Lurie admin proposes rules to fight corruption in SF’s $6B contracting system

Mayor Daniel Lurie and City Administrator Carmen Chu on Tuesday unveiled plans for a citywide contracting ethics code, rules that target favoritism and self-dealing in the $6 billion San Francisco spends on contracts each year. The push comes six years after a federal corruption probe that began when former Public Works chief Mohammed Nuru exposed pay-to-play schemes in city contracting. It’s the first use of new powers voters handed the city administrator last week, when they overwhelmingly approved Proposition E as part of Lurie’s push to overhaul the city charter. The measure gives the city administrator sole authority to introduce legislation on contracting rules, and the Board of Supervisors can’t amend it. Prop. E was part of a trio of Lurie-backed measures that voters approved to generally strengthen the mayor’s office. Prop. D raises the bar for getting local measures on the ballot, and Prop. F gives the mayor more authority to fire or hire city department heads, among other powers. The new contracting rules proposed Tuesday would bar city employees from tipping off favored vendors, splitting contracts to dodge competitive bidding, or talking with bidders outside official channels. “San Franciscans deserve to know that every one of those dollars is being spent wisely and in the public interest,” Lurie said in a statement. “Now we’re taking the first step toward centralizing and depoliticizing contracting so it serves San Franciscans, not insiders.” Prop. E gives the city administrator, a mayoral appointee, authority to propose changes to a contracting process Lurie has called scattered and bloated. While Chu’s office alone can streamline procurement rules, the mayor or the Board of Supervisors could reject her proposals. Chu said the proposed rules, part of a new chapter in city law, will “set the foundation for a new culture around how the city does business.” She added, “That starts with leadership setting the tone from the top.” Lurie and Chu didn’t point to any specific scandal when they announced the rules, but City Hall has produced a string of corruption cases over the years. The most infamous involved Nuru, the former Public Works director. In 2022, Nuru was sentenced to seven years in federal prison after pleading guilty to a scheme, lasting more than a decade, to shake down people seeking city business. Besides cash, his bribes included free construction work on his Colusa County ranch, a John Deere tractor delivered to the property, trips abroad to China and South America, and a gold Rolex worth about $36,500. Nuru has been spotted around San Francisco in recent months, including under the City Hall rotunda. The Standard previously reported that he’s living at a reentry facility in the Tenderloin.

Voters bless mayor’s three-pronged effort to rewrite SF city charter

A slate of charter reforms backed by Mayor Daniel Lurie and hailed by supporters as much-needed good-governance changes were approved by voters Tuesday. The three propositions each target a different aspect of San Francisco’s political machine. Prop. D will raise the bar for getting local measures on the ballot; Prop. E aims to simplify the city’s complicated contracting system; and Prop. F gives the mayor more power to fire or hire city department heads, among other decisions. Lurie had billed the trio as the Clean Up City Hall measures, and his moderate allies pumped boatloads of cash into supporting them. The Yes on D, E, and F campaign raised $13.5 million from 54 donors as of the week before the election. Progressives — including the Democratic Socialists of America and the League of Pissed Off Voters — opposed the three propositions, arguing that they actually entrench insider power, instead of rooting it out. Prop. D was the only charter reform for which detractors raised money, collecting slightly more than $200,000 to oppose it. Of the three propositions, D was the most controversial. It would essentially make it harder for citizen initiatives to get on SF’s ballot, by raising the required support of supervisors from four to six, and raising the threshold of signatures from 2% of registered votes to 8%. ( Special elections and charter amendments would both need 10% of registered voters, and the mayor could no longer unilaterally decide to put someone on the ballot.) Lurie argued that Prop. D would keep SF ballots from looking like alphabet soup and would stop the public from having to weigh niche issues that would be better worked out by legislators. Opponents said Prop. D benefitted moneyed interests, which could still raise the funding needed to hit the new signature threshold, while leaving behind the proverbial little guy, who would not be able to get measures onto the ballot. With the assumption that signature gatherers make roughly $10 per signature, the cost to get a measure on the ballot would jump from $200,000 to $800,000 under Prop. D. ( Lurie’s retort to this line of thinking was that “it’s free to get six supervisors to put something on the ballot.”) Prop. E is wonky but functionally important for how San Francisco gets work done, and was the least controversial of the three measures. Authority of city contracting is spread out over multiple offices, commissions, and departments. Prop. E would give the city administrator more power to revise contracting rules. The hope is that streamlining the system would save the city time and money. Prop. F would , at its core, give the mayor more authority over city departments. It would allow the mayor to hire and fire most department heads, allow commissioners to be removed even without just cause, hire deputy mayors, and transfer responsibilities between city departments. Lurie argued that Prop. F would make the city’s leaders more accountable, since they would have more control over how the city runs. Opponents said it would put too much power into the hands of one person, which could be disastrous in the case of an “ineffective or unprincipled mayor,” as the think tank SPUR put it.

