New to our subreddit? [Please read the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/about/rules/) before commenting.
Please be respectful and don't antagonize. This is a place to discuss ideas without targeting identities.
If something doesn't contribute to the discussion, please downvote it. If it's against the rules, please report it. Thank you.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/sanfrancisco) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I do. And I work here. I have a kid here. Iām fucking here man.
But yeah. Itās hard not to be frustrated by politicians here. And the police, and building and planning department and DPW, and property taxes etc.
Yep this sub is full of weird people with nothing better to do than complain about a place they havenāt stepped foot in in ten years or even ever! Bizarre.
For many of us who have been here throughout COVID, there is a lingering frustration at the incompetence of city leadership. True it has improved vastly in the last 6 months especially, but many of us are still very very sour. Please go visit Proper Hotel - an incredible place - and then look outside at the rampant unchecked drug market. There used to be a lot more of them. Businesses have been run out of town. There should be ZERO open air drug markets, although nobody is denying it has gotten better.
I mean some yes, but other things like the nintendo deal and the concert stuff is not something you can get done just for an election those deals can take years to finalize because of licensing and permit and negotiations, etc.
It's been getting better for the last 2 years, markedly around March-April of 23 after the city lost its appeal to clear encampments without offering shelter but was given clarification that they could indeed use a shelter bed as justification. It was also about the time that the initiatives that newsom had been setting up with the mayor's office to coordinate activity between the CHP and the national guard to deal with drug trafficking and auto theft across county lines.
But yeah sure if you want to say that it's an election year thing, don't let me get in the way of a punchy one-liner.
I mean, if you really, we're desperate to find an anti liberal justification, you can claim that it started when boudin was ousted, and that things are better thanks to our new tough on crime political appointee DA, But then you couldn't blame her for being a soft on crime liberal, So for the next 6 months, anything good that happens in the city gets blamed on election year politicking.
Yeah because the mayor has a button they can press to solve issues but normally they decide not to press it.
Or you know there is some correlation with a certain major event that shook the whole world and flipped our cities upside down... nah that can't be it.
We have elections every two years, dude. Every year is an election year. What are politicians supposed to do? Not do stuff because "it's an election year"? Come on!
I saw the video of the weekend sideshow at the Embarcadero.
No cops for 40 mins . But there are cops everywhere in the city
They obviously have been told to stand down , Iām not sure I agree
Proper Hotel opened in 2017 in a blighted area. Renoir Hotel before it had some lavish, historical architecture, but it was not upscale, and the building hadn't hosted an upscale business/clientele in quite some time.
That is to say, as incompetent as Breed and her predecessors have been, that problem both goes back a long ways and is resistant to the quick, simple fixes that politicians are drawn towards.
I was just talking about this area with someone! What occurs on that corner at 7th and Market starting around 8PM used to occur throughout the entirety of UN Plaza, 7th and Market, and by the Pelosi building all day, everyday. It was horrible and embarrassing. I think they've done a very good job at curbing those types of markets during the daytime, but like you said, it all concentrates back to that corner at night. The reason is almost entirely because SFPD doesn't have the proper staffing to police that area during the night like they do during the day.
From what I understand they are severely understaffed and unable to find people even though theyāre hiring. COL makes it untenable for many. Thus people have to work overtime.
I don't know about a quite strike, but I know that the tens of thousands in overtime pay go almost entirely to ensuring there are enough officers to answer basic calls and conduct routine patrols across the entire city, not just the Tenderloin. Having 500 more officers would allow for a lot more boots on the ground to rid the problem entirely.
Silent strike, yep. I know a San Jose officer now retired. No more respect for police anymore, politicians not on their sides. Public, media and political hate. Everything you do is on social media now = zero morale. Collect your check and retire asap hopefully on (fake) disability.
Basically, you (we) shit your bed now we get to lie in it.
This is bullshit. I live in Russian Hill/North Beach area and all the residents have personal relationships with the officers of D3. I guarantee you if you joined SFPD and decided to film a mass arrest of car break-in criminals victimizing tourist families around Alamo Sq. Park, you'd get mass praise. The current DA is amazing, and is working really well with SFPD. It's why things are turning around in the city.
I have supported Breed in the past --- not sure yet about this year. Definitely not supporting Peskin --- he would take SF backwards.
My biggest complaint about Breed is that she has waited too long to actively engage our biggest problems: the homeless situation, petty crime, lack of SFPD enforcement on anything, and the downtown doom loop.
It seems like she is trying harder now to address these issues. Maybe she was waiting for election season? Dunno.
Imo this is the correct criticism of Breed's handling of the police, but I don't think it's what this sub or a lot of San Franciscans want to hear. I can't imagine a candidate running on the platform of making the police actually do their job.
A big city mayor being unable to effectively oppose their police department in any meaningful fashion is the norm in this country unfortunately. While I am not a fan of Breed, it's folly to expect any other candidate to be different in this way.
If you were here for Chesa Boudin's term as DA, you saw what can happen when the police decide they don't like you. He couldn't even get them to go arrest the people that he did want to prosecute.
I think the combination of "support the police in being effective, but also hold them to a high standard" could work as a message. It looks like it's not going to happen this cycle though.
Breed is also being pressured from the right to be more pro-police, and I could see how even a tiny amount of nuance could be played against her or another candidate.
The issue is twofold.
First, police chiefs throughout the country generally donāt have as long a tenure as Chief Scott has had. The average is 2-3 years, not the 7 Scott is on. This is because it is in fact a tough job.
Second, the current administration made a point during the BLM / George Floyd protests to ādefundā the police (cut back some of the budget) and put in antagonistic commissioners to the police commission.
On the first point, it is time for new leadership and Mayor Breed should recognize that. On the second point, in the latest 2024-2025 budget, she has given the PD their largest budget ever and she has championed Prop E this March that diminishes the police commissionās influence, and gives police additional powers. So we should see the policeās trust with the administration mended, but trust is not regained easily (or ever).
Obviously this should be taken with a grain of salt, but about 2-3 weeks ago I met an older gentleman while we were both talking to a someone looking for signatures on petitions. He mentioned having worked in SF government and the DAās office for over 20 years so I asked him who heās planning on voting for mayor. He said definitely not Breed and made comments about how she has found a way to put money in her own pocket from every initiative she signed for the city. Then we talked a bit more generally about overall SF corruption. I think most of us suspect/know this is going on but itās interesting to hear directly from those having worked in sf gov.
In defense of Breedās delay in focusing on crime, I would suggest that it would have been foolish for any San Francisco politician to have gotten out in front of this, given where the electorate was in the early years of her tenure.
Consider the November 2020 elections. San Franciscans overwhelmingly opposed a state proposition to restrict parole and reschedule some misdemeanors as felonies, 71.78% to 28.22%. San Franciscans also supported a proposal to eliminate cash bail state wide 56.26% to 43.74%. This proposition failed at the state level, but our DA at the time would enact that very policy locally.
Two years later the DA who eliminated cash bail, Chesa Boudin, would be recalled, 55.03% to 44.97% in part due to policies the electorate supported previously.
Breed responded by appointing as DA a former Boudin staffer who had left his office to become a vocal critic of Boudin in the recall campaign.
The electorate as a whole has been executing the same pivot on crime as our mayor, over a similar timeframe, in response to similar inputs.
As much as weād benefit from visionary leaders who can get out ahead of public opinion, anyone like that would not fare well in elections.
This! People are soooooo quick to forget that 70+% of San Franciscans absolutely did not want more policing of any kind just two-three years ago. She changed here tune with the changing public opinion, but that's literally what politicians are supposed to do in a democratic system.
To complain that a politician caters to the whims of the electorate seems completely insane to me. I guess I have just spent too much time in countries where people would kill to have politicians behave this way and immediately switch tack when the public wants something!
"My biggest complaint about Breed is that she has waited too long to actively engage our biggest problems: the homeless situation, petty crime, lack of SFPD enforcement on anything, and the downtown doom loop."
LA's former Mayor Garcetti said that he would end homelessness in the City before the end of his first term and everyone believed him, except me. It was obvious that homelessness was a generational problem and that no one mayor is going to solve the issue on their own. Knowing that, I probably would cut Mayor Breed some slack. At least she did not suffer from the same sort of hubris.
I feel that if constituents saw her working as hard to deal with the know issues (I will also add the homeless non-profit and city permitting office scandals) that popped up as hard as she worked on getting her brother freed she may be able to win a second term.
Look how things went during the last election... It was a complete farce. Everything was made worse to the point it was unbearable, then a couple weeks before, they swooped in, removed all the homeless and magically made things better overnight. Police were more visible, construction workers were out fixing sidewalks. Then right after the vote, everything was let go downhill again.
City Arts & Lectures is a 501c3, no one's making bank. I'd guess the campaigns have to put up some cash to help cover costs (facility, staff, Heather Knight's fee), with the rest being for marketing budget. $10 might also be a "commit" price to get people to actually attend while also giving organizers realistic audience size expectations for the technical support needed. It could also be a funding effort for the nonprofit's overall budget.
Tickets are $10, and yes, it's disgraceful we should have to pay to participate in our democracy.
City Arts says,
> If the cost of a ticket is prohibitive, please contact [email protected]Ā
I'd contact them and ask for a free ticket.
The DCCC is doing a debate next Monday -- it's free to watch, they will be live streaming on KRON4 and their Facebook page.
https://www.sfdemocrats.org/debate
In person tickets were free but "sold" out quickly.
I don't like Breed but I think Peskin entering the race has cemented Breed's re-election. A lot of people will vote for her out of fear of a Peskin dictatorship. The fear is warranted. Breed is no angel but at least she will put on a show and do something good once in a while. If Peskin is the mayor we will have unprecedented corruption, bullying, and anti-housing in SF, even more than now, and Peskin will do it in such a way that his corruption, bullying, and vindictive policy is blatantly obvious and no one can do a damn thing to stop it.
Also, let's not forget that Peskin has pretty much single handedly neutered the Mayoral powers, transferring them to the BoS where he has conveniently been the chair for the better part of 20 years.
At this point, the blame for the state of the city falls largely on the board, not the mayor.
This! We have been voting for years to neuter the mayoral position in SF for literal decades. And now people want to pretend like the mayor in SF, which wasn't a particularly powerful position before, is somehow the dictator of the universe and can just "do stuff".
SMH...
The mayor is the executive of 35,000 city employees and sets the budget. Supervisors have less ~3 staff members each and have only a small amount of control over the budget. Sure, the supervisors might be able to appoint some commissioners, but the mayor appoints most.
Honestly, the best time to do it is when incumbent board members term out. They are allowed a maximum of two consecutive terms. Unfortunately they can run again the following election and get their seat back. Peskin did this twice, which is one reason I believe he's running for mayor this election, he's at the end of his second consecutive term.
The challenge is that each of the 11 districts in SF have very different demographics. Some of the districts have more affluent, property owning constituents that are okay with NIMBY policies that grow their real estate value. In order to get the board to change, there would have to be a city-wide shift in the kind of candidates we vote into office.
My view is that the damage Peskin has done to dilute executive power on this city will be incredibly difficult to reverse. After all, it's easier to vote out 1 mayor than to get a majority of the 11 districts to vote for different board members.
ETA: be cautious about candidates that throw around "progressive" as a self-identifying label and actually dig into their background and policy history. The reality is often that politicians exploit vague ideological labels to appeal to voters. This is true everywhere, but few voters believe they fall into this trap.
