San Francisco, CA
Who’s behind those ‘SHIMBY’ posters across San Francisco?
San Francisco’s upzoning plan has passed. On Jan. 12, 2026, the day it goes into effect, developers will be able to build taller, denser buildings on thousands of sites in the western and northern parts of the city. As the debate over how and where to upzone raged in City Hall, flyers taped to utility poles across the city signaled the launch of a much more DIY campaign to reignite a plan that took shape — and fell through — over five years ago.
“Mayor Lurie has the chance to fund social housing,” the simple, black-on-white flyers read.
The posters refer to Proposition I, a ballot measure that passed in 2020 with 57 percent of the vote. Prop. I doubled the real estate transfer tax rate on buildings valued at $10 million or more. Proponents expected the new city revenue to be earmarked for new housing projects.
But the city’s mayors, who hold most of the power over the city’s budget, have so far declined to do so. Instead, it goes to the general fund.
Enter Honest Charley Bodkin and Dylan Hirsch-Shell, the duo behind San Franciscans for Social Housing. They call themselves SHIMBYs, or “Social Housing in My Back Yard.” An offshoot of the YIMBY movement, they think that, with enough public pressure, Lurie could be persuaded to change tack and start funding social housing in San Francisco. Their signs urge readers to sign an online petition pushing the mayor to establish a fund for “housing that is municipally-owned (or non-profit owned), permanently affordable, and available to a wider mix of income than traditional public housing.” Some 650 signatures have been collected so far in what appears to be a modest launch.
Hirsch-Shell is a former Tesla engineer who self-funded his mayoral campaign last year to the tune of $160,000; Bodkin was his campaign manager.
“I wasn’t so much convinced that I would win necessarily, but my interest was in promoting policy ideas that I thought were important,” Hirsch-Shell said. His platform included support for universal social housing and a universal basic income.
Bodkin was also a mayoral candidate before he met Hirsch-Shell on the campaign trail and joined his team. Shortly after getting into local politics, he was perhaps best known for being 86’ed from bars across his Haight Street neighborhood for alleged antics like inciting customers and striking a bartender in the head with a chair, according to a short documentary by Vincent Woo.
Bodkin says he’s six months sober now, and is focused on affirming local programs such as social housing and the public bank. He’s joined forces with Hirsch-Shell on the SHIMBY line, and they are plastering flyers in English, Spanish and Chinese across the city. They’re starting with Prop. I as a fund for social housing because “the will of the voters has been spoken.”
“I put my struggle, my efforts not into arguing with people at bars,” Bodkin said, “but with those that actually matter, those at City Hall.”
Former Supervisor Dean Preston, who authored Prop. I, is not formally allied with the SHIMBYs. Neither are the Democratic Socialists of America — arguably the most politically powerful socialist organization at the moment.
Still, Preston agrees with the SHIMBY thrust — he has been fighting for at least a portion of Prop. I funds to be spent on social housing for years. “The transfer tax is the one opportunity you have to tax these huge real estate speculators buying and selling mega-mansions and skyscrapers downtown to raise funds,” Preston said.
The plan, he said, was to utilize the Prop. I funds towards rent relief and social housing. The latter would be open to a variety of income levels, and owned or financed by the city, as opposed to traditional affordable housing which typically depends on subsidies and non-profit developers.
But no such funding mechanism was written into the proposition. Special taxes — taxes that go into dedicated funds — generally require a two-thirds vote, and a special tax of this nature would have been, according to the city attorney’s office, unconstitutional in California.
Instead, the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution saying the city should use Prop. I funds for affordable housing programs, including social housing. Because resolutions aren’t legally binding, the money went into the city’s general fund, where it has been flowing ever since. A report published in June of 2024 found that some $200 million were spent on a mix of housing related issues.
In 2024, Preston requested a report from the city that found a social housing program based on Prop. I revenue was feasible. The report indicated that cumulative revenue from the increase could total upwards of $400 million by 2026.
Although Preston, a democratic socialist, and the hundreds-strong DSA have long been vocal in the cause of social housing, San Franciscans for Social Housing is an organization of two (and “hundreds of other people that call themselves San Franciscans for social housing,” Bodkin said, referring to petition signers).
Without formal alliances, the pair may continue to address the Board of Supervisors during the minutes allotted for public comment during meetings at City Hall, or approach individual supes in public (as Bodkin has done to Mayor Lurie a couple of times before).
Even then, options are limited: Supervisors could pass another non-binding resolution asking for the money to be rerouted, but Lurie has given no indication that he would do so.
Bodkin and Hirsch-Shell are not the first to try to carve a third way through the YIMBY vs. NIMBY divide. In 2018, the short-lived PHIMBY (“Public Housing in My Back Yard”) acronym was rolled out by the Los Angeles chapter of the DSA, which saw it as a way to mitigate the risk of gentrification posed by SB 827, a bill championed by state Sen. Scott Wiener that would have exempted most new construction near public transit from local zoning laws.