It’s a Dan-slide: Lurie sweeps another election night

If the June primary was the “ Dan Grand Slam ,” Tuesday night’s results are looking to be a World Series title for Mayor Daniel Lurie. Election results Tuesday night showed nearly all of Lurie’s ballot measures and preferred candidates in comfortable leads in what appeared to be the continued domination of City Hall politics by the mayor and his moderate coalition. His charter reform ballot measures Propositions D, E and F had passed. His Muni parcel tax, Prop. H , a largely bipartisan effort to fund the beleaguered transit agency, passed with 72% approval. A similar regional effort, RTM, which plans to fund a variety of transit agencies across the Bay Area, has passed. “San Franciscans tonight are giving us the tools to govern effectively, and you deserve results,” Lurie said at an election watch party in Hayes Valley. “A Muni that works better, housing that gets built faster, a City Hall that spends your money wisely, and a government that moves with urgency and common sense.” Propositions D, E, and F make it harder to place measures on the ballot, give more authority to the city administrator over contracting, and give the mayor more power overseeing city departments. Opposition to the measures was small; progressive opponents argued that Prop. D, the ballot access measure, would bar grassroots efforts from reaching the ballot. But Lurie and his allies contended that voters’ ballots have been crowded for years. (There are about two dozen local and state propositions on Tuesday’s ballot.) The results follow a shellacking by Lurie and his moderate wing in June, when the mayor’s choices for candidates in District 2 and District 4 walloped their opponents. June also saw the defeat of two dueling tax measures that Lurie had opposed. San Francisco State University political science professor Jason McDaniel put it simply: Lurie keeps winning, and that could clear his path to a second term in 2028. “In politics, people like a winner, so I do think this probably signals to people not to challenge him,” McDaniel said, pointing to Gavin Newsom’s virtually uncontested 2007 San Francisco mayoral reelection. While Lurie’s charter reform measures had significant financial backing, McDaniel argued that cash wasn’t the decisive factor. “They were crafted in a way that did not create a lot of opposition,” he said. “They built a coalition, including labor, tech money, rich people’s money. It was that these issues were relatively popular and avoided a lot of opposition — that was the key.” Other ballot measures Lurie endorsed were also doing well. Prop. A, a separate charter reform measure backed by his ally, Board of Supervisors President Rafael Mandelman, passed with 72% approval. Meanwhile, measures his moderate coalition opposed and progressive opponents championed were trailing. The results were still close for some: Prop. B, a proposal for a public bank, was behind, with 51% voting no. Prop. I, which would require that half of high-value transfer tax revenue be spent on affordable housing, was slipping, with 56% voting no. Board of Supervisor races were also looking good for Lurie: Theo Ellington, moderates’ choice in the Bayview’s District 10, won his race . He will replace Supervisor Shamann Walton, a progressive who has been outwardly critical of Lurie’s leadership. If there’s a small blemish for the mayor on Tuesday, it is in District 8, where progressive Gary McCoy won . Lurie had endorsed moderate candidate Manny Yekutiel, who dropped out of the race in October after sexual assault allegations, which Yekutiel has denied. McCoy has said he promises a collaborative relationship with the mayor. During his remarks Tuesday, Lurie congratulated McCoy and Ellington. Keally McBride, a politics professor at the University of San Francisco, said Lurie’s victories came because he is “capturing what San Francisco voters want, which is some sense of stability, economic growth, and practical problem-solving.” Since the charter reforms give him more power, and the campaign sold them as a path to less bureaucracy and sweeping improvements, the “ball is now in his court” to deliver results, McBride said. “This is a moment for him to take a bow and get really serious about solving the issues voters have put at his feet,” she added. A former nonprofit executive and heir to the Levi’s Strauss fortune, Lurie flexed his fundraising capabilities to pour massive sums toward his propositions. His charter reform efforts, buoyed by a group of wealthy backers, including venture capitalist and The Standard’s chairman, Michael Moritz, raised a whopping $13.8 million. And his Muni parcel tax saw donations from blue-chip companies like Anthropic, Airbnb, and OpenAI to the tune of $5.2 million. Opposition to Lurie’s was minuscule in comparison: A committee formed against Prop. F raised hundreds of thousands, versus the mayor’s millions. Celine O’Driscoll, a Noe Valley small business owner, joined dozens of attendees at Lurie’s election-night watch party. A supporter of Lurie since he was elected in 2024, O’Driscoll voted to approve his three charter amendments, as well as Props. H and RTM, even appearing in a campaign advertisement for the transit measures. “Have you ever seen a man work so hard?” she said while waiting for Lurie to speak. “He’s out in the streets every day. ... The people love him.”

Lurie’s $13.5M campaign to clean up City Hall adds Newsom to its corner

Mayor Daniel Lurie’s ballot measures to streamline City Hall were already flush with cash. Now, they also have the backing of Gov. Gavin Newsom. The governor on Friday endorsed all three measures, Propositions D, E and F, giving another boost to the best-funded local campaign on the November ballot. “San Francisco’s broken system has failed everyday San Franciscans for far too long,” Newsom, who served as mayor from 2004 to 2011, said in a statement. The measures, he said, would “cut through the bureaucracy, restore accountability, and stop dishonest ballot box games.” Touting Newsom’s support, Lurie said that the governor “knows firsthand what it takes to lead this city and the obstacles our broken system puts in the path of progress.” “This is a critical effort to cut through the dysfunction, restore accountability, and end the excuses that have held San Francisco back for decades,” Lurie said in a statement. Lurie has argued that the proposals will root out corruption at City Hall and make city services more efficient. An immense amount of money has poured into the propositions, with a whopping $13.5 million raised. Top contributors include venture capitalist and Standard chairman Michael Moritz, crypto billionaire Chris Larsen and his wife, philanthropist Lyna Lam, and investor John Pritzker. The measures are split into three categories: ballot access, contracting and executive branch authority. Prop. D would raise the threshold for the number of petition signatures needed to place. Lurie and others argue that voters are overwhelmed by the number of propositions each election cycle — this year, there are roughly two dozen local and state measures. The measure would raise the signature threshold from roughly 10,000 to 40,000, remove the mayor’s unilateral power to place measures on the ballot, and require six supervisors, instead of four, to put a proposition on the ballot. The proposal is the most controversial of the three and has received pushback from some progressives and labor unions, who argue it would make it harder for less-resourced, grassroots organizers to get a measure on the ballot. But the opposition committee — Fair Access, No on D — has raised a comparatively small $200,000. Top donors to the campaign to defeat Prop. D include the nonprofit housing developer TODCO, SEIU Local 1021 and the San Francisco Labor Council. Meanwhile, Props. E and F would impact how City Hall runs. Prop. E would grant the city administrator more authority to oversee contracts. Prop. F would give Lurie more power to remove some city department heads and commissioners and to change how city departments are structured. Questions have arisen regarding some of the messaging around Prop F. This week, the Chronicle reported that Lurie’s ballot measure committee had inaccurately advertised that the police commission would remain independent of Lurie’s reach if the measure passed. In fact, Prop. F would allow the mayor to unilaterally remove his appointees to the commission without approval from the Board of Supervisors. A Lurie political adviser acknowledged the campaign had made mistakes in its messaging. Lurie isn’t the first to try to change the city’s charter. In 2024, moderate-aligned forces spent millions on a proposition to limit the number of commissions and to give the mayor more authority to appoint and remove city department heads. The effort, heavily funded by Moritz, failed to pass, with 56% of voters opposed. It was championed by mayoral candidate Mark Farrell, who placed fourth in the mayor’s race and faced ethics sanctions.

