Dean Preston's time started just as mine in the city ended, so I'm not entirely familiar, though I'm not sure how you say he's "the least pro-housing member" of the board but then again I'm not too familiar with other board members now. Just scrolling through his Wikipedia:

> Preston authored San Francisco's 2018 Proposition F, which directs the city to establish a universal right to counsel for tenants facing eviction

> Preston and other supervisors rejected the budget cuts and instead approved a $750,000 increase (to the same program which had received 4 million budget cuts from London Breed)

> In April 2020, Preston introduced an ordinance to permanently bar eviction of tenants for failure to pay rent because of issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

> Preston again introduced legislation to extend eviction protections in May 2021 as the state-wide eviction moratorium in effect at the time was due to expire.

> In April 2020, Preston co-introduced legislation with Supervisors Matt Haney, Hillary Ronen and Shamann Walton to require Mayor Breed to secure 8,250 hotel rooms to house the homeless during the COVID-19 pandemic

He does seem to oppose "free-market" "solutions" to homelessness, including unfettered development. He does appear socialist in action:

> Preston also introduced two ballot initiatives... Proposition K authorizes the city of San Francisco to build or acquire up to 10,000 units of affordable housing

State housing is socialist.

> Preston successfully proposed in the Board of Supervisors to appropriate $10 million from the funds raised by Proposition I to fund rent relief and $10 million to fund additional affordable housing.

Direct payments in rent relief is a somewhat socialist-aligned thing (would be better to simply cut out the middleman and socialize the property itself) though you're right, whiffs of neoliberal capitalist intervention.

> he fought to secure additional affordable housing funding including $40 million for land acquisition

That is out and out socialist, to have the government buy land to build housing on.

> In October 2021, Preston voted against the construction of a 495-unit apartment complex (one-quarter of which were designated as affordable housing) on a parking lot next to a BART station. Preston said that the construction of the apartment complex on the parking lot was "gentrification."

That is, indeed, super odd.

This person strikes me as absolutely a virtue-signalling, somewhat shallow politician, though I don't know if they're only a performative socialist, they seem to be adopting readily socialist concepts. They seem to be seeking the creation of a public bank, opposed to public transit fare increases, proposed free public transit, and opposed to increased police funding.

Accusations of champagne socialism don't really hold water, there's nothing inherently unsocialist about owning an expensive house (or even being mildly wealthy), especially considering he apparently has owned it since 1999. If he was renting it out, absolutely that would be hypocritical. If there were no billionaires in America, this would be worth more scrutiny. As it stands, it appears it would take several thousand Dean Prestons to make one billionaire, so I'm not really concerned.

> Whatever is causing the housing problems in SF at least, it’s not neoliberalism.

Dean Preston being a socialist or not doesn't really matter in terms of the greater question of whether SF is a neoliberal or socialist government - it's absolutely not a socialist government or comprised of socialist politicians. If Dean Preston and Chesa Boudin are the "most socialist" politicians the city has to offer, then, no.

Whether neoliberalism is the cause of the homeless problem in SF is another issue entirely. I'd say no, because I believe the homeless problem in SF is not just due to neoliberal failures in the city, but also the state being reactionary america's undesirables dumping ground, and the USA in general going through a critical period of late-stage capitalism that's increasing homelessness all over the country. Even an outright communist politician, should they somehow manage to get elected to a board of supervisors or even mayoral position in SF, can't really do much if the entire rest of the local and state government will immediately throw them under the bus (as happened with Chesa Boudin) or if the local, state, and federal government model itself seriously restricts the legal actions the person can take, guardrails at all levels to ensure the politician always serves neoliberal / conservative capitalist interests.