South Carolina and Maine’s Future in the Senate; Plus, San Francisco’s Push and Pull in Affordable Housing Policy

Good morning. It's Tuesday, July 14th, 2006. This is up front. I'm Brian Edwards-Tieker. On today's show, it's a brand new war with Iran. At least that's the implication from the Trump administration, which reportedly sent Congress a letter saying, one, we're back at war, and two, the 60-day shot clock under the War Powers Act is restarting from zero. We're going to talk about that and about how the processes were filling two vacancies on the Senate ballot are playing out with John Nichols from the nation. In the second half of our program, Housing Politics in San Francisco, the Board of Supervisors takes up charter amendments to put on the ballot today, including a massive boost to the city's affordable housing trust fund, using a somewhat novel means of generating income. The problem? It's coupled with a push to roll back other streams of funding for affordable housing. We'll speak to Quentin Mecky, executive director of the Council of Community Housing Organizations. All that and more coming up next, after the news. i'm max pringle with these headlines senator angus king says the motorist killed by ice officers in a main shooting was not the target of the warrant the officers were executing king said monday that information came from homeland security secretary Markwayne Mullin ed donahue has more A federal immigration officer shot and killed a driver in Maine. It happened in Bitterford outside Portland. Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin told Maine Senator Angus King. The officer opened fire after the man tried to use his vehicle as a weapon against officers pursuing him for deportation. Mary Hayes lives close to where the shooting happened and was a neighbor of the man killed. I watched a wife fall to her knees looking at a husband's dead body on the ground. I watched a little girl crying with a little pink backpack on because she's never going to see her father again. And I heard the anguish of a mother that just lost everything in her life. The advocacy group's main immigrants rights coalition and Presente say the man killed was a native of Colombia, authorized to work in the U.S. and had a social security number. I'm Ed Donahue. The Ukrainian military says its air defenses intercepted Russian ballistic missiles and overnight attacks. It's the first time in nearly two weeks that Ukraine claims to have downed Russian ballistic missiles, which are hard to stop and have pummeled the country in Moscow's four-year-old full-scale invasion. Other missiles and drones hit Keeve, causing fires at two warehouses and damaging a school. The Russian Defense Ministry said today the attacks targeted military manufacturing facilities in Kiev. Ukraine is urgently seeking to bolster its air defenses ahead of winter. Meanwhile, Ukraine continues its long-range attacks on Russian targets, including oil facilities, as tensions persist in the ongoing conflict.

California is among 12 states that are suing to block Paramount Pictures takeover of Warner Brothers Discovery. They argued in a lawsuit Monday that the $81 billion merger would harm competition in Hollywood and lead to fewer entertainment choices for consumers and fewer industry jobs. Lisa Dwyer has more. California Attorney General Rob Bonta. Movie theaters. basic cable TV distributors and audiences on every sofa and in every movie seat. would feel the impact of this unlawful merger. The coalition is also threatening to file a temporary restraining order if the companies do not postpone closing on the merger until after the judicial process concludes. The clock is ticking for Paramount, which pledged to pay compensation to shareholders if the acquisition does not close by September 30th and agreed to a regulatory termination fee of $7 billion. Paramount is vowing to vigorously defend the transaction. transaction. I'm Lisa Dwyer. The Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen have launched missiles and drones at Saudi Arabia's Aba International Airport. They say it's a response to air strikes they blame on Saudi Arabia that hit Sana International Airport earlier on Monday. No casualties have been reported, but this marks a potentially significant escalation. The Houthi military spokesman warned airlines against flying in Saudi airspace. The strikes are the first major escalation between the Houthis and Saudi Arabia after a period of relative calm. The conflict in Yemen began in 2014 when the Houthis seized the capital Sana The UN estimates that 377,000 people have died in the Yemen Civil War. It's caused a massive humanitarian crisis. The UN says 21.6 million people need aid, including 11 million children, and more than 4.5 million people are displaced. The UN and aid groups say the Houthis regularly attack aid shipments and seize aid meant for civilians. Human rights groups say this year. year, amid massive anti-government protests and war with the United States, the Islamic Republic of Iran has mounted a fierce crackdown on its Baha'i minority. They say dozens of Baha'is have been imprisoned since January because of their faith and subjected to mistreatment, ranging from electric shocks to mock hangings.

