To fix California, make its politicians afraid to lose

In November, as in every election year since 2010, a Democrat will win California’s gubernatorial race. As usual, it will not be a particularly close race. A Republican has not won more than 41% of the vote in that stretch. It wasn’t always like this. In the 1990s, gubernatorial races were fiercely contested between Republicans and Democrats. High-level state offices like the attorney general and the controller were often controlled by members of the governor’s opposition party. Even California’s biggest cities swapped Republican and Democratic leadership: Los Angeles was governed by a Republican from 1993 to 2001, and San Diego had a Republican mayor as recently as 2020 . This isn’t a eulogy for the California Republican Party, which is now essentially irrelevant. It’s a eulogy for competition. Incumbents without serious challengers are like a classroom full of unruly children, watched over by a hapless substitute teacher. Elections are how voters discipline government when it ceases to work in their interest. California needs that discipline more than most places: It has the nation’s largest homeless population, some of the most expensive housing, and one of the highest unemployment rates. But how can voters enforce this discipline when there’s just one party to choose from? Eventually, many of them just tune out. We’re not likely to get a competitive Republican Party in California in our lifetime — and given the trajectory of the national party, it’s doubtful we’d want that. But there are other ways to bring real competition back into the political system. What California needs are new parties that recruit and back candidates who want to take on the state’s biggest problems in ways the ruling Democrats haven’t. Imagine, say, a pro-housing party or a good-government party focused on ethics and accountability. These parties would contest local races and give voters a reason to show up — and a label to guide them once they do. They would hold members to a shared platform and vision for governance. Candidates could belong to one or several new parties while also remaining Democrats. A few changes to our ballots and to how we elect representatives would let this new class of parties take root. Homelessness, particularly unsheltered homelessness, may be the most visible symbol of the state’s misrule. California is one of the wealthiest places on Earth but has one of the largest concentrations of homeless people in the Western Hemisphere. More people sleep in tents, cars, or on the sidewalk in just the core counties of the Bay Area (about 18,000 between San Francisco , Alameda , and Santa Clara ) than in all of Florida (13,000). Homelessness ranks among California voters’ top concerns, in big cities and small ones. So why do local governments keep failing to fix it? In local politics, you don’t win by making more people happy; you win by making fewer people angry. The median California city council race in 2024 drew about 5,400 voters, according to my analysis of secretary of State data, and the median winner’s margin was fewer than 600 votes. Until recently, even the largest cities held these elections in off years, when turnout was dramatically unrepresentative of residents. The people who do show up skew white, affluent, and older . The shift to district elections under the California Voting Rights Act has made councils look more like their constituents, but it has also shrunk electorates and margins even further. For a part-time politician, the safest strategy isn’t to deliver results; it’s to avoid crossing the few hundred neighbors who could end your career. Los Angeles shows what this looks like in practice. In 2016, with high turnout for the presidential election, city voters approved by a 3 to 1 margin a new property tax to pay for 13,000 units of homeless housing . As of 2026, only 8,500 units have been built. Only about 18% of them were built in the five council districts where median household income tops $100,000 per year, while the district containing downtown L.A. got more units than those five combined. A 2021 L.A. Times editorial diagnosed the problem in one sentence: “The unwritten rule in L.A. is that each council district is a fiefdom in which its council member alone gets to decide whether a project gets built or blocked.” That’s the core of California’s local governance problem: too little competition and too few voters. Statewide, about 77% of incumbents who ran for reelection between 2007 and 2024 won, according to my analysis of election data. This is because most voters skip local races while turning out for president or governor — a phenomenon known as “roll off.” The answer to reducing roll off and increasing participation in local elections may be easy: more partisanship. Parties recruit candidates, so more races are contested, and they give voters a shortcut, a label that says what the candidate stands for. Both draw more people to the polls. A 2001 study found that removing party labels from local ballots reduced turnout and made voters lean more on incumbency as a cue for competency. A 2018 paper found that more competitive local races can raise turnout even higher than moving elections from off-cycle to on-cycle years. Heightening the role of partisanship in state and local elections does not mean waiting for a Republican resurrection. Two relatively simple changes can help the formation of new parties that would better reflect California’s ideological diversity. The first is fusion voting, which allows a candidate to run under the banner of multiple parties. Fusion voting was relatively common in the United States until party machines unhappy with the populist competition for party loyalty started banning the practice around the turn of the 20th century. Fusion voting remains in some form in New York, Connecticut, Oregon, and Vermont. California allows for fusion voting, though only at the presidential level — Donald Trump was the Republican and American Independent Party’s candidate in 2016. The second fix is to change how many people represent each council district. Right now, districts are mostly represented by only one councilmember (small cities still largely use at-large districts .) Changing the rules so that more than one councilmember could represent each district encourages the formation of local slates that, in turn, could grow into something resembling local political parties. This has begun to happen in Portland, Oregon, which switched from California’s single-member district model to a multimember system of proportional representation called “single transferable vote.” Taken together, these two relatively simple changes to our ballots could usher in a new era of local slates in municipal elections. These groups would not only provide necessary “ shortcuts ” to help guide voters but would eventually develop the infrastructure to transform into minor political parties — fundraising, recruiting candidates, and harboring expertise in house. This would begin a self-perpetuating cycle that could bring about multiparty governance in California. With more parties comes more competition and a greater incentive for elected officials to do more than just coast their way through their terms. Imagine a coalition of pro-housing and transit groups forming a “YIMBY Party” to run candidates for Bay Area city councils. If councils were expanded so that each district elected, say, three members instead of one, small parties like this would become essential partners in any governing majority. Instead of an amorphous Democratic Party in charge, councils would comprise ideologically cohesive, policy-focused blocs that would have to build coalitions with one another in order to pass anything. A shift of local politics away from individual members and toward parties would help voters better evaluate the performance of incumbents. The top-two primary system voters put into place in 2010 sometimes pits two Democrats, representing different wings of the party, against each other in a general election. But without a partisan cue to guide vote choice, voters often fall back on other candidate traits, such as gender or race, that say little about ideology or capacity to govern. There’s already an appetite for reform among California voters. In November, Los Angeles voters will decide whether to create an ethics commission and continue a series of reforms from 2024. In San Diego, residents will vote to extend term limits and ethics reforms. Nithya Raman, who’s challenging L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, has criticized the current charter reform package as a punt by an establishment that “will not reform itself” and is running on pushing the changes further. Paving the way for multimember districts and fusion ballots — via either the Legislature or the initiative process — could be reformers’ next goal for 2028. Democracy works only when an election is a referendum on the people in power and on their vision for governing. Right now, de facto single-party rule means that, save for a few exceptions, it is neither. Fixing that would go a long way toward fixing our state. Stan Oklobdzija is an assistant professor at UC Riverside’s School of Public Policy. His Substack about California politics and policy is “Everyone is Welcome.”

