Wiener

SAN FRANCISCO — State Sen. Scott Wiener couldn’t wait any longer. The once-in-a-generation political opening he’d eyed for years had arrived, he decided — whether the grand dame of San Francisco politics agreed or not.

On Wednesday, Wiener, 55, a prolific and ambitious lawmaker, formally announced his candidacy for the San Francisco congressional seat held for nearly four decades by Rep. Nancy Pelosi, 85, who remains one of the party’s most powerful leaders and has yet to reveal her own intentions for the 2026 race.

“The world is changing, the Democratic Party is changing, and it’s time,” Wiener said in an interview with The Times. “I know San Francisco, I have worked tirelessly to represent this community — delivering housing, health care, clean energy, LGBTQ and immigrant rights — and I have a fortitude and backbone to be able to deliver for San Francisco in Congress.”

State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) announced Wednesdat that he will run for the congressional seat currently held by former Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

(Josh Edelson/For The Times)

Wiener’s announcement — which leaked in part last week — caught some political observers off guard, given Wiener had for years seemed resigned to run for Pelosi’s seat only once she stepped aside. But it stunned few, given how squarely it fit within the broader political moment facing the Democratic Party.

In recent years, a long-simmering reckoning over generational power has exploded into the political forefront as members of the party’s old guard have increasingly been accused of holding on too long, and to their party’s detriment.

Long-serving liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ruffled many Democratic feathers by declining to step down during Barack Obama’s presidency despite being in her 80s. She subsequently died while still on the court at the age of 87 in 2020, handing President Trump his third appointment to the high court.

Californians watched as the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein, another D.C. power player from San Francisco, teetered into frailty, muddled through her final chapter in Washington and then died in office at 90 in 2023. The entire nation watched as President Biden, another octogenarian, gave a disastrous debate performance that sparked unrelenting questions about his age and cognitive abilities and cleared the way for Trump’s return to power last year.

Visitors walk past a bust of U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein at San Francisco City Hall. The former mayor of San Francisco served in the Senate until she died in 2023 at age 90.

(Stephen Lam/San Francisco Chronicle via Getty Images)

As a result, age has become an unavoidable tension point for Democrats heading into next year’s midterm elections.

It has also been an issue for Republicans, including Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), 83, the former Senate majority leader who has faced health issues in recent years and is retiring in 2026 after more than 40 years in the Senate. Other older Republicans are facing primary challenges for being perceived as too traditional or insufficiently loyal to Trump or the MAGA movement — including Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), 73 and in office since 2002, and Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), 68 and in the Senate since 2015.

For decades, many conservatives have called for congressional term limits in opposition to “career politicians” who cling to power for too long. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, and David Trone, a Maryland Democrat, renewed those calls on Wednesday, announcing in an op-ed published in the New York Times that they would co-chair a national campaign to push for term limits.

However, perhaps because they are in power, the calls for a generational shake-up in 2026 have not been nearly as loud on the Republican side.

Democratic Party activists have sounded the alarm about a quickening slide into gerontocracy on the political left, blamed it for their party’s inability to mount an energetic and effective response to Trump and his MAGA movement, and called for younger candidates to take the reins — while congressional leaders in their 70s and 80s have increasingly begun weighing their options in the face of primary challenges.

“It’s fair to say the political appetite for octogenarians is not high,” said Eric Jaye, a veteran Democratic strategist in San Francisco.

“The choice in front of people is not just age,” said Saikat Chakrabarti, a 39-year-old tech millionaire and Democratic political operative who is also running for Pelosi’s seat. “We need a whole different approach and different candidates.”

“There’s like this unspoken rule that you don’t do what we’re doing in this moment. You sit out and wait your turn,” said Sacramento City Councilmember Mai Vang, 40, who has launched a primary challenge to Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Sacramento), who is 81 and has been in Congress since 2005. “But I’m not going to wait on the sidelines, because there is an urgency of now.”

A national trend

The generational shift promises to reshape Congress by replacing Democrats across the country, including some who are leaving without a fight.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, 78 and a senator representing New Hampshire since 2009, said in March that it was “time” to step aside.

In Illinois, Sen. Richard Durbin, 80 and a senator since 1997, and Rep. Jan Schakowsky, 81 and in the House since 1999, both announced in May that they would not run again. Durbin said it was time “to pass the torch,” while Schakowsky praised younger “voices” in the party as “so sharp.”

Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York, 78 and in the House since 1992, announced his retirement last month, saying that “watching the Biden thing really said something about the necessity for generational change in the party.”

New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani speaks at a news conference.

(Michael Nagle/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Other older Democrats, meanwhile, have shown no intention of stepping aside, or are seeking out new roles in power.

Maine Gov. Janet Mills, 77, recently announced she is running to challenge Republican Sen. Susan Collins, who is 72 and has been in the Senate since 1997. Mills has tried to soften concerns about her age by promising to serve just one term if elected.

Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, 79 and in the Senate since 2013, has stiffly rebuffed a primary challenge from Rep. Seth Moulton, 46, accusing Moulton of springing a challenge on him amid a shutdown and while he is busy resisting Trump’s agenda.

