What You Need To Know
Here’s what happened around the city for the week of August 23, 2026:
- Connie Chan Quiet Quits the Board of Supervisors
- SF Democrats Add Seven GrowSF-Backed Endorsements
- San Francisco Democrats Reject Proposition 40 Billionaire Tax
- Official Misconduct Shows Why We Need Prop F
- Rents Hit $4,180 as Developers Prepare to Build
Connie Chan Quiet Quits the Board of Supervisors
Published August 28, 2026
The Facts
Connie Chan appears to have stopped working at the Board of Supervisors in the run-up to the November election, where she is running for Congress against Scott Wiener. The assignments effective August 17 show she is no longer part of any committees with active work.
She does remain on Budget and Appropriations, but it will not meet until February of next year.
The Context
Chan previously chaired Budget and served on the Rules Committee under the Board’s January assignments. She is now running against Scott Wiener for Congress after finishing second in the June primary with 29.7% of the vote to Wiener’s 40.7%.
The GrowSF Take
Connie Chan has quiet quit her job. She is effectively campaigning for her next job full-time while her District 1 constituents are left without representation.
Chan should accept committee work and serve her district, or resign so District 1 can have a supervisor focused on San Francisco.
SF Democrats Add Seven GrowSF-Backed Endorsements
Published August 28, 2026
The Facts
The San Francisco Democratic Party has just endorsed seven more candidates and ballot positions also backed in the GrowSF voter guide: Manny Yekutiel for District 8 supervisor, Autumn Brown Garibay, Phil Kim, and Tim Tung for Board of Education, plus No on Propositions G, I, and 40.
The Context
Yekutiel offers an ambitious plan to build homes, improve public safety, and support small businesses. The school-board slate combines an educator focused on measurable outcomes, a parent demanding that district goals reach classrooms, and an auditor with deep public-finance experience.
Proposition G would close Sunset Dunes Park and allow cars back on the Great Highway on most weekdays. Proposition I would divert roughly $120 million annually from the General Fund into restricted housing programs and make San Francisco’s high transfer tax harder to change. Proposition 40 would impose a one-time 5% tax on wealth, risking future tax revenue by encouraging wealthy residents to leave California and inviting years of expensive legal challenges.
The GrowSF Take
San Francisco’s political center of gravity keeps moving toward growth, accountability, and competent government. These candidates are serious about results, and the party was right to reject three ballot measures that would reopen a settled fight, weaken the city budget, and threaten California’s tax base.
The Democratic Party made seven good calls. Voters should do the same in November.
San Francisco Democrats Reject Proposition 40 Billionaire Tax
Published August 27, 2026
The Facts
The San Francisco Democratic Party voted overwhelmingly to oppose Proposition 40: 17 of the 22 committee members present rejected the one-time billionaire wealth tax.
That vote broke with the California Democratic Party, which endorsed Proposition 40 earlier in August.
The Context
Under the official fiscal analysis, Proposition 40 would tax up to 5% of covered wealth belonging to people who were California residents on January 1, 2026. Analysts project “tens of billions of dollars” in temporary revenue, but warn that out-migration and behavioral changes could reduce ongoing income-tax revenue by less than $1 billion annually.
GrowSF has already warned that a one-time asset seizure could weaken California’s economy and future tax base.
The GrowSF Take
We’re glad that the local Democratic party rejected the state party’s position. A one-time windfall does not justify telling founders and investors that California may confiscate part of their companies whenever Sacramento wants cash. That warning would outlast the revenue.
Voters should reject Proposition 40 in November.
Official Misconduct Shows Why We Need Prop F
Published August 27, 2026
The Facts
William Palmer, president of the Sheriff’s Department Oversight Board, remains in office while police investigate a woman’s allegation that he gave her drugs and coerced her into sex during a mental-health crisis; he has not been arrested or charged, according to Michael Barba at the Chronicle.
Michael Barba at the Chronicle found four other women had accused Palmer of violence; he denied those accusations. Supervisor Stephen Sherrill asked the Inspector General to investigate possible official misconduct, the legal basis for removing him.
The Context
Palmer served 31 years in prison for kidnapping for robbery when he was 17, and was released in 2019. The Board appointed him in 2021 after receiving an endorsement from organizations including GLIDE, the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office, San Francisco Pretrial Diversion Project, and Young Community Developers, and the Young Women’s Freedom Center.
Palmer was reappointed unanimously in 2023. Because he is a Board appointee, removing him under the current Charter process requires formal misconduct charges, an Ethics Commission hearing, and support from three-fourths of the Board of Supervisors.
Proposition F would let each appointing authority remove most of its own commissioners without cause.
The GrowSF Take
Palmer has been arrested, accused of violence by five women, and spent months in jail while serving on the Sheriff’s Department Oversight Board. He’s clearly unfit to serve yet cannot be easily removed. We can, and should, fix that this November by voting yes on Prop F.
Rents Hit $4,180 as Developers Prepare to Build
Published August 26, 2026
The Facts
San Francisco’s median asking rent for a one-bedroom hit $4,180 in July, up 22.9% in a year, according to Zumper’s latest report. Developers now predict that another 15% to 20% increase could make many stalled apartment buildings financially viable and trigger construction within 12 to 24 months, reports Max Harrison-Caldwell at The San Francisco Standard.
The Context
San Francisco’s Family Zoning Plan legalized capacity for 36,200 additional homes, but zoning is permission, not financing. The city completed only 405 homes in the first half of 2026.
To spur new homebuilding, the Supervisors reduced most development impact fees by 67% and lowered the on-site “inclusionary zoning” subsidized-housing requirement to 5% for buildings with at least 25 homes. The Board passed it 9-2: Supervisors Chan, Dorsey, Fielder, Mahmood, Mandelman, Melgar, Sauter, Sherrill, and Wong voted yes; Chyanne Chen and Shamann Walton voted no. New UC Irvine research found that “inclusionary zoning” taxation schemes cut new home construction by nearly a third.
The GrowSF Take
A 23% rent increase is the bill for years of blocking supply. San Francisco could have built 100,000 new homes over the past twenty years to absorb the reignited demand to live in the city, but the dominant political forces blocked that growth.
Tenant advocates are wrong to treat construction as a threat. A San Francisco study found that new market-rate housing lowered nearby rents about 2% and reduced incumbent renters’ risk of moving to a lower-income area. Mayor Lurie and the Supervisors were right to cut costs.
Now builders should build. If construction does not rise over the next year, the Board should follow the Controller’s math and cut the inclusionary requirement to zero.
Paid for by GrowSF Voter Guide. Not authorized by any candidate, candidate’s committee, or committee controlled by a candidate. Financial disclosures are available at sfethics.org.