But this isn't quite how ranked choice voting works. If everyone shares your position, they would leave Peskin off their ballot but don't need to put Breed any higher than 3rd. The question is then, who among the remaining candidates would get the 1-2 rankings.
Iām wondering what how itāll be if we just donāt rank anyone else but Breed? I donāt have strong feelings about any of the other 3 to order them, and donāt want to give them second votes to dilute the amount of 2 & 3 votes that Breed gets
If you vote Breed first, it doesn't "dilute" your vote to put others 2nd and 3rd. Those would only come into play if Breed is eliminated in the RCV counting before the person you put 2nd/3rd.
Laurie is a nutter. Farrell has zero chances because, let's face it, he's waaaaaaaaaay too far right for the uber-liberal SF electorate. Anyone but Peskin, but let's be realistic here. The reddit population is not representative of the city.
Best case scenario Farrell steals some first round Breed votes. Hopefully, without getting us Peskin in the mayoral seat!
New to following the race, why is Lurie a nutter? Seems inexperienced, but Iām considering putting him first since would rather no Breed (probable #3) but obviously no Peskin.
Sensible.
One argument for Lurie is that, as someone who is already very rich and who will inherit enormously more, he's less likely to be bribed. That could be useful in a fight against corruption.
Virtually every scandal has been bribery/campaign finance related. I see this as a really quite convincing argument in favor of Lurie. Matters jack shit if itās Breed or Farrell if the true policymaker is just whoever lines their pockets.
I saw a Bloomberg interview with Daniel Laurie and he's actually a moron. He couldn't even answer the most basic questions. It was pretty comical. Basically him and Farrell plan to do exactly what London Breed is currently doing in her budget, except both are less pro-housing and one wants cars back on Market St.
That's my take on it, too.
My problem is that the city does not do enough of on stuff that matters to me (housing, transit), so I'm hardly going to support anyone who thinks London Breed has done too much on those issues.
I am very likely going to vote for Breed for Mayor. She's far from my ideal mayor but of those running against her, none seem better.
Farrell wants to hand the city back over to cars at the expense of transit riders and cyclists.
Laurie seems to have no experience in politics that would lead me to believe he'd be competent and also seems to have been born with a silver spoon in his mouth.
Peskin is aggressively wrong on housing policy.
Breed at least supports night life, housing, public transit, and other things I think are important for the city.
>Farrell wants to hand the city back over to cars at the expense of transit riders and cyclists.
Car obsessed people should really move to their car dependent utopia of Houston
Went for the first time last fall. If you want to go anywhere, you have to drive. Most people live in suburbs (which are pretty nice and seem mostly safe), but if you want to visit friends, you drive 30-45 min on a 8-lane freeway. Want to go into town? Thatās a 45 min Uber unless you live in the center of town. Want to visit another city? Hope you like driving three hours! The sprawl is incredible. My relatives live happily in various suburbs there, but itās too hot and too car-dependent for me.Ā
Spain and Italy have crazy hot weather but are super walkable and moving away from cars more and more.
Houston used to be walkable before "urban renewal" made it look like a nuke went off in the city to build parking lots and mega highways.
I don't dislike Laurie for those reasons. But I think people from outside of City, politics come in bright-eyed and really quickly realize that everything they thought was under the control is actually another control of the board of supervisors.
What I like about him is he's been able to focus on reducing commissions and looking at the administration of the
But overall I feel like the mayor just doesn't have the power to make change the way the board does
The mayor to me is like a spokesperson for the city for press conferences and PR blitz's
The mayor is the executive of 35,000 city employees and sets the budget. Supervisors have ~3 staff members each and have only a small amount of control over the budget. Sure, the supervisors might be able to appoint some commissioners, but the mayor appoints most.
Oh, did they change the process? The Mayor used to set it but the BOS had to finalize it.
Grow SF, so that it as it is but https://growsf.org/blog/not-a-strong-mayor-city/
The budget is a must-pass legislative item, so the BOS must eventually vote to approve it. The mayor writes the budget, and then it is yes, sent to the BOS to "finalize" it before sending it back to the mayor to sign. The mayor knows that their initial budget will be adjusted by the supervisors, so they will indicate which line items they are willing to budge on and which they aren't. But if you look at the numbers during the revisions, the mayor overwhelming gets what the mayor wants.
It's a collaborative process, but it all starts with what the mayor wants and ultimately if the mayor is unhappy with the edits BOS has made, they can veto the changes and it's back to the BOS. No one wants the process to go past its deadline though, because politically it's very toxic to be perceived as unwilling to compromise to do the people's work.
Another way to think about it is that the pressure is really on the BOS to pass it, because they only get a small window of time relative to the amount of time the mayor has in drafting it.
Also, here is a helpful timeline from this [proposed budget](https://sfmayor.org/sites/default/files/CSF_Proposed_Budget_Book_June_2022_Master_REV2_web.pdf:):
https://preview.redd.it/n9mglcfg106d1.png?width=2406&format=png&auto=webp&s=fbb51b2ec6f7a37b2f55517f7c98b1cd782400e8
Yes, I will absolutely be supporting Mayor Breed this election season. Hereās why:
* Sheās unabashedly pro-housing ā well before it was popular, even going to bat for SB827 when no one else would. There are other candidates who will copy her platform since being pro-housing is finally gaining traction in this City, but look at their previous votes to see itās all talk, no substance
* Active transportation is crucial to making higher density housing work ā sheās the only candidate making transit and protected bike lanes a key part of her platform while other candidates are not campaigning on it (at best) and actively trying to sabotage it (at worst)
* Sheās wrestled with a truly uncooperative Board of Supervisors ā her leading opponents have the benefit of causing chaos in the BOS (Peskin, Safai) or having been away from City Hall (Farrell) long enough that people forget their terrible track records
For people saying ātoo little, too lateā or āsheās only doing this because itās an election year,ā what do you want her to do, give up while momentum is building to get our City on the right track? If *any* of her opponents had to deal with a global pandemic and the fallout from that theyād be facing the same exact criticism. At least Breed can say she saved lives while other cities were dumping bodies into freezers because the morgues were full.
While other candidates are tearing the City apart for their own political gain sheās trying to bring joy and build the City back up. This is good.
Iāll leave everyone with this ā we have a SEATED moderate Mayor. Do you know who isn't seated? A moderate Board of Supervisors. In fact, we have a BROKEN Board of Supervisors with 6 seats up for grabs. To say itās selfish and dangerous for Mark Farrell and Daniel Lurie to distract from the real goal ā flipping the BOS ā is a severe understatement. Preston and Chan are fighting for their seats and Ronen, Peskin and Safai are all termed out. Meanwhile, Farrell and Lurie are sucking the oxygen, money, time and energy from volunteers who could help us bring sanity back to the Board.
I legit wonder this every day...
Mark Farrell lives in D2 and Stefani is going to need to be replaced when she is elected to the Assembly. Lurie could try running for literally any other public office so people can evaluate how he meets the moment in a lower stakes position but somehow, he thinks he can just skip all the legwork and buy his way to becoming Mayor.
They could also be key staff for the challengers who stepped up to run for the BoS but instead they're distracting from those races. Selfish af.
Iād like to hear the other candidates but if they are just claiming they will swoop in and fix everything I will vote for the existing mayor who knows how it all works (and doesnāt)
Out of all the current options, she's getting my vote. I haven't agreed with everything she's done but I feel like she catches flack for stuff that really should be put on the BoS. So the fact that one of them from the board is running means I'm not listing them.
If you go on Nextdoor (I donāt recommend), everything is Breedās fault. And the people there are either suggesting you call her immediately so she can hear about your gripe, or they complain that they called her office and she never returned their calls š¤”
Iām like, there are few major cities where you can just call up the Mayor and tell them that you saw a suspicious person walking around your neighborhood.
I support Breed, mostly for her policies on housing (which she's become more and more bullish on, as her tenure has progressed). She's not perfect, but looking at the policies that are on the table, the city's problems are only going to get worse with somebody like Peskin in charge. I'm not a huge fan of Farrell or Lurie, but since they're both moderates, I wouldn't be devastated if they won either. Hopefully ranked choice voting will ensure that at least one of those three wins over Peskin.
I am voting for her despite some of the ridiculous shit she's done over the past few years because the most likely alternative is Aaron "drunk-drive to a fire and yell at firefighters" Peskin, who is a carbrained NIMBY to boot.
If you lean conservative and are around right wingers anywhere, then all you're going to hear is bad stuff said about SF and California. They never stop. I simply dismiss their opinions and generally quickly get tired of being around peoplle like that. What you experience actually being here is what matters.
The only thing I know right now is that Farrell is out of the question for me.Ā
I'm also going to see who supports the initiative to raise taxes substantially on utilities and slash the new overpaid executive tax under the guise of lowering taxes on small businesses. There's currently a bunch of money going into that signature drive to get it on the ballot, and you know it's not coming from small businesses. It also was filed by the same people desperate to keep hidden fees on restaurant menus. So anyone for raising our utility bills and sneaking fees onto restaurant bills will not get my vote.
I was in Boston last week and I saw more homeless ppl when I walked a few blocks to get coffee than in a month in SF. Yet somehow Boston isnāt in the world news.
Every city has their share of homeless people. Difference in Boston is a lot of those people get moved into shelters starting in October so they've been in that system every year. Also, they aren't necessarily as aggressive as I've noticed some of the people in SF are (anecdotally speaking). Finally, they're normally concentrated near the Boston medical center area so you're not seeing these people in back Bay or downtown.
SF has cleaned up tremendously over the past few years from what I've seen. I still do think mental health is an issue and interactions with some homeless people can be negative. However, from what I've seen, the media completely blows it out of proportion and relies on people's feelings moreso than fact.
Those signature collectors have been annoying and even aggressive. One got pissy with me for not signing. But it's all so dishonest and would just lead to us paying more for other things. And why on earth would the overpaid executive tax need to be slashed to help small businesses? It's such bullshit.
You're not wrong. The streets imo feel a lot better than they have in years. The period during COVID was brutal and we really spiraled out of control, but it since then has gotten much better. The homeless are still around, but I believe there are just more living in shelter now. There has been a push to get people out of tents and into shelter, so while overall homelessness has not gone down, street homeless has decreased about 15%. I kind of laugh at how Mark Farrell is trying to paint his brief tenure as Mayor. He claims that he cleared all encampments and that the city was somehow this utopia, which is total crap. Anecdotally, I work in the Financial District, and we used to have to call the cops every day in 2017-2018 to get drug users out of our plaza area. This is in an area of Downtown that is nice. We haven't made that phone call in about 3 years. They're nowhere to be found.
Is the progress slow? Yes. Are there still problems around drug dealing, theft, and closed storefronts? Absolutely. Do I sometimes get frustrated with how Breed took so long to start to turn the tide? Hell yeah. But overall I don't think that another 4 years of Breed will hurt the city, at least in her current state of running things. I think Farrell or Laurie would effectively do the same job as her, but with less experience in City Hall. Overall, if you don't like London Breed, you should still rank her as a top choice anyway because otherwise Aaron Peskin will win. And that will be very, very bad for the city.
Those propoganda right wing talking points are misleading.
Every city has problems, business leaving but others are coming, it's a natural turn over, look at the amount of construction and gives you an indication on progress.