In Connecticut, Rep. John Larson, 77, who has been in office since 1999 and suffered a complex partial seizure on the House floor in February, has mocked his primary challengers’ message of generational change, telling Axios, “Generational change is fine, but you’ve got to earn it.”

David Hogg, a survivor of the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., speaks at the 2022 March for Our Lives.

(Leigh Vogel / Getty Images for March For Our Lives)

David Hogg, a 25-year-old liberal activist who was thrust into politics by the 2018 mass shooting at his Parkland, Fla., high school, is among the party’s younger leaders pushing for new blood. He recently declined to seek reelection as the co-vice chair of the Democratic National Committee to bring primary challenges to older Democratic incumbents with his group Leaders We Deserve.

When he announced that decision in June, Hogg called the idea that Democratic leaders can stay in power until they die even if they don’t do a good job an “existential threat to the future of this party and nation.” His group fundraises and disperses money to young candidates it backs.

When asked by The Times about Pelosi and her primary challengers, however, Hogg was circumspect, calling Pelosi “one of the most effective and consequential leaders in the history of the Democratic Party.”

A shift in California

Pelosi is not the only older California incumbent facing a primary challenge. In addition to Matsui, the list also includes Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Porter Ranch), who is 70 and has been in office since 1997, and Rep. Mike Thompson (D-St. Helena), who is 74 and has been in office since 1999.

But Pelosi’s challenges have attracted more attention, perhaps in part because her departure from Congress would be the clearest sign yet that the generational shift sought by younger party activists is fully underway.

Nancy Pelosi is sworn in as House speaker in 2007, surrounded by her grandchildren and children of other members of Congress.

(Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

A trailblazer as the first female speaker of the House, Pelosi presided over two Trump impeachments. While no longer in leadership, she remains incredibly influential as an arm-twister and strategist.

She played a central role in sidelining Biden after his debate meltdown, and for the last couple months has been raising big money — a special skill of hers — in support of California’s Proposition 50. The measure seeks voter approval to redraw California’s congressional districts to better favor Democrats in response to Trump’s pressure campaign on Texas and other red states to redraw their lines in favor of Republicans.

Pelosi has used Prop. 50 in recent days to deflect questions about her primary challengers and her plans for 2026, with her spokesman Ian Krager saying she “is fully focused” on the Prop 50 fight and will be through Nov. 4.

Chakrabarti, who helped Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) unseat a longtime Democratic incumbent in 2019, said he sees even more “appetite for change” among the party’s base today — as evidenced by “mainstream Democrats who have voted for Nancy Pelosi their whole life” showing up to his events.

And it makes sense, he said.

For decades, Americans have watched the cost of essentials skyrocket while their wages have remained relatively flat, Chakrabarti said, and that has made them desperate to support messages of “bold, sweeping economic change” — whether from Obama or Trump — even as long-serving, mainstream Democrats backed by corporate money have worked to maintain the status quo.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez leaves a news conference at the Capitol in 2019. At left is Saikat Chakrabarti, who was her chief of staff and is now a candidate for the congressional seat held by Rep. Nancy Pelosi.

(Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Imag)

He said it is time for Democrats to once again push bold, big ideas, which he plans to do — including Medicare for all, universal child care, free college tuition, millions of new units of affordable housing, a new economy built around climate action, and higher taxes on billionaires and mega-millionaires like him.

Wiener, who also backs Prop. 50 and would be the first out gay person to represent San Francisco in Congress, said he cannot speak to Pelosi’s thinking — or to Politico reporting Wednesday that Pelosi is considering dropping out and backing San Francisco Supervisor Connie Chan in the race — but is confident in his readiness for the role.

Wiener agreed with Chakrabarti that big ideas are needed from Democrats to win back voters and make progress. He also said that his track record in the state Legislature shows that he has “been willing to take on very, very big fights to make significant progressive change.”

“No one has ever accused me of thinking small,” he said — citing his success in passing bills to create more affordable housing, reform health insurance and drug pricing, tackle net neutrality, challenge telecommunications and cable companies and protect LGBTQ+ and other minority communities and immigrants.

“In addition to having the desire to make big progressive change, in addition to talking about big progressive change, you have to be able to put together the coalitions to deliver on that change, because words are not enough,” Wiener said. “I’ve shown over and over again that I know how to do it, and that I can deliver.”

Political analysts said a message of big ideas will clearly resonate with some voters. But they also said that Pelosi, if she stays in the race, will be hard to beat. She will also face more serious questions than ever about her age and “her ability to function at the extraordinarily high level” she has worked at in years past, Jaye said, and will “have to answer those questions.”

If Pelosi decides not to run, Chakrabarti has the benefit of self-funding and of the current party enthusiasm for fresh faces, they said, and anyone — Chan or otherwise — would benefit from a Pelosi endorsement. But Wiener already has a strong base in the district, a track record for getting legislation passed and, as several observers pointed out, a seemingly endless battery.

“Scott Wiener is an animal. The notion of work-life balance is not a concept he has ever had. He is just like a robotic working machine,” said Aaron Peskin, who served 18 years on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, some alongside Wiener.