Manny‘s meltdown may hand the Castro to SF’s loudest harm reduction warrior

Not long ago, District 8 supervisorial candidate Gary McCoy was San Francisco’s most visible advocate for progressive drug policies. “Hear me out, eliminate cartels altogether by decriminalizing drugs, and provide a safe supply,” McCoy said in a 2022 tweet, which he now says was misinterpreted. The post came at a time when the city’s drug policy debate mobilized legions of keyboard warriors to blows on Twitter, now X. Still, McCoy was unabashed in his defense of harm reduction, a philosophy associated with leniency toward drug use, and consistently took to the platform to defend his views. In his role as VP of policy and public affairs at HealthRight 360, the city’s largest drug rehab nonprofit, he vigorously defended the city’s first safe consumption site, which allowed people to use drugs under supervision, before it closed after 11 months. He even went on a one-man hunger strike on City Hall’s steps, calling on then-Mayor London Breed to enact a fentanyl emergency ordinance and support safe consumption sites . For McCoy, a recovering drug user who spent almost a decade homeless on the city’s streets, his stance in the drug policy debate appeared to be part of his identity. In 2022, he went so far as to purchase a vanity license plate for his Volkswagen Tiguan: “HRM RDX” — short for harm reduction. Come 2026, McCoy is the front-runner for the District 8 Board of Supervisors seat, after the implosion of rival candidate Manny Yekutiel following a second accusation of sexual assault. Since his controversial tweet, harm reduction has fallen out of political favor with City Hall. McCoy hardly ever posts on X. He no longer works at HealthRight 360. He has a new license plate. And in an interview with The Standard, he said he would not consider himself a “harm reductionist.” But he argues that he’s not playing a different tune; he’s just singing some of his repertoire a little louder. “I have supported both harm reduction and abstinence on a full continuum of care for a very long time,” McCoy said. He added that his most ardent arguments for harm reduction came as a representative of Healthright 360 and were not necessarily his personal views, which he described as broader. In defense of his 2022 tweet, McCoy said he intended to advocate for the expansion of medications such as methadone or Suboxone, drugs used by medical professionals to taper someone’s addiction down so a person is ready to pursue recovery. “My favorite uninformed Twitter people,” McCoy said when asked about his 2022 statement. “I’ve been seeing this tweet go around forever.” “I’m being called a drug dealer on Twitter,” McCoy added. “It’s the same five people who aren’t informed.” As for the license plate? McCoy leases his car, so he swapped the plate once he snagged his next Tiguan. “I get my cars traded just before two years,” he said. McCoy’s position on drug policy has come under the spotlight because it is one of the few areas in which he took a considerably different tack than Yekutiel or the moderate establishment led by Mayor Daniel Lurie. Though McCoy’s opponents frame his support for harm reduction as an indictment of his leadership, the philosophy he supported has long been credited with saving lives , not taking them. Even as the phrase “harm reduction” has become an albatross around the neck of local politicians, international experts continue to advocate for its policies as necessary to humanely treat addiction and save lives. The message he now delivers on the issue, however, is a far cry from the McCoy his critics paint. With Yekutiel out of the picture and McCoy’s win virtually guaranteed, those critics fear the streets will become a fentanyl-laden hellscape. They worry that his stance has merely shifted for political purposes. “He’s lying to you,” said Tom Wolf, a drug policy advocate and vocal critic of harm reduction. “Gary was part of the problem in SF. … Now he’s reinvented himself.” McCoy pushed back. “I don’t think my stance has shifted,” he said. Yekutiel and McCoy mirrored each other’s stances on many of the city’s top issues — from the YIMBY view in support of building more housing to making affordability their No. 1 issue — but they differ on drug policy. Yekutiel agreed with the city’s new position to limit the distribution of drug supplies. Many experts on drug policy say some of the harm-reduction efforts for which McCoy has advocated — such as the circulation of Narcan and the dispersal of clean needles — are responsible for saving thousands of lives. San Francisco has distributed hundreds of thousands of doses of Narcan, with thousands of overdose reversals reported each year. The Tenderloin Center, the safe consumption site McCoy advocated for, reversed 333 overdoses and referred 289 people to housing, among other services, during the 11 months it was open in 2022. Though critics say the facility attracted disorder and connected few people directly to drug treatment when considering its $22 million annual price tag. Laura Guzman, executive director of the National Harm Reduction Coalition , said McCoy is a needed voice as San Francisco increasingly criminalizes drug users — and one who views harm-reduction policies as a way of holistically approaching drug users to help them make their own choice to kick the habit. “That’s what we’re looking for; we’re looking for leaders that understand harm reduction isn’t just about supporting people with supplies, but to engage people with wellness, with housing, and to choose their journey to recovery and treatment,” Guzman said. “Gary has what it takes to support people on their journey.” From the streets to City Hall One thing McCoy says his critics get right: he is a former drug user with a criminal record. As recently as 2011, he was one of the people without homes San Franciscans crossed the street to avoid in the Castro, though he said he used drugs in restrooms, not on the street. His rap sheet includes grand larceny, felony theft, probation violations, driving on a suspended license, and drug charges. McCoy hides none of this, detailing his misdeeds in an interview with The Standard at the start of his campaign. And since being on the street, McCoy served his time, got sober, and rebuilt his life. He worked in City Hall as a legislative aide, eventually rising to senior congressional staffer for Rep. Nancy Pelosi, leading one of the nation’s most powerful Democrats to endorse his candidacy. One of McCoy’s most ardent defenders is gay activist Cleve Jones, founder of the AIDS Memorial Quilt and a mentee of the late supervisor and gay rights icon Harvey Milk. “I think Gary’s qualifications are pretty obvious. He’s been through a lot of shit, and he’s learned from it. He’s grounded in a political education that is unparalleled,” Jones said. “And hello! When you work for her,” he said, referring to Pelosi, “you learn a lot.” Now other local Democrats are following Pelosi’s lead. McCoy’s campaign announced a slew of new endorsements Monday: Sen. Adam Schiff, California Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, state Sen. Scott Wiener, six members of the Board of Supervisors, and labor legend Dolores Huerta. Even those who had previously endorsed Yekutiel shifted to McCoy, including former Supervisor Bevan Dufty, Castro Merchants President Nate Bourg, and community activist Race Bannon. But for McCoy’s critics, the shifting endorsements are a gut punch. “Manny screwed this up for everyone,” Wolf said. “Now they’re going to support a guy who wants to go back to what we were doing.” What McCoy believes If elected, McCoy may find himself at odds with Lurie, who has shifted how the city approaches the fentanyl crisis, limiting some outdoor and mobile syringe access programs to indoor settings . McCoy used to frequent one such program behind the Safeway at Market and Church streets. “I used to go to that program to access clean syringes when I was on the streets, and because it’s not indoors, it no longer exists,” McCoy said. McCoy is HIV-positive, and those clean-needle programs prevented other drug users from contracting HIV from him, he said — one of the primary reasons harm-reduction advocates argue for the distribution of clean drug supplies. Lurie has also stepped up arrests of drug users, a tactic McCoy opposes. “I’ve never had an issue with arresting drug dealers,” he said. “I also think that drug using, [if there is] no other crime, requires a public health intervention most times.” McCoy said he still thinks safe consumption sites, which he calls overdose prevention sites, could help save lives. But he also recognizes the political winds have shifted. “I think we’re unfortunately far off in the political world for that to happen at this point,” McCoy said, “but maybe someday.” Steven Bacio, a founder of the moderate Democrat-aligned political group GrowSF, said McCoy’s positions are “out of step with the district, and his approach is objectively dangerous.” Those on the less progressive side of the drug policy debate argue that forceful intervention is needed for people suffering from addiction. They point to a decline in overdoses and an improvement in street conditions over the past three years as evidence that the city’s policy shift is working, though experts caution that many factors explain the progress the city is seeing — and that San Francisco’s overdose decline mirrors a nationwide trend . McCoy’s behavioral health policy platform includes creating a home base for the city’s myriad street crisis teams to hand patients off in lieu of making an emergency room visit, expanding available treatment beds for psychiatric and medical needs, and strengthening accountability for the city’s treatment efforts, including publishing a monthly dashboard on site conditions, complaints, staffing levels, and outcomes. His signature proposal would see the city establish “behavioral health campuses” at hospitals, starting with Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital on Portrero Avenue, based on what he called a proven example from the MLK Behavioral Health Center in Los Angeles. Instead of whisking drug users to the hospital in their worst moments, then hoping they seek treatment once they’re back downtown, the behavioral health campus would offer mental health and substance use care, psychiatric urgent care, crisis stabilization, sobering and residential treatment, and even transitional housing right next to hospitals. The idea would ostensibly spread out some services, he says, away from their cluster in the Tenderloin and South of Market. The idea even has backing from one of the city’s leading abstinence treatment voices, Supervisor Matt Dorsey. Like McCoy, Dorsey is a recovering drug user who melds his lived experience with data to develop drug treatment policy proposals — and he’s a major backer of McCoy’s platform. “This is an astute policy platform that focuses San Francisco’s behavioral health strategy on the right priorities,” Dorsey said in September, when McCoy revealed his platform. “McCoy’s plan would deliver care where it’s best delivered, expand needed treatment options, and better set up patients for long-term success.” McCoy’s plan acknowledges “legitimate geographic equity concerns” from neighborhood residents where services have been oversaturated, Dorsey added. “That’s essential,” Dorsey said, “if we’re to earn the public support necessary for a behavioral health strategy that supports long-term recovery and helps save lives.”

