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. FPPC # 1433436. Committee major funding from: Nick Josefowitz. Not authorized by any candidate, candidate’s committee, or 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.

A Board of Supervisors focused on Common Sense

Last year we fought to elect commonsense leaders. This year, with a pragmatic mayor and majority on the Board of Supervisors, San Francisco was finally able to move forward to make the city safer and more affordable. With a results-oriented majority that GrowSF helped fight for, the city was able to:

• Refocus our city on clean and safe streets, with crime dropping dramatically, tents being reduced to the lowest levels since statistics have been kept, and more people being connected to treatment.

• Focus on the city’s economic recovery, with tangible progress made to revitalize San Francisco’s ailing downtown.

• Hire a new Police Chief, Fire Chief, and Directors of Public Health, MTA, and Planning

• Advanced PermitSF initiatives to streamline business permits and cut red tape

• Passed Mayor Lurie’s Family Zoning Plan, unlocking more housing across the city

• Passed Mayor Lurie’s Fentanyl State of Emergency, allowing the City to act faster in the midst of a drug and behavioral health crisis

• And much, much more.

What GrowSF delivered this year

With a results-oriented majority at the Board of Supervisors, here are some of the ways that GrowSF helped unlock the accomplishments above in 2025.

Charter reform: We launched a major research effort on charter reform because voters will soon be deciding on important structural changes to the city charter. And we built the only list of every charter reform since San Francisco adopted its current charter in 1995, to help voters understand how we got here.

Commission streamlining: We tracked every meeting of the Commission Streamlining Task Force, documented their recommendations, and built the only comprehensive tracker of every city commission.

Public opinion and polling: We published polls on downtown recovery, general public sentiment (it’s good!), autonomous vehicles, housing, and our first-ever tracking poll which show that most San Franciscans are feeling optimistic, but still want safer streets, increased police presence, cleaner neighborhoods, and more housing.

Family Zoning: We fought for the most significant zoning reform in decades to help make San Francisco affordable. And we’re making sure no one forgets who voted against it.

GrowSF Talent: We launched GrowSF Talent to identify, support, and develop the next generation of civic leaders.

News & Research: We covered nearly 200 important political stories and 17 research pieces on police staffing, the City Charter, housing, and health treatment to keep voters informed on the issues that matter most.

Looking Ahead

San Francisco is in a different place than it was a year ago, and that didn’t happen by accident. In our July poll, we found that for the first time since 2016, over 50% of San Franciscans say the city is on the right track.

We have a lot more work to do in the coming year. Passing good policy is only the first step. Implementation, oversight, and accountability are what determine whether change is real. In 2026, we’ll continue to push for policies that get more housing built, make streets safer, support businesses of all sizes, and ensure City Hall works for residents, not against them.

From all of us at GrowSF, we want to wish you the absolute best this holiday season. We’re excited to get to work in 2026 to educate voters and hold elected officials accountable to deliver results for the people of San Francisco.

Here’s what happened around the city for the week of December 14, 2025:
- Fielder tries, and fails, to ban research labs in the Mission
- Commission Streamlining Task Force Nears Completion
- Mahmood Fixes Term Limit Loophole
- Sideshow fines doubled
- Prop M tax deal is unraveling

Fielder tries, and fails, to ban research labs in the Mission

Published December 19, 2025

The Facts:

Supervisor Jackie Fielder attempted to impose an 18‑month freeze on new research labs in the Mission by forcing them to apply for “conditional use” permits, with no clear standards or objectives for approval. Conditional Use permits are not guaranteed by law and can be denied for any reason, effectively allowing Fielder to block new labs and tech companies.

Fielder explicitly stated that punishing “AI companies” was a goal of the legislation, saying on Twitter, “[PDR space is] not supposed to be just office space for AI companies (which, reminder, their innovation is all about destroying jobs),” and “AI companies have displaced blue collar job spaces in the Mission.” (Editors note: false), and called her constituents “entitled techno absolutists“ and “techno facists.”

By the time her resolution was heard on December 15 at the Land Use and Transportation Committee, Supervisors and the Mayor’s office dramatically limited the legislation so it applies only to outdoor engineering/development labs. This meant that 100% of the spaces she first wanted to regulate were no longer affected - and actually literally nothing new would be regulated, since no new outdoor engineering/development labs have been proposed in the Mission in recent memory.

The Context:

San Francisco can adopt temporary “interim controls” under Planning Code 306.7 while studying permanent rules.

PDR zoning exists to protect dirty industrial space, something the Planning Department’s PDR report says have experienced long-term declines in employment as a share of city jobs.

Criticism of a land use regulation bill does not, in fact, make you a techno fascist.

The GrowSF Take:

When is a failure a success? When you’re so desperate for good headlines that you try to twist your own failed legislation into a win.

We are thankful for the many constituents who spoke out, sending emails and making phone calls to Fielder’s office, and for Supervisor Bilal Mahmood who saw through the thinly veiled attempt to chill innovation and job creation in the Mission, and for the Mayor’s office in proposing a much narrower scope on the legislation.

The Mission is a rapidly growing hub for AI, tech, and life sciences companies, and these companies create good jobs for San Franciscans. Fielder’s attempt to ban them from opening new labs would have been more than a blow to the neighborhood’s economy - it would have sent a chilling message to the entire nation that innovation and job creation are unwelcome here.

We’re glad her attempt failed, and we hope that Supervisor Fielder will focus her energy on policies that actually help her constituents, rather than trying to score political points by attacking the city’s economic future.

District 4 update - Are you running?

GrowSF has started mailing out our candidate questionnaire for the June 2026 District 4 election. We’re hoping to make a decision by early January, so if you are planning to file but haven’t gotten around to it yet, please let us know! All candidates who have filed to run will get the questionnaire.

Commission Streamlining Task Force Nears Completion

Published December 19, 2025

The Facts:

City staff have recommended that San Francisco’s Commission Streamlining Task Force eliminate 61 of the city’s roughly 150 boards and commissions, per Alyce McFadden at the San Francisco Chronicle.

The Task Force’s own decision log shows it has already made decisions on 150 of 152 in-scope bodies, including votes to eliminate the Bicycle Advisory Committee and the Public Works Commission. Staff argued the Bicycle Advisory Committee’s work is now largely duplicated by SFMTA’s full-time planning staff, and that the Public Works Commission’s contract-approval process adds weeks to routine contracting and overlaps with other oversight created after DPW’s past corruption scandal, per an infrastructure memo.

The Task Force is scheduled to deliver final recommendations by Feb. 1, 2026 under the city’s Prop E timeline.

The Context:

A 2023–24 San Francisco Civil Grand Jury report found the city had 115 active commissions in 2024—far more per capita than peer cities—and estimated commission support can consume up to ~10% of senior staff time.

Prop E’s legal text also created a faster path for changes to non‑charter bodies: the Task Force can introduce an ordinance that takes effect in 90 days unless two‑thirds of the Board votes it down.

The GrowSF Take:

Streamlining is good governance: fewer redundant bodies means faster decisions, clearer responsibility, and less “process tax” on everything from housing to public safety.

These recommendations are disciplined: they prioritize eliminating inactive and duplicative bodies while preserving real oversight of major departments—and they shift advisory input into simpler, time‑boxed formats.

Mahmood Fixes Term Limit Loophole

Published December 17, 2025

The Facts:

Supervisor Bilal Mahmood is proposing a 2026 charter amendment that would cap both the mayor and supervisors at two four-year terms total in their current office.

Today, officials can run again after sitting out just one term, effectively allowing an unlimited number of non-consecutive terms.

The Context:

Under Charter Section 2.101, supervisors are limited to two successive four-year terms, but can return after a four-year break—meaning there’s no lifetime cap on non-consecutive terms.

Though this “boomerang” loophole is fairly rare, loopholes allow career politicians to treat City Hall as a lifelong job, rather than a limited public service. The most notable example is former Supervisor Aaron Peskin, who held his office for 18 years.

The GrowSF Take:

Reasonable people can disagree about term limits. Some argue they remove experienced leaders and empower special interests. Others say they prevent entrenchment and encourage fresh ideas.

But everyone can agree that the current loophole is against the spirit of the law, and only exists because of some sloppy law-writing. We should clean it up, and Supervisor Mahmood’s proposal does just that.

Sideshow fines doubled

Published December 18, 2025

The Facts:

The Board of Supervisors has passed an ordinance to increase the maximum fine for sideshows (when riotous crowds take over streets to burn their tires out making donuts) from $500 to $1,000. The bill was introduced by Supervisor Danny Sauter and co-sponsored by Supervisors Rafael Mandelman, Stephen Sherrill, Matt Dorsey, and Alan Wong.