Rep. Lateefah Simon (D-Oakland) speaks to reporters at the Capitol in September.

(Kayla Bartkowski/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Amanda Litman, the president of Run for Something, which supports young progressive candidates, said there is pent-up demand for a new generation of leaders, and “older Democrats, especially those in Congress, need to ask themselves, ‘Am I the best person to lead this party forward right now?’”

Rep. Lateefah Simon (D-Oakland), 48, won her seat in 2024 after longtime Rep. Barbara Lee, 79, who had been in the seat since 1998, decided to run for Oakland mayor. Simon said that to her, “it’s not necessarily about birthdays” but who can do the job — “who can govern, who can mentor and who can hold this administration accountable.”

As a longtime community activist who worked with youth, Simon said she is “extremely excited” by all the energy of young Democratic office seekers. But as a freshman in Congress who has leaned on Lee, Pelosi and other mentors to help her learn the ropes, she said it’s also clear Democrats need to “have some generals who are really, really tried and tested.”

“What is not helpful to me in this moment,” Simon said, “is for the Democrats to be a circular firing squad.”

State Sen. Scott Wiener is a strategic and effective legislator who rarely lets emotion make his decisions — much like Nancy Pelosi, whose congressional seat he would like to take.

It has been a wide-open secret for years that Wiener wanted to make a run for federal office when or if Pelosi retired, but he’s also been deferential to the elder stateswoman of California politics and has made it equally clear that he would wait his turn in the brutal and parochial machine of San Francisco politics.

Until now.

The San Francisco Standard broke the news Thursday that Wiener is running on the 2026 ballot, though he has yet to formally announce.

It is news that shocked even those deep in the dog-eat-dog world of S.F. politics and ignited the inevitable news cycle about whether Pelosi (who was instrumental in removing President Biden from the 2024 race for age-related issues) is being Bidened herself. It also ensures a contentious race that will be nationally watched by both MAGA and the progressive left, both of which take issue with Wiener.

Oh, the drama.

Take it for what you will, but a few months after having hip replacement surgery, Pelosi is (literally) back in her stiletto heels and raising beaucoup dollars for Proposition 50, the ballot initiative meant to gerrymander California voting maps to counteract a GOP cheat-fest in Texas.

Yes, she’s 85, but she’s no Joe. She is also, however, no spring chicken. So the national debate on whether Democrats need not just fresh but younger candidates has officially landed in the City by the Bay, though Wiener remains both practical and polite enough to not frame it that way.

He’ll leave that to the journalists, who have hounded Pelosi for months to announce whether she will seek another term, a question she has declined to directly answer. Instead, her team has focused on the looming election for Proposition 50 and said any announcement on her future has to wait after the ballots are counted.

To be fair to Pelosi, she’s gone all-in to both fundraise and campaign for the redistricting effort, and its passage is essential to Democrats having even a shot at winning back any power in the midterms.

If Prop. 50 fails, there is no non-miracle path, except perhaps an unexpected blue wave, through which Democrats can retake a chamber. So Nov. 4 isn’t an arbitrary date. It will determine if there is any possibility of checking Trump’s power grab, and preserving democracy. Personally, I don’t fault Pelosi for being engaged in that fight.

To also be fair to Wiener, his decision to announce now was probably driven more by money and political momentum than by Pelosi’s age.

That’s because Pelosi already has a challenger — the ultra-wealthy progressive Saikat Chakrabarti, a startup millionaire who served as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign manager during her first upset win for Congress in 2018. Chakrabarti has long been an antagonist to Pelosi, and recently announced his candidacy, positioning himself as a disrupter.

In 2019, before the House impeached Trump over his questionable actions involving Ukraine, Chakrabarti tweeted, “Pelosi claims we can’t focus on impeachment because it’s a distraction from kitchen table issues. But I’d challenge you to find voters that can name a single thing House Democrats have done for their kitchen table this year. What is this legislative mastermind doing?”

Chakrabarti, who was born the year before Pelosi was first elected to Congress in 1987, has self-funded his campaign with $700,000 and has the financial ability to spend much more. Wiener, in his on-the-down-low shadow campaign, has raised a bit over $1 million, not nearly enough. The primary will be in June and it will be expensive.

Though we have yet to reach Halloween, a stroll down the aisles of any big box store can tell you that Christmas is neigh, a season when fundraising becomes harder — putting pressure on Wiener to raise money as quickly as possible before the winter freeze.

Add to that pressure the fact that Chakrabarti has political skills and growing popularity. He was the tech architect behind a successful push to activate volunteers for both AOC and Bernie Sanders.

An internal poll released a few months ago (and any internal poll must be viewed skeptically) showed Chakrabarti drawing 34% of voters to Pelosi’s 47%. His numbers increased as voters learned more about him — a few have even compared him to New York’s socialist wonder-kid Zohran Mamdani, currently running for mayor against Andrew Cuomo.

The problem with that is that Wiener is not Cuomo. He’s a progressive himself, and one with an established track record of getting stuff done, often progressive stuff.

I’ve watched him for years push ambitious agendas through the statehouse, including bills where I would have bet against him.

