Here’s what happened around the city for the week of May 10, 2026:
- Chronicle: No on D
- SF may see first city strikes in 50 years
- Shadows to no longer be considered toxic waste
- Congress Summons Maria Su

Election Countdown

Just 17 days until the June 2 Primary Election! So far turnout is below expectations, at just 22,000 ballots cast. Using the June 2022 election as a baseline, we’d expect over 35,000 ballots to have been cast by now.

Low turnout means your vote carries more weight! Be sure to read and share the GrowSF Voter Guide, and let’s keep making San Francisco better.

Chronicle: No on D

Published May 15, 2026

The Facts

The Chronicle says voters should reject Prop D. The editorial board says the measure is being sold as a tax on overpaid CEOs with revenues that would fund healthcare, but in reality the tax is paid by businesses, not executives, which would pass those costs on to consumers, and the funds it raises will be put in the general fund, not dedicated to healthcare.

Prop D supporters say it would protect hospitals and essential services without raising taxes on working families. The Chronicle argues that is misleading because the money is not dedicated to health care, and because the measure would likely hit low-income consumers and retailers, grocery stores, and pharmacies harder than the tech giants and wealthy CEOs voters may picture from the campaign’s rhetoric.

The Context

Prop D is the big fight on this June’s ballot. It is being run by SEIU, a large City Hall labor union, who wants the money available for potential raises in upcoming contract negotiations (see next story, below), though they are telling voters that the money will be used for healthcare. It will significantly impact low-margin businesses like grocery stores and wealthy CEOs will be completely insulated from its impacts.

The GrowSF Take

We fully agree with the SF Chronicle: Prop D is not a CEO tax. It is a big increase to San Francisco’s existing gross-receipts tax, and the costs will land on employers, workers, shoppers, or all three. If proponents want to argue for a general tax increase, they should do that honestly. Dressing it up as a strike against billionaire CEOs is not honest, and it is not good policy.

SF may see first city strikes in 50 years

Published May 15, 2026

The Facts

San Francisco may see its first City Hall worker strike in 50 years soon. Due to a California Public Employment Relations Board ruling in 2023 which struck down the city’s strike ban, first enacted in 1976, unions are gearing up for a big fight.

A $642.8 million deficit over the next two years is colliding head-on with these new rules. After Mayor Lurie sent a palty 127 pink slips in April, SEIU 1021’s Kristin Hardy told Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez at The Standard that city workers could “shut down the whole city” if deeper cuts continue.

The Context

San Francisco’s Charter still contains 1970s-era rules threatening mandatory dismissal for city workers who strike, part of a voter-driven backlash to major strikes that shut down the city for weeks. Instead of strikes, interest arbitration has been used to ensure labor contract negotiations don’t shut down the city every few years. The 2023 ruling found the strike ban unlawful and unenforceable for most non-public-safety workers.

SEIU is running Prop D, telling voters that the money will be used for healthcare. But in reality, if it passes the money will go into the general fund and SEIU will try to use it to get raises.

The GrowSF Take

San Francisco cannot budget by wishful thinking, and the unions cannot get everything they want when the city is losing money. The city needs a disciplined budget, clear priorities, and faster economic growth, and that means voting No on Prop D.

Shadows to no longer be considered toxic waste

Published May 15, 2026

The Facts

Shadows will no longer be considered toxic waste that can stop new housing if Supervisor Mahmood’s SHADE Act passes. Mahmood says shadow-based California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) appeals have stalled 2,195 homes over the past decade.

The Context

The proposal would not end shadow studies, but it would stop CEQA appeals based on “shadow impacts.” An appeal is when an outside individual or interest group attempts to stop a development by appealing their permit. This triggers a lengthy study, review, and hearing period that often makes projects financially infeasible.

The proposal would not repeal San Francisco’s sunlight law, which requires extra review when buildings over 40 feet cast new shadow on Rec and Park property. The studies, which require diagrams, calculations, and technical memos, will still be done, but vague “environmental impact harms” would not longer be considered adequate basis for appeal.

The GrowSF Take

Supervisor Mahmood is right to pick this fight. The 2,195 homes he cites getting blocked by shadow appeals doesn’t include the thousands of homes that were never attempted due to the threat of CEQA shadow appeals. In a city that’s getting hotter, shadows are not a good reason to say no to new homes.

Congress Summons Maria Su

Published May 15, 2026

The Facts

Maria Su has been summoned to testify at a June 10 Congressional hearing alongside Loudoun County superintendent Aaron Spence and Chicago Public Schools CEO Macquline King. The Standard’s Ezra Wallach reports Republicans plan to question SFUSD over ethnic studies, transgender-related lessons, and staff training materials.

The Context

A Republican-led House committee is scrutinizing several major school districts around the country over ethnic studies, transgender policies, sexuality/gender instruction, and parental-rights claims. SFUSD requires high schoolers to complete two semesters of ethnic studies, has a policy to protect students from discrimination or harassment based on sex, gender, or sexual orientation. SFUSD also gives parents advance notice of sexuality instruction with the option to opt out.

Under California Education Code 221.5(f), schools are required to let students use facilities and participate in sex-segregated school programs consistent with their gender identity, regardless of what is listed in school records.

The GrowSF Take

Congress should really be asking why San Francisco schools are failing to educate so many students in math and reading, with 53.2% of proficient in reading and 46% in math (in raw numbers, that’s about 25,000 children that the district is failing to adequately teach. San Francisco’s children need better academic outcomes and clear accountability, not a made-for-TV fight that does nothing to help them learn.

Paid for by GrowSF Voter Guide. FPPC # 1433436. Not authorized by any candidate, candidate’s committee, or committee controlled by a candidate. Financial disclosures are available at sfethics.org.

Week:

Here’s what happened around the city for the week of May 3, 2026:
- Prop D Raises Taxes
- Opposition to Billionaire Tax Grows
- Muni Pushes Visible Payment
- Board Bans Redevelopment of Warehouses
- Michael Moritz’s Crankstart Awards 223 College Scholarships
- Faster Paid Parental Leave

Election Countdown

24 days until the June 2 SF Primary Election — the one that decides whether our commonsense Board majority survives. Read the GrowSF Voter Guide for the June election

Prop D Raises Taxes

Published May 8, 2026

The Facts

Prop D would sharply raise an existing San Francisco gross receipts tax starting in 2027. That means it taxes sales attributed to San Francisco, not profits, and for most affected companies the rate would jump by about 800%. These higher costs will mostly be passed on to consumers and reflected in higher grocery, pharmacy, food, and retail prices.

This so-called “CEO tax” doesn’t actually tax CEOs - it taxes your groceries.

The Context

Businesses with low margins, like grocery stores, pharmacies, and retailers, will be impacted the hardest. The food retail industry’s average net profit margin was just 1.6% in 2023, according to FMI, so a tax on total sales hits especially hard. This will be the fifth time since 2018 a ballot measure altered the gross receipts tax. 2018’s effort caused Stripe and other employers to leave the city. 2024’s Proposition M fixed a number of problems with 2018’s version, but 2026’s Prop D will bring the problems back and make the rates even more punitive.

The GrowSF Take

GrowSF recommends voting no on Prop D. San Francisco should not make groceries, household basics, and other everyday purchases more expensive with a large new tax on sales.

And we MUST stop screwing around with taxes at the ballot box so much. Tax policy is complicated and both businesses and individuals need stable and predictable tax policy in order to plan their own lives and investments. Thrashing rates up by 800% doesn’t serve anyone’s interests, it just makes San Francisco harder to exist in.

Got feedback on the voter guide? We want to hear from you!

We’re looking for feedback on how we can make the GrowSF Voter Guide more useful. If you’re open to sharing your input, we’d love to have a 30-minute conversation with you — sign up here.

Opposition to Billionaire Tax Grows

Published May 8, 2026

The Facts

More California Democrats are lining up against the proposed billionaire tax. State Sen. Scott Wiener said he doesn’t support the measure, telling Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez, Gabe Greschler, and Han Li at The Standard that a one-time wealth tax is not “the best approach.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom and San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan have also come out against it.

The initiative would impose a one-time seizure of up to 5% on covered assets over $1 billion, including businesses, securities, art, collectibles, and intellectual property, while exempting that revenue from the state’s normal rules on school funding, reserves, and the spending limit.

The Context

California already depends on a volatile tax base. The Legislative Analyst’s Office says capital gains are extremely volatile and are a major reason state revenues swing so sharply from boom to bust.

Critics argue this measure could make that problem worse by encouraging capital flight. The Jan. 1, 2026 residency cutoff has already become part of the political war: Sergey Brin moved to Nevada and later gave $45 million to a PAC opposing the measure, according to Dara Kerr at The Guardian. The anti-tax campaign now includes multiple billionaire-backed committees and a separate ballot measure aimed at blocking retroactive taxes.

The GrowSF Take

GrowSF supports broad-based taxes where everyone pays their fair share. We do not support punitive, populist asset seizures aimed at a tiny number of people and marketed as an easy fix for ongoing spending.

Even if this tax is defeated, it’s already done damage: recurring tax revenue has been lost by wealthy people leaving the state and steering their investments elsewhere.

Muni Pushes Visible Payment

Published May 8, 2026

The Facts

Fare enforcement is rising on Muni. The agency is hiring 17 more fare inspectors, boosting the team from 59 to 76, and pushing what officials call a culture of visible payment.

That means more riders physically tapping when they board. Muni’s monthly passes are only available on Clipper, and SFMTA’s proof-of-payment rules require riders using Clipper to tap every time they board. Rachel Swan at The Chronicle reports SFMTA is also looking at tap-based fare media for some youth, low-income, and employee riders who now may board without a visible tap.

The Context

This is about money, but it is also about norms. Riders without valid proof can be removed and fined more than $100, and SFMTA says fare inspections per hour are up 86% since July 2024. The agency is making that push while facing a projected $307 million deficit beginning in fiscal year 2026-27.

The GrowSF Take

Visible payment matters. On a system with all-door boarding, social norms do real work: when everyone taps, everyone sees that paying is expected. Free and discount programs should remain, but SFMTA is right to move toward a system where riders visibly show eligibility too. We all need to chip in for a vital city service, and people who do not pay should face real consequences.

Board Bans Redevelopment of Warehouses

Published May 8, 2026

The Facts

The Board of Supervisors blocked housing again. This time, they permanently cordoned off industrial land (think warehouses and auto body shops) near transit. This permanent exemption to the state’s SB79 law slipped in at the last minute via an “alternative plan“ and Land Use Committee chair Myrna Melgar refused to consider letter it ever expire.

The Context

San Francisco pursued the SB 79 alternative-plan process because Family Zoning had already added substantial transit-area capacity. That’s not the controversial part, though. Rather, it’s the permanent carve-out for warehouse-heavy industrial areas that was never part of any prior negotiation and which sailed through without any serious policy engagement.

The GrowSF Take

This goes to show that even when we get great people elected, they’ll still let us down once in a while. The Board of Supervisors should have pushed back firmly on the SF Planning Department which pitched this permanent exemption without being asked.

This is a foolish and backwards choice.

Michael Moritz’s Crankstart Awards 223 College Scholarships

Published May 8, 2026

The Facts

Michael Moritz’s Crankstart Foundation awarded 223 San Francisco high school seniors college scholarships worth up to $15,000 a year. The Crankstart Scholarship can last up to six years and includes college advising, workshops, and emergency aid. In the first cohort, the program backed 200 students, with 83% first-generation and 91% at the highest level of financial need, according to Jill Tucker at The Chronicle.

The Context

The program launched in San Francisco with a 2025 uAspire grant focused on Balboa, Burton, Galileo, and Mission high schools. Crankstart was founded by Michael Moritz and Harriet Heyman and has become one of the city’s biggest philanthropic players. For students who get into college but still face housing, food, or tuition gaps, flexible aid and hands-on advising can matter as much as the scholarship check itself.

The GrowSF Take

Bravo to Moritz!

Faster Paid Parental Leave

Published May 7, 2026

The Facts

San Francisco could make newer workers eligible for fully paid parental leave sooner. Supervisor Danny Sauter’s April 28 bill, would make workers eligible after 90 days on the job instead of 180. It is partly aimed at workers in high-turnover industries.

The Context

San Francisco’s paid parental leave law, applies to employers with 20 or more employees worldwide and currently requires 180 days on the job before leave starts. A 2020 Health Affairs study found the policy increased leave-taking among fathers.

The GrowSF Take

We’re glad to see more pro-family policy getting enacted in San Francisco. Our only worry is the negative incentive for companies to hire people starting a family, which points to a more robust social program as a better alternative. But hey, baby steps.

Paid for by GrowSF Voter Guide. Not authorized by a candidate, candidate’s committee, or a committee controlled by a candidate. Financial disclosures are available at sfethics.org.

As always, you can find the full GrowSF Voter Guide at growsf.org/voter-guide, but we have an abridged version below.

How to vote. Mail it back (free postage, postmarked by June 2). Drop it in any city ballot box by 8pm on Election Day. Or vote in person at City Hall through June 2, or at your polling place on Election Day.

GrowSF Voter Guide at a glance

San Francisco

• D2 Supervisor: Stephen Sherrill

• D4 Supervisor: Alan Wong

• SF Board of Education: Phil Kim

• Superior Court Judge: Phoebe Maffei

• Prop A (Earthquake Safety Bond): Yes

• Prop B (Lifetime Term Limits): Yes

• Prop C (Decreases to Small Business Taxes): Yes

• Prop D (Grocery Tax): No

State

• Governor: Matt Mahan

• Lieutenant Governor: Josh Fryday

• Attorney General: Rob Bonta

• Secretary of State: Shirley Weber

• Controller: Malia Cohen

• Treasurer: Eleni Kounalakis

• Insurance Commissioner: Patrick Wolff

• State Superintendent of Public Instruction: Josh Newman

• Board of Equalization: Sally Lieber

• State Assembly D17: Matt Haney

• State Assembly D19: Catherine Stefani

Federal

• House D11: Scott Wiener

D2 Supervisor: Stephen Sherrill

Stephen Sherrill brings real policy experience (senior advisor in the Bloomberg administration in NYC, then ran SF’s Mayor’s Office of Innovation), and he’s used it. As Supervisor, he co-sponsored the resolution speeding up 911 response near schools, co-sponsored Mayor Lurie’s RV homelessness legislation, and backed the Recovery First sober-housing ordinance. On small business: he passed the chain-store ordinance to fill long-vacant storefronts on Van Ness (which has 53% ground-floor vacancy), and helped extend First Year Free, which has now helped over 13,000 small businesses. He voted yes on Mayor Lurie’s Family Zoning Plan and supported the unanimous office-to-residential conversion law.

D4 Supervisor: Alan Wong

Mayor Lurie picked Alan Wong out of five finalists in an open process last December. Wong is a Sunset native with a public-service resume that includes labor organizer, community safety volunteer and organizer, Community College Board trustee, and First Lieutenant in the Army National Guard. To help close SFPD’s 500-officer shortage, he wants bilingual recruiting and civilianizing desk roles so sworn officers can return to patrol. He’s pledged half his staff time to constituent services with a 24-hour reply commitment, and he wants to replace the current red-tape maze for new businesses with a simple checklist. His first vote was yes on Mayor Lurie’s Family Zoning Plan.

SF Board of Education: Phil Kim

Phil Kim is a former public-school teacher who’s led K-12 STEM education across 20+ states and 300+ schools. He joined the Board in 2024 and was unanimously elected Board President. Under his leadership, SFUSD’s finances are back on track and no teachers were laid off.

He was also the deciding vote to bring algebra back to 8th grade, ending a 12-year ban. The vote was 4-3. He’s stayed relentlessly focused on 3rd-grade reading, 8th-grade math, and college readiness, and for the first time in years, those numbers are moving up.

Yes on Prop A: Earthquake Safety and Emergency Response Bond

Prop A is a $535M bond for earthquake safety and emergency response, which will finance the Emergency Firefighting Water System, fire stations, police stations, and a replacement for the Potrero bus yard. Bonds in SF don’t raise taxes; new ones are timed as old ones retire. Average annual cost works out to about $7.45 per $100K of assessed value, taken out of your existing property taxes.

The Westside still has no dedicated high-pressure firefighting water system. If a major earthquake hits, firefighters in the Sunset and Richmond may not have reliable water (this just happened in the Palisades fire). Prop A expands pipes, cisterns, and tunnels to those neighborhoods. The Potrero bus yard was built in 1915, can’t house electric buses, and would likely collapse in a major quake. The $200M replacement meets seismic standards and lets Muni keep running after a quake. A citizens’ oversight committee will audit spending annually.

Yes on Prop B: Lifetime Term Limits for Mayor and Supervisors

Prop B changes term limits for Mayor and Supervisors from consecutive to lifetime. Still two four-year terms total, just no coming back for more after sitting out a cycle. The practical stakes are tiny: since SF adopted term limits in 1990, exactly one person (Aaron Peskin) has ever come back for nonconsecutive terms. Everyone else moved on or retired.

The academic research on strict term limits is genuinely mixed: some studies say they make races more competitive, others say they shift power to lobbyists and insiders. But since most people already think these offices have lifetime limits, we’re supporting Prop B just to makes the law match common understanding.

Yes on Prop C: Decreases to Small Business Taxes

Prop C raises the small-business tax exemption from $5M to $7.5M in yearly revenue, indexed to inflation, so thousands more small businesses will owe less. Rates go up slightly on larger businesses to offset some of the cost. Net fiscal impact: about $30-40M less City revenue per year.

The $5M exemption that voters passed in 2024 was a good start, but Bay Area prices are up ~15% since 2021, and rent, labor, and supply costs have risen even more. A neighborhood restaurant doing $6M isn’t a corporate giant; it’s a small business with thin margins getting squeezed. The rate increases on larger businesses are small, and were already scheduled to take effect in 2028. Prop C just speeds them up a little.

No on Prop D: Grocery Tax

Prop D is marketed as a “CEO tax.” It isn’t. It’s a Grocery Tax. It’s an 800% increase in the gross receipts tax (paid on sales, not on executive pay) calculated using the ratio between a company’s CEO and its median worker. Companies with lots of hourly workers (cashiers, stock clerks, pharmacy techs) have high pay ratios because the median employee earns ~$30K. Tech companies whose median employee is a $300K+ engineer have low pay ratios and stay under the threshold.

The result: Google (32:1 pay ratio), Meta (65:1), and Amazon (43:1) are exempt. Walgreens (410:1), Safeway (506:1), and Starbucks (6,666:1) get hit with an 800% increase.

Grocery stores run on 1-3% net margins. They have two options: raise prices, or leave.

Insurance Commissioner: Patrick Wolff

Patrick Wolff is the only candidate in the race with a California insurance license. He spent four years at Capital One building a home and auto insurance business, and 25 years analyzing insurance markets. In a field of career politicians, he’s an actual expert. His plan will cut filing review timelines, strengthen the Sustainable Insurance Strategy, and publish a public claims report card grading every insurer, shown before you buy.

Ben Allen is also a strong pick (State Senator from the Palisades fire zone, authored the $10B Prop 4 climate bond).

Do not vote for Jane Kim. She wants to replace private insurance with a state-run program where San Franciscans would subsidize people living in dangerous wildfire prone areas. It’s the exact opposite of how insurance should function - people should pay MORE to live in dangerous areas, and LESS to live in safe areas. Kim’s plan would raise your rates and bankrupt the state at the next big disaster.

