Supervisor Chen seeks hearing on unfunded affordable‑housing mandate as public speakers urge keeping Prop I funds for social housing

Supervisor Chen on March 3 introduced a hearing request asking the Budget and Legislative Analyst to examine San Francisco’s unfunded affordable‑housing mandate and to report on the fiscal and programmatic consequences of recent policy changes.

Chen said the city has reduced inclusionary requirements and impact fees, which she argued have been used to support affordable-housing development, and that the city’s remaining affordable-housing dollars are largely committed to the pipeline. "Revenue for affordable housing has gone dry," Chen said, and she asked colleagues to support a study of revenue strategies, one‑time funds versus recurring commitments, and the city’s ability to meet its stated production obligation (46,598 below‑market units by 2031, as cited in her remarks).

During public comment the transcript shows multiple speakers urging the board not to repeal Proposition I, the 2021 transfer‑tax increase on very high‑value real estate that many residents and advocates say was intended to fund social‑housing programs. Scott Feeney, a Mission District resident, told the board he was “dismayed to learn” that three supervisors were sponsoring an ordinance to repeal Prop I and warned that a repeal would remove funds intended to build social housing and would overturn a voter decision. The record quotes Feeney saying that Prop I “is expected to generate on the order of $100,000,000 a year in the next couple years,” and that repealing it would be, in his words, “nimbyism by other means.”

A representative of San Franciscans for Social Housing read names from a petition representing nearly 1,000 signatories asking the board to use Prop I funds for the social‑housing program the measure promised and to oppose or amend the "BUILD Act" referenced by the speaker.

The board took no final vote on Prop I at this meeting. Chen’s request would trigger a report; any change to Prop I revenue allocation or a repeal would require separate legislative action and, for a charter or ballot measure, voter consideration.

Why it matters: Public comment and the supervisors’ hearing request underline a continuing tension over how to finance affordable housing in San Francisco amid policy changes the transcript characterizes as reductions to inclusionary requirements and impact fees. The petition and multiple callers make this a likely follow‑up topic for committees and media covering housing policy ahead of upcoming budget and ballot deadlines.

What’s next: The Budget and Legislative Analyst was asked to examine the fiscal impact of policy changes; the board may schedule hearings based on that report and any legislative proposals to amend funding rules or ballot measures.