Most recently, he wrote the state’s ban on cops, including ICE, wearing masks. Although the feds have said they will ignore the new law, recently signed by Newsom, and it will almost certainly end up in court, it is a worthy message to send about secret police in America.

Wiener also this term passed a controversial housing bill that will increase density around transit hubs, and spearheaded a bill to regulate artificial intelligence.

In past terms, he has successfully forced insurance companies to cover mental health the same way they cover physical health; pushed large companies to disclose their climate impact; and been one of the major proponents of “YIMBY” policies that make it easier to build housing.

He has also passed numerous laws protecting immigrant and LGBTQ+ rights, which has made him a favorite target of the far right. He has received death threats on a regular basis for years, including one from an anti-vaxxer who was convicted on seven counts in 2022 after threatening Wiener and being found in possession of weapons. Wiener doesn’t have Pelosi’s charisma, but he has receipts for getting the job done and handling the vicious vitriol of modern politics.

Unlike Chakrabarti, Wiener has also been a part of San Francisco’s insular community for decades, and has his own base of support — though he is considered a moderate to Chakrabarti’s progressiveness. This is where San Francisco gets wonderfully weird. In nearly any other place, Wiener would be solidly left. But some of his constituents view him as too developer-friendly for his housing policies and have criticized his past policies around expanding conservatorships for mentally ill people.

But still, a recent poll done by EMC research but not released publicly found that 61% of likely primary voters have a favorable opinion of Wiener. That vastly outpaces the 21% that said the same about Chakrabarti or even the 21% who liked Pelosi’s daughter, Christine Pelosi, who has also been mentioned as a possible successor.

Which is all to say that Wiener is in a now-or-never moment. He has popularity but needs momentum and cash. The Democratic Party is in a mess, and the old rules are out the window, even in San Francisco.

So waiting for Pelosi had become a little bit like waiting for Godot, a self-imposed limbo that was more likely to lead to frustration than victory.

SACRAMENTO — State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who has emerged as one of California’s most vocal critics of President Trump, will run next year for the congressional seat held by former House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi.

A formal announcement from Wiener is expected next week, the San Francisco Standard reported.

Erik Mebust, a spokesperson for Wiener, declined to comment.

Wiener, 55, has already declared his intention to eventually run for the seat held by Pelosi and has raised $1 million through an exploratory committee. But he previously indicated that he would wait until Pelosi, who was first elected in 1987, stepped down.

That calculus changed, according to the Standard, when Saikat Chakrabarti, a progressive candidate, entered the race for Pelosi’s seat.

Ian Krager, spokesperson for Pelosi, released a statement saying Pelosi was focused on Proposition 50, which will be on the ballot in California’s Nov. 4 special election. The measure would redraw California’s congressional districts in favor of Democrats and was pushed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and California Democratic leaders after President Trump urged Texas to reconfigure the state’s district to elect five more Republicans to Congress, part of an effort to keep the GOP in control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

“Speaker Pelosi is fully focused on her mission to win the Yes on 50 special election in California on November 4th. She urges all Californians to join in that mission on the path to taking back the House for the Democrats.”

Pelosi, 85, hasn’t indicated whether will she run again. If she does seek another term, her age could be a factor at a time when younger Democrats are eager to see a new wave of leaders.

Pelosi was among several top politicians who persuaded then-President Biden to forgo a second term after widespread concerns about his age.

Wiener, elected to the state Senate in 2016, is best-known for his work pushing local governments to add more housing density.

He is a member of the California LGBTQ+ Caucus and has been a leading advocate for LGBTQ+ rights. If elected, Wiener would be the first openly gay person to represent San Francisco in Congress.

Before his election to the state Legislature, Wiener served as a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and worked as a deputy city attorney in the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office.

Newsom last week signed Wiener’s Senate Bill 79, one the most ambitious state-imposed housing efforts in recent memory. The bill upzones areas across California, overriding local zoning laws to allow taller, denser projects near public transit.

The bill was fiercely opposed by Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and other L.A. leaders who want to retain power over housing decisions.

Wiener has repeatedly criticized the Trump administration, sparring on social media with the president’s supporters. Another one of his recent bills, to prohibit on-duty law enforcement officers from masking their faces during immigration raids, was signed into law by Newsom.

The University of California’s top leader has raised the “distinct possibility” that financial losses due to the Trump administration’s funding cuts could amount to billions of dollars and extend beyond UCLA to the entire 10-campus system, telling state legislators Wednesday that “the stakes are high and the risks are very real.”

In a letter to dozens of lawmakers obtained by The Times, UC President James B. Milliken said the university is facing “one of the gravest threats in UC’s 157-year history” after the Trump administration cut off more than $500 million in grants to UCLA before demanding a $1.2-billion fine over allegations of campus antisemitism.

Milliken outlined the potential losses at the nation’s preeminent public university system under Trump’s higher education agenda in his strongest and most detailed public words since starting the job Aug. 1, days after funding troubles hit UCLA.

UC “receives over $17 billion per year from the federal government — $9.9 billion in Medicare and Medicaid funding, $5.7 billion in research funding, and $1.9 billion in student financial aid per year,” Milliken wrote in the letter addressed to Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), chair of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee. If such funds were lost, Milliken wrote, “we would need at least $4-5 billion per year to minimize the damage.”

