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.