The Context:

We previously covered the proposal when it was introduced in late September 2025, arguing SF shouldn’t be the “cheap ticket” for street takeovers; that October story explains the case for aligning penalties with nearby jurisdictions.

The legislation also points to California’s speed contest law, which allows fines up to $1,000.

The GrowSF Take:

This is a real, measurable win: it raises the floor on consequences for behavior that endangers pedestrians, drivers, and whole neighborhoods. It will save the city money, too, by reducing the costs of cleaning up after sideshows and responding to emergency calls.

Thank you to Supervisors Sauter, Mandelman, Sherrill, Dorsey, and Wong for pushing it over the finish line.

Prop M tax deal is unraveling

Published December 17, 2025

The Facts:

Labor unions, working with Supervisor Connie Chan, are pushing a ballot measure to increase the gross receipts tax, in some cases by 800%, reneging on the deal voters approved last year with Proposition M.

The tax will be scaled up or down based on the ratio of CEO pay to the global median worker pay. Safeway would have almost all of its margins eaten by the new tax, which will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices, and may even force Safeway to leave the city entirely.

In response, business groups are now preparing a competing measure for June 2026 that would prevent a tax increase.

The Context:

Voters approved Prop. M last year, which restructured business taxes and projected roughly $50M/year in additional revenue after FY 2029–30.

Despite the nickname, the city’s Overpaid Executive Tax is not actually a tax on executives. It’s a gross receipts tax, which is a form of sales tax or income tax (depending on how you squint), that is based on the ratio between top executive pay and the global median wage of their workers. The tax is not paid by executives or CEOs, but by consumers of the goods these companies produce.

It is, definitionally, a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts lower-income residents, who spend a larger share of their income on goods and services.

The GrowSF Take:

In the words of Adam Lashinsky at The Standard, “All in all, it’s a horrible way to conduct tax policy. The best outcome would be for labor and business to stand down and remove their dueling ballot measures. If that doesn’t happen, the second-best result would be for business to prevail in stopping a foolishly populist effort by organized labor.”

San Francisco needs a predictable, pro-growth tax system and disciplined spending, all negotiated in the open and stable enough that we aren’t rewriting the rules every election cycle. Our economy can’t recover with constant special-interest tax fights.

Here’s what happened around the city for the week of December 7, 2025:
- Lurie Demands Deep Budget Cuts
- Muni Parcel Tax Details
- Clipper 2.0 Brings Rider Savings
- SFUSD Nears Stable Budget
- Court forces Huntington Beach to follow housing law
- Nonprofit Spending Doubles, Oversight Lags

Lurie Demands Deep Budget Cuts

Published December 12, 2025

The Facts:

Mayor Daniel Lurie ordered departments to find $400 million in ongoing cuts by reducing services, eliminating vacancies, and limiting hiring to help close a $936 million two-year deficit. His first $15.9 billion budget already closed a $782 million gap largely through nonprofit grant reductions and limited layoffs, as detailed in his balanced budget proposal. Lurie partly blames new federal funding reductions under President Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” Act, which City Hall estimates will cost San Francisco about $220 million.

The Context:

San Francisco’s deficit is structural: for years, spending has outpaced recurring revenue while one-time fixes and unfilled positions papered over the gap. A recent joint report on the city’s finances warns that lawsuits, slow downtown recovery, and rising costs will keep shortfalls high even as some revenues rebound. Labor unions and nonprofits, who mounted protests against earlier cuts, are likely to protest further reductions to services or jobs.

The GrowSF Take:

Facing the problem honestly is welcome, and City Hall should continue its smart targeting: eliminating vacant and duplicative roles, consolidating programs, and demanding measurable results from every dollar. City Hall should also face the reality of overgrown staffing: City Hall employment has grown almost 30% since 2005, while the population has been roughly flat. Nobody wants people to lose their jobs, but the role of government isn’t to provide life-long jobs, it’s to provide good services. And when there’s not enough money to go around, we should all ask ourselves: do we want to cut services, or City Hall jobs?

Muni Parcel Tax Details

Published December 11, 2025

The Facts

Mayor Daniel Lurie’s team has proposed a “progressive” Muni parcel tax for the November 2026 ballot to raise about $187 million a year and help close Muni’s $307 million operating deficit. Here, “progressive” means larger, higher‑square‑footage properties pay more per square foot than smaller ones.

Roughly 96% of single‑family homes under 3,000 square feet would pay a flat $129 per year, with an exemption option for eligible senior homeowners. Larger single‑family homes, multifamily buildings, and commercial parcels would pay higher, size‑based rates, with caps for big apartment and office properties. Most of the money would support Muni operations, with a portion for service improvements and administration.

The Context

Muni’s deficit could grow to $434 million within five years, and service cuts are on the table if new funding fails, according to Rachel Swan at The Chronicle. The agency has already “found hundreds of millions of dollars in savings” by cutting positions and improving efficiency, but still faces a structural gap.

Separately, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed SB 63, the Connect Bay Area Act, allowing a five‑county November 2026 transit sales tax expected to raise about $980 million annually. The parcel tax and regional measure are designed to work together; if either fails, Muni may cut roughly a third of its lines and double wait times, as outlined in a Chronicle analysis.

The GrowSF Take

San Francisco needs stable funding for a cleaner, more frequent Muni, and SFMTA deserves credit for cutting costs before asking voters for more revenue.

We can’t let public transit fail - it’s too important for our economy. Without reliable transit, our streets will be clogged with hundreds of thousands of new cars from people driving into the city for work. Those workers are vital to funding other valuable city services.

We support the progressive nature of the tax, where smaller properties and renters would pay less than owners of larger buildings. Parcel‑tax pass‑throughs should be structured carefully so they don’t unduly burden low‑income renters, but it is totally reasonable that some share of a property‑based tax ultimately shows up in rental costs.

If this passes alongside the regional funding measure, this could put Muni on a sustainable path instead of a slow‑motion death spiral.

Clipper 2.0 Brings Rider Savings

Published December 11, 2025

The Facts

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s “Next-generation Clipper” launched on December 10, adding discounted transfers of up to $2.85 within two hours, instant fund loads, tap‑to‑pay with credit/debit cards, family accounts, and online youth/senior applications, per Chloe Veltman at KQED. Existing cards—about 5 million—will be upgraded in batches over 8–12 weeks unless riders manually start the process via clippercard.com or customer service.

The Context

For years, riders effectively paid a new fare every time they switched agencies, a byproduct of the Bay Area’s 20+ separate operators. MTC’s fare‑integration program now treats one multi‑agency trip as a single journey with discounted transfers, as outlined in its Transit Fare Coordination & Integration plan. This rolls out while BART, Muni and other agencies face a projected $3.7 billion operating shortfall by 2031, according to Dan Brekke at KQED.

The GrowSF Take

Next-generation Clipper is a big, overdue win for riders. Discounted transfers, instant reloads, and simple tap‑to‑pay finally treat a multi‑agency commute as one coherent trip instead of a patchwork of separate fares.

This kind of rider‑first design makes transit more attractive for everyday trips—getting to work, running errands, going out at night—and moves the Bay Area closer to a truly seamless regional network. The more we align fares and simplify payment, the easier it becomes for people to leave the car at home and rely on fast, frequent, integrated transit.

SFUSD Nears Stable Budget

Published December 11, 2025

The Facts:

San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) has announced it will submit a “qualified” budget to the state in early December 2025, moving up from a “negative” certification and marking a key step toward exiting state fiscal oversight and restoring full local control by March 2026. This progress reflects a multi‑year Fiscal Stabilization Plan that cuts about $114 million from the 2025–26 budget, largely through central‑office reductions and early retirements instead of teacher layoffs, while still leaving projected unrestricted‑fund deficits of $51 million in 2025–26, $32 million in 2026–27, and $19 million in 2027–28 if no further adjustments are made.

The Context:

SFUSD has been under heightened state scrutiny since the California Department of Education (CDE) downgraded its budget to “negative” in May 2024 and empowered fiscal advisors to review major spending decisions, reflecting years of deficit spending and weak controls.

Since then, the district has been implementing a detailed fiscal stabilization plan, including hundreds of central‑office job cuts, early‑retirement incentives, and a switch from the failed EMPower payroll system to the Frontline platform. Together, these moves aim to stop the “credit card” budgeting that threatened insolvency and a full state takeover.