holy books and religious symbols have been desecrated during raids of bahai family homes which these groups say is evidence of authorities sectarian motivations iran's foreign ministry and its spokesperson at the u n hasn't responded to multiple requests to discuss the treatment of the bahai The Baha'i faith was founded in the 19th century and what was then Persia. It teaches that all of humanity and all faiths are united. It has some 5 million practitioners worldwide. Baha'is also face persecution in Egypt, Qatar, and Yemen. South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster has named Darlene Graham Nordone as her late brother, Lindsey Graham's temporary replacement in the U.S. Senate. Graham died, aged 71, over the weekend. More from Sagar Magani. Lindsey Graham's little sister will temporarily fill his Senate seat after his unexpected weekend death. South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster says he's obligated to pick someone to replace Graham. This irreplaceable man. And he's named Darlene Graham Nordone. It is such an honor. After their parents died at a young age, Lindsey Graham raised his little sister and became her legal guardian. Lindsay has always been there for me, and I will be there for him. A special election will be held next month to pick a new GOP nominee for the general election, a rare open seat that's ignited a scramble among South Carolina's most ambitious conservatives until the term expires in January. I'm going to do this. I got it. Sagar, Magani, Washington. Mostly sunny in the San Francisco Bay Area, highs in the 70s and 80s, lows tonight in the 60s, and the Central Valley. A heat advisory is in effect. Highs above 100, lows tonight in the 70s. Those are the headlines. I'm Max Pringle on KPFA. Bit past 708 in the morning. The show is up front. My name is Brian Edwards Teakert. We're going to start with national politics today. Yesterday, Politico broke the story that the Trump administration, on July 10th, four days ago, sent Congress a letter declaring the administration's bombings in Iran are, quote, military action consistent with my responsibility to protect Americans and United States interests both at home and abroad. This is basically the administration saying, yep, it's a war. Since there are legal and constitutional constraints on the president's ability to go to war without congressional authorization, the official position of this administration has been the war it started earlier this year ended with the ceasefire. The ceasefire, which never produced a cessation of firing.

was a not war. And now we are back at war, which means we are back under a brand new 60-day shot clock under the War Powers Act. The question that remains to be seen is how this is going to go over with Congress, which has already successfully passed one concurrent resolution trying to end U.S. hostilities in Iran, although that has no force in effect and did not have enough votes to overcome. what would likely be a presidential veto if they tried to pass something that would have actual force behind it. Joining us to talk about that and how the primary ballots are shaping up or the general election ballots are shaping up is John Nichols, executive editor of the nation. Good morning, John. Good morning. It's great to be with you. How much appetite is there in Congress for actually using the War Powers Act, do you think? I think there's an appetite among a certain group of members of Congress, mostly Democrats, a couple of Republicans, who have long seen it as a responsibility of Congress to try, at least to some extent, check and balance when presidents are going to war. Congress has essentially given up on its main responsibility here, and that's something to remember, something really vital. Under the Constitution of the United States, Congress is supposed to declare wars. Now, there has always been an acceptance that when you are under immediate threat, you know, if somebody's attacking Pearl Harbor, you could respond to that, obviously. That's not a shocking thing. But if you'll recall, even when Pearl Harbor occurred, the next day, Franklin Roosevelt. for a declaration of war. That's the last time that's happened in any realistic sense. So we have a very, very long history now of Congress neglecting its duties. There are some members who actually want to press that issue, the Declaration of War. There are many more who accept what I would describe as the War Powers Act compromise, this notion that They've allowed presidents to start wars, and then at a certain point, they have to explain themselves. This gets to the heart of the problem, though. And some members of Congress are quite conscious of this, not enough, the problem with the War Powers Act. It is so ill-defined and so easily manipulated. that at the end of the day, there's very little sense that it can effectively stop a war or even slow down a war. So to answer your question, long way to get there perhaps, but to answer your question, I don't know how much appetite there is among a working majority in Congress. And I certainly know that there's not much appetite among the Republican leadership in the House and Senate. And yet one thing the War Powers Act does do is creates all these votes, all these moments that put representatives and senators on the record against or in favor of a war that started unpopular and has only gotten more so.

