Supervisor Dorsey wants city-funded nonprofits to report their lobbying efforts at City Hall.

By : sfchronicle – excerpt
non profits paying lobbyists

Can’t happen fast enough…

Should city-funded nonprofits in San Francisco have to disclose their lobbying activities in the same way that for-profit corporations do? One city lawmaker thinks so, and he’s working on legislation to enact the idea.

Supervisor Matt Dorsey intends to propose an ordinance that would eliminate a provision in city law that exempts nonprofits from local rules requiring organizations to register their lobbyists and publicly report when they seek to influence officials at City Hall.

In a Wednesday letter to city lawyers asking for help preparing the ordinance, Dorsey said the legislation was intended to create more transparency around how city-funded nonprofits are allocating their resources. San Francisco has roughly doubled its spending on nonprofits since 2019, the Chronicle previously reported, but Dorsey noted that the city has simultaneously seen a “troubling pattern” of “ethical scandals, mismanagement” and other problems among nonprofits that provide crucial services.

Dorsey submitted the letter, which is likely to face pushback from nonprofits and their political allies, the same day supervisors sat for a marathon hearing to receive public comment about Mayor Daniel Lurie’s nearly $17 billion city budget proposal. Hours after the meeting of the supervisors’ appropriations committee began, the line of people waiting to speak still snaked through the corridors of City Hall. People sat huddled on the marble floors, some sporting matching shirts and jackets representing nonprofits and community groups… (more)

How many non-profits spend money on lobbyists? We know that some of them do, but., probably not the many.

Citizens’ Democracy Report – Massive fee increase for citizens’ ballot arguments

by Patrick Monnette-Shaw and John Crabtree

Breaking news on City Hall Proposal for 400% increases proposed for both ballot argument filing fees and per-word fees. A Citizens’ Democracy Report & Citizens’ Anti-Corruption Report Breaking News Story.

Mayor Lurie’s revised plan to increase filing fees and per-word fees for paid ballot arguments in the official Voter Information Pamphlet (VIP), which is mailed to voters in the City & County of San Francisco; and his new plan to eliminate publishing the legal text of each ballot measure in San Francisco’s VIP. Both measures will weaken democratic elections in San Francisco, and likely hand over even more power to special-interest recipient committees funded by billionaires to adversely influence San Francisco elections.

There are two companion Ordinances being heard at either the Budget and Appropriations Committee on June 17 at 10:00 a.m., or the next day on June 18 (apparently if the Committee runs out of time on 6/17). Both measures are being rushed through the Board of Supervisors Budget and Appropriations Committee without adequate public review. Although the Mayor’s Budget Director submitted both pieces of legislation on Monday June 1, it took two full work weeks until Friday June 12 before the public learned the legislation would be heard five days later on June 17… (more)

The two measures are Agenda Items 6 and 7 on the Appropriations Committee meeting agenda

UPDATE: The issues were heard at the Appropriations Committee and were tabled by the Chair, Connie Chan. THEY NEED TO BE WATCHED AS THEY WILL COME BACK.

The second Ordinance, Board File #260604, will “remove the requirement that the Department of Elections publish the legal text of ballot measures in the Voter Information Pamphlet sent to voters before each election, and allow the Director of Elections to determine the format of the Voter Information Pamphlet without the Ballot Simplification Committee’s approval.”… (more)

In place of including the legal text of each ballot measure in the Voter Guide, voters would be forced to locate it on-line, at a Branch Library, in-person at the Department of Elections, or by e-mail or U.S. Mail. The costs of providing it by e-mail or U.S. mail — which may ultimately cost more than including it in the VIP — were not estimated for the consideration of this proposal.

The Ordinance to eliminate publishing the legal text in the Voter Guide would become effective 31 days after passage — meaning it would go into effect for the November 2026 election.

Therefore, all of the Charter Amendments the Mayor is introducing for his “Commission Streamlining” reform ballot measures will have their legal text kept out of the VIP in what appears to be a creative way to keep those ballot measures’ legal text as far from the voters as possible… (more)

Patrick Monette-Shaw will continue his breaking-news reporting on all of these developments in the Westside Observer as well.

 

 

New Melgar-Lurie plan for affordable housing is great; cutting other funding is not

By Tim Redmond : 48hills – excerpt

Expanding the Housing Trust Fund could bring in $125 million a year. Repealing Prop. I could wipe out almost as much

Anything that adds more money for affordable housing in San Francisco is, by default, a good thing. The Council of Community Housing Organizations is celebrating new legislation, originated by CCHO and and SF Community Land Trust, that would increase the city’s Housing Trust Fund to as much as $125 million a year.