“A substantial loss of federal funding would devastate our university and cause enormous harm to our students, our patients, and all Californians. Classes and student services would be reduced, patients would be turned away, tens of thousands of jobs would be lost, and we would see UC’s world-renowned researchers leaving our state for other more seemingly stable opportunities in the US or abroad.”

Milliken, who met with lawmakers in Sacramento last month, penned his message in response to an Aug. 31 letter from Wiener and 33 other legislators, who urged UC leaders to “not to back down in the face of this political shakedown” from President Trump, whose actions the lawmakers said were “an extortion attempt and a page out of the authoritarian playbook.”

In a statement about the letter, a UC spokesperson said the university “is committed to working with leaders in Sacramento and across the country to ensure we have the resources we need to continue generating jobs, life-changing discoveries, and economic opportunity in the face of historic challenges.”

In addition to grant cuts and the $1.2-billion fine demand from UCLA, the Trump administration has also proposed sweeping changes at the Westwood campus. They include the release of detailed admissions data — the government accuses UCLA of illegally considering race when awarding seats — restrictions on protests, and an end to race-related scholarships and diversity hiring programs. The Department of Justice has also called for a ban on gender-affirming care for minors at UCLA healthcare systems.

The Trump administration accuses UCLA of violating civil rights law by not taking antisemitism seriously. Although there have been complaints of antisemitism on campus since the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel and Israel’s ensuing war in Gaza, a number of influential faculty members, staff and students, including many in the Jewish campus community, have said UCLA has made progress on addressing the campus climate.

“Free speech, academic freedom, scientific research, and democracy are values that have led to Jewish flourishing. These attacks on California, on our immigrant communities, on science, and on LGBTQ people stand in stark contrast to Jewish values,” Wiener wrote in the letter whose signatories included members of California Legislative Jewish Caucus, of which Weiner is co-chair.

Wiener’s letter urged UC leaders to fight the government’s demands as the university negotiates with the DOJ.

“Acceding to these reprehensible demands won’t stabilize the UC system; it will betray our values of protecting and celebrating our most vulnerable communities. Giving in will only encourage further unconstitutional behavior by this administration,” said the letter, addressed to Milliken, the UC Board of Regents and UCLA Chancellor Julio Frenk.

“Concessions by UCLA would establish a damaging precedent for extorting public schools in states with leadership that does not bow down to this President,” Wiener and others wrote, who described federal demands as “extortion,” echoing statements by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

“We must resist Trump’s extortion to protect public higher education, the economy, our students and California’s values,” the lawmakers wrote.

Although the university has engaged with the Trump administration to restore UCLA funding, no settlement has been reached and there is a wide gulf between the two sides on what terms would be acceptable.

Newsom has called the government’s proposed fine “ransom,” saying he wants UC to sue the administration and not “bend the knee” to Trump.

But the decision over a lawsuit rests with the independent UC Board of Regents. The governor has appointed many but not all of the regents and sits as a voting member on the 24-person board. Newsom can exercise political sway over its moves but, aside from his vote, has no formal power over the body’s decisions.

After a tense and sharply divided debate Tuesday, the Los Angeles City Council voted to oppose a state bill that aims to vastly expand high-density housing near public transit hubs, arguing that the state should leave important planning decisions to local legislators.

The council voted 8 to 5 to oppose Senate Bill 79, which seeks to mitigate the state’s housing shortage by allowing buildings of up to nine stories near certain train stops and slightly smaller buildings near some bus stops throughout California.

“A one-size-fits-all mandate from Sacramento is not safe, and it’s not responsible,” said City Councilmember Traci Park at a news conference before the vote.

Park, who was joined at the news conference by Councilmembers Monica Rodriguez and John Lee, said the bill was an attempt by its sponsor, state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), and other state legislators to “hijack” local planning from the city.

Lee, who authored the resolution opposing the bill, called it “not planning” but “chaos.”

Wiener lamented the City Council’s vote.

“Opponents of SB 79 are offering no real solutions to address our housing shortage at the scale needed to make housing more affordable,” Wiener said in a statement. “California’s affordability crisis threatens our economy, our diversity, and our fundamental strength as a state.”

In addition to creating more affordable housing, the bill would increase public transit ridership, reduce traffic and help the state meet its climate goals, he said.

Councilmember Nithya Raman, who voted against opposing the bill, said the city’s housing crisis is so dire that the council needs to work with the drafters of the bill — even if there are elements of it they do not support.

“Overall, we talk a lot about our housing crisis on this body, but our actions have not met the moment,” she said. “If I thought that this body was acting in good faith to address our housing crisis, I would support this [resolution].”

The bill, which passed the Senate and is before the Assembly Appropriations Committee, would allow heights of nine stories near major transit hubs, such as certain Metro train stops in L.A. A quarter-mile from a stop, buildings could be seven stories tall, and a half-mile from a stop, they could be six stories. Single-family neighborhoods within a half-mile of transit stops would be included in the new zoning rules.