That's right. And again, there are many Democrats who would like to have those votes because I think many of them sincerely believe the worst bad idea and others who would like to put everybody on record, have some sort of measure of accountability. And so that exists within Congress, but I have to warn you, Congress is on, it's kind of an election year mode at this point. And so there is a... I think a lack of functionality in general in the Congress, and we'll see where this ends up. But yeah, the issue will be raised. There'll be people who try to press the point, and they may get subtraction. The key on all this, frankly, is a group of Republicans who have become disenchanted with, disengaged with the Trump administration. Primarily, we're talking about folks in the Senate. And these are a couple of senators who lost their primaries and have owe very little to President Trump, as well as a couple other senators who've been skeptical of them. You know, always throughout this whole thing, Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky has been very skeptical about the war with Iran. So too is Thomas Massie over in the House. The administration... put a lot of pressure on Paul. It's put a lot of pressure on Bill Cassidy from Louisiana and others to kind of line up to side with them on some critical votes. But at a certain point, those are some senators who might break from them. And again, if you press this in the right way, could you get a House vote and a Senate vote with majorities that say that, you know, reassert the War Powers Act and that begin to at least challenge. It's within the realm of reason, but with the current leadership, it's certainly not easy. Although the exact nose count keeps shifting, the last concurrent resolution passed in part because Mitch McConnell was unable to attend the vote. He was out dealing with some kind of medical crisis that has not been made completely transparent to the public. Now Lindsey Graham, one of the biggest talks in the Senate, is out of commission. His little sister is going to be filling his seat for the remainder of his term, which ends in January. Does any of that change the calculus on more powers votes? Probably not, because the assumption is that Graham's sister will vote in along a very similar political line than he does. Mitch McConnell will still be out. It looks like we're not, we got a release of a photo, but we haven't yet had, you know, any kind of. you know detailed communications or anything that would suggest when he might actually return and so i think that in that regard you're pretty much on the same track uh as you were but they're also shifting sentiments um sometimes you will have members who can under a lot these are republicans under a lot of pressure from the administration come around and line up on a particular vote but that doesn't mean that they're necessarily there

in a permanent sense that they'll always be with the administration you clearly have a group of hawks in the republican caucus and even a couple in the democratic caucus um who want to pursue military uh endeavors and now I think we acknowledge a war with Iran. There are other folks who are kind of more on the line, a little wavering. And I don't necessarily think it's because they're anti-war. It's more because this war has been such a chaos and such a mess as regards. almost every aspect of it, a human toll that's obviously most significant, but also an economic toll domestically and globally. And so I do think there'll be some wrangling with this. And if I can add one final thing, no matter what people thought about Lindsey Graham, whether they agreed with them or disagreed with them, The fact of the matter is that Lindsey Graham in Congress was something of a force of nature. He worked very, very hard, got there early, stayed late, built a lot of relationships, talked to a lot of people for the administration. losing an ally like Lindsey Graham is significant because he to a, in a more aggressive way than probably anyone else in the Senate, advocated for military interventions and advocated for an aggressive U.S. foreign policy. And so his death is a significant factor in the overall calculus of how the Senate operates. He also had a reputation of being something of a Trump whisperer, possibly producing turnarounds on things like supporting Ukraine. Well, that's very true. In fact, it's significant that... In the hours before his death, Lindsey Graham had been, you know, many hours, but not overwhelming, had been in Europe, had been traveling the world, focusing on Ukraine issues and others. Some of his last conversations were with. President Trump and presumably focusing on at least some of these issues. And so, yeah, he was, he had this very close connection with the president, especially on foreign policy issues. He also had a lot of

close connections, ongoing conversations with global leaders, including key players in particular struggles and particularly Ukraine. And so all of this becomes significant. But I'll counsel on this emerging argument that Graham was a Trump whisperer and that in some cases he might have moderated Trump or something like that. On some issues that may well have been true, but on foreign policy issues and particularly on war and peace issues there's an awfully lot of evidence that he urged the president to be more aggressive more willing to send arms to engage in in military action etc so i i don't think that I don't think that one should presume that simply because he had the president's ear that what he said to the president was, you know, let's find peaceful ways to solve these problems. I'm not, you know, obviously not part of the conversations, but my sense is that he was often an advocate for very strong military actions. Let's talk about the process for replacing him. Yeah. He was up for reelection this year. His sister is going to hold his seat for the remainder of his term, but who winds up on the ballot for the Republican Party is going to be the subject of a primary and most likely a runoff that is not resolved until August. which is going to create a bit of an opening for the Democratic nominee, a pediatrician named Andy Andrews. Let's start with her first. Does she have any realistic prospect of winning election as a Democrat in South Carolina? I think she has a prospect, and I guess it's realistic because if we acknowledge the prospect, we acknowledge that it's real. South Carolina is not so rigidly Republican a state as some of its neighbors, and that's an important thing to understand. In South Carolina, the Democrats have maintained a reasonably strong... party infrastructure. They have, they're active in state races. In some recent gubernatorial races, you know, they've been within the high single digits, right? They haven't won, but they've been competitive. And Andrews has mounted a very smart, very serious campaign. She got in early. She campaigned hard. She's built a lot of coalitions. She's a good candidate. by almost every measure and has raised a reasonable amount of money. There was a lot of sense that when she and Graham were facing off against one another, that this was one of those sort of second-tier races that might move into a first-tier position might actually get...

