Category: Power Politics

Posted on

Lurie wants to make ballot arguments too expensive for small campaigns

By Tim Redmond : 48hills – excerpt

EXCLUSIVE: Dramatic increase in fees would help big-money and undermine grassroots groups. It goes before the supes Wednesday.

Mayor Daniel Lurie is moving to increase by a factor of five the cost of putting an argument in the ballot handbook, undermining the most affordable way for grassroots campaigns to reach voters.

Under his legislation, which no local news media has covered, the cost of an argument would increase from $200 and $2 a word to $1,000 and $10 a word by 2030. That would mean a 200-word ballot argument that now costs $600 would cost $3,000.

Five ballot arguments, a modest number for a lot of campaigns, would cost $15,000—more than many community-based campaigns could afford.

That would give big-money operations even more clout in San Francisco.

The measure comes before the Budget and Appropriations Committee Wednesday/17 at 1:30 pm… (more)

At the June GA meeting CSFN members voted to approve a letter objecting to this action. The letter sent to the Budget and Appropriations Committee. re: Ordinances 260603 & 260604.
CSFN Oppose Ballot Fee Increase

Posted on

A week of budget protests as Lurie’s brutal cuts hit everyone except the cops

By Tim Redmond : 48hills – excerpt

Games at City Hall are never ending as are the protests against them. If you are lucky the odds are tilting your way. Photo by zrants.

Plus: Letting big institutions off the planning hook—and yet another bizarre prosecution from DA Brooke Jenkins. That’s The Agenda for June 14-19

The Board of Supes Budget and Appropriations Committee will continue hearings on the mayor’s budget proposal this week—and City Hall will be filled with protesters. The People’s Budget Coalition plans a series of creative actions; here’s a rundown:… (see the schedule here)…

A full Civic Center spectacle will show what San Francisco looks like when the city funds communities instead of cuts. Community organizations, workers and residents will fill Civic Center Plaza with cultural performances, drag, dance, music, poetry, art-making, popular education, resource sharing, picnic blankets, banners, accessibility areas, pieces of the AIDS Quilt, and political theater calling on City Hall to restore the cuts. 10am, in front of City Hall… (more)

 

Posted on

An update from Los Altos Hills

By Lynn La : calmatters via email:

Horses are welcome in Los Altos Hills, among other communities in the Peninsula that appreciate a rural lifestyle, where some vineyards and orchards struggle to survive.

Last fall, CalMatters covered the saga of the well-to-do Silicon Valley suburb that set aside some land for denser development in compliance with state housing law, only to scale back its plans once a developer proposed a major apartment project for the site. Since then, regulators with California’s Housing Department signed off on the town’s about-face.

Now, the California Housing Defense Fund, a pro-development legal advocacy group, is suing the town, arguing that its housing plan violates state law — even if the state’s own regulators don’t see things that way.

Is it possible the legal YIMBY arm is reaching too far as it attacks the root of its support? How much is too much and when is it time to retreat? The peninsula is known for its excellent local food sources that feed fine restaurants in the Bay Area.

Posted on

Who Loses By Restricting SF Ballot Measures

By Randy Shaw : beyondchron – excerpt

Initiatives Have Primarily Helped Tenants
SF also requires by far the lowest amount of signatures for measures to qualify for the ballot. This incentivizes politicians and special interests to overload the ballot with poorly conceived, divisive, and often contradictory measures. The result is a system that forces San Franciscans to fill out lengthy, confusing ballots that often result in unintended consequences.— Press release, MAYOR LURIE FILES CHARTER REFORM MEASURES TO CLEAN UP CITY HALL, March 11, 2026

Does the actual history of San Francisco ballot measures confirm the above account? Not by my research. To the contrary, gathering signatures under the current law has brought enormous benefits to the city’s non-wealthy residents. It’s been the primary strategy keeping the non-wealthy in San Francisco…

Ballot Measures Increase Economic Equity
I encourage other media to investigate which San Francisco constituencies have benefited most from initiatives secured by signature gathering. My research says the answer is obvious: tenants have far and away gained the most.

I have authored and coordinated signature gathering for two tenant campaigns. In 1992, Prop H cut annual rent increases by more than half. Its passage has saved tenants billions of dollars and kept working people in the city. People who would have eventually been priced out by the annual guaranteed 4% rent increase previously in effect.

The organization I head, the Tenderloin Housing Clinic, was the chief funder of Prop H. We could not have afforded to pay for enough signatures to qualify under the proposed new rules (even grassroots campaigns rely heavily on paid signature gatherers).

Had the proposed new signature rules been in effect in 1992, landlords would have continued getting annual rent  increases well above inflation. But for Prop H this would have continued for the past 33 years.