The SHIMBYs are trying to pitch a wider tent. Bodkin said he has “paid dues” to SF YIMBY and lobbied in Sacramento with Wiener and California YIMBY. More recently, he said, he also joined the San Francisco DSA.
That hasn’t stopped Jane Natoli, the organizing director for YIMBY Action, from taking to Bluesky to refute the strategy of the nascent SHIMBY movement.
“San Franciscans didn’t pass a property transfer tax that funds social housing. They passed a tax that goes to the general fund,” Natoli wrote. “You can’t just wish funds for things.”
Preston is not surprised that YIMBY leaders like Natoli aren’t lining up to rally around the cause of social housing.
YIMBYs and socialists might look like allies “on paper,” Preston said. But as far as the YIMBY organizations are concerned, he continued, “There’s a consistent pro-industry theme that is very much at odds with developing social housing in San Francisco.”
On top of all that, Prop. I may be on the chopping block next year — local and state officials are looking for ways to repeal it, or mitigate its effects.
The flyers keep going up, for now. Bodkin and Hirsch-Shell say they’re trying to build a movement. Hirsch-Shell says it’s a lesson from the campaign trail:
“Retail politics is not dead.”
Few things are more valuable in the Bay Area than real estate. In San Francisco, the median house price is now over $2 million. Last month, at least seven houses in the city sold for $1 million over the asking price, and buyers regularly offer to pay in cash or waive contingencies to stay competitive. Yet there is one thing that remains even more valuable than a house, and possibly more valuable than money itself: stock in Anthropic or OpenAI.
Last week, 160 Noe Street, an Edwardian home in San Francisco’s desirable Duboce Triangle neighborhood, was listed for sale at $2.9 million—or the equivalent amount in Anthropic or OpenAI shares, as based on those companies’ current valuations. Rachel Swann, the listing agent, says she was inspired to set these unusual terms after meeting several Anthropic employees at an open house for a different property. “These people have a lot of paper wealth, but they don’t always have the liquidity to do things they want,” Swann says. Some of these employees were expecting to come into as much as $50 million from their Anthropic shares, and wondered if they could use that as leverage to buy a house, according to Swann. “This kept coming up over and over again.”
Swann’s listing is unconventional, but not singular. In April, an investment banker named Storm Duncan offered to exchange his Mill Valley home and an adjacent parcel of land for Anthropic shares. And in May, Vijay Chattha, who owns an agency that does PR for tech companies, listed his Healdsburg home for $2.5 million, or $2 million in Anthropic stock. “I want to sell my house, and I want to invest in Anthropic,” Chattha says. “Why not combine the two?
Chattha’s house—a three bed, three bath with a pool and a bocce court in a part of Sonoma County that abuts some of the region’s most famous wineries—also comes with coveted short-term rental status, allowing the owner to list it on platforms like Airbnb. Only a handful of properties in Healdsburg come with that status, and only about a dozen come up for sale in a given year.
Chattha is offering a $500,000 discount to Anthropic employees because he believes the value of Anthropic shares will grow faster than any other investment, and his vacation home in wine country is the best bargaining chip he has to try to access them. “If you look at Anthropic’s growth last year, it’s insane,” he says, noting the $380 billion valuation the company claimed in February. “Now they’re raising at $965 billion. That’s three X in like three months.” He added that he was open to exchanging the house for shares in Anthropic, but not OpenAI, because he prefers using Anthropic’s products.
The real estate listings come at a time when investors are salivating at the record-high valuations of Anthropic and OpenAI, and even those considered wealthy by Bay Area standards are feeling FOMO about the affluence that could come from these companies’ debuts on the stock market. (On Monday, Anthropic submitted paperwork for its initial public offering; OpenAI is also reportedly preparing to file in the coming months.) Despite the unprecedented valuations of these companies, many people believe their stock prices will only go up, and that anyone who gets a piece now could win the jackpot.
People are clamoring to buy equity in OpenAI and Anthropic on the secondary market, leading to a frenzy of transactions that may or may not be legitimate. As a result, Anthropic updated its policy around “unauthorized Anthropic stock sales” this spring, which notes that “if someone purports to sell Anthropic shares without proper board approval, that transaction is invalid.” A spokesperson for Anthropic pointed back to this policy when asked about the possibility of exchanging company shares for real estate.
Welcome to our running tally of Election Night results. Or, as this is California, well beyond tonight, as results continue to trickle in.
The first batch of results should arrive at 8:45 p.m., with three more to follow tonight. The Department of Elections has the breakdown.
San Francisco is voting in three special elections, for District 2 and District 4 supervisors and for a Board of Education member. Both supervisor races are referendums on housing, especially District 2, while the main backdrop of the D4 race is all the hot feelings around the fate of the Sunset Dunes Park (nee Great Highway).
The winners of all three special races will have to compete again in November for their seats.
