Yes, you read that right. In San Francisco, a housing project can be blocked — or at minimum, dragged through months of additional review — because it might cast a shadow on a nearby park or open space. Supervisor Bilal Mahmood is now preparing legislation to eliminate shadow analysis as grounds for appeal under state housing law, and frankly, it's long overdue.

Let's be clear about what's been happening. The shadow ordinance, originally passed in 1984 with Prop K, was designed to protect parks and recreation areas from being permanently darkened by new development. Noble enough on paper. In practice, it became yet another procedural cudgel wielded by NIMBYs to kill housing projects that neighborhoods simply didn't want. As one SF resident put it, "Yes, Market and 6th MUST BE PROTECTED FROM SHADOWS" — a neighborhood that could frankly use a lot more investment and a lot less hand-wringing.

The pattern is familiar to anyone who watches Bay Area development politics. Opponents who can't win on the merits find a procedural lever to pull. Shadows, trees, laundromat nostalgia — it doesn't matter. As one local observed about a similar fight in West Oakland, "It's never a valid excuse, it's just deflection and obfuscation."

Shadows are temporary. They shift with the seasons, move throughout the day, and — here's a radical thought — sometimes shade is actually pleasant. You know what isn't temporary? The housing crisis that has priced out an entire generation of San Franciscans.

Every additional layer of review adds cost, adds time, and ultimately adds to the price tag that gets passed on to renters and buyers. San Francisco already has some of the longest permitting timelines in the state. Stripping out this particular avenue of obstruction won't solve the crisis overnight, but it removes one more excuse for delay.

Mahmood deserves credit for targeting the procedural bloat that keeps this city from building. Now let's see if the rest of the Board has the spine to follow through.