competitive part of that had to do with graham's own challenges within his party uh graham went through a primary not long ago in south carolina and got only i think around 57 percent of the vote so that's two out of every five people that voted in that republican primary didn't vote for him doesn't mean that they um necessarily would vote for a Democrat. But there's clearly some divides, some discomfort within the Republican coalition there. Who comes out of this primary to face Andrews could well have a similar challenge. The South Carolina Republican Party is incredibly contentious. And if indeed they have a very fast but very messy. primary and runoff, which is not beyond the realm of possibility. South Carolina has a history of some pretty rough politics over the years. It is possible that Andrews comes out of that looking strong you know looking at like a like an appealing alternative to republicans that are wrangling with themselves in kind of ugly ways but with that said um it if in fact the republicans unite coming off graham's death uh they could also end up you know in their usual position which is at least with some advantages uh as generally republicans win in south carolina It's a crowded field of people who are actually, like, qualified to be competitive for the seed. Oh, yeah. For the Republican nomination. You know why that is, Brian? Who, why is that, John? Because South Carolina senators serve forever. I mean, you understand that South Carolina, once you get that Senate seat, you tend to serve for generations. And so everybody in South Carolina realizes, on the Republican side, that this is a generational opportunity. If you win this seat at this point, there's a very good chance. You probably won't serve for as long as Strom Thurmond. maybe not even for as long as Lindsey Graham, but South Carolina is a state with a very long tradition of senators serving four, five, six, seven, or more terms. So that's just a little insertion there to explain why so many people are running. But go ahead with your list. Okay, so first of all, there's the person who ran in the primary against Lindsey Graham and lost. A businessman named Mark Lynch challenged him from the right. Got 30% of the vote running against an incumbent, which is significant. There are three current House members who have at least suggested they're thinking of throwing their hats in, Ralph Norman, Russell Fry, and Nancy Mace.

There's the current lieutenant governor. And then there's Mark Sanford, a former representative, a former governor who kind of like famously disappeared. His staff said he was hiking the Appalachian Trail while he was MIA. It turns out he was having an extramarital affair. And he's not had much success trying to revive his political career. Trying to renew his political career. Yeah. But, I mean, the thing to understand is he's got a very big... But these are all outsized figures in South Carolina politics. Like, what do you think this primary looks like if a substantial number of them get in? Well, I think it looks like a free-for-all. And the fact of the matter is that this is going to be a very fast primary. Literally, within about a week, you've got a file within a couple weeks. You've got the primary. And so nobody would hold back in this situation. If, in fact, you're going for it, right? You are decided to run. You have to kind of hit the ground. very, very fast. If you're going to attack your opponents, you attack them immediately. If you got a lot of money, you're going to spend it. You spend it immediately. Think of it this way. This campaign begins. in the last two weeks of a campaign. And if we know anything about politics, we know that the last two weeks of a campaign can be pretty intense. That's the point at which things really, you know, start to stir up quite often. So this is going to be high energy, high stakes. The only thing that could shift that and could, you know, perhaps dial it down some give it clarity is if Donald Trump steps in in a big way. If he... chooses a candidate. Now, theoretically, he could even convince Graham's sister to not just do an interim term, but actually decide to run for a full term. I don't think that's going to happen. I don't necessarily think that's what she's looking for. But these are all things to keep in the mix in this very fast-paced, kind of fast-evolving moment. At the heart of it, though, is the reality that if Trump doesn't come in in a big way in the initial primary, then I think these candidates are going to fight it out very, very hard. And there is a reasonable chance that somebody could come through this with, you know, 30 could win or come out ahead right with 30 percent of the vote somebody else with 25 percent so very very scattered but that's of course where the runoff comes in and the runoff settles it because that'll be the top two candidates does don't trump still have the same deck clearing power that he used to in a primary do you think