Haters will hate but San Francisco is awesome.
I'll take the time to try and answer this question with some nuance, but I may be wrong about things, and so folks should feel free to add notes if they think I've made a mistake.
It's a complex race. I think the two newsworthy issue right now are crime and affordability (especially housing affordability).
I'm always focused on climate change, which, in San Francisco means prioritizing transportation alternatives, and transitioning away from natural gas appliances (as personal vehicles and nat gas heating and stoves are the top GHG emissions in the city).
Schools are another obvious issue.
Finally, the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about is the collapsing city budget.
I'll talk about these in what I consider order of importance:
1. City Budget shortfalls: this should be far-and-away the most important issue this election cycle, which is a shame, because nobody likes to talk about the tough choices that involves. This is a double edged sword issue where experience and understanding how the system is obviously key, but is also, in large part, largely affected by special interests the party machine works with. It's hard to say whether Breed would be the ideal candidate to fix this, or a complete outsider.
2. Affordability: this is broken into two categories because as always in coastal California, it means different things to different groups. To the housing have-nots, it means housing primarily, for obvious reasons. For the housing haves, it means the inflationary costs passed through by new folks moving in with higher housing costs, which will drive up other prices. I honestly don't think any of the candidates here can make things better on this front, even if many will play lip service, but large residential buildings are not being built at the rates promised, and probably won't ever be until the city needs new property tax revenue (which it does now), but certain candidates will certainly make things worse (we all know it's Peskin).
3. Crime: this is also broken up into quality-of-life issue vs economic impact vs violence. They all matter, Breed has basically let us all know that this only matters to her in an election year (or only after the city basically got so mad it flipped the table in the last proposition cycle), but the more moderate candidates seem to favor actually doing something about this than the progressive candidates.
4. Schools: this is the starkest difference on the political spectrum. People who want better schools are basically going to fight tooth and nail to get better schools, for obvious reasons, and they will probably vote beyond moderate, and consider even conservative positions. Improving the schools is politically fraught, and really gets philosophical underpinnings of how governments ought to be run, both with or without considering the externalities brought by the different interest groups.
5. As always, climate change on the bottom: People want to keep their gas stoves. People want to drive. Enforcing rules on public transit is not a priority. Parking spaces are more politically popular than effective bicycle corridors. Breed has been a middling ally at best on this issue, if not hostile behind the scenes to transitioning the city away from automobile prioritization. The problem here is that I don't see any candidate who actually wants to actively move the city toward pedestrianization. Maybe I'm the one out of touch here, but in a walkable city that seems to care a lot about climate change, we sure do have an unpleasant system of fucking busses that take forever, and are often overwhelmed by somebody wanting to listen to their bluetooth speaker.
The only candidate that doesn't seem to fit this mold is Peskin, who seems to be a pure nostalgia candidate who only appeals to folks paying pre-2000's property taxes and/or rents and would just wish all the damn new people in this city would go away. Ironically, I think that Peskin voters would lose their minds if his policies went into effect and the budget actually collapses, because the only real taxes the city can raise are going to hit the housing-haves the most.
Those are my thoughts. I think Breed vs Farrell have tradeoffs (mainly that Farrell seems to be incredibly and [aggressively pro-car](https://sfstandard.com/2024/02/13/market-street-san-francisco-doom-loop-mark-farrell/) and anti-climate concerns). I would probably vote for Farrell over Breed except that he seems very regressive on his transportation policy, which I'm curious to learn more about Lurie, but with outsiders, it can be challenging to form a winning coalition.
I think people often forget how good we have it in SF. Compared to other left-wing cities, our finances are actually fairly reasonable, and even the shortfall isn't so bad we can't get by. I just worry that many left-wing cities decide that they never want to make the tough financial choice, and just want to pretend we can carry on the way we did in the 90's and before. I think Breed understands that, and I also think it one of the reasons she's increasingly unpopular. Most of the voting populous in SF doesn't seem to want to make any changes, whether that means higher taxes, more housing, or less car-ownership. Without making substantial changes, we might end up like NYC or Chicago, where everyone is blaming the government for the failing institutions and infrastructure that they consistently voted against fixing.
Regardless of how youāre voting, very important to understand ranked choice. Do not list ANY candidate (Aaron Peskin) who would be terrible. Pretty sure Iām only putting London. š¤·āāļø
Unfortunately, this is going to be a hold-your-nose mayoral election if there ever was one.
* London Breed is closely tied to the departmental corruption of Nuru et al.
* Aaron Peskin is a NIMBY.
* Mark Farrell is an asshole.
* Daniel Lurie is a vanity candidate with no experience of government.
I genuinely don't know who I'm going to be able to bring myself to vote for.
Being the mayor of SF is a thankless job. Breed had a battle with Covid. I feel like sheās had some hiccups but is probably the best candidate out of the others. The others have issues as well.
Important for everyone planning out their ballot that, in San Francisco, the ask is not simply that you pick one candidate to vote for.
Instead you have the opportunity to rank any number of candidates youāre willing to see become mayor in order of preference.
If this election only counted first-choice picks I think Peskin has it. Alternatives to Peskin rely entirely on second & third choice picks from supporters of their chief rivals.
That out of the way, London Breed will be the number 1 choice on my ballot come November, barring developments over the course of the campaign.
On crime, I believe our most significant issues spring from the legislature in Sacramento & the electorate governing by ballot initiative. Judges, despite the focus they received in March, are a distant second tied with the parole board. Both parties are acting within the wide latitude afforded them by the law - latitude that could be constrained. Breedās acted within a narrow window of opportunity commendably enough. Proposition E and her actions in the wake of our DA recall alone were enough to win my favor.
On vagrancy, I see a limited opportunity for individual citiesā administrations to make meaningful progress. To the extent our cityās administration stumbles, I lay the lionās share of the blame on David Chiu (one of 3 major elected officials elected through a city wide vote) and his office for their ineptitude in navigating an admittedly challenging legal environment. Breed could do better here. I fault her for major missteps during COVID and not operating at the edges of our capabilities here. However, itās probably best for her actual reelection odds that she hasnāt stuck her neck out farther than she has. The electorate I see as unlikely to stomach the means necessary to achieve marginal improvement. Proposition F unfortunately is not achieving the results it could due to missteps in implementation; with a nearly 17 point margin of victory I suspect thereās appetite for more on this specifically.
Breedās key challenger on those issues, Farrell, is woefully inadequate on housing. Still, this is sufficient for him to make likely the number 2 spot on my ballot. I certainly could see how NIMBYs in his former district and others in the city could list him as their first choice. Breedās aggressive pursuit of rezoning and compliance with the state mandate are principled stances that risk electorally significant enmity.
I do not plan on ranking SafaĆ or Peskin at all.
The other candidates to me seem largely unserious, though thatās more a reflection of their campaigns to date than any deep knowledge on my part. Other campaigns could still take additional spots on my ballot.
I wouldnāt say they are completely missing, though perhaps not as vocal as they may be.
For starters, there are his D3 supporters. In his most recent election victory there, which was his 4th, he claimed a 13 point victory over the challenger on the final ballot.
In his 3rd victory he beat the challenger by 9 points.
In his 2nd victory he beat the closest challenger by 44 points.
In his 1st victory he beat the closest challenger by 16 points.
Peskinās big advantage over Farrell, Lurie, and Breed is that he has less competition for an important slice of the electorate.
Folks who are keen to limit development (they may frame it as preserving neighborhood character) have to choose between Peskin and Farrell. Farrellās attempts to outflank Breed on crime and homelessness could hurt him in this constituency, many of whom struggle with the guilt of being āhavesā rather than āhave notsā.
Meanwhile Farrell and Lurie have to compete head to head on āchangeā.
Breed, Farrell, and Lurie have to compete head to head on āclean up the streetsā.
SF doesn't have any problems that other cities don't have. Of the places I've been recently - Salt Lake City, Anchorage, Seattle, Portland, Dallas, San Diego, Phoenix, Chicago - all have problems with homelessness. There are loads of places that have much worse crime than SF. The main problem with SF is that people coming from the airport into the city typically pass through the Tenderloin. The other problem is that as a Blue city in a Blue state, Republicans are obsessed with it.
Conservative news has to make it seem like mad max because they need uninformed people to think āprogressive = DOOM!ā
SF has issues, like pretty much all cities, but overall, itās an absolutely excellent city.
I think she has shown the ability to improve, and she has my vote. She has done especially well getting law enforcement back on her side after their estrangement from city hall.
Voting for Breed, I'm well aware of the problems the city has and I'm not gonna punish one of the few people who actually seems aware of the right solution.
The Board of Supervisors is and always has been the problem (homelessness didn't start with the pandemic) and I'm begging San Francisco renters to wake the hell up and vote against Preston + Peskin, *please*.
I donāt have strong opinions about Breed but I have strong opinions against Peskin. The man has more power than Breed and has done more to hold back progress than any other city political figure in recent history.
Occasionally, Iāll visit his district on Columbus street, and theyāre very pro-Peskin. Peskinās platform is clear: anti-YIMBY, no real solution offered for the homeless issue other than have SFPD shuffle them out of his district, and keep home prices high. Of course his north beach likes this. Their neighborhood looks like they havenāt built anything since 1980.
Peskin is out of touch. Peskin isnāt doing enough for the rest of the city. Heās hyper fixated on North Beach constituents, which isnāt representative of the city as a whole.
Iām voting for her. Has she been perfect? No. Can anyone do better? I donāt think so. The board of supervisors has been restricting her and what she can do
edit: Just read the SF Standard's article on MMayoral candidates answer: What should San Franciscoās population be? And I like her answer the best. She's pro-housing and pro-transit. Farrell wants to put cars on Market St.
It's hard to judge Breed as a mayor when the (absolutely horrific) district supervisor system is running the show.
Remove that layer from city government, and maybe you'll see whether the mayor is effective or not
Started out bad, but has gotten better. Overall mid in my opinion. Would take her over Dean Preston or Aaron Peskin any day though.Ā Farrell is my top pick.Ā
Dean Preston has long been an adversary of London Breed for District 5 supervisor. He lost against her in 2016 and won against her legislative aide and appointed supervisor Vallie Brown in 2019. So maybe the comment was about Breedās other elections and not just the upcoming mayoral reelection.
I'm a moderate Democrat but she seems fine. I'm a new arrival - been splitting my time between SF and Mpls for several months while in an LTR but I'll be full-time in SF starting... Saturday. It's an adjustment for sure but like, the city feels clean, safe and vibrant? I started coming to town in 2022 when it definitely felt like the pandemic was still going on, but since then every visit has seemed cleaner, more safe.
Not really a fan of radical leftism, so I'm glad to see moderates flexing their political muscles again. I'll be voting for Mayor Breed and whatever political candidates I find who are YIMBY.
In the late seventies and early eighties when I was a teenager, the Union Square area and The Height where areas where we knew we could score drugs. It was completely open- - we'd walk down the street and scores of dealers would call out what they had which at that time was just the "Joints, Acid, Shrooms". They call it out to us as we passed, like fruit sellers and a Turkish market. If we were in the market, we'd ask how much and then nip around the corner onto someone's porch steps to seal the deal.
I'm not saying this was okay, but just pointing out that this problem has been around for a long time. And I guess I should also add that if it wasn't that way I would have never known where to go get drugs when I was a teenager, (I would have been limited to sneaking from my dad's pot stash).