State Superintendent of Public Instruction: Josh Newman

Only 47% of California kids read at grade level, and SFUSD is in the bottom 10% of California districts. We know how to fix this. Mississippi switched to phonics in 2013 and went from 49th to 9th for 4th-grade reading. California finally passed its own phonics law (AB 1454) in 2025, but adoption is voluntary. The Superintendent’s job is to make districts actually adopt it. Josh Newman chaired the Senate Education Committee and has the most specific plan in the field: a California Literacy Coaching Corps modeled on Mississippi’s, universal early screening, and transparent dashboards so parents can see who’s using proven methods and who isn’t. He’s also the only candidate willing to say this office should probably be appointed by the Governor, not elected. We agree.

The rest of your ballot, in one sentence each

• Superior Court Judge: Phoebe Maffei. 15 years in the DA’s office across homicide, domestic violence, elder abuse, and mental-health cases; led the David DePape prosecution and secured a life sentence.

• Governor: Matt Mahan. As Mayor of San Jose, unsheltered homelessness is down ~23% from 2019, San Jose became America’s safest big city, and thousands of new homes got unlocked through fee cuts and faster permitting.

• Lieutenant Governor: Josh Fryday. The most ambitious housing plan in the field: use the LG’s seats on UC Regents, CSU Trustees, and State Lands to push 1 million homes committed or permitted on public and campus land.

• Attorney General: Rob Bonta. Effective incumbent who co-sponsored SB 1037 with Scott Wiener, then actually used it to fine cities blocking housing; also got a $7M settlement from Greystar for algorithmic rent collusion.

• Secretary of State: Shirley Weber. Runs California’s elections without drama, hit a record 22.6M registered voters, and refused (and won in court) when the federal government demanded California’s voter database.

• Controller: Malia Cohen. Knows public finance and SF; ran SFERS ($35B), now sits on CalPERS and CalSTRS boards (~$1T combined), and led the task force on California’s largest-ever charter school fraud.

• Treasurer: Eleni Kounalakis. The only candidate with private-sector experience actually building housing and managing real money, and the Treasurer chairs CDLAC and CTCAC, the agencies that decide which housing gets financed.

• Board of Equalization: Sally Lieber. Most BOE powers were stripped in 2017; what’s left is narrow tax administration. Office should probably be abolished, but until then, vote for the competent incumbent.

• State Assembly D17: Matt Haney. Got AB 507 signed (statewide office-to-housing conversions) and AB 2475 (no releasing violent state-hospital patients without a plan); running unopposed and earned another term.

• State Assembly D19: Catherine Stefani. Got seven bills signed in her first term, including Wyland’s Law (gun violence prevention), the Restitution First Act, and a license-plate-cover ban.

• House D11: Scott Wiener. Wrote SB 35, SB 423, and SB 79, the laws that forced housing approvals statewide and legalized mid-rise apartments near transit. Built the coalition that got $1.1B in emergency funding to keep Muni and BART running.

Before you go

Want more on any race? The full voter guide has comparison tables, candidate questionnaires, prop legal text, and the full reasoning on every endorsement above.

If this email helped you fill out your ballot, forward it to a friend or neighbor who hasn’t sent theirs in yet. Every cycle, readers tell us the GrowSF Voter Guide is what their family and friends use to vote.

Happy voting, from all of us at GrowSF.

— Steven, Sachin, McKenna, Graham, and Jess

Paid for by GrowSF Voter Guide. Not authorized by a candidate, candidate's committee, or a committee controlled by a candidate. Financial disclosures are available at sfethics.org.

Here’s what happened around the city for the week of April 19, 2026:
- Muni Budget Buys Time
- SFUSD may require full year of ethnic studies
- Vaillancourt Fountain Removal Begins
- 19th Avenue repaving “Carmageddon” for the next three weekends
- California Hospice Fraud Bust

Election Countdown

38 days until the June 2 SF Primary Election — the one that decides whether our commonsense Board majority survives. Read the GrowSF Voter Guide for the June election

Here’s a cheat sheet for San Francisco:

• Supervisor, District 2: Stephen Sherrill

• Supervisor, District 4: Alan Wong

• Board of Education: Phil Kim

• Superior Court Judge: Phoebe Maffei

Ballot Measures

• ✅ Yes on Prop A: Earthquake Safety and Emergency Response Bond

• ✅ Yes on Prop B: Lifetime Term Limits for Mayor and Supervisors

• ✅ Yes on Prop C: Decreases to Business Taxes

• ❌ No on Prop D: Increases to Business Tax Based on Comparison of Top Executive’s Pay to Employees’ Pay

Read all of our endorsements in the GrowSF Voter Guide.

Muni Budget Buys Time

Published April 24, 2026

The Facts

Muni avoided immediate deep cuts when the SFMTA board approved a two-year operating budget of $1.5 billion for FY 2026-27 and $1.6 billion for FY 2027-28. The plan closes a $307 million shortfall in the coming fiscal year in part with a $200 million state loan and fare and parking changes. But Rachel Swan at The Chronicle reports that if new transit taxes fail in November, SFMTA may eliminate up to 20 routes, cut evening service after 9 p.m. by up to 60%, and slash cable car, F-Market, and special-event service.

The Context

SFMTA has been working hard to trim its budget for the past year and it’s paying off. The agency already made summer 2025 service cuts to help close a $50 million gap, and city officials warned last year that the agency’s deficit could reach $322 million by July 2026. GrowSF previously wrote about that fiscal cliff, which was driven by weak parking and ridership revenue after the pandemic and the exhaustion of one-time aid.

The GrowSF Take

Muni is a core city service, and SFMTA has done real work to narrow the budget gap without immediately gutting service. San Francisco should support both the coming regional transit measure and the proposed local Muni parcel tax. Reliable transit matters for workers, students, seniors, downtown recovery, and the city’s long-term fiscal health.

SFUSD may require full year of ethnic studies

Published April 25, 2026

The Facts

SFUSD plans to auto-enroll all ninth graders in a yearlong ethnic studies course using Voices: An Ethnic Studies Survey. Because it runs the full school year, it takes up an entire ninth-grade course slot that could otherwise go to other academic or elective classes.

The vote to adopt the new Ethnic Studies curriculum will happen at the Tuesday, April 28th Board of Education meeting. However, the year-long mandate is not on the agenda and is a holdover from the School Board that voters recalled in 2022. It will remain the default unless the current Board takes action to change it.

The Context

California’s AB 101 was written so the ethnic studies graduation requirement only takes effect once the Legislature appropriates funding for it. The 2025-26 state budget did not include that funding, and EdSource reports the omission effectively halted the mandate for now. Districts are not currently bound by the fall 2025 deadline to offer the course, and the latent class-of-2030 requirement — if and when it activates — is one semester. A full-year requirement is a local policy choice, not a state mandate.

Other California districts are scaling back. Mountain View-Los Altos recently cut its required yearlong course to one semester.

SFUSD is still working through deep budget cuts and ongoing fiscal pressure. The district’s progress monitoring reported eighth-grade math proficiency at 41% in 2024-25.

The GrowSF Take

We support changing the curriculum from SF’s homegrown course to an established curriculum like Voices, but we wish the Board would take this opportunity to right-size the requirement to one semester.

SFUSD is choosing the most expansive version of a policy the state has not even funded into existence. AB 101’s eventual requirement is one semester, and right now it isn’t even an active requirement. Mandating a full year is a local choice, and it’s the wrong one when core academic outcomes — like 41% eighth-grade math proficiency — still need attention.

The full-year ninth grade mandate that students will face takes up an entire elective slot that many students could otherwise use to build skills for AP and honors coursework, start a language sequence, or explore college and career pathways. There are limited elective slots, so every required class crowds out something else.

Vaillancourt Fountain Removal Begins

Published April 24, 2026

The Facts

The Vaillancourt Fountain comes down Monday, ending the 55 year run of the icon/eyesore. It’s a fountain that some love, and some love to hate, but it’s being removed because it’s been completely non-functional since May 2024, and had been slowly degrading for many more years. (And who can forget the green water!)

An official CEQA notice says the 1971 fountain has been inoperable since May 2024 and will be moved to off-site storage for up to three years while the city decides its long-term future. (Yes, the California Environmental Quality Act requires an environmental impact study for the removal of a broken fountain in the middle of a city. California is a weird state.)

The Context

The removal is tied to a 32.5 million redesign of Embarcadero Plaza and Sue Bierman Park into a larger waterfront civic space across from the Ferry Building, funded by city bond money, private fundraising, and BXP.

On its project page, Recreation and Park describes the effort as a roughly five-acre public space. We previously covered the pending removal in August of 2025, when it was reported that repairs could cost far more than removal.

The GrowSF Take

Your author counts himself among the many who love to hate the fountain, and won’t shed a tear over its removal. The promised usable, welcoming waterfront plaza will be a big upgrade over preserving an eyesore.

19th Avenue repaving “Carmaggedon” for the next three weekends

Published April 24, 2026

The Facts

Northbound 19th Avenue will be down to one open lane this weekend as Caltrans repaves the busy route. Officials recommend detouring to Sunset or avoiding the trip entirely.

This first closure is on northbound lanes between Sloat Boulevard and Lincoln Way from 7 a.m. Friday, April 24, to 5 a.m. Monday, April 27. Southbound lanes will be closed Friday, May 8 from 7 a.m. until Monday, May 10 at 5 a.m., and both directions will be closed from Sloat Boulevard to Halloway Avenue Friday, May 22 from 7 p.m. until Monday, May 25 at 10 p.m.

The Context

Despite the big disruption, this is the fast version! The city said it pressed Caltrans to speed up the work, shortening the disruption from about 40 days to just 9. A time-lapse video posted to Reddit from the first day of closure shows how quickly crews are moving.

The GrowSF Take

The repaving was desperately needed, and the faster schedule is better than dragging this out for months. But regular maintenance is better than emergency-style disruption, and road agencies should not let major corridors wear down so badly before fixing them.

California Hospice Fraud Bust

Published April 24, 2026

The Facts

California Attorney General Rob Bonta charged 21 people in an alleged $267 million hospice fraud scheme. Unlike the child care fraud allegations now in the news, hospice fraud is one area where California and Washington are publicly aligned. Sara DiNatale at The Chronicle reports that providers still worry a broader Sacramento-Washington feud could make coordination harder.

California Department of Health Care Services Director Michelle Baass said “Our safeguards worked as designed: we identified irregularities early, stopped further improper payments, and suspended the fraudulent providers.”

The Context

This problem is not new. A 2022 state audit found California’s weak licensing and oversight created the conditions for large-scale hospice fraud and abuse. Lawmakers responded with SB 664, which blocked most new hospice licenses starting in 2022, and the Newsom administration says California has since revoked 280+ licenses.

The GrowSF Take

This alleged quarter-billion-dollar fraud against a program meant to care for people at the end of life is a huge tragedy. Hopefully the state can recover the stolen dollars.

Paid for by GrowSF Voter Guide. Committee Top Funder:
Nick Josefowitz
Not authorized by a candidate or a committee controlled by a candidate. Financial disclosures are available at sfethics.org.

Here’s what happened around the city for the week of April 12, 2026:
- Unfunded Mandates Hurt LA - A Lesson for SF
- Housing Math Hits Zero
- Reading Is Off Track
- Presidio Trustees Removed
- Swalwell Resigns

Election Countdown

45 days until the June 2 SF Primary Election — the one that decides whether our commonsense Board majority survives. Read the GrowSF Voter Guide for the June election

GrowSF’s full endorsements:

San Francisco

• Supervisor, District 2: Stephen Sherrill

• Supervisor, District 4: Alan Wong

• Board of Education: Phil Kim

• Superior Court Judge: Phoebe Maffei

California

• Governor: Matt Mahan

• Lieutenant Governor: Josh Fryday

• Attorney General: Rob Bonta

• Secretary of State: Shirley N. Weber

• Controller: Malia M. Cohen

• Treasurer: Eleni Kounalakis

• Insurance Commissioner: Patrick Wolff

• State Superintendent of Public Instruction: Josh Newman

• Board of Equalization: Sally J. Lieber

• State Assemblymember, District 17: Matt Haney

• State Assemblymember, District 19: Catherine Stefani

Federal

• House of Representatives, District 11: Scott Wiener

Ballot Measures

• ✅ Yes on Prop A: Earthquake Safety and Emergency Response Bond

• ✅ Yes on Prop B: Lifetime Term Limits for Mayor and Supervisors

• ✅ Yes on Prop C: Decreases to Business Taxes

• ❌ No on Prop D: Increases to Business Tax Based on Comparison of Top Executive’s Pay to Employees’ Pay

Read our full endorsement rationale in the GrowSF Voter Guide.

Unfunded Mandates Hurt LA - A Lesson for SF

Published April 16, 2026

The Facts

More potholes and fewer safety upgrades are the result of a street-safety ballot measure that Los Angeles passed in March 2024. Measure HLA requires bus, bike, and pedestrian safety upgrades when the city repaves qualifying streets. Two years later, Los Angeles has delivered only about 300 feet of HLA-triggered improvements across a city with over 7,500 miles of streets.

The Context

Before the election, city officials warned HLA could impose roughly a $3.1 billion cost. The math is simple: if each qualifying repaving job gets more expensive and the maintenance budget stays flat, fewer streets get done. That is a predictable outcome for any agency working under a fixed budget.

The GrowSF Take

San Francisco should take this as a budgeting lesson, not an argument against safer streets. Voters cannot be promised repaving and safety upgrades without a realistic funding plan. Big promises plus no money usually means worse delivery.

Housing Math Hits Zero

Published April 17, 2026

The Facts

Zero. That is the Controller’s recommended inclusionary rate for San Francisco right now. This rate determines how many subsidized below-market-rate units a home builder is required to include in new construction.

New data from the City Economist’s office and an independent Technical Adivsory Committee says builders can’t afford to build any subsidized units. In fact, they can’t afford to build anything at all right now. Nearly every housing type that was modeled was financially infeasible under current market conditions.

The Context

San Francisco’s inclusionary program usually requires projects with 10 or more units to provide below-market homes, land, or fees.

This fight is not new. In 2017, the Technical Adivsory Committee recommended initial on-site rates of 14% to 18%, with a warning that 18% was the maximum feasible without being net-negative. But the pre-GrowSF Board of Supervisors promptly ignored that warning and set the mandatory minimum at 18% and scheduled it to increase by half a percent every year for the next fifteen years.

In practice, supervisors treated the maximum possible of the feasible range as a floor and planned to go higher, reality be damned.

The GrowSF Take

Homebuilders can’t afford to build anything right now, let alone homes they are required to sell for below cost. The math indicates builders should be getting public subsidies to build market-rate homes, but that’s not politically feasible. So we’ll be stuck waiting for prices to keep rising unless the city futs more fees, speeds up timeliness, and loosens their grip on new home building.

Reading Is Off Track

Published April 17, 2026

The Facts

Reading scores at SFUSD are not on track. SFUSD’s winter literacy proficiency for third graders fell to 51.8% from 53.1% in fall 2025, against a 62% year-end target, and English learner proficiency was 12.4%. SFUSD’s stated goal is 70% third-grade literacy by 2027.

Math scores, however, have ticked up slightly since 2023.

The Context

That goal started from a 52% baseline in 2022, so SFUSD is not building steady momentum yet. Mississippi shows improvement is possible, but not quick: its 2013 literacy law paired reading instruction, intervention, and promotion standards, and more than a decade later its fourth graders scored 219 in NAEP reading, above the national 214, moving from 49th in the country to 9th.

The GrowSF Take

There is no quick fix here. SFUSD should commit to the basics for years: phonics-based reading instruction, extra tutoring for kids who are behind, and holding back students who are not ready to move forward. That is also why GrowSF is backing Josh Newman for State Superintendent: California needs sustained, evidence-based literacy reform, not more drift.

Presidio Trustees Removed

Published April 15, 2026

The Facts

President Trump removed all six presidential appointees from the Presidio Trust board. Under the 1996 Presidio Trust Act, six seats are appointed by the president and a seventh belongs to the Interior secretary or designee. The board shakeup does not mean the park is closing: outgoing chair Mark Buell said he expects new appointees to continue the Trust’s mission.

The Context

The Presidio is unusual because it is financially self-sustaining. The Trust says it earned $182 million in 2024 by renting rehabilitated buildings and operating park assets, and that it has not taken annual appropriations since 2013. The park also includes 200 commercial tenants and 2,900 housing residents.

The GrowSF Take

Board reshuffles matter, but San Franciscans should not confuse them with an immediate park closure or operational collapse. We hope the new trustees show the same responsible stewardship as we’ve been lucky to have for so many years.

Swalwell Resigns

Published April 15, 2026

The Facts

After serious and credible allegations were made from four women that Eric Swalwell sexually assaulted or raped them, he dropped out of the race for Governor and now has resigned from Congress. The House Ethics Committee has opened an investigation into whether he violated the Code of Official Conduct, and the Manhattan District Attorney is investigating allegations tied to conduct in New York.

The Context

East Bay voters in California’s 14th Congressional District will choose a replacement through a June 16 special primary and an Aug. 18 special election. Under California’s special-election rules, the governor had to act quickly once the seat became vacant.

The GrowSF Take

Good riddance.

Paid for by GrowSF Voter Guide. Committee Top Funder:
Nick Josefowitz
Not authorized by a candidate or a committee controlled by a candidate. Financial disclosures are available at sfethics.org.

Here’s what happened around the city for the week of April 5, 2026:
- Swalwell Accused of Sexual Assault - He Should Drop Out
- Crime Falls Further, But Gun Violence Up
- Michael Levine will be the new Homelessness Director
- Transfer Tax Fix Threatened
- City Targets Battery Fires
- Fielder Seeks 3-Month Leave

Election Countdown

52 days until the June 2 SF Primary Election — the one that decides whether our commonsense Board majority survives. Read the GrowSF Voter Guide for the June election

GrowSF endorses Alan Wong in District 4, Stephen Sherrill in District 2, and Phil Kim for Board of Education. This week we also endorsed Scott Wiener for Congress, and Matt Mahan for Governor.

On the local ballot measures, GrowSF endorses Yes on A, Yes on B, Yes on C, and No on D. Stay tuned for more!

Read our full endorsement rationale in the GrowSF Voter Guide.

Swalwell Accused of Sexual Assault - He Should Drop Out

Published April 11, 2026

The Facts

Rep. Eric Swalwell is facing serious sexual-assault allegations from a former employee, as revealed in a bombshell report from Alexei Koseff and Sophia Bollag at The Chronicle. Other reporting describes one allegation as possible rape. Dozens of top Democratic officials have called for him to drop out of the race. Swalwell has denied wrongdoing.

The Context

The allegations have already reshaped the California governor’s race: campaign staff resigned, Swalwell’s endorsements collapsed, and rivals publicly said he should leave. On Polymarket, odds for Swalwell winning the governors race collapsed from 60% to under 4%.

The GrowSF Take

Swalwell should drop out. A candidate credibly accused of sexually assaulting an employee, and possibly raping her, should not continue a campaign for higher office while asking voters to trust his judgment and character.

Last week we endorsed Matt Mahan for governor, and we think voters looking for a pragmatic and effective leader should vote for him.

Crime Falls Further, But Gun Violence Up

Published April 11, 2026

The Facts

San Francisco’s April 1 crime report shows total reported crime down 28% year over year through March 29, with robbery down 33%, assault down 10%, and property crime down 30%.

But gun violence has not improved at the same pace. The same SFPD report shows 29 shooting incidents and 33 gun-violence victims citywide, up from 26 incidents and 28 victims at the same point in 2025. Aidin Vaziri at the Chronicle also reports a person was critically injured in a Mission District shooting on April 9, hours after city leaders publicly called for a 24-hour ceasefire.

