Sean Gallup/Getty Images
For years, the politics of housing in California—especially in cities like San Francisco—have felt like a war of attrition. Pro-housing advocates pushed for more supply; entrenched local interests dug in behind a wall of “neighborhood character,” parking concerns, and shade studies. Progress was glacial, obstruction was routine, and public cynicism hardened.
But something is changing.
In conversations I’ve had this past week with leaders in the YIMBY (Yes In My Backyard) movement and in reviewing recent developments like Max Harrison-Caldwell’s reporting for The San Francisco Standard, I’ve come to believe we’re finally seeing a tangible shift—not just in state legislation, but in political will and ground-level dynamics.
I’m not here to spike the ball or declare “mission accomplished.” The housing crisis remains deep and unresolved. Affordability is still out of reach for many. Construction costs are sky-high. And opposition hasn’t disappeared—it’s merely recalibrated. But for the first time in a long time, there’s real evidence that the balance of power is beginning to tilt toward reform.
At the state level, the progress is evident. CEQA reform and a wave of new laws aimed at transit-oriented development have begun to remove the arbitrary veto power long held by small groups of neighbors or single members of city councils.
Senator Scott Wiener’s SB 423 is perhaps the most consequential example—eliminating discretionary review for most projects and cutting permitting timeframes dramatically. What used to take more than two years in San Francisco now takes seven months.
That’s not just streamlining for its own sake. It’s a recognition that when a housing project complies with the rules, it should be allowed to proceed—without a years-long gauntlet of appeals over whether a building casts too much shadow on a schoolyard.
And yet, it’s precisely that kind of objection that persists.
The Standard’s piece offers a vivid illustration: a fully affordable housing project known as “the Marvel in the Mission,” which may finally break ground this December, is being met with pushback. The objection? That it might limit sunlight in the yard of Marshall Elementary, potentially lowering Vitamin D levels for children.
One UCSF medical expert dismissed that concern as flimsy. But the deeper issue is clear: after years of holding up projects with whatever was at hand—shade, parking, views—the toolbox of obstruction is running out.
Some groups, like PODER, argue that this shift has left communities without meaningful input. They point to cases like the 2588 Mission St. project, where a landlord with a history of alleged negligence received approval to rebuild on the site of a deadly fire. “La Muerte de la Misión,” some have called it—a grim reminder that deregulation, without oversight, can have consequences.
And they’re right to raise that concern.
The new rules do make it easier for bad actors to slip through alongside well-meaning affordable housing developers. That’s not a reason to halt reform—but it is a reason to pair streamlining with enforcement. What we don’t need is a return to a system where every project, no matter how needed or beneficial, gets tied up for years by discretionary reviews and appeals.
There’s also a broader reality here: this crisis was never going to solve itself through market magic or incrementalism. It was always going to require a fundamental realignment of laws, institutions, and expectations. What we’re seeing now is that realignment—slow, uneven, but undeniably real.
People like Reina Tello of PODER and tenant advocate Shanti Singh raise real questions about equity and accountability. They argue that in the old system, appeals were often the only leverage tenants and community members had to shape projects and push for affordability. That’s true, and it’s why developers—even under the new rules—must go beyond the legal minimum and engage meaningfully with communities.
But it’s also true that relying on a broken appeals process as our main form of justice was never sustainable. We need strong public investment in affordable housing, robust tenant protections, and mechanisms to hold slumlords accountable—not more roadblocks for projects that follow the law.
It’s telling that the Marvel project’s developers—Mission Housing and the Mission Economic Development Agency—have voluntarily held multiple community meetings and refused to cut units even under pressure. That kind of principled engagement is a model. The goal is not to silence residents but to shift the conversation from obstruction to collaboration.
And yes, there are still structural problems. Nearly 44,000 entitled units remain unbuilt in San Francisco. That’s not because of NIMBYs—it’s because of sky-high construction costs, financing hurdles, and market volatility. Deregulation alone won’t fix that. We need state and federal investments, tax credits, and innovative public-private partnerships to turn entitlements into actual homes.
But to get there, we first had to break through the wall of procedural paralysis—and we’re finally doing that.
So no, the fight isn’t over. But for the first time in years, it feels like we’re not fighting on the same old terrain. The ground has shifted. The rules are changing. And maybe—just maybe—the future of California housing doesn’t have to look like its past.
Categories:
Breaking News Housing Housing Opinion San Francisco State of California
Tags:
California CEQA Reform Housing Crisis Mission Housing San Francisco SB 423 Senator Scott Wiener Transit UCSF