The rise and fall of Manny Yekutiel

Within the world of San Francisco politics, Manny Yekutiel sat on an extremely rare perch. He had deep connections to the city’s moderate power base, allied at the hip with Mayor Daniel Lurie and Board of Supervisors President Rafael Mandelman. He had hosted nearly every Democratic politico you could think of at his popular Mission cafe, Manny’s. He held fireside chats with New York Times journalists and artificial intelligence CEOs. He courted beloved movie stars. He introduced Vice President Kamala Harris at a local fundraiser. But within a matter of hours on Thursday, Yekutiel’s meteoric rise as a standard-bearer of San Francisco Democratic civic life and a candidate for District 8 supervisor crumbled. The Standard published a new allegation of sexual assault against Yekutiel, three months after an initial accusation surfaced. Thursday’s story included an allegation that Yekutiel groped two men — Ryan Clark and his partner — at a Pride event in 2023, an incident that mirrored a similar accusation The Standard highlighted in a June investigation involving Brad Joseph Chapin. In a statement Thursday, Yekutiel, 37, denied “assaulting anyone” but said he would “take this time to work on myself.” In the wake of the revelations from June, only a smattering of Yekutiel’s backers pulled away — evidence, perhaps, of his clout within San Francisco’s Democratic Party. But after Thursday’s accusations, an avalanche of supporters fled; most notably the all-popular Lurie, whose September endorsement had given Yekutiel a much-needed stamp of approval. At the time, Lurie said Yekutiel had assured him that the allegation was “simply not true,” and he believed him. After Lurie and Mandelman withdrew their endorsements — and the local Democratic Party scheduled a special meeting to reconsider its endorsement — it was only a matter of time before Yekutiel pulled the plug on his political bid, which he did at approximately 3 p.m., roughly nine hours after The Standard’s story was published. How the move affects his cafe remains to be seen. Yekutiel’s exit from the District 8 supervisor race marks a dramatic and rapid downfall for a rising LGBTQ+ figure whose future at City Hall — and possibly beyond San Francisco — appeared all but certain. Yekutiel had the connections. He had a campaign war chest that was the envy of his opponents. He had the moderate messaging on housing and public safety that had major traction inside City Hall and the local Democratic Party. He was well known in the district and throughout the city due to his regular events featuring high-profile figures. Conor Johnston, a former City Hall legislative aide and District 8 resident, said that before the most recent accusers came forward, the race was Yekutiel’s to lose. “Sadly, because the current establishment was so willing to circle the wagons around him and called Brad Chapin a liar, absent other accusers coming forward, there was an 85% to 90% chance Manny would have won the District 8 Board of Supervisors seat,” Johnston said. What is surprising is how quickly Yekutiel rose to prominence in San Francisco. Yekutiel came to the city in 2012 after serving as a field organizer on President Barack Obama’s second campaign. In a matter of years — it would have taken decades for most — Yekutiel became a well-connected political organizer and business owner. He opened Manny’s in 2018, and it became one of the most prominent Democratic civic spaces on the West Coast. The number of powerful guests who have entered its doors at 16th and Valencia streets is too many to count; among them, first lady Jill Biden, Gov. Gavin Newsom, and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass. “You can’t overestimate the eponymous cafe; he’s been on center stage day in and day out for nearly 10 years in a cafe that’s literally named after him,” Johnston said. “If you’re looking for a way to make a name for yourself among the political set, it’s the perfect way to do it.” The cafe enabled Yekutiel to make powerful friends. In 2022, he teamed up with Lurie — who was a year from entering the political scene — on the Civic Joy Fund, a nonprofit that sought to lighten up the city’s dark streets in the midst of the pandemic through events and trash clean-ups. The project turned out to be political gold for Yekutiel when Lurie was elected mayor two years after the nonprofit’s founding: He had friends in the highest of places. His ascendance didn’t surprise Supervisor Myrna Melgar, one of the earliest politicians to pull their endorsement after the first public allegation against Yekutiel. “Manny is smart and charming and good-looking. He is all those things,” she said. “If there is a mea culpa, people looked the other way at the warning signs.” Yekutiel’s hobnobbing in the national political scene took a new turn in 2024, when he made an introduction for Harris at a fundraiser for President Joe Biden (before he dropped out of the race) at the Mission’s Chapel venue. Yekutiel’s speech was deeply personal: “It’s the queer kid in a small town or even a big town who isn’t sure that he can love himself or doesn’t know if his friends and neighbors will love him back. All of those people, their lives will be affected if we don’t reelect this woman and Joe Biden.” Yekutiel’s entrée to the San Francisco civic scene didn’t come without controversy. He faced pushback for his cafe, which some saw as a sign of gentrification in the Mission. A member of the Jewish faith, he was frequently attacked by progressive activists for his support of Israel in the Israel-Palestine issue, culminating in protests outside Manny’s and its defacement with antisemitic slurs. Still, Yekutiel imagined a future at City Hall. He had gained public service experience on the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency’s board of directors from 2021 to 2024. He briefly considered running for mayor in 2023. Yekutiel sought Melgar’s endorsement for the mayorship. She remembered her skepticism. “I don’t think you have the skills to do what you want to do,” Melgar recalled thinking. “You’re running for mayor, the most stressful job. Either you’re overconfident in your abilities, or you’re not really serious.” She told him no — but said he could try for another seat. By fall 2025, it was all but an open secret that Yekutiel would jump into the District 8 race, a seat that covers the center of LGBTQ+ life in the Castro, as well as Noe Valley and Glen Park. He officially announced on Sept. 19, 2025 , and observers considered his candidacy strong. They weren’t wrong: Yekutiel’s fundraising numbers were sky-high at $522,958, a hefty figure for a local supervisor race. (Gary McCoy, his main opponent, has raised $123,450.) Things were looking so good, in fact, that the campaign halted fundraising efforts , saying it was not a good use of Yekutiel’s time. While the open secret of Yekutiel’s candidacy came to light, so too did other aspects of his life. Chapin, the first man to allege that Yekutiel sexually assaulted him, made the accusation during a little-attended Democratic club meeting in January. Hearing his claims, state Senate candidate Christine Pelosi dropped her planned event for Women’s Day at Manny’s cafe. She asserts that she was alone in that. “Many people heard that rumor — none of them canceled their events,” Pelosi said. And when The Standard surfaced the allegation, she said, “Many people doubled down on endorsements.” Yekutiel bowed out of the District 8 race only after The Standard published a second allegation this week. Chapin, the first accuser, said Yekutiel now has a chance to make amends — with him, with Clark and his partner, a nd with other survivors who reached out to tell him they’ve experienced similar despair and isolation . “There’s no redemption without an apology,” Chapin said. “I want his life to be better. I want him to become a better person.”

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.