The Context

In January, SFPD announced that 2025 ended with 28 homicides, the city’s lowest annual total since 1954, while crediting close work with the Mayor’s Office, District Attorney Brooke Jenkins, and other public-safety partners.

An SFPD technology update said the Real-Time Investigation Center, drones, license plate readers, and public safety cameras had already helped officers make over 500 arrests. And after voters passed Proposition E, City Hall moved to cut duplicative reporting rules and expand those tools.

The GrowSF Take

This is still real progress, and the people who pushed for it deserve credit. Brooke Jenkins has helped restore accountability. SFPD’s tech tools are producing results. And after Prop E, the Police Commission is no longer as free to bury officers in process while crime victims wait. But the rise in shootings is a warning: San Francisco should keep backing what works and intensify pressure on the small number of people driving gun violence.

Michael Levine will be the new Homelessness Director

Published April 11, 2026

The Facts

Mayor Daniel Lurie plans to appoint Michael Levine to lead the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing. Levine is currently assistant secretary for MassHealth, and where he helped oversee a $23 billion program covering nearly 2 million residents of Massachusetts. He will replace Shireen McSpadden. HSH runs a $785.6 million budget.

The Context

San Francisco’s 2024 count found 8,323 people experiencing homelessness, so this is one of the mayor’s most important hires. MassHealth has backed housing-related services and built one-stop behavioral health centers for mental health and substance-use care. A UMass Chan study found one MassHealth support program cut hospitalizations by 23% and ER visits by 13%.

The GrowSF Take

A great résumé does not guarantee success in San Francisco, but it certainly helps! The city doesn’t need just another shelter administrator; it needs someone who can connect homelessness policy, behavioral health, and public dollars into one accountable system. If Levine can bring that kind of results-focused management here, he may go down as Lurie’s most important hires. No pressure, though, Michael!

Transfer Tax Fix Threatened

Published April 11, 2026

The Facts

San Francisco leaders are fighting over the city’s Prop. I transfer tax on large property sales. Mayor Daniel Lurie and Supervisor Bilal Mahmood teamed up to lower the tax rates charged on sales of large buildings: from 5.5% to 2.75% on sales from $10 million to $25 million and from 6% to 3% above $25 million. But subsidized housing advocates are threatening to run a November ballot initiative that would keep rates high and lock at least 60% of the tax revenue to new subsudized housing construction.

The Context

Voters approved Prop. I in 2020, raising taxes on property sales above $10 million. It was pitched as a “mansion tax” by Supervisor Dean Preston, but it actually only applies to large apartment buildings and office buildings. Urban think-tank and good-government group, SPUR, opposed the measure.

The GrowSF Take

Right now, San Francisco’s need for budget flexibility is higher than its need for more subsidized housing. If the city has to cut back on vital services because millions of dollars are sitting in a bank account that can only be used to build very expensive subsidized housing, are we really coming out ahead? We don’t think so. A tax that falls hardest on large multifamily and commercial deals can suppress the very construction the city says it wants. Lowering these rates is the better move; City Hall should not double down on a tax that makes building harder.

City Targets Battery Fires

Published April 11, 2026

The Facts

Low quality or knock-off chargers and batteries without a UL certification will soon be banned in San Francisco. This week, Supervisor Bilal Mahmood introduced legislation to ban the sale of uncertified lithium-ion batteries and powered devices used in e-bikes and scooters after a December fire at 50 Golden Gate Ave. was linked to a battery malfunction.

The Context

San Francisco adopted a fire code ordinance in 2024 that restricted damaged and reconditioned batteries in powered mobility devices. That legislation required the use of certified devices but didn’t restrict the purchase thereof.

The GrowSF Take

Far from being government overreach, requiring consumer-grade electronic devices to obtain a UL certification is just common sense. UL certification is already required to pass city inspection for electrical work, so applying the same standards to what we plug into the wall makes sense.

Fielder Seeks 3-Month Leave

Published April 10, 2026

The Facts

District 9 Supervisor Jackie Fielder asked Tuesday to be excused from Board and committee meetings through June after a mental health crisis, according to Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez at The Standard. Under the Board’s Rules of Order, excusing a supervisor from a Board meeting requires a majority vote of supervisors present. Fielder has held the District 9 seat for just over a year.

The Context

Fielder was hospitalized March 27, during what her office described as an acute personal health crisis. Rumors are still circulating that her office was the source of a leaked legal memo, in violation of the law. As we noted last month, a resignation would have let Mayor Daniel Lurie appoint a replacement; a leave does not change the seat, but it does leave District 9 without its elected voice in regular Board and committee debates. Last week we said a three month leave would be reasonable, but any longer should prompt a discussion about her constituent’s right to active representation.

The GrowSF Take

We hope Fielder makes a full recovery. If she still needs more time after her three month leave, then we expect calls for her replacement to grow louder so that District 9 residents have representation in City Hall.

Paid for by GrowSF Voter Guide. Committee Top Funder:
Nick Josefowitz
Not authorized by a candidate or a committee controlled by a candidate. Financial disclosures are available at sfethics.org.

Here’s what happened around the city for the week of March 29, 2026:
- City Attorney Investigating Board for Illegal Leak
- Algebra Returns
- Fielder on Medical Leave for Mental Health
- Dream Keeper Chief Faces Felonies
- Deficit Shrinks, Cuts Loom
- John Elberling, a Political Force, Dies at 79
- Police Watchdog Gets Review

Election Countdown

59 days until the June 2 SF Primary Election — the one that decides whether our commonsense Board majority survives. Read the GrowSF Voter Guide for the June election.

GrowSF endorses Alan Wong in District 4, Stephen Sherrill in District 2, and Phil Kim for Board of Education. This week we also endorsed Scott Wiener for Congress, and Matt Mahan for Governor.

On the local ballot measures, GrowSF endorses Yes on A, Yes on B, Yes on C, and No on D. Stay tuned for more!

Read our full endorsement rationale in the GrowSF Voter Guide.

City Attorney Investigating Board for Illegal Leak

Published April 3, 2026

The Facts

City Attorney David Chiu is investigating the Board of Supervisors to determine who leaked a confidential legal brief. According to his letter dated February 13 reported by Josh Koehn, City Attorney David Chiu warned that whoever leaked the confidential legal memo could face investigations, discipline, or removal from office.

The leak appears to be the same one behind Mission Local’s Feb. 10 story on the legal risks surrounding a proposed sobering center. The letter was first disclosed by Lee Edwards on twitter, who obtained it via a public records request.

Only two Supervisors voted against the sobering center: Jackie Fielder and Connie Chan. Since the City Attorney’s memo on the legal consequences, one of Jackie Fielder’s staff has resigned and Fielder has gone on mental health leave after being briefly hospitalized. Chan’s office has not experienced similar disruption. Fielders office has denied leaking the legal memo, and Chan’s office has not commented on the leak.

The Context

San Francisco’s ethics code bars city officers and employees from knowingly disclosing confidential or privileged information. A 2009 City Attorney memo laid out the same principle and said unauthorized disclosure of confidential legal advice can lead to administrative, civil, or criminal penalties and removal for official misconduct under Charter Section 15.105.

The leak explicitly does not fall under “whistleblower” rules that allow insiders to leak information. The memo in question was an attorney-client privileged legal document, and the entire Board would have needed to vote on it in order to disclose it and break privilege. Breaking privilege makes the city’s internal legal reasoning both discoverable and admissable in any future lawsuits the city may face.

The GrowSF Take

Leaking privileged legal advice is not transparency, and it is irresponsible. If an elected official wants to oppose a policy, they are obligated to make the case in public and keep sensitive legal memos privileged. We hope whoever leaked it is held responsible and removed from office.

Algebra Returns

Published April 3, 2026

The Facts

SFUSD’s Board of Education approved a revised math policy on March 24, 2026, by a 4-3 vote, restoring Algebra I to all middle and K-8 schools starting in the coming school year. Students can elect to take just Algebra 1 or both standard 8th grade math and Algebra 1 at the same time. Alice Fong Yu and Hoover will pilot an accelerated pathway that compresses 6th, 7th, and 8th grade math into just 6th and 7th grades.

After a 12-year hiatus, the board finally returned SFUSD to sanity.

The Context

SFUSD removed Algebra I from middle school in 2014 as part of a misguided effort that sought to achieve equity by slowing everyone down to the same pathway. A Stanford study later found AP math participation immediately dropped 15%, and large racial gaps in advanced math course-taking remained. By all accounts, this “equity-driven” experiment achieved the very opposite of its goals.

San Franciscans were clear about wanting a reset: 81.75% of voters backed Proposition G in March 2024, urging the district to restore eighth-grade algebra.

The GrowSF Take

Restoring Algebra is the right call, but the 4-3 margin is a reminder that this progress is still politically fragile.

And it could get fragile again fast. Board President Phil Kim is on the June 2, 2026 ballot, and if he loses, a future board could easily backslide on algebra, acceleration, and academic standards. Families should treat this as progress worth defending, not a fight that is over.

Fielder on Medical Leave for Mental Health

Published April 3, 2026

The Facts

District 9 Supervisor Jackie Fielder said she is taking medical leave while navigating a mental health condition. This announcement follows news last week that Fielder had been hospitalized for “an acute personal health crisis” and that she would resign.

The Context

Fielder was elected in November 2024. Since taking office, she has positioned herself as a fierce and unapologetic critic of the Lurie administration. She has used her platform to engage in targeted harassment of her critics outside of City Hall.

The backdrop of her mental health leave is a leak probe and resignation talk. GrowSF previously reported sources who believed a confidential City Attorney memo may have been leaked from Fielder’s office. Today, Fielder’s office denied leaking the legal memo.

Under a City Attorney guidance memo and the city’s ethics penalty rules, unauthorized disclosure of privileged information can carry civil fines, misdemeanor penalties, and removal from office.

The GrowSF Take

We hope Fielder recovers, and we appreciate the transparency about her health. If her leave lasts longer than three months, then we should have a conversation about whether she should step down to ensure her district gets the representation it deserves, but she deserves the chance to recover and return to work.

And if the City Attorney’s investigation shows that she leaked the legal memo, she should resign.

Dream Keeper Chief Faces Felonies

Published April 3, 2026

The Facts

The District Attorney’s Office charged a former City Hall Official, Sheryl Davis, on March 30 with 13 felony conflict-of-interest counts, felony misappropriation of public funds, three felony perjury counts, and two misdemeanor ethics charges. Former Collective Impact chief James Spingola was charged with four felonies. Prosecutors said the 18-month case involved more than 50 search warrants. The pair were booked Monday morning, according to St. John Barned-Smith and Michael Barba at the Chronicle.

The Context

Davis was the executive director of San Francisco’s Human Rights Commission. The Dream Keeper Initiative, which was created in 2021 to funnell $60 million per year into San Francisco’s Black community, has been racked with scandal.

A 2025 city audit found more than $4 million in misuse and rule-breaking at the Human Rights Commission, and the Ethics Commission found probable cause on 31 counts tied to gifts, conflicts, and disclosure failures.

The GrowSF Take

These charges are not just about one official. They are an indictment of a City Hall culture that let a fast-growing program led by friends of the powerful move millions of taxpayer without basic controls. As we argued in our September 2025 audit write-up, San Francisco needs real-time spending oversight, enforced disclosures, and clear executive accountability.

Deficit Shrinks, Cuts Loom

Published April 3, 2026

The Facts

San Francisco’s March 31 budget update says the city’s projected two-year General Fund shortfall for FY 2026-27 and FY 2027-28 fell to $642.8 million, down $293.8 million from December, with stronger hotel, sales, transfer, and business tax collections, higher hospital revenue, and lower pension costs helping the outlook.

Lucy Hodgman at the San Francisco Chronicle reports that despite the improvement, City Hall is still preparing cuts and possible layoffs before the June 1 budget deadline.

The Context

Mayor Lurie’s budget proposal last year sought to close an $817.5 million deficit, eliminate more than 1,400 positions, mostly vacant, and set aside $400 million in reserve. As we wrote in our budget overview, San Francisco’s government is enormous even by national standards.

The GrowSF Take

A smaller deficit is welcome, but it does not change the core lesson: San Francisco’s problem is not just revenue volatility. It is a city government that has grown faster than results. Protect core services, demand measurable outcomes from contractors and departments, and keep cutting low-value bureaucracy.

John Elberling, a Political Force, Dies at 79

Published April 3, 2026

The Facts

John Elberling, the longtime head of TODCO, died of leukemia at 79 on April 2 after decades as one of San Francisco’s most influential land-use figures, J.K. Dineen at The Chronicle reports. TODCO operates eight South of Market buildings that house more than 1,000 families, but The Chronicle reports the group stopped building in the early 2000s. Elberling instead became a major political force, using ballot measures, lawsuits, and negotiations to fight projects he opposed.

The Context

Elberling’s legacy is inseparable from San Francisco’s housing shortage. A 2021 Chronicle profile described him as the figure many YIMBYs saw as the face of San Francisco’s anti-housing politics. That same reporting said critics accused him of using money generated by refinancing federally subsidized buildings to bankroll ballot measures and housing fights. GrowSF’s campaign to support 469 Stevenson came after he helped rally opposition to a nearly 500-home tower on a parking lot near Market Street, a fight that drew state scrutiny. California’s first Housing Policy and Practice Review later said San Francisco is on track to miss its 82,000-home target by 2031 and must reduce delay, discretion, and political obstruction.

The GrowSF Take

That record should be described plainly. Elberling managed an existing subsidized housing portfolio, but he did not keep adding homes as San Francisco became less affordable. Worse, he became one of the city’s most effective anti-housing operators, helping block new development and reinforcing the scarcity that drives up costs. San Francisco needs a very different model: keep vulnerable residents housed, approve far more homes, and stop empowering people who treat new housing as a threat.

Police Watchdog Gets Review

Published April 3, 2026

The Facts

San Francisco’s Police Commission is set to evaluate Department of Police Accountability director Paul Henderson after a March 17 lawsuit by former policy director Janelle Caywood alleged retaliation, racism, and misspent funds. Eleni Balakrishnan at Mission Local reported that general evaluations of either the DPA director or police chief appear to be extremely rare, and the last ones came amid controversy nearly a decade ago.

The Context

The DPA is a powerful oversight body: Charter Section 4.136 gives it authority to investigate misconduct complaints and push police discipline, while the department’s mission includes audits and policy recommendations for SFPD. Henderson also leads an agency that has posted measurable output: the 2024 DPA annual report says it closed 828 cases last year. But good output does not replace basic management oversight.

The GrowSF Take

A police watchdog should be independent, but it should not be exempt from routine review. If San Francisco only evaluates top public-safety leaders after lawsuits or internal revolt, that is a governance failure. The city should require regular performance reviews and keep advancing commission reform so accountability is predictable, not crisis-driven.

Paid for by GrowSF Voter Guide. Committee Top Funder:
Nick Josefowitz
Not authorized by a candidate or a committee controlled by a candidate. Financial disclosures are available at sfethics.org.

Here’s what happened around the city for the week of March 22, 2026:
- Fielder Hospitalized, Plans to Resign
- Muni Revenue Per Passenger Down 53%
- More Treatment Beds Funded
- Schools Need Funding Reform
- Public Defender Held in Contempt
- Lurie Replaces Innovation Chief

Election Countdown

66 days until the June 2 SF Primary Election — the one that decides whether our commonsense Board majority survives. Read the GrowSF Voter Guide for the June election

GrowSF endorses Alan Wong in District 4, Stephen Sherrill in District 2, and Phil Kim for Board of Education.

On the local ballot measures, GrowSF endorses Yes on A, Yes on B, Yes on C, and No on D. Stay tuned for more!

Read our full endorsement rationale in the GrowSF Voter Guide.

Fielder Hospitalized, Plans to Resign

Published March 28, 2026

The Facts

District 9 Supervisor Jackie Fielder was reported hospitalized on March 27, according to Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez, Gabe Greschler, and Han Li at The Standard. Her office said she is facing an “acute personal health crisis”. Two sources told GrowSF she’s experiencing a mental health crisis, and that it may be related to an investigation into her office for leaking a confidential, legally privileged memo to Mission Local in February.

Sources told GrowSF that hospital staff described her as “agitated.”

The Context

Fielder won her race for Supervisor with 59% of the vote, and has held office for about 14 months.

Vacant seats on the Board of Supervisors are filled by the Mayor, which would be the second third appointment Mayor Lurie has made. The appointee would serve until the next regularly scheduled Board of Supervisors election, which is on November 3, 2026.

Fielder’s seat is historically a solidly progressive seat, and she has regularly opposed Lurie’s agenda. Her absence would significantly shift the partisan valence of the Board.

The GrowSF Take

We hope Fielder swiftly recovers, and that the internet rabble don’t harass her.

If she did, in fact, leak a confidential legal memo, she should resign or her colleagues should censure her.

Muni Revenue Per Passenger Down 53%

Published March 27, 2026

The Facts

Muni revenue per passenger dropped 53% since 2015, and inflation-adjusted revenue fell from $283 million to just $97 million over the same time period.

SFMTA’s official estimate is that close to 20% of riders do not pay, up from 12% in 2019. And the method of counting non-payment has known undercounting flaws.

The Context

SFMTA says tougher fare inspections and compliance work are helping: inspections doubled, observed evasion fell nearly 30%, and revenue per rider rose 6% by early 2025. But that “observed” evasion metric is incomplete. In its own fare-compliance update, SFMTA notes the measure counts only inspected riders and does not include people who step off when inspectors board.

The GrowSF Take

At least one out of five riders is stealing from the public, and the real rate is higher since the agency’s main enforcement metric misses riders who evade inspection entirely.

A society cannot function when it collectively believes that stealing won’t be punished. San Francisco should strictly enforce payment from everyone, and require that even those riding on monthly passes or free fares still must scan their card. Reliable transit requires easy payment, visible and universal compliance, visible inspectors, and honest measurement.

More Treatment Beds Funded

Published March 26, 2026

The Facts

San Francisco will receive about $100 million for three treatment projects, Sydney Johnson at KQED reports. That will fund 56 psychiatric beds at Hyde Hospital, 44 treatment beds on Treasure Island, and a sobering center at 1660 Mission. Statewide, Prop 1 will fund 6,919 residential treatment beds and 27,561 outpatient slots.

The Context

This builds on San Francisco’s earlier 73-bed award from Prop 1.

GrowSF backed Yes on Proposition 1 in the March 5, 2024 primary because of its promise to fund treatment facilities, recovery housing, and other behavioral-health infrastructure.

The GrowSF Take

More locked beds, dual-diagnosis treatment, and sobering capacity are exactly the kinds of investments San Francisco needs. The pressure is now on City Hall to execute: staff these sites, open them fast, and use them to move people off the street and into care.

Schools Need Funding Reform

Published March 26, 2026

The Facts

Bay Area school board members, including SF Board President Phil Kim, urged Sacramento to overhaul school funding, arguing that attendance-based formulas and underfunded special education are pushing districts toward cuts, strikes, and even insolvency, according to Jill Tucker at The Chronicle. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s 2026-27 budget includes a 2.41% cost-of-living adjustment for schools, but local officials say it does not keep up with health, pension, transportation, energy, and inflation costs.

The Context

California currently uses a daily attendance formula to calculate school funding, rather than the simpler enrollment funding formula. Other big states, with better education outcomes, use enrollment: Florida funds schools through FTE membership counted during survey windows, with an attendance check; Illinois uses average student enrollment from October 1 and March 1; and Washington funds most programs using annual average FTE reported monthly.

California’s Legislative Analyst has warned that a full shift to enrollment-based funding would cost billions. Which... is exactly of the point school leaders are making.