In 1994, I authored Prop G, a charter amendment to create a Department of Building Inspection. We had to collect 60,000 signatures because charter amendments have a higher requirement. We spent every campaign dollar we had on qualifying for the ballot. Had the proposed new signature requirements been in effect it would have been impossible for us to qualify.

Thanks to Prop G, San Francisco went from having terrible housing code enforcement to becoming a national model. The Housing Inspection Division was fully funded for the first time ever. The City Attorney went from only filing lawsuits against in=law apartments to targeting landlords who flagrantly violate the housing code.

These two measures alone show tenants have gained enormously from the current system. But there’s even more examples of how tenants benefit from the existing signature rules…

I have an entire chapter in The Activist’s Handbook on the strategies for using ballot initiatives to achieve progressive change. The mayor needs to rethink this part of his charter amendment…(more)

RELATED:
Why Lurie’s Charter reform would hurt tenants

By Tim Redmond : 48hills – excerpt…
Lurie and his allies also want to make it more difficult for citizens to put a measure on the local ballot. The mayor wants to eliminate the rule that allows four supes to sponsor an initiative with their signatures—and want to raise the threshold for community-based signatures… Shaw doesn’t mention it, but the most important progressive land-use measure in San Francisco history, Prop. M in 1986, would never have made the ballot under the new rules. The proponents gathered enough signatures, but the City Attorney’s Office, apparently bowing to Mayor Dianne Feinstein and downtown pressure, produced an utterly bogus argument at the last minute saying the signatures were invalid on a technicality. So the backers found four (and only four) supervisors—Harry Britt, Nancy Walker, Willie Kennedy and Dick Hongisto—willing to put in on the ballot instead…. That would not have happened under the mayor’s proposal… (more)

 

Posted on

California’s blockbuster legislation faces rocky rollout

By Sam Dillon : msn – excerpt

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/californias-blockbuster-housing-legislation-faces-rocky-rollout/ar-AA1W4Md0?ocid=socialshare

There is a bit of a disconnect between theory and results with the Wiener bills. Art by sfbluecomics.

Commentary:  How long can you hold a citizenry hostage to a crisis? 

Mass confusion over the meaning and implementation of SB79, which amounts to unlimited growth near mass transit, is sweeping California’s largest cities that are targeted by the one of the most draconian bills ever devised. After turning over the Pacific coastline to developers, and blaming cities for the housing shortage, Senator Wiener, has managed to make almost everyone mad at him. Now it turns out his penchant for writing long, detailed, prescriptive bills is not playing well with the public or city officials who are charged with enforcing what has been described as developer wet dreams.

Give the anger and confusion over SB79 in his district is giving Scott Wiener’s competitors a boost. He is rumored to be considering a delay in implementation of the bill as he seeks support for his new power move to Washington to replace Pelosi. 

In his haste to divide and conquer Wiener has succeeded in dividing both his friends and foes, often referred to as YIMBYS and NIMBYS. Wiener is not enjoying a lot of support from the press either. He relies heavily on the Abundant crowd in Silicon Valley, that his constituents are being hammered by. If you were not recently laid off by a high tech firm, you may have lost your income to Waymo or been evicted from a gentrified neighborhood.

Wiener is fighting a Dead horse that is obvious to everyone but him and people are ready to fight back.

There are some gems in this article that covers a lot of the history of how we got here and where the Wiener of the world want us to go. Here are a couple of pull-quotes from the article:

Posted on

S.F. housing is hottest topic in first debate between District 2 supervisor candidates

by IO YEH GILMAN : missionlocal – excerpt

In the first debate between the two candidates for San Francisco District 2 supervisor on Tuesday evening, housing was the most contentious topic.

Though candidates Stephen Sherrill and Lori Brooke also spent large parts of the debate talking about cars and public safety, their answers on housing drew the most audible response from the crowd of about 200 people gathered at Convent & Stuart Hall, who leaned older and whiter…

Brooke, a longtime neighborhood organizer, criticized the city’s recent upzoning plan, which allows taller, denser housing in the city’s north and west, including on commercial corridors like Lombard and Chestnut streets in District 2…

Neighborhoods United SF, which Brooke co-founded, is part of a coalition currently suing the city to block the upzoning plan.

Sherrill, who was appointed District 2 supervisor by outgoing Mayor London Breed in December 2024, voted for the plan. But at the debate, as he has previously, he distanced himself from it, pointing out that the upzoning was mandated by the state.

If he hadn’t voted for it, he said, the state would have taken over San Francisco’s ability to approve new housing, essentially allowing buildings of any height to be built anywhere…

Brooke pushed back on Sherrill, saying that state takeover wasn’t the “real issue.” That, she said, is YIMBY state laws — the ones that required upzoning and allowed a 25-story buildingto be proposed on the current site of the Marina Safeway right by the waterfront.