I think in South Carolina he might. South Carolina has been a state where he's been very successful in Republican primaries going all the way back. And I think he definitely has a, he has an influence within the party. And remember, Brian, in this case, if... You're not talking about getting everybody on board in a crowded primary. I think a Trump endorsement would raise whoever he endorsed to a position where they'd almost certainly get into the runoff and probably have an advantage in that runoff. Not guaranteed, however, because you are right that as we look across the country, we're seeing cases where Trump's involvement has not been... as influential as in the past. And the interesting thing about Trump and his endorsements recently is that he sometimes seems to be following the parade, not leading it, i.e. that he sees a candidate who seems to be pulling ahead. and at that point endorses that candidate rather than coming in early and defining a candidate. That's a little bit of what you saw in Texas with Ken Paxton running against John Cornyn. Trump didn't endorse early. He finally, you know, clearly signaled that he liked Ken Paxton. But that was at a point where Ken Paxton was already running pretty strong. to the extent that he has sometimes made two endorsements in the primary. He has done that very often, more often than you think. Your latest piece in the nation compares this potentially quite chaotic rushed primary and runoff quite favorably to what the main Democratic Party is going to go through to replace Graham Platner on the general election ballot. What is the case for chaotic primaries over what's going to be a convention in Maine? The people get to vote. You actually have, you know, especially if it's an open primary, you have a circumstance where the people who are going to be represented get to weigh in. Now, I know all the problems with primaries and general elections in this country, with, you know, huge amounts of outside money, you know, special interests, the ugly negative character of campaigns, all of these things. But if, in fact, we're committed to democracy, if we believe in this basic concept, that the people should choose those who represent them. A primary is a part of that process. And so having a primary, even a chaotic one, and maybe especially a chaotic one, is a part of how you idealize and perhaps even realize the promise of democracy. In Maine,

And this is not to criticize the Maine Democratic Party per se. They're operating under the rules and the laws of the state of Maine. And they have a very narrow window. So they have adopted a different system, obviously, which is county caucuses leading to a state convention. But at that state convention, the final choice on who the Democratic nominee against Susan Collins is going to be will be made by 601 people, about 100 of whom are party officials. 500 of whom are elected out of these caucuses, probably also mostly party activists. I'm not saying the convention is the worst thing in the world. I'm also not saying that the main Democrats aren't trying to be transparent and have a functional process. I think they are in a very kind of urgent and difficult circumstance. But I do... say and i think it's important to note that south carolina shows you that when you have a vacancy for a nomination that occurs you know in midsummer of a of a midterm election year you actually can um in a relatively rapid relatively open process uh give the power to the people rather than to party leaders when it comes to choosing who a nominee would be all right john nichols we'll leave it there thank you so much It's great to be with you, great to discuss all these topics. John Nichols is executive editor of the nation. That takes us to 731. The show is up front. My name is Brian Edwards Teacert. Coming up in the second half of our program, we're going to turn to housing politics and policy in San Francisco, where the board of supervisors is poised to take up charter amendments to put on the ballot, including a massive boost to the city's affordable housing trust fund, using a somewhat novel means of generating income. And as part of a political deal that could claw back other sources of funding for affordable housing, we're going to try to untangle it all in a conversation with Quinton Mecky, Executive Director of the Council of Community Housing Organizations. That's next. after the news i'm max pringle with these headlines senator angus king says the motorist killed by ice officers in a main shooting was not the target of the warrant the officers were executing king said monday that information came from homeland security secretary Markwayne Mullin ed donahue has more A federal immigration officer shot and killed a driver in Maine. It happened in Bitterford outside Portland. Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin told Maine Senator Angus King. The officer opened fire after the man tried to use his vehicle as a weapon against officers pursuing him for deportation. Mary Hayes lives close to where the shooting happened and was a neighbor of the man killed. I watched a wife fall to her knees looking at a husband's dead body on the ground.

But has the system spread to America? And if it has, how has it manifested? That question and the relationship of that particular bias to the caste system of corporations lies at the heart of the Employee Dharma Handbook, a new play by Geitha Reddy at Theatreworks in Palo Alto through August 2nd. The focus is on a handful of workers at a fictional aerospace company. They're building a rocket to Jupiter, and if it all works out, the whole crew will become rich. But Lila, a young Indian scientist born in the United States, has just been passed over by her boss, Krish, for an important promotion that instead went to another Indian Basu, who himself understands it should have gone to Lila. If this isn't resolved, there is no team. Enter Val, the black HR director, no stranger to bias herself, investigating the matter. Was the problem Lila's gender or something else? Krish is Brahmin. So is Basu. Lila is not. No, no, says Krish. It's not like that at all, but maybe it is. The Employee Dharma Handbook often doesn't know what kind of play it wants to be. Serious critique, farce, comedy drama. The capitalism and caste dichotomy is unclear. The comedy not as funny as it needs to be. As a world premiere, it needs work, but the elements are there. Each character, at one point or another, becomes facilitator, accuser, victim, winner, and loser. The cast handles the role switching well, particularly Catherine Smit McGlynn, as Val, and Kunal Dudecker as Basu. As the relationships twist in turn, we see a playwright at the top of her game. There comes a point, though, toward the end, where the Employee Dharma Handbook goes off the rails, and in order to make a point, the characters become pawns of the playwright. Still, the play is often a thoughtful, funny, and very original ride, with hopefully a bright future. The Employee Darmah Handbook by Geitha Reddy plays at Theatre Works, Lucy Stern Theatre in Palo Alto through August 2nd. And for more information, you can go to Theatreworks.org. I'm Richard Walensky on Bay Area Theater for KPFA. That takes us to 7.38 in the morning. The show is up front. My name is Brian Edwards Teakert. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors today will take up charter amendments to put on the ballot, including what could be a bit of a watershed in affordable housing finance. The city is proposing to capture future property tax increases from development of newly up-owned properties. which is projected to eventually generate somewhere on the order of $125 million per year in pretty reliable funding for the city's affordable housing trust fund. The problem is more political than policy-based. It is coupled...