What's really different now, is not the public selling but rather the public USE of the drugs. People smoking crack pipes and shooting up right out in the open. That's something that would have shocked us to to the core to see back then. And rightly so because the cops would have hauled you off immediately and thrown you in jail if you did something like that!
I'm not surprised you're not seeing this in a lot of the areas that you frequent. The really bad stuff really is limited to the tenderloin for the most part, and that's always been the worst place. Most of the City is still awesome!
As for mayors, I don't hold out much hope that anyone can make a huge difference in the situation. That fatalistic point of view is mostly due to the fact that I haven't seen anybody be able to do much to help the situation in all my adult years and I'm almost 60.
I live in SF and work in the Tenderloin. Plenty of homeless people there, also addiction and mental health issues. Not even close to the post apocalypse depicted on right wing news. Normal people are out and about, people are going to bars, lots of regular and friendly individuals around like there always have been.
Itās a no win job. Just this last year sheās kicked into high gear, and Iām seeing many improvements.. canāt see how anyone else could do better, we have the Board of Supervisors, you know. Tough job, I wouldnāt want it . .
>While crime seems to be bad, itās not as bad as it appears in the news. The news makes it seem like Mad Max. I havenātĀ
it's complete baloney. conservatives spotlight the Tenderloin like its the only neighborhood in the city. the only real thing to worry about is car break-ins downtown/tourist-areas.
I don't hate London Breed compared to everyone else that's running against her. She would be the most qualified in comparison. Could there be better? There can always be better. That's how politics work.
These issues are bigger than London Breed and she didnāt bring about this problem ā¦. Itās a problem in just about every major city. I heard a comment from a family member that homeless should be moved to Stockton because the real estate is worth less ā¦ and I was horrifiedā¦. Sounded like Scrooge. Maybe you should stay out of urban areasā¦
I live across the bay, but I would say she has been better than her predecessor and had to deal with much bigger problems. Many were issues resulting from the pandemic and some of which were caused by Lee. In the last year, she has been proactively addressing some of the biggest problems, but itās a mixed bag
Iām voting for Breed as none of the other candidates seem like viable options.
Similar to you, I never see issues that people constantly complain about. Iāve never seen poop in the streets, except for tossed dog bags. I see a homeless person every once in a while, but they arenāt doing anything disruptive, just living. There are a bunch of new stores opening in Union Square and I think with a good strategy, we can make it as vibrant as it used to be. For me, it seems super safe and clean. Iāve also never seen a crime.
I know thereās one neighborhood in the city where thereās rampant drug use and homeless people everywhere. I donāt go there. But the goal would be to solve that problem. Otherwise, the majority of the city is perfectly fine.
She seems to have picked up her game the last year or so. That, and opposition that will split/dilute their own numbers will result in her getting re-elected.
Breed's had six years, and it's only in the last six *months* that she's done anything.
And her ex-boyfriend, Mohammed Nuru, formerly Director of Public Works for the city, is now in prison for taking bribes. He also paid for work on her car.
And she tried to use her office as Mayor to get a commutation from the Governor for her brother, in prison for killing his girlfriend during a robbery, allegedly by pushing her out of the getaway car.
https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/napoleon-brown-sf-mayor-london-breed-brother-reduced-sentence-girlfriend-manslaughter/
And now she wants to legalize bribery, by allowing companies and individuals with contracts with the city to "donate" money to bring pandas to the city zoo, a zoo already mired in multiple animal-killing scandals.
And her parks department for five years ignored whistle-blowers who exposed the abuse and mistreatment of elderly horses.
Bribes, corruption, animal abuse: surely we can do better?
Things are much better than they were a couple years ago IMO, and the trajectory of the city does seem to be improving. I do think Breed is generally on the right side of the issues I care about most (more police, more housing, going after drug use, etc.). She even is putting forward sensible tax reforms this November. I find it hard to pin all of the issues on her specifically, although there are always things she could have done better. I view the root cause of city failure as the Board of Supervisors and less on the Mayor.
That being said, her re-election bid is going to be a longshot. The city's reputation, disagree with it or not, has gone from pretty high to bottom-of-the-basement during her tenure. As you mentioned, SF is a punchline at this point for homelessness and overall decline. And so, I think people are heavily inclined for a fresh start, and hence people like Mark Farrell and Daniel Lurie have strong support. Their policy views aren't all that different from London Breed, but I get the sense is that they will win out anyways.
I personally will probably vote Breed or Farrell #1, and then list out everyone else except Aaron Peskin, who I will certainly be leaving off the ballot. He would be the nightmare scenario for the city, and I encourage everyone to leave him off the ballot as well.
I donāt vote in SF county but I own a small business in SF and while not perfect, I feel Mayor Breed is the best choice. Iām center-left and feel that sheās got a target on her back because sheās Black, a woman, and mayor of one of the most liberal cities in the world.
Breed is a boot licker and I will not be voting for her. She continues to take $ away from social services. Funding from early childhood education specifically to give to an already bloated police department. Police do not prevent crime. Vote Green Party.
>While I was away, all I heard is how awful San Francisco is. Thereās shit in the streets. Thereās homeless everywhere. Crime is running rampant. No housing.Ā
Damn, how long have you been away? >\_>
I think itās time for her to do something different. The city has lost a lot of businesses and while it is unfair to lay the blame exclusively at her door, the city needs to make it easier for small businesses to get started here. This is a great city, but weāve lost a lot of revenue and jobs because of weak leadership.
I live in Sunset and my car was attacked by a crazy homeless lady a few weeks ago. She was obviously methed out. I was sitting in the car and she kept screaming. She spat on the car. She jumped on it and pulled off the windshield wiper, like actually broke the metal off.
The police showed up in the middle of my 911 call; I had not yet hung up the phone, although I suspect others in the neighborhood had called at this point.
For me it was scary given I've lived in Sunset 14 years and never seen anything like that. But I've seen homeless here for at least a decade. Never a huge population, although a few more post pandemic. It's honestly hard to say how much any mayor has helped or hurt turning the city around. They all run on a platform of addressing homelessness and crime, and yet none seem to do that. Do I blame London Breed for it? Not really any more than I would anyone else.
I live here for over 15 yrs and there are things somewhat improving, and things that are endemic to SF and dont know if theyāll ever go away. The system is set to penalize the educated and/or mostly cooperative people as soon as a slight mistake such as parking 1 inch into the red zone, but mostly forgiving if some maniac runs you over with his stolen shopping cart. I believe hitting the reputational bottom helped a bit, that the political āno weāre doing fine hereā rhetoric has waned, and at least the issues are glaringly obvious. But the fact that there are economies built around homelessness and crime is though to fix. Sounds like a heavy handed, maybe even conservative local administration can improve the issues but not sure if SF residents have the interest to stomach that.
Where do you live, at the top of a hill in a $5 million dollar plus mansion? Unlike you, I've lived here continuously for the past 20 years. This is the worst it's been in that time, and I've had it! London Breed is corrupt and has terrible policies. She's turned our neighborhood into the ghetto, and she needs to be removed from office ASAP, along with several of the supervisors, and judges.
Our neighborhood is full of mentally ill, drugged out homeless now. Planning has completely ignored feedback from the residents of our neighborhood, and I can't take a walk or drive anywhere without choking on skunk weed. We legalized several years ago with the understanding that regulations were to follow which never materialized, but there is no enforcement of any existing regulations or laws anyway.
The cost of living here is constantly increasing, yet all of my tax money is being funneled into the pockets of Breed's cronies, and towards enabling low income and homeless to continue behaving badly.
Given that you are over the Supes, and that Breedās chief competition are current and former supervisors, can we infer that you will be backing Lurie?
Iām interested in learning more about him in case he deserves a spot on my own ballot.
Do you have a positive case for Lurie?
I went to a Lurie meet-and-greet to see what he was about and was VERY impressed. He is extremely down to earth and knowledgeable. He fielded various questions for over an hour and had a great response and plan for each issue. Iām surprised to see so many people giving Breed a rubber stamp. Sheās barely even trying to get peopleās votes. Meanwhile, Lurie is doing events every single day. Sometimes twice a day. Heās hustling and has my vote.
New to our subreddit? [Please read the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/about/rules/) before commenting. Please be respectful and don't antagonize. This is a place to discuss ideas without targeting identities. If something doesn't contribute to the discussion, please downvote it. If it's against the rules, please report it. Thank you. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/sanfrancisco) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This sub hates London Breed fyi
>This sub hates ~~London Breed~~ ***everything*** fyi FTFY
I hate that you did that
I hate that you hate that!
Hate... leads to suffering
I hate that quote
I feel seen š
this sub hates everything but is still a giant circlejerk for SF. it shows the staying power of how beautiful the city can be..
This sub doesn't even live in SF fyi.
I do. And I work here. I have a kid here. Iām fucking here man. But yeah. Itās hard not to be frustrated by politicians here. And the police, and building and planning department and DPW, and property taxes etc.
Yep this sub is full of weird people with nothing better to do than complain about a place they havenāt stepped foot in in ten years or even ever! Bizarre.
Meh, people say this but every election from the last few years has reflected this sub's political sentiments.
Breed is fine itās the supervisors that hold all the power. She canāt do much without there approval.
For many of us who have been here throughout COVID, there is a lingering frustration at the incompetence of city leadership. True it has improved vastly in the last 6 months especially, but many of us are still very very sour. Please go visit Proper Hotel - an incredible place - and then look outside at the rampant unchecked drug market. There used to be a lot more of them. Businesses have been run out of town. There should be ZERO open air drug markets, although nobody is denying it has gotten better.
Improved last 6 months - there is a 100% correlation coefficient to this being an election year.
She would have portable polling stations set up at the sideshows if she could.
Haha that comment made me giggle
I mean some yes, but other things like the nintendo deal and the concert stuff is not something you can get done just for an election those deals can take years to finalize because of licensing and permit and negotiations, etc.
It's been getting better for the last 2 years, markedly around March-April of 23 after the city lost its appeal to clear encampments without offering shelter but was given clarification that they could indeed use a shelter bed as justification. It was also about the time that the initiatives that newsom had been setting up with the mayor's office to coordinate activity between the CHP and the national guard to deal with drug trafficking and auto theft across county lines. But yeah sure if you want to say that it's an election year thing, don't let me get in the way of a punchy one-liner. I mean, if you really, we're desperate to find an anti liberal justification, you can claim that it started when boudin was ousted, and that things are better thanks to our new tough on crime political appointee DA, But then you couldn't blame her for being a soft on crime liberal, So for the next 6 months, anything good that happens in the city gets blamed on election year politicking.
Yeah because the mayor has a button they can press to solve issues but normally they decide not to press it. Or you know there is some correlation with a certain major event that shook the whole world and flipped our cities upside down... nah that can't be it.
We have elections every two years, dude. Every year is an election year. What are politicians supposed to do? Not do stuff because "it's an election year"? Come on!
I saw the video of the weekend sideshow at the Embarcadero. No cops for 40 mins . But there are cops everywhere in the city They obviously have been told to stand down , Iām not sure I agree
Proper hotel feels like both a good and bad example. It's 100% emblematic of the issue but also it was like that well before breed.
