Peskin's Redemption Narrative

A rebrand as kinder, gentler, and sober is crucial to his winning any race for mayor. It does not, however, make him uniquely qualified for a job he may not want that badly

When Aaron Peskin returned to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors after a 2015 special election, the conventional wisdom was that while he would always be formidable in his district, he would never win any citywide vote. As supervisor, he has, on balance, either led or been an integral part of organized opposition to every mayor elected in San Francisco since he was first elected to the job in 2000.

Since then, Peskin has served five terms as supervisor (with a hiatus from 2009 to 2015), including three stints as Board President. All the while, through legislation or by championing ballot measures, he has diligently worked to erode the power of the mayor, successfully doing so on many fronts.

As an activist and during his first two terms as supervisor from 2001-2009, he established himself as a firebrand who would use constituent concerns to get elected but then only work on behalf of a very narrow slice of his political base - preservationist neighborhood groups representing mostly wealthy homeowners, such as the powerful Telegraph Hill Dwellers, which he and his wife Nancy Shanahan continue to influence - while paying lip service to the intertwined concerns of political leaders in Chinatown and the affordable housing community. Peskin became known for using that power primarily to block development projects he and his close constituents did not like.

Along with that power came a reputation as “power-hungry, petty and vindictive, a bully, uncooperative, verbally abusive and confrontational,” according to an opposition research memorandum commissioned in 2015, fueled by newspaper accounts of behavior such as abusive, late-night phone calls to other elected officials, department heads, and activists whom he took issue with.

In 2018, Peskin heaped verbal abuse upon firefighters busy trying to put down a four-alarm blaze at Union and Columbus, the center of North Beach, attempting to back-seat drive operations and yelling at chiefs on the scene that he would “destroy them.” Coverage of the incident also highlighted his alcohol abuse, which had been long known but not discussed publicly.

By 2021, his board colleagues, made generally of sterner stuff than the class of 2000 Peskin first came to City Hall with, were chafing at Peskin’s addiction and associated behavior. Peskin was publicly inebriated during a remote board meeting on March 31 of that year, and there was no way to bottle the genie anymore. Supervisor Hillary Ronen confronted him that June, and the next day, he announced he was going into rehab.

Peskin’s rehab has cleared the way for him to become a kinder, gentler elder statesman of the board and the city’s Progressive/Preservationist faction. By the following January, he emerged as a surprise consensus to become Board President, ending a deadlock between Supervisors Shamann Walton and Rafael Mandelman that went on for 17 votes.

Meanwhile, he had been losing the battle for his policy raison d’etre: slowing development generally and blocking new market-rate housing. His fellow supervisors appeared to come to Jesus mostly in the wake of new state housing laws championed mainly by San Francisco’s delegation to Sacramento, ultimately passing legislation to comply with a state-mandated Housing Element after delays.

Like most everywhere else in the country, San Francisco has been caught up in a post-Covid anomie, which has generally eaten away at public confidence in government. Almost every elected official’s approval ratings, including Mayor London Breed, are in the toilet despite her scoring some political victories in the March primary election. Many from the Progressive/ Preservationists end of the house have been trying to coax Paterfamilias Peskin into challenging Breed this November. Still, up until recently, he’s been publicly cool about the idea.

Once his preservationist agenda appeared to be in trouble, Peskin went to the mattresses, whipping up his neighborhood association base to oppose follow-on upzoning legislation. He also became more open about mulling a mayoral run.

After seeing Breed publicly pledge to veto “any anti-housing legislation” during her State of the City address, he was able to pass some upzoning carveouts within his district, likely largely due to supervisorial prerogative - the bill only affects zones within his district. He also whipped up an override of Breed’s veto of the bill—a first for this board.

Whether Peskin’s bill will pass muster in Sacramento has yet to be determined— a spokesperson at the California Office of Housing and Community Development, which has been riding herd on the city, told us they are “still evaluating the matter.”

Now comes the dropping of a screenshot from a new push poll which paints Peskin as someone “having gone through recovery and getting the help he needed to stay sober,” and so “in a unique position to help San Francisco recover,” including with presumably “the right kind” of new housing.

It’s still worth asking if Peskin wants the job. Peskin is the wealthiest board member, and he’s worked harder than anyone else to make the job of anyone occupying the office much harder. Winning would be more sauce for the goose than anything else. He cares far more about his policy agenda, which will likely include a ballot measure in November to undo recent housing legislation. His mayoral run could give it a significant platform.