Lurie Trades a Housing Tax Cut for a Foreclosure Tax
PLUS: District 2 Rejects Anti-Growth Politics
What You Need To Know
Here’s what happened around the city for the week of June 7, 2026:
- Lurie Trades a Housing Tax Cut for a Foreclosure Tax
- District 2 Rejects Anti-Growth Politics
- Fewer Tents and RVs
- Students Skip Makeup Week
- Congressional Clown Show
Lurie Trades a Housing Tax Cut for a Foreclosure Tax
Published June 12, 2026
The Facts
Mayor Lurie and Supervisor Bilal Mahmood paused the BUILD Act, and pivoted to taxing foreclosures.
Earlier this year, Mayor Lurie and Supervisor Bilal Mahmood proposed the BUILD Act, which would have cut San Francisco’s transfer tax back to pre-COVID tax rates. The point of the BUILD Act was to help new apartments get built. Developers usually build and sell buildings to operators, so taxing the first sale is effectively a tax on housing production.
Since 1984 foreclosures have been exempt from paying the transfer tax. The new measure repeals that exemption for foreclosed commercial and multifamily properties, though not single-family homes or buildings with fewer than five units. It’s projected to raise $200 million over three years, but if a competing transfer tax measure passes then that number may be cut in half. The bill already has six Supervisors in favor, so it is expected to qualify and appear on November’s ballot.
The Context
San Francisco charges a 5.5% transfer tax on sales from $10 million to $25 million and 6% above that, which is higher than every other city in America except Los Angeles at 6.1%. NYC’s transfer tax is 3.3%, Seattle’s 3.5%, Philadelphia’s ~4.3%, Chicago’s ~1.2%, and most other big cities are under 2%.
The BUILD Act would have halved those rates, spurring more development. The problem is timing: San Francisco faces a projected $642 million deficit, and the long-term benefit of lower rates will take too long to materialize.
There is also a competing ballot proposal, a Dean Preston/DSA initiative, that would reserve half of the existing 6% transfer-tax to affordable housing and tenant programs while preserving the BUILD act’s lower rate on the first sale (within five years of construction) of newly built multi-family housing.
If both measures pass, foreclosure transfers pay the full 5.5–6% — but half goes to the housing fund, cutting the foreclosure measure’s revenue in half and siphoning off half of the existing transfer tax revenue away from the general fund. The competing measure also declares it prevails over any other competing measures “regardless of the number of votes cast,” which is legally dubious. If both pass, expect litigation.
The GrowSF Take
We haven’t taken a position yet, but there’s a lot to dislike about this situation.
On the foreclosure tax:
The case in favor: The foreclosure exemption was written for homeowners in distress, not institutional lenders moving nine-figure office buildings. If the exemption is being gamed in shrewd deals, removing the exemption would close a loophole and bolster city coffers.
The case against: A foreclosure isn’t a market sale, and the tax comes out of the lender’s recovery on a loan already gone bad. At the margin it pushes lenders toward extending bad loans (”extend and pretend”) rather than reselling buildings to owners who’ll put them back to work. Downtown recovery depends on that reset happening fast. The foreclosure will also be taxed twice: once when the lender takes possession of the distressed property (taxed at the original value!) and again when the lender finds a new buyer. Double-taxing foreclosures won’t speed up recovery; it’ll slow it down.
On the competing transfer tax measure:
The case in favor: Lowering the tax on new multifamily housing is great!
The case against: Keeping the transfer tax at the second-highest in the nation in a city with a downtown still struggling to recover is a bad idea. And cordoning off a chunk of tax revenue while the city faces mounting budget deficits is just bad economics.
There’s still plenty of time to do more research to inform our ultimate endorsement.
District 2 Rejects Anti-Growth Politics
Published June 11, 2026
The Facts
Stephen Sherrill crushed Lori Brooke in District 2, winning 69.56% of the final ranked-choice vote. Housing was a central divide in the race: Brooke made anti-upzoning politics a defining issue, as Io Yeh Gilman and Kelly Waldron at Mission Local reported, while Sherrill backed Mayor Lurie’s Family Zoning Plan.
The Context
The problem for that message is the voters. GrowSF’s February 2026 District 2 poll found 84% support for Family Zoning, and 70% said they were more likely to vote for a supervisor who supports market-rate housing. A 2024 citywide housing poll found 77% support for 6-8 story buildings in the Sunset and Richmond, plus 75% support for new residential towers downtown, SoMa, and Mission Bay.
The GrowSF Take
For years, too many San Francisco politicians acted as if voters feared growth and change. They do not. They want more homes, and they want leaders willing to say yes out loud. GrowSF has spent years making that case and publishing polling that shows it. District 2 underscored it again: NIMBY-above-all politics are a losing recipe in San Francisco.
Fewer Tents and RVs
Published June 12, 2026
The Facts
San Francisco counted 115 tents and 315 occupied vehicles in its latest quarterly street tally, down from 155 tents and 433 occupied vehicles in February.
The Context
The city’s quarterly street count tracks tents, structures, and vehicles every three months. That is different from the biennial Point-in-Time count, which found 2,912 people sleeping unsheltered in January 2024, the lowest street count in a decade. Lurie’s earlier vehicular homelessness plan paired housing offers and outreach with citywide large-vehicle parking restrictions and towing.
The GrowSF Take
Fewer tents and RVs on the street is a real improvement. Sidewalks and streets are for public use, not for sleeping, and people should not have to navigate encampments or long-term vehicle storage. San Francisco should keep enforcing basic street rules and pair that enforcement with shelter, treatment, and housing that help people leave the streets for good.
Students Skip Makeup Week
Published June 11, 2026
The Facts
Many SFUSD students are skipping the extra week of school which was required after teachers went on strike earlier this year. Students at five high schools told Jessica Blough at The Standard that classes were at least half empty, grades were already finalized, and some teachers were simply showing movies.
The Context
After this February’s teacher strike wiped out five instructional days, SFUSD’s Board moved the last day to June 10. The district had already said finals and graduations would stay on their original schedule, so students were expected to show up with no negative personal consequences for skipping. California links school funding to attendance, which means students skipping means less money for the district. GrowSF previously covered the strike deal, and the expectation of its multi-million dollar negative impact on the district, which is proving true.
The GrowSF Take
If grades are done, classrooms are half empty, and students are wandering Stonestown, those are not meaningful instructional days. Lower student attendance means less state funding, which makes the teacher strike even more costly for a district already under fiscal pressure. The teachers union and SFUSD should not repeat this kind of mistake.
Congressional Clown Show
Published June 11, 2026
The Facts
SFUSD Superintendent Maria Su testified Wednesday before the House Education and Workforce Committee. Republican members pressed Su on drag queen story hour, pronouns, bathrooms, and parental-rights policy.
It wasn’t all bluster, though. In a rare across-the-aisle moment, Republican-turned-Independent Representative Kevin Kiley called recent SFUSD changes “encouraging,” pointing to the district’s improved finances and the return of Algebra 1 in middle school.
On Monday, the Justice Department opened a compliance review of SFUSD and three other California districts over parent opt-outs for sexual-orientation and gender-identity instruction.
The Context
Su has spent the past year trying to steady the district: SFUSD adopted a balanced $1.3 billion budget, restored Algebra 1 in eighth grade, and says its core goals are third-grade literacy and eighth-grade math.
The GrowSF Take
Congress can stage culture-war hearings if it wants, but San Franciscans should stay focused on whether SFUSD can raise reading performance and math performance. That is what matters for kids.