with a push coming out of the mayor's office to roll back other streams of funding for affordable housing, which we can get into in a little bit. We are joined by Quinton Mecky, who's the executive director of the Council of Community Housing Organizations in San Francisco, which is a kind of coalition organization that represents both affordable housing developers and operators as well as tenants organizations. Thanks very much for speaking to us. Good morning. How are you doing? Managing. Tell us, first of all, about the Charter Amendment. How would it work? Yeah, you know, the Charter Amendment is basically an expansion and extension of an existing policy that was enacted by voters in 2012, but which had reached its maximum funding capacity. So in 2012, the voters passed the original Housing Trust Fund, which grew to its current cap of $50.8 million a year. And I think our organization and a lot of the affordable housing organizations in the city, realize that that cap, if we're actually going to develop the affordable housing that the city needs, needed to be expanded, need to be extended beyond its current sunset date. And also with a bigger cap. Yes, this grows to $125 million a year, you know, pegged to the property growth increment financing across the city, the value of property as it goes up. In addition, this gives the stable source of funding gives the city the capacity to bond against it, which is a really important way of expanding the existing funding beyond the 125. If it hits the projected 125 million per year, how does that compare to the city's actual need? I mean, if we're being honest, and I think like this is a huge success in the midst of all the financial challenges, we should be very clear, and we are certainly as affordable houses, that when we talk about the funding need, we're in the billions, not the millions. And so I think that this is the Housing Trust Fund represents a super important step towards making progress towards our affordable housing goals. But we should be very clear that we always need to think bigger about what the funding looks like to truly get the affordability that everyone talks about. So the reason this is getting side-eye in some quarters is not because of this funding mechanism in particular. but because it is happening at the same time as a push to withdraw sources of funding for affordable housing in San Francisco coming through other mechanisms. Notably, there's been a push coming out of Mayor Lurie's office to roll back the Prop-I transfer tax that produced a big influx of money for affordable housing construction. And separately, there's a push.

to weaken the city's inclusionary zoning rules, which require developers of new market rate developments to either build affordable housing on site or pay fees into the affordable housing trust fund so someone else can build it. Politically speaking, how connected are these things? Politically speaking, they're actually, I'm glad you asked that question because politically speaking, they can seem that they are directly connected, but they are actually in separate lanes. And specifically, the inclusionary, as it is currently situated in San Francisco, every three years, what's called the Technical Advisory Committee, meets, and that is a group of both market rate and affordable housers, to talk about. what the market conditions are and how that fits into inclusionary. So that process was already slated to happen irregardless of who the administration was or who the mayor was. And so in that process, they followed their own meeting schedule that was already slated to happen starting last fall and then finished earlier this spring to talk about what feasibility looked like for inclusionary. The other political question which you're naming, which is super important, which is regarding transfer taxes, not only here but across the state and Prop I was its own political thing that the mayor and other members of the board of supervisors have been interested in pursuing, which we're not in favor of. How much of a hit would that be to affordable housing finance? Well, the transfer tax question is a much larger one in the state right now because the main target for it. So it is Prop I. It would be here in San Francisco anywhere from ballpark like a hundred. It's a fluctuating tax. So it could be anywhere from $100 million to $150 million depending upon the sales. The main target of the transfer tax conversation in the state. is Los Angeles because of Measure ULA, which has generated $1.2 billion. The larger political question, which you're naming, I think, that the administration is part of, is this desire from those who are on the supply side, YNB abundant sort of model around housing, that any sort of transfer tax or any sort of tax or impact fee is an impediment to the market, which should be removed. And that, I think, is the ultimate challenge that we're trying to navigate, which is how do we ensure equity in our housing development? And that is the key political question about where you fall on that question. We fall on the side that it really requires a robust and large presence by the public sector to define and push the market to produce what we want it to, rather than leaving it to the market to decide all things. I mean, this is what inclusionary zoning policies are meant to address, right? By linking funding for new affordable housing to construction of new market rate housing and by creating incentives to put them both in the same place. So people are living in an integrated fashion. The hit on it is if you make it too expensive to build, nothing gets built, including no affordable housing. What do you think of the debate that's playing out in San Francisco right now over that?

