Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the SB50 Resolution topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Francisco committee forwards resolution opposing SB 50 unless amended after public outcry over displacement risks
Summary
On Dec. 11 the Government Audit and Oversight Committee sent to the full Board a resolution opposing state Senate Bill 50 unless amended; public commenters and tenant advocates urged outright opposition, citing fears the bill would limit local review and spur displacement; deputy city attorney advised procedural flexibility for later edits.
The Government Audit and Oversight Committee on Dec. 11 forwarded a resolution opposing California Senate Bill 50 to the full Board of Supervisors with a positive recommendation for a Board hearing (sent for consideration without objection).
Supervisor Gordon Marr updated the committee on amendments to the city's resolution and said he had written to Senator Scott Wiener asking to work together. Marr said he amended the earlier resolution to specify the changes the city would need to see for San Francisco to remove its opposition. Marr outlined the city's recent housing actions, including a $600 million housing bond, raised linkage fees, rezoning for educator housing, West Side planning investments, and other measures intended to expand affordable housing locally.
Public comment was strongly skeptical of SB 50. Susan Marsh of the San Francisco Tenants Union said the union "oppose[s] SB 50 outright" but supported the city's resolution as written; she argued the bill lacks meaningful tenant protections and "promote[s] massive gentrification and displacement." Other speakers, including neighborhood organizations and residents, urged delay and transparency, questioned interactions between SB 50 and SB 330 and other state laws, and argued that amendments may be used as political carve-outs that reduce fairness.
Deputy City Attorney John Gibners advised the committee on procedure, saying that if Senator Wiener did not introduce acceptable amendments by the next Tuesday, striking the "unless amended" language would be a non-substantive amendment that could be adopted at the Board without re-referral to committee. Committee members discussed whether "oppose unless amended" should be a placeholder or converted to outright opposition later in the legislative process.
After debate and public comment, the committee agreed to forward the SB 50 resolution to the full Board for consideration (the committee indicated it would send the item for the regular Board agenda rather than as a committee report for the Dec. 17, 2019 meeting); the motion carried "without objection."