Why only one District 10 candidate supports Lurie’s charter reforms

During a lightning round of questions at a District 10 candidate forum Wednesday evening, frontrunner Theo Ellington ended up on an island. The question was whether candidates running for the southeast San Francisco supervisor seat support Mayor Daniel Lurie’s proposed city charter amendments, which would increase the mayor’s powers in some ways and make it harder for San Franciscans to get local measures on the ballot. Holding up the green side of his paddle, Ellington was the only one in favor of Lurie’s charter amendments, which are on the November ballot as Propositions D, E, and F. All five other candidates — some of them passionately hoisting up the red side of their paddles — were opposed. That moment was one of just a few during the event that showed a concrete difference between the candidates. It also signified what’s at stake for District 10 — which has long been represented by progressive Democrats and spans from Potrero Hill and Dogpatch to the Bayview and Visitacion Valley. Ellington, who is considered a moderate Democrat, knows he’s the leader in the race, with a major financial advantage over the other candidates. If he wins, it would flip a board seat held by incumbent Shamann Walton, who is progressive and not allied with Lurie, nor with the board’s moderate majority. After Wednesday’s forum, which was hosted by Chinese for Affirmative Action and 3rd Street Youth Center & Clinic , Ellington told The Standard he believes in moving forward with collaboration. “That means partnering with the mayor,” Ellington said. “That means partnering with our city department heads and partnering with anybody who has positive intentions for this neighborhood.” Lurie’s proposed charter reforms would change how City Hall works in major ways. Prop. D would make it harder to get a local measure on the ballot. If voters approve the measure in November, it would: Strip away the mayor’s ability to unilaterally put a local measure on the ballot Require signatures from 8% of registered voters — instead of the current 2% — to get a local measure on the ballot Require six supervisors — instead of the current minimum of four — to put a measure on the ballot Prop. E would increase the city administrator’s power to oversee the contract procurement process and remove a bevy of multimillion-dollar contracts from the oversight of the Board of Supervisors. Prop. F would increase the mayor’s power to hire and fire most city department directors and allow the mayor to unilaterally remove people who sit on the city’s numerous boards without cause. The vast majority of Ellington’s endorsements come from San Francisco’s moderate Democrat establishment. That includes the San Francisco Democratic Party, advocacy group Grow SF, and moderates on the board, like Matt Dorsey and Stephen Sherrill. In September , Ellington got Lurie’s blessing too. While Ellington’s support for Lurie’s vision for shaking up City Hall isn’t a surprise, it demonstrates a unique allyship with the mayor that neither of the other candidates, J.R. Eppler and Dion-Jay Brookter, exhibit. Eppler, who is endorsed by former Mayor Art Agnos, had issues with the way Lurie’s proposed changes would give the mayor more power. “I don’t agree with commissioners being able to be terminated without cause; our citizen oversight shouldn’t be taking orders via text during meetings just to keep their positions,” he said. “I also think the measures set the threshold for ballot access too high. That simply magnifies the role of money in politics.” Brookter, who is endorsed by Walton, as well as Supervisors Connie Chan, Jackie Fielder, and Chyanne Chen, said reforms shouldn’t come at the cost of accountability for public participation. “I have concerns with Props. D, E, and F because it severely limits civic engagement, removes oversight on upward of $2.5 billion of city contracts, and consolidates power into an already strong mayor system,” Brooker said. “Government should be more efficient, but efficiency must be balanced with meaningful oversight, checks and balances, and residents’ voices.” Wednesday evening’s forum offered a rare opportunity for District 10 residents to ask candidates questions in a public setting. Sparks didn’t fly Wednesday evening, but the lightning round of questions helped go beyond the typical word salads and soundbites. While it revealed some differences, it also revealed common ground, too. When asked if they supported continuing the San Francisco Police Department’s contract with Flock Safety , the operator of license-plate-reading cameras that has faced a national backlash over privacy concerns, not a single candidate was in favor. The contract is up for renewal in February, and it will prove to be a consequential vote for the next District 10 supervisor, regardless of who gets elected. Most of the candidates also signaled support for a permanent ban on new data centers , the backbone of the AI boom and the focus of increasing concerns over the technology, as well as the statewide Proposition 40, which would apply a one-time tax to all billionaires in California to fund healthcare.

PR firm name-drops Lurie to get his luxury real estate agent brother in the press

