GOVERNING COALITIONS AND TENANT LEGISLATION AT THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: 2001-2016 A Thesis submitted to the faculty of San Francisco State University As In partial fulfillment of 3C? the requirements for the Degree POLI Master of Arts In Political Science by Chelsea Speyer Boilard San Francisco, California August 2017 Copyright by Chelsea Speyer Boilard 2017 CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL I certify that I have read Governing Coalitions and Tenant Legislation at the San Francisco Board of Supervisors: 2001-2016 by Chelsea Speyer Boilard, and that in my opinion this work meets the criteria for approving a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree Master of Arts in Political Science at San Francisco State University. Ron Hayduk, Dr.F.H. Associate Professor GOVERNING COALITIONS AND TENANT LEGISLATION AT THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: 2001-2016 Chelsea Speyer Boilard San Francisco, California 2017 A study exploring political power and governance through an in-depth examination of tenant legislation at the Board of Supervisors between 2001-2016, this thesis uses urban regime theory to test several hypotheses. The author articulates hypotheses about the variables that influence the Board’s responsiveness to tenant issues, specifically the number of “pro-tenant” members of the Board, the presence of an upcoming district election, and increasing rents and evictions. The study yields findings indicating a strong association between rising rents and evictions, as well as the number of “pro-tenant” members of the Board, and the number of tenant ordinances introduced and passed into law at the San Francisco Board of Supervisors . I certify that the Abstract is a correct representation of the content of this thesis. Date TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables............................................................................................................................vi List of Figures..........................................................................................................................vii Introduction.................................................................................................................................1 Chapter 1: Literature Review ................................................................................................7 Chapter 2: Data and Methods.................................................................................................30 Chapter 3: Analysis of Political Conditions...........................................................................55 Chapter 4: Analysis of Economic Conditions............. 68 Chapter 5: Discussion of Findings......................................................................................... 80 Appendix.................................................................................................................................. 89 References................................. 113 v LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Status of Tenant Ordinances Introduced............................................................... 43 2. Years with a “Pro-Tenant” Majority..................................................................... 52 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figures Page 1. Tenant Ordinances Introduced & Passed 2001 -2016......................................... 41 2. Categories of Tenant Ordinances Introduced.......................................................42 3. Tenant Ordinances Heard at Committee.............................................................. 44 4. SFTU and Eviction Ordinances................... 45 5. SFTU and Condo Conversion Ordinances............................................................ 45 6. SFTU and Rent Control Ordinances...................................................................... 46 7. “Pro-Tenant” Members and Introduction..............................................................57 8. Ordinances Introduced by “Pro-Tenant” Members.............................................58 9. “Pro-Tenant” Board Members and Passage......................................................... 59 10. Status of Ordinances Introduced by “Pro-Tenant” Members............................ 60 11. Status of Ordinances Introduced by Non “Pro-Tenant” Members....................61 12. Election Years & Tenant Ordinances Introduced................................................ 63 13. Election Years & Tenant Ordinances Passed Into Law...................................... 64 14. Percentage of Renters by Supervisorial District.................................................. 65 15. Tenant Data by District & Years Electing a “Pro-Tenant” Supervisor.............66 16. Median Rent...............................................................................................................69 17. Paragon’s SF Residential Rents..............................................................................70 18. Median Rents and Ordinances Introduced............................................................ 71 19. Median Rent Rate of Change & Ordinances Introduced.................................... 72 20. Median Rents & Ordinances Passed...................................................................... 73 21. Median Rent Rate of Change & Ordinances Passed............................................74 22. Evictions 2000-2016.................................................................................................75 23. Evictions and Tenant Ordinances Introduced.......................................................77 24. Rate of Change in Evictions & Ordinances Introduced...................................... 77 25. Evictions and Tenant Ordinances Passed..............................................................78 26. Rate of Change in Evictions and Ordinances Passed..........................................78 27. Status of Short-Term Rental Legislation................................. 85 vii 1 Introduction Limited housing stock in San Francisco and a rapidly growing population with increasingly more disposable income has led to skyrocketing rents and rising eviction rates across the city. Tenants are vulnerable in such a volatile housing market, and groups in the city have been organizing for decades for policy solutions to defend tenant rights. In addition, advocates who identify as politically progressive often see the fight to expand tenant protections as a direct response to capital and market forces that cannot be regulated through a local legislative process. Those policy efforts at City Hall have waxed and waned over the decades, depending on a range of possible conditions that increase or decrease the responsiveness of elected officials to the plight facing tenants in San Francisco. In the following pages is an exploration of why and how. San Francisco has long been a city of both great wealth and great poverty. The Gold Rush and rise of iron mining of the 19th century built incredible wealth for a small and select group of families in San Francisco, providing a foundation for the dominance of financial institutions in San Francisco and setting the context for “Wall Street of the West” (Brechin 2006). Hundreds of thousands of people have flocked to the city seeking economic opportunity since then, and there has long been a clear economic distinction between the old wealth of San Francisco and everyday working people. In cities like San Francisco, a widening income gap has led to a shrinking middle class; over ten years ago, Hartman wrote, “The city is rapidly becoming a city of have-a- lots and have-nots, with the working class and lower-middle class population being pushed out” (Harman 2002, 2). Between 1990 and 2012, the middle class as defined by the American Community Survey shrunk by 11% (SF Human Services Agency 2014). Rapidly rising rents in San Francisco have earned the city the title of most expensive rental market in the country (Zumper 2015). An online rentals listing company recently published their February 2017 top rental markets in the United States: San Francisco 2 remains #1, with a median price of $3,310 for a one bedroom and $4,500 for a 2 bedroom apartment in the city (Zumper 2017). The incredible demand has created a volatile political environment with most of the debate centering on housing—whether we have enough, what kind of housing we should be building, for what income level, and ultimately, who should be taking responsibility for the housing crisis. This tension about housing in San Francisco is a familiar one; for decades City Hall and voters have seen highly politicized fights over land use, zoning and large development projects. Since the 2000 re-emergence of district elections for the Board of Supervisors in San Francisco, there have been two big economic booms in the city as a result of the technology industry; the first, widely known as the dot-com boom and bust of the early 2000’s, drove up rent and property values particularly in the Mission District but had ripple effects across the city. And the second “tech boom”, still in process, has received national attention. Since 2010, 30% of new jobs added to the city were in the technology sector, and that doesn’t include Google or the hundreds of other Silicon Valley tech companies whose employees live in San Francisco but commute south for work. Between tech, health care, finances and hospitality, a great number of jobs are being created (over 42,000 between 2010 and 2014) but concerns have arisen from policy groups about how many of those new jobs are going to existing San