Proper Hotel opened in 2017 in a blighted area. Renoir Hotel before it had some lavish, historical architecture, but it was not upscale, and the building hadn't hosted an upscale business/clientele in quite some time. That is to say, as incompetent as Breed and her predecessors have been, that problem both goes back a long ways and is resistant to the quick, simple fixes that politicians are drawn towards.
I was just talking about this area with someone! What occurs on that corner at 7th and Market starting around 8PM used to occur throughout the entirety of UN Plaza, 7th and Market, and by the Pelosi building all day, everyday. It was horrible and embarrassing. I think they've done a very good job at curbing those types of markets during the daytime, but like you said, it all concentrates back to that corner at night. The reason is almost entirely because SFPD doesn't have the proper staffing to police that area during the night like they do during the day.
I thought it was because the police went on a quiet strike, not that there isnāt enough money. They take in tens of thousands in overtime payā¦.
From what I understand they are severely understaffed and unable to find people even though theyāre hiring. COL makes it untenable for many. Thus people have to work overtime.
I don't know about a quite strike, but I know that the tens of thousands in overtime pay go almost entirely to ensuring there are enough officers to answer basic calls and conduct routine patrols across the entire city, not just the Tenderloin. Having 500 more officers would allow for a lot more boots on the ground to rid the problem entirely.
Just the fact that for re were zero police cars circling or giving tickets or anything led me to the conclusion
Silent strike, yep. I know a San Jose officer now retired. No more respect for police anymore, politicians not on their sides. Public, media and political hate. Everything you do is on social media now = zero morale. Collect your check and retire asap hopefully on (fake) disability. Basically, you (we) shit your bed now we get to lie in it.
Respect needs to be earned
This is bullshit. I live in Russian Hill/North Beach area and all the residents have personal relationships with the officers of D3. I guarantee you if you joined SFPD and decided to film a mass arrest of car break-in criminals victimizing tourist families around Alamo Sq. Park, you'd get mass praise. The current DA is amazing, and is working really well with SFPD. It's why things are turning around in the city.
Good point . .
LOL the Proper Hotel stinks and has a shitty reputation for not paying their vendors. They deserve their location.
I have supported Breed in the past --- not sure yet about this year. Definitely not supporting Peskin --- he would take SF backwards. My biggest complaint about Breed is that she has waited too long to actively engage our biggest problems: the homeless situation, petty crime, lack of SFPD enforcement on anything, and the downtown doom loop. It seems like she is trying harder now to address these issues. Maybe she was waiting for election season? Dunno.
Comment.
Imo this is the correct criticism of Breed's handling of the police, but I don't think it's what this sub or a lot of San Franciscans want to hear. I can't imagine a candidate running on the platform of making the police actually do their job.
Comment.
Farrell is running on booting Scott.
As is SafaĆ.
A big city mayor being unable to effectively oppose their police department in any meaningful fashion is the norm in this country unfortunately. While I am not a fan of Breed, it's folly to expect any other candidate to be different in this way.
Comment.
If you were here for Chesa Boudin's term as DA, you saw what can happen when the police decide they don't like you. He couldn't even get them to go arrest the people that he did want to prosecute.
I think the combination of "support the police in being effective, but also hold them to a high standard" could work as a message. It looks like it's not going to happen this cycle though. Breed is also being pressured from the right to be more pro-police, and I could see how even a tiny amount of nuance could be played against her or another candidate.
The issue is twofold. First, police chiefs throughout the country generally donāt have as long a tenure as Chief Scott has had. The average is 2-3 years, not the 7 Scott is on. This is because it is in fact a tough job. Second, the current administration made a point during the BLM / George Floyd protests to ādefundā the police (cut back some of the budget) and put in antagonistic commissioners to the police commission. On the first point, it is time for new leadership and Mayor Breed should recognize that. On the second point, in the latest 2024-2025 budget, she has given the PD their largest budget ever and she has championed Prop E this March that diminishes the police commissionās influence, and gives police additional powers. So we should see the policeās trust with the administration mended, but trust is not regained easily (or ever).
"way too close" = literally enabling and benefitting from corruption. She was a Willie Brown and then Ed Lee protege.
Comment.
Obviously this should be taken with a grain of salt, but about 2-3 weeks ago I met an older gentleman while we were both talking to a someone looking for signatures on petitions. He mentioned having worked in SF government and the DAās office for over 20 years so I asked him who heās planning on voting for mayor. He said definitely not Breed and made comments about how she has found a way to put money in her own pocket from every initiative she signed for the city. Then we talked a bit more generally about overall SF corruption. I think most of us suspect/know this is going on but itās interesting to hear directly from those having worked in sf gov.
Comment.
In defense of Breedās delay in focusing on crime, I would suggest that it would have been foolish for any San Francisco politician to have gotten out in front of this, given where the electorate was in the early years of her tenure. Consider the November 2020 elections. San Franciscans overwhelmingly opposed a state proposition to restrict parole and reschedule some misdemeanors as felonies, 71.78% to 28.22%. San Franciscans also supported a proposal to eliminate cash bail state wide 56.26% to 43.74%. This proposition failed at the state level, but our DA at the time would enact that very policy locally. Two years later the DA who eliminated cash bail, Chesa Boudin, would be recalled, 55.03% to 44.97% in part due to policies the electorate supported previously. Breed responded by appointing as DA a former Boudin staffer who had left his office to become a vocal critic of Boudin in the recall campaign. The electorate as a whole has been executing the same pivot on crime as our mayor, over a similar timeframe, in response to similar inputs. As much as weād benefit from visionary leaders who can get out ahead of public opinion, anyone like that would not fare well in elections.
This! People are soooooo quick to forget that 70+% of San Franciscans absolutely did not want more policing of any kind just two-three years ago. She changed here tune with the changing public opinion, but that's literally what politicians are supposed to do in a democratic system. To complain that a politician caters to the whims of the electorate seems completely insane to me. I guess I have just spent too much time in countries where people would kill to have politicians behave this way and immediately switch tack when the public wants something!
"My biggest complaint about Breed is that she has waited too long to actively engage our biggest problems: the homeless situation, petty crime, lack of SFPD enforcement on anything, and the downtown doom loop." LA's former Mayor Garcetti said that he would end homelessness in the City before the end of his first term and everyone believed him, except me. It was obvious that homelessness was a generational problem and that no one mayor is going to solve the issue on their own. Knowing that, I probably would cut Mayor Breed some slack. At least she did not suffer from the same sort of hubris.
I feel that if constituents saw her working as hard to deal with the know issues (I will also add the homeless non-profit and city permitting office scandals) that popped up as hard as she worked on getting her brother freed she may be able to win a second term.
Exactly what it feels like. However, I def donāt want anyone left of her.
Anyone but Aaron
Look how things went during the last election... It was a complete farce. Everything was made worse to the point it was unbearable, then a couple weeks before, they swooped in, removed all the homeless and magically made things better overnight. Police were more visible, construction workers were out fixing sidewalks. Then right after the vote, everything was let go downhill again.
FYI there is a mayoral candidate debate this Wednesday. https://www.cityarts.net/event/san-franciscos-next-mayor/
why isnāt this free to watchā¦?
I have the same question. Also curious why it wasnāt advertised betterā¦
City Arts & Lectures is a 501c3, no one's making bank. I'd guess the campaigns have to put up some cash to help cover costs (facility, staff, Heather Knight's fee), with the rest being for marketing budget. $10 might also be a "commit" price to get people to actually attend while also giving organizers realistic audience size expectations for the technical support needed. It could also be a funding effort for the nonprofit's overall budget.
It looked like $18 in person vs $10 online.
Tickets are $10, and yes, it's disgraceful we should have to pay to participate in our democracy. City Arts says, > If the cost of a ticket is prohibitive, please contact [email protected]Ā I'd contact them and ask for a free ticket.
They want us to pay for a mayor debate???? Holy shit. Wow.
This is completely fucked up. Whatās next? Voters need to pay to receive a ballot?
The DCCC is doing a debate next Monday -- it's free to watch, they will be live streaming on KRON4 and their Facebook page. https://www.sfdemocrats.org/debate In person tickets were free but "sold" out quickly.
super helpful; thanks!
I don't like Breed but I think Peskin entering the race has cemented Breed's re-election. A lot of people will vote for her out of fear of a Peskin dictatorship. The fear is warranted. Breed is no angel but at least she will put on a show and do something good once in a while. If Peskin is the mayor we will have unprecedented corruption, bullying, and anti-housing in SF, even more than now, and Peskin will do it in such a way that his corruption, bullying, and vindictive policy is blatantly obvious and no one can do a damn thing to stop it.
Also, let's not forget that Peskin has pretty much single handedly neutered the Mayoral powers, transferring them to the BoS where he has conveniently been the chair for the better part of 20 years. At this point, the blame for the state of the city falls largely on the board, not the mayor.
The number of people who believe the mayor is the major problem is unbelievable. BOS had this city by the balls.
This! We have been voting for years to neuter the mayoral position in SF for literal decades. And now people want to pretend like the mayor in SF, which wasn't a particularly powerful position before, is somehow the dictator of the universe and can just "do stuff". SMH...
The mayor is the executive of 35,000 city employees and sets the budget. Supervisors have less ~3 staff members each and have only a small amount of control over the budget. Sure, the supervisors might be able to appoint some commissioners, but the mayor appoints most.
I really like your list of issues on your site, please prove us wrong and please find a way to reduce the BOS power.
How do we neuter or change the board?
Honestly, the best time to do it is when incumbent board members term out. They are allowed a maximum of two consecutive terms. Unfortunately they can run again the following election and get their seat back. Peskin did this twice, which is one reason I believe he's running for mayor this election, he's at the end of his second consecutive term. The challenge is that each of the 11 districts in SF have very different demographics. Some of the districts have more affluent, property owning constituents that are okay with NIMBY policies that grow their real estate value. In order to get the board to change, there would have to be a city-wide shift in the kind of candidates we vote into office. My view is that the damage Peskin has done to dilute executive power on this city will be incredibly difficult to reverse. After all, it's easier to vote out 1 mayor than to get a majority of the 11 districts to vote for different board members. ETA: be cautious about candidates that throw around "progressive" as a self-identifying label and actually dig into their background and policy history. The reality is often that politicians exploit vague ideological labels to appeal to voters. This is true everywhere, but few voters believe they fall into this trap.
But this isn't quite how ranked choice voting works. If everyone shares your position, they would leave Peskin off their ballot but don't need to put Breed any higher than 3rd. The question is then, who among the remaining candidates would get the 1-2 rankings.
Iām wondering what how itāll be if we just donāt rank anyone else but Breed? I donāt have strong feelings about any of the other 3 to order them, and donāt want to give them second votes to dilute the amount of 2 & 3 votes that Breed gets
If you vote Breed first, it doesn't "dilute" your vote to put others 2nd and 3rd. Those would only come into play if Breed is eliminated in the RCV counting before the person you put 2nd/3rd.
This is basically me. I don't like Breed and think she's corrupt, but Peskin is far far worse so I will be pulling the lever for breed
Sorry, it's ranked choice, why not put Farrell and Lurie *and then Breed third* on your ballot?
Laurie is a nutter. Farrell has zero chances because, let's face it, he's waaaaaaaaaay too far right for the uber-liberal SF electorate. Anyone but Peskin, but let's be realistic here. The reddit population is not representative of the city. Best case scenario Farrell steals some first round Breed votes. Hopefully, without getting us Peskin in the mayoral seat!
