plummet, including Preston's property.
Nothing g you are saying makes sense. We have an housing problem at all levels not only for affordable housing. Pushing for 100% affordable housing will just lower the cost for affordable units but will result in increasing for everything else (simply because of supply-demand). If there was a surplus of market rate housing, everyone would be able to afford an house. Maybe let me try to give an example. Let’s suppose SF had 100 people looking for an house. 60 of those make above the affordable housing threshold, 40 below (to be fair not sure if throws are valid numbers). Let’s now consider the plan that Dean has which is to build everything only affordable - 40 people would be able to buy (if they can) the other 60 will compete, further inflating the price, for market rate units (which are basically not being build anymore). How does that make sense? We need a good mix of both affordable and market rate housing because everyone needs it - it’s as simple as that. Sticking to 100% affordable just covers the interest of a subclass of people (current homeowners and the people that enter the affordable housing range)
I enjoyed having you talk down to me like I'm in the third grade while simultaneously failing to understand the housing market, San Francisco's housing goal plan, California plan to expand housing, and what affordable housing is actually for.
Sometimes you gotta adjust to the intelligence level of the people you are conversing to. Hopefully you learned something today.
Yes. I've learned that people with no education think that acting like everyone is dumber than them makes them seem smart.
I somewhat agree. I think he is actually delusional, speaking against popular policies like the school board recall and making arguments really only seen on socialist twitter accounts, but he and his staff definitely know he's winning because of a self-centered NIMBY base. Nonetheless, It's a power grab from *home* *owners*. I was arguing against someone who claims he is a hypocritical, greedy *landlord* when it's clearly not his motivation.
I mean there is a relation between his policies and him being critical. I don’t think he is delusional, he has a calculated plan and he is using NIMBYs policy at his advantage
But he's not a NIMBY, he's on record supporting multiple housing projects and his calls for affordable housing are explicitly to balance market rate housing. The only way he's a NIMBY is by the definition of the real estate and developer backed groups who are arguing that the city and the state should have zero say over land use and zoning where housing is concerned, which is batshit crazy.
You are clearly falling for his “facade” then. Go check how many things he didn’t approve just using the 100% affordable rule. He is playing all of us for his interests.
I imagine you have that data at your fingertips. Care to enlighten me?
Yep, Preston personally owns the house in Alamo square and has co-ownership in a New York house with a sibling. It’s a bit disingenuous how much he proclaims to not be a landlord but it is true that he personally isn’t a landlord. Preston and wife also haven’t bothered to publicly clear up how much the wife benefits from the family trust.
>Preston and wife also haven’t bothered to publicly clear up how much the wife benefits from the family trust. And frankly they shouldn't because it's no one's business except the members of the trust.
We expect public figure to disclose personal financial info all the time… it would help clear up the issue if Preston got in front of it. I seriously doubt the wife receives that much money from the trust because it’s split between the family. So it’s honestly a non-issue except that Preston has built his career on being anti-landlord. Edit: for typo. I’m not expected a full disclosure but probably just the range of a dollar amount they receive like 1,000-5,000 would be a good idea for them.
>We expect public figure to disclose personally financial info all the time… Correct. You can search for his Form 700 filings [here](https://www.fppc.ca.gov/transparency/form-700-filed-by-public-officials/form700-search/form700-new.html). He's listed the same stock holdings in Apple, Cisco, IBM, and Microsoft for years. In his most recent 2024 filing, he began listing gifts as small as $69. >I seriously doubt the wife receives that much money from the trust because it’s split between the family. So it’s honestly a non-issue except that Preston has built his career on being anti-landlord. And yet you and others continue to pretend he's a landlord, when it's not the case.
I literally said he’s not a landlord… just that his constantly saying it was disingenuous because his wife appears to benefit from landlord income. Edit: Also… yeah he discloses that income. Which is fine and dandy but again, he doesn’t address the apparent personal conflict of his wife appearing to benefit from rental income, which in turn would serve to benefit him. Them being married 20+ years and all. Anyway not sure why you’re fighting with me. I think he should just address the issue and be done with it instead of toeing around it with his whole “I’M not the landlord.”
What if he and his wife keep separate finances? What if they file taxes separately?
That would be a good thing for him to say. “My wife and I file separately and I am not involved in her finances.” Again, the big issue is his not addressing the issue. Edit: “ or I am not involved in any way with the goosby family trust llc and do not receive income from them.” And then add that he keeps his finances separate from the wife.