The GrowSF Take:

This milestone is real progress: Superintendent Maria Su and the Board of Education are finally making the tough calls needed to stabilize SFUSD while keeping teachers in classrooms. But a “qualified” budget still means some risk. To truly restore local control and trust, the Board must stay disciplined—prioritizing student outcomes over bureaucracy, negotiating sustainable labor agreements, and being transparent with families about what further cuts mean at school sites. San Francisco’s kids deserve a district that is both academically excellent and fiscally sound, not one financial crisis away from state control.

Court forces Huntington Beach to follow housing law

Published December 11, 2025

The Facts

The California Supreme Court has let stand a ruling ordering Huntington Beach to follow state housing law and adopt a plan that makes room for 13,368 low‑income homes. If the city does not adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days of further trial‑court proceedings, the state can block new building permits. The case began with a 2023 lawsuit in which Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta sued the city for refusing to adopt a state‑compliant housing element and for trying to block SB 9 lot splits and ADUs, according to the governor’s press release.

The Context

State officials have made clear through their housing enforcement unit and lawsuits that the Housing Element Law is not optional: every city must plan and zone for its fair share of homes or face sanctions, including frozen permits and the “builder’s remedy,” as described in a Newsom administration overview of housing element enforcement. Huntington Beach argued that its charter‑city status let it opt out; courts rejected that argument and treated the housing crisis as a statewide concern.

San Francisco is a charter city under the same rules. To keep its own Housing Element in good standing and avoid a Sacramento takeover, the city had to pass an aggressive upzoning package—often called the “family zoning” plan—that legalizes more homes in high‑resource neighborhoods and around transit, as outlined in the Planning Department’s implementing programs.

The GrowSF Take

This ruling is a warning and a roadmap for San Francisco. Courts are backing the state’s power to force reluctant charter cities to plan for housing. That confirms that our new family zoning and broader upzoning weren’t optional experiments—they were necessary to keep control of our own planning and avoid builder’s‑remedy chaos and state sanctions.

Going forward, SF leaders should treat state compliance as the floor, not the ceiling: stay on schedule with zoning changes, don’t water down the Housing Element, and approve projects quickly. If we stall, Sacramento has shown it is willing—and now clearly empowered—to step in.

Nonprofit Spending Doubles, Oversight Lags

Published December 12, 2025

The Facts:

San Francisco now spends $1.63 billion a year on contracts with nonprofits, up from $809 million in 2019 and from 6.6% to 10.2% of the city budget, according to a Chronicle analysis. Most new spending runs through the homelessness and public health departments, powered by Prop. C business taxes and pandemic‑era funding.

The Context:

This surge sits inside a roughly $16 billion budget that has grown about two‑thirds (inflation‑adjusted) since 2011 even as structural deficits loom, per a separate Chronicle budget review. The Controller’s Office says more than 600 nonprofits now deliver around $1.5–$1.7 billion in safety‑net services each year through its citywide monitoring program. A 2022 Controller audit of nonprofit oversight found departments using inconsistent performance metrics and recommended stronger evaluation standards, which led to updated citywide monitoring policies.

The GrowSF Take:

San Francisco has leaned on nonprofits for so long that City Hall has stopped building its own capacity to run shelters, treatment, and housing at scale. That’s a problem. When government doesn’t know how to operate these systems directly, it also struggles to set smart standards, compare providers, or replace underperformers.

Nonprofits will always have a role, but they should be the exception for specialized services—not the default operator of core safety‑net functions. Without clear performance metrics and public reporting, the quiet incentive is to seek bigger contracts while cutting corners on service quality.

We want a city that can do hard things itself: staff and manage high‑quality programs, learn from what works, and only outsource when it clearly adds value. That means growing in‑house expertise, tightening accountability for every major contract, and being willing to end relationships that don’t deliver real results on our streets.

Here’s what happened around the city for the week of November 30, 2025:
- Alan Wong Appointed to Sunset Supervisor
- Family Zoning Plan Approved
- Derrick Lew Named San Francisco Police Chief
- SF Teachers Union Votes to Authorize Strike Vote
- SFUSD prepares for major school reorganization

Research:
- Laws Cast in Stone: The Problem with Ballot Measures

Alan Wong Appointed to Sunset Supervisor

Published December 5, 2025

The Facts

Alan Wong is the new District 4 Supervisor, replacing Beya Alcaraz, who resigned after one week in office, and Joel Engardio, who was recalled by voters in September 2025.

Wong is a lifelong Sunset resident, has served in the Army National Guard since 2009, and was on the Board of anti-crime group Stop Crime SF. Most recently, he was elected to the City College of San Francisco Board of Trustees in November 2020 and served two terms as the board’s president. Wong had to resign from City College to accept his new role as supervisor.

One day after being sworn in, Wong joined a 7–4 Board majority to approve Lurie’s “Family Zoning” plan.

The Context

Mayor Lurie revamped his vetting process after the Alcaraz episode, requiring a detailed questionnaire and broader community outreach before choosing Wong.

The former Supervisor, Joel Engardio, was recalled over backlash to 2024’s Proposition K, which closed the Upper Great Highway to cars to create the Sunset Dunes park. Wong opposed Prop K and will now be responsible for navigating its aftermath and any proposed compromises.

The GrowSF Take

Wong’s history as a member of Stop Crime SF and his military service all indicate he will make public safety a keystone of his tenure. And his experience on the City College board shows he understands the importance of good governance and fiscal responsibility, alongside good education.

We don’t know exactly where Wong stands on housing and small business, but Wong’s vote for Family Zoning is a very encouraging sign that the Sunset’s new supervisor understands that more homes are essential to keeping families in San Francisco.

Given everything the Sunset has gone through this year, Wong should work closely with the community and take time to listen rather than escalate fights over big changes. He still has to run in June and again in November to keep his seat, so building trust now will put him in a stronger position to pursue larger policy goals later.

Family Zoning Plan Approved

Published December 2, 2025

The Facts

San Francisco has a new zoning map that will welcome tens of thousands of new families and preserve $100 million in state Affordable housing funds.

The Board of Supervisors voted 7–4 to approve Mayor Daniel Lurie’s “Family Zoning” plan which covers about 60% of the city, largely northern and western neighborhoods. Along key transit corridors on the west side, height limits will rise into the 6–10‑story range, with some parts of Lombard and Van Ness allowing taller buildings.

The Context

Family Zoning is San Francisco’s answer to state law requiring the city to plan for more than 82,000 new homes by 2031 in its certified Housing Element. About 36,000 of those units must come from rezoning “high‑resource” western and northern neighborhoods by January 2026, or the city risks losing some local control and state housing and transit funds. The plan builds on former Mayor London Breed’s reforms.

The GrowSF Take

This vote is historic. It is the first meaningful residential upzoning since the city was downzoned on September 18, 1978 -- nearly 50 years ago!

The Environmental Impact Report of the 1978 downzoning was prescient:

The proposed amendments would reduce the allowable density in many neighborhoods, so that, approximately 180,000 estimated fewer housing units could legally be built in San Francisco. As a result the demand for housing in certain neighborhoods may not be accommodated. Prices and rents may be bid upward as a result of limited supply in some neighborhoods.

If housing prices and rents are forced higher than would normally be expected, adoption of the proposed amendments may displace low- and moderate-income and elderly households.

• Environmental Impact Report for the 1978 downzoning

In short: policymakers knew that downzoning would worsen affordability and displacement, and that is exactly what happened over the next fifty years. On tuesday, December 2, 2025, the Board of Supervisors finally took a step to reverse that damage.

Derrick Lew Named San Francisco Police Chief

Published December 5, 2025

The Facts

Derrick Lew is San Francisco’s next police chief. Mayor Lurie chose the 52-year-old, 20-year SFPD veteran—who led the city’s crackdown on illegal drug markets and survived a 2006 Bayview shootout that earned him a medal of honor—from a shortlist of three finalists out of 34 applicants provided by the Police Commission.

Lew will replace Interim Chief Paul Yep after Bill Scott’s May resignation, with Yep expected to stay briefly as an advisor during the transition.

The Context

Lew’s most recent assignment was overseeing the Drug Market Agency Coordination Center (DMACC), a multi-agency task force created to target open-air drug markets in the Tenderloin and SoMa that reported thousands of arrests and hundreds of kilos of seized narcotics in its first year.

The GrowSF Take

Hiring a new chief should have been fast and straightforward, but San Francisco has a uniquely dysfunctional process: the Mayor doesn’t actually get to pick the chief directly. Instead, the Police Commission prepares a shortlist of three finalists from which the mayor must choose.