Dear Power Play readers, as the election nears, we’ve got you covered. We will add a once-a-week special newsletter, Election Insider, to our schedule, launching Oct. 6. Power Play readers will be automatically signed up. Keep an eye out for details soon. Alexander Lurie isn’t exactly helping his brother, Mayor Daniel Lurie , fend off criticism that he’s an out-of-touch rich guy. Alexander, a luxury real estate agent, has caught repeated flak from former Supervisor Dean Preston ’s progressive media venture and other Instagram channels over his comments on the city’s white-hot housing market — all while rental prices reach extreme heights. Now Power Play has learned that JJ Juarez , a PR consultant for City Real Estate, home to Alexander’s Lurie Group , has been invoking the mayor’s name in media pitches to local news outlets since last year. After Power Play raised questions about the use of the mayor’s name, Juarez said the practice would stop. “If you ever need insights from David Cohen (Founder of City Real Estate in San Francisco), Alexander Fromm Lurie (Executive Vice President of City Real Estate / brother of San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie), or other real estate agents in the SF market, I’d be happy to source them for you,” Juarez wrote in an email obtained by Power Play. “I know how challenging it can be to wrangle agents.” In an interview, Juarez denied any “nefarious” intent in invoking the mayor’s name and said it is a “matter of fact” that Alexander is the mayor’s brother. He also said Alexander has not had any involvement in the pitches. (Alexander is technically Lurie’s half-brother; their father is Rabbi Brian Lurie .) “The mayor has done great work,” said Juarez. “And I think Alexander is proud of that. Obviously, he is not tied to this. It seemed to kind of make sense that you would make those connections, especially with his name carrying weight. For the most part, we’ve only had positive engagement with our pitches.” Juarez said in a follow-up email, “To reiterate, this was not sanctioned by Alexander. This will not be happening again.” The mayor’s office declined to comment. Preston told Power Play, “People are entitled to pursue their own economic interest. But they shouldn’t be able to use the fact that someone holds public office to promote their own professional work. It’s hard not to hear some of this and not think about what’s going on in D.C.” — Gabriel Greschler DEBATE-O-RAMA — It’s a stacked week for campaign debates. Democrat Xavier Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton square off Wednesday night in the governor’s race. It’s their only scheduled debate as Becerra, who holds a sizable lead in recent polling, hasn’t accepted Hilton’s challenge to participate in additional events. Watch the Becerra-Hilton showdown live on CNN at 6 p.m. and visit sfstandard.com for a highlight recap. Also Wednesday night, candidates vying for the Board of Supervisors seat in District 10 (Bayview-Hunters Point and Potrero Hill) will debate affordability and housing issues. On Thursday, attention shifts to the bruising race to succeed Nancy Pelosi as San Francisco’s representative in the House. State Sen. Scott Wiener and Supervisor Connie Chan will face off in a debate hosted by KQED and the Chronicle. Watch live here at 7:30 p.m. — Dustin Gardiner SCOOP: ON THE AIR — Equality California and a coalition of labor unions, including the National Union of Healthcare Workers and North Coast States Carpenters, on Thursday planned to launch a six-figure ad campaign to support Wiener in the congressional race. The first TV ad, airing on digital streaming platforms, touts Wiener’s work on healthcare issues and support for Medicare for All. The spot features a woman talking about Wiener’s success passing legislation to reduce insulin prices. “You shouldn’t go bankrupt when you get sick,” she says. “In Congress, I know Scott will lead the fight to reverse Trump’s healthcare cuts.” — D.G. CHARTER REVIEW: Lurie’s three charter amendments on the November ballot — Propositions D, E, and F — have drawn big money , big-name backers, and little organized opposition. But a new city report flags tradeoffs voters may want to weigh. A draft report from the budget and legislative analyst, shared this month with the Board of Supervisors, highlighted potential impacts of Prop. E, Lurie’s contracting measure, the wonkiest of the three proposals. It would raise the threshold for contracts needing Board of Supervisors approval from $10 million to $25 million. The analysts cite three deals in which board review flagged problems that wouldn’t have reached supervisors under the proposed rule. One is the Japanese Community Youth Council, a Japantown nonprofit whose city grant grew from $1.95 million in 2019 to $13.3 million in 2023. An August controller’s audit found it paid $5.6 million in youth stipends without verifying that recipients were eligible or had done the work. Supervisor Shamann Walton , who commissioned the report, did not respond to a request for comment. Lurie campaign spokesperson Max Szabo said the reforms would “adjust the 40-year-old $10 million threshold to account for inflation” and would let supervisors “spend their time scrutinizing the biggest, riskiest deals instead of rubber-stamping routine amendments.” Supervisor Rafael Mandelman , a proponent of charter reform and a Lurie ally, agreed with the point about inflation and said the board is not the best body to review contracts. He also said the board could still hold a hearing if any contract was flagged as suspect. “I don’t think that the board adds that much,” he said, “particularly to lower-value contracts.” — M.A. and G.G. CORPORATE REDEMPTION: Becerra may wish this one had stayed on the cutting-room floor. In a taped interview , The Standard’s comedy correspondent Sophia Garrow asked the Democratic gubernatorial candidate whether he’d turn down campaign cash from any corporations. Purdue Pharma, the OxyContin maker blamed for fueling the opioid crisis? “I sued them,” Becerra said, before drifting into a non-answer. “If it’s a legitimate business and they’re doing business in a way that isn’t destroying lives ...” So, second chances for corporations? Garrow asked. “Redemption,” he replied. The clip went viral on X and drew fierce backlash from his own party’s left flank. Far-left political streamer Hasan Piker called it a reason to be angry at “the dem establishment.” David Adler , a progressive organizer, wrote that Becerra “sounds sociopathic being so smug about these corporations,” adding, “We deserve better than this.” — M.A. FRIENDS LIKE THESE: You may have seen The Standard’s report that San Francisco Democratic Party chair Nancy Tung accepted a $10,000 donation from billionaire Chris Larsen , a surveillance mega-backer, just a few weeks before voting to oppose a resolution calling for more guardrails for Flock Safety’s license-plate readers. Well, as astute insiders may have noticed, that’s not the only consequential vote Tung took during that Aug. 26 meeting — she also led the charge for the local party to oppose Proposition 40, the Billionaire Tax, in an astonishing break from the state party. And, wouldn’t you know it, Larsen also donated at least $5 million to the anti-Prop. 40 effort and millions more to a group that has its fingers in multiple causes, including opposing Prop. 40. Speaking to Power Play last week, Tung said she was proud to net Larsen’s backing, calling him “one of the most prominent civic leaders in our city.” SF Democratic Party board member Peter Gallotta put it a different way during the August meeting: “It should come as no surprise that this body is considering doing the bidding of the billionaires, given its cozy relationship with some of the loudest opponents of Prop. 40, including — and I will say names — Chris Larsen and Garry Tan .” — Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez SFGOV FIRE : A fire at a city office building this month has prompted some departments to relocate. City administrator spokesperson Liam Chok said firefighters responded to a blaze the morning of Sept. 7 at 25 Van Ness Ave., on the Oak Street side of the building. Offices for the Department of Public Health, Public Works, and Ethics were affected. The cause of the fire is under investigation, and damage estimates are still being worked on. — G.G.