Newsom’s do-over on sober housing could help erase a 2028 campaign liability

By signing a law to expand drug-free housing for homeless people, Gov. Gavin Newsom did more than reverse a prior veto. He also may have reset the narrative around a potential 2028 political liability. Newsom, a likely presidential contender, on Tuesday approved a bill that allows state funding for housing projects that promote sober living. His move is an abrupt shift from years of California homelessness policies shaped by a “housing-first” philosophy, which prohibits preconditions like sobriety or treatment. Last fall, Newsom vetoed a similar bill from San Francisco Assemblymember Matt Haney. The governor wrote in his veto memo that housing sites banning illicit drug use could already be funded by the state, arguing that it would create a “duplicative and costly” extra category. But according to a legislative analysis report, state law has been focused on the housing-first approach to funding projects, a strategy “informed by a harm-reduction philosophy that recognizes drug and alcohol use and addiction as a part of tenants’ lives and where tenants are engaged in nonjudgmental communication regarding drug and alcohol use.” Haney, a former San Francisco supervisor whose district included the Tenderloin and who sponsored both bills, said he was initially shocked by Newsom’s reaction to it last year. “The veto message had us all scratching our heads,” Haney said. “Nobody believed that we could already do this.” Newsom faced swift blowback from both Democrats and Republicans, who argued that the state’s approach ignored how soaring fentanyl overdoses and open-air drug markets have shifted the conversation around addiction treatment. Mayor Daniel Lurie — a Newsom ally whose wife, Becca Prowda, works for the governor — was especially pointed in his criticism last year, saying, “We are starting to see progress, but the governor’s veto of this bill threatens to stop that progress in its tracks.” Other Democrats, including Supervisor Matt Dorsey and San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, also slammed the veto. Some questioned the extent to which the veto was driven by state agencies. Grow SF, the moderate advocacy group, suggested as much, saying it “exemplifies how state bureaucracy blocks effective local governance.” The issue has continued to trail Newsom in recent months. Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton has repeatedly evoked it on the campaign trail, calling it an example of how Newsom’s homelessness policies are a “complete disaster.” “It’s pathetically too little, way too late,” Hilton said of Newsom signing the bill. “These are the defining failures of his time in office.” That line of attack could be a liability for Newsom’s presidential ambitions, despite his reversal, providing fodder to GOP foes who point to viral images of California’s tent encampments and open-air drug markets to ridicule the governor’s record. While Newsom’s do-over took nearly a year, it has been in the works for many months. Officials from Haney and Lurie’s offices began meeting with members of Newsom’s administration last fall to convince state officials that the bill was needed. “After the veto, it seemed clear pretty quickly that the governor did want to get something done quickly on this,” Haney said. Haney argued that state agency guidelines effectively blocked funding for sober housing projects — even if the state law didn’t explicitly ban it. He said the spread of open-air drug markets near supportive housing sites heightened the sense of urgency. Haney called the policy absurdly restrictive: “Imagine you’re battling obesity, and you’re forced to live in a McDonald’s. It’s nonsensical, and it’s dangerous. If someone needs to get off drugs, the worst thing you could do is send them back to an environment where there’s drug use.” Newsom didn’t provide a signing message when he approved Haney’s legislation, AB1556, on Tuesday. His office said the bill would provide “recovery options for homeless by making Housing First-compliant recovery housing clearly eligible for state funding, while preserving tenant protections and access to other housing options.” The governor’s administration still argues that sober housing was allowed under existing state law and that Haney’s bill simply clarifies the process. But guidelines published last year by the California Interagency Council on Homelessness prohibit state-funded housing projects from evicting tenants for drug use and require that they be “voluntarily engaged” in treatment services. Haney and sober housing advocates say those guidelines effectively banned state-funded recovery housing. San Francisco has a few sober-housing sites funded through the city. The vast majority of supportive housing units in the city operate under a “housing-first” policy that doesn’t require treatment for residents. This summer, the Board of Supervisors approved Dorsey’s legislation that targets so-called “drug-tolerant housing” by requiring San Francisco to prioritize funding for future supportive housing projects that ban illicit drug use and allow evictions for repeat violations. The policy applies only to new projects funded by the city. But Haney’s bill could expand the number of sober facilities in the city by unlocking state funding for new projects. The bill doesn’t specify a specific funding amount — unlike his proposal last year — but it would make sober projects eligible for grants. Haney said the goal is to provide sober housing for those who want it, not to end the availability of “housing-first” sites.

How a Lurie-linked nonprofit is quietly selling the mayor’s agenda

Dear Power Play readers, as the election nears, we’re kicking into high gear. 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. Believe in SF, the Mayor Daniel Lurie -linked nonprofit behind the June coyote video that featured San Francisco stars like Joe Montana , Francis Ford Coppola , and Steph Curry , is apparently not only in the movie-making business. It’s also getting into the ad space. The organization, founded by financiers Adam Clammer and Alec Perkins , both of whom were behind the $6.7 million PAC that helped elect Lurie in 2024, has released a series of online advertisements that subtly promote the mayor’s political achievements while linking to city websites offering resources such as help for those getting evicted. Records uncovered by The Standard in June show Believe in SF plans to shell out $30 million through 2027 on Lurie’s priorities, though the actual amount spent will likely be less than that, according to a source familiar with the matter. The ads are a cog in a much larger Lurie machine: The mayor has personally spent $1.22 million on private consultants since entering office, a coterie of people who help sell the narrative that San Francisco is bouncing back and craft Lurie’s public image. Two of Believe in SF’s ads touch on affordability, a topic on which Lurie likely faces the most political vulnerability. The ads don’t name Lurie, and the nonprofit has to walk a careful line by not endorsing a political candidate; as a 501(c)(3), it is prohibited from doing so. “San Francisco is stepping up to protect renters as AI reshapes the city’s housing market,” says one of the ads, which is stylized as a newspaper headline with the San Francisco Chronicle’s logo. (It was first spotted this month by a Power Play reader on the Chronicle’s website.) The ad refers to Lurie’s announcement this month of rental protections in response to explosive rental hikes — and closely resembles a Chronicle headline from that day : “S.F. Mayor Lurie unveils plan to protect renters amid AI-fueled housing ‘emergency.’” It links to a city website for those facing evictions and landlord-tenant conflict. Another ad states, “San Francisco launches new program to provide free childcare for families,” referencing Lurie’s January announcement , this time with KRON4’s logo and linking to the Department of Early Childhood. Drugs are the focus of a third ad, which may help ward off criticism that street conditions have worsened in the Mission, as downtown and the Tenderloin receive more city services. “San Francisco plans new RESET center to reduce public drug use,” it says, with ABC7’s logo attached — a nod to a sobering center championed by the mayor that opened in May . A spokesperson for the nonprofit, Emily Matthews , said it is “focused on helping connect San Franciscans with information about housing, childcare, public safety, and other city resources.” She declined to say how much the ads cost. — Gabriel Greschler Got tips? Send them to us at powerplay@sfstandard.com . UNION VOTING : While the city’s two largest unions have accepted Mayor Lurie’s contract offer to bypass a drawn-out bargaining process, some labor groups are still filling out bubbles at the ballot box. Voting among IBEW Local 6’s electrical workers isn’t expected to wrap up until early October, according to the union’s business manager, John Doherty . Transport Workers Union Local 250A, which includes Muni operators, also has yet to make a call. How those and other unions feel about the mayor’s deal remains to be seen. The SEIU bargaining unit representing SFMTA workers has surveyed its members about the proposed deal. The survey closed Friday “with opposition to the deal,” according to SEIU Local 21 spokesperson Ian Lee. Bargaining unit leaders will meet Tuesday to decide their next steps. We do know how the nurses are taking it: “We rejected the fuck out of that absurd P.O.S. offer,” wrote Jennifer Esteen , a registered nurse on the unit’s bargaining committee, which unanimously rejected the offer. — G.G. and Maggie Angst CHOOSING YOUR FRIENDS: Connie Chan ’s campaign is dunking on her opponent, Scott Wiener , for rolling out an endorsement from San Francisco Sheriff Paul Miyamoto in the heated race to succeed Nancy Pelosi . The sheriff, as Chan’s camp points out, previously endorsed Republican Chad Bianco in this year’s race for governor. Wiener’s campaign announced Miyamoto’s endorsement on Thursday, coincidentally the same day that the California Supreme Court ruled that Bianco, the sheriff of Riverside County, illegally seized more than 650,000 ballots from last year’s special election to redraw California’s congressional map. Ian Krager , Chan’s campaign spokesperson, jumped on the inconvenient timing: “On the same day that the California Supreme Court ruled Bianco’s actions unlawful, Wiener decided to announce support from someone who vouched for the election-denying Trump supporter.” Krager added, “San Francisco deserves better than a Congressional candidate who will do or say anything to get elected — including abandoning his principles to tout the approval of an embattled enabler of election denial as a tarnished badge of credibility.” Miyamoto, a Democrat, has previously framed his endorsement of Bianco as a professional courtesy despite their political differences, noting they are both members of the California State Sheriffs Association. Wiener’s campaign responded to the criticism by invoking Chan’s own record on public-safety issues. Spokesperson Joe Arellano said, “Connie Chan called for ‘dismantling’ the police and opposed breaking up the open air drug dealing markets. She’s now making outlandish claims in a transparent attempt to distract from her record of neglect and obstruction on public safety.” Chan, in a 2020 candidate forum, made comments about dismantling and restructuring SFPD. But Chan later said her comment was taken out of context, explaining that she meant to say “dismantle the racism” in the police department. — Dustin Gardiner WALTON FAST TRACK : Supervisor Shamann Walton’s proposed moratorium on new data centers just got on the fast track. Board President Rafael Mandelman granted him a waiver on the 30-day rule for new legislation. “I think Supervisor Walton has done us a service in forcing us to think about it,” Mandelman told Power Play, “forcing the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Department to get our ducks in a row.” Now the zoning moratorium proposal doesn’t have to sit around for the normal 30 days before getting in front of the full board. But it does need to be advanced by the supervisors’ Land Use and Transportation Committee. (It isn’t on the agenda for the committee’s Monday meeting.) At a fundraiser last week, Walton told Power Play his moratorium was urgent because “we don’t have a true definition of data centers” in San Francisco’s zoning code . “It’s very general — doesn’t even use the term,” Walton said. “So we have to fix it.” — Omar Rashad

