SAN FRANCISCO — Candidates for the District 10 seat on the Board of Supervisors are divided over whether to allow more housing density along Bayview’s Third Street, a transit corridor with vacant parcels, stalled housing proposals and a reported 7% vacancy rate. J.R. Eppler and Theo Ellington support targeted, neighborhood-scale upzoning, while Dion-Jay “DJ” Brookter and Shawn Richard oppose changing zoning without stronger safeguards. Their positions reflect a central tension in the southeast district: how to add housing and investment while limiting displacement of longtime residents and small businesses. The debate is gaining urgency as California Senate Bill 79 is expected to require more housing near transit. Much of District 10 has a temporary, two-year exemption from the law, based on the area’s industrial land and its classification by the Planning Commission as a “low-resource area.” Once the exemption ends, parts of the Third Street corridor could be rezoned for additional development. Mayor Daniel Lurie’s separate eight-year rezoning plan, which would permit taller buildings in parts of San Francisco, does not include District 10. The district’s industrial areas are also a point of concern: Eppler and Ellington have said those zones should be protected to preserve potential local jobs. Eppler said he would work with residents, merchants and city planners to rezone portions of Third Street for mixed-use, higher-density housing. He proposed pairing zoning changes with community land trusts, nonprofit purchases of rental buildings through the Community Opportunity to Purchase Act, and housing preferences for eligible families displaced by redevelopment. He also called for homes across income levels and family sizes, alongside services such as grocery stores and pharmacies. Ellington likewise favors infill housing where appropriate. He said he would begin a community and economic development planning process during his first month in office to coordinate housing, industry and transit priorities, with residents involved. He argued that empty lots offer an opportunity to build and said growth should not push out Bayview’s longstanding Black community. Brookter opposes upzoning without a thorough community process. He said several corridor sites already allow more than 100 homes each but have not produced housing in over a decade. Rather than add development capacity, he favors using vacant, underused and publicly owned land, with public investment directed toward affordable and mixed-income housing. He warned that upzoning could raise land values and accelerate displacement. Richard also opposes blanket upzoning. He said the city should first protect residents, address aging plumbing, sewer and electrical systems, and ensure development delivers genuinely affordable homes and local economic opportunities. He cited San Francisco’s redevelopment history as a reason to guard against displacement and investment that benefits outside interests. For Bayview residents, the decisions will shape more than building heights. The candidates’ differing approaches raise questions about who will benefit from new housing, whether infrastructure and services will keep pace, and how the corridor’s existing community and businesses can remain part of its future.