Under former Mayor London Breed, Chief Scott was largely insulated from any threats of replacement. Had Mayor Breed fired him, a defund-the-police oriented Police Commission would have given her worse options. But after voters elected a more moderate-leaning Board of Supervisors, Mayor Lurie was able to secure the removal of Commissioner Carter-Oberstone and then seated new commissioners, giving the mayor a working majority on the seven-member Police Commission. This majority presented options the mayor actually wanted, and thus we have Chief Lew. that produced the finalist slate Lew emerged from.

San Franciscans deserve streets that are safe, clean, and fair. Lew’s background in targeted drug enforcement and inter-agency coordination fits the city’s biggest public-safety challenges, but success must be measured, not assumed. We expect to see improving metrics: declining overdoses, faster 911 response times, more officers, revamped officer recruitment, and more cases solved.

SF Teachers Union Votes to Authorize Strike Vote

Published December 4, 2025

The Facts

United Educators of San Francisco (UESF) members voted in favor of holding a strike vote after nearly nine months of contract talks with the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD), according to Mission Local. That vote happened among a subset of UESF members who attended a meeting at Balboa High School on Dec. 3, not UESF’s roughly 6,500 members; the union has not released turnout numbers.

This vote does not call a strike. It is the first of two required approvals before one may happen. The union is seeking dependent health coverage, raises of 14% for classified staff and 9% for certificated staff over two years, a new special‑education workload model, among other demands. SFUSD’s September “packaged proposal” offered a 2% raise over two years while cutting some benefits, though most of the cuts came from reducing administrative overhead, closing open but unfilled positions, and natural attrition from retirements.

The Context

After years of mounting deficits, the Board adopted a 2025–26 budget with at least $113.8 million in cuts and plans further reductions to close a projected $103 million gap in 2026–27, per the district’s budget overview.

This year, as part of the cuts, SFUSD was able to avoid laying off 151 teachers.

SFUSD is still subject to fiscal oversight by the California Department of Education, and is subject to state intervention until the state deems it financially fit. Until then, even if the district agrees to UESF’s demands, state regulators may determine the new expenses are unsustainable and reject the union’s contract.

The GrowSF Take

Students should not pay the price for adults’ failures. This is a dangerous gamble for UESF to make, risking a strike that would disrupt learning for over 50,000 students in a district already struggling to meet their needs, and their demands are likely to be rejected by state regulators anyway.

SFUSD prepares for major school reorganization

Published December 3, 2025

The Facts

San Francisco’s school district has about 14,000 empty seats across 125 schools, and that is expected to grow to nearly 19,000 by 2032. The district had been gaining students for about a decade, but enrollment fell dramatically during the pandemic from about 61,000 students to about 55,000, where it remains today. This has resulted in a large number of under-enrolled schools which are expensive to maintain and don’t serve students well.

School Board President Phil Kim’s draft “Strong Schools Resolution” would direct Superintendent Maria Su to bring a reorganization plan, which may include school mergers, to the Board by August 2026, for implementation in the 2027–28 school year, and to explicitly promise clearer communication than the 2024 attempt to merge schools.

The Context

SFUSD’s post‑pandemic enrollment story is less about a free‑fall and more about a new, consistently lower level: the district serves roughly the same number of students today as it did in 2009, but on a system that was built for far more, with fixed costs in staffing, utilities, and maintenance spread across too many campuses, too few students, and too few state tax dollars. To escape state fiscal oversight and avoid receivership, the Board adopted a 2025–26 budget that cuts more than $110 million and paired it with a Fiscal Stabilization Plan that calls for tens of millions more in reductions in 2026–27, according to SFUSD’s own budget and solvency updates.

Last year’s aborted closure list highlighted small, under‑enrolled campuses like El Dorado Elementary in Visitacion Valley, Harvey Milk Civil Rights Academy in the Castro, and June Jordan School for Equity near the Excelsior, all of which have seen their enrollments fall by a third to half from earlier peaks, based on state enrollment data summarized by The Standard. Even with overall district enrollment holding around 55,000, these individual school‑level declines are what make consolidation hard to avoid.

The GrowSF Take

San Francisco’s kids need stable, academically strong schools more than they need every existing building to stay open. Keeping dozens of half‑empty campuses afloat diverts money from teachers, core classes, and student support into overhead and maintenance. We support a transparent, data‑driven reorganization that uses clear criteria: enrollment trends, facility quality, academic performance, all while guaranteeing affected students a better‑resourced school, and reasonable commute options.

Done well, consolidation can turn today’s thinly stretched offerings into stronger programs with more electives, counselors, and extracurriculars.

Research

Laws Cast in Stone: The Problem with Ballot Measures

Published December 1, 2025

We pass a lot of ballot measures, which means a lot of laws are set in stone. San Francisco’s Charter makes voter-approved measures exceptionally difficult to alter or repeal. In fact, any law adopted by voters cannot be amended, fixed, or undone by elected leaders.

This legal rule (Charter Article XIV, Section 14.101) means that policies enacted via ballot initiative are effectively permanent unless another expensive campaign is run for a citywide vote. Even minor corrections or updates to voter-adopted laws require costly ballot measures, so outdated provisions tend to linger. A recent SPUR report notes that the path of least resistance to fixing an error is usually to leave it in place or add new layers on top.

San Francisco’s heavy use of direct democracy contributes to city hall rigidity. Between 2013 and 2022, San Francisco voters considered 115 local ballot measures—more than twice as many as in San Diego, the next closest California city. Notably, about 70% of those SF measures were put on the ballot by city officials themselves, which we criticized in “Too Many Ballot Measures.”

In short, San Francisco’s Charter and initiative process give voters immense power over policy, but at the cost of flexibility: once voted on at the ballot box, policies are virtually permanent until/unless the entire city votes again to change them.

Voter Mandates and Set-Asides Limit Budget Flexibility

Voter-mandated spending requirements (often called “baselines” or “set-asides”) heavily constrain San Francisco’s budget.

Between 1994 and 2022, the percent of the city’s General Fund budget tied up in voter-mandated set-asides doubled—from 15% to 30%. A 2024 Civil Grand Jury report found that over 30% of the city’s General Fund budget is tied up by more than 20 voter-approved spending mandates. By contrast, all other cities and counties in California combined have just 10.

These voter-adopted set-asides guarantee funding for certain programs regardless of other needs. While it may sound great to dedicate millions of dollars to maintaining street trees, when the City is facing a huge budget deficit, it’d be nice to be able to reallocate that money to fund other priorities like Muni and the police.

The San Francisco Controller’s Office explains that while set-asides tend “to increase certainty regarding year to year funding levels”, they also “limit the financial flexibility of elected policymakers.” As more of the budget is pre-allocated by law, any necessary cuts or reallocations must come from an ever-shrinking portion of the discretionary budget.

City oversight bodies have flagged this rigidity as a growing problem. The Civil Grand Jury noted that “voter-mandated spending (set-asides) significantly affects management of the city’s budget“, and it urged a dedicated analysis of how to handle these constraints.

While San Francisco’s myriad voter-imposed budget mandates provide certainty for certain services, collectively they force a shrinking portion of the city budget to absorb 100% of any budget deficit while limiting budget flexibility along the way.

Outdated Mandates

A recent example of structural dysfunction (and clever workaround) is San Francisco’s prohibition on Deputy Mayors. In most major cities, mayors appoint deputy mayors or similar managers to coordinate broad policy areas—New York City and Los Angeles, for instance, both employ deputy mayors. San Francisco, however, banned deputy mayors with a 1991 ballot initiative: Proposition H.

The ban was driven by “anger over the high salaries of deputy mayors,” but its long-term effect has been to hamstring the Mayor’s Office, stymie cross-departmental coordination, and make government less effective. Rather than a team of deputy mayors overseeing clusters of departments, the Mayor was forced to rely on just their Chief of Staff.

Mayor Lurie, for his part, figured out a workaround in 2024 by creating several Policy Chiefs within the Mayor’s Office to oversee key areas like housing, public safety, and economic development. But these Chiefs lack any legal authority, and the Mayor’s Office still faces challenges coordinating across siloed departments and commissions.

Given that the city seems to be running much better with these Policy Chiefs in place, it’s clear that the 1991 ban on deputy mayors is an outdated impediment to effective governance. But it’s still the law of the land, and properly fixing it will require another expensive citywide vote.

City leaders today recognize that some well-intentioned mandates from a bygone era are now acting as impediments to good government. But meaningful reform will ultimately require asking the voters to “clean up” the charter by removing or modernizing entrenched provisions.