It’s not an unusual approach, by historic standards: In essence, the Trust Fund would grow as part of what we used to call “tax increment financing.” The additional property tax money that comes in from the city’s radical upzoning would in part (a fairly small part) be dedicated to affordable housing. It’s also called “value capture.”

Sup. Myrna Melgar took on the legislation to make this new approach happen, and Mayor Daniel Lurie signed on, and it will wind up on the ballot in November. The plan is to make sure the trust fund is in the City Charter, so no future mayor or supervisors can divert the money to other purposes.

Since it’s a defined revenue stream, the city could issue revenue bonds against it, bringing in immediate money for housing.

All of that is good. As CCHO Executive Director Quintin Mecke notes:

“Today, more than 17,000 approved affordable homes sit in San Francisco’s pipeline — entitled, designed, and waiting. Ready for permits. Ready on zoning. Waiting only for funding.

The Housing Trust Fund, as currently structured, falls short of what that pipeline demands.

The proposed Charter Amendment can begin to change that. This is a transformation, and we should name it as one.”…

UPDATE: Melgar told me there is no deal involving Prop. I; the only deal was to reduce the amount of required affordable housing in new projects. She said she is not currently supporting the BUILD Act.

Former Sup. Dean Preston and his allies are circulating petitions that would make Prop. I permanent–and would mandate that the money go for affordable housing. Lurie will oppose that.

Some folks will say that Preston and SF’s chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America are undermining the “deal” that trades away Prop. I and inclusionary housing for this new, valuable, steady income source.

But Mecke told me that in his meetings with Melgar’s Office and Lurie’s Office, nobody said that the new trust fund hinged on everyone supporting the repeal of Prop. I and the cut in affordability requirements. “I was never asked to agree to a deal,” he said.… (more)

This continues to be one of the most convoluted way to operate an affordable housing plan. No matter where you look there is a “gotcha”. Perhaps when the dust settles one may be able to look at what options remain for the voters to respond to in November.

Meanwhile, what is being done to get the people who need housing into the thousands of empty units, some owned by companies that are or will soon declare bankruptcy and may well owe the city millions of dollars in back taxes.

We hear that Parkmerced is largely empty and the owners are broke. What can’t these properties, which can’t be in worse shade than some of the affordable housing projects we hear about, be turned into a temporary housing project for the people who are already signed up for housing?

RELATED:

How a CCHO idea became a $3 billion Charter Amendment — and why the fight isn’t over.  (By Quintin Mecke, SF CCHO : substack )

 

 

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

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)

 

Why turning 55 is one of the most important financial milestones if you live in California

By Jessica Roy : sfchronicle – excerpt

Every birthday is worth celebrating. But in California, you might celebrate a little more when you turn 55 — especially if you own a home.

What’s all the excitement about? It’s the age you become eligible to sell your home and buy a new one while retaining your property tax basis, thanks to Proposition 19… (more)

This is actually a tease for the next article that is a lot more compelling in my opinion, and there is no firewall.

Primary Care as a Public Utility
The Case for a Common Fund

Importance  More than one-third of US adults lack access to primary care, which has increasingly become a commodity rather than the common good envisioned by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Many states are working to bolster primary care, but face common challenges related to federalism, fragmentation of health insurance, and administrative hurdles that undermine their efforts to invest in primary care. These challenges are discussed and one potential solution is described: a primary care common fund that finances and pays for primary care from the perspective of a public utility…

Conclusions and Relevance  As people in the US increasingly struggle to find a primary care clinician, state investments in primary care share common challenges. A primary care common fund could help states overcome these challenges by pooling resources and paying for primary care as a public utility—consistent with the vision of primary care as a common good—without disrupting the rest of the health care system. This approach is supported by precedent and paths toward feasibility… (more)

MAYOR LURIE AND COMMUNITY LEADERS CELEBRATE 145 NEW AFFORDABLE HOMES FOR SENIORS

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 2, 2026
CONTACT: Max Szabo| | max@szaboandassociates.com
MAYOR LURIE AND COMMUNITY LEADERS CELEBRATE 145 NEW AFFORDABLE HOMES FOR SENIORS  First Bay Area Housing Innovation Fund project delivered in a fraction of the time and cost of traditional affordable housing developments –  Click HERE for livestream footage. Livestream begins at 11:30 AM 6/2
SAN FRANCISCO — Today, Mercy Housing California, alongside the Housing Accelerator Fund (HAF), Mayor Daniel Lurie, and community partners, celebrated the grand opening of 1633 Valencia, a new affordable housing community providing 145 homes for formerly homeless seniors in San Francisco’s Mission District.
As the first development backed by the Bay Area Housing Innovation Fund, 1633 Valencia was built in just 19 months for approximately $525,000 per unit — half the cost of some affordable housing developments in San Francisco.
 