California’s rules were supposed to help boost attendance numbers, but they are still weak. The current rules punish the kids who show up for the truancy of those who don’t.

The GrowSF Take

Sacramento should stop acting like California is uniquely incapable of doing what other big states already do. If those states can manage a more enrollment-based approach, California should stop pretending the idea is unworkable. A more realistic formula, especially for special education and enrollment stability, is overdue.

Public Defender Held in Contempt

Published March 26, 2026

The Facts

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Harry Dorfman fined Public Defender Mano Raju $26,000 on March 24 after finding 26 instances in which his office refused felony appointments for indigent defendants, according to Jonah Owen Lamb at The Standard. Raju said he plans to appeal. The office has been declining some new cases one day a week since May 2025, arguing that attorneys are over capacity.

The Context

At a criminal arraignment, judges must advise defendants of their right to a lawyer and appoint one at no cost if they cannot afford counsel. GrowSF noted in a January standoff story that this dispute was already causing delays and leaving some defendants stuck in jail waiting for counsel.

San Francisco’s Public Defender says it represents more than 20,000 clients a year; the office had 209.6 full-time employees and a $50.2 million budget in 2022-23. The city’s adopted budget raised that to $54.0 million in 2024-25.

The GrowSF Take

The constitution is clear: everyone has the right to an attorney. Raju’s woes about staffing do not override the rights of the accused, and it’s proper for the judge to hold him in contempt. San Francisco cannot accept a system where defendants wait in custody, cases stall, and an elected department refuses appointments it is legally expected to handle. No doubt this will be a main point of contention in the next Public Defender election.

Lurie Replaces Innovation Chief

Published March 26, 2026

The Facts

Mayor Daniel Lurie has shaken up the Mayor’s Office of Innovation, less than a year after hiring new leadership to help drive permitting and technology reform, according to Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez at The Standard.

The Context

The Board of Supervisors approved a $7 million Bloomberg Philanthropies grant for the office on February 10, 2026, adding four new positions, so the shakeup comes just as the department is expanding.

The innovation office is meant to help departments execute cross-city reforms, but in San Francisco even simple changes can get bogged down in process, legal review, procurement rules, and overlapping authority. In its January budget update, the office said it was working on permitting, police hiring, transit, violence prevention, and contracting reform.

The GrowSF Take

We have a lot of sympathy for people who come from faster-moving worlds like tech and get dropped into City Hall, only to discover that almost everything is slow and layered with bureaucracy. That frustration is real, and it says more about San Francisco’s broken systems than any one staffer. We wish the former director the best in her next endeavor!

Paid for by GrowSF Voter Guide. Committee Top Funder:
Nick Josefowitz
Not authorized by a candidate or a committee controlled by a candidate. Financial disclosures are available at sfethics.org.

Here’s what happened around the city for the week of March 15, 2026:
- A Victory on Algebra — But the Work Isn’t Over
- Austin Built, Rents Fell
- Homelessness Chief Steps Down
- A little sprinkling of corruption
- Cesar Chavez accused of raping minors

A Victory on Algebra — But the Work Isn’t Over

Published March 20, 2026

The Facts

Thanks to your emails, algebra will once again be offered in 8th grade. Nearly 350 GrowSF supporters emailed the district to demand a better math curriculum and the district has listened — partially.

Anna Bauman at the San Francisco Chronicle reports that SFUSD’s 2026-27 algebra proposal would let 8th graders choose between Math 8 and Algebra 1, or even take both at the same time if they want.

District staff said an updated Math Placement Policy will go to the Board of Education on March 24, 2026 to formalize 8th-grade algebra.

But here’s the catch: only two middle schools — Hoover and Alice Fong Yu — will implement the compressed 6th/7th/8th grade math pathway that prepares students for standalone Algebra in 8th grade. At every other middle school, students will be forced to choose between taking both Math 8 (pre-algebra) and Algebra simultaneously — losing an elective — or skipping pre-algebra entirely and going straight to Algebra.

The Context

In 2014, San Francisco made the horribly misguided decision to get rid of 8th grade algebra and force all kids into the same math class, even if they were capable of more. For over a decade, middle schoolers couldn’t take algebra.

SFUSD’s new plan reverses that 2014 mistake, but most schools still don’t have a clear pathway that meets the needs of advanced students.

The GrowSF Take

This is a real victory: the district reversed a bad plan and committed to offering Algebra in 8th grade. That happened because 350 GrowSF supporters emailed in under 48 hours, and that pressure worked. Thank you.

But the job isn’t finished. Only Hoover and Alice Fong Yu will have the compressed math pathway that makes standalone Algebra truly accessible to all students. Every other middle school still leaves families with a hard choice: double up and lose an elective, or skip pre-algebra. We’ll keep pushing until every SF middle schooler has a real path to Algebra. Stay informed and keep the pressure on.

Austin Built, Rents Fell

Published March 20, 2026

The Facts

Between 2015 and 2024, Austin built 120,000 new homes. And, in no surprise to any economist, the median rent fell—from $1,546 in December 2021 to $1,296 in January 2026, according to a new Pew analysis. By comparison, San Francisco adding just 35,000 homes in the same period, failing to meet demand and leading to rents rising: 14% in 2026 and 11% in 2025) alone. In 2015, both cities were roughly the same size. But now Austin is larger and more affordable.

Austin paired market-rate production with affordable-housing bonds, ensuring their subsidized homes were actually funded and actually built. San Francisco has an unfunded mandate to build similar homes.

The Context

Austin didn’t rely on any single “silver bullet”. Their HOME amendments allowed up to three homes on many single-family lots, and Affordability Unlocked granted height, density, and parking relief to projects that reserved half their units as affordable.

San Francisco’s Family Zoning Plan similarly legalizes more small homes in neighborhoods that long blocked them, and Scott Wiener’s state laws grant extra height and density for added subsidized units, but Austin shows that zoning reform works best when it is paired with faster approvals, funded mandates, and a broadly more welcoming regulatory environment for apartments.

The GrowSF Take

The evidence is overwhelming: build more homes, and rents come down. Some elected officials still pretend otherwise.

The lesson for City Hall is simple: if we want lower rents, we must make housing easy to build at scale with automatic approvals for homes of all sizes, simpler rules, and permits measured in weeks, not years.

Homelessness Chief Steps Down

Published March 20, 2026

The Facts

The head of San Francisco’s Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing, Shireen McSpadden, is retiring June 30, according to J.D. Morris and Alyce McFadden at The Chronicle. She has led the department since her April 2021 appointment by Mayor London Breed. HSH oversees the city’s shelter system, supportive housing, and major homelessness-service contracts. The city’s 2024 Point-in-Time Count found total homelessness rose 7% from 2022 to 8,323 people.

The Context

This opening comes after Mayor Daniel Lurie retreated from his biggest homelessness promise. In March 2025, his administration said it would add 1,500 interim housing beds, including 700 already in planning. By July, J.D. Morris at The Chronicle reported that Lurie had dropped the six-month target and shifted to a looser goal of opening a little more than 1,000 slots by year’s end. Then the mayor’s June budget presentation proposed just 572 new interim beds over three years.

The GrowSF Take

Mayor Lurie now gets to choose the person responsible for turning homelessness policy into day-to-day results. He should pick a leader focused on execution: fewer disconnected programs, faster movement into shelter and treatment, and public metrics that show whether the city is actually getting people off the street.

A little sprinkling of corruption

Published March 20, 2026

The Facts

Former Fire Marshal Kenneth Cofflin, who helped draft San Francisco’s 2022 sprinkler ordinance, is now marketing paid consulting to condo associations seeking approvals and exemptions under that same law, according to J.K. Dineen at The Chronicle.

The Context

The legislation itself phased in sprinkler requirements for older residential high-rises. The city’s ethics rules restrict former officials from certain communications with their old departments and from representing clients in matters they worked on personally and substantially.

The GrowSF Take

While it may not meet the legal definition of corruption, starting a consultancy to seek exemptions for the very law you created sure stinks. It’s a reminder that every new rule opens a new avenue for influence peddling. San Francisco should stop layering mandates, exemptions, and consultants on top of each other, pause this law, and rewrite it around actual fire risk, real costs, and bright-line ethics rules.

Cesar Chavez accused of raping minors

Published March 19, 2026

The Facts

A New York Times investigation reported allegations from Ana Murguia and Debra Rojas, who said Cesar Chavez abused them when they were 13 and 15 in the 1970s. In her own March 18 statement, Dolores Huerta said Chavez pressured her into sex twice in her 30s, and said both instances resulted in pregnancies.

In San Francisco, the April 11 parade for Cesar Chavez has already been renamed for Dolores Huerta. SFUSD has not yet weighed in on whether Cesar Chavez elementary will get a new name.

The Context

Chavez’s name is everywhere in San Francisco, and California more generally. It’s on Cesar Chavez Street (formerly Army Street), at Cesar Chavez Elementary School in the Mission, and at SF State’s Cesar Chavez Student Center. Beyond local landmarks, Los Angeles also sports a Cesar Chavez St, and [March 31 is a California state holiday (Cesar Chavez day, now Farmworker Day)](https://www.sos.ca.gov/state-holidays/).

Chavez was an important leader for agricultural worker rights. Alongside Dolores Huerta and Gilbert Padilla, he co-founded the National Farm Workers Association (NFWA) which became the United Farm Workers union.

The GrowSF Take

Our hearts go out to Chavez’s victims.

This is not what San Franciscans voted for. In March 2024, 82% supported Proposition G, calling for 8th grade algebra to come back.

WE NEED YOU TO TAKE ACTION NOW!

Do this by Friday the 20th: Use our email tool to tell Superintendent Su that kids shouldn’t have to choose between math and art. She MUST revise the plan to let kids in 6th and 7th grade accelerate their learning.

Email Superintendent Su

The Problem

In March 2024, San Francisco voters passed Proposition G with 82% support, urging SFUSD to offer Algebra 1 to students by 8th grade. No opponent argument was even submitted. The message was clear: bring back 8th grade algebra.

Now Superintendent Maria Su and her staff have proposed a math placement policy that technically complies with Prop G — but completely ignores its intent. And Su is bringing this plan to the Board without offering any real alternatives.

Under the plan the central office developed, 19 of 21 middle schools would offer Algebra only as an opt-out elective. That means students who are ready for Algebra — students who have already mastered 8th grade math concepts — would still be required to dual-enroll in 8th grade math and Algebra. To fit both classes into their schedule, they’d have to give up another elective: art, music, a world language, or whatever else makes school worth showing up for.

Only two schools — Alice Fong Yu and Hoover — are exploring a compression model that combines Math 8 and Algebra into a single course. The other 19 are stuck with the dual-enrollment approach that Su’s staff designed.

It gets worse. At two schools that only have 6 periods, students taking Algebra through dual enrollment would have no remaining elective at all. And students with special education services or English language development classes? They simply wouldn’t have access to Algebra — there’s no room in their schedule.

Despite 82% of voters supporting Algebra without requiring students to double up on math, that is precisely the solution the district staff is proposing. You can watch the district’s March 5 webinar where they tried to sell this model to families. They still haven’t posted the slide deck.

What We’re Asking

The Board of Education votes on the new Math Placement Policy (agenda item F.2) on March 24, 2026. The Board wants to get this right — but they need Superintendent Su to bring them a better plan. Right now, the Superintendent is presenting her staff’s flawed proposal without offering alternatives. She needs to send it back and demand real options:

• Accelerated learning in 6th and 7th grade so students can complete 6th, 7th, and 8th grade math by the end of 7th grade — ready for Algebra as their only math class in 8th grade

• Standalone Algebra 1 placement for students who demonstrate readiness, without requiring dual enrollment in 8th grade math

Literally any option other than forcing kids to give up an elective and sit through math they’re beyond, just to access Algebra.

How SFUSD Compares to Neighboring Districts

Nearly every school district surrounding San Francisco lets prepared students take Algebra 1 as a standalone course in 8th grade — no doubling up, no lost electives. SFUSD is the outlier.

Palo Alto Unified

8th grade algebra? Yes
Must double up? No

Algebra is the standard 8th grade math course. Over half of 8th graders are already beyond Algebra, taking Geometry.

Cupertino Union

8th grade algebra? Yes
Must double up? No

Placement testing begins in 5th grade. About 75% of 8th graders take Algebra or above.

Fremont Unified

8th grade algebra? Yes
Must double up? No

The accelerated pathway compacts 3 years into 2, leading to standalone Algebra in 8th grade.

Berkeley Unified

8th grade algebra? Yes
Must double up? No

Every 8th grader has support to take Algebra.

Marin County

8th grade algebra? Yes
Must double up? No

Multiple districts, including Ross, Larkspur-Corte Madera, and Reed Union, offer standalone Algebra in 8th grade.

San Mateo-Foster City

8th grade algebra? Yes
Must double up? Yes

Offers a double-period Math 8/Algebra course — students lose one elective.

Oakland Unified

8th grade algebra? No
Must double up? N/A

Does not currently offer Algebra in 8th grade. Facing parent petitions to change this.

SFUSD (proposed)

8th grade algebra? As elective only
Must double up? Yes

19 of 21 middle schools would require dual enrollment in 8th grade math + Algebra. Students lose an elective.

The pattern is clear: the highest-performing districts in the Bay Area offer Algebra as a standalone course. The districts that force doubling up — or don’t offer it at all — are the ones falling behind.

Why This Matters

Access to Algebra in 8th grade is one of the strongest predictors of whether a student will complete advanced math in high school and enroll in college. Research consistently shows that early algebra enrollment is linked to higher math achievement, greater likelihood of completing AP math courses, and increased college readiness — especially for underserved students.

SFUSD eliminated 8th grade algebra in 2014 as part of a detracking initiative, pushing all students to take Algebra in 9th grade. After a decade of parent advocacy, the board voted 6-1 in February 2024 to reinstate it, and voters backed that decision overwhelmingly with Prop G’s 82% mandate. But the current implementation plan — forcing students to double up — undermines both votes.

Kids shouldn’t have to sacrifice the arts to learn math. Tell Superintendent Su to go back to her staff and demand a real plan — one that lives up to what 82% of voters asked for.

Take Action

The Board of Education meets on Tuesday, March 24 at 6:30 PM at 555 Franklin Street. The Board wants to support families on this — but they need to hear from you so they can hold the Superintendent and her staff accountable.

1. Email Superintendent Su and the Board using our email tool below — tell Su to send this plan back for revision

2. Show up on March 24 to the board meeting and speak during public comment

3. Share this page with other SFUSD parents and community members

Send an email now

Here’s what happened around the city for the week of March 8, 2026:
- District 4 vote could sway SF comeback
- Juvenile Hall still running—and pricier—7 years after Supervisors voted to close it
- Wong launches ‘dumb laws’ contest
- Labor’s Power Brokers
- Judge holds SF public defender in contempt
- Great Highway senior housing paused over funding

District 4 vote could sway SF comeback

Published March 13, 2026

The Facts

Economist, former Bloomberg writer, and popular columnist Noah Smith penned a widely read post explaining why he made his first major political donation to GrowSF.

The other day I did something I’ve never done before: I made a major political donation. I gave $10,000 to GrowSF, a political advocacy organization that focuses on local elections in San Francisco. They’re going to use the money to support Alan Wong in the upcoming special election for District 4 supervisor.

Smith’s core point drives home the stakes this June with the Board of Supervisors closely divided, one west-side seat can determine whether Mayor Daniel Lurie’s reform agenda keeps advancing, or grinds to a halt. The loss of a single seat could flip the 6-5 pro-growth majority into a 6-5 anti-change, anti-growth majority who will sabotage Lurie’s goals, return to holding back homebuilding, and sink Lurie’s signature charter reforms in November.

The Context

The Board is San Francisco’s legislature — but it’s unusually powerful because the Charter gives it major choke points over the executive, especially through the budget and appropriation ordinances.

Lurie’s first year has paired a public-order push with early governance reforms. SFPD reports a 25% overall crime drop in 2025, while City Hall has moved major packages like Family Zoning, the permit reforms branded PermitSF, an office-to-housing conversion deal, expanded recovery and treatment beds, and a balanced budget proposal.

The GrowSF Take

District 4 isn’t just a neighborhood race — it’s a referendum on whether San Francisco will keep making progress on public safety, education, and housing.

If we want cleaner streets, faster housing approvals, and fewer veto points for families and small businesses, we need a Board majority that will vote “yes” on reforms and then follow through. We hope you’ll join Noah in donating to support Alan Wong!

Juvenile Hall still running—and pricier—7 years after Supervisors voted to close it

Published March 13, 2026

The Facts

In 2019, the Board of Supervisors voted to close Juvenile Hall by Dec. 31, 2021.

Seven years later, it’s still operating. Jesse Alejandro Cottrell at the San Francisco Standard reports that in 2025 it cost $543,015 per youth per year, with an average daily population of just 31.

The city can’t simply “divert everyone”: the Juvenile Probation Department says 71% of 2023 admissions were mandatory under state law in its Annual Data Report 2023.

The Context

In 2020, California passed SB 823 to wind down the state youth prison system and shift DJJ-eligible youth to counties; CDCR says the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) ceased operations on June 30, 2023.

San Francisco’s DJJ realignment plan states the obvious: far from being shut down, Juvenile Hall is SF’s legally required interim Secure Youth Treatment Facility for the most serious cases.

The GrowSF Take

This is a prime example of the kind of do-nothing resolutions that San Francisco has left behind in its political realignment. The progressive supermajority on the Board of Supervisors in 2019 voted to close a crucial piece of justice infrastructure, with no plan on how to adequately handle the youth that get arrested for crimes every year, no guardrails or accountability for actually accomplishing it, and just months before the state required counties to pick up the mantle of juvenile justice.

Rather than closing juvenile hall, San Francisco must right-size it and be compliant with state law. So it’s good that the realignment process is active, but repeatedly making plans without following through is hardly more than a rhetorical exercise.

SF’s 2025 county plan describes how the DJJ Realignment Subcommittee has continued meeting, and it notes $500,000 for a facilities consultant and a conceptual redesign estimate of $100 million, which was deemed cost-prohibitive.

Meeting isn’t the same as doing. The subcommittee’s Sept. 30, 2025 update points to another plan update in Spring 2026 with program descriptions and expenditures. We hope something has changed and there are actually adults in the room this time.

Wong launches ‘dumb laws’ contest

Published March 12, 2026

The Facts

Supervisor Alan Wong is launching a citywide “dumb laws” contest to identify San Francisco rules and permit requirements that residents and small businesses think are unnecessary or outdated, according to Carlos E. Castañeda at CBS Bay Area. People can send examples through an online form. Submissions are due March 30, 2026, with winners announced in April.

The Context

San Francisco’s rulebook is huge: the City Attorney’s office has said the Municipal Code plus Board resolutions total nearly 16 million words. A contest can help surface what’s most painful day-to-day—but it only matters if City Hall turns submissions into actual code changes.

The GrowSF Take

If you want ideas to submit, here are a few “dumb law” categories we think deserve scrutiny:

• The city’s formula retail controls that force extra hoops for businesses with 11+ locations—rules GrowSF has argued can worsen storefront vacancy.

• Planning Code requirements for ground-floor commercial uses that can leave space stranded when the retail market is weak (a key driver in our retail vacancy research).

• Rules that punish normal behavior, like past restrictions on parking in residential driveways/front setbacks—now the subject of a reform ordinance, File 250887.

Now the follow-through: Wong and the Board should publish a short repeal package, vote on it, and track implementation—so this becomes less red tape, not just more noise.