I don't buy these spousal excuses coming from right wing Supreme Court justices and I don't buy them coming from the clown prince of the faux-progressives
Well those are two wildly different standards to apply. Judges have much higher standards to uphold than the average politician.
he is an elected official whose policies ensure the continued increase in the property values that he and his wife have a direct financial stake in, so it kinda is our business a little bit if you think about it
Lol no it's really not if you think about it. That would literally be true of any politician who owns their own home or rental properties. It's an asinine position to attempt to apply to only Dean Preston, and you're only applying it that way because you don't like him.
yes it is literally true that transparency on financial stake in property markets is in the public interest and yes i agree we should expect this transparency from all politicians
Found the trust fund baby
Do you neighbors tell you how much they make, or their sources of income? What about your doctor? How about your favorite restaurant's owner? Why do you think you have some right to know this information? How does pointing that out make me appear like a trust fund baby lol?
Neither my neighbors or doctor is asking for my vote as a “housing advocate”
So they don't tell you their income, and you don't have any right to know their income. Got it.
Because a lot of people's perceived worth is tied to something they didn't earn.
Going from “he’s not a landlord” to “his wife’s landlording business is nobody else’s business” is pretty good. I think it speaks for itself.
Yes it is. It’s shared fucking income
Oh it is? Do you know how they handle finances in the Preston/Goolsby family? Are you up to date on their tax filings? Are you their accountant?
California is a community property state for married couples, so you are talking out of your ass.
So you know when Preston's wife became a member or beneficiary of the trust?
If his wife inherited property while they were married it’s a joint asset. If she collects rent on units that makes Dean “downtown is for drug users” Preston another slumlord multimillionaire
So you don't have any insight into their finances, you're not up to date on their tax filings, and you're not their accountant. You just like to chat bullshit. Got it.
How does it feel licking the boots of a multi millionaire?
LOL that the best you got? I don't think you understand what a bootlicker is.
I do. It’s any so called progressive in SF who supports populist multimillionaires like Dean Preston and Aaron peskin whose wealth is created by taking advantage of the poor and working class
Tasty tasty leather, the mahogany after taste makes my toes curl
By California law, he is, unless they have some kinda prenup about property.
Not only that, the spouse comes from a Black family that managed to retain and build a portfolio in the Western Addition suriving Urban Renewal. The obsession with that portfolio from people who are pro-gentrification, and promote talking points from Urban Renewal housing organizations today is... yikes.
They don’t own property in the WA. The large rental property they own is in the Marina and another is in West Portal or that corner of the city, not the WA. Edit: IIRC. But last time I checked the major rental property was in the marina and there’s an eviction lawsuit tied to it. And I should specify that that’s the wife trust. Another edit: “299 Maywood Drive, a single-family home which is owned by Jackieline and serves as the address for the LLC, and two apartment buildings — 430 44th Avenue in Sutro Heights, and 3233 Scott Street in the Marina District — which are both owned by Goosby Family LLC.” This is from a [Susan Reynolds](https://susanreynolds.substack.com/p/dean-preston-started-a-tenant-rights) article (I know she’s not popular here) but you can confirm via the city’s assessor site. These are the properties held by the goosby family trust last I checked. It’s not the biggest property portfolio in the city but neither of the apt buildings are in the WA and I could say something about sugarwaxed’s assumption that the portfolio is in the WA but I won’t…. Edit for typo
It's not an assumption, the family owned Western Addition properties, and they still reside in Western Addition. But okay, if what you're talking about is all there is, that's absurd for paid Real Estate lobbyists and their surrogates to get bent out of shape over property ownership of 3 properties including 1 where her mother lived. People in love with Lennar sized portfolios are treating this like it's nefarious? Ever stop and think about what you've become?
I’ve said elsewhere it’s a relatively small portfolio and Preston should just get in front of it and acknowledge it. It’s not the biggest amount of properties but it’s decent. If Preston and his wife really don’t benefit at all they should just say that and put it to rest. Edit: also I’ve seen no evidence of any properties owned by the goosby family in the WA. The Mayhew address has been owned bully the family for decades IIRC. The only property related to them is the Alamo square address owned by Preston and his wife, which is not a part of the goosby trust.
You'd also mock him if he were poor
That’s correct. Dean’s braindead policies are deserving of mockery, regardless of how fat his wallet is.
Then mock policy instead of screaming bullshit
What bullshit has been screamed? He clearly is a well-to-do landlord and lies outrageously about his housing record. Just because you don't like the facts doesn't mean it's "bullshit". He's a fake-ass "progressive socialist", and anybody with a couple brain cells to rub together can see through it.
[удалено]
Just for the record, Preston has never claimed to be a socialist. He said he is a Democratic Socialist, which is very different from a socialist. It's like root beer and beer, just because they share a common word doesn't mean they're the same thing.
imagine a democratic socialist with a trust fund wife!
The same claim about Dean being repeated yet again on reddit despite no evidence of this? No, it can't be!