Good Governance Needs Flexibility, and Fewer Ballot-box Mandates

Governance works best when there’s room to adapt. That’s why good-government experts like SPUR urge San Francisco to “resolve issues through leadership rather than at the ballot“. Voters should set broad direction and priorities, but then let the Mayor, Board of Supervisors, and city departments work out the details, and adjust on the fly as needed. We elect our leaders to problem-solve and make informed decisions. They can’t do that effectively if every adjustment requires a citywide vote to undo an old mandate.

San Francisco needs to regain some flexibility in its laws. When policies prove unworkable or circumstances evolve, our officials should be able to course-correct without waiting for the next election. That doesn’t mean shutting voters out, but it does mean only using the ballot box for big-picture guidance, not minute administrative rules. And that probably looks like making it hard to put ballot measures on the ballot.

Empower Elected Representatives

At the end of the day, we elect our Mayor and Supervisors to govern, and we should let them do it. That means shifting away from direct democracy at the ballot box as the default and back toward representative democracy.

If the Mayor and Board are empowered to actually govern, and can be expected to negotiate solutions instead of waging ballot campaigns against each other,voters can then judge them on their performance. We’ll know whom to credit or blame. Right now, responsibility is often muddled: was it the voters’ fault or the officials’ fault that something went wrong?

Returning decision-making power to our elected officials will improve the City’s governance and clarify accountability. And if we don’t like the job they’re doing, we can vote them out, rather than trying to micro-manage the City via propositions.

Here’s what happened around the city for the week of November 16, 2025:
- Connie Chan Enters Race For Congress
- Dog Shooting Exposes SF’s Broken Dangerous Dog System
- Chan’s Red-Tape Ordinance Voted Down
- Ocean Beach Safeway Redevelopment Will Add 526 New Homes

Recent & upcoming openings:
- Chicken Fried Palace Is the Diner of Your Dreams
- Quack House Reboots Hing Lung Co

Research:
- Too Many Ballot Measures: Why San Francisco Needs To Fix Its Charter

Connie Chan Enters Race For Congress

Published November 20, 2025

The Facts

District 1 Supervisor Connie Chan has entered the race to replace Nancy Pelosi, according to Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez, Gabe Greschler, and Josh Koehn at The Standard. Chan is one of the most strident anti-development voices on the Board of Supervisors.

The Context

Pelosi’s retirement creates a rare open seat for San Francisco - she held the seat for 40 years. State Senator Scott Wiener and former AOC chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti are already in the race. Locally, Chan has built her brand as a skeptic of adding new housing on the west side. She has been a vocal critic of Mayor Daniel Lurie’s Family Zoning Plan, pushing carve-outs and exclusions for much of the Richmond and aligning with anti-growth groups trying to block taller, denser buildings along corridors like Geary and Clement.

Chan’s district has long failed to do its part on housing, having built just 2 new homes in all of 2024 (28 total new units once ADUs are included in the count), according to SF Planning’s 2024 Housing Inventory. This contrasts with 1,597 net new homes citywide.

About 6,870 children were born in San Francisco in 2024, per preliminary state data summarized by Christian Leonard at the Chronicle. If we very roughly assume the Richmond accounts for about one-eleventh of city births, that suggests on the order of 600 babies born there in a single year versus only a few dozen net new homes. This is a rough estimate, but the scale of the mismatch is clear and we’re left wondering where all these children will live as they grow up, when their own neighborhood refuses to make room for them.

The GrowSF Take

Chan’s record on growth would deepen, not solve, San Francisco’s housing crisis. At every major juncture, she has worked to water down or delay upzoning that would legalize more homes in exactly the high-resource, transit-served, family neighborhoods she represents, siding with west-side preservation groups determined to freeze the built environment in place rather than welcome new neighbors. The Standard’s coverage of Family Zoning negotiations underscores how often Chan’s amendments aim to pull land out of the rezoning map.

GrowSF believes San Francisco—and the country—will be better served by pro-housing, pro-growth problem-solvers than by elevating one of City Hall’s most reliable votes against progress.

Dog Shooting Exposes SF’s Broken Dangerous Dog System

Published November 20, 2025

The Facts

On Nov. 9, an off-leash husky mix dog allegedly bit a person on Market Street and lunged at an SFPD officer who responded to the attack. A body-camera and surveillance video released by SFPD and interim Chief Paul Yep shows Officer Joseph Toomey confronting the dog’s owner, Trusten Eaton, near Fourth and Market streets. When officers moved to arrest Eaton and told him to control the dog, the animal twice charged Toomey, as seen in the bodycam footage. The officer fired one round at the dog when it charged, striking it in the shoulder, and one at Eaton when he threw a bottle, striking him in the leg; both were hospitalized with non-life-threatening injuries and are expected to recover.

But this story is bigger than a shooting, it’s that it should have been avoided entirely. Over 800 dog bites have been reported this year alone, yet our “canine court” has been effectively shut down for months, leaving dangerous dogs on the streets without consequences.

The Context

More than 800 dog bites were reported in San Francisco in the first nine months of 2025, putting the city on track to surpass last year’s record of 868 reported bites, according to an investigation into rising dog attacks and suspended canine court hearings by Jennifer Wadsworth at The Standard.

While attacks are up, “canine court” hearings fell from 159 in 2020 to just 32 so far in 2025 and stopped entirely after June 24, leaving at least 21 completed investigations and roughly two dozen additional cases in limbo.

A 2018 civil grand jury report had already flagged serious problems with how San Francisco managed dangerous dogs, including inconsistent application of Health Code standards and inadequate support for the one officer assigned to the work. SFPD has updated its dog-complaints policy to step up leash-law enforcement, but those moves are landing on top of a non-functioning adjudication system.

The GrowSF Take

San Francisco has allowed a predictable public-safety problem to fester. The Market Street shooting was chaotic and disturbing; independent investigations must scrutinize whether the shooting was justified. But the failure is with policy, not police tactics.

City Hall has tolerated record dog-bite numbers while letting canine court grind to a halt, leaving victims, officers, and responsible owners without a clear path to consequences for dangerous animals. The city needs a fully funded, transparent hearing system; a single accountable lead agency; and consistent, data-driven enforcement of leash and bite laws. Dangerous-dog cases should be resolved quickly—with training, muzzling requirements, or euthanasia of truly vicious animals—long before they escalate into attacks on innocent people and pets.

Chan’s Red-Tape Ordinance Voted Down

Published November 20, 2025

The Facts

Supervisors Mahmood, Sauter, Sherrill, and Dorsey voted down Supervisor Connie Chan’s ordinance to require a special “conditional use authorization” before any new business could lease a storefront previously occupied by a legacy business, according to Alyce McFadden at the San Francisco Chronicle. The measure also would have shortened eligibility for the Legacy Business Registry from 30 to just 15 years in operation.

Because the Planning Commission had already recommended disapproval, the ordinance needed a two‑thirds supermajority to pass.

City planners, the Planning Commission, and several small business organizations argued the proposal would increase bureaucratic hurdles, risk more vacant storefronts, and mainly benefit well‑lawyered operators rather than truly vulnerable mom‑and‑pop shops.

The Context

San Francisco’s Legacy Business Program already gives long‑standing businesses (typically 30+ years) access to marketing help, rent stabilization grants, and other support through the Office of Small Business’s Legacy Business Program. Meanwhile, Mayor Daniel Lurie’s PermitSF and initialize has been cutting permitting delays and costs. Chan’s ordinance was in direct opposition to a pro-small-business agenda.

An October staff analysis presented to the Planning Commission warned that Chan’s ordinance would “create the appearance of protecting Legacy Businesses without delivering meaningful benefits.”

The GrowSF Take

Requiring yet another conditional‑use hearing any time a legacy business closes is the wrong tool. Making it harder for a new business to fill a vacant space, just because that space used to hold an old business, simply makes zero sense.

San Francisco should absolutely support long‑standing businesses, but with predictable taxes, lower fees, and fast, low‑cost permits, and not with legal hoops that favor insiders and lawyers over actual shopkeepers. Killing this ordinance was the right call; now the Board should pair Family Zoning with targeted, by‑right support programs that keep beloved institutions thriving while making it easier, not harder, for the next generation of small businesses to open.

Ocean Beach Safeway Redevelopment Will Add 526 New Homes

Published November 19, 2025

The Facts

Safeway’s Outer Richmond store at 850 La Playa Street is slated for a temporary closure while Safeway and developer Align Real Estate pursue a major redevelopment to turn the one‑story store and surface parking lot into two eight‑story buildings containing 526 rental homes, a larger Safeway, and new parking for residents and shoppers. Of those homes, 68 would be reserved for low‑ and very‑low‑income households. Safeway says all current employees will keep their jobs and that on‑site employment will grow by about one‑third once the new store opens, according to reporting by Laura Waxmann at the Chronicle.