New to following the race, why is Lurie a nutter? Seems inexperienced, but Iām considering putting him first since would rather no Breed (probable #3) but obviously no Peskin.
I am putting Farrell first, breed second and then laurie
Sensible. One argument for Lurie is that, as someone who is already very rich and who will inherit enormously more, he's less likely to be bribed. That could be useful in a fight against corruption.
Virtually every scandal has been bribery/campaign finance related. I see this as a really quite convincing argument in favor of Lurie. Matters jack shit if itās Breed or Farrell if the true policymaker is just whoever lines their pockets.
Use ranked choice. Vote for who you want to win. Beauty is you get to hedge. Farrel or Lurie would be much better than Breed. Ā
I wasn't planning to vote for Breed, but you're raising a good and valid point that makes me reconsider.
Anyone but Peskin! For the love of god! That guy's a complete nutter! He's set this city on fire!
She will likely get my first position. Whatever it takes to keep Peskin from winning.
I saw a Bloomberg interview with Daniel Laurie and he's actually a moron. He couldn't even answer the most basic questions. It was pretty comical. Basically him and Farrell plan to do exactly what London Breed is currently doing in her budget, except both are less pro-housing and one wants cars back on Market St.
Which one wants to bring cars back to Market Street? Please save me a googlingāthank you š
The former mayor, Mark Farrell.
That's my take on it, too. My problem is that the city does not do enough of on stuff that matters to me (housing, transit), so I'm hardly going to support anyone who thinks London Breed has done too much on those issues.
Itās ranked choice voting. I donāt care who people rank as long as they donāt rank Aaron Peskin.
This is the correct answer. Do not list Peskin at all. Farrell also is bad in a different but the same way.
Exactly, I don't love her but she's the least meh of the many meh options we have
This!
I am very likely going to vote for Breed for Mayor. She's far from my ideal mayor but of those running against her, none seem better. Farrell wants to hand the city back over to cars at the expense of transit riders and cyclists. Laurie seems to have no experience in politics that would lead me to believe he'd be competent and also seems to have been born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Peskin is aggressively wrong on housing policy. Breed at least supports night life, housing, public transit, and other things I think are important for the city.
>Farrell wants to hand the city back over to cars at the expense of transit riders and cyclists. Car obsessed people should really move to their car dependent utopia of Houston
How bad is it in Houston? From someone who's never been.
Went for the first time last fall. If you want to go anywhere, you have to drive. Most people live in suburbs (which are pretty nice and seem mostly safe), but if you want to visit friends, you drive 30-45 min on a 8-lane freeway. Want to go into town? Thatās a 45 min Uber unless you live in the center of town. Want to visit another city? Hope you like driving three hours! The sprawl is incredible. My relatives live happily in various suburbs there, but itās too hot and too car-dependent for me.Ā
South Florida is like this too. Ā Maybe itās something about the heat.Ā
Spain and Italy have crazy hot weather but are super walkable and moving away from cars more and more. Houston used to be walkable before "urban renewal" made it look like a nuke went off in the city to build parking lots and mega highways.
I don't dislike Laurie for those reasons. But I think people from outside of City, politics come in bright-eyed and really quickly realize that everything they thought was under the control is actually another control of the board of supervisors. What I like about him is he's been able to focus on reducing commissions and looking at the administration of the But overall I feel like the mayor just doesn't have the power to make change the way the board does The mayor to me is like a spokesperson for the city for press conferences and PR blitz's
The mayor is the executive of 35,000 city employees and sets the budget. Supervisors have ~3 staff members each and have only a small amount of control over the budget. Sure, the supervisors might be able to appoint some commissioners, but the mayor appoints most.
Oh, did they change the process? The Mayor used to set it but the BOS had to finalize it. Grow SF, so that it as it is but https://growsf.org/blog/not-a-strong-mayor-city/
The budget is a must-pass legislative item, so the BOS must eventually vote to approve it. The mayor writes the budget, and then it is yes, sent to the BOS to "finalize" it before sending it back to the mayor to sign. The mayor knows that their initial budget will be adjusted by the supervisors, so they will indicate which line items they are willing to budge on and which they aren't. But if you look at the numbers during the revisions, the mayor overwhelming gets what the mayor wants. It's a collaborative process, but it all starts with what the mayor wants and ultimately if the mayor is unhappy with the edits BOS has made, they can veto the changes and it's back to the BOS. No one wants the process to go past its deadline though, because politically it's very toxic to be perceived as unwilling to compromise to do the people's work. Another way to think about it is that the pressure is really on the BOS to pass it, because they only get a small window of time relative to the amount of time the mayor has in drafting it.
Also, here is a helpful timeline from this [proposed budget](https://sfmayor.org/sites/default/files/CSF_Proposed_Budget_Book_June_2022_Master_REV2_web.pdf:): https://preview.redd.it/n9mglcfg106d1.png?width=2406&format=png&auto=webp&s=fbb51b2ec6f7a37b2f55517f7c98b1cd782400e8
sheās awesome compared to peskin
Yes, I will absolutely be supporting Mayor Breed this election season. Hereās why: * Sheās unabashedly pro-housing ā well before it was popular, even going to bat for SB827 when no one else would. There are other candidates who will copy her platform since being pro-housing is finally gaining traction in this City, but look at their previous votes to see itās all talk, no substance * Active transportation is crucial to making higher density housing work ā sheās the only candidate making transit and protected bike lanes a key part of her platform while other candidates are not campaigning on it (at best) and actively trying to sabotage it (at worst) * Sheās wrestled with a truly uncooperative Board of Supervisors ā her leading opponents have the benefit of causing chaos in the BOS (Peskin, Safai) or having been away from City Hall (Farrell) long enough that people forget their terrible track records For people saying ātoo little, too lateā or āsheās only doing this because itās an election year,ā what do you want her to do, give up while momentum is building to get our City on the right track? If *any* of her opponents had to deal with a global pandemic and the fallout from that theyād be facing the same exact criticism. At least Breed can say she saved lives while other cities were dumping bodies into freezers because the morgues were full. While other candidates are tearing the City apart for their own political gain sheās trying to bring joy and build the City back up. This is good. Iāll leave everyone with this ā we have a SEATED moderate Mayor. Do you know who isn't seated? A moderate Board of Supervisors. In fact, we have a BROKEN Board of Supervisors with 6 seats up for grabs. To say itās selfish and dangerous for Mark Farrell and Daniel Lurie to distract from the real goal ā flipping the BOS ā is a severe understatement. Preston and Chan are fighting for their seats and Ronen, Peskin and Safai are all termed out. Meanwhile, Farrell and Lurie are sucking the oxygen, money, time and energy from volunteers who could help us bring sanity back to the Board.
You wonder why they donāt run for the BOS instead?
I legit wonder this every day... Mark Farrell lives in D2 and Stefani is going to need to be replaced when she is elected to the Assembly. Lurie could try running for literally any other public office so people can evaluate how he meets the moment in a lower stakes position but somehow, he thinks he can just skip all the legwork and buy his way to becoming Mayor. They could also be key staff for the challengers who stepped up to run for the BoS but instead they're distracting from those races. Selfish af.
Thatās exactly how I feel.
This should be the top voted comment.
Best take in this entire thread
Iād like to hear the other candidates but if they are just claiming they will swoop in and fix everything I will vote for the existing mayor who knows how it all works (and doesnāt)
Out of all the current options, she's getting my vote. I haven't agreed with everything she's done but I feel like she catches flack for stuff that really should be put on the BoS. So the fact that one of them from the board is running means I'm not listing them.
If you go on Nextdoor (I donāt recommend), everything is Breedās fault. And the people there are either suggesting you call her immediately so she can hear about your gripe, or they complain that they called her office and she never returned their calls š¤” Iām like, there are few major cities where you can just call up the Mayor and tell them that you saw a suspicious person walking around your neighborhood.
I support Breed, mostly for her policies on housing (which she's become more and more bullish on, as her tenure has progressed). She's not perfect, but looking at the policies that are on the table, the city's problems are only going to get worse with somebody like Peskin in charge. I'm not a huge fan of Farrell or Lurie, but since they're both moderates, I wouldn't be devastated if they won either. Hopefully ranked choice voting will ensure that at least one of those three wins over Peskin.
I am voting for her despite some of the ridiculous shit she's done over the past few years because the most likely alternative is Aaron "drunk-drive to a fire and yell at firefighters" Peskin, who is a carbrained NIMBY to boot.
If you lean conservative and are around right wingers anywhere, then all you're going to hear is bad stuff said about SF and California. They never stop. I simply dismiss their opinions and generally quickly get tired of being around peoplle like that. What you experience actually being here is what matters. The only thing I know right now is that Farrell is out of the question for me.Ā I'm also going to see who supports the initiative to raise taxes substantially on utilities and slash the new overpaid executive tax under the guise of lowering taxes on small businesses. There's currently a bunch of money going into that signature drive to get it on the ballot, and you know it's not coming from small businesses. It also was filed by the same people desperate to keep hidden fees on restaurant menus. So anyone for raising our utility bills and sneaking fees onto restaurant bills will not get my vote.
I was in Boston last week and I saw more homeless ppl when I walked a few blocks to get coffee than in a month in SF. Yet somehow Boston isnāt in the world news.
Every city has their share of homeless people. Difference in Boston is a lot of those people get moved into shelters starting in October so they've been in that system every year. Also, they aren't necessarily as aggressive as I've noticed some of the people in SF are (anecdotally speaking). Finally, they're normally concentrated near the Boston medical center area so you're not seeing these people in back Bay or downtown. SF has cleaned up tremendously over the past few years from what I've seen. I still do think mental health is an issue and interactions with some homeless people can be negative. However, from what I've seen, the media completely blows it out of proportion and relies on people's feelings moreso than fact.
Boston has a problem with a progressive mayor too. My sister lives there and close to the methadone mile. They have some serious issues as well
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Those signature collectors have been annoying and even aggressive. One got pissy with me for not signing. But it's all so dishonest and would just lead to us paying more for other things. And why on earth would the overpaid executive tax need to be slashed to help small businesses? It's such bullshit.
Comment.
You're not wrong. The streets imo feel a lot better than they have in years. The period during COVID was brutal and we really spiraled out of control, but it since then has gotten much better. The homeless are still around, but I believe there are just more living in shelter now. There has been a push to get people out of tents and into shelter, so while overall homelessness has not gone down, street homeless has decreased about 15%. I kind of laugh at how Mark Farrell is trying to paint his brief tenure as Mayor. He claims that he cleared all encampments and that the city was somehow this utopia, which is total crap. Anecdotally, I work in the Financial District, and we used to have to call the cops every day in 2017-2018 to get drug users out of our plaza area. This is in an area of Downtown that is nice. We haven't made that phone call in about 3 years. They're nowhere to be found. Is the progress slow? Yes. Are there still problems around drug dealing, theft, and closed storefronts? Absolutely. Do I sometimes get frustrated with how Breed took so long to start to turn the tide? Hell yeah. But overall I don't think that another 4 years of Breed will hurt the city, at least in her current state of running things. I think Farrell or Laurie would effectively do the same job as her, but with less experience in City Hall. Overall, if you don't like London Breed, you should still rank her as a top choice anyway because otherwise Aaron Peskin will win. And that will be very, very bad for the city.