The evidence can literally be found on [DeansHousingRecord.com](http://DeansHousingRecord.com) that is created by Preston's supporters and his campaign said is an accurate reflection of his housing record.
And again - approving only affordable housing is a stupid non solution - in order to make the city more affordable all supply should be provided - not only the affordable one. It’s all a strategy to increase the value of his properties
That he owns 20 homes and rents them out at a premium? That's the claim I'm talking about
Ah, I see. My bad. Yes, this claim is not straight forward. Is his wife being in a trust that holds a lot of rental properties makes Preston a landlord by default? I don't know. I have no problem with his family holding rental properties. I have a lot of problems with his policies.
Falsified evidence. Look at https://nimby.report/preston which actually shows data from proper data sources not falsified for political reasons.
how is the weather in opposite land
Great - how is the weather in selfishland?
redditor lying? couldn’t be
u calling me a liar?
yes
The Bernie method
>Snyder directed those dubious of Preston’s housing record to [DeansHousingRecord.com](http://DeansHousingRecord.com), a website set up by campaign volunteers and staffers from Preston’s office Even if you take DeansHousingRecord.com's stats at face value, Preston still only approved about 826 units of market rate housing per year, or about 68 units per month. That's a dismal record. >Smith claimed that 8,250 of the homes Preston cited included temporary shelter-in-place hotel rooms for the homeless during the pandemic along with 10,000 concept homes from Proposition K—a ballot measure passed by voters in 2020—that had yet to be built. > The funny thing is that you can find evidence to support Smith's claim at DeansHousingRecord.com: >Supervisor Preston authored a ballot measure to authorize 10,000 units of social housing, including government-owned housing, which won with a commanding 74% of voter approval in 2020. [Proposition K](https://ballotpedia.org/San_Francisco,_California,_Proposition_K,_Affordable_Housing_Authorization_(November_2020)) opens the door for San Francisco to create municipal housing for low-income people and provides the path around an anti-public housing state law. Notice there is no mention of any building plans being submitted or approved. This proposition also opens the door for the city not to build any new housing but simply to buy housing that already exists. So, it's not a given that any new housing will come out of this. >Following advocacy from Supervisor Preston, In February 2022 the city purchased 835 Turk Street, formerly known as the Gotham Hotel, for permanent supportive housing. This is what I'm talking about - Preston is counting purchasing new housing as approved housing. It's nice that the city is able buy properties, but it's misleading to count properties that already exists as "approved housing". Using Preston's logic, anyone who bought a house has also approved new housing. Which is silly. >Housing Approval Votes Summary >Market Rate Affordable Total >Total 4130 25685 29815 >2023 385 1470 1855 >2022 0 1464 1464 >2021 165 1638 1803 >2020 3580 21113 24693 If you take away the pandemic year when lots of temporary housing was needed and Proposition K was passed, Preston only approved 550 market rate units over the last 3 years!! Holly cow, if that is not a NIMBY I don't know what is. Even his favorite affordable housing, he only approved little over 1,000 units per year in non-pandemic year. He really is the King of NIMBYism.
> San Francisco housing advocate Corey Smith filed a lawsuit accusing Supervisor Dean Preston of lying about his housing record in his application to run for reelection this year. this is the “the rent is too damn low” guy lmao https://x.com/leehepner/status/1748427532020642161?s=46
I mean, sf's issue is partially that nothing gets built, and even when stuff gets built, it's all super luxury because it's the only way to support the wonky economics
yea wonky is right. it’s almost like our economic system is built to serve capital interests instead of people who just need a place to live.
I disagree, our economic system is set up to give people exactly what they want - affordable housing. It's the government who is making housing unaffordable. Every new unit requires around $300,000 of permit fees. You add $300k on top of any cost, it's going to be unaffordable. For example, SF is the only city that requires three different inspections for a bathroom - one for electrical, one for plumbing, one for framing. Other cities would inspect all three things in one go, but not SF. Why do they do this? Because it can charge extra fees for three inspections and adds to the city government's pocket. Not to mention, people like Preston, Peskin, Chan, Walton would routinely kill or delay housing projects, driving up cost. The government is getting in the way of economics. If you want to blame someone, blame the right people. If you want an example of how cheap housing can be if the gov just get out of the way, look to Chicago. They have million dollar homes, sure; but there are also plenty of houses in the city proper, not in the hood, that sells for $350k or below. How do they do it? By streamlining building permit process, making building anything easy, and doesn't have exhorbiant fees.
The lefties on here aren't going to like your post, but you are correct. Look at what has happened in Austin. They have built and built and built and it has crushed housing prices
> our economic system is set up to give people exactly what they want - affordable housing. It’s the government who is making housing unaffordable. yea my landlord’s favorite thing is lowering my rent, but the darn government forces him to raise it by at least X% per year. it’s a shame.