The Context

Under current zoning, the maximum height at 850 La Playa is 40 feet (about four stories). Mayor Daniel Lurie’s proposed Family Zoning plan would rezone the site to 65 feet as part of a citywide push to allow more homes in high‑opportunity west‑side neighborhoods. But Align is relying on state density‑bonus laws to go to about 85 feet and secure ministerial, by‑right approval in exchange for on‑site subsidized units, effectively bypassing much of local discretionary control even as Supervisor Connie Chan tries to carve 850 La Playa and other Outer Richmond parcels out of the Family Zoning map and layer on extra review.

The GrowSF Take

If you’ve never lived directly above a grocery store, you might not realize how incredibly convenient it is. Having a full-service supermarket just an elevator ride away makes daily life so much easier, especially for families with kids.

This is a no-nonsense redevelopment and we’re all for it. Take note that this project bypasses local restrictions in exchange for more height and more low-income units. A great trade, we think!

Recent & upcoming openings

A great city is constantly changing and growing, let’s celebrate what’s new!

Chicken Fried Palace Is the Diner of Your Dreams

WHEN: Opens today, Saturday November 22
WHERE: 2240 Mission (the former Wes Burger spot)

Sometimes you just need some comfort food, and sometimes you need really nice comfort food. Chicken Fried Palace is ready for both, and you’ll enjoy every bite. Astrid Kane reports in the Standard that it’s the new project from Michelin-starred chef Seth Stowaway (of Osito), alongside partners Cole Jeanes of Memphis and Gabrielle Pabonan who previously worked with the Thomas Keller Group.

If you’ve never had a southern-style chicken-fried steak, you need to drop what you’re doing and head over. And for the gluten-free folks, there are purportedly some gluten-free breading options so you can still get your fry on.

Quack House Reboots Hing Lung Co.

WHEN: Opened yesterday, Friday Nov 21
WHERE: 927 Post

Famed roast duck restaurant, Hing Lung Co., closed its doors last year and everyone’s been hoping it would come back in all its glory. Many (like me!) have gotten our fill via their Bernal derivative, “Go Duck Yourself,” but now Quack House will bring back Hing Lung’s by-the-pound orders of impeccable roast duck to 927 Post, according to Mario Cortez at The Chronicle.

Research

Too Many Ballot Measures: Why San Francisco Needs To Fix Its Charter

Published November 17, 2025

Tired of ballots crammed with dozens of measures you barely understand? You’re not alone.

Every election, our ballots are bloated with local propositions—often 15 or more in a single election! They touch on everything from housing and transit, to street trees, to police staffing, and overtime or retirement benefits for EMTs and nurses. We’re asked to weigh in on confusing and highly technical issues that shouldn’t need our vote at all. After all, didn’t we elect people to handle this?

This chaos of constant ballot measures isn’t just tiring, though. It’s also hurting our city and wasting millions of dollars. But it doesn’t have to be this way. Let’s fix it.

Ballot Overload

San Francisco’s ballots have become notoriously overcrowded. In November 2024, San Franciscans faced 15 local measures, while voters in nearby Oakland had just 3 and San José only 1.

This glut of propositions leaves voters with homework that other cities simply don’t require.

What’s worse, many of these propositions didn’t even need to be on the ballot in the first place. According to SPUR, a local good-government group, “Since 2015, 29% of measures submitted to San Francisco voters required no voter approval and could have been adopted legislatively.”

In other words, our ballots are cluttered with work that City Hall should have done itself.

GrowSF started because we were fed up with this ballot chaos. Every election, we brace ourselves for the marathon of reading through dozens of pages of fine print, trying to decipher legal jargon and conflicting claims from competing campaigns. But you shouldn’t need a secret decoder ring to understand what you’re voting on!

Why Does SF Legislate at the Ballot Box?

There are three structural flaws in San Francisco’s laws that makes it easier to legislate at the ballot box than in the Board of Supervisors chambers:

1. A minority of Supervisors (4 out of 11), or the Mayor alone, can place measures directly on the ballot, bypassing the usual legislative process.

2. The signature requirement to qualify citizen initiatives is absurdly low: just 2% of registered voters compared to up to 20% in other California cities (With around 500,000 voters, that’s just 10,000 signatures).

3. A state law intended for large counties with many cities also applies to SF by itself. This allows a simple majority of Supervisors to introduce charter amendments, akin to constitutional amendments, without consent of the Mayor.

Passing a law is supposed to involve working it through the Board of Supervisors with hearings, public input, and amendments, leading to a majority vote plus the Mayor’s approval (or a veto override). That process is designed to encourage debate, compromise, engagement with experts, and careful refinement of policy. But our system provides a tempting shortcut: a minority of Supervisors, or even just the Mayor alone, can put new laws on the ballot, bypassing the usual legislative process. No majority, no hearings, and no experts required.

State law lets counties propose charter amendments with a simple majority. That makes sense because those counties include many cities, each with different interests that must be negotiated. But San Francisco is unique: we are the state’s only combined City & County, yet the same rule still applies to us. And since our Supervisors represent individual neighborhoods rather than whole cities, a small group of parochial interests can control the process and rewrite San Francisco’s constitution without a Mayoral veto or the normal legislative process.

But it’s not just those flaws. The signature requirement to qualify citizen initiatives is absurdly low: just 2% of registered voters. Other cities across California require signatures from 8% to 20% of their electorate to qualify. This means that any half-organized group in San Francisco can gather enough signatures to put their half-baked ideas on the ballot.

In short, it’s easier to lob a proposal onto the ballot than to govern through City Hall. As SPUR observes in its “Charter for Change“ report, “the charter allows shortcuts not found in other cities,” encouraging political fights at the ballot box instead of negotiated solutions in City Hall.

By the Numbers

Since 1996, when San Francisco adopted its current charter, voters have been asked to vote on 403 different local ballot measures. Some of those were legally required to go to the ballot, like the 46 bonds and 46 taxes we’ve voted on. But what about the rest?

San Francisco voters have been burdened with deciding on 29 meaningless “policy declarations” that have no force of law, 152 charter amendments, and 120 ordinances that skipped the legislative process. The 120 ordinances came from...

The four from the Ethics Commission followed their legitimate lawmaking process, but the other 116 skipped the normal legislative negotiation process. That’s a lot of laws passed without the usual debate, hearings, or expert input.

A Higher Bar

San Francisco needs to raise the bar for putting measures on the ballot. Not only do we have too many ballot measures, but once they’re passed they’re locked in and unable to be modified by our elected officials. The only way to fix a ballot measure is to pass a new one later, creating a vicious cycle of more and more measures piling up.

So instead of making our most hard-coded laws the easiest to pass with the least oversight, we should flip the script. Let’s make it harder to put measures on the ballot, and easier for our elected officials to govern through City Hall.

Here are some key reforms that we think San Francisco needs:

1. Raise the threshold for qualifying citizen initiatives from 2% to at least 10% of registered voters, in line with other California cities.

2. Require a majority of the Board of Supervisors (6 out of 11) plus the Mayor’s approval to place any measure on the ballot, ensuring broader consensus and consent of both branches of government.

3. Prohibit measures that have no legal requirement to be on the ballot (like regular ordinances) or which have no legal effect (like policy declarations). This would still allow citizen signature initiatives, but would prevent the Board of Supervisors from using the ballot as a political tool for symbolic gestures.

By enacting these reforms, San Francisco can restore some much-needed sanity to its governance. We’ll still have ballot measures—but far fewer, and they will require more scrutiny and debate. Meanwhile, our city government can become more nimble and cohesive. As SPUR succinctly put it, San Francisco needs to “resolve issues through leadership rather than at the ballot”. It’s time to stop the ballot chaos.

Here’s what happened around the city for the week of November 9, 2025:
- New Supervisor Alcaraz Is Already Out
- SPUR Proposes Charter Reforms
- Board Makes Maria Su Permanent Superintendent
- Mahmood Launches Youth Violence Prevention Program in Tenderloin
- New Sobering Center for Drug Arrests

Recent & upcoming openings:
- Quik Dog Finds A New Home

New Supervisor Alcaraz Is Already Out

Published November 14, 2025

The Facts

Freshly appointed District 4 Supervisor Isabella “Beya” Alcaraz resigned Thursday night after just one week in office, prompting Mayor Daniel Lurie to apologize Friday. “This rests on my shoulders,” he said. “We are going to thoroughly review our vetting process, and we will get better.”