This did not let Sherrill off the hook. “My opponent says he doesn’t like [the Marina Safeway development], which is good, but he is endorsed by the very senator and the YIMBY organizations that wrote and championed the laws that made it possible,” Brooke said.

Unlike Sherrill, she said, she would push back strongly against Sacramento.

Sherrill, for his part, said, “I absolutely urge our state representatives to reform some of these laws.”…

Other questions focused on street safety and drugs.

Both Sherrill and Brooke said they think drug dealers with prior convictions should serve mandatory jail time. (“Thank you,” said Moriarty.) Both also agreed that fully staffing the police department was a high priority…

Another big topic: Transportation. Both candidates agreed that Market Street should be reopened to cars (a few people booed, then some cheered). They also both agreed that new housing developments should include more parking.

The city should not prioritize any “single mode” of transportation and should give “appropriate” weight to other forms of transportation, Brooke said, pointing to frustrations over traffic and parking. The city’s “transportation decisions,” she said, have become “less about neighborhood actual function and more about transit ideology.”… (more)

I love the way the media keeps harping on some districts for building less new housing than other districts. There is a good reason for this. Some districts are already built out, and some districts have a large amount of open space or old industrial uses that can easily to converted into new neighborhoods. There is also a different in seismic stress that we saw during the Loma Prieta earthquake. The Marina had heavy damage. Is this the place to build a 25 story housing project?

New Bombshell story from NY Post:   Ex-San Francisco mayor appointed Bloomberg pal to key seat in hopes of landing a job. People ask, is that legal or is that a bribe? Could this effect the election?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted on

Alex Shepard is the new San Francisco Inspector General

Information via email from SF Standard — G.G.

Anonymous whistleblowers wanted

Alex Shepard, is a former assistant U.S. attorney who has a history of busting major corruption cases, started this month as the city’s inspector general, where she’ll investigate fraud, waste, and abuse in the $16 billion budget. She is well known investigating big corruption cases in San Francisco. She establishing a new whistleblower portal and invites the people to report problems they see anonymously.

Shepard’s new role was created through passage of Prop C in 2024.

Power Play asked about the powers she wields and how she intends to use them. “There’s subpoena power available to the controller’s office, but Prop. C extended it to include not just people in the city [and] records but anyone who has a contract with the city or a grant agreement. And I have search-warrant power, which, as a former prosecutor, I’m really familiar with. I view the IG as kind of a force multiplier. I don’t have a lane. I can really look at anything.”

There are two kinds of cases she wants to pursue:
1. She wants to take up big cases which may have an outsize deterrent value, such as the Mohammed Nuru case,
2. She also wants to look into waste in government spending.

Alex Shepard’s message to potential whistleblowers is that they can now report to an anonymous portal without fear of retribution.
If you see something wrong, you should report it to the whistleblower portal. Alex is aware that people see things and are pressured into joining in on activities they know are wrong to keep their jobs. They should no longer feel threatened because now they can report anonymously on what they observe that they feel need to be investigated. Sunshine requests may be helpful to get the ball rolling as well.

Posted on

San Francisco Political Forecast for 2026

by : beyondchron – excerpt

Handicapping the Key Races

San Francisco in 2026 faces an electoral blizzard. Its first contested congressional race since 1987, two tight June supervisor races on top of the November contests, and at least three high-profile ballot measures. San Franciscans will also be involved in the governor’s race and helping Democrats take back the House and Senate.

For campaign professionals, hardworking volunteers, and political junkies, 2026 should be a great year.

Here’s our early forecast of the key San Francisco races along with the governor’s contest…

Charter Reform

It has yet to be decided what the planned charter reform ballot measure will cover and whether it will be on the June or November ballot (or both). Here’s what I previously wrote about all those claiming that San Francisco’s biggest problem is its charter:

Charter reform will not close open-air drug markets. It will not fill downtown office vacancies. It will not solve MUNI’s financial troubles. It will not lower health care or housing costs. It will not get lenders to make loans to build new housing. It will not boost the international tourism that Donald Trump has deterred. Charter reform will make San Francisco government operate more effectively. But it will not address the top ten problems facing the city.

…(more)

I hope you will read this entire article. It is somewhat surprising coming from Randy Shaw, but, rather close to what many of us believe may turn the city political arena back into balance. Or closer to balance than it is now. A healthy middle is what the public seems to want but has problems figure out who to trust to get them there.

Randy is correct in pointing out the one of the biggest problems we are current dealing with is government overreach. Both the national and the state administrations have usurped a lot of the power the citizens welded.

How does the public regain its power? Which candidates are most likely to reverse the trend to centralize authority? Who is most likely to find the solutions to San Francisco’s real  problems?