I mean, the reality is right now the market conditions, both for affordable houses and market rate, the market conditions from interest rates, construction costs, labor, land acquisition has just halted the market full stop. And so, and I think, you know, when the controller came out with a report for when they were discussing inclusionary, that in these current market conditions, that inclusionary, whether it's at zero or whether it at 10% is not actually going to change demonstrably the feasibility of any particular project. I think the challenge that in the larger political dynamic that we're having is that. in the history of development and just in general, is equity always is the first thing to get sacrificed. And I think that we should be very clear about that when we look at policies. So when it starts with inclusionary, it goes on to impact fees. It goes to transfer taxes. It goes to all of the things that fund progressively affordable housing and in constantly viewing them as impediments to market rate development. We are then showing our true values about where we want to draw a line about what equity looks like for black and brown communities, for the mission, for Bayview, tenderloin. for East Oakland. So I think these are the questions I think that like have to be brought up. And these are the edgier places because these are resources and, you know, our values have to be in these policies and then the money actually has to support those values. It seems insane. that in the AI economy, with rents being what they are for new construction in San Francisco, that it's not economic to develop new housing. Presumably, a lot of the same pressures are being faced by the affordable housing developers in your organization. What's going on? I mean, this question of how do we... create a system, right, that reflects the resources that are available. I would certainly tell you personally that, and I think what you're speaking to when you say the insanity is there is absolutely enough wealth to do everything that we want to do. We simply have a system that constricts us and we allow to tell us that we are scarce and that scarcity is the mindset with which is driving everything. And I think that that is... So you say the word insane. I would say like there's some version of dystopia where we talk about affordability. We talk about the desire for affordable housing. There's clearly enough wealth here in the Bay Area to do it. And yet we are not taking that larger step of a vision about like what does this actually look like where everyone who wants a home deserves a home and all these people can be housed. And I think like it's a very.

a constricting model to leave it solely to the market. The market has had generations to produce the magic affordability that we are told that it can if it's just left to its own devices. And I think that this is the key question facing San Francisco is, can we do something better and think bigger about how we actually can meet the needs that we all talk about. Right. I guess my question was like, if you're a for-profit developer. And right now you're in a position to fill any new apartment you bring online with a new hire at Open AI who is making more money than God and gouge them to your heart's content. How can it possibly be that you cannot make the construction of that unit pencil out with a sufficient profit margin to justify the investment? Yeah, you're speaking to like, how do you get to basically, how do you get to the profit margin on the back end, right? And right now it's believed, right, if you can just get to that place, then that's where it takes care of everything. The cost right now of everything within the current market is prohibitive for investors to get the seven and a half, eight percent return that they're going to get on their development. And so I think that that challenge, I hear you, it can seem as simple math to why we pencil out, but because the length of time to the cost permitting the whole just development and entitlement process, I think right now is hard and there are not incentives with a, what I would tell you is a retracting public sector to make it. both not only easier for affordable houses, but also easier for market rate development to do that. So in the meantime, we are reducing inclusionary, which is a large risk. It has produced 4,000 affordable housing units since its inception, on the idea that the market will somehow rebound to the point where, answering your question, that it will be able to meet that level of profit. encouraging developers to, you know, build properties. And I think as you're seeing, if you've seen the example, for example, of the Marina Safeway. which is the 30-story office tower that is on all of the Safeway sites that they are proposing across the city, which is Safeway is now shifting its push towards housing. These are the kind of questions. Is that feasible? Is that possible? And that question is, will developers decide with new state laws to build up on the idea of getting to the profit margin that you're talking about?