Alcaraz stepped down amid revelations about her pet store business, The Animal Connection. The store’s new owner told Gabe Greschler at The Standard that Alcaraz left behind dead mice, feces, and trash when she transferred ownership earlier this year. Text messages obtained by Joe Eskenazi at Mission Local showed Alcaraz admitted to paying employees “under the table” and misreporting business expenses to, presumably, avoid paying her business taxes.

Alcaraz has the shortest tenure of any Supervisor in San Francisco history, serving just seven days.

The Context

Alcaraz’s appointment on Nov. 6 was unusual from the start. She approached Lurie at a night market in September—having never met him before—to inquire about the supervisor role. She had no political or government experience and had never attended Supervisor meetings.

The District 4 seat had been vacant since October 18th, when Supervisor Joel Engardio was officially removed from office after being recalled by voters over his support for closing the Great Highway to cars.

The GrowSF Take

The ending was less of a surprise than the beginning. Insiders and observers alike questioned Alcaraz’s qualifications from the start. We were certainly surprised! We liked that she had a small business background, but worried about her lack of experience and unclear priorities.

The ending was inevitable, though, as soon as the revelations about her business practices came to light. Running a dirty store is one thing, but evading taxes, and paying employees under the table is disqualifying for any public official.

We hope the next appointee is better.

SPUR Proposes Charter Reforms

Published November 10, 2025

The Facts

Urban planning think tank SPUR released 10 recommendations to reform San Francisco’s charter (akin to our constitution).

A key recommendation is to restore the mayor’s ability to manage staffing in key roles, like regaining the ability to hire and fire department heads without the legislature or commission being involved. Other suggestions include lengthening the City Administrator’s term from five years to ten (to minimize politics and maximize stability in a key operational role), making it more difficult for Supervisors to bypass the legislative process by requiring a majority of 6 Supervisors, rather than a minority of 4, to put a measure on the ballot, and raising the signature threshold for ballot measures.

Additional recommendations include moving departments from charter to administrative code for flexibility and reducing mandated spending set-asides for specific services.

The Context

As we’ve written, San Francisco has the longest city charter in the country, at well over 500 pages. For comparison, the US constitution including all 27 amendments is about 15 pages.

Former SF Controller and PUC general manager, and current SPUR adviser Ed Harrington told Xueer Lu at Mission Local that stronger mayoral authority actually improves accountability: “If you want the mayor to be held responsible, you have to give them authority to make decisions.”

The GrowSF Take

We had been hearing rumors about this report for months and we’re excited to finally see it out in the wild! These recommendations align closely with GrowSF’s long-standing advocacy for a more accountable Mayor, streamlined governance, and right-sizing the charter.

Giving mayors authority to hire and fire department heads creates direct responsibility for city services (don’t like a department? Vote the mayor out!), while higher ballot thresholds reduce governance-by-initiative that clogs the system.

We’ll be digging in to all of these recommendations over the coming weeks. Stay tuned!

Board Makes Maria Su Permanent Superintendent

Published November 14, 2025

The Facts

The San Francisco School Board will vote November 18 to make Maria Su the permanent superintendent with a two-year contract, sources told Mission Local.

The teachers’ union, United Educators of San Francisco (UESF), opposed Su because she has an expertise in administration rather than teaching. The job of the Superintendent is purely administrative, with no teaching component, though the state does have credential requirements for the position. The School Board will waive those requirements to keep Su in the role.

The Context

Su became interim superintendent in October 2024 after Superintendent Matt Wayne resigned.

She brings 16 years of city administration experience, having led the Department of Children, Youth and Their Families since 2009. She has managed complex budgets and navigated San Francisco politics under multiple mayors.

Su helped the district balance a $114 million budget deficit and implement a new payroll system, saving the district from a full state takeover. However, SFUSD faces ongoing challenges including possible school closures, a threatened teacher strike, and fixing the school assignment system. The district will remain under state oversight through December 2025.

The GrowSF Take

Su’s appointment rewards proven results over arbitrary requirements. She stabilized district finances and fixed operational failures that plagued her predecessors. We don’t need credentialism, we need skilled management that can run complex and important institutions.

Effective governance requires leaders who can deliver results, balance budgets, and navigate complex systems—all skills Su has demonstrated throughout her city career.

Mahmood Launches Youth Violence Prevention Program in Tenderloin

Published November 13, 2025

The Facts

San Francisco will launch a new violence prevention program in January targeting Tenderloin youth aged 12 to 24, Supervisor Bilal Mahmood announced November 12. The $200,000 pilot program will deploy four part-time community workers with “deep ties” to the neighborhood to provide mentorship and programming for up to 20 young people.

Developed by nonprofit United Playaz and the Tenderloin Community Benefit District, the program will create a “safe refuge space” similar to United Playaz’s existing SoMa clubhouse, featuring recreation rooms, computer labs, and recording studios. Services include job readiness training, mental health support, and presentations from community leaders, violence survivors, and formerly incarcerated people.

Initial funding comes from private donors including the Future Justice Fund, entrepreneur Chris Larsen, and investors Jeremy Liew and Michael Seibel. Mahmood hopes to secure ongoing city funding in the next budget cycle.

The Context

The Tenderloin houses 3,500 children and is encumbered by persistent drug dealing and violence. Mahmood cited the cases of two men charged with using a minor to sell drugs in the neighborhood this year as evidence that “young people are being targeted” for recruitment into the drug trade.

The supervisor highlighted the divergent paths of three young friends from his district: one died of overdose, another was shot, and the third graduated from the Police Academy. These outcomes, he said, depended largely on which resources they could access.

The GrowSF Take

This seems like a smart, targeted approach to addressing youth violence in one of San Francisco’s most challenged neighborhoods. United Playaz is well respected for its work with at-risk youth, and the support from outside funders will ensure it starts strong, without straining the city budget.

New Sobering Center for Drug Arrests

Published November 12, 2025

The Facts

A new “drug sobering center” is opening on 6th Street early next year to provide an alternative to jail for people arrested for public drug use. The Sheriff’s Office will operate the facility, where up to 25 people can be held while sobering up alongside addiction specialists who can connect them with methadone, buprenorphine, residential treatment, or shelter placement.

The center is a “fundamental change” in San Francisco’s approach to street drug use, according to Maggie Angst at The Chronicle.

The Context

San Francisco currently rarely arrests people solely for public intoxication despite the persistent fentanyl crisis. Officers cite the time-consuming jail booking processes as reasons for them not doing their jobs.

The new center complements the existing crisis stabilization center at 822 Geary St, which opened in April and provides voluntary treatment. In its first five months, that facility served 344 people, with 25% discharged to residential treatment, according to the Chronicle.

Supervisor Matt Dorsey supports the Sixth Street location, arguing it will address root causes of neighborhood concerns about drug activity.

The GrowSF Take

This is a sensible alternative to taking users to jail or to the hospital -- both expensive and time-consuming options. Officers will be able to drop people off and continue on their patrols after a quick intake process, rather than going through the lengthy booking process at county jail or the emergency room. Detainees will not be booked or charged but must remain until deemed sober and able to care for themselves; if they leave early then they may face charges.

This matches what voters tell us they want. In our September 2023 poll, we found that 64% of San Franciscans support bringing intoxicated people to a sobering center, with only 19% preferring jail.

Recent & upcoming openings

A great city is constantly changing and growing, let’s celebrate what’s new!

Quik Dog Finds A New Home

WHEN: Every Day, 11:30am - 10pm
WHERE: 1023 3rd St

What started as an experiment during the pandemic pause quickly became a local favorite. Now Quik Dog has found a new permanent home across the 3rd St bridge from Oracle Park.

From the team behind Trick Dog, Quik Dog brought burgers and hot dogs to the Trick Dog space while indoor dining was closed during COVID. According to Dianne de Guzman at SF Eater, now they’re expanding the menu to include fish tacos, mini corn dogs, loaded fries, and even cocktails.

Here’s what happened around the city for the week of November 2, 2025:
- Fielder Exploits Tragedy for Politics, and Possibly Profits
- Isabella Alcaraz Is the New D4 Supervisor
- Chan and Melgar Add Red Tape, Despite City Objections
- Pelosi Announces Retirement
- Muni funding plan takes shape with parcel tax scenarios

Recent & upcoming openings:
- The East Coast Isn’t All Bad: Jerry’s Roast Pork at Embarcadero Center
- Hallelujah: Saint Frank in the Inner Sunset

Fielder Exploits Tragedy for Politics, and Possibly Profits

Published November 7, 2025

The Facts

On October 29th, a beloved neighborhood cat was tragically killed by a Waymo in the Mission District. The cat, KitKat, lived at Randa’s Market, where it was a fixture for years. According to reports, the cat had walked under the vehicle when it was parked and waiting for passengers, and was not detected before the vehicle started moving.