More people are falling into SF homelessness than exiting. Can a Medicaid veteran fix it?

After nearly a decade working to improve Massachusetts’ Medicaid program, Mike Levine faces a different kind of challenge: leading San Francisco’s Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing. Three months ago, Levine took charge of the agency and its $700 million annual budget, at a critical moment. While a recent city count showed a drop in street homelessness, roughly 8,000 San Franciscans remain unhoused. Family homelessness is rising, and more people continue to enter the system than leave it — a dynamic Levine calls a “pretty uncomfortable place to be.” To change course, Levine wants to shift greater funding toward prevention and tie nonprofit contracts to long-term housing outcomes, rather than simply paying out invoices. We sat down with Levine to talk about reforming accountability among nonprofit service providers, scaling up drug-free housing options for formerly unhoused people, and breaking down departmental silos. This conversation has been condensed and edited for clarity. What are you taking from your experience at MassHealth and applying to San Francisco’s homelessness department? The near decade I spent at MassHealth, we always likened it to turning a cruise ship while you’re still in the port. That takes a few years, and then you start to move once you’re pointed in the direction. In Massachusetts, what that looked like was taking a system that had run on a fee-for-service model for decades and starting to organize care around primary care providers and holding health systems accountable for the cost and quality of the care that patients received. [In San Francisco’s homelessness department], there is an enormous amount of focus around how we invoice for expenses. We’ve got to totally reorient the cruise ship and refocus the conversation around clients and what it takes to make them successful, and in many cases, success looks like exiting the system and moving toward a more stable, independent life in the community. The city recently launched a multiyear effort to reevaluate its portfolio of homelessness services and housing contracts and how it measures outcomes. What do you hope to accomplish at the end of it? The ultimate goal is to prevent more people from entering homelessness and to accelerate pathways out of homelessness, but within each step of the continuum that [the homelessness department] is responsible for funding and contracting out, that looks a little bit different. [For example, with rental assistance programs,] we should be looking at how successful we are in preserving tenancy three months out, six months out, maybe even 12 months out, because that’s what we want to achieve. When you bring transparency around outcomes data to a community of providers, then all of a sudden, you’re able to spotlight what’s working and have others learn from it. As part of that initiative, you’ve asked homeless services providers that don’t currently serve San Franciscans to weigh in. Why is that? I think that there are organizations, whether they are on the homelessness services side or on the addiction recovery side, that are operating in other states and other cities, like L.A., that you have to suspect we have something to learn from. We do hear sometimes that San Francisco is a tough city to work in, and if there are organizations that have something to offer but have held off because there’s something about contracting with my department, let’s hear it, because we just want the best partners we can get. After three months on the job, what do you see as areas of improvement for the city’s homeless response system? I’ve spent a good amount of time visiting drop-in centers or access points, where people come in with very uneven expectations of what they’re going to get. And by and large, what they’re going to get is an assessment, which is not what they wanted. I think we need to do a much better job helping people understand what we have available for them, where they can get it, and ensure that for people who have maybe been homeless the longest or have the most complicated co-occurrence of addiction, mental health, and homelessness that we have really service-rich, one-stop shops that enable them to get linked up to housing case management and clinical support. You worked with Dan Tsai, director of the Public Health Department, for five years in Massachusetts. How do you think that established relationship could lead to better outcomes for San Franciscans? I’ve known Dan for a long time, and what I’ve always appreciated about him is that he likes to work across traditional silos. As I was thinking about this opportunity, I thought, “Here’s a good opportunity to bring health and human services closer together.” Do you think any part of the city’s homeless system needs to expand or change to improve flow? Right now we have more people coming into the system that we are able to measure and assess than we have exiting the system in a way that we can measure and assess, which is a pretty uncomfortable place to be. We need to do more in prevention. If you look at any benchmark of how a city should spend its money, we way, way, way underspend on prevention. Mayor Daniel Lurie wants to convert a handful of permanent supportive housing buildings to drug-free housing complexes. Where does that stand? Drug-free and recovery housing is going to be an important initiative this year in partnership with [the Department of Public Health]. We don’t have all the answers in this office, so we are going to be asking providers, “What do you think ‘good’ looks like?” and decide on a couple of models we want to go with.