SF’s housing solution may be hiding in plain sight: Land it already owns

Almost any San Franciscan can point to a vacant building or half-empty parking lot in their neighborhood that has sat untouched for years. When the city itself is the owner, it’s “particularly insulting,” said Supervisor Danny Sauter. A report requested by Sauter and released Tuesday by the budget and legislative analyst’s office revealed that the city is sitting on at least 147 usable public properties, from vacant lots to seismically unsafe buildings to underutilized parking facilities. Yet the main tool for identifying sites ripe for development — a law that took effect in 2002 — hasn’t flagged a single one since 2017. That’s despite years of San Francisco leaders pointing to public land as a key to solving the affordable housing crisis. San Francisco has reached only 12% of its state mandate to build 82,000 units by 2031. The report warns that land alone won’t close the housing gap. Land accounts for about 10% of the cost of building an affordable unit, and at least 12,600 affordable units are stalled for lack of funding. As a result, city analysts suggest using San Francisco’s real estate portfolio to raise capital, not just to treat every site as a future development. “Without sufficient and consistent funding, identifying additional city-owned sites alone will not accelerate affordable housing production,” the analyst’s office wrote. “Treating city real estate holdings as a strategic asset would open up opportunities for new sources of funding such as through the sale or lease of properties.” Under a 2002 law, most departments are required to report a list of “surplus or underutilized” properties annually to the city administrator for evaluation of potential affordable housing development. But the law has largely fallen flat. It depends on departments volunteering their own land, which none did between fiscal 2017-18 and 2025-26, and city agencies that control the most public parcels — including the Port of San Francisco, Municipal Transportation Authority, and the Recreation and Parks Department — are exempt. So the budget and legislative analyst’s office went looking itself, reviewing properties owned by the city, the San Francisco Unified School District, and San Francisco Community College District. Searching for vacant sites, parking lots, seismically unsafe structures, and low-utilization parcels, the analysts identified 147 that warrant a closer look for potential development of affordable housing, consolidation, sale, or other uses. The port manages the largest share, 32 properties, followed by the SFMTA, the Fire Department, SFUSD, and the Parks Department. “It’s illuminating in terms of how much opportunity we have with all of this land and, at the same time, how little we’re doing with it,” Sauter said. The report singles out several types of sites with potential, including aging buildings. The Human Services Agency’s headquarters at 170 Otis St., for example, is in poor condition and rated at risk of partial or total collapse in a major earthquake. The agency plans to move out by 2029, and the analysts’ report estimates that the site could accommodate about 270 homes. Parking lots and garages are another target. SFMTA, which owns most of the city’s lots, is studying this across its own portfolio. Under a program adopted last year, the agency did a preliminary review of about 90 properties and is working with a consultant to rank sites by how much housing, transit ridership, and revenue they could generate. The analysts also suggest that the fire and police departments could consolidate some stations and that housing could be built above city recreation centers, though that would take a voter-approved charter amendment. The report recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt a citywide policy on using public land and put a single agency in charge of reviewing it, such as the Office of Economic and Workforce Development or the city administrator’s office. The report also calls for collaboration among leaders of the port, SFMTA, the school district, and the other agencies that are exempt from the 2002 law, while funding dedicated staff to do the work. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani this year created a task force to identify public sites capable of supporting at least 25,000 new housing units over the next decade and establishing a fast-track process for developer selection. Sauter said San Francisco needs the same kind of commitment, through legislation and from the mayor’s office. He emphasized that the most important steps are setting specific goals, establishing clear ownership of the initiative, and enforcing timelines — a lesson he said he’s learned in nearly two years on the board. “Where there’s no ownership,” Sauter said, “that’s where things go to die.”

Lurie has raised $8.6M to rewrite how SF works. Nobody is really fighting him

San Francisco has the largest municipal charter in the country: a 548-page behemoth. For the first time in 30 years, Mayor Daniel Lurie is attempting to do a sweeping cleanup of what he views as an overly complicated, onerous document that hampers governance and contributes to the kind of bureaucratic dysfunction behind projects like Noe Valley’s $1.7 million toilet . It may sound boring as all hell, but a lot is at stake. Three separate ballot measures in November could remake how City Hall operates — including how much power the mayor holds and how easy it is for San Franciscans to get their own measures onto the ballot. The outcome will serve as a major test of Lurie’s promise during his 2024 campaign to make San Francisco’s government work better. What’s on the ballot? Lurie is putting forth three measures: “Fix Our Broken Ballot Process,” “Strengthening Executive Branch Accountability,” and “Modernizing City Contracting.” The first will have the most direct impact on the voting process if it passes. Lurie and his allies have argued that it’s too easy for measures to end up on the ballot, creating unnecessary political fights. (In November 2024, voters had to contend with 15 ballot measures, while Oakland had three and San Jose had one.) The proposal would increase the number of supervisor votes required to place a measure on the ballot from four to a majority of the board — six votes. It would also nix the mayor’s ability to unilaterally put a measure on the ballot, and increase the number of signatures required to get a measure on the ballot to 8% of registered voters. Lurie’s other two measures are a bit more wonky. The executive branch measure would allow him to hire and fire most agency heads, loosen the rules on removing commissioners, reorganize the city’s dozens of departments, and establish deputy mayors. The third measure would give more power to the city administrator to oversee procurement of services, from purchasing toilet paper to construction projects, among other tweaks. There’s also a fourth reform effort underway from Supervisor Rafael Mandelman, a big proponent of charter reform and an ally to the mayor. His ballot measure would remove some of the city’s commissions, including the Sanitation and Streets Commission and the Public Works Commission, among other changes. Mandelman’s measure stems from the Commission Streamlining Task Force, a body created by voters through a 2024 measure. What’s the argument for these changes? On the ballot issue, Lurie and others point to the fact that the city has the lowest signature threshold in California — 2% — for getting a measure before voters. San Francisco is also the only city in the state that allows its mayor to put a measure on the ballot without having to go through a legislative process or gather signatures. (Critics have argued that this allows mayors to use the ballot measure as an advertising vehicle during a campaign year to get their faces on mailers distributed across the city.) They also argue that the charter sets up a dynamic that’s unworkable for the mayor. Lurie oversees roughly 50 department heads and can’t set up deputies to oversee them because of a 1991 law . In cases involving alleged ethical breaches, like that of former Human Rights Commission Executive Director Sheryl Davis in 2024, the mayor has limited ability to swiftly remove agency chiefs. Who’s paying for all this? Lurie’s allies have poured big bucks into the “Clean Up City Hall, Mayor Lurie’s Ballot Measure Committee.” As of Wednesday, the committee had raised $8.6 million, including $2 million from former Sequoia Capital head Michael Moritz, chairman of The Standard; $1 million each from the couple Chris Larsen and Lyna Lam; and $1 million from businessman John Pritzker. Smaller donors include $500,000 each from philanthropist Dagmar Dolby, Laurene Powell Jobs’ Emerson Collective, investor John Doerr, and Twilio cofounder John Wolthuis. The committee is by far the most expensive in this November’s election, with much of the money — $4.3 million — going toward the labor-intensive effort of collecting signatures. Does anyone not like this charter reform idea? No group has organized opposition to Lurie and Mandelman’s proposals so far. It’s possible some labor groups may try. Kim Tavaglione, executive director of the San Francisco Labor Council, has expressed skepticism about the effort, arguing that it could box out groups that lack the monetary resources to gather enough signatures to place an item on the ballot. “They’re going to be up against millions and millions of dollars,” she said. “It’s going to be a really high wall to climb.” The Labor Council hasn’t taken an official stance on the issue, though Tavaglione said she expects a committee to be formed to fight at least some parts of the charter reform proposals. Didn’t San Francisco try this in 2024 — and kill it? Moderate political group TogetherSF Action sought to place a cap on commissions and expand the mayor’s powers via 2024’s Prop. D. The measure — the most expensive of that election cycle — failed, with 56.7% voting no . The proposition was championed by Mark Farrell, an unsuccessful mayoral candidate who faced a slew of last-minute ethics fines days before the election. It’s hard to say how voters will react to a charter reform measure this time around. Lurie has some advantages: He’s popular with voters and showed a propensity for backing successful political efforts in the June primary. His backing of this year’s reforms could prove to be what pushes the three measures over the top. On the other hand, voters have many other concerns about the city. A January poll commissioned by the Chamber of Commerce identified vacant storefronts and affordability as top issues, while government efficiency was less of a priority.

