Thanks for reading and for the response, Gerald! I just put out my full London Breed endorsement. Here are a couple thoughts on your concerns (my piece has more details on much of this):
- Legislative productivity: I’m not sure a strict count is the best assessment, and London’s policies have seemed better thought out than Kim’s and Leno’s. For example, Kim’s record includes 2016 Prop C, which set a 25% IZ that tanked affordable housing production and had to be revised (by London, after she worked with the experts on economic feasibility). Kim’s Twitter tax break revitalized mid-Market, but because it didn’t come with sufficient housing it hurt our housing shortage and rents, and she’s now supporting the Central Soma plan which further adds to our jobs-housing imbalance. Leno’s IZ program has produced under 350 units per year, while London is the only candidate committing to Ed Lee’s pledge to build 5,000 units per year. London’s HOME-SF density bonus and Prop D are huge initiatives that contribute significantly to housing affordability.
- Ethics: I didn’t know about London’s public records issues, so thanks for sharing that. I’d hope she improves on this front in the future. But Kim and Leno are far from perfect themselves: Kim has routinely misrepresented legislation like SB827 and her own housing record; broke laws by deleting constituents’ content on social media; and both Kim and Leno have hypocritically attacked Breed on campaign finance while benefiting from independent expenditure committees.
From a pure productivity angle, I think the candidates are similarly qualified. I think London would be more ethical as well, but would watch for public records. But mostly I’m focused on the policy proposals they’ve put forth, and here London has done by far the most research and has the most pragmatic, inclusive goals of the three.