Near smaller transit stops, such as light rail or bus rapid transit, the allowed heights would be slightly lower.

Next week, the Appropriations Committee will determine whether the bill goes to the Assembly floor for a vote. If passed in both chambers, the bill would go to Gov. Gavin Newsom to sign by mid-October.

The City Council’s resolution opposing the bill has no binding effect on the state Legislature but gives the council a platform to potentially lobby in Sacramento against its passage. The resolution also called for the city to be exempt from the bill because it has a state-approved housing plan.

“If they hadn’t taken a position on this, the state Legislature would say, ‘Well, the city of L.A. doesn’t care,’” said Zev Yaroslavsky, a former City Council member and now the director of the Los Angeles Initiative at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs.

Mayor Karen Bass has not yet taken a position on the bill. City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto came out against it in May, arguing that it would cost the city billions of dollars to upgrade infrastructure such as sewage and electrical systems to handle an influx of residents in previously low-density neighborhoods.

Wiener’s office said the bill allows for cities to exempt some properties near transit hubs if they meet density guidelines.

This year, the City Council passed the Citywide Housing Incentive Program, which provides incentives for developers to build market-rate and affordable units and aims to boost building along commercial corridors and in dense residential neighborhoods.

The council passed the ordinance, which left single-family zones largely untouched after pushback from homeowners groups, a week before a state deadline for the city to have a housing plan in place. As part of the plan, the city was required to find land where an additional 255,000 homes could be built.

In Sacramento, the Athletics are mired in last place, struggling to fill the minor league ballpark they call home. That does not mean our state capitol is lacking for some serious hardball.

California legislators, meet our old friend, Frank McCourt.

McCourt, the former Dodgers owner, first pitched a gondola from Union Station to Dodger Stadium in 2018. The most recent development, from May: An appellate court ordered a redo of the environmental impact report, citing two defects that needed to be remedied.

At the time, a project spokesman categorized those defects as “minor, technical matters” and said they could be “addressed quickly.”

In the event of another lawsuit challenging the gondola project on environmental grounds, McCourt and his team want to guarantee any such suit would be addressed quickly.

On Monday, state legislators are scheduled to consider a bill designed in part to put a 12-month limit on court proceedings related to environmental challenges to certain transit projects. The current challenge to the gondola project is 16 months old and counting.

The bill, in all its legislative prose, does not cite any specific project. However, a state senate analysis calls the gondola proposal “one project that would benefit.”

Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), the bill’s author, said he had not met with any of the lobbyists from the McCourt entities registered to do so. Wiener said he included the gondola-related language in the bill at the request of legislators from the Los Angeles area.

“To me, it was a no-brainer,” Wiener told me.

A rendering of the proposed gondola that would transport fans from Union Station to Dodger Stadium.

(LA Aerial Rapid Transit)

The larger purpose of the bill: cutting red tape for buses, bikes, trains, ferries and any other mode of transit that might get you out of your car. If a gondola can do that, he said, bring it on.

“We need more sustainable transit options in California,” he said. “We need to make it easier for people to get around without having to drive.

“When you get cars off the road, it benefits the people who don’t have to drive, but it also benefits drivers, because it means there are fewer drivers on the road.”

The Senate analysis listed 52 organizations in support of Wiener’s bill, none opposed. Weiner told me he had not heard from anyone in opposition.

That was concerning to Jon Christensen of the L.A. Parks Alliance, one of the two groups that filed the long-running environmental lawsuit against the gondola project.

Christensen, whose coalition recently scrambled to hire its own Sacramento lobbyists, said he has no problem with expediting legal proceedings. What he has a problem with, he said, is a bill that “singles out one billionaire’s project for favoritism.”

Nathan Click, the spokesman for Zero Emissions Transit (ZET), the nonprofit charged with building and operating the gondola, said the bill simply extends a provision of previous legislation.

“The vast majority of Angelenos want and deserve zero emission transit solutions that reduce traffic and cut harmful greenhouse gas emissions,” Click said.

Click declined to say why project proponents felt compelled to pursue inclusion in this legislation if the environmental challenge already had been reduced to what he had called “minor, technical matters” two months ago. Project opponents maintain ridership estimates for the gondola are overly optimistic.

In the end, what happens in Sacramento might not matter much.

The gondola project still requires approvals from the City Council, Caltrans, Metro and the state parks agency. The latest target for a grand opening — 2028, in time for the Olympic baseball tournament at Dodger Stadium — likely would require construction to begin next spring. No financing commitment has been announced for a project estimated to cost $385 million to $500 million — and that estimate undoubtedly has risen in the two years since it was shared publicly.

There is nothing improper or unusual about lobbyists advocating for the interests of big business, but it’s not cheap. Over the past five years, according to state records, McCourt’s gondola company has spent more than $500,000 to do so.

SACRAMENTO — In response to immigration raids by masked federal officers in Los Angeles and across the nation, two California lawmakers on Monday proposed a new state law to ban members of law enforcement from concealing their faces while on the job.

The bill would make it a misdemeanor for local, state and federal law enforcement officers to cover their faces with some exceptions, and also encourage them to wear a form of identification on their uniform.