Inside the desperate campaign to stop the Overpaid CEO Tax

When San Francisco’s labor unions put the Overpaid CEO Tax on the June ballot, they were betting that an AI boom and looming federal cuts would push voters to demand that corporations pay more. They were wrong. With two-thirds of returned ballots counted through the end of the week, Proposition D is likely going to be rejected by a double-digit margin. The looming defeat marks a rare loss for the city’s most powerful unions — among them, SEIU 1021 and IFPTE Local 21 — which led the campaign and won endorsements from the state’s leading Democratic candidates for governor, Nancy Pelosi, and a supermajority of the Board of Supervisors. The loss caught labor insiders by surprise. San Francisco voters, for two decades, have embraced higher business taxes at nearly every turn. Meanwhile, corporations — often splintered along industry or generational lines — were regularly defeated at the ballot box. But this time, the business community put up a real fight, with billionaires Chris Larsen and Michael Moritz (chairman of The Standard) cutting six-figure checks, and organizations like Advance SF airing negative TV ads during the NBA playoffs. But the person who pushed the “no” campaign over the top was Mayor Daniel Lurie. A Chamber of Commerce poll showed support for Prop. D was ahead in the race leading up to the election. Almost half of voters, however, were not aware that the popular mayor was opposed to the measure. This gave the business coalition the data point it needed to approach Lurie’s team and argue that the mayor should become the face of the anti-tax campaign. “Let’s go, San Francisco” became “Let’s go defeat that darn tax.” “We knew turnout was going to be more last minute because of the uncertainty surrounding the governor’s race,” said a source involved in the No on D campaign. “So we called in the Lurie cameo at the end.” From a business perspective, Lurie saved the city from Prop. D. But he also had a role in getting it on the ballot in the first place. Behind-the-scenes negotiations, which The Standard is reporting in detail for the first time, point to a key weakness in the mayor’s political armor. Sources say Lurie threw the business coalition and labor unions into a room together, walked away, and essentially told them to figure it out themselves. For decades, mayors have embraced the role of chief negotiator, but Lurie has shied away from it. For example, in February, he sent his subordinates to broker peace between the United Educators of San Francisco and the San Francisco Unified School District, but they failed to avert a strike . In the case of Prop. D, Lurie didn’t even go to bat. Pinch hitters Left to its own devices, the business lobby tried to deal with the unions directly, warning them of the dire economic consequences for San Francisco if it were to renege on the business tax reform passed in 2024. That reform was viewed as a grand bargain between major business and labor factions and was born of a fragile truce forged for the sake of the city’s economic future. The conversations to salvage the bargain hit a wall, sources said. With a solution nowhere to be found in the days before the Feb. 2 deadline to submit signatures to the city’s Department of Elections, Lurie asked Larsen, Boudin Bakery scion and veteran civic dealmaker Lou Giraudo, and former City Administrator Ben Rosenfield to intervene and negotiate with the labor unions. The three men were regarded by both sides as neutral brokers. The last-minute negotiation sessions, sources say, were an attempt to salvage as much of the 2024 bipartisan tax reform as possible while finding room for a partial rate restoration to generate new revenue. Sources briefed on those talks said the unions wanted the business lobby to agree to tax hikes that could generate at least $200 million in annual revenue, as well as a guarantee against layoffs of city workers during 2027 budget deliberations. The mediators countered with a best-and-final offer of between $100 million and $150 million, but pushed for their own protections, including a sunset clause on tax increases and guarantees that the unions would not pursue future tax hikes. Factions within the labor coalition, including the building and construction trades, supported the proposed deal but ultimately deferred to SEIU and IFPTE because they represent the largest number of public-sector employees, sources say. SEIU and IFPTE did not respond to requests for comment. Bottom of the ninth On Jan. 30, just two days before the deadline to submit petitions to the Department of Elections, the labor coalition submitted Prop. D for the ballot, despite the mayor’s pleas against it. “Business didn’t have a track record of fighting, let alone winning, so why not take more at the ballot box?” said a source who worked on the 2024 business tax reform and opposed Prop. D. The proposed measure went beyond any of the compromise negotiations, proposing an Overpaid CEO Tax rate higher than the one voters approved in 2020. Without factoring in any potential exodus of companies from the city, the Prop. D coalition said the new tax would generate up to $300 million in annual revenue. The Chamber of Commerce, fearing that Prop. D would derail the city’s fragile economic recovery , countered by placing a competing measure on the ballot, Prop. C, which would lock in reduced rates negotiated in 2024 and expand exemptions for small businesses. Had both passed, the measure with more votes would have gone into effect. Voters rejected both. The Yes on C, No on D campaign spent roughly $6 million . Standing outside Original Joe’s in North Beach on Tuesday, Lurie spun the pending results as proof that “San Franciscans like the direction that we are going in.” Alongside the failures of Propositions C and D, all of the mayor’s endorsed candidates won their races, giving him even stronger support in his second year. It will strengthen Lurie’s hand when entering into contract negotiations next year, when City Hall’s public-sector unions will likely demand raises, especially in light of the 14% raises police officers received just two months ago . But political and business insiders say that while labor is down, it’s not out. The consequences of this fight will reverberate into 2027, when public-sector unions negotiate their next contracts with Lurie. When they do, they will be legally allowed to strike for the first time in 50 years . If Lurie had helped them avert layoffs with a compromise tax measure, it may have softened the blow, taking the wind out of a possible strike. Now, labor unions are holding a weak hand — and that’s when they’re at the fiercest. “I’ve watched mayors come and go,” said Mike Casey, president of the San Francisco Labor Council. “I’ve watched popularity rise and fall. I’ve watched labor with our backs against the wall, in difficult fights.” “My money,” he said, “is going to continue to be on working people.”