D10 candidates could settle $7M empty cabin shelter standoff

Whoever wins the November race for District 10 supervisor will have plenty on his plate: a potential moratorium on data centers, the rental crisis, and what to do with 60 tiny cabins for unhoused people that are sitting unused . The Standard reported that the cabins — bought by the city for $7 million — have sat empty for nearly a year on the same Bayview lot, Jerrold Commons, as a nearly identical shelter housing dozens of seniors. Strong opposition from Supervisor Shamann Walton has kept the cabins offline, and Mayor Daniel Lurie ’s office and the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing have stayed silent on when that might change. Walton slammed the mayor’s office last year when officials moved the cabins from the Mission to the Bayview, accusing Lurie of attempting to circumvent community input and put more homeless services in a neighborhood already overburdened. So we asked the three leading candidates running to replace Walton: Would you support getting the cabins up and running at Jerrold Commons? Theo Ellington didn’t mince words: “Yes. I would support activating cabins,” he said, “and I’d push the city to do it now.” J.R. Eppler agreed, but only with “proper commitments to the community.” He said the current situation — 60 cabins collecting dust while people sleep outside — is “the worst outcome” but stressed that D10 "cannot remain the city’s default destination for the services and support.” DJ Brookter deferred to the neighborhood, saying he would “support the community’s decision.” His primary focus is preventing more people from becoming homeless, advocating for more funding for eviction defense funding and tenant legal services, and cracking down on landlords who “harass or coerce longtime residents out of their homes.” Since Walton is on his way out of City Hall and other city officials are staying quiet, D10’s next supervisor could play a decisive role in whether those $7 million cabins will be put to use. — Maggie Angst and Omar Rashad SUNNIER DAYS AHEAD? : It’s happening. Finally. On Monday, the Board of Supervisors’ Rules Committee will review candidates for the vacant seats on the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, the body that ensures officials follow public records laws. The task force has been on hiatus since June, when its members were removed due to a rule change that clears out term-limited commissioners. There are nine vacant seats and 14 applicants: Lilia LaHood , Michael Christensen , Maxine Anderson , Andrea Gallardo Lopez , Chris Hyland , David Pilpel , Laura Stein , Matthew Yankee , Matthew Donahue , Nadia Desai , Njon Sanders , MacKenzie Ewing , Christopher Oieda , and Joseph Sanairardi . Ex-task force members have feared that members of the committee plan to stack the group with people less sympathetic to the public’s concerns about transparency. We’ll see if that’s the case Monday. — Gabriel Greschler RENT EMERGENCY REACTION: Lurie attracted national attention last week when he declared a rent emergency in San Francisco and announced a slew of moves to soften the blow. Included were measures to delay evictions, limit landlords’ ability to raise rents, and add funding for nonprofit lawyers representing tenants. But the reaction from some who work with tenants was mixed. Anti-eviction advocates said the package is a much-needed step toward reducing the impact of the AI-fueled unaffordability boom. But critics of the mayor contend that his words were long overdue and that some of his actions were the work of other officials — while not going far enough. The legislation banning evictions for nonpayment of less than one month’s rent was first introduced by Supervisor Jackie Fielder , and the proposal to cap rent hikes at 10% was introduced by Supervisor Danny Sauter . (Both were credited in the mayor’s press release.) And the $54 million investment in emergency rental assistance touted in Lurie’s Instagram post announcing the package had already been budgeted for this fiscal year. “The most impactful pieces of this were already done,” said former Supervisor Dean Preston , a longtime tenants advocate. “I welcome him breaking his silence on the rent crisis. … But there’s nothing here that lowers the rent.” Meanwhile, scores who live in non-rental-controlled apartments would remain unprotected by the new proposals, according to Jacqueline Ravenscroft , a tenants attorney at Tobener & Ravenscroft. “We get hundreds of calls a week from tenants who are seeking help,” Ravenscroft said. “I would say less than 1% of those are people that [would benefit].” Others are holding out hope that the mayor is just getting started. Gail Gilman , executive director of the Eviction Defense Collaborative, commended the legislative package. But she said the additional $3 million for legal counsel, a new investment sponsored by the mayor, will hire roughly 30% of the attorneys needed to meet the demand. “We need to scale in a responsible way with the attorney pool that exists in the Bay Area,” Gilman said. “If there was an infusion of the entire $9 million needed right now, I don’t know if we would have the capacity to rise to the challenge.” — David Sjostedt S.F. ‘STILL SUCKS’: No matter how much Lurie tries to make San Francisco’s comeback happen, some people aren’t buying in. Scott Galloway , a business professor, didn’t hold back on his disappointment with conditions downtown while speaking this week on his popular financial podcast, “Prof G Markets.” “So, San Francisco still sucks,” Galloway said, recounting a recent trip to the city when he and his sister walked down Market Street from their hotel near Civic Center and passed what he said were hundreds of homeless people. “To be fair, everyone says Mayor Lurie is doing a good job, and things have gotten noticeably better,” he added. Lurie this year touted a sharp decline in the city’s unsheltered homeless population, but the numbers come with an important caveat. The city changed the methodology it used for this year’s point-in-time count, making it difficult to compare to prior years. — M.A. THAT LURIE LOVE: You may have seen Friday’s news that Lurie endorsed candidates for District 8 and 10 supervisor : Manny Yekutiel and Ellington, respectively. He also endorsed in a bevy of down-ballot races and measures. No love lost between Lurie and the Democratic Socialists of America, or Fielder, apparently, as he went “no” on measures to establish a public bank, Proposition B, and to redirect affordable housing funding to social housing, Proposition I. He officially endorsed his own charter reform measures, Propositions D, E, and F, in case his backing wasn’t already clear enough. For school board, Lurie backed the moderate slate of Board President Phil Kim, former PTA president Autumn Brown Garibay, and financial auditor Tim Tung (brother of SF Democratic Party Chair Nancy Tung ). And for the City College of San Francisco Board of Trustees, Lurie endorsed incumbent Ruth Ferguson (no big surprise, since he appointed her), college campus planner Elijah Ball, financial adviser Erwin Tam, and teacher Monroe Lace. Two things we’ll note about those school-related endorsements: They mirror those of GrowSF, an organization that retains Lurie spokesperson Max Szabo . And Lurie declined to endorse Bunny McFadden, a writer for BrokeAssStuart.com who taught at a community college level and has a doctorate in education. Maybe it’s because she’s aligned with the progressives, Lurie’s opponents, or maybe it’s because half of her social media videos lampoon him as “Denim Dan.” The world may never know. — Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez ONE MORE THING: Remember San Francisco’s residential vacancy tax from 2022? Voters passed it, but the San Francisco Apartment Association sued, and the city never began collecting the tax. Now, it may never. The California Court of Appeals ruled Friday that the tax is illegal. — Max Harrison-Caldwell