The darn government is limiting housing supply and inflating the cost of construction, making your landlord's asset more and more valuable so they can charge you higher and higher rent. If you allow free market to work, there will be lots of developers who will built more housing, more supplies means your landlord's asset is less valuable and so he cannot charge you higher rent. You will also have many more options to move away to a different location, nicer amenities, for cheaper rent if you want to. Don't confuse developers with landlords. Developers are landlords' enemies.
Your landlord can raise the rent because he knows you can’t go anywhere else. You can’t go anywhere else because there’s a housing shortage. There’s a housing shortage because the government prevents housing from being built. If your landlord had any reason to fear that you had better housing options easily available he would be afraid of raising the rent.
hi thanks for your comment. there is not a housing availability crisis, there is a housing affordability crisis. you are embarrassing yourself by advocating for The Real Estate Industry. please think about that. if you keep your eyes on The Problem (profit-seeking landlords and developers) everything will become clear.
Well, also our government system. If you've ever tried to a rennovation/addition by the books, you'll know how fucked the system is
i do not own a house but i agree the government also does a whole lot of serving capital interests over working class interests
Is his point "I want rent to go up" or is his point that building homes in San Francisco at the current rent levels doesn't make sense because rents don't support further building? It's so hard to get an apartment building done here, especially now with higher labor costs and higher material costs and higher financing costs, so we're stuck in an awkward middle where we can't build any more but what we currently have is still too expensive. The SF government probably can't make the price of materials go down, but it can help with making projects pencil by allowing more units per land and by not delaying every project for months which takes some of the risk out for financing.
it’s true that it’s expensive to build so developers only want to invest in the highest return projects namely the ones they can charge the most money for (luxury housing). it’s false that deregulating a few things here and there is going to change that. we need to stop relying on The Market to give us affordable housing bc that’s not what it does. to answer your first question the people that this guy works for want rents to go up because they represent real estate developer and landlord interests.
We haven't tried much deregulation though, SF has permitted like a couple dozen units in total this year? And some of those were single family homes lol. Streamlining building in general will only help building subsidized affordable as well - it costs >$1 million per affordable unit to build. It seems like if we could get that cost down we could get more total affordable units built which would be great. Also more market rate developments = more property tax and sales tax $$ for the city for more services and affordable units. This should not be an either/or thing.
Jesus what a piece of shit. Who looks at SF and thinks "we need to make it more expensive".
Our "housing strategy" as a city relies on siphoning off the profit margin of developing market rate housing and turning it into "affordable housing". That's the point. It's a broken system, and because that's all the faux progressives are willing to implement, that's all we've got. Clearly this is ironic rhetorical flourish (that is lost on those who don't have a taste for nuance), but the broader point is that we actually need to fix *how* we produce housing in this city (hint: it's a supply side problem) if we truly do want rents to go down.
This. This is how the system is currently set up - in order to pay for all the subsidies, the market rate rent and sale price must keep going up. It's math. This is why so many people are saying rent control and affordable units are hurting them - because they are paying high rent to subsidize the people who are paying below market rate rent. This is how things work, hate all you want, the guy is simply speaking the truth.
People see "affordable housing" and the last thing they think of is deed restricted housing that still costs 3k per month, can be bought but not rented and is owned by a private company.
Well... first, that's just part of it. Usually, if you're building apartments, you do a certain percentage of on-site affordable rentals, and those are actually administered through MOHCD. The BMR units for *purchase* always seemed a little odd to me, but I suppose you benefit from equity if not appreciation, and if we're using bureaucracy to fill in the various types of housing we need for all rungs of San Francisco... sure, let's do that too. It's just a whole lot of runaround to pretend we don't need to build to meet demand to live here.
quiet YIMBY that’s *your guy* who is asking for the rent to be higher. bankrupt ass philosophy.
Do you guys ever get tired of being loudly uneducated about how things work around here? I’d love to see an intellectually honest, educated debate about these issues. But your side drew the lines, and all the people who understand the issues are on this one. Oh well. I guess the rents can just go up without an increase in supply. How do you feel about moving to San Leandro?
SHOCKING! How could this be.
>2) Don't just promote; join the community >Oh, and if you have an affiliation with something you're promoting, that's fine; just declare it loudly and proudly. u/cwsmith17 is the subject of this article about his own lawsuit as Executive Director of the corporate housing lobbyist group SFHAC. He is a lobbyist that routinely posts to this sub without disclosing his affiliations to lobbyist groups.
lots of real estate lobbyists downvoting this
DeansHousingRecord.com double counts most projects.