I then tried to analyze their voting records specific to the findings that could not be met for continued and denied projects, and the data was all over the place. No consistency, nor any clear objective rationale, was evident.

A commonly voiced sentiment was, “We do want more affordable housing available here in Sausalito, but just not this particular project.” Eerily similar to the language we’ve seen used across the Bay in San Francisco.

But I had to do all of this analysis by hand. Meeting minutes, videos. The way the data is structured and organized on a city’s website might be useful for meeting the requirements of the Brown Act, but it is abominable for anyone trying to derive any meaning from it in aggregate.

My takeaway is that the way Sausalito documents its design review data is actively helping the City obfuscate its haphazard and subjective decision-making for those who wish to understand it.

If I, as a voter, knew the voting record on new housing projects for each City Council and Planning Commission member (the Planning Commission being a common entry point to the City Council), it would be enormously helpful in picking a pro-growth candidate based on objective, quantifiable data. I could make a housing report card for each candidate. But as it is, all we have is what the candidate says about their thoughts on new development, which is squishy.

Good data is dangerous because in the hands of someone who knows how to ask the right questions, true insights can be derived from it. And with insights can come recommendations for action — data-driven recommendations. Municipalities know this and will likely fight, drag their feet, or otherwise make their data indecipherable because they know you might very well find something of use in that data. Put an uncomfortable spotlight on certain appointed and elected officials that repeatedly shut down new proposed development.

There are challenges. An entity that is forced to reveal information (and doesn’t want to) can make its numbers unanalyzable by using confusing and inconsistent data formats, classifying things in different ways, or providing partial data sets.

Here’s an example.

The Hospital Price Transparency Act was designed to “help Americans know the cost of a hospital item or service before receiving it” (source: CMS). This was noble in its aim but terrible in its execution. The reason? There’s no way a hospital is going to want to let the public know their charge-to-price ratios, what their profit margins look like, or how good (or bad) their contracts with insurance companies are. As a result, you have both non-compliance with the law and bad data. The lesson here is that you need to define and enforce a consistent set and frequency of data transfers to the state’s repository. Set up a reliable, validated electronic data interchange and enforce its use.

So what sorts of things are we looking for, and why?

What if your Housing Strike Force could see and track the progress of proposed projects in real time? And get ahead of potentially disastrous outcomes rather than intervening after the fact? For example, your Department of Housing and Community Development investigation into the 469 Stevenson Street debacle (where the San Francisco Board of Supervisors rejected a proposal to turn a downtown parking lot into 500 housing units) was initiated over one month after the final vote on the appeal. What if each board member was publicly required to record and publish which findings could not be “met,” alongside their vote of continued or denied? You’d be able to discern much more quickly, right after the first hearing, whether the Supervisors were heading in a direction inconsistent with the Housing Accountability Act. Your Housing Strike Force could mobilize — let the Commissioners know that they’re breaking the law, and arm the sponsor with legal and other support.

In addition, if it was possible to scrape the noticing agenda and associated documents from these municipal websites in real time, high-risk, larger-scale projects could be identified before the first hearing ever occurred. Representatives could then attend those meetings — I have seen examples where the mere presence of a CaRLA (California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund) attorney so terrified the City that they ruled in favor of the proposed project in order to avoid the possibility of a writ.