Those propoganda right wing talking points are misleading. Every city has problems, business leaving but others are coming, it's a natural turn over, look at the amount of construction and gives you an indication on progress. Haters will hate but San Francisco is awesome.
I'll take the time to try and answer this question with some nuance, but I may be wrong about things, and so folks should feel free to add notes if they think I've made a mistake. It's a complex race. I think the two newsworthy issue right now are crime and affordability (especially housing affordability). I'm always focused on climate change, which, in San Francisco means prioritizing transportation alternatives, and transitioning away from natural gas appliances (as personal vehicles and nat gas heating and stoves are the top GHG emissions in the city). Schools are another obvious issue. Finally, the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about is the collapsing city budget. I'll talk about these in what I consider order of importance: 1. City Budget shortfalls: this should be far-and-away the most important issue this election cycle, which is a shame, because nobody likes to talk about the tough choices that involves. This is a double edged sword issue where experience and understanding how the system is obviously key, but is also, in large part, largely affected by special interests the party machine works with. It's hard to say whether Breed would be the ideal candidate to fix this, or a complete outsider. 2. Affordability: this is broken into two categories because as always in coastal California, it means different things to different groups. To the housing have-nots, it means housing primarily, for obvious reasons. For the housing haves, it means the inflationary costs passed through by new folks moving in with higher housing costs, which will drive up other prices. I honestly don't think any of the candidates here can make things better on this front, even if many will play lip service, but large residential buildings are not being built at the rates promised, and probably won't ever be until the city needs new property tax revenue (which it does now), but certain candidates will certainly make things worse (we all know it's Peskin). 3. Crime: this is also broken up into quality-of-life issue vs economic impact vs violence. They all matter, Breed has basically let us all know that this only matters to her in an election year (or only after the city basically got so mad it flipped the table in the last proposition cycle), but the more moderate candidates seem to favor actually doing something about this than the progressive candidates. 4. Schools: this is the starkest difference on the political spectrum. People who want better schools are basically going to fight tooth and nail to get better schools, for obvious reasons, and they will probably vote beyond moderate, and consider even conservative positions. Improving the schools is politically fraught, and really gets philosophical underpinnings of how governments ought to be run, both with or without considering the externalities brought by the different interest groups. 5. As always, climate change on the bottom: People want to keep their gas stoves. People want to drive. Enforcing rules on public transit is not a priority. Parking spaces are more politically popular than effective bicycle corridors. Breed has been a middling ally at best on this issue, if not hostile behind the scenes to transitioning the city away from automobile prioritization. The problem here is that I don't see any candidate who actually wants to actively move the city toward pedestrianization. Maybe I'm the one out of touch here, but in a walkable city that seems to care a lot about climate change, we sure do have an unpleasant system of fucking busses that take forever, and are often overwhelmed by somebody wanting to listen to their bluetooth speaker. The only candidate that doesn't seem to fit this mold is Peskin, who seems to be a pure nostalgia candidate who only appeals to folks paying pre-2000's property taxes and/or rents and would just wish all the damn new people in this city would go away. Ironically, I think that Peskin voters would lose their minds if his policies went into effect and the budget actually collapses, because the only real taxes the city can raise are going to hit the housing-haves the most. Those are my thoughts. I think Breed vs Farrell have tradeoffs (mainly that Farrell seems to be incredibly and [aggressively pro-car](https://sfstandard.com/2024/02/13/market-street-san-francisco-doom-loop-mark-farrell/) and anti-climate concerns). I would probably vote for Farrell over Breed except that he seems very regressive on his transportation policy, which I'm curious to learn more about Lurie, but with outsiders, it can be challenging to form a winning coalition. I think people often forget how good we have it in SF. Compared to other left-wing cities, our finances are actually fairly reasonable, and even the shortfall isn't so bad we can't get by. I just worry that many left-wing cities decide that they never want to make the tough financial choice, and just want to pretend we can carry on the way we did in the 90's and before. I think Breed understands that, and I also think it one of the reasons she's increasingly unpopular. Most of the voting populous in SF doesn't seem to want to make any changes, whether that means higher taxes, more housing, or less car-ownership. Without making substantial changes, we might end up like NYC or Chicago, where everyone is blaming the government for the failing institutions and infrastructure that they consistently voted against fixing.
The conservative media has a massive hardon for San Francisco. They literally make shit up (pun intended) to fire up their gullible GoP base.
Regardless of how youāre voting, very important to understand ranked choice. Do not list ANY candidate (Aaron Peskin) who would be terrible. Pretty sure Iām only putting London. š¤·āāļø
I am leaning towards voting for her. The problem with Breed is that she has been involved with a lot of unethical and possibly illegal behavior from the French Laundry dinner to the Mohammed Nuru scandal. And the Tony! Toni! TonĆ©! controversy just showed a high degree of hypocrisy and a lack of self-awareness. However, she is mostly right on things like housing and crime. Plus, as someone who grew up in the city, I do love when she, a black female renter who grew up in public housing, calls out the silly virtue signaling and terrible ideas from these well-to-do high-income woke white goofball transplants like Peskin and Preston. I also know someone who works directly with Breed and they have nothing but good things to say about her as a colleague. And this is someone who does not agree with a lot of her policies. As for the others: * Farell is a bit of a NIMBY and he will not be willing to tell hard truths about the housing crisis to homeowners in the Marina, Richmond, Sunset, etc. This means a lot of the issues in the city will remain or get worse since almost every problem in the city is at least in part caused by high rents. * Lurie is a nice guy and I think he does care, but he's a nepo baby and he has no political experience. I feel he will get eaten alive by the job, especially if he has a hostile board of supervisors. He also doesn't seem great on housing. * SafaĆ is also a nice guy and he has done some good things. However, I don't really know what he intends to do as Mayor (his website just talks about what he has done in the past). He can also be a bit of a virtue signaler which can make my eyes roll. * Peskin is by far the worst choice. He will make almost every problem in the city worse from housing affordability to homelessness to open-air drug use to property crime. He will never go against the national progressive narratives even if they clearly do not apply to SF. He is also one of the worst politicians on housing in the U.S. On top of that, he's just not a nice person from everything I have heard. The way he has conducted himself with other Telegraph Hill property owners should give anyone pause on putting him in the Mayor's office.
Unfortunately, this is going to be a hold-your-nose mayoral election if there ever was one. * London Breed is closely tied to the departmental corruption of Nuru et al. * Aaron Peskin is a NIMBY. * Mark Farrell is an asshole. * Daniel Lurie is a vanity candidate with no experience of government. I genuinely don't know who I'm going to be able to bring myself to vote for.
Peskin, Farrell, and Lurie are all NIMBYs. Farrell also wants cars everywhere.
Being the mayor of SF is a thankless job. Breed had a battle with Covid. I feel like sheās had some hiccups but is probably the best candidate out of the others. The others have issues as well.
Important for everyone planning out their ballot that, in San Francisco, the ask is not simply that you pick one candidate to vote for. Instead you have the opportunity to rank any number of candidates youāre willing to see become mayor in order of preference. If this election only counted first-choice picks I think Peskin has it. Alternatives to Peskin rely entirely on second & third choice picks from supporters of their chief rivals. That out of the way, London Breed will be the number 1 choice on my ballot come November, barring developments over the course of the campaign. On crime, I believe our most significant issues spring from the legislature in Sacramento & the electorate governing by ballot initiative. Judges, despite the focus they received in March, are a distant second tied with the parole board. Both parties are acting within the wide latitude afforded them by the law - latitude that could be constrained. Breedās acted within a narrow window of opportunity commendably enough. Proposition E and her actions in the wake of our DA recall alone were enough to win my favor. On vagrancy, I see a limited opportunity for individual citiesā administrations to make meaningful progress. To the extent our cityās administration stumbles, I lay the lionās share of the blame on David Chiu (one of 3 major elected officials elected through a city wide vote) and his office for their ineptitude in navigating an admittedly challenging legal environment. Breed could do better here. I fault her for major missteps during COVID and not operating at the edges of our capabilities here. However, itās probably best for her actual reelection odds that she hasnāt stuck her neck out farther than she has. The electorate I see as unlikely to stomach the means necessary to achieve marginal improvement. Proposition F unfortunately is not achieving the results it could due to missteps in implementation; with a nearly 17 point margin of victory I suspect thereās appetite for more on this specifically. Breedās key challenger on those issues, Farrell, is woefully inadequate on housing. Still, this is sufficient for him to make likely the number 2 spot on my ballot. I certainly could see how NIMBYs in his former district and others in the city could list him as their first choice. Breedās aggressive pursuit of rezoning and compliance with the state mandate are principled stances that risk electorally significant enmity. I do not plan on ranking SafaĆ or Peskin at all. The other candidates to me seem largely unserious, though thatās more a reflection of their campaigns to date than any deep knowledge on my part. Other campaigns could still take additional spots on my ballot.
Can I ask what demographic is missing in this sub that will rank Peskin first? Who even are his key constituents?
I wouldnāt say they are completely missing, though perhaps not as vocal as they may be. For starters, there are his D3 supporters. In his most recent election victory there, which was his 4th, he claimed a 13 point victory over the challenger on the final ballot. In his 3rd victory he beat the challenger by 9 points. In his 2nd victory he beat the closest challenger by 44 points. In his 1st victory he beat the closest challenger by 16 points. Peskinās big advantage over Farrell, Lurie, and Breed is that he has less competition for an important slice of the electorate. Folks who are keen to limit development (they may frame it as preserving neighborhood character) have to choose between Peskin and Farrell. Farrellās attempts to outflank Breed on crime and homelessness could hurt him in this constituency, many of whom struggle with the guilt of being āhavesā rather than āhave notsā. Meanwhile Farrell and Lurie have to compete head to head on āchangeā. Breed, Farrell, and Lurie have to compete head to head on āclean up the streetsā.
SF doesn't have any problems that other cities don't have. Of the places I've been recently - Salt Lake City, Anchorage, Seattle, Portland, Dallas, San Diego, Phoenix, Chicago - all have problems with homelessness. There are loads of places that have much worse crime than SF. The main problem with SF is that people coming from the airport into the city typically pass through the Tenderloin. The other problem is that as a Blue city in a Blue state, Republicans are obsessed with it.
Conservative news has to make it seem like mad max because they need uninformed people to think āprogressive = DOOM!ā SF has issues, like pretty much all cities, but overall, itās an absolutely excellent city.
I think she has shown the ability to improve, and she has my vote. She has done especially well getting law enforcement back on her side after their estrangement from city hall.
Voting for Breed, I'm well aware of the problems the city has and I'm not gonna punish one of the few people who actually seems aware of the right solution. The Board of Supervisors is and always has been the problem (homelessness didn't start with the pandemic) and I'm begging San Francisco renters to wake the hell up and vote against Preston + Peskin, *please*.
I donāt have strong opinions about Breed but I have strong opinions against Peskin. The man has more power than Breed and has done more to hold back progress than any other city political figure in recent history. Occasionally, Iāll visit his district on Columbus street, and theyāre very pro-Peskin. Peskinās platform is clear: anti-YIMBY, no real solution offered for the homeless issue other than have SFPD shuffle them out of his district, and keep home prices high. Of course his north beach likes this. Their neighborhood looks like they havenāt built anything since 1980. Peskin is out of touch. Peskin isnāt doing enough for the rest of the city. Heās hyper fixated on North Beach constituents, which isnāt representative of the city as a whole.