The first casualties of Lurie’s layoffs — and where cuts may come next

With a $643 million deficit and hundreds of millions in federal dollars likely lost to Trump administration cuts, San Francisco City Hall looks to have a bloody budget season. The pink slips started flowing Monday after Mayor Daniel Lurie slashed 127 jobs across 18 city departments. More cuts are expected in the coming months. Power Play has obtained a partial list of who was affected; among them are 22 workers from the city administrator’s office, 10 from the Human Services Agency, nine from the Department of Public Health, three from the San Francisco Police Department, two each from the mayor’s office and War Memorial, and one each from the Arts Commission, controller’s office, Ethics Commission, Human Rights Commission, and Department of Human Resources. Four nurses from Laguna Honda were also laid off. And dozens more are also affected. The above figures were provided by SEIU 1021. The list doesn’t include workers who are members of City Hall’s second-largest union, IFPTE 21, which did not respond to a request for comment on how many lost their jobs. One of the city departments hit hardest was the Office of Economic and Workforce Development, which oversees downtown recovery and business growth. The office confirmed that 14 employees were laid off, affecting all teams and levels of seniority. An unusual departure preceded the layoffs: Iowayna Peña, who was a high-profile hire as the office’s director of workforce development, left Friday, the Department of Human Resources confirmed. It is unclear whether she was fired or resigned, as spokespeople cited confidentiality in personnel matters. Peña didn’t respond to a request for comment. Before the City Hall job, Peña, who is active in the LGBTQ+ community, worked for the Giants as a colleague of Lurie’s chief of staff, Staci Slaughter . Are you a City Hall worker? We want to hear from you. Email powerplay@sfstandard.com to get in touch. Peña’s departure has fueled rumors that OEWD’s workforce division could be merged with another department, part of Lurie’s pattern of consolidating city agencies and reducing staffing. In a statement, OEWD Executive Director Anne Taupier dismissed that notion, saying, “Our workforce division remains central to our mission of advancing economic prosperity.” Up to nine senior-level employees were part of the layoff round, according to Criss Romero , who oversees the Municipal Executive Association, which represents around 1,600 managers in the city. Shuffling and folding other departments together is a central part of the Lurie playbook. In January, he announced he would combine the Planning Department with the Department of Building Inspection to streamline permitting, and in 2025, he merged the Human Rights Commission and the Department on the Status of Women. Insiders told Power Play that homelessness policy chief Kunal Modi and Department of Public Health Director Daniel Tsai talked about shifting management of much of the city’s homelessness portfolio, including permanent supportive housing, to the health agency. Those talks were shelved last year amid budget woes. In an email sent Monday to public health staff and obtained by Power Play, Tsai said the layoffs were part of a restructuring that included eliminating redundant programs, cutting “unnecessary” management layers, redirecting clinical staff away from administrative work to patient care, and eliminating recent vacancies. “We needed to rethink how DPH operates,” Tsai wrote. Along with speculation about department tweaks, the layoffs could have a domino effect on labor’s priorities in the coming weeks and months. One labor official told Power Play they expect the “Overpaid CEO Tax” being championed by SEIU and IFPTE (which, if passed, would add $200 million to city coffers) to see increased support now that budget cuts are being felt. “I think [the unions] are going to see this as an opportunity to really, in a tangible way, show what is going to happen to city workers if we don’t have new revenue as part of the mix,” the labor figure said. “This is going to solidify that new revenue is a must-have. And the consequence of not having it comes really close to home.” — Gabe Greschler, Han Li, and Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez Got tips? Send to us at powerplay@sfstandard.com . YOU’VE GOT A FRIEND IN ME: Republican gubernatorial darling Steve Hilton just got the Midas touch from President Donald Trump . While it wasn’t a surprise that a leading right-wing candidate netted a “ COMPLETE & TOTAL ENDORSEMENT ” Monday from the right-wing-iest president of our time, another Hilton connection might raise eyebrows: He and Lurie, apparently, used to be buds. In a sit-down last week at The Standard’s offices, Hilton dished on his frequent appearances at the mayor’s Tipping Point Community events — annual fundraising soirees that are a must-attend for the city’s moneyed elite — and how that led to him and Lurie getting “to know each other.” “The very first Uber I ever got into was called for me by Daniel in the very early days,” Hilton said. “He’s approaching the job in the right way, which is as a pragmatic problem solver.” Team Lurie didn’t respond to a request for comment. And while Hilton admitted he hasn’t seen Lurie in “ages,” he joins the growing list of random Republicans lauding the mayor, including dearly departed Cabinet members Kristi Noem and Pam Bondi . This wasn’t the first time Lurie had received kind words from Hilton — the former Fox News correspondent praised San Franciscans for electing the Levi’s heir over former Mayor London Breed . — J.F.R. POA PARIAH: Ads for supervisor candidates are beginning to hit voters’ mailboxes and screens, and one in particular caught the eyes of District 4 denizens: “ Natalie Gee will hire more officers,” a new web ad says in bold black letters, “so we don’t overspend on overtime,” it adds below in a lighter typeface. The ad started popping up online three weeks ago, the candidate said. The ad struck some observers as contradictory, given Gee’s public tiff with the Police Officers Association late last year, during the mayor’s appointment process to replace Beya Alcaraz, the 200-hour supervisor . Gee had answered a candidate questionnaire agreeing that the POA should be disbanded and that San Francisco police officers should be represented by a “bona fide union.” Gee also disagreed with police officers’ rights to qualified immunity, which they use to defend against lawsuits. The POA wasn’t happy, to put it mildly. Speaking to Power Play, Gee denied any shift in her position on the legitimacy of the police union. Gee told the mayor’s office she supported hiring more officers to reduce overtime, she said. “I have maintained that it is important that we get more officers walking beats and serving the community in the Sunset, especially bilingual officers,” Gee said. And hiring more officers? That’s just fiscally responsible, she added. The POA did not respond to a request for comment. — J.F.R. CHANGE MY MIND: One of the most influential labor groups in California has made a surprising shift in the heated San Francisco congressional race. SEIU California confirmed that it has withdrawn its endorsement of state Sen. Scott Wiener and is now solely backing Supervisor Connie Chan . The move is tied to Wiener’s opposition to Proposition D on the June ballot — the “ Overpaid CEO Tax ” backed by SEIU’s local branches. Theresa Rutherford , president of SEIU Local 1021 and an executive board member of SEIU California, said supporting Prop. D should be an easy choice for San Francisco’s next congressmember. “A candidate’s stance on the Overpaid CEO Act is more than just another policy choice — it reveals who is standing with working people in this moment,” Rutherford said. Wiener spoke against the measure at a recent candidate forum , saying “it’s not the right time” for another business tax. He voted against it during the March meeting of the Democratic County Central Committee. “Downtown is still recovering from the pandemic,” Wiener said in a statement. “I strongly support Mayor Lurie’s economic recovery work. We need to give the mayor space to succeed.” Lurie has also opposed the measure. The endorsement gives a major boost to Chan, who has been trailing in a recent poll behind Wiener and tech entrepreneur Saikat Chakrabarti . However, its impact will depend on how SEIU engages in the race, whether through volunteer mobilization or financial support. Chan’s campaign said it’s thrilled to have the sole endorsement and is “proud to stand with the healthcare workers, janitors, in-home caregivers, school and city employees of SEIU.” Assemblymember Catherine Stefani , who’s running for reelection and also voted against the tax at the DCCC meeting, confirmed to Power Play that SEIU withdrew her endorsement too. “I respect SEIU and the essential role their members play in our communities,” Stefani said. “But I believe the proposed CEO tax would harm our city and undermine our economic recovery.” — H.L.