“We’re really at risk of having, effectively, secret police in this country,” said state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), co-author of the bill.

During a news conference in San Francisco announcing the legislation, Wiener criticized the Trump administration for targeting illegal immigrants without criminal records and alleged that current tactics allow ICE agents to make themselves appear to be local police in some cases. Under the proposal, law enforcement officials would be exempted from the mask ban if they serve on a SWAT team or if a mask is necessary for medical or health reasons, including to prevent smoke inhalation.

Recent immigration enforcement sweeps have left communities throughout California and the country frightened and unsure if federal officials are legitimate because of their shrouded faces and lack of identification, said Sen. Jesse Arreguín (D-Berkeley), co-author and chair of the Senate Public Safety Committee. He said the bill would provide transparency and discourage impersonators.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection agencies, called the proposal “despicable,” saying it posed a threat to law enforcement officers by identifying them and subjecting them to retaliation.

“We will prosecute those who dox ICE agents to the fullest extent of the law. The men and women of ICE put their lives on the line every day to arrest violent criminal illegal aliens to protect and defend the lives of American citizens,” the department said in a post on the social media site X. “Make no mistake, this type of rhetoric is contributing to the surge in assaults of ICE officers through their repeated vilification and demonization of ICE.”

Wiener, however, said members of law enforcement are public servants and people need to see their faces so they can be held accountable for their actions.

He likened ICE officials to Stormtroopers, fictional helmeted soldiers from the movie “Star Wars,” and said masking the faces and concealing the names of law enforcement officials shields them from public scrutiny and from the communities they are meant to serve.

“We don’t want to move towards that kind of model where law enforcement becomes almost like an occupying army, disconnected from the community, and that’s what it is when you start hiding their face, hiding the identity,” he said.

California law already bans wearing a mask or other disguise, including a fake mustache, wig or beard to hide your identity and evade law enforcement while committing a crime, but there are no current laws about what police can or cannot wear. It was unclear whether the proposal would affect undercover or plainclothes police officers, or if a state law could apply to federal police forces.

The proposal is being offered as an amendment to Senate Bill 627, a housing measure that would essentially be eviscerated.

The bill also includes an intent clause, which is not legally binding, that says the legislature would work to require all law enforcement within the state to display their name on their uniforms.

“Finding a balance between public transparency and trust, along with officer safety, is critical when we’re talking about creating state laws that change the rules for officers that are being placed into conflict situations,” Jason Salazar, president of the California Police Chief Assn., said in a statement. “We have been in touch with Senator Wiener, who reached out ahead of the introduction of this bill, and we will engage in discussions with him and his office to share our concerns so that we ensure the safety of law enforcement first responders is a top priority.”

Wiener said the new measure would make it clearer who is a police officer and who is not, which would be essential in the wake of the politically motivated killing of a Minnesota state lawmaker and her husband, and the attempted killing of another politician and his wife. The suspect, Vance Boelter, is accused of knocking on the doors of the lawmakers in the middle of the night and announcing himself as a police officer to get them to open up, authorities said.

U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), wrote in an X post that the bill would endanger ICE agents.

“Do not forget — targeted attacks on ICE agents are up 413%. This is yet another shameless attempt to put them in harm’s way,” she said.

California leaders denounced reports Tuesday that the Trump administration is preparing to strip the name of slain gay rights leader Harvey Milk from a naval ship honoring his legacy, calling it a slap in the face for the LGBTQ+ community just as Pride month begins.

Milk was elected as a San Francisco supervisor in the 1970s, becoming one of the first openly gay elected officials in the country. After he was assassinated in San Francisco City Hall in 1978, he became an icon of the gay rights movement, with images of his face becoming synonymous with the struggle for gay rights.

Milk had served in the Navy prior to becoming an activist and political figure, and LGBTQ+ advocates and service members fought for years to have his legacy formally recognized by the Navy.

The outlet Military.com first reported Tuesday afternoon that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had ordered the Navy to rename the USNS Harvey Milk, an oiler built in San Diego as part of a series of vessels named for civil rights leaders. It was launched in 2021.

The Pentagon would not confirm or deny that the ship would be renamed.

In a statement to The Times, chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said Hegseth “is committed to ensuring that the names attached to all [Department of Defense] installations and assets are reflective of the Commander-in-Chief’s priorities, our nation’s history, and the warrior ethos,” and that “any potential renaming(s) will be announced after internal reviews are complete.”

The Pentagon would not say whether such a review had been launched for the USNS Harvey Milk. The Navy referred questions to the Pentagon.

The removal of Milk’s name would be in line with a broader push by Hegseth and other leaders in the Trump administration to remove formal acknowledgments of queer rights and other programs or messages promoting diversity, equity and inclusion across the federal government.

Leaders in California — where Milk is often hailed as a hero — were quick to denounce the idea of stripping his name from the vessel.

Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote on the social media platform X that Trump’s “assault on veterans has hit a new low.”

San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk speaks to reporters in October 1978, weeks before he was assassinated.

(James Palmer / Associated Press)

Trump and Hegseth have also issued a sweeping ban on transgender people serving in the military.

