An open letter to Mission Local reporter Kelly Waldron

Harry S. Pariser
3 min readJun 7, 2024


Jun 7, 2024

Dear Kelly:

I attended the meeting you reference, incorrectly, as a “NIMBY” meeting. And I found your commentary to be unfairly biased. It was NOT a NIMBY meeting. There is no such organization. NIMBY is a slur term used by the corporate synthesized YIMBY movement to refer to an incredibly diverse group of residents who hold legitimate concerns about attractiveness, true affordability, and the attempts to shut neighbors out of the process. Had you stayed for the Q and A, you would have heard a diversity of viewpoints expressed.

Also, Engardio — surely a Republican in drag, if there ever was one — did defend his policies to the audience. I sat across from Melgar, and I noted she seemed to be more engaged with her phone than with the speakers. Whether Antonini is a Republican or not, is not germane to the issue: I can guarantee that Republicans, in the past, have been on the right side of development issues. And, on the other hand, there are definitely Republicans behind this move to disenfranchise locals and bring more sterile corporatization and gentrification to our neighborhoods. Millions have been poured into their PAC campaigns.

How long have you actually lived here in San Francisco? Do you have any affiliation with any pro-realtor organization?

Why is it you did not note concerns such as shadowing, expulsion of local businesses, lack of parks and transits, large number of empty units, expulsion of rent-controlled tenants, etc.?

Why is it that you did not note the concerns about the fact that the average citizen has no idea these changes are happening — because government has chosen not to send out proper notices, pleading “expense”?

You also failed to delineate Melgar’s conservative background as Planning Commissioner and two-time president of the Planning Commission. I have yet to see anything, anywhere written concerning her voting record and advocacy during her time here. Can you please cover it?

Why did Melgar vote, with two other right-wing supervisors against Peskin’s legislation?

(The article title is misleadingly titled: “Building new housing,” especially unaffordable housing, is only a good idea if it is truly affordable, comes with more transit and open space and is attractive, as opposed to a hideous cement, steel and glass condo-stuffed box providing only overpriced condos for the wealthy to buy as an investment.)

Much of San Francisco — including the Sunset — was under a racial covenant at one time or another. I’m not sure how it would be a positive to demolish existing buildings to build high rises. It is all about benefits to the real estate industry. SEIU, 261 and other corrupt unions have hopped into bed with them. Even the Sierra Club has now been captured by the corporate right. As one audience member shouted out during the Q and A, “Where is Scott Wiener?”

Nowhere to be found.

Now that he is in office. Wiener has long shown himself to be self-immunized from criticism. As with Melgar on this Wednesday evening, he apparently declined to engage in dialogue. Avoiding debate is a longstanding Republican tactic.

When was the last indoor public meeting that either Wiener or Melgar held or appeared at? The last D7 debate was boycotted by Melgar, claiming the sponsors were too “conservative.”


Harry S. Pariser

Article referenced:



Harry S. Pariser

Harry S. Pariser is a long time resident of San Francisco, CA. He is a writer (and author), artist and photographer.