Keeping it local, SF is also voting on four ballot measures. Prop A is for a bond to pay for an emergency water-system. B is for term limits. C and D are dueling measures related to the “overpaid CEO” tax. (Links go to our reporting on each race or issue; or click here for our Election 2026 page.)
Vote local, think national: Which two candidates will advance to the November election to replace Nancy Pelosi?
Statewide races include the primaries for governor, education superintendent, lieutenant governor, and much more.
Polls close soon. If you haven’t voted yet, find your polling station here.
Tuesday, June 2, 5:40 p.m.
Two and a half hours until our polls close. Before we go down the local rabbit hole, a reminder that other states have primary action today: New Jersey, Iowa, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Montana.
Why does it take so long to get results in California? CalMatters has you covered on that story. We shouldn’t expect a call tonight on the governor’s race.
The last big election was November 5, 2024. (Remember?) Ten days later, there were still races to call in San Francisco.
So if you’re waiting for the pundits (and maybe even us) to tell you What It All Means, you might have to wait a while.
More from The Frisc…
San Francisco, CA
San Francisco voters to decide on dueling measures on Top Executive Pay Tax changes
San Francisco voters weighed in Tuesday on two competing measures that seek to change the Top Executive Pay Tax, with one of the measures also including a change to the Gross Receipts Tax.
Should both measures pass, the one with the most votes will take effect, according to the propositions’ legal text.
Currently, the measures state that most businesses with San Francisco gross receipts up to $5 million are exempt from the Gross Receipts Tax. And businesses that use more than half of their city payroll for in-house administrative and management services pay an Administrative Office Tax instead of a Gross Receipts Tax.
The Top Executive Pay Tax is a tax some large businesses pay if their highest-paid managerial employee earns more than 100 times the median pay of their San Francisco employees. Businesses that have city gross receipts up to $5 million and are not subject to the Administrative Office Tax are exempt.
Proposition C
Proposition C states it would increase the number of businesses that could be exempt from the Gross Receipts Tax and would stop any further increases to the “Top Executive Pay Tax” after a final rate bump.
The proposed measure says it would raise the Gross Receipts Tax exemption ceiling to $7.5 million. The $7.5 million ceiling would also apply to the Top Executive Pay Tax exemption.
As for changes to the Top Executive Pay Tax, Proposition C states it would implement the 2028 tax rate increase in 2027, but then stop any future increases.
Supporting Proposition C are Rodney Fong, CEO of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, and Chris Wright, senior vice president of Advance SF, an organization of companies, which includes Bank of America, OpenAI, Waymo, the SF Giants CEO and others.
Fong and Wright, in their argument for the measure, say giving businesses more tax breaks would help keep more employees on payroll and would give companies the ability to “contribute to city services in a predictable and balanced way.”
Critics of Proposition C, such as the San Francisco Tenants Union, slam the measure as “billionaire-backed” and argue it would kill the Top Executive Pay Tax and would hand out more tax breaks to businesses at a time when the city is in a budget deficit and faces cuts to essential services.
Proposition D
Proposition D also seeks to change the Top Executive Pay Tax, which is collected from some large businesses where the highest-paid managerial employee earns more than 100 times the median compensation paid to other employees.
If approved, the measure would change the calculation of the tax using the compensation of all employees, not just employees based in San Francisco. Top Executive Pay Tax rates would also be increased for San Francisco gross receipts and payroll.
Supporters have billed the measure as a way to counteract federal cuts to Medicaid. A report by the City Controller’s Office said the measure could result in $250 million to $300 million in additional revenue.
“Proposition D is the solution to our budget deficit. It asks large corporations — not small businesses, not working families — to contribute a little more,” supporters said in the city’s official voter guide.
The measure has the backing of most of the Board of Supervisors, along with labor unions and Rep. Nancy Pelosi.
Opponents, including Mayor Daniel Lurie and state Sen. Scott Wiener, have argued Proposition D would negatively impact the city’s recovery following the COVID-19 pandemic.
“San Francisco is already one of the most expensive cities in the country to live and do business. Adding extreme and unpredictable tax increases risks driving employers away just as we are trying to bring jobs, workers, and foot traffic back downtown,” said Supervisor Matt Dorsey in the city’s voter guide.
-
Kentucky34 seconds agoFayette County school board chair, KEA sue to block Kentucky law that would oust current members
-
Louisiana4 minutes agoLouisiana insurance officials to announce retirement of Katrina, Rita bonds
-
Maine16 minutes agoMaine’s abrupt plan to cut $400M in construction projects roils the industry
-
Maryland18 minutes agoMan found dead in South Carolina after shooting ex-girlfriend in Maryland
-
Michigan24 minutes agoGotion wants Michigan township to pay the $23.7M it owes in incentives
-
Massachusetts31 minutes agoFrench-Mediterranean Eatery Charts Opening In Boston
-
Minnesota33 minutes agoDennis Peterson
-
Mississippi39 minutes agoMHSAA private schools will have enrollment multiplier starting in 2027-28 season