Labor’s Power Brokers

Published March 13, 2026

The Facts

In a detailed San Francisco Standard feature, Gabe Greschler and Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez profiled 37 labor leaders who wield outsized influence through endorsements, campaign spending, bargaining, and strike threats — even though most residents couldn’t name them. The piece flags looming fights over City Hall’s budget, a union-backed “Overpaid CEO” tax measure, and potential charter reforms.

Also it has a cool 90s video game aesthetic (props to the art department!).

The Context

San Francisco sits in a uniquely union-dense region: the SF–Oakland–Fremont metro had 329,473 union‑represented workers in 2024 (12.4% of the workforce). At the same time, the city is staring at a projected two‑year General Fund gap of about $876M, which makes labor negotiations and service cuts inseparable.

The GrowSF Take

This is the kind of reporting San Francisco needs: shining a bright light on a powerful political machine that’s real, consequential, and mostly invisible to everyday voters.

Democracy works better when residents know who’s pulling which levers — especially in a year dominated by budget cuts, contract fights, and ballot measures. We’re glad to see investigative reporting like this still happening, and we want more of it — because accountability starts with transparency.

Judge holds SF public defender in contempt

Published March 13, 2026

The Facts

A San Francisco Superior Court judge found Public Defender Mano Raju in contempt on March 10, 2026 for continuing to refuse some new appointments despite a prior court order, according to David Hernandez at the San Francisco Chronicle. Raju says his office began limiting intake in May 2025 due to staffing shortages and unmanageable caseloads, and that he plans to keep refusing some cases while he appeals, as KQED reported.

The Chronicle reports the judge may consider monetary sanctions at a later date. The court’s legal representation dashboard shows hundreds of appointments have been declined in recent months.

The Context

GrowSF flagged this standoff earlier, when a judge first threatened contempt over the same refusal policy.

California’s State Public Defender-backed workload study argues that without enforceable caseload limits and adequate investigators/support staff, defenders can’t reliably meet constitutional duties.

When the Public Defender can’t take a case, San Francisco often relies on court-appointed private counsel through the Bar Association’s Indigent Defense Administration, which was designed for conflicts—not as a permanent overflow valve.

The GrowSF Take

We sympathize with the Public Defender’s Office: if caseloads are truly unmanageable, that’s a problem the city needs to solve.

But defendants have a constitutional right to counsel, and refusing appointments in defiance of a court order can’t be the way SF runs its courts.

Great Highway senior housing paused over funding

Published March 13, 2026

The Facts

A fully subsidized senior housing project proposed for the former Motel 6 at 1234 Great Highway is paused, despite the developer pursuing “fast-track” approvals. The plan is for two eight-story buildings with 199 homes plus an on-site care center; half the units would be reserved for seniors who were previously homeless.

Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation says shifting federal conditions—especially uncertainty around HUD’s Restore-Rebuild rental-subsidy tool—plus not being awarded a major state grant have pushed them to pause.

The Context

Fully subsidized projects typically require a patchwork of money: the City’s direct contribution is typically only about a third of total development costs—the rest has to come from a fragile mix of state, federal, and private dollars.

The GrowSF Take

San Francisco needs to rethink how it funds subsidized housing, because the old system is breaking down.

We’re encouraged to see Supervisor Myrna Melgar and Supervisor Stephen Sherrill advancing a tax-increment financing proposal to modernize how SF pays for affordable housing. We’d like to see the rest of the Board move it forward faster—because when outside funding gets shaky, SF still needs a plan to keep projects like 1234 Great Highway moving.

Here’s what happened around the city for the week of March 1, 2026:
- Lurie, Mandelman introduce charter reforms
- Sober housing working - Hope House fills up fast
- Dirty tricks in D2 race
- Lurie orders 500 cuts
- SFPD will cut overtime by 22% due to budget constraints

Lurie, Mandelman introduce charter reforms

Published March 6, 2026

The Facts

Three big reforms are being proposed by Mayor Lurie and Board President Rafael Mandelman. In a March 5, 2026 letter to Controller Greg Wagner, they lay out a package of Charter amendments in three buckets: contracting, ballots, and executive accountability.

On contracting, they argue the City manages $5B+ in annual contracts through a maze of rules, and propose shifting more authority to the City Administrator, raising contract thresholds that trigger Board approval, and extending the City Administrator’s term.

On elections, they propose requiring a majority of the Board to place ordinances on the ballot, removing the Mayor’s unilateral power to do so, raising the citizen-initiative signature threshold to 8% of registered voters, and allowing proponents to withdraw flawed measures after qualifying.

On executive accountability, they argue SF’s Charter has scattered appointment and management authority across commissions and offices, and propose changes intended to clarify who runs the executive branch day-to-day—while preserving independence for watchdog functions like ethics and elections.

The Context

San Francisco’s current system makes it unusually easy to overload voters: the Department of Elections’ initiative guide shows that ordinances can qualify with signatures equal to just 2% of registered voters.

The Controller’s Charter Reform Working Group was formed to develop practical fixes, and SPUR’s “Charter for Change” underscores the stakes: SF’s Charter has become sprawling, and voters faced 15 local measures in November 2024.

The GrowSF Take

GrowSF strongly supports this direction. Our co-founders Steven Bacio and Sachin Agarwal have been in the Charter Reform Working Group meetings, and we’re very happy with where this is landing: fix contracting, reduce ballot shortcuts, and make it clear who’s responsible for performance.

These proposals track what we’ve been arguing for: end SF’s self-inflicted ballot overload and modernize the nation’s too-long Charter.

Sober housing working - Hope House fills up fast

Published March 6, 2026

The Facts

The Salvation Army’s 58-bed, abstinence-based Hope House on Sixth Street is near capacity, with a waitlist of about 25 people. The same report says that from Sep. 1–Dec. 31, 2025, 46 residents exited, and 36 (78%) went to supportive housing or other recovery programs.

Hope House is explicitly drug- and alcohol-free, with structured programming and relapse protocols.

The Context

SF has been signaling a shift toward recovery-focused shelter for people who are actively trying to stay sober. Hope House also shows what’s possible when City Hall can move quickly—it ramped up during the fentanyl emergency period that loosened normal contracting rules. But expanding this model citywide may be slower and harder because California still limits how homelessness dollars can be used for sobriety-based recovery housing after Newsom vetoed AB 255.

The GrowSF Take

SF should scale sober, structured shelter for people who choose recovery—so we stop forcing people to pick between the street and chaos.

Dirty tricks in D2 race

Published March 3, 2026

The Facts

Supervisor Stephen Sherrill says two forged “news releases,” impersonating him, were circulated in District 2, using City letterhead and the SF seal, per Alyce McFadden at the San Francisco Chronicle. “Malicious” misuse of the City seal is a misdemeanor under city law. Additionally, these advertisements lacked campaign finance disclosures, which are required by law.

Sherrill is on the ballot alongside Lori Brooke in the June 2, 2026 special election.

The Context

One forged flyer tried to redirect Marina residents’ Red Bull F1 complaints away from Sherrill’s office; neighbors later described disruption and damage in reporting by ABC7 News.

Some of the rhetoric in the fakes resembles rhetoric used by Brooke’s campaign. It also resembles the broader “City Hall is ignoring neighborhoods” messaging common in the anti-housing ecosystem that makes up Brooke’s base. However, direct accusations cannot be substantiated without a paper trail.

The GrowSF Take

Forging City letterhead and the SF seal to impersonate a supervisor is dirty, potentially criminal conduct. Whoever did it should be identified and held accountable.

This also exposes a flaw in our campaign finance laws: bad actors will break them if they think they won’t get caught. SF should follow up its stritct rules with strict enforcement, investigation, and punishment for violations. Otherwise, only the honest actors will be held accountable, and the bad guys will break the law with impunity.

Lurie orders 500 cuts

Published March 6, 2026

The Facts

Mayor Daniel Lurie has instructed city departments to cut $100 million in personnel costs—about 500 budgeted positions—amid an $877 million deficit, according to the San Francisco Standard. Departments must respond by March 12; some reductions are expected to be layoffs, alongside contract and overtime cuts.

City Hall is also bracing for a deeper hit from federal health-care changes that could reduce local funding and increase demand on the safety net.

The Context

San Francisco’s own Five-Year Financial Plan Update projects a $936.6 million two-year General Fund shortfall in FY 2026–27 and FY 2027–28, with rising salaries/benefits a major driver.

Last year’s budget debate included a proposal to eliminate about 1,000 positions, and unions responded with protests—KQED reported 11 arrests at City Hall.

The GrowSF Take

Start by cutting mid-level management and administrative overhead—not the people doing the work residents actually feel.

Then tie staffing to performance: each department should publish a small set of public, outcome-based metrics (permits processed, street-cleaning response times, 911 answer times, shelter placements, etc.), and justify headcount increases (or avoid cuts) based on measurable results.

SFPD will cut overtime by 22% due to budget constraints

Published March 6, 2026

The Facts

SFPD will immediately cut allocated station overtime hours by 22%, according to an internal email reported by David Hernandez at the San Francisco Chronicle.

The directive lands as Mayor Daniel Lurie’s budget team looks for major savings: Budget Director Sophia Kittler told departments to plan to reduce salary and benefits spending by $100 million (about 500 positions), as reported by J.D. Morris at the San Francisco Chronicle.

The Context

SFPD overtime has been both a staffing backstop and a management problem. A Board of Supervisors audit found overtime more than doubled from $52.9M (FY 2018–19) to $108.4M (FY 2022–23) and flagged weak internal controls.

City Hall is already taking steps that should reduce overtime reliance over time. SFPD says it’s ~500 officers short and that Lurie’s “Rebuilding the Ranks” effort is speeding hiring while shifting admin work to civilians and using retired officers for some special events, per an SFPD release. Separately, a Police Commission staffing analysis says SFPD began setting overtime hour allotments per unit and tracking usage by pay period.

The GrowSF Take

Some of the right building blocks are already in motion: hire faster, civilianize where possible, and tighten overtime controls. Now the key is execution.

A blunt overtime cut can still mean fewer proactive patrols if leaders don’t set clear priorities and publish simple, monthly metrics showing how overtime reductions affect response times, foot patrols, and key crime trends. SF needs savings and safety—measured, not guessed.

Here’s what happened around the city for the week of February 22, 2026:
- BUILD Act lowers cost of new construction
- Speed cameras are working - speeding & deaths down
- California Democratic Party Endorses Wiener for Congress
- Sprinkler retrofit mandate may be delayed

BUILD Act lowers cost of new construction

Published February 27, 2026

The Facts

It’s about to get easier to build. Mayor Lurie and Supervisor Mahmood just introduced the BUILD Act to cut San Francisco’s transfer tax on multifamily residential buildings in half, plus a companion ballot measure to end a foreclosure/deed-in-lieu exemption to ensure it’s revenue neutral. City Hall estimates the change will save builders about $32,000 per home.

This matters because the people who build apartments don’t operate them long-term—they build and sell to a building operator. So a transfer tax on that first sale functions like a legally mandated increase in construction costs.

The Context

Dean Preston’s Prop I (2020) doubled the tax rates, which was pitched as a “mansion tax” but excluded mansions and taxed multifamily buildings (like apartments) instead. This effort undoes Dean Preston’s signature accomplishment.

In March 2024, voters approved charter changes letting the Board reduce the tax.

The stakes are huge: City Hall has warned of 52,000 approved units stuck in limbo, tracked in the Planning Department’s pipeline report.

The GrowSF Take

The theory of taxation is simple: tax something you want less of, and Dean Preston wanted less housing.

Transfer taxes on big multifamily transactions hit the financing math that determines whether apartments get built. This reform is a practical way to reduce deal friction and unlock housing starts.

Speed cameras are working - speeding & deaths down

Published February 27, 2026

The Facts

Traffic enforcement is back up—finally! After the total collapse of traffic enforcement, citations have rebounded from 26,000 in 2024 to 122,000 in 2025. And 91,000 of those were from the 33 speed cameras over just five months, according to Danielle Echeverria and Rachel Swan at the San Francisco Chronicle. By comparison, SFPD only wrote about 20,000 traffic tickets.

The Context

The state only allowed this approach after AB 645 created a pilot program (through 2032) that treats camera tickets as civil penalties, requires an early warning period, and caps SF at 33 systems.

In January, SFMTA/DPH/SFPD said traffic deaths fell to 25 in 2025, down from 43 in 2024—a 42% decline. It’s the first meaningful progress in decades.

The GrowSF Take

It’s well known that certainty of punishment is more effective at deterring bad behavior than severity of punishment, and this is yet more evidence. When drivers know they will be caught and fined for speeding, they slow down.

Not only have these 33 speed cameras increased street safety and reduced road deaths while generating a bunch of money along the way. Wow!

California Democratic Party Endorses Wiener for Congress

Published February 26, 2026

The Facts

At the California Democratic Party’s state convention, delegates endorsed state Sen. Scott Wiener in the open race to replace retiring Rep. Nancy Pelosi.

Wiener is running against SF Supervisor Connie Chan and Saikat Chakrabarti. The first big test is the June 2, 2026 primary, where candidates who finish first and second advance.

The Context

California uses a “top-two” primary for congressional races: everyone appears on one ballot, and only the top two vote-getters move on to November—regardless of party.

For SF, this contest is also a proxy fight over housing. Wiener has become a statewide symbol of pro-housing, pro-transit reform—and has been backed by groups like the Housing Action Coalition and SF YIMBY. Chan, by contrast, has generally opposed new housing which aligns her with the progressive bloc. Chakrabarti has indicated strong support for taxpayer funded housing.

The GrowSF Take

Voters should press every candidate in CA-11 to be explicit about how they’ll expand housing supply, ensure federal funding for transportation and infrastructure, cut federal red tape on green infrastructure (including homes!), and what other support the federal government can send to San Francisco.

Our congressional questionnaire is in candidates’ hands now, and it focuses exclusively on San Francisco issues. We’re excited to share all the answers when they’re back.

Sprinkler retrofit mandate may be delayed

Published February 27, 2026

The Facts

High rise residents are facing a looming 2027 deadline to perform costly sprinkler retrofits. After public outcry, Mayor Lurie and Supervisors Sauter and Sherrill sponsored legislation to delay the deadline by five years. It passed its first hurdle this week and is heading to the full board soon for a vote.

Cost estimates for the retrofit range from $60,000 to $300,000 per unit - or roughly $600 million to $3 billion citywide.

The delay would help about 9,800 homes in 126 older towers, according to JK Dineen at The Chronicle.

The Context

Sprinklers are obviously effective at suppressing fire, but many modern materials can provide similar life-safety benefits at a lower cost. The primary concern for a high rise on fire is that occupants have enough time to get out, which both sprinklers and modern materials can do. A NIST cost-benefit study suggests that sprinklers can be cost-effective in some settings.

San Francisco has required major fire-safety retrofits before, including a prior sprinkler program for high-rise commercial buildings and tourist hotels built before 1974.

The GrowSF Take

The role of safety regulations are not to eliminate risk, but to reduce it where the benefits outweigh the costs. In this situation, it’s unclear if the cost/benefit ratio make sense.

SF should not impose a potentially multi-billion-dollar mandate without publishing a real cost/benefit analysis: expected risk reduction, expected fire losses avoided, and a workable permitting + financing plan.

Here’s what happened around the city for the week of February 15, 2026:
- SFUSD prepares layoff notices
- BART warns of 2027 service collapse
- Opera House drama distracts from PG&E failures
- Newsom okays $590M transit loan
- North Beach gets pizza-box trash cans
- SFUSD can’t avoid school closures
- SoMa RESET center gets green light

SFUSD prepares layoff notices

Published February 21, 2026

The Facts

SFUSD will ask the Board of Education to approve 42 preliminary layoff notices for educators and other staff, according to Jill Tucker at the San Francisco Chronicle. State law effectively forces districts to make these decisions early: certificated layoff notices are tied to a March 15 deadline.

The Context

The layoffs land one week after SFUSD and the teachers union announced a tentative contract deal that includes raises and zero-employee-cost dependent health benefits.

SFUSD’s budget is already constrained by enrollment declines (state funding follows attendance) and ongoing state intervention: the district has been under heightened fiscal oversight since it was moved to “negative” certification in May 2024, per SFUSD’s own fiscal update.

The GrowSF Take

We predicted this outcome: it was inevitable after the district agreed to the teacher’s union demands that couldn’t be paid for without further cuts like layoffs.

Given declining enrollment, it’s entirely reasonable that the district would consolidate schools and lay off staff in order to fund raises for the remaining staff. We just wish all parties involved had agreed to this reality instead of putting 50,000 kids out of school for a week.

BART warns of 2027 service collapse

Published February 21, 2026

The Facts

BART is warning that if voters reject the proposed Connect Bay Area sales-tax measure in November 2026 (0.5% in Alameda, Contra Costa, Santa Clara, and San Mateo counties; 1% in San Francisco, for 14 years), it could close up to 15 stations, eliminate the Blue Line (Daly City–Dublin/Pleasanton), and slash service.

In BART’s Feb. 12, 2026 board workshop deck, the “measure fails” Phase 1 scenario starting January 2027 includes: a 63% cut in train-hours, a 30% fare increase, a 9 p.m. nightly shutdown, and closure of 10 low-ridership stations (including San Bruno and South San Francisco). BART also estimates big knock-on traffic: for example, if riders shift to driving, congestion on sample commutes could rise by +2.7 hours/day (El Cerrito–downtown SF), +2.4 (Fremont–downtown SF), and +2.3 (Walnut Creek–downtown SF)—and a full shift could require three extra Bay Bridge lanes and one more Caldecott Tunnel lane.

The Context

BART says its pre-pandemic fare-driven model no longer works, with projected annual operating deficits of about $350–$400 million once emergency aid ends.

A January 30, 2026 MTC news release says the state and regional leaders agreed to a $590 million loan to avert major cuts at BART, Muni, Caltrain, and AC Transit in FY 2026–27 while longer-term funding is pursued.

The GrowSF Take

If BART enters a doom-loop of worse service → fewer riders → bigger deficits, SF’s recovery gets harder, if not impossible. BART and other Bay Area transit agencies have been working hard for the past few years to stabilize their finances, increase safety and cleanliness, and boost ridership. Things are looking up, but the pre-COVID assumptions are no longer true and the “ridership payment” model can no longer support the system without dramatically raising prices (which would also lower ridership). The region needs a reliable BART, and we need to pay for it while demanding better stewardship of the money.

Opera House drama distracts from PG&E failures

Published February 21, 2026

The Facts

In a now-recanted statement, PG&E CEO Sumeet Singh told a Feb. 12 Board of Supervisors committee hearing that Mayor Daniel Lurie requested temporary power for the War Memorial Opera House during the December blackout; Singh later walked it back and called it a misunderstanding.

PG&E says the Dec. 20 outage peaked at about 130,000 customers affected citywide.

That same meeting advanced a resolution reaffirming San Francisco’s effort to acquire PG&E’s local grid assets, alongside other accountability measures.

The Context

The City has been laying groundwork for a possible public-power takeover for years, including a CEQA scoping step for the Power Assets Acquisition Project and a CPUC valuation to set a fair price for PG&E’s local equipment.

The GrowSF Take

The opera-house angle makes for easy outrage, but it distracts from the core failure: PG&E’s infrastructure and operational readiness left tens of thousands of people in the dark.

City leaders should focus this moment on measurable outcomes: hardening and redundancy for key SF substations, clear restoration priorities for residents, and transparent performance standards with real consequences when PG&E falls short. If PG&E can’t meet those standards, SF should be ready to pursue alternatives—but the yardstick must be reliability, not theater.