San Francisco doesn’t need this many golf courses

Stand on the first tee at Lincoln Park Golf Course, in the northwesternmost corner of San Francisco, and witness the view: Down the fairway, the Legion of Honor beckons; through the cypress trees to the right, the Golden Gate Bridge rises above the fog. It is something to behold. What you won’t see are many golfers. Over the course of an hour on a recent Monday afternoon, all of three players teed off. In that same span, maybe a dozen duffers strolled across the links beyond. It was just another quiet afternoon at Lincoln Park. And just another example of the often overlooked yet surprisingly broad footprint of golf in San Francisco. Lincoln Park is one of six public courses owned by the Recreation and Parks Department and one of 10 courses inside the city limits. In a densely populated, housing-starved, forward-thinking city of this size, it’s remarkable just how much physical space is dedicated to golf. Of the 3,400 acres of recreation and open space owned and managed by the Recreation and Parks Department within SF, fully 10% of it is taken up by golf. Including private courses, golf occupies more than 1,000 acres. That’s more than 3% of the city’s surface area, about the same as Golden Gate Park or the Presidio. But unlike those two parks, which draw millions of visitors every year, San Francisco’s golf courses are sparsely used, all things considered. At Lincoln Park, an average of 90 people tee off every day. Across town at Gleneagles, a nine-hole course adjacent to McLaren Park, fewer than 50 tee off a day, half as many as 20 years ago. Overall, the five municipal courses inside the city limits routinely operate at less than 50% capacity, with 10% fewer rounds played than two decades ago. That is a lot of prime San Francisco real estate waiting around expectantly, like Shel Silverstein’s Giving Tree , for just a few dozen players a day. And unlike municipal golf courses in most cities, San Francisco’s operate at a deficit. In fiscal 2026-27, the city is expected to spend $4.9 million more than it earns tending to its golf courses — a massive subsidy for a sport with increasingly fewer players, who skew older, wealthier, male, and white. Which raises the question: In San Francisco, the second-most densely populated city in the nation, where there is too little housing and a voracious appetite for public space, is so much golf the best use of so much land? Nothing but sand Why are there so many golf courses in San Francisco? The answer starts in the early 20th century, when just 500,000 people lived here, 95% of them white. In those years, the western side of San Francisco was justly called the Outside Lands: Sand dunes were common; houses were not. Why not build a golf course or two out there? And so they did. Lincoln Park, built atop an old cemetery, opened in 1912. Harding Park, on the eastern shore of Lake Merced, debuted in 1925. In 1932, the city opened Sharp Park course, 10 miles south in Pacifica (the only city-owned course outside city limits). Fleming and Gleneagles, both nine-hole courses, opened during golf’s early 1960s boom years (Arnold Palmer, Gary Player, Jack Nicklaus). It is impossible to imagine the city devoting so much public space to just one sport today. Some of these courses are historic and revered by golfers worldwide. The Presidio Golf Course was a perk prized by U.S. Army officers for a century before it went public in 1995. Harding, the city’s grand dame, hosted the PGA Championship in 2020. The exclusive San Francisco Golf Club — so exclusive it doesn’t have a website — is ranked as one of the best courses in the country. The Olympic Club, a private club with three courses tucked on $750 million of real estate against the Pacific Ocean, has hosted the U.S. Open five times, most recently in 2012. But some courses are arguably not used to the full potential of the land they’re on. Lincoln Park may enjoy one of the nation’s most beautiful settings but is generally considered a poor playing course with shabby facilities, earning just 3 out of 5 stars on GolfPass. Gleneagles fares little better, with 3.5 stars ; “the course has seen better times” is a typical comment. What the city should do with so many golf courses has been a recurring topic for Rec and Parks leadership. In 2008, the department commissioned an independent study of the city’s courses. That report aimed to answer two questions: Is there sufficient demand for municipal golf to justify the city subsidizing the courses? And would conversion to other recreation needs be appropriate? The report acknowledged a high demand for golf in the San Francisco region but concluded that the municipal courses were poorly managed and significantly underperforming. In particular, the report flagged that the courses ran at an annual deficit of $1.5 million; at the time, that was considered a significant shortfall. Leon Younger, president of Pros Consulting and the lead author of the 2008 report, explains why that deficit was a concern. “Most public courses are between 90% and 100% self-supporting. Many make a profit,” he said, noting that municipal leaders typically “want golf to be a profit center for the city.” Not so in San Francisco: Upon learning that in 2026-27, the city’s golf deficit will reach $4.9 million, he was shocked. “Oh, my God. Jesus, that’s a lot,” he said. “That’s just a lot for a public golf course. Something else is going on there.” Part of what’s going on might be how the courses are managed. For all except Gleneagles, contracted operators handle the golf business: tee times, equipment rentals, lessons, food and beverage, and so on. The city gets a cut of the fees, but Rec and Parks pays for all ground maintenance, including mowing, irrigation, and improvements. That arrangement ends up with the city holding the wrong end of the stick, for years on end. Another issue is how many people play on the courses. In 2023-24 (the most recent year of data provided by the city), roughly 199,000 rounds of golf were played on the five municipal courses inside city limits — 10% fewer than in 2005-06. Another way to measure this is capacity: Most of San Francisco’s municipal courses operate below 50% capacity; the industry standard is 70%, according to consultant Younger. This dropoff is despite the fact that the number of people playing on golf courses in the U.S. has stayed steady since 2003, according to the National Golf Foundation . (After a big fall-off in the 2010s, golf has boomed nationwide since the pandemic. But not in SF.) Some courses are used more than others. After an extensive remodel in 2024, Golden Gate Park Course, a nine-hole par 3, hosts about the same number of players as it did in 2005-06. According to Rec and Parks data, Harding Park operates at capacity on weekends, while Lincoln Park operates above 70% on weekends. That’s higher than the numbers from that 2008 report. But here’s the thing: Even at peak capacity, an 18-hole golf course can accommodate a maximum of about 300 players a day . Considering that the currency is hundreds of pristine acres in our oceanfront city, that is an astonishing price paid to golfers. So put golf aside and consider these as public spaces. Are they being used efficiently? Some 25 million people visit Golden Gate Park every year. At 1,017 acres, that’s roughly 25,000 visitors per acre per year. The five municipal golf courses inside city limits, on the other hand, cover about 345 total acres, with about 200,000 rounds played in a year. That’s not even 600 visitors per acre per year — 40 times less usage than Golden Gate Park. But perhaps it’s unfair to compare the grandeur of Golden Gate Park — the crown jewel of the city’s parks — to golf. Rather, let’s consider Sunset Dunes, which, as foes of Sunset Dunes insist, is just an asphalt remnant of a once-busy highway. With 1.7 million visitors in its first year, that 50-acre stretch is enjoyed by 34,000 people per acre — nearly 60 times as much use as the city’s golf courses. Particularly for a shabby slab of pavement, that is a remarkably efficient and effective use of public space. 150 acres of potential Which raises the question: If San Francisco can turn a sand-blown highway into one of its most pleasing and well-used spaces, how might some — but by no means all! — golf courses be repurposed to better serve the city and its residents? The most obvious answer would be housing. Gleneagles borders McLaren Park, San Francisco’s second-largest and perhaps most neglected park. Looking south from the Philosopher’s Way trailhead parking lot (a favorite perch for dog walkers and dope smokers and hook-uppers), one can conjure a new neighborhood with thousands of affordable apartments, ample recreational space, and breathtaking bay views. Such a bold step would suit the moment. The Sunnydale housing complex, which abuts the golf course, is already being redeveloped as part of the citywide HOPE SF rebuild. The pace of the HOPE SF effort has been sluggish, dragging out over decades. Tapping the Gleneagles acreage could bring new energy and ideas to the effort. But even short of housing, these underused spaces could be remade for the benefit of thousands, rather than dozens. San Francisco has executed some elegant reimaginings of public space in recent years. India Basin Park transformed 10 acres of fenced-off industrial waterfront into a lovely space with trails and public piers. The Port of San Francisco turned a derelict shipbuilding site into Crane Cove Park, a bayside beach teeming with paddleboarders and picnickers. Francisco Park, Tunnel Tops, the JFK Promenade, Crissy Field … the list of amazing makeovers in this city goes on and on. Nearby, golf course reinventions have succeeded recently. In 2018, Monterey County’s 185-acre Rancho Cañada Golf Club was folded into the Palo Corona Regional Park, with mountain bike trails and dog parks for the community. That same year, in Marin County, the 157-acre San Geronimo golf course was acquired by the Trust for Public Land and converted into the San Geronimo Commons as a county park. Marin golfers weren’t happy; they narrowly lost a ballot measure to preserve the golf course. The former course superintendent bemoaned a desiccated landscape rife with gophers, the enemy of all groundskeepers , the course fading away like a “sick and dying child.” He was wrong. Today, the former course is frequented by hundreds of hikers and dogs and dog walkers, part of a continuum of open spaces in the Marin hills. But San Francisco is a city, not West Marin. So the best analogy might be converting tennis courts to pickleball courts. Pickleball is America’s fastest growing sport , with an equal number of players as tennis. Like many cities, San Francisco has repurposed underused tennis courts for pickleball, repainted others for dual use, and opened several new courts dedicated to pickleball. What would the pickleball-ification of San Francisco golf courses look like? It could involve everything from community gardens to hiking trails to restored wetlands to, yes, pickleball. Think of how many pickleball courts could be installed across just one golf course! So what is the city’s view on this? Sarah Madland, the new GM of the Recreation and Parks Department, declined repeated requests for comment. A Rec and Parks spokesperson said the department is reviewing “how we use our resources across the department and where our dollars can have the greatest benefit for San Franciscans. Golf is part of that. We want to understand what’s working, where there are opportunities to improve operations and financial performance, and how the system fits within the broader recreational needs we serve.” That review is expected to wrap up over the next “several months.” The spokesperson noted that the department raised green fees in 2025 and keeps fees low to keep golf affordable. The courses support youth programs like First Tee , she added, as well as public high school teams and other community functions. Which is all to the good. None of that has to go away. Nobody, not even me, is suggesting that the city should lose all of its golf courses. But do we still need so many? In 2008, the consulting report made several recommendations. Lincoln Park, it suggested, should be converted to other public uses, at least in part. At other courses, management contracts should be redrawn to expect more of managers and ensure that the city breaks even or profits. The city took little action on those recommendations at the time. Nearly 20 years later, those suggestions seem both too modest and too radical at once. Too modest because the numbers have been going in the wrong direction for 20 years. It’s unlikely that the current management contracts, with their low green fees and unaligned incentives, will somehow produce enough revenue for the city to make up its subsidy to golf enthusiasts. Too radical because, honestly, would San Francisco actually poke the golden bear of golf? Despite their declining numbers, local golfers are a well-organized and well-connected lot . Proposing to convert even one golf course would trigger a multiyear battle, with lawsuits and headlines galore. Whatever the ongoing Rec and Parks review may conclude, the easiest path for department leaders to take, alas, would leave the golf courses to the golfers and focus the department’s energies on marquee projects that would generate fanfare with less pushback. But the harder path, oh boy, would that be a rousing challenge to the status quo. It must be possible to raise the question whether, in the year 2026, golf should still dominate this city as it does. It should be possible to reconsider why the city dedicates so much public space to one sport that is played by relatively few people. And it is surely possible for a city as great as San Francisco to reimagine what better purposes just some of that public space should be used for. And maybe then, that magnificent view from Lincoln Park will be witnessed by more than a mere 90 people a day.

