CEO Tax Doesn’t Tax CEOs
PLUS: $21M From State Will Fund New Treatment Beds
What You Need To Know
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.