For affordable housers, if what San Francisco voters wind up getting confronted with is a choice of extending funding with one hand through the property tax value capture mechanism we discussed earlier and retracting it with the other through a hit to the city's transfer tax or inclusionary zoning. What does the tradeoff look like for affordable houses? Is the steady income from the property taxes worth more because it's bondable? You know, we're, you know, as was evidenced by the public comment at the hearing around this, is this is the gamble. We are taking a very large gamble that in the next three years. that which is the next time the inclusionary is due to be reviewed, that passing the reduction of inclusionary will be, will have been worth it to generate the market development that we hope will create additional housing. And I think for voters, I think one is We always have to have more funding for affordable housing. So we are hoping that that message lands very clearly that that gamble that we are willing to negotiate, which is in the reduction of inclusionary, give us some funding that is guaranteed, that will create something to unlock the current pipeline. We think that voters will understand that we hope that they will. We're making that gamble. And I think the city is also making that gamble. And in the midst of doing that. We are also encouraging voters and the mayor and the administration to constantly think about additional ways. There's a state affordable housing bond on the fall ballot. We're hoping that there will be a regional Bay Area bond in a couple of years. So I think that we're constantly on the process of asking for more, and we hope that come November. that that message really lands for voters because we understand that this is a core issue about what does affordability look like now and in the future. So voters are also going to be confronted with a ballot initiative that would restrict the ability of local governments to collect money through transfer taxes. I lost the thread when this got into horse trading between the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association and state officials. What are we actually looking at in the fall? The fall being, the horse trading, I mean, in many ways, it's hard to even say this, but say, thankfully is where they landed with the deal to, you know, with Jarvis, where they will now have a constitutional amendment on the fall ballot, which will restrict municipalities, jurisdictions, and counties across California from passing any new tax of any sort, no matter whether it's generated by the government. or from voter initiative and gathering signatures requiring a two-thirds passage for those taxes to take place. It would be a massive restriction on any future jurisdiction's ability across the state to create new taxes. And so I think this is this November is the last opportunity on the idea. We certainly hope it doesn't pass. It will be Prop 43 on the ballot. And we will fight again. We will fight against it.

But I think that it really heightens the importance of November for the state affordable housing bond, for any local measures to ensure that there is passage now on the hopeful idea that Jarvis doesn't pass. But if it does, it will be a deep restriction to our ability to generate new funds. Would it have the effect of undoing any existing taxes? To our current understanding of how it is written, there is no retroactivity, which was the initial challenge of their original ballot measure, which was it would have retroactively removed all of the transfer taxes across the state costing the state billions. So in this model, it's anything that has been enacted by January 1 of 2027, January of next year. So there could be some legal question about whether or not things that are passed in November, have they technically been enacted by January 1? We'll leave that to the lawyers. But our hopeful read right now is anything that's passed this November will be in play. And then moving forward, it will require two-thirds voter approval.

All right. Quentin Mecky, appreciate you very much for speaking to us and walking us through the thicket of housing policy changes that are coming out of policymakers in the city of San Francisco. Absolutely. I appreciate your time this morning, Brian. Quentin Mecky is executive director of the Council of Community Housing Organizations. That is basically a coalition organization in San Francisco that represents both developers of affordable housing and tenant organizations in the city. And again, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors is taking up what charter amendments to put on the ballot during its meeting this afternoon. Among the charter amendments they are considering is one that would drastically expand the property tax value capture mechanism that puts money into the city's affordable housing trust fund to the tune of eventually $125 million a year. if the proposal goes to the ballot and succeeds. That does it for upfront this morning. We are weekdays at 7 a.m. We post information about our topics and guests at KPFA.org, where you can also dig through archives of our past programs. If you'd like to give us feedback on something you heard or suggest something for us to cover or someone to interview, send an email to upfront at kpFA.org. If you'd like to send in a question for Monday's Corona Call segment with Dr. John Swartzberg, send that email to Corona Calls at KPFA.org. A big thanks to everyone who makes the show happen. Our producer is Kimia Akbari. Our engineer is Kirsten Thomas. My name is Brian Edwards Teakert. Thanks to Max Pringle for the news headlines. Remember, if you're incarcerated and postal mail is an easier way to get in touch, you can write to Upfront, KPFA, 1929 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, Berkeley, California, 9-4704. Stay up, stay tuned. Law and Disorder with Kat Brooks is coming your way, just over two and a half minutes at 8 a.m. I don't know.

Radio Day by the Bay returns to Alameda on Saturday, July 18th. Presented by the California Historical Radio Society, the event features live music, DJs, radio theater, vintage auctions, food, family activities, and free tours of the Radio Central Museum. The day celebrates the history, culture, and continuing impact of radio in the Bay Area and beyond. KPFA will be present. connecting with listeners and community members at the event. Radio Day by the Bay takes place at Radio Central in Alameda and is wheelchair accessible. Additional information is available at c-h-r-sradio.org forward slash radio day. Broadcasting from the past, present, and future of radio. We'll see you there. The stakes are high as the U.S. speeds toward midterm elections. KPFA brings you the latest on election suppression. Insurgent and pro-Palestine candidates challenging the democratic establishment. Ballot measures to tax billionaires, regulate dark money, and more. Join KPFA's Election Watch program, The Stakes, airing every Thursday at 10 a.m. and online anytime at kpFA.org and wherever you get your podcasts. The following is brought to you by no one trying to sell you anything. This is 94.1, KPFA, 89.3, KPFB in Berkeley, 88.1, KFCF in Fresno, and online everywhere. Tell a friend at kpFA.org.org.