The premise is straightforward enough: levy a tax on large corporations, funnel the revenue into affordable housing programs, and watch the housing crisis slowly retreat. On paper, it sounds like the kind of pragmatic solution that even skeptics can appreciate. More housing units? Great. Addressing one of the most expensive rental markets in the country? Fantastic.

But "success" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence.

Here's what we want to know: success compared to what? Compared to doing absolutely nothing? Sure, almost anything clears that bar. Compared to the scale of San Francisco's actual housing shortage — tens of thousands of units behind where we need to be — the numbers deserve a harder look. How many units have actually been built or preserved? What's the per-unit cost to taxpayers? And most importantly, are we creating a sustainable pipeline, or just a political talking point for the next election cycle?

There's also the question nobody in City Hall likes to answer: what happens when businesses decide the tax burden isn't worth sticking around for? San Francisco has already watched major employers shrink their footprints or leave entirely. Every dollar raised from a business that eventually relocates is a dollar that disappears from next year's budget.

We're not anti-tax on principle. We're anti-waste and anti-spin. If this policy is genuinely producing results — real units, real affordability, real accountability in how the money is spent — then by all means, keep it going. But San Francisco has a long and inglorious history of declaring victory on housing while rents keep climbing and residents keep leaving.

Show us the receipts. Then we'll talk about success.