Fielder tries, and fails, to ban research labs in the Mission
PLUS: Commission Streamlining Task Force Nears Completion
What You Need To Know
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.