“Our city has not built enough housing, and the price has fallen to our seniors—people who spent decades contributing to this community and deserve stability, dignity, and care. Today, I’m proud to open 145 new supportive homes for San Francisco seniors,” said Mayor Daniel Lurie. “This space used to sit largely unused, and now it will be a site where people can age with dignity, build connections with their neighbors, and find the stability they need to thrive. We will continue building a system where housing comes with healthcare and where success is not just about whether someone has a place to sleep but about whether their life is actually getting better.”

The Housing Accelerator Fund is committed to the preservation and expansion of quality affordable housing for economically disadvantaged individuals and families throughout the greater San Francisco Bay Area. An innovative nonprofit public-private partnership and certified Community Development Financial Institution (CDFI), HAF works with community-based organizations, local governments, and private and philanthropic institutions to provide powerful new financing tools that accelerate housing solutions for the Bay Area’s most vulnerable residents. This includes the newly launched Industrialized Construction Catalyst Fund as well as the Bay Area Housing Innovation Fund and other tailored financing products. Visit us at www.sfhaf.org...(more)

California’s election results are a giant red flag on this key issue

By 

Insurance Commissioner candidate Jane Kim wants to establish a state-run single-payer disaster insurance program with guaranteed coverage. Gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra pledges to freeze insurance rates in an affordability state of emergency.

California’s election results are still being tabulated as of this writing. But it doesn’t take binoculars to spot a giant red flag flying on the horizon.

The leading Democratic candidates for two key positions are disconcertingly receptive to a disastrous idea: blowing up California’s insurance market just as it’s starting to reach more stable ground. This would, in turn, destroy the state’s efforts to build more housing and make it virtually impossible for would-be homebuyers to secure a mortgage.

After years of insurance companies severely restricting business or leaving the state altogether — thanks to climate-change-fueled megafires and state regulations that make it near-impossible to adequately price this risk — they’re slowly beginning to return due to sweeping reforms enacted by outgoing Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara. The reforms aren’t perfect, and the devastating 2025 Los Angeles wildfires exposed issues that urgently need to be addressed. But they’ve also led to meaningful, if fragile, progress. Among other things, the rate of growth is finally beginning to decrease for the FAIR Plan, which offers bare-bones coverage for those who can’t get it anywhere else — a critical step to improving the health of the market.

Yet Xavier Becerra, California’s likely next governor, has rashly — and ridiculously — pledged to freeze insurance rates if he’s elected by declaring an affordability state of emergency

And Kim is a particularly persuasive messenger — articulate, poised, confident and smart, she rattles off statistics, analogies and arguments in clear, easily digestible ways.

“Politics is an art, and this is going to sound very overly confident — I think I’m good at it,” Kim said in her endorsement interview. “The ultimate job that I’m running for is a political job. It is the job of sitting across from insurers, the governor, the state Legislature and being able to work out a deal.”…

To her credit, Kim hasn’t proposed a blanket freeze on insurance rates — rather, she’s floated the idea of preventing policyholders’ rates from rising simply because they filed claims. …(more)

At least they may work together which may be helpful. Between the two of them they may work something out. In my opinion the author of this article sounds like she is more confused and un-informed about the insurance business than the two she accuses of being un-informed.

Skeletons in the closet: Inside the unraveling of the California Academy of Sciences

By Sam Mondros : sfstandard – excerpt (via email)

Foggy Day at the Science Academy circa 2008 by zrants
Lavish bonuses, first-class flights, and a ghost mansion: How one of San Francisco’s crown jewels lost its shine.
At the intersection of Buchanan and Jackson Streets, just past the crest of Pacific Heights, sits a hulking, fossil-gray mansion owned by the California Academy of Sciences. Valued by real estate agents at up to $8 million, the home has four bedrooms, four bathrooms, a downstairs apartment, three outdoor patios, and, according to more than a dozen academy employees, no primary resident.
Sold to the academy in 1995 by a former donor, the home is intended to serve as the primary residence of the executive director, who, for the last seven years, has been Scott Sampson, a renowned paleontologist and former museum director in British Columbia, Colorado, and Utah. Sampson — who announced his resignation last week after a tenure marked by falling museum attendance, mass layoffs, executive departures, and what many insiders describe as questionable financial decisions — was to use the mansion to woo donors at dinner parties and hold events for staff. 

