Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge supervisors to preserve Prop I and oppose BUILD Act and tax cuts for large properties
Summary
Dozens of public commenters at the March 10 board meeting urged supervisors to oppose the BUILD Act and proposals to repeal Prop I, saying such changes would strip funding for affordable housing and tenant protections; speakers highlighted Prop I’s role in rent relief, land banking and housing preservation.
Public comment at the Board of Supervisors’ March 10 meeting focused heavily on housing policy, with many residents, housing advocates and community organizations urging the board to preserve Prop I funding and oppose the BUILD Act and other proposals they said would amount to tax giveaways for large property owners.
Speakers from the San Francisco Community Land Trust, tenant advocacy groups and neighborhood associations described Prop I (the 2020 real‑estate transfer tax measure) as a critical funding source for rent relief, land banking and affordable housing development. "In the first two years that Prop I was in effect, this board wisely allocated more than $200,000,000 to the intended affordable housing purposes that Prop I was made for," said Kyle Smeely, policy director for the San Francisco Community Land Trust.
Several speakers warned that repealing or weakening Prop I would make it harder to finish projects already in development and would shift the tax burden away from large real‑estate transactions. Anas Charlie Bodkin, president of the District 5 Democratic Club and co‑founder of San Franciscans for Social Housing, read names of prominent supporters who backed Prop I’s original intent and said the BUILD Act as written would mainly provide tax cuts for billion‑dollar commercial properties rather than accelerate housing creation.
Other public commenters linked housing policy to the city’s broader fiscal picture, warning that any reduction in Prop I revenue would deepen budget shortfalls and imperil programs for tenants and low‑income households. Commenters asked the board to dedicate transfer tax revenue to social housing and tenant protections rather than cutting the tax.
Board action at the meeting included severing and then adopting item 24 recognizing Iranian American Heritage Month; the BUILD Act and any repeal of Prop I were the focus of discussion and public comment but were not adopted at this meeting.