Yekutiel wins Lurie endorsement after assurance sexual assault claim ‘simply was not true’

Mayor Daniel Lurie endorsed Manny Yekutiel for District 8 supervisor Friday, less than three months after the cafe owner was accused of a 2020 sexual assault, an allegation he has denied. “We need leadership on the Board of Supervisors that’s committed to addressing our housing affordability crisis, and continuing our progress on public safety and the drug crisis,” Lurie said in a statement. “We’re not going back, and I’m supporting Manny because he’s the only candidate who will help take us forward.” Lurie’s coattails are coveted: his endorsements helped deliver overwhelming wins for board candidates in the June election, political watchers have said. And Lurie’s allies, like Ripple CEO Chris Larsen and The Standard’s chairman Michael Moritz, are known to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars backing the mayor’s preferred candidates. As The Standard first revealed , progressive political organizer Brad Joseph Chapin alleged that Yekutiel forcibly squeezed his testicles at a 2020 house party. After seeing Yekutiel launch his run for office this year, Chapin filed a police report, citing a need to protect people from a predator. Prosecutors did not charge Yekutiel. The San Francisco Democratic Party endorsed him late last month. When asked why the mayor decided to back Yekutiel despite the sexual assault accusation, Lurie said in a statement, “I take any accusation of this nature very seriously, and I asked Manny directly about it. He assured me that the allegation simply was not true.” Speaking to The Standard, Chapin said he was disappointed to see Lurie back Yekutiel. “Instead of being held accountable, this guy is being celebrated,” Chapin said. “All of this is so gross and disturbing. I just feel like I got run over by a truck.” Celebrating the endorsement in an email to his supporters, Yekutiel said he spent years working side by side with Lurie to improve San Francisco. “I’m ready to work with Mayor Lurie to build more housing, strengthen our neighborhoods, fill vacant storefronts, improve transit, and deliver for San Franciscans,” Yekutiel said. His most prominent opponent, Gary McCoy, an aide to Rep. Nancy Pelosi, said he respected Lurie’s choice to endorse his “longtime business partner,” who helped the mayor run the Civic Joy Fund. “Ultimately, I’m confident my support from the community will prevail, and I look forward to continuing my working relationship with the mayor next year as a member of the Board of Supervisors,” McCoy said. Yekutiel has run on a platform that emphasizes “moonshot” ideas, like building 10,000 housing units in District 8, which includes the Castro and Noe Valley, and building a subway system stretching across the western and southern portions of San Francisco. Lurie also endorsed District 10 supervisor candidate Theo Ellington on Friday, saying that Ellington had “dedicated his life to this city” and would “bring the leadership District 10 needs.” Ellington is perceived as a front-runner after Ripple CEO Chris Larsen donated $500,000 to an independent expenditure backing Ellington. District 10 includes Bayview-Hunters Point and Potrero Hill. Ellington said that he was “deeply honored” to have the mayor’s endorsement. “I’m confident that in partnership with Mayor Lurie, we can build the neighborhoods we deserve in District 10,” Ellington said.

The Access Appeals Commission provides final reviews for a wide range of City permitting decisions. It ensures an efficient, fair, and expeditious permit issuance process through an impartial panel. The commission holds authority to make binding decisions on appeals related to City permits.

Access Appeals Commission

Access Appeals Commission Commissioner 1

Access Appeals Commission Commissioner 2

Access Appeals Commission Commissioner 3

Access Appeals Commission Commissioner 4

Access Appeals Commission Commissioner 5

The Board of Appeals provides final review for a wide range of City permitting decisions. It ensures an efficient and fair permit issuance process through an impartial panel. The Board exercises authority to make binding decisions on appeals.

Board of Appeals

Board of Appeals Commissioner 1

Board of Appeals Commissioner 2

Jose Lopez

Rick Swig

Board of Appeals Commissioner 5

The Board of Examiners provides a final review process for City permitting. It ensures an efficient, fair, and expeditious evaluation of the permit issuance process. The commission operates as an impartial panel with quasi-judicial authority.

Board of Examiners

Board of Examiners Commissioner 1

Board of Examiners Commissioner 2

Board of Examiners Commissioner 3

Board of Examiners Commissioner 4

Board of Examiners Commissioner 5

Board of Examiners Commissioner 6

Board of Examiners Commissioner 7

Board of Examiners Commissioner 8

Board of Examiners Commissioner 9

Board of Examiners Commissioner 10

Board of Examiners Commissioner 11

Board of Examiners Commissioner 12

Board of Examiners Commissioner 13

The Board of Supervisors enacts legislation and amends municipal codes. It approves budgets, oversees city departments, and confirms mayoral appointments. It holds the authority to reject appointments and propose city policies.

Board of Supervisors

Connie Chan

Stephen Sherrill

Danny Sauter

Alan Wong

Bilal Mahmood

Matt Dorsey

Myrna Melgar

Rafael Mandelman

Jackie Fielder

Shamann Walton

Chyanne Chen

The Building Inspection Commission enforces San Francisco's Building, Housing, Plumbing, Electrical, and Mechanical Codes, including Disability Access Regulations. It oversees code compliance through inspections and investigates building complaints. The commission ensures safety and fairness in construction and housing practices.

Building Inspection Commission

Building Inspection Commission Commissioner 1

Building Inspection Commission Commissioner 2

Building Inspection Commission Commissioner 3

Catherine Meng

Building Inspection Commission Commissioner 5

Building Inspection Commission Commissioner 6

Building Inspection Commission Commissioner 7

Department of Building Inspection enforces San Francisco's Building, Housing, Plumbing, Electrical, and Mechanical Codes and Disability Access Regulations. It issues permits, conducts inspections for code compliance, and investigates building complaints. The department also manages records, provides technical support, and develops code policies.

Department of Building Inspection

Patrick O'Riordan

The Historic Preservation Commission advises on historic preservation goals and policies in San Francisco. It recommends significant sites for landmark designation and regulates these resources during permit reviews. The Commission prioritizes racial and social equity in preservation efforts.

Historic Preservation Commission

Historic Preservation Commission Commissioner 1

Dan Baroni

Historic Preservation Commission Commissioner 3

Robert Vergara

Historic Preservation Commission Commissioner 5

Hans Baldauf

Historic Preservation Commission Commissioner 7

The Inclusionary Housing Technical Advisory Committee evaluates city building codes and transfer taxes impacting residential project costs. It advises on alternative construction methods to reduce expenses and enhance affordability. The committee provides guidance on inclusionary housing requirements for developers.

Inclusionary Housing Technical Advisory Council

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 Mayor leads San Francisco's strategic initiatives on housing, homelessness, and economic development. It drives policies for public safety, climate change, and COVID-19 recovery. The office collaborates with city departments and community partners to implement innovative solutions for civic challenges.

Office of the Mayor

The Permit Prioritization Task Force advises on streamlining housing permit processes. It focuses on identifying barriers and recommending improvements to expedite housing approvals. Task Force expertise ensures efficient, timely construction project reviews in San Francisco.

Permit Prioritization Task Force

The Planning Commission oversees San Francisco's land use and development. It approves permits, maintains the General Plan, and conducts public hearings. It advises city officials on long-term planning and delegates certain approvals to the Planning Department.

Planning Commission

Planning Commission Commissioner 1

Planning Commission Commissioner 2

Planning Commission Commissioner 3

Planning Commission Commissioner 4

Theresa Imperial

Amy Campbell

Sean McGarry

Planning Department oversees land use, zoning, and urban design to guide San Francisco's growth. It manages housing development approvals, ensuring compliance with building codes and environmental regulations. The department facilitates community engagement and long-term city planning initiatives.

Planning Department

Sarah Dennis Phillips

Policies and programs related to housing development, affordability, and regulation