Newsom okays $590M transit loan

Published February 21, 2026

The Facts

BART, Muni, Caltrain, and AC Transit are receiving a $590 million loan to prevent significant service cuts until voters can weigh in on a permanent funding package in November 2026.

As reported by the San Francisco Chronicle, BART could “close between 10 and 15 stations,” while Muni could “suspend cable cars,” shut down bus routes ”at 9pm,” and ”slash up to 20 routes” without new revenue.

Under the new law’s repayment terms, MTC repays the state over 12 years, with the first two years as interest-only quarterly payments. Even if voters pass a regional measure, MTC says proceeds wouldn’t flow until about July 1, 2027.

The Context

BART says it can’t “cut its way out” of structural deficits of roughly $350–$400 million per year without triggering a ridership death spiral.

The state is pulling funds from the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program to buy time while the region seeks stable operating revenue.

The GrowSF Take

A bridge loan is sensible way to keep transit running while we wait for voters to approve long-term funding.

North Beach gets pizza-box trash cans

Published February 20, 2026

The Facts

San Francisco rolled out a small pilot to tackle a very specific North Beach problem: pizza boxes that don’t fit in standard street bins. On Jan. 23, 2026, Recology and the Department of Public Works installed two “pizza drop off” receptacles at the edge of Washington Square Park, at Stockton Street and Union/Filbert. Supervisor Danny Sauter’s office was made aware of the overflowing trash problem and immediately got to work on a solution.

The bins have side slots sized for boxes and feature artwork by muralist Sirron Norris. Recology designed the bins and paid to fabricate them; the City is covering installation and routine pickup.

The Context

Overflowing trash cans clogged with pizza boxes have contributed to litter in North Beach. “[The] can starts to overflow, and then we end up with trash around it and that spreads,” DPW Director Carla Short told KQED.

Public Works says it maintains more than 2,800 public trash cans citywide, emptied at least daily. This new trash can design was led by Recology, a refreshing contrast to SF’s long, expensive trash-can redesign saga, where prototypes alone reportedly ran about ~$12,000 each.

The GrowSF Take

This is the kind of practical improvement San Franciscans notice, and benefit from, immediately. Not everything in City Hall needs to take years and involve a dozen studies. Sometimes a simple problem has a simple solution, and we just needed someone to take action. Thanks, Supervisor Sauter!

SFUSD can’t avoid school closures

Published February 20, 2026

The Facts

In a Chronicle Open Forum essay, SFUSD teacher John Lisovsky argues the district’s new labor deal makes school closures (or mergers) inevitable.

The fundamental reality is that the Union’s demands can’t be paid for without closing and consolidating schools. SFUSD and the union agreed to compensation increases amounting to about 6% raises in each of the next two years (2% + 2%, plus added paid work days amounting to a 5-6% raise) for certificated staff, and an 8.5% package over two years for classified staff, and fully funded family healthcare beginning Jan. 1, 2027.

The Context

SFUSD’s biggest revenue source is state funding, and the district expected about $648 million in 2025–26, but this funding is tied to student attendance numbers.

But SFUSD says enrollment has fallen by 4,000+ since 2012–13. When students leave, dollars leave — yet the cost of operating a campus (maintenance, utilities, admin, baseline staffing) doesn’t shrink proportionally. That’s how you get a “structural deficit”: higher cost per student, even before any new raises.

SFUSD has warned it remains in a structural deficit. Add higher ongoing compensation obligations, and the district has two options: (1) consolidate buildings and overhead, or (2) cut directly into classrooms through layoffs and larger class sizes.

The GrowSF Take

No one wants closures — but “keep everything open” isn’t a viable plan. SFUSD should restart a transparent consolidation plan (after it paused closures for 2025–26) and commit, in writing, that savings will protect classroom quality and stabilize staffing.

SoMa RESET center gets green light

Published February 19, 2026

The Facts

San Francisco now has a drunk tank for drug use. It’s called the RESET center and it’s a place where people arrested for public intoxication can sober up, with medically-trained supervision, instead of taking up high-cost ER beds or jail cells, as Natalia Gurevich reports in the San Francisco Examiner.

The program is launching in SoMa at 444 6th St. The Board approved the operating deal on a 9–2 vote (only Supervisors Jackie Fielder and Connie Chan voted no). The legislation was sponsored by the Mayor and co-sponsored by Supervisors Matt Dorsey, Rafael Mandelman, and Stephen Sherrill.

The Context

San Francisco’s overdose crisis remains severe: the city recorded 635 overdose deaths in 2024.

RESET is meant to create a fast, consistent “handoff” so officers can get back on patrol quickly and people in crisis aren’t left on sidewalks—or bounced between jail and the ER.

The GrowSF Take

Nobody wants people struggling with addiction sent to jail. And most people don’t need intensive, high-cost ER care. This is a great middle ground that gets people off the streets and into a safe place they can sober up.

We look forward to reviewing the performance metrics as they are made available, and if it works then the city should set more centers up. And if not, well, back to the drawing board.

Here’s what happened around the city for the week of February 8, 2026:
- Union Ends Strike After Deal Reached with SFUSD: What the Contract Actually Says
- GrowSF Endorses Phil Kim for School Board
- New BART Gates Net $10M per Year, Reduce Station Maintenance Needs
- Planning Commissioner Kathrin Moore Hit With Ethics Fine

Union Ends Strike After Deal Reached with SFUSD: What the Contract Actually Says

Published February 13, 2026

The Facts

The Facts

SFUSD says it signed a tentative two-year agreement with United Educators of San Francisco (UESF) Teachers Union at 5:30 a.m. on Friday, Feb. 13, ending the four-day strike.

GrowSF reviewed the full tentative agreement PDF (13 pages). Here’s the deal, plus what the District initially offered, what UESF demanded, and what the neutral fact-finder recommended in the lead-up to the strike. The deal is roughly in-between the initial offer and the fact-finder’s recommendations, and significantly less than the union’s initial demands, reflecting the fiscal reality of the district.

Side-by-side: offer vs demand vs recommendations vs final contract

Here’s a side-by-side comparison of the district’s initial offer, the union’s demands, the neutral fact-finder’s recommendations, and the final contract agreement for key disputed items:

More details on the contract agreement

TEACHER PAY: 4% over two years plus three added work days

What they agreed to:

• 2% raise effective July 1, 2025.

• 2% raise effective July 1, 2026.

• Three added work days: two added to the end of 2025–26, and one added to the beginning of 2026–27.

This is roughly equivalent to a 5% raise over two years, but it comes with more working days. Since no reduction in prep periods, paid leave, or other duties was part of the deal, layoffs are now looking likely for the upcoming school year.

Note that the date for the first raise is in the past. That’s because teachers have been working without a contract since July 2025, so the raises are retroactive to the start of the school year.

What the union demanded:

• 9% to 14% over three years

What the district offered:

• 2% raise effective July 1, 2025

• 2% raise effective July 1, 2026

The district stated that these raises would be paid for based upon savings accomplished by eliminating AP Prep periods for teachers, paid sabbatical leaves, department head preps and stipends, and class size limits.

What the neutral fact-finder recommended:

• 6% over two years (3% + 3%)

DEPENDENT HEALTH CARE: 50% employer contribution first year, 100% employer contribution second year

What they agreed to:

• Starting July 1, 2026, the district pays 50% of the employee contribution for the Kaiser HMO plan at the employee+1 and family coverage levels.

• Starting Jan. 1, 2027, the district pays 100% of the total premium for Kaiser at employee-only, employee+1, and family coverage levels.

• Members choosing a non-Kaiser plan pay only the difference between that plan and Kaiser.

• Eligibility is defined as working 50% or more of a full-time assignment and already receiving an employee-only premium contribution.

What the union demanded:

• Permanent 100% employer contribution for dependent health coverage (no cost to employees)

What the district offered:

• District-paid dependent health coverage during the contract term only, paid as a $24,000 “benefits allowance”

What the neutral fact-finder recommended:

• A temporary solution using existing parcel tax revenues (2008’s Proposition A parcel tax) to cover dependent health care costs, with a recommendation to revisit permanent coverage later

NON-EDUCATOR RAISES: 8.5% over two years

What they agreed to:

Fon non-educator staff:

• 4.5% raise effective July 1, 2025

• 4% effective July 1, 2026

The agreement also includes several other classified provisions that didn’t get much attention in early coverage, including:

• A 5% differential for paraeducators providing specified specialized medical services.

• A change to bi-monthly pay for classified staff effective July 1, 2026.

• Security aides being offered an 8-hour workday effective July 1, 2026.

What the union demanded:

• 14% raises for non-educator staff

What the district offered:

• 2% + 2% raises

• Augmenting salaries (i.e. paying more) for hard-to-staff special education paraeducators

What the neutral fact-finder recommended:

• Same as educators: 3% + 3% raises

CLASS SIZE: no change

What they agreed to:

• Retains the existing class size language, which emphasizes class size goals rather than enforceable limits (Class Size Article 9, including 9.5).

What the union demanded:

• Convert class size goals into enforceable limits

What the district offered:

• Retain existing class size language

What the neutral fact-finder recommended:

• Retain existing class size language

SPECIAL EDUCATION WORKLOAD: no immediate overhaul, but new processes, supports, and funding

What they agreed to:

Early reporting often summarized changes to special education as “no major workload change” or “no immediate overhaul.” That’s directionally true—this isn’t a wholesale districtwide workload-model replacement. But the contract does add multiple specific workload and support mechanisms, including:

• Caseload overages: within 15 workdays of exceeding the applicable goal, there must be a consultation; then, within 15 workdays after that consultation, one of the following remedies may be implemented: (a) overload pay of $1,000 per semester per student over the goal, only when the caseload is not more than two students over, or (b) additional staff, or (c) reassignment.

• A stronger set of “equitable distribution of workload” expectations, including an escalation path to a Joint Special Education Committee if not resolved at the site and supervisor level.

• Elementary compliance time: uninterrupted time during the student day of 60 minutes per week.

• Secondary compliance period: encouragement to provide a compliance period, plus the district committing $2 million in 2026–27 (in collaboration with the Joint Special Education Committee) to fund compliance periods where they don’t exist.

• A “complexity indicators” framework and a required response: when a unit member flags complexity indicators, the Joint Special Education Committee reviews within 15 days and can implement supports like assessment coverage, adjusted schedules, substitute release days, clerical help, temporary staffing, or centralized specialists.

• A stated $2 million per school year budget for special education improvements.

What the union demanded:

• Immediate districtwide implementation of a new workload model

What the district offered:

• A pilot program to test a new workload model

What the neutral fact-finder recommended:

• A pilot program to test a new workload model (the report does not clearly state an automatic districtwide rollout trigger)

The Context

Before the strike, SFUSD publicly described a proposed three-year “stability package” featuring district-paid family health benefits, a special-education workload pilot, added pay for hard-to-staff paraeducator roles, and a 6% raise spread over three years (2% per year). That was outlined in the district’s Jan. 31 negotiations update.

GrowSF’s Feb. 6 “School Strike Facts” Special Report compiled the key disputed items (and the neutral fact-finder’s recommendations). In that accounting, UESF was pushing for significantly larger raises (9% to 14% over three years) and permanent district-paid dependent health coverage at Kaiser rates, along with broader changes on special-education workload and other non-wage issues.

For completeness, the neutral chair’s full findings are in the public fact-finding report.

The GrowSF Take

This deal was always going to end this way. The union leadership knew the district didn’t have the money for their full set of demands, and the district knew it would have to balance any increases in one area with cuts in another. It’s ultimately entirely unsurprising that the final agreement is roughly in line with the district’s last public offer and the neutral fact-finder’s recommendations. The financial reality always led here.

So 50,000 kids lost a week of school, parents lost a week of work, and the city lost a week of economic activity, all for a deal that was always going to be in this ballpark. And we think that this deal is likely to result in teacher layoffs for the upcoming school year, because the raises weren’t accompanied by corresponding cuts elsewhere, and the strike cost the district at least $28 million, according to Superintendent Su’s estimates.

GrowSF Endorses Phil Kim for School Board

We recommend voting for Phil Kim for the Board of Education.

Phil has both the experience and the track record that SFUSD needs. Phil is a former public school student and teacher, and a lifelong educator. He led STEM education and policy at K-12 public schools across 20+ states and 300+ schools. He has a Masters in Education, and is currently pursuing his doctorate in Education. Since he joined the Board in 2024, Phil has used his deep understanding of how other school systems have improved student outcomes to begin the process of improving SFUSD’s. He was unanimously elected President by his fellow commissioners in January of this year.

We think Phil has done a great job working with the Board and our Superintendent over the last year and a half to get SFUSD back on track, and would like to see him continue his work. And we think he did a great job during the strike, ensuring parents were informed and the district agreed to something it could afford.

New BART Gates Net $10M per Year, Reduce Station Maintenance Needs

Published February 12, 2026

The Facts

BART’s new “next generation” fare gates, now installed at all 50 stations, are generating an estimated $10 million per year and saving 961 hours of station “corrective maintenance,” according to reporting by Rachel Swan at the San Francisco Chronicle.

BART shared an astonishing graphic showing the huge decrease in station “corrective maintenance” hours, meaning time spent cleaning up graffiti, vandalism, broken things, etc, pre- and post-gate installation:

The Context

BART’s fare gate project is a roughly $90 million effort to harden stations against fare evasion and reduce the damage and disruption that comes with it. By generating an extra $10 million per year, and reducing maintenance costs all while increasing safety and overall cleanliness, this project will have paid for itself in just a few years.

The gates appear to be improving rider experience: BART reported that the share of riders who said they witnessed fare evasion fell from 22% to 10% over roughly a year as the gates rolled out, in a BART project update.

BART says it will hit a fiscal cliff when pandemic aid runs out in spring 2026, with $350M–$400M annual operating deficits starting FY2027, per BART’s financial crisis overview.

The GrowSF Take

It turns out that a small portion of riders cause almost all of the problems, and the same people who hop the gates also exhibit other anti-social behaviors that make stations less safe, less clean, and less pleasant for everyone. By investing in infrastructure to reduce fare evasion, BART is not only increasing revenue but also improving the overall experience for riders and reducing maintenance costs. We love to see it!

Planning Commissioner Kathrin Moore Hit With Ethics Fine

Published February 11, 2026

The Facts

Planning Commissioner Kathrin Moore was fined $12,000 for conflict-of-interest violations tied to votes on projects involving Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM), which paid her about $15,000/year in retirement income, according to Gabe Greschler at The Standard.

An Ethics Commission agenda describes four counts for participating in governmental decisions while financially disqualified, involving projects at 1750 Van Ness, 98 Franklin, and 530 Sansome/447 Battery—nearly $900 million in total project costs.

The Context

San Francisco’s ethics rules require public officials to recuse themselves from decisions where they have a financial interest, to prevent conflicts of interest and maintain public trust. A financial interest includes receiving $500+ in income in the prior 12 months.

The Planning Commission votes on all development projects, and in the past has rejected some even if they are fully compliant with all local laws.

The GrowSF Take

We’re glad to see our ethics rules enforced, though a $12,000 fine on total payments of $400,000 (in the 27 years Moore has been receiving retirement income) is not exactly a strong deterrent.

A better approach would be to allow legally compliant projects to be approved by City staff, without discretionary votes by commissioners with outside interests. This would not only reduce corruption risk, but also speed up housing approvals.

The Facts

“There is no dispute, the District is still in a precarious financial position.”

That’s the key finding in a new report from a neutral fact-finding panel. This report is the latest, legally-mandated step, in contract negotiations between the district and the union, and it’s the first time a neutral third party has weighed in on the core economic issues at the heart of the dispute. We prepared an easy to read, plain-english explainer of the fact-finding report here.

The report largely agrees with the district’s argument that it cannot afford the raises UESF asked for, and agreed with the District’s proposals on a Special Education workload pilot, dependent health coverage, class size guidelines, and sanctuary city/housing legal protections. The report also explicitly calls out the union for voting to strike before the fact-finding process was even complete.

In response, the United Educators of San Francisco teacher’s union (UESF) announced that they are striking effective Monday, February 9th.

UESF and SFUSD will keep negotiating over the weekend, and we hope they can reach a compromise that keeps schools open and stable for students and educators. But if they can’t, then the strike will go forward as planned, and SFUSD will have to close schools and switch to remote learning for the duration of the strike.

Each day of the strike will cost the district $7–$10 million in lost funding and extra pay for non-teaching staff (the District won’t be paid for days when kids aren’t learning and the non-union employees still get paid for the strike days and need to be paid for the extra days added on to the end of the school year), and it will throw students back into pandemic-style learning loss. According to the neutral fact-finding panel, the cost of a 1% raise for all educators is about $10 million per year, so each day of the strike picks away at the already slim margin for a deal that can be approved by the state and that avoids deficit spending.

Here’s what Cheryl A. Stevens, the neutral chair of the fact-finding commission, recommended and what it means for the looming strike threat:

On the core economic issues:

• Wages: A 6% raise over two years: 3% raises effective July 1, 2025 and July 1, 2026.

  • What UESF wants: 9% to 14% raises over three years

  • What SFUSD offered: 6% over three years (2% each year)

• Dependent health coverage: A temporary solution using existing parcel tax revenues to cover dependent health care costs, with a recommendation to revisit permanent coverage later.

  • What UESF wants: Permanent district-paid dependent health coverage at Kaiser rates

  • What SFUSD offered: District-paid dependent health coverage during the contract term only (contracts are good for two years)

On non-wage issues, the panel recommends (or strongly signals):

• Special education workload: A pilot program instead of an immediate district-wide shift to a new workload model.

  • What UESF wants: Immediate implementation of a new special education workload model

  • What SFUSD offered: A pilot program to test the new workload model

• Class size: Maintain current contract language, as UESF provided insufficient evidence to justify changes.

  • What UESF wants: Shift from class size goals to limits

  • What SFUSD offered: Maintain current contract language

• Sanctuary/housing legal protections: Not appropriate for the collective bargaining agreement; recommend a joint resolution instead.

  • What UESF wants: Sanctuary and housing protections in the contract

  • What SFUSD offered: Joint policies (e.g. a resolution) on sanctuary and housing protection

The neutral fact-finding panel found that the the union “has not met its burden of proof” that SFUSD has enough non-restricted resources to fund the union’s full proposal. The panel also states the union’s wage+benefits demand “far exceeds the statutory COLA [Cost of Living Adjustment]… and is simply not an option,” and that “a conservative approach would be in the best interest of the community.”

The report concludes that “UESF has already voted in favor of striking [...] instead of working with the District on alternative approaches to securing the best possible contract within the limits of the District’s financial position.” This echoes what we said last week: that UESF wasn’t negotiating in good faith and had intended to strike all along due to influence from the statewide CTA which is coordinating strikes across 32 other school districts. This is further backed up by UESF breaking from norms and announcing their strike the morning after this report came out, with no time given to further negotiations with the district. The typical “cooling-off period” after a fact-finding report is 10 days, not hours.

Meanwhile SFUSD is preparing operationally: Superintendent Maria Su has warned that if schools close, SFUSD could lose $7–$10 million per day in funding, per SFUSD’s Feb. 3 negotiation update.

How much money does SFUSD have in reserve?

A key contention in this dispute is how much money SFUSD has available to fund raises and benefits. UESF argues that SFUSD has hundreds of millions of dollars in reserves, while SFUSD says it has about $100 million in reserves but that state oversight rules prevent the district from using one-time reserves to fund ongoing expenses like salaries and benefits.

In short, SFUSD has fully allocated all of its existing money to cover ongoing expenses and projected deficits, and it cannot afford the union’s demands without creating new deficits that would be unsustainable under state oversight. The fact-finding panel agrees with this assessment.