“Harvey Milk wasn’t just a civil rights icon — he was a Korean War combat veteran whose commander called him ‘outstanding,’” Newsom said. “Stripping his name from a Navy ship won’t erase his legacy as an American icon, but it does reveal Trump’s contempt for the very values our veterans fight to protect.”

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) echoed Newsom with her own comment on X.

“Our military is the most powerful in the world — but this spiteful move does not strengthen our national security or the ‘warrior’ ethos,” she wrote. “It is a shameful, vindictive erasure of those who fought to break down barriers for all to chase the American Dream.”

State Sen. Scott Wiener, who is gay and once represented the same district as Milk on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, said in an interview with The Times that the move was all “part of Trump’s systematic campaign to eliminate LGBTQ people from public life.”

“They want us to go away, to go back in the closet, not to be part of public life,” Wiener said. “And we’re not going anywhere.”

After graduating from college, Milk enlisted in the Navy in 1951 and was stationed in San Diego. According to the Harvey Milk Foundation, he resigned at the rank of lieutenant junior grade in 1955 “after being officially questioned about his sexual orientation.”

He moved to San Francisco in 1972, opened a camera shop on Castro Street, and quickly got into politics — rallying the growing local gay community to fight for rights and build strategic alliances with other groups, including organized labor and the city’s large Asian and Pacific Islander community.

Milk was elected to the Board of Supervisors in 1977, and helped lead efforts to defeat a 1978 ballot initiative that would have barred gay and lesbian people from teaching in public schools statewide — a major political win for the LGBTQ+ community.

That same year, Milk was assassinated alongside Mayor George Moscone at City Hall by former Supervisor Dan White. His killing cemented his status as an icon of the gay rights movement.

Wiener called Milk “an absolute hero” who “died for our community” and deserves the honor of having a naval vessel named after him.

“A group of LGBTQ veterans worked for years and years to achieve this goal of naming a ship for Harvey, and to have that taken away so casually, right during Pride month, is heartbreaking and painful,” Wiener said.

Removing his name would mean more than scrubbing a stenciling off the side of a ship, Wiener said, “especially now with the attacks on our community, and so many young LGBTQ people [seeing] so much negativity towards our community.”

Milk was a “very visible role model for young queer people, and he gave people hope in a way that hadn’t happened before from any high-profile queer leader, and he was murdered because of his visibility and leadership for our community,” Wiener said, and for young queer people today “to see the name of a gay man on the side of a military vessel, it’s very, very powerful.”

U.S. officials first announced in 2016 that a ship would be named for Milk, as well as for abolitionist Sojourner Truth, Chief Justice of the United States Earl Warren, Atty. Gen. Robert F. Kennedy, suffragist Lucy Stone and U.S. Rep. John Lewis.

At an event marking the start of construction on the ship in 2019, Milk’s nephew Stuart Milk said the naming of the ship after his uncle “sends a global message of inclusion” that did not just say the U.S. will “tolerate everyone,” but that “we celebrate everyone.”

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Wednesday threw his support behind two bills that would streamline housing development in urban areas, saying it was “time to get serious” about cutting red tape to address the housing crisis.

Newsom said his revised state budget proposal, which he announced at a news conference Wednesday, also will include provisions that clear the way for more new housing by reforming the state’s landmark California Environmental Quality Act and clearing other impediments.

The governor praised Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) and state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) for sponsoring bills designed to ease the permitting process for infill projects, or building in urban areas that already have development.

Newsom’s housing proposal looks to force permit deadlines on the Coastal Commission, allow housing development projects over $100 million to use CEQA streamlining usually available to smaller projects, and create a fund, paid for by developers, to finance affordable housing near public transit.

CEQA has long been used by opponents to impede or delay construction, often locking developers into years-long court battles. The law is so vague that it allows “essentially anyone who can hire a lawyer” to challenge developments, Wiener said in a statement.

“It’s time to accelerate urban infill. It’s time to exempt them from CEQA, it’s time to focus on judicial streamlining. It’s time to get serious about this issue. Period, full stop,” Newsom said during the morning budget news conference. “… This is the biggest opportunity to do something big and bold, and the only impediment is us. So we own this, and we have to own the response.”

Assembly Bill 609, proposed by Wicks, who serves as the Assembly Appropriations Committee chair, would create a sweeping exemption for housing projects that meet local building standards, especially in areas that have already been approved for additional development and reviewed for potential environmental impacts.

“It’s time to refine CEQA for the modern age, and I’m proud to work with the Governor to make these long-overdue changes a reality,” Wicks said in a statement.

Senate Bill 607, authored by Wiener, who serves as chair of the Senate Housing Committee, focuses the environmental review process and clarifies CEQA exemptions for urban infill housing projects.

“By clearing away outdated procedural hurdles, we can address California’s outrageous cost of living, grow California’s economy, and help the government solve the most pressing problems facing our state. We look forward to working with Governor Newsom and our legislative colleagues to advance these two important bills and to secure an affordable and abundant future for California,” Wiener said in a statement.

Both bills are pending before the appropriations committees in the Assembly and Senate, respectively.