City Administrator

Carmen Chu

The Bayview Hunters Point Citizens Advisory Committee provides policy advice on planning and land use matters in Zone 2 of Bayview Hunter's Point. It offers expertise in land use policies, zoning issues, and urban development. The committee advises the Board of Supervisors, City Boards, and commissions on relevant projects and initiatives.

Bayview Hunters Point Citizens Advisory Council

The Capital Planning Committee advises the Mayor and Board of Supervisors on capital expenditures and plans. It reviews and submits the Capital Plan, Capital Budget, and long-term debt issuances for approval. It ensures strategic infrastructure investments and guides financial management practices.

Capital Planning Council

A task force created by November 2024 Prop E to make recommendations about ways to modify, eliminate, or combine the City's boards and commissions to improve the administration of City government. Expires 24 months after first meeting.

Commission Streamlining Task Force

Commission Streamlining Task Force Seat 1 - City Administrator or Designee

Commission Streamlining Task Force Seat 2 - Controller or Designee

Commission Streamlining Task Force Seat 3 - City Attorney or Designee

Commission Streamlining Task Force Seat 4 - Organized Labor

Commission Streamlining Task Force Seat 5 - Open Government Expert

The Committee on Information Technology develops San Francisco's five-year strategic technology plan. It reviews and approves all new technology projects exceeding $100,000, ensuring alignment with citywide strategies. As the main governance body, it makes critical decisions on the future of San Francisco's technology landscape.

Council on Information Technology

Michael Makstman

Nathan Sinclair

Sophia Kittler

Rafael Mandelman

Jeffrey Tumlin

Greg Wagner

Naveena Bobba

Committee on Information Technology Commissioner 10

Michael Carlin

Carol Isen

Mike Nakornkhet

Committee on Information Technology Commissioner 14

Julie Kirschbaum

Mawuli Tugbenyoh

Registered voters of the City & County of San Francisco.

People of San Francisco

The Mayor oversees the executive functions of San Francisco, implementing policies and managing city departments. Directs budget planning, prioritizes public safety, economic recovery, and homelessness initiatives. Exercises authority in appointing officials and shaping legislative agendas.

Mayor

Daniel Lurie

Office of the City Administrator oversees procurement of goods and services, issues vital records, and manages City Hall event licenses. It directs public inquiries to appropriate departments and ensures efficient government services. The department also handles forensic death investigations and promotes neighborhood beautification projects.

Office of the City Administrator

The Public Utilities Rate Fairness Board advises on equitable rate structures for water, sewer, and power services. It evaluates financial stability plans and considers best practices for utility management. The board ensures customer rates align with fiscal requirements and service quality.

Public Utilities Rate Fairness Board

The Real Estate Fraud Prosecution Trust Fund Committee advises on strategies to combat real estate fraud in San Francisco. It provides expertise in legal and financial matters related to fraudulent real estate activities. The committee recommends funding allocations for prosecuting real estate fraud cases.

Real Estate Fraud Prosecution Trust Fund Council

The Refuse Rate Board oversees the refuse rate setting process in San Francisco. It evaluates recommendations from the Refuse Rate Administrator and makes decisions on rate adjustments. The board ensures transparency and accountability in refuse collection and disposal pricing.