But employees say Sampson never lived there full time — and he has admitted as much in staff meetings and to colleagues. Cars owned by Sampson and his wife are registered to an ocean-view home in Muir Beach. Employees report that Sampson used the home as a pied-à-terre, only spending a portion of his time there. Despite this, the academy has allegedly taken staffers away from their primary responsibilities at the museum to work on maintaining the house, as well as spending tens of thousands of dollars on upgrades that include electric car chargers, new furniture, fresh paint, and manicured landscaping.

Even before Sampson took over as director, the house was a symbol of questionable management by the leadership of Northern California’s largest museum, which is overseen by a sprawling board of 45 well-heeled individuals and scientists whose decisions over the past two decades, critics say, have plunged the institution into chaos.

After a controversial exit in 2019 by the previous director, Jonathan Foley — marked by a divorce settlement that gave his ex-wife the right to continue living in the academy-owned home in Pacific Heights — Sampson was hired by the board of directors to develop a new global vision for the museum. This included a three-pronged initiative to boost research and conservation of island ecosystems, global reefs, and native habitats in California

Some of that vision came to pass during Sampson’s time in charge, which saw the launch of several major initiatives, including Reimagining San Francisco, a coalition of more than 60 organizations collaborating to improve green spaces, and One Galápagos, aimed at restoring ecological health throughout the Galápagos Islands.

But employees say many of his most far-reaching goals were never realized, as pandemic-related revenue losses hobbled the museum’s growth plans. In spite of these declining fortunes, the board awarded eye-popping bonuses and salaries to Sampson and the rest of the museum’s executive staff over the last several years.

“When I saw in the Chronicle the quote(opens in new tab) about blaming the pandemic for the financial woes, I just about lost my lunch,” said one former employee who served in a leadership role. “To still be blaming the pandemic for revenue loss at the academy just seems bonkers.”

Founded in 1853, the California Academy of Sciences has spent the better part of two centuries accumulating things: 40 million specimens, 40,000 live animals, a planetarium, an indoor rainforest, an aquarium, and a reputation as one of the country’s great scientific institutions. Its $488 million home in Golden Gate Park, a sinuous, 410,000-square-foot building that seems to have grown organically from the earth beneath it, is the kind of place that makes children press their faces against the glass and adults briefly forget their phones.

But among those millions of carefully cataloged creatures, the academy has buried more than a few metaphorical skeletons, according to interviews with 16 current and former employees, including executives, department directors, and staff in facilities, payroll, programming, exhibitions, and science departments — all of whom were granted anonymity in order to speak freely about their experiences.

Staffers and representatives of SEIU 1021, the union that represents approximately 350 museum workers, have raised concerns over what they call unnecessary spending at the academy, pointing to rising salaries on the executive team; costs associated with the house on Jackson Street; first-class airfare for the executive director; the hiring of Sampson associates for projects that went over-budget; and a board of directors that has mismanaged the museum’s debt.

All of this comes against the backdrop of falling revenue, slashed programs, lost jobs, and a prolonged budget deficit that threatens to bury alive one of San Francisco’s most beloved institutions…. (more)

Continue reading “Skeletons in the closet: Inside the unraveling of the California Academy of Sciences”

Sewage Flooding: Neighbors Fear Wastewater From Ingleside’s New Housing Will Overwhelm Strained Sewer

by CASEY MICHIE : inglesidelight – excerpt

In the span of minutes the sewage and stormwater flooded Ashton Avenue. (from Inglesidelight)

“We experienced firsthand the adage shit goes downhill, and I have the toilet paper in my backyard to prove it.”

L. Richard Billups woke up Christmas morning to find his 2000 Chevrolet Corvette ruined.

An overnight storm caused a flood of brown stormwater and sewage out front Billups’ home on Ashton Avenue, where he has lived for about 50 years in San Francisco’s Ingleside Terraces. The flood destroyed his car’s electrical systems, monitors, carpet and seats.

“The insurance company said the cost would be more than the car is worth as far as market value is concerned,” he said. “That’s the price to them. It meant a lot more to me.”

Video footage provided to The Ingleside Light by a neighbor shows the brown water rushing from Ocean Avenue onto Ashton Avenue around 2:43 a.m. on Dec. 25, overrunning gutters and pooling on sidewalks and yards…

The incident was the latest in a series of combined stormwater-sewage floods that residents say the city has repeatedly failed to address. With the 1,100-unit Balboa Reservoir project underway and a seven-story mixed-use developmentproposed nearby, neighbors are demanding upgrades to an undersized sewer under Ocean Avenue before increased wastewater from additional residents adds further strain to a sewage system they say has been inadequate for years… (more)

Where are the YIMBY comments on damage when infrastructure is not taken care of prior to constructing new developments? Must neighbors wait till the damage is done to sue for relief? How are the insurance companies going to handle these cases?