Here’s the full story, using the FY25-26 budget and the 1st Interim Report presentation from December 2025 as our source:

At the Beginning of the 2024-25 school year, SFUSD had about $473M:

• $244M in restricted funds (not for ongoing expenses)

• $229M in unrestricted funds (available for ongoing expenses)

But, of that $229M in unrestricted funds, some was already committed to specific purposes, including:

• $69M to “stabilization arrangements”

• $40M in their “Rainy Day Reserve”

• $28M in their “Reserve for Economic Uncertainty”

After drawing down reserves to cover the 2024-25 deficit, and adding some one-time grants, SFUSD started the 2025-26 school year with about $428M:

• $207M in restricted funds

• $221M in unrestricted funds

To bring clarity to what is available for ongoing obligations and what isn’t, the District created a separate fund (called “Reserve Fund 17”). This fund holds about $111M, composed of:

• $40M in Rainy Day Reserve

• $22M in Budget Stabilization Reserve

• $49M from the unrestricted General Fund that is being held in reserve to meet the state-recommended two-months-of-payroll safety net target

NOTE: The $28M in the “Reserve for Economic Uncertainty” is not included in Fund 17, but it is also not available for ongoing expenses. It’s essentially a one-time reserve that can only be used in a fiscal emergency, and it would not be sustainable to use it to fund ongoing raises and benefits.

So, subtracting ~$111M in Fund 17 from the ~$221M in unrestricted funds leaves just $109M in the unrestricted general fund.

BUT:

The projected budget for 2025-26 shows a $51M deficit, 26-27 shows a $32M deficit, and 27-28 shows a $19.5M deficit. That would fully deplete the unrestricted general funds by 2027-28. To ensure the fund doesn’t hit $0, SFUSD will draw down about $23M from Fund 17. This leaves the district just barely meeting the state-recommended two-months-of-payroll safety net target.

So, in short: Some claim that SFUSD has $400+M in reserves to pay educators, but the reality is that only half is legally available for ongoing expenses, and all of that is already committed to bridging the projected budget deficits and providing an emergency safety net.

We encourage you to read through SFUSD’s “1st Interim Report” presentation from December 2025, which includes detailed financial information and projections. The key takeaway is that while SFUSD has some reserves, they are not sufficient to fund the union’s demands without creating ongoing deficits, which would be unsustainable under state oversight.

The Context

Fact-finding isn’t “binding,” but it’s a big signal

Fact-finding is a formal step in California’s public-school bargaining impasse process. The panel’s report is advisory—but it’s a reality check built around statutory criteria including the public interest, district finances, and compensation comparisons, laid out in Gov. Code 3548.2. Once issued, a fact-finding report must be made public within 10 days under Gov. Code 3548.3.

For families, the key point is that the neutral chair is explicitly trying to propose a package that is both (1) politically acceptable enough to end a strike threat and (2) fiscally conservative enough to survive state scrutiny.

Why “state scrutiny” dominates this dispute

The fact-finding chair leans heavily on the district’s financial status and ongoing state oversight. SFUSD has been trying to climb out of fiscal distress and touts progress toward restoring local control in its Dec. 2025 milestone update. But the panel’s core practical warning is: even if SFUSD’s certification improves, the district can’t simply sign a deal that creates structural deficits and assume it’ll be fine.

This is why the report repeatedly distinguishes between:

• One-time dollars vs. ongoing obligations (like permanent raises and permanent benefit guarantees), and

• Money that exists on paper vs. money that is restricted for specific programs.

SFUSD’s internal financial materials show the same tension. Its FY 2025–26 interim report and multi-year projections show large starting balances that decline sharply, alongside separate reserves.

Why a “temporary health care bridge” keeps coming up

The chair’s dependent-health recommendation is essentially: get the benefit in place quickly, but don’t hardwire it into the base contract until there’s a stable, repeatable revenue stream to fund it.

This isn’t a satisfying approach for anyone (educators want permanent change, the district wants to avoid huge new costs), but the chair is trying to thread a needle: she’s trying to find a way to give educators some relief on a key issue without creating a deal that’s so expensive it can’t be approved by the state or that forces immediate deficit spending.

The district’s proposal for dependent healthcare would largely be paid for by existing one-time funds, namely the QTEA parcel tax which expires in 2028. The district plans to seek renewal/expansion of that 20-year parcel tax from the voters in 2028, so dependent healthcare could continue uninterrupted. But because the funding for dependent healthcare is not guaranteed beyond 2028, the district can’t contract beyond then until the new tax is adopted.

The GrowSF Take

The report is blunt about two truths San Francisco needs to hold at the same time:

1. Educators need a better deal to keep schools staffed and stable. The chair explicitly recognizes the pressure of cost-of-living and says the district is entitled to raises that keep pace with COLA/CPI.

2. A contract that can’t survive state scrutiny—or that forces immediate deficit spending—will backfire. The chair’s refrain is essentially: if the district signs something it can’t fund, everyone loses (students first).

Our view:

Stick with the 2% raise per year

The chair’s recommendation on wages is using some fuzzy math. They suggest turning the 6% over three years into 6% over two years by “front-loading” the raises. But they also (reasonably) predict that educators will seek a raise in that third year, but once state oversight is lifted SFUSD will have more flexibility to pay ongoing costs and presumably absorb future cost increases. We feel this is a set up for another round of contentious bargaining.

Temporarily fund dependent health insurance, find a path to permanence

Fully employer-paid dependent health insurance is quite a benefit, and we understand why UESF would want it. If there were a way to pay for it, we’d fully support it. But since the district can’t currently afford it, then funding it temporarily via existing parcel tax revenue is reasonable, and both UESF and SFUSD should come back after the dust is settled to see how a permanent funding plan could be established. Whether that’s via repurposing existing parcel taxes, new taxes, or something more creative.

It’s also worth mentioning that SFUSD is one of just a handful of districts that offer lifetime health benefits to retirees, even when those retirees qualify for medicare, and that’s a huge cost driver. SFUSD currently pays about $38 million per year in retiree health benefits, and that’s expected to continue growing (the total projected cost of these lifetime benefits is a staggering $744 million (See FY25-26 Budget, page 123)).

Commit to reducing reliance on outside consultants

The fact-finding chair explicitly pushes SFUSD to reduce reliance on outside consultants and redirect dollars toward employees. We agree. Expertise should be developed in-house for any long-running commitments. We’d like to see this transition become measurable: publish baseline spend, publish quarterly progress, and tie it to staffing outcomes.

Separate “values statements” from “negotiable contract obligations”

Demands for legal protection do not belong in a labor contract. Legal benefits are typically provided as a benefit, and not as a right enforceable through the labor grievance procedures. What the union wants will put SFUSD in a difficult position of potentially being liable for legal risks that are outside its control. For example, if a UESF member is not able to access legal assistance in a timely manner, or if the legal assistance provided is inadequate, SFUSD could be on the hook for any resulting harm to the employee.

This is a risk that SFUSD should not take on, and it’s not something that can be easily mitigated through contract language. This should be offered as a benefit that employees may buy in to, in the same way many major employers offer legal insurance as a voluntary benefit.

The panel suggests that if SFUSD and UESF share values on protecting immigrant families, they put it in a joint resolution and operational policy—but not into their labor contract with obligations that create large, ambiguous liability.

The real long-term fix is bigger than this contract

SFUSD cannot bargain its way out of a structural mismatch between:

• enrollment decline

• too many under-enrolled campuses

• high fixed costs

• the Bay Area’s cost-of-living reality for educators

A sustainable “teacher stability” strategy requires: (a) disciplined district budgeting, (b) fewer empty buildings draining resources (we’re still waiting on a plan to close or repurpose under-enrolled buildings), and (c) more housing in San Francisco so educators can actually live here.

The panel’s final point is the right one: it argues for “a compromise that can actually be fulfilled financially” and says that’s what’s best for everyone involved.

GrowSF endorses Alan Wong for District 4 Supervisor

We recommend voting for Alan Wong for the Board of Supervisors, District 4.

Alan Wong was appointed to District 4 Supervisor by Mayor Daniel Lurie in September, 2025. Lurie ran an open process to find a new Supervisor, and Alan was selected from a set of five finalists for the position. We think that the number one priority for the District 4 Supervisors is to make D4 voters feel heard again—and Alan has been doing just that.

To demonstrate this, Supervisor Wong’s first act was to submit a ballot measure to re-open the Great Highway. This reflects the majority opinion in the district and sends a clear signal that he isn’t bringing his own agenda to the Board, but is there to enact their will. Only two other Supervisors signed on to the measure, so it did not meet the threshold to qualify for the ballot.

Alan grew up in the Sunset, attended Lincoln High, and has an extensive track record of public service. He’s been a labor organizer, a Legislative Aide to former District 4 Supervisor Gordon Mar, led Public Policy and Comms for the Children’s Council of San Francisco, and, most recently, was a Trustee on the Community College Board. He is also a First Lieutenant with the Army National Guard. Alan brings experience working across different political and interest groups to do what’s in the best interest for the communities he represents.

We believe Alan has the level-headed temperament, experience in public service, and dedication to the district to bring stability back to City Hall. And we think the district deserves some continuity of leadership after the past couple tumultuous years.

Read the full endorsement on our June Voter Guide.

Here’s what happened around the city for the week of January 25, 2026:
- Teacher strike threat grows
- Mahan jumps into governor race
- Tenderloin corner store curfew may be extended
- Castro Theatre Returns

Teacher strike threat grows

Published January 30, 2026

The Facts

The SF Teachers Union (UESF) looks like it will strike, possibly as soon as February 6th. It would be the first teachers strike in San Francisco since 1979.

Officials from the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) say union leaders walked out of a fact-finding session on January 23 without making a counteroffer to the district’s latest proposal. The offers included fully funding dependent healthcare benefits (at no cost to educators), 6% pay raise over three years, and protections for special education staffing.

UESF is asserting that SFUSD has hundreds of millions of dollars available for raises and benefits, which SFUSD disputes. This assertion is partially true: SFUSD does have about $100 million in reserves, but state oversight rules prevent the district from using one-time reserves to fund ongoing expenses like salaries and benefits. UESF has so far rejected any offers of one-time bonuses or other non-recurring payments that would not create ongoing deficit spending. The current budget deficit has been drawing down those reserves, and the district projects they will be fully depleted by 2027-28 if a balanced budget is not achieved.

The fact-finding session is a formal step in the bargaining process, where the district and the union appoint a representative and a neutral third party is appointed by the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) to help resolve outstanding issues. After the session, the fact-finder issues non-binding recommendations to both sides.

Full details of the fact-finding meeting, including an evaluation of the district’s financial position, should be available by Wednesday, February 4th.

The Context

The strike threat is part of a broader statewide posture: California teachers unions are increasingly preparing to strike, amid coordinated efforts by the California Teachers Association. At least 32 districts across the state are facing potential strikes, all at roughly the same time.

But SFUSD is under unusually tight fiscal constraints due to a structural deficit that prior administrations have struggled to address. The California Department of Education can override district financial decisions that threaten stability, and state law empowers the county superintendent to reject budgets that don’t provide “adequate assurance” the district can meet its obligations.

SFUSD has made great strides in the past year to close its structural deficit, including cutting non-classroom spending, and shrinking staff primarily in administrative roles, rather than teachers. This work led to the California Department of Education (DOE) to lift the state-imposed teacher hiring freeze, SFUSD avoiding teacher layoffs, and the state agreeing that SFUSD’s budget was back on track.

The GrowSF Take

While we agree trachers need to be paid more, UESF is demanding a contract that SFUSD cannot legally agree to under state oversight. This is political brinksmanship and we think UESF is not negotiating in good faith. Rather than engage in fact-based bargaining, UESF is engaged in magical thinking that will put kids out of school, risk the district’s financial stability, and not achieve the union’s stated goals.

This strike is still avoidable, though. UESF needs to come back to the table with a fiscally responsible counterproposal that the school district can accept without the risk of a state takeover. If they don’t, then public school kids will be thrown back into pandemic-style learning loss.

UPDATE: Our sources in the union tell us that they plan to accept the existing offer of a 6% pay raise plus dependent health benefits after they strike for a few days. Given this likely outcome, we wish the union would put the kids first and save them from learning loss. Our kids deserve better than this.

Mahan jumps into governor race

Published January 30, 2026

The Facts

San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan has jumped into the crowded race, joining a bevy of candidates all looking to distinguish themselves from Governor Newsom.

Mahan is pointing to his record in San Jose, where he doubled homeless shelter capacity through a “quick build” initiative, expanded public safety staffing, and pushed for accountability in government performance. His efforts on homeless shelters cut the number of people sleeping on the street and increased the number in shelters from about 1,500 in 2022 to over 3,000 in 2025. (We must note, though, that, like every other major California city, homelessness continues to rise overall in San Jose due to housing shortages, limited mental health and addiction treatment capacity, and other public policy failures at the state and local level.)

Mahan has also pushed for more public safety resources, increasing San Jose’s police force by over 200 officers since 2022, and advocating for tougher consequences for repeat offenders. He also backed 2024’s Proposition 36, which increased penalties for repeat theft and drug offenses. Proposition 36 passed with 63% of the vote in SF and 68% statewide.

Mahan has also pushed for performance-style accountability in government; a recent KQED report describes his proposal to tie elected officials’ pay raises to measurable results.

The Context

Upon his announcement this past Thursday, Mahan immediately became one of the favorites among the Democratic candidates. While no polls are yet available, prediction markets show him narrowly trailing Eric Swalwell, and ahead of Katie Porter and Tom Steyer.

While the other leading candidates are highly focused on national issues, Mahan’s message is more focused on California, and he is perhaps the most critical of Governor Newsom among the leading Democratic candidates.

GrowSF hosted Mahan with our GrowSF Talent network, and his biggest lesson was familiar to any SF reformer: you can’t compassion your way out of dysfunction — you have to build capacity, measure outcomes, and move faster than the problem.

The GrowSF Take

GrowSF will be watching Mahan’s campaign closely. His focus on building capacity and enforcing accountability aligns with our belief that government must deliver results, not just good intentions. If Mahan can translate his San Jose successes to a statewide platform, he could offer a compelling alternative to the status quo in Sacramento. We’re also watching other candidates closely, including Eric Swalwell, Katie Porter, and Tom Steyer.

We will be sending out the GrowSF questionnaire to all gubernatorial candidates soon, and hope to make an endorsement decision by late spring. Stay tuned!

Tenderloin corner store curfew may be extended

Published January 30, 2026

The Facts

The Board of Supervisors is expected to vote in February on Supervisor Matt Dorsey’s proposal to expand and extend the city’s retail-hours restriction pilot that bars certain retail food/tobacco stores from operating overnight.

According to Gabe Greschler at The San Francisco Standard, officials say inspections and investigations have turned up cash, meth, firearms, and slot machines in some Tenderloin corner stores—fueling the case to expand the curfew into parts of SoMa.

City Attorney David Chiu’s office has used civil enforcement to target repeat offenders; in one example, the city moved to shut down SF Discount Market and Tenderloin Market & Deli after an SFPD investigation found illegal gambling and contraband.

The Context

The current Tenderloin curfew was created by the 2024 Ordinance 129-24, which set a two-year pilot (through July 2026) and allows penalties of up to $1,000 per hour of violation.

A peer-reviewed study in Security Journal analyzing SFPD incident data found drug-related incidents fell during the restricted overnight hours after the pilot began.

The GrowSF Take

We agree there are real problems with a small number of bad actors, but we’re not convinced that expanding a blanket curfew is the right solution. The city has identified specific stores allegedly selling contraband and attracting crime—so target those businesses with aggressive enforcement and rapid nuisance abatement, up to and including closure.

Blanket restrictions are the wrong tool: they punish legitimate small businesses and risk pushing activity to the next block. San Francisco should enforce the laws we already have, shut down offenders fast, and let compliant businesses operate.

Castro Theatre Returns

Published January 30, 2026

The Facts

San Francisco’s Castro Theatre is back! The historic theatre is staging community “soft opening” events on Feb. 6–7, 2026, ahead of its official reopening on Feb. 10.

The theater has been closed since February 2024 for a desperately needed $41 million renovation.

The Context

The Castro Theatre is a 1922 movie palace and city landmark known for its stunning architecture and vibrant role in San Francisco’s LGBTQ+ community. It has hosted countless film festivals, premieres, and community events over the decades.

GrowSF supported its renovation plan, which opponents threatened to derail by trying to declare its interior seats as a historic feature. We argued that the fixed seats were replaced in 2001 (hardly historic!) and that seat-focused fights were largely a tactic to block modernization—including accessibility upgrades.

The renovation plan is aimed at keeping the building viable with more kinds of programming (movies and concerts) and updated infrastructure, as described on the theater’s preservation plan.

The GrowSF Take

GrowSF backed this plan because San Francisco needs iconic venues that can modernize, stay open, and drive neighborhood foot traffic, and we need less procedural obstructionism that drags out projects and keeps spaces closed for years.

We’re thrilled the Castro is close to reopening—and City Hall should get to work fixing its historic preservation process so that more projects like this can move forward without unnecessary delays.

Here’s what happened around the city for the week of January 18, 2026:
- CEO Tax Doesn’t Tax CEOs
- $21M From State Will Fund New Treatment Beds
- Outer Richmond Sideshow Bust Seizes Assault Rifle
- YIMBY Law Argues Family Zoning Won’t Build Enough
- Westfield mall closes January 26

CEO Tax Doesn’t Tax CEOs

Published January 23, 2026

The Facts

The so-called “CEO tax” that San Francisco voters may see again on the June 2, 2026 ballot is not actually a tax on CEOs. In fact, it is a “gross receipts tax“ on revenue from transactions in San Francisco, and charged on the total revenue rather than on profits. Business and consumer advocates are concerned that this tax will lead to higher prices for everyday goods and services.

The Chronicle has reported the union-backed June tax would raise the top rate almost 800%.

CEOs themselves do not pay this tax directly, and economists believe that such taxes are often passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.

So why are supporters of the tax calling it a “CEO tax”? Besides the political advantages of using misleading populist branding, the tax bases its tax brackets on the ratio of CEO pay to median worldwide employee pay within a company. So, for a company like Safeway where the CEO makes significantly more than a cashier, their taxes may increase by as much as 800%. So this “CEO tax” is really a “transaction revenue tax with brackets determined by CEO pay ratio,” which is a lot less catchy.

And the detail rarely mentioned is that the tax will also raise the “Administrative office tax,” which is based on employee payroll based in San Francisco, almost 800% as well.

The Context

The gross receipts tax has varied wildly since it was first enacted in 2018.

In 2018, voters approved Proposition C, layering a new gross-receipts tax for homelessness on large businesses. Financial company Stripe moved its headquarters out of San Francisco, citing the inability to afford the new tax rates due to a flawed tax structure that wiped out their profit margin.

Then in 2024, voters approved Proposition M to cut and streamline business taxes—including lowering the overpaid-executive tax.

Now labor unions are at it again, saying their measure would raise about $200 million per year for the general fund. Critics counter that a gross-receipts hike this large will be passed through into prices (especially for high-volume, low-margin retailers like groceries), as described by CBS Bay Area, and push businesses out of San Francisco like Stripe before them.

The GrowSF Take

Not only is the “CEO tax” dishonestly named, but it is also a poorly designed tax that will likely hurt the very people it purports to help. By leveraging these massive tax increases on gross receipts, the tax will wipe out the profit margins on low-margin businesses like grocery stores and discount retail stores, primarily impacting working-class and low-income consumers who cannot afford higher prices on basic goods.

