In June, voters will decide on two sets of dueling ballot measures that each involve housing. At the state level, Proposition 98 would abolish rent control – while Proposition 99 would reform eminent domain. Locally, Proposition G would give Bayview-Hunters Point to the Lennar Corporation – while Proposition F would require a minimum of affordable housing development in that neighborhood. For years, moneyed interests have used the “dueling ballot measure” strategy to sink progressive initiatives. Now progressives are finally doing the same thing, but will this strategy work? Giving voters a choice on how to fix eminent domain is good, but the press coverage so far has ignored the more odious parts of Prop 98. And with Lennar saying they will not develop Bayview if Prop F passes, it opens up progressives to the “poison-pill” label. Still, proposing alternatives to a bad proposition is pro-active – rather than just being reactive.

The “dueling-ballot measure” strategy is nothing new – and it’s been used heavily in the past to defeat progressive initiatives. In San Francisco, former Mayor Willie Brown was notorious in using it. When environmentalists and bicycle advocates put on a local ballot measure in November 2000 for “Healthy Saturdays” in Golden Gate Park, Brown and his allies put a competing measure that promised auto-free Saturdays later.

With the two measures on the same ballot, voters got confused and rejected them both. Which was probably the Mayor’s intent all along. In the same election, local housing activists promoted Prop L – an initiative to control dot-com “live-work” development. Willie Brown put up a watered-down version – so both measures failed. Therefore, it’s understandable why some would look at this strategy and call it a “poison pill.”

But this time, progressives have learned to return the favor – and it could pay dividends on the June ballot. When the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer’s Association put Prop 98 on the ballot to abolish rent control (while claiming it’s about eminent domain), activists could have simply done what they did two years ago with Prop 90 – run a campaign against it. But realizing that voters truly want to fix eminent domain, the League of California Cities put Prop 99 on the ballot so that voters have a choice.

The unfortunate consequence, however, is that the press is painting the Prop 98 fight as being about eminent domain. A San Francisco Chronicle article on March 10th, for example, called it as a fight between “two eminent domain measures” – while not going into adequate detail about how extreme Prop 98 really is. A casual reader who hasn’t followed the issue closely would have concluded from the article that the two measures are in the same ballpark.

And framing the debate as being about eminent domain is exactly what the right-wing proponents of Prop 98 want. In fact, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association even tried taking all mention of “rent control” out of the whole ballot description, while Prop 98 opponents argued that it should be in the title. Prop 98 supporters know that as long as voters believe it’s just a benign measure, they will not realize how devastating it would be for affordable housing.

But an adequate response is to hold the media accountable. Which is what websites like this were intended to do.

Back in San Francisco, the Lennar Corporation – which has a checkered past of broken promises for affordable housing and potential asbestos exposure to Hunters Point residents – is promoting Proposition G to “save the San Francisco 49ers.” Of course, the football team is moving to Santa Clara regardless of Prop G’s outcome – and the measure is really about giving the Florida-based company a juicy contract to build more condos in the City’s last black neighborhood.

In response, Supervisor Chris Daly and activists from POWER gathered signatures to put the Bayview Affordable Housing Initiative on the ballot. If passed, the measure would require that 50% of the housing development in Bayview-Hunters Point be affordable for people making 30-80% of the Area Median Income. Their measure has now qualified, and will be on the June ballot as Proposition F.

Technically, Prop F and Prop G are not incompatible. If they both pass, Lennar would still get to redevelop the neighborhood – but it would have to build at least 50% of its housing units as affordable. According to Lennar, that’s unacceptable. “It’s a poison pill,” said spokesman Kofi Bonner. “No private developer is going to be able to create something on this scale of development, including parks and infrastructure, and be able to provide 50 percent affordable housing.” So Lennar will campaign against Prop F.

“I support mixed-use development in Hunters Point Shipyard,” said Daly, “and it’s not inconsistent to support both Propositions F and G. But I just have issues with Prop G’s conceptual framework – and how trustworthy Lennar is. What they’re really doing is a land grab, and we’re calling their bluff. I told them they should support Prop F if their real plan is to deliver what Bayview-Hunters Point needs: jobs and affordable housing. But if their plan is to extract as much profit, Prop F may be a poison pill.”

At least with dueling ballot measures, progressives are being pro-active.