On the heels of the tragedy, Supervisor Jackie Fielder held a press conference to rally against autonomous vehicles, aligning herself with the Teamsters union, which is self-interested in banning self-driving trucks to preserve its members’ jobs. More troubling, she promoted the launch of “KitKatCoin,” a cryptocurrency “memecoin” named after the cat, which critics have characterized as a presumed pump-and-dump scheme. Fielder has not disclosed whether she profits from this cryptocurrency venture. At least one ethics complaint has been filed against her, asking the ethics commission to investigate if Fielder has violated SF Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 3.212, 3.214, and 3.218 by promoting a cryptocurrency while holding public office.

The Context

Cryptocurrency memecoins are frequently pump-and-dump schemes where early promoters profit by driving up prices before selling their holdings, leaving later buyers with worthless tokens.

Adam Lashinsky at The Standard noted that human-driven vehicles kill significantly more animals annually than autonomous vehicles, making Fielder’s focus on this single incident particularly cynical. Estimates range wildly, but some studies suggest that human drivers kill between 5 million and 26 million cats each year in the U.S.

The GrowSF Take

Fielder has weaponized a beloved pet’s death to advance union political interests while potentially profiting from cryptocurrency speculation. This is San Francisco politics at its most cynical: performative outrage serving special interests rather than public safety.

The supervisor appears to be exploiting tragedy for both political theater and possible personal gain, while ignoring data showing autonomous vehicles are safer than human drivers. San Francisco deserves leaders who make evidence-based decisions, not ones who turn deaths into political stunts and cryptocurrency schemes.

Isabella Alcaraz Is the New D4 Supervisor

Published November 7, 2025

The Facts

Isabella “Beya” Alcaraz was appointed to District 4 supervisor on November 6, filling the seat vacated when Joel Engardio was recalled in September. Alcaraz, 29, is a lifelong Sunset resident, art and music teacher, and former owner of the Animal Connection pet store.

Alcaraz experienced the city’s permitting challenges firsthand, telling Will Jarrett at Mission Local that she spent $1,000 and waited six months for approval to install a simple storage shed. She must run in the June 2026 election to retain her seat until the end of Engardio’s original term in January 2027, and again in November 2026 if she wants to serve a full four-year term.

The Context

Engardio’s recall was driven by 62.7% of voters who opposed his support for permanently closing the Great Highway to vehicles and turning it into “Sunset Dunes” park. His replacement, Alcaraz, enters office as the Board of Supervisors debates the Family Zoning Plan, which would allow denser housing in neighborhoods like the Sunset.

The city faces a January 31, 2026 state deadline to approve a compliant housing plan or risk triggering the “builder’s remedy,” which lets developers bypass most local zoning rules.

The GrowSF Take

We don’t yet know how Supervisor Alcaraz will legislate or what her priorities are, but her background as a small business owner who struggled with the city’s permitting process is promising. The first-hand experience with city dysfunction may help spur more reforms.

With the June 2026 election rapidly approaching, GrowSF will evaluate all District 4 candidates through our endorsement process, which will kick off in the next month or two. Until then, we’ll be watching how she votes on key issues like the Family Zoning Plan and other important governance reforms.

Chan and Melgar Add Red Tape, Despite City Objections

Published November 3, 2025

The Facts

Supervisor Connie Chan’s controversial ordinance has moved forward in the Board of Supervisors Land Use Committee, despite opposition from two key city bodies. The legislation would require businesses to obtain a “conditional use authorization” before replacing a “legacy business” that has operated for 30 or more years.

The measure advanced despite formal opposition from both the Planning Commission, which voted 4-2 to disapprove, and the Small Business Commission, which voted 3-1 not to recommend it. Supervisor Bilal Mahmood was the lone dissenting vote in committee, per The Chronicle.

The measure will now move to the full Board of Supervisors for consideration.

The Context

Chan’s proposal runs directly counter to Mayor Lurie’s PermitSF initiative, which aims to streamline business permitting. The Planning Department’s analysis warned the ordinance “misapplies a land use tool to an economic stabilization challenge” and could discourage landlords from leasing to legacy businesses. The Small Business Commission cautioned that this process favors businesses with the resources to hire land-use attorneys over smaller enterprises.

In short, the city’s own experts believe the legislation could backfire and harm the very businesses it’s intended to help.

The GrowSF Take

Adding bureaucratic hurdles is not the way to support small businesses. When the city’s own Planning and Small Business Commissions warn that a policy will create new barriers and favor wealthy players, Supervisors should listen. This legislation adds process and expense, undermining efforts to fill vacant storefronts and revitalize our economy.

We’ll be watching closely as this bill moves to the full Board. GrowSF urges Supervisors to reject measures that complicate business operations and instead focus on policies that truly support small businesses without adding red tape.

Pelosi Announces Retirement

Published November 7, 2025

The Facts

Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi announced on November 6, 2025, that she will not seek reelection, ending her nearly four-decade career representing San Francisco in Congress. The 85-year-old former House Speaker will serve out the remainder of her term through January 2027.

The race to replace her has already begun, with both State Senator Scott Wiener and former AOC Chief of Staff Saikat Chakrabarti actively running.

Supervisor Connie Chan is reportedly contemplating a bid, according to former Supervisor Aaron Peskin, though she has not announced her intentions. And London Breed hinted she might run, as well.

The Context

This marks San Francisco’s first competitive congressional primary since 1987, when Pelosi first won the seat.

The GrowSF Take

There’s no doubt that Pelosi wielded significant influence in Washington, D.C., but many San Franciscans often felt she prioritized national politics over local needs. Her tenure saw limited progress on critical issues like housing affordability, urban development, and the fentanyl crisis—areas where San Francisco desperately needed strong advocacy.

After decades of a representative focused on national politics, voters actually have a real choice in this race. The candidates will have to not only distinguish themselves from each other but also from Pelosi’s legacy. We don’t know if voters will prefer an inward or outward focus, and we’re eager to see how the campaigns unfold.

Muni funding plan takes shape with parcel tax scenarios

Published November 7, 2025

The Facts

The Lurie administration is reportedly considering two options for parcel taxes on the November 2026 ballot to address Muni’s $307 million annual budget deficit, according to an exclusive by Rachel Swan at The Chronicle. Only one measure will be put forward, and both scenarios would keep taxes on small homeowners low while requiring larger property owners to pay more.

Under the first option, residential property owners would pay $150 annually for homes under 3,000 square feet, plus 25 cents per additional square foot with a $250,000 cap. Commercial properties would pay $600 for buildings under 3,000 square feet, plus 67.5 cents per additional square foot with a $400,000 cap.

The second scenario reduces the residential base rate to $99 but increases the per-square-foot premium to 29 cents, while commercial properties would pay the same $600 base with 73 cents per additional square foot.

The Context

Without new revenue, SFMTA faces service cuts on a third of its lines that would effectively double wait times for riders. The deficit could grow to $434 million within five years, making this one of the most critical fiscal challenges facing San Francisco.

The progressive tax structure reflects lessons learned from failed transit measures in other cities. By charging large property owners significantly more while keeping rates manageable for small homeowners, the proposal aims to build a sustainable coalition.

The GrowSF Take

We’re glad to see these tax measures take shape, and this early report gives us hope that San Francisco can avoid devastating service cuts to public transit. The MTA has made enough cuts this year that, if the measure passes, it will avoid entering a death spiral of declining ridership and revenue.

Recent & upcoming openings

A great city is constantly changing and growing, let’s celebrate what’s new!

The East Coast Isn’t All Bad: Jerry’s Garlic Roast Pork Sandwiches at Embarcadero Center

WHEN: Open 11am-3pm Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday
WHERE: 2 Embarcadero Center

Our friends on the East coast sometimes do things right, like roast pork sandwiches from New Jersey. According to Dianne de Guzman at SF Eater, the founder Matthew Kosoy worked at a hoagie shop when he was 15 and “has an emotional attachment” to the classic sandwich. The pork is prepared over three days, building deep flavor.

Hallelujah: Saint Frank in the Inner Sunset

WHEN: 7am-6pm every day
WHERE: 744 Irving

SF favorite Saint Frank Coffee has taken over an old Starbucks storefront at 9th & Irving in the Inner Sunset, bringing one of the city’s best coffee shops to the bustling and growing neighborhood. Splurge on a “competition style cappuccino” (pictured above) to really sample how the sum is greater than its parts.