We’re particularly disappointed to see Supervisor Bilal Mahmood supporting this tax, which will impact residents of his district the hardest. People who use SNAP benefits to buy groceries will see their food costs rise and struggle to keep their families fed. Meanwhile, every “overpaid CEO” that lives in his district will see no impact whatsoever on their personal finances.

$21M From State Will Fund New Treatment Beds

Published January 23, 2026

The Facts

San Francisco is receiving a $21 million grant from California’s 2024 Proposition 1 bond to open 50 new locked behavioral-health beds at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital—doubling their current capacity.

The money will cover capital costs of the build-out, but not the ongoing staffing and operations which may range from $200k to $400k per bed per year.

The Context

Prop 1 passed in March 2024, and GrowSF was proud to endorse it.

Statewide, Prop 1 will support about 6,800 treatment beds.

Locally, SF’s Controller-facilitated Residential Care and Treatment Workgroup estimated the city needs 75–135 more long-term placements in locked and residential settings.

The GrowSF Take

Bonds are a great way to pay for infrastructure like this, and we’re glad to see the money being put to work. Expanding the number of locked treatment facilities for people with severe mental illness and addiction will improve patient outcomes and give more people access to treatment they need.

Outer Richmond Sideshow Bust Seizes Assault Rifle

Published January 23, 2026

The Facts

SFPD says an illegal sideshow at Clement St. and 32nd Ave. on Jan. 18 ended with two arrests, a vehicle tow, and the seizure of an illegal assault rifle plus magazines and ammunition, per an SFPD release and Jessica Flores at the San Francisco Chronicle.

The Context

SF has been tightening sideshow enforcement on two tracks: better tools for police and stronger consequences.

In 2024, the Board of Supervisors passed legislation to create new criminal offenses related to organizing/promoting sideshows and to expand vehicle impound authority.

More recently, an ordinance sponsored by Danny Sauter and co-sponsored by Stephen Sherrill, Rafael Mandelman, Matt Dorsey, and Alan Wong doubled the maximum fine for misdemeanor sideshow convictions from $500 to $1,000.

The GrowSF Take

Sideshows aren’t harmless fun. They destroy intersections, create noxious pollution, and put lives at risk -- especially when participants bring assault rifles with them.

SF should treat every sideshow as a public-safety incident: rapid dispersal, aggressive towing/impounds, and consistent prosecution for drivers and organizers. And City Hall should keep funding the staffing and modern tools (like drones and license plate readers) that make follow-up enforcement possible.

YIMBY Law Argues Family Zoning Won’t Build Enough

Published January 23, 2026

The Facts

YIMBY Law, an SF-based housing advocacy law firm, says it plans to sue San Francisco in February, arguing Mayor Daniel Lurie’s “Family Zoning Plan” still doesn’t provide enough housing capacity to satisfy state requirements.

The Context

The plan is also facing a separate, opposite, lawsuit which argues Family Zoning builds too much.

SF is required to plan for 82,069 homes in the 2023–2031 cycle, including rezoning that “reasonably accommodates” roughly 36,000 units in the near term.

A state HCD preliminary review found the city’s rezoning package meets the requirement. But projections vary: The Planning Department’s capacity calculations estimate up to ~64,000 units could be legalized, while a city economist analysis projects only ~14,600 homes might actually get built over 20 years.

The GrowSF Take

We find the city in an interesting situation - dueling lawsuits each alleging opposite effects. YIMBY Law arguing it doesn’t build enough, and a NIMBY lawsuit arguing it does too much. We’re very curious how it’ll shake out and just hope that, whatever happens, San Francisco becomes home to more families, immigrants, and people of all kinds.

Westfield mall closes January 26

Published January 23, 2026

The Facts

The Westfield mall is dead. It will officially close its doors on January 26, 2026. BART has already sealed the entrance connecting Powell Station to the mall, and all tenants have closed up shop.

The Context

This isn’t unique to San Francisco. Westfield’s owner says it has disposed of 17+ U.S. properties and is concentrating, instead, on a smaller set of “U.S. flagship” malls.

More broadly, brick-and-mortar retail is under real pressure nationwide. Coresight Research says that “inflation and a growing preference among consumers to shop online to find the cheapest deals took a toll on brick-and-mortar retailers”, projecting about 15,000 U.S. store closures in 2025.

But San Francisco’s case is more acute. For years, the area around Market Street and Powell Station has struggled with open drug use, persistent crime, and rampant shoplifting. Retailers repeatedly cited safety concerns, theft, and declining foot traffic as reasons for closing or pulling back operations. These local conditions compounded national retail headwinds and made it far harder for a mall like Westfield to survive.

What’s notable is that Westfield is not struggling everywhere. Its parent company, Unibail-Rodamco-Westfield, reported stronger performance outside the U.S. in 2024: like-for-like shopping center net rental income grew +6.0% in continental Europe and +8.7% in the UK vs. +4.0% at U.S. flagships, with a higher 7.2% U.S. vacancy rate vs. 3.2% in continental Europe, per its FY-2024 earnings.

The GrowSF Take

Westfield’s closure will leave a massive hole along Market Street, accelerating the area’s decline if nothing changes. It’s tempting to immediately rally around a single grand vision or pet project for the site. That would be a mistake. San Francisco should not pre-pick a single “right” answer. The best outcome will come from maximum flexibility: letting the market propose what can actually pencil out and activate the space, whether that’s housing, entertainment, education, offices, hotels, or something entirely new.

None of this works without continued progress on crime, drug use, and street safety so people actually feel comfortable coming back.

City Hall’s role is not to dictate the use. It’s to make success possible by providing clear rules, fast permits, and predictable timelines.

Here’s what happened around the city for the week of January 11, 2026:
- Vicha Ratanapakdee’s Killer Acquitted of Murder
- Lurie Announces Free Child Care
- Public Defender May Face Contempt Charge After Refusing Cases
- Lurie’s 2026 Roadmap
- Recallers seek Great Highway revote

Vicha Ratanapakdee’s Killer Acquitted of Murder.

Published January 16, 2026

The Facts

Vicha Ratanapakdee’s killer was acquitted of murder and elder abuse, and convicted instead of involuntary manslaughter and assault for the Jan. 28, 2021 attack that killed the 84-year-old Thai grandfather while he was walking in Anza Vista.

Watson faces sentencing next; under California’s manslaughter penalty statute, involuntary manslaughter carries a 2–4 year term.

The Context

Ratanapakdee’s death—captured on video—became a national symbol as Asian American communities demanded safer streets for elders. A year later, Stop AAPI Hate reported 10,370 hate incidents from March 2020 to Sept. 2021.

San Francisco has since honored him locally, including unveiling “Vicha Ratanapakdee Way” in the neighborhood.

Prosecutors did not bring hate-crime charges, and the trial did not present evidence proving racial motivation.

The GrowSF Take

This is a miscarriage of justice. Anyone who’s seen the video can see the intent in Antoine’s full-speed run at Grandpa Vicha as he viciously shoves the 84-year-old man to the ground, killing him. There was nothing “involuntary” about this.

Lurie Announces Free Child Care

Published January 15, 2026

The Facts

Mayor Daniel Lurie says San Francisco will expand free child care for low and moderate income earners.

Under the plan, a family of four making under $230,000 can qualify for free care starting this month, and families up to $310,000 would get a 50% subsidy starting in the fall; the Chronicle reports it’s funded from a Proposition C reserve and could reach about 19,000 kids.

The program runs through the city’s 500+ providers and sets eligibility using Area Median Income (AMI) thresholds.

The Context

Until now, the Department of Early Childhood’s Early Learning For All covered free tuition up to 110% of AMI (about $171,450 for a family of four) and a 50% tuition credit up to 150% of AMI (about $233,800 for a family of four).

This matters because annual child care costs can run $20k to $30k per child under 5—enough to push families out of San Francisco even when wages look “high” on paper.

The funding for this expansion comes from June 2018’s Proposition C, aka “Baby Prop C.” The tax is funded by a tax on commercial rents, ranging between 1% and 3.5%.

The GrowSF Take

Expanding child care support for middle-class families is good policy. We’ve seen many of our friends move away when starting their families, or seen friends struggle to pay for the basics if they chose to stay. It’s simply too expensive to have children in San Francisco, and that must change. Bravo to Mayor Lurie for making this a priority, because our city simply doesn’t have a future without children.

Public Defender May Face Contempt Charge After Refusing Cases

Published January 16, 2026

The Facts

Judge Harry Dorfman threatened to hold San Francisco Public Defender Mano Raju and Chief Deputy Matt Gonzalez in contempt after the office refused to take on a new felony case. Raju and Gonzalez have argued that the office is overwhelmed and short staffed, and can’t take new cases.

Judge Dorfman said he believes the office has available attorneys and will order it to take new felony cases unless there’s a conflict.

The court has already considered releasing some pretrial defendants when people are stuck in jail without counsel due to the Public Defender’s refusal to take cases.

The Context

The constitutional baseline is clear: since Gideon v. Wainwright, states must provide counsel for defendants in serious criminal cases who can’t afford an attorney.

California requires competent representation, and a national study warns that excessive caseloads make effective defense impossible, leaving the Public Defender’s office choosing between refusing their constitutional duty or doing a bad job defending clients.

The GrowSF Take

San Francisco can’t run a justice system where cases stall, victims wait, and defendants sit in limbo. The law is clear - all defendants have the right to an attorney and must be provided one if they cannot afford one. The Public Defender is not above the law.

City Hall should demand better performance from the Public Defender, and it must fund adequate defense capacity. We need strong checks in place to ensure the PD office has enough funding to provide an attorney for every defendant, without exorbitant spending. And the court, the Public Defender, and City Hall should agree on workload thresholds—then enforce them—so we stop lurching from one courtroom crisis to the next.

Lurie’s 2026 Roadmap

Published January 16, 2026

The Facts

At his first State of the City on Jan. 15, 2026, Mayor Daniel Lurie framed 2025 as a comeback year and set a 2026 agenda: affordability, faster permitting, and defending the city’s new zoning maps.

He highlighted the Family Opportunity Agenda which will offer free childcare to families making up to $230,000, and a 50% subsidy for families making up to $310,000. And he recommitted to PermitSF, building on 2025’s progress cutting permitting times.

On housing, he pointed to the success of the Family Zoning Plan, which will make it easier to build family-sized housing, and vowed to defend it against legal challenges.

The Context

2025 showed big improvement on homelessness and stabilization on drug overdose metrics. City data reported just 165 tents and structures in June 2025—the lowest since public tallies began. Overdose deaths, meanwhile, look more like stabilization than a breakthrough: the Medical Examiner’s 2025 overdose report counted 588 accidental overdose deaths from Jan. 1–Nov. 30, 2025, which is about on track with 2024.

All of this sits alongside a looming projected $936M deficit and a push toward a 2026 transit funding measure.

The GrowSF Take

Lurie’s first year was a huge success—both in real numbers and in vibes. San Francisco’s reputation has recovered, tourists are returning, office space is getting leased, and people are feeling like the city is back on the right track.

And if you’re a regular GrowSF report reader, you know that a pro-growth and pro-safety Board of Supervisors was a big part of Lurie’s success. He can do a lot more with their continued support.

2026 will show whether that was a flash of optimism or durable improvement. We’re betting on durability.

Recallers seek Great Highway revote

Published January 15, 2026

The Facts

Organizers tied to the 2025 Engardio recall are launching a new ballot measure aimed at reopening the Upper Great Highway to cars on weekdays, while keeping it car-free on weekends.

To qualify for the ballot, proponents must submit at least 10,582 valid signatures by February 2nd to qualify for the June election, or by July 6th to qualify for November.

This effort is kicking off after District 4 Supervisor Alan Wong’s attempt to put a repeal on the June ballot stalled. Wong needed three other Supervisors to sign on, but only two did.

The Context

Voters approved Prop K in November 2024, closing the road. The Coastal Commission approved the permit, and the Great Highway officially became Sunset Dunes park.

While the closure passed with a healthy margin citywide (55% to 45%), it failed in District 4, where backlash led to Supervisor Joel Engardio’s recall.

Opponents of the new park filed a lawsuit to stop the conversion from road to park, but a judge rejected the challenge in early January 2026. With all other options exhausted, people who want to reopen the road are now turning to the ballot box.

The GrowSF Take

In a development any political commentator could see coming since the day after the November 2024 election, district four residents are putting together a ballot measure to undo the ballot measure that closed the road.

We hope this doesn’t become like the dialysis ballot measures, and that we can stop voting on this after June.

Here’s what happened around the city for the week of January 4, 2026:
- Homicides Hit 70-Year Low
- A new SoMa RESET center aims to end sidewalk intoxication
- Ruth Ferguson joins City College board
- Blackouts Make PG&E Future in SF Uncertain
- Judge Upholds Great Highway Closure

Homicides Hit 70-Year Low

Published January 9, 2026

The Facts

San Francisco ended 2025 with just 28 homicides — a 20% drop from 2024 and the city’s lowest total since 1954, according to SFPD. Overall crime fell 25%, violent crime declined 18%, and property crime dropped 27%.

The SFPD’s Homicide Unit achieved a 125% clearance rate in 2025, clearing 34 homicides by making arrests or by other means—a significant improvement in solving these cases.

Across all categories, reported crime fell from 36,633 incidents in 2024 to 27,321 in 2025. Robberies dropped 44% (to 3,011), larceny theft fell 22% (to 16,492), burglaries fell 13% (to 3,673), and motor-vehicle thefts fell 24% (to 3,011). One warning sign: reported assaults rose 29% (to 2,046).

The Context

San Francisco wasn’t alone. New York City reported murders down 20% (to 305) in its 2025 year-end NYPD release. Los Angeles tallied 230 homicides in 2025, down nearly 19%, per the Los Angeles Times. Chicago’s murders fell nearly 30% (to 416), according to CBS Chicago.

The GrowSF Take

This is historic progress that proves good policy works. The 125% clearance rate shows what happens when SFPD has the resources and leadership to investigate effectively—and the overall 25% crime drop reflects years of investment in staffing, technology, and enforcement paying off.

A new SoMa RESET center aims to end sidewalk intoxication

Published January 9, 2026

The Facts

Mayor Daniel Lurie says the city will open a SoMa “Rapid Enforcement, Support, Evaluation, and Triage” (RESET center) at 444 6th St., next to the Hall of Justice. The site is intended for people arrested for public intoxication, as an alternative to jail booking or ER transport.

The Sheriff’s Office will oversee RESET with Department of Public Health support, and the contractor running day-to-day operations will be Connections Health Solutions.

The Context

San Francisco already opened a 24/7 “police-friendly” behavioral-health stabilization site at 822 Geary in April 2025—designed for urgent mental-health crises and to reduce ER overload.

RESET is different: it’s built around a custodial intervention (arrest first), focused on hotspots near Sixth Street. The city’s earlier Sixth Street triage center pilot showed how hard it is to change street conditions without faster, more accountable pathways into care.

The GrowSF Take

This is a promising shift: compassion has to include getting people indoors, stabilized, and connected to treatment—not left unconscious on the sidewalk.

But success can’t be vibes. The city should publish clear metrics: officer time saved, repeat bookings, overdoses near Sixth Street, and how many people actually enter treatment after RESET. And if the center creates spillover disorder, the city must adjust operations quickly—because SoMa residents and businesses deserve clean, safe streets.

Ferguson joins City College board

Published January 8, 2026

The Facts

Mayor Daniel Lurie on Monday appointed Ruth Ferguson to the City College of San Francisco Board of Trustees, filling the seat vacated when Alan Wong was appointed District 4 Supervisor.

The Context

Ruth Ferguson ran for this seat in November 2024, and placed fifth out of the four seats available, making her the next-highest vote getter after the winners. She narrowly trailed Alan Wong.

City College’s governance and finances have been under scrutiny. In 2024, the accreditor put CCSF on warning status over board dysfunction and fiscal oversight.

That warning was lifted in June 2025, but the underlying challenge remains: aligning spending and programs with enrollment so the college can stay strong for the long haul.

The GrowSF Take

GrowSF backed Ferguson in November 2024, and this appointment is a common-sense way to respect voters while avoiding yet another round of chaos.

We hope Ferguson helps steer City College toward boring, disciplined basics: clear accountability, stable budgets, and a relentless focus on student success and growing enrollment. That’s how you protect Free City College—and keep City College a real engine of opportunity for San Franciscans.

Blackouts Make PG&E Future in SF Uncertain

Published January 9, 2026

The Facts

Several weeks ago, a fire at PG&E’s Mission substation near Eighth and Mission (Dec. 20, 2025) helped trigger a citywide blackout that peaked around 130,000 customers. PG&E says the last ~3,800 customers were restored early Dec. 23, per its outage update.

Then the lights went out again: the Sunset had a brief Christmas Eve outage and the Outer Richmond/Sea Cliff saw another outage Jan. 2, with residents telling The Standard it was their sixth since Dec. 20 in that follow-up.

The Context

PG&E’s 2024 reliability report shows customers experienced an average of 276.4 minutes (4.6 hours) of outages per year, with an average of 1.8 separate outages. While PG&E claims San Francisco has service “almost twice as reliable as the national average” after $3 billion in grid investments, the December 20 outage has renewed calls for public utilities similar to those in Palo Alto and Sacramento.

While the grid may be more reliable than average, it’s gotten harder to understand what you’re paying for. Many customers are on time-of-use rates, where prices depend on when you use power (and on season). Many plans also apply a baseline “Tier 1 vs Tier 2” step-up via the Baseline Allowance.

And the CPUC is shifting more costs into a monthly fixed charge through an income-tiered “flat rate”, and newer solar exports are compensated under the Net Billing Tariff rather than full retail rates, meaning selling power back to grid is worth way less than before.

The GrowSF Take

After repeated outages, it’s rational for families and small businesses to look at solar + whole-home batteries. But with rising fixed fees, lower per‑kWh savings, and weaker sell-back credits, backup power increasingly looks like paying for independence—not a simple ROI.

If we’re serious about resilience, we should also be serious about incentives: PG&E and regulators should be less punitive to households that invest their own money to reduce demand on the grid (solar + storage), not redesign rates so that “opting out” gets hit with higher fixed charges and lower export value.

SF should demand reliability upgrades and clear outage-communication standards, and pursue neighborhood-scale resilience (microgrids) for critical corridors and services.

Judge Upholds Great Highway Closure

Published January 9, 2026

The Facts

A San Francisco Superior Court judge rejected a legal challenge to Proposition K, the 2024 ballot measure that permanently closed the Upper Great Highway to private cars and created Sunset Dunes, according to Han Li at the San Francisco Standard. The City Attorney defended the measure, and plaintiffs say they plan to appeal.

The Context

Voters approved Measure K on Nov. 5, 2024 with 54.73% voting yes. The official voter guide explains it requires the City to pursue any needed approvals to use the corridor as recreation space, while keeping limited exceptions (e.g., emergency and authorized vehicles).

Opposition to the closure prompted the recall of Supervisor Joel Engardio.

The GrowSF Take

This ruling doesn’t mean the Great Highway fight is over—it just means the courts weren’t the place to overturn a citywide vote.

New District 4 Supervisor Alan Wong is backing a 2026 ballot measure to reopen the road to cars on weekdays, according to the San Francisco Standard. But that kind of measure needs four supervisors to sponsor it, and Wong still needs allies.

But despite being a vocal supporter of the recall and opponent of Prop K, our sources tell us that District 1 Supervisor Connie Chan isn’t keen to sign on to Wong’s ballot measure. It seems Chan is happy to use angry voters to knock off one of her political opponents, but now she’s gotten what she wanted and has shifted focus to her congressional race.