Could you put this in less loaded terms? I'm having trouble discerning what your actual point is, besides acrimony.
It's pretty indisputable that the tech industry has raised housing prices in the Bay Area, mostly because Silicon Valley is no longer a gigantic orchard. Basic economics says that when you take land and put it to a more productive use, as measured by how much money one can make using said land for said new purpose, the price of the land + improvements goes up. That's literally what's happening, and people are being forced out because of it. That's the actual definition of "gentrification." "Scum" is just a pejorative qualifier that would be used by those who don't approve of this dynamic, which, while it displays an ignorance of basic economic principles, is entirely understandable in terms of human psychology.
And, it seems utterly stupid for these people to want to crash the local economy, just to get rid of the most productive sector of the economy. Unless there's some other master plan you're not elucidating, and, for which you'd need to provide an actual citation, Occam's Razor says this is absolutely absurd.
Do you see where I'm going with this? The scenario you posit, in the terms you describe it, makes city leadership sound like a bunch of literal cartoon villains. While I don't believe they are immune from self interest, and the influence of money in politics, chasing that money away deliberately just doesn't fit in with the simpler "follow the money" scenario, unless there's something more to it than you're alleging.
Edit: moved the bit about SF leadership being deliberately obstructionist to the correct quote.
* Inherited fortune: check; also married into separate fortune.
* Little Ivy education: check, Bowdoin
* Is an elected official: check, Supervisor of District 5
* Blocks housing: check; has voted or acted against every project in SF for entire elected career.
* Is actual gentrifier: check; used family fortune to buy existing Alamo Square mansion and the local working-class bar/venue Cafe Du Nord, Swedish American Hall.
* Has never had a job: check
* Is obscenely rich by socialist standards: check; aside from SF holdings owns many rural properties including 1 and 2.
1: https://www.landsofamerica.com/property/9241-Lone-Tree-Ridge...
2: https://www.landsofamerica.com/property/567-acres-in-Mendoci...
* Inherited fortune - Questionable. All I was able to find on his family was that they were Holocaust survivors. Let's just say I'll give you that one provisionally, but I'd like to see actual evidence, if you have any.
* Bowdoin - Correct.
* Is elected official - Obviously.
* Blocks housing - Does this sound like "blocking housing" to you:
> Preston also introduced two ballot initiatives approved by voters in the election. Proposition I raised the transfer tax rate for property sales valued over $10 million, intended to fund affordable housing. Proposition K authorizes the city of San Francisco to build or acquire up to 10,000 units of affordable housing.[21]" [0]
Sorry, does not pass the smell test.
Moreover, "acting against" something is not even close to "blocking" that thing. You're redefining terms to fit your preconceived narrative. It's almost as if you have a personal reason to hate him. [1]
* Gentrifier - Again, no, you do not get to redefine the term "gentrifier." If you think that's acceptable, then I can just redefine the issue out of existence, too. Sorry.
* Never had a job: Incorrect per his LinkedIn profile. [2] As well, "Preston worked for a nonprofit called the Tenderloin Housing Clinic, where he fought evictions and did advocacy for tenant rights." [1]
* Is obscenely rich by socialist standards: So, wait, now we're redefining "rich" in terms of "socialist standards?" No. Sure, he has a home in Alamo Square, which has a median home value of over $1M, and, if we accept without any actual evidence that he owns those other two properties you say he does, that puts the value of his assets at least at around $3M. But, we have no idea how much debt he has, so, his net worth could be rather pedestrian given he's an attorney in San Francisco.
Sorry, not buying it.
So, 4 out of your 7 bullet points are either factually incorrect, misleading, or completely unproven, and you expect me to believe you? Methinks thou dost protest too much. This just sounds like you have some personal axe to grind, which is completely irrelevant to whatever semblance of an argument you're trying to make. Did someone call you a gentrifier in the past, or something?
If you could bring something that vaguely resembles a coherent set of facts, then I'll believe you.
---
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Preston#Political_career
[1]: https://48hills.org/2020/10/the-sleaze-reaches-high-tide-in-...
1. Wealth: Dean lives in a multimillion dollar mansion on Alamo Square that he bought for $1m in 1999. He has no loan on the property as covered in his candidate disclosures: https://public.netfile.com/pub/GetDocument.aspx?ref=7907215a...
And THC does not pay its attorneys nearly enough (just cracking 6 figures in 2020) for that kind of wealth: https://nonprofitlight.com/ca/san-francisco/tenderloin-housi...
I can find references for his Sonoma estate later, but his parents were wealthy New York merchants: https://www.nytimes.com/1962/02/12/archives/linda-rothchild-...
In general, when you have an entire family of social workers who attended elite East Coast private school for the first 22 years of their lives living mortgage-free in multimillion dollar homes, you should assume generational wealth: https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/nytimes/obituary.aspx?n=le....
It’s funny that this information doesn’t make it into the Wikipedia page.
2. Blocks housing: Prop I was opposed by the city economist because it was effectively a per-unit tax on new apartment development. Most apartments are developed and operated by separate entities, and it is common for developers to sell constructed developments to apartment operators. IIRC, the estimate was an over $30k/door tax on new apartment construction on top of the existing impact fees. Very few transactions over $10m are purely speculative or for cash flow (it’s too lucrative to just hold with Prop 13); most involve some development objective. The estimate was a 20% annual reduction in apartment construction annually (https://yimbyaction.org/endorsements/san-francisco/).
Prop K is a canard — it’s not even clear the city as met the quota allowed from the previous Article 34 authorization in the 90s. The primary reason there’s no public housing in San Francisco is funding, not voter authorization. It does look good to low-information outsiders, I admit.
Dean is famous for “blocking housing” in indirect ways. He advocates for inclusionary zoning at percentages where a project will never be financially viable without outside subsidy, like the Divisadero gas station project. In power, he blocks projects directly (https://socketsite.com/archives/2020/06/impact-of-modern-inf...) or through the addition of expensive, capricious delays (https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/supervisor-seeks-to-pause-hu...).
3. Never had a job: I think it’s common for this kind of pejorative to mean “only worked for employers who are not incentivized to perform” (i.e. public / non-profit sector), not literally “never earned wage income.” Certainly applies to Dean.