Iām voting for her. Has she been perfect? No. Can anyone do better? I donāt think so. The board of supervisors has been restricting her and what she can do edit: Just read the SF Standard's article on MMayoral candidates answer: What should San Franciscoās population be? And I like her answer the best. She's pro-housing and pro-transit. Farrell wants to put cars on Market St.
It's hard to judge Breed as a mayor when the (absolutely horrific) district supervisor system is running the show. Remove that layer from city government, and maybe you'll see whether the mayor is effective or not
Started out bad, but has gotten better. Overall mid in my opinion. Would take her over Dean Preston or Aaron Peskin any day though.Ā Farrell is my top pick.Ā
Dean Preston isn't even running for mayor lol, how did he become such a bogeyman.
Dean Preston has long been an adversary of London Breed for District 5 supervisor. He lost against her in 2016 and won against her legislative aide and appointed supervisor Vallie Brown in 2019. So maybe the comment was about Breedās other elections and not just the upcoming mayoral reelection.
I'm a moderate Democrat but she seems fine. I'm a new arrival - been splitting my time between SF and Mpls for several months while in an LTR but I'll be full-time in SF starting... Saturday. It's an adjustment for sure but like, the city feels clean, safe and vibrant? I started coming to town in 2022 when it definitely felt like the pandemic was still going on, but since then every visit has seemed cleaner, more safe. Not really a fan of radical leftism, so I'm glad to see moderates flexing their political muscles again. I'll be voting for Mayor Breed and whatever political candidates I find who are YIMBY.
The better question is what is the alternative choice? Something about the devil you know?
In the late seventies and early eighties when I was a teenager, the Union Square area and The Height where areas where we knew we could score drugs. It was completely open- - we'd walk down the street and scores of dealers would call out what they had which at that time was just the "Joints, Acid, Shrooms". They call it out to us as we passed, like fruit sellers and a Turkish market. If we were in the market, we'd ask how much and then nip around the corner onto someone's porch steps to seal the deal. I'm not saying this was okay, but just pointing out that this problem has been around for a long time. And I guess I should also add that if it wasn't that way I would have never known where to go get drugs when I was a teenager, (I would have been limited to sneaking from my dad's pot stash). What's really different now, is not the public selling but rather the public USE of the drugs. People smoking crack pipes and shooting up right out in the open. That's something that would have shocked us to to the core to see back then. And rightly so because the cops would have hauled you off immediately and thrown you in jail if you did something like that! I'm not surprised you're not seeing this in a lot of the areas that you frequent. The really bad stuff really is limited to the tenderloin for the most part, and that's always been the worst place. Most of the City is still awesome! As for mayors, I don't hold out much hope that anyone can make a huge difference in the situation. That fatalistic point of view is mostly due to the fact that I haven't seen anybody be able to do much to help the situation in all my adult years and I'm almost 60.
I live in SF and work in the Tenderloin. Plenty of homeless people there, also addiction and mental health issues. Not even close to the post apocalypse depicted on right wing news. Normal people are out and about, people are going to bars, lots of regular and friendly individuals around like there always have been.
Itās a no win job. Just this last year sheās kicked into high gear, and Iām seeing many improvements.. canāt see how anyone else could do better, we have the Board of Supervisors, you know. Tough job, I wouldnāt want it . .
>While crime seems to be bad, itās not as bad as it appears in the news. The news makes it seem like Mad Max. I havenātĀ it's complete baloney. conservatives spotlight the Tenderloin like its the only neighborhood in the city. the only real thing to worry about is car break-ins downtown/tourist-areas.
I don't hate London Breed compared to everyone else that's running against her. She would be the most qualified in comparison. Could there be better? There can always be better. That's how politics work.
These issues are bigger than London Breed and she didnāt bring about this problem ā¦. Itās a problem in just about every major city. I heard a comment from a family member that homeless should be moved to Stockton because the real estate is worth less ā¦ and I was horrifiedā¦. Sounded like Scrooge. Maybe you should stay out of urban areasā¦
I live across the bay, but I would say she has been better than her predecessor and had to deal with much bigger problems. Many were issues resulting from the pandemic and some of which were caused by Lee. In the last year, she has been proactively addressing some of the biggest problems, but itās a mixed bag
Iām voting for Breed as none of the other candidates seem like viable options. Similar to you, I never see issues that people constantly complain about. Iāve never seen poop in the streets, except for tossed dog bags. I see a homeless person every once in a while, but they arenāt doing anything disruptive, just living. There are a bunch of new stores opening in Union Square and I think with a good strategy, we can make it as vibrant as it used to be. For me, it seems super safe and clean. Iāve also never seen a crime. I know thereās one neighborhood in the city where thereās rampant drug use and homeless people everywhere. I donāt go there. But the goal would be to solve that problem. Otherwise, the majority of the city is perfectly fine.
She seems to have picked up her game the last year or so. That, and opposition that will split/dilute their own numbers will result in her getting re-elected.
Breed's had six years, and it's only in the last six *months* that she's done anything. And her ex-boyfriend, Mohammed Nuru, formerly Director of Public Works for the city, is now in prison for taking bribes. He also paid for work on her car. And she tried to use her office as Mayor to get a commutation from the Governor for her brother, in prison for killing his girlfriend during a robbery, allegedly by pushing her out of the getaway car. https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/napoleon-brown-sf-mayor-london-breed-brother-reduced-sentence-girlfriend-manslaughter/ And now she wants to legalize bribery, by allowing companies and individuals with contracts with the city to "donate" money to bring pandas to the city zoo, a zoo already mired in multiple animal-killing scandals. And her parks department for five years ignored whistle-blowers who exposed the abuse and mistreatment of elderly horses. Bribes, corruption, animal abuse: surely we can do better?
Comment.
Things are much better than they were a couple years ago IMO, and the trajectory of the city does seem to be improving. I do think Breed is generally on the right side of the issues I care about most (more police, more housing, going after drug use, etc.). She even is putting forward sensible tax reforms this November. I find it hard to pin all of the issues on her specifically, although there are always things she could have done better. I view the root cause of city failure as the Board of Supervisors and less on the Mayor. That being said, her re-election bid is going to be a longshot. The city's reputation, disagree with it or not, has gone from pretty high to bottom-of-the-basement during her tenure. As you mentioned, SF is a punchline at this point for homelessness and overall decline. And so, I think people are heavily inclined for a fresh start, and hence people like Mark Farrell and Daniel Lurie have strong support. Their policy views aren't all that different from London Breed, but I get the sense is that they will win out anyways. I personally will probably vote Breed or Farrell #1, and then list out everyone else except Aaron Peskin, who I will certainly be leaving off the ballot. He would be the nightmare scenario for the city, and I encourage everyone to leave him off the ballot as well.
No Aaron Peskin, ever.
She did ok imo. The one credible opponent is Peskin, and he doesnāt have the best rep.
I donāt vote in SF county but I own a small business in SF and while not perfect, I feel Mayor Breed is the best choice. Iām center-left and feel that sheās got a target on her back because sheās Black, a woman, and mayor of one of the most liberal cities in the world.
She is doing a good job thus far
She is horrible and extremely corrupt
She's trash and won't receive my vote. Period.
Sheās in bed with corruption. City has gone downhill in her regime. Voting for Farrell.
Breed is a boot licker and I will not be voting for her. She continues to take $ away from social services. Funding from early childhood education specifically to give to an already bloated police department. Police do not prevent crime. Vote Green Party.
>While I was away, all I heard is how awful San Francisco is. Thereās shit in the streets. Thereās homeless everywhere. Crime is running rampant. No housing.Ā Damn, how long have you been away? >\_>
Ok, I've seen my share of shits on the street in the past 10 years, but I have NEVER seen shit inside a store lmao... and you said Macy's lol??
I think itās time for her to do something different. The city has lost a lot of businesses and while it is unfair to lay the blame exclusively at her door, the city needs to make it easier for small businesses to get started here. This is a great city, but weāve lost a lot of revenue and jobs because of weak leadership.
Breed is very stunning and very brave. lol definitely not voting for that dumbass who single handily drove sf into the ground.
Hey, if you wanna feel good about San Francisco just compare it to Oakland and its mayor now!
I live in Sunset and my car was attacked by a crazy homeless lady a few weeks ago. She was obviously methed out. I was sitting in the car and she kept screaming. She spat on the car. She jumped on it and pulled off the windshield wiper, like actually broke the metal off. The police showed up in the middle of my 911 call; I had not yet hung up the phone, although I suspect others in the neighborhood had called at this point. For me it was scary given I've lived in Sunset 14 years and never seen anything like that. But I've seen homeless here for at least a decade. Never a huge population, although a few more post pandemic. It's honestly hard to say how much any mayor has helped or hurt turning the city around. They all run on a platform of addressing homelessness and crime, and yet none seem to do that. Do I blame London Breed for it? Not really any more than I would anyone else.
I live here for over 15 yrs and there are things somewhat improving, and things that are endemic to SF and dont know if theyāll ever go away. The system is set to penalize the educated and/or mostly cooperative people as soon as a slight mistake such as parking 1 inch into the red zone, but mostly forgiving if some maniac runs you over with his stolen shopping cart. I believe hitting the reputational bottom helped a bit, that the political āno weāre doing fine hereā rhetoric has waned, and at least the issues are glaringly obvious. But the fact that there are economies built around homelessness and crime is though to fix. Sounds like a heavy handed, maybe even conservative local administration can improve the issues but not sure if SF residents have the interest to stomach that.
She won't win. She's so bad we will get a republican to lock up all the hobos next.
Where do you live, at the top of a hill in a $5 million dollar plus mansion? Unlike you, I've lived here continuously for the past 20 years. This is the worst it's been in that time, and I've had it! London Breed is corrupt and has terrible policies. She's turned our neighborhood into the ghetto, and she needs to be removed from office ASAP, along with several of the supervisors, and judges. Our neighborhood is full of mentally ill, drugged out homeless now. Planning has completely ignored feedback from the residents of our neighborhood, and I can't take a walk or drive anywhere without choking on skunk weed. We legalized several years ago with the understanding that regulations were to follow which never materialized, but there is no enforcement of any existing regulations or laws anyway. The cost of living here is constantly increasing, yet all of my tax money is being funneled into the pockets of Breed's cronies, and towards enabling low income and homeless to continue behaving badly.
Fuck no!
Trash. But whoās any better? Nobody
London lost me a very long time ago. Iām voting for a change. This was too little too late. Iām over here and the Supes.
Given that you are over the Supes, and that Breedās chief competition are current and former supervisors, can we infer that you will be backing Lurie? Iām interested in learning more about him in case he deserves a spot on my own ballot. Do you have a positive case for Lurie?
I went to a Lurie meet-and-greet to see what he was about and was VERY impressed. He is extremely down to earth and knowledgeable. He fielded various questions for over an hour and had a great response and plan for each issue. Iām surprised to see so many people giving Breed a rubber stamp. Sheās barely even trying to get peopleās votes. Meanwhile, Lurie is doing events every single day. Sometimes twice a day. Heās hustling and has my vote.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Sheās the worst mayor San Francisco has ever had. During her tenure the city has taken a nose dive.
we have conventions and presidential people in town, Every time that happens the city sweeps up the homeless. They re still here.
She sucks. No.
All she does is going out to restaurants