The Progressive Paradox: San Francisco’s Housing Battle and the Future of the Left
There’s something deeply ironic about the progressive movement in San Francisco right now. On the surface, it’s a city that prides itself on being a beacon of left-wing ideals—equality, social justice, and community empowerment. But dig a little deeper, and you’ll find a paradox: the very progressives who champion these values are often the ones standing in the way of solutions to one of the city’s most pressing crises—housing affordability. Personally, I think this tension isn’t just about policy; it’s about identity, fear, and the uncomfortable choices that come with real progress.
The Battle of Two Progressives
San Francisco’s race to replace Nancy Pelosi in Congress has become a microcosm of this divide. On one side, you have Connie Chan, a supervisor who’s built her brand on fighting corporate influence and protecting tenants. On the other, Scott Wiener, a state senator who’s made a name for himself as a champion of housing development and LGBTQ+ rights. Both call themselves progressives, but their visions for the city couldn’t be more different.
What makes this particularly fascinating is how their stances reflect broader trends in progressive politics. Chan represents the NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) wing, which prioritizes neighborhood preservation and tenant protections over new construction. Wiener, meanwhile, embodies the YIMBY (Yes In My Backyard) movement, arguing that building more housing is the only way to address the affordability crisis.
In my opinion, this isn’t just a local squabble—it’s a national debate in miniature. Progressives across the country are grappling with the same question: How do you balance idealism with pragmatism? Chan’s approach feels like a throwback to the anti-development activism of the 1970s, while Wiener’s is more forward-looking, acknowledging that the status quo has failed.
The Housing Crisis: A Man-Made Disaster
San Francisco’s housing crisis didn’t happen overnight. It’s the result of decades of opposition to new construction, fueled by a fear of change and a desire to preserve the city’s character. But here’s the thing: that character is now defined by sky-high rents and displacement. The median rent for a one-bedroom apartment has surpassed $4,000—a staggering figure that’s pricing out everyone except the tech elite.
One thing that immediately stands out is how progressives have become complicit in this crisis. By saying ‘no’ to development, they’ve effectively said ‘yes’ to gentrification. Chan’s opposition to projects like the 500-unit mixed-income development near a BART station is a perfect example. Her argument—that it would displace tenants and harm small businesses—ignores the bigger picture: without new housing, displacement will only worsen.
From my perspective, this is where progressivism risks losing its way. It’s easy to rally against corporate greed, but it’s harder to confront the unintended consequences of your own policies. What many people don’t realize is that the anti-development stance isn’t just conservative in practice—it’s regressive. It protects the interests of current residents at the expense of future ones.
The Bigger Picture: Progressivism at a Crossroads
This debate isn’t just about housing; it’s about the soul of the progressive movement. Wiener’s approach—pushing for state intervention to override local obstruction—is bold and necessary. His Senate Bill 35, which streamlined building permits, is a model for how governments can cut through red tape and actually build housing. But it’s also controversial, because it challenges the sacred cow of local control.
Chan’s resistance to Sacramento’s involvement feels like a defense of grassroots democracy, but it’s also a defense of the status quo. If you take a step back and think about it, her position is fundamentally conservative: it prioritizes the way things are over the way they could be. This raises a deeper question: Can progressivism thrive if it’s afraid of change?
What this really suggests is that the movement needs to evolve. Progressives can’t afford to be defined by what they’re against; they need to be defined by what they’re for. Wiener’s ‘Yes, and’ approach—building housing while protecting tenants—is a step in that direction. But it requires a shift in mindset, from preservation to possibility.
Beyond Housing: The Politics of Trust
Housing isn’t the only issue dividing San Francisco’s progressives. Wiener’s flip-flop on using the term ‘genocide’ to describe the situation in Gaza has alienated many younger voters, who see it as performative and insincere. Chan’s unequivocal stance against military aid to Israel, on the other hand, has solidified her support among this demographic.
A detail that I find especially interesting is how these divisions reflect broader generational and ideological splits within the left. Wiener’s pragmatism and Chan’s purity politics represent two competing visions for the future of progressivism. Which one wins out could determine not just the outcome of this race, but the direction of the movement itself.
The Way Forward
So, where does this leave San Francisco—and progressives everywhere? Personally, I think the answer lies in embracing complexity. Progressivism at its best is about challenging power structures and creating a more just society. But it can’t do that if it’s trapped in a cycle of saying ‘no.’
Wiener’s approach isn’t perfect, but it’s a start. It acknowledges that solving big problems requires big solutions—and sometimes, that means making uncomfortable choices. Chan’s focus on tenant protections is important, but it can’t be the only priority. The future of progressivism depends on finding a balance between idealism and realism.
If there’s one takeaway from this race, it’s this: progressives need to stop fighting over who’s more pure and start fighting for what actually works. Because at the end of the day, the people who are suffering from the housing crisis don’t care about ideological purity—they just want a place to live. And that’s a goal worth saying ‘yes’ to.
