Kim’s position is that the city isn’t currently driving a hard enough bargain - that restrictions should be tightened to allow even less construction than the status quo.

No one is proposing public funding on a level that would build the hundreds of thousands of homes needed. It’s not a choice between a public and free-market solution. It’s a choice between setting a different goal for the regulatory climate (maximize units vs. preserve small-town character) and implementing token feel-good measures that help a couple thousand people at most.

The problem is, Kim doesn't seek to maximize below-market-rate units produced -- she instead seeks to maximize the percent of all units produced that are below-market-rate.

In other words, given a choice between building 1,000 market-rate units and 200 BMR, or building 100 market-rate units and 100 BMR, she'll pick the latter.

Do you have a source for that claim? She claims to have "negotiated and won more affordable and middle-income housing than any city legislator."[1]

[1] http://kalw.org/post/mayoral-candidate-jane-kim-takes-afford...

See, for example, <https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/20..., which refers to "Supervisor Jane Kim's proposed ballot measure that would more than double the amount of affordable housing that every market-rate project over 25 units has to provide" and how "it would destroy the businesses of both market-rate and affordable developers", and yet, "Kim is standing by her proposal".

As predicted by the city economist, after this passed we saw a huge drop in the production of both BMR and market-rate units: https://medium.com/yes-in-my-blog-yes/the-25-inclusionary-ra...

Your example is from 2016. She ended up compromising at 18%.[1] It doesn't support your characterization. In her district she's facilitated the most new housing construction by a long shot.

Your second citation is anonymously written and of questionable quality -- check the comments.

[1] https://hoodline.com/2017/05/supervisors-reach-compromise-on...

Can you help me understand why she changed her position on SB827 and held rallies opposing 827? She says she is "not against housing & this is not the right way to build". Her actions prove different. I have not seen any solutions from her. She is not building enough to compensate for the growing economy.

Like @raldi notes any apartments -- of any height ! -- are illegal to build in 78.6% of SF: http://sfzoning.deapthoughts.com/ . what are her solutions to fix this then?

She's approved more housing in her district than anywhere else in the city combined, so that's a little unfair. And she has answered exactly your question, if you care to take a look:

http://www.sfexaminer.com/sb-827-postmortem-lets-build-housi...

Not exactly. "Under the agreement, the 18 percent rental level will be in effect until January 2018, when it will rise to 19 percent, and then 20 percent in 2019. The condo requirement would rise to 21 percent in 2018 and 22 percent in 2019."

"A study by the city controller found that a rate higher than 18 percent would likely slow housing production and reduce the amount of subsidies for affordable units."

"Even with the reduction, the levels are the highest concessions required for affordable housing among any major city in the United States."

"Peskin and Kim had pushed for a 24 percent requirement"

"To date, only two single-building projects without public subsidies have agreed to 25 percent affordable housing"

https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2017/05/18/sf-...

Your primary source appears to be the San Francisco Business Times. Kim actually supported inclusionary housing "up to the maximum feasible amount analyzed by the controller," not beyond it.[1]

And none of that supports your exaggerated claim that Kim would prefer 100 units over 1,000 units. She's overseen the construction of the most housing in the city.

[1] https://48hills.org/2017/03/real-facts-affordable-housing-de...

I did a secondary analysis, which you can see here: https://github.com/sbuss/sf-planning-pipeline/blob/master/Ne... -- scroll down to "Break down by project type" which shows how the category of housing that Jane Kim's Prop C affects has cratered, while the other categories are stable or growing.

Even 18% (now 19%) can't be done at the majority of parcels in the city. I guess it's fine for SOMA, which has the highest land values and transit connectivity of any part of the city, but it doesn't work elsewhere.