Connect with us

San Francisco, CA

Daniel Lurie’s bizarre, cynical pick for Sunset supervisor

Published

on

Daniel Lurie’s bizarre, cynical pick for Sunset supervisor


Last week, Mayor Daniel Lurie stole a page from the script of the president whose name he refuses to utter. By appointing a glaringly inexperienced and unqualified supervisor to represent the Sunset District, the mayor made an uncharacteristically cynical and risky move — especially for someone whose own thin resume was a liability in his run for office.

As far as I can tell, Lurie’s political calculus in naming to the Board of Supervisors Isabella “Beya” Alcaraz — a 29-year-old former pet-supply shop owner who never had shown the slightest interest in San Francisco’s civic affairs — goes something like this. By appointing someone who is a blank slate, with no known positions on anything other than loving the Sunset, Lurie has birthed a lawmaker who will be completely loyal to him. If Alcaraz can somehow win a special election in June, and then a general election five months later, he will have created an iron-clad ally on the famously fractious board.

But this is a huge risk for the mayor. He and the team that vetted Alcaraz will be wholly responsible for guiding her through the complexities of governing and politicking, from helping staff her legislative office to positioning her for a campaign against formidable competition.

The mayor got Alcaraz off to a quick start: As The Standard’s Power Play newsletter reported Sunday, Lurie is activating his “prodigious fundraising network” to support the new supe, and his staff is already helping her hire her own. On Friday, he accompanied her to the annual Bruce-Mahoney football match between St. Ignatius College Preparatory School and Sacred Heart Cathedral Preparatory, where Lurie (opens in new tab)threw an impressive, pre-game spiral (opens in new tab) and Alcaraz wore her SI varsity jacket from her days on the high school’s crew team.

Advertisement

Lurie is already attempting to spin Alcaraz’s shortcomings into positives. “When I talk to Beya, I see someone who is not a career politician, but has spent her life in service to this community,” he said at her swearing-in ceremony. “She doesn’t owe anyone anything other than the people who live right here in the Sunset.”

It’s impossible to fault Alcaraz, who had the gumption to approach Lurie at a night market, for wanting this role. Before last week, she was working for an after-school enrichment program, having apparently mucked up her failed pet store, which smelled “like death” when she handed it over to a new owner, The Standard reported Monday. Now she is (opens in new tab)earning more than $175,000 a year (opens in new tab) in a government job with top-notch benefits.

Chutzpah alone, however, is a poor substitute for qualifications, experience, or even previously demonstrated curiosity about the subject matter.

Alcaraz attended Diablo Valley College in the East Bay and City College of San Francisco, but didn’t receive a degree from either. She told me in a brief phone interview Saturday that she studied physics and business, but didn’t finish the coursework because she devoted herself seven days a week to her store. (She bought the store in 2019, when she would have been at least 22 years old, more than enough time to have earned a two-year associate degree.)

A woman with shoulder-length dark hair smiles as a rat perches on her shoulder, sniffing near her ear. She wears a green shirt and a necklace with “1996.”
Isabella Alcaraz at her former pet-supply store, The Animal Connection, in February. According to the store’s new owner, Alcaraz left the store in a state of squalor when she handed it over this year. | Source: Autumn DeGrazia/The Standard

College is neither for everyone nor a prerequisite for success in life. It is, however, required for many jobs in the government of the City of San Francisco. For example, the city stipulates that candidates for a senior administrative analyst role, a relatively low-level bureaucratic position, have “a baccalaureate degree from an accredited college or university and three years full-time equivalent experience performing professional-level analytical work.” 

Legislative aides on the Board of Supervisors, the type of people who will work under Alcaraz, must have “two years of general administrative or office-management experience, preferably in a public or community-based agency,” or have graduated from “a four-year college or university … or an equivalent combination of training and experience.”

Advertisement

Alcaraz doesn’t merely lack credentials. Before she pitched Lurie, she hadn’t shown any clear interest in government. I asked her over the weekend if she had ever been to a Board of Supervisors meeting or a commission hearing. “I have been diligently reviewing the videos,” she told me, referring to (opens in new tab)SFGovTV (opens in new tab) replays of legislative sessions, which I took to mean she hadn’t.

I have, in past columns, railed against the multitude of San Francisco’s commissions, and I often am stupefied at the hours of time wasted by the city’s prodigious public commentariat. But say one thing for the volunteer public servants on the dais and the gadflies who grill them: They show up. They demonstrate their interest in the city’s governmental affairs. 

Alcaraz listed for me examples of her civic engagement. “I’ve always been very active in the service world. I have volunteered at at-risk youth camps. I coached basketball. I did a pet-food bank. I would work the church fundraisers for sports camps and help plan parts of the dinners.” She also compared herself to Lurie: “I think the mayor is kind of an example of someone who wasn’t in office before, and then suddenly was,” she said.

Oh my. I am not here to denigrate the value of bake sales and church dinners and the good deeds they fund. But they hardly are preparation for the complexities of this city’s legislative affairs, which are a convoluted mess that take even seasoned operators decades to learn.

Alcaraz told an affecting tale last week about her frustration with applying for a permit to build an animal-waste shed behind her shop, and how the experience will help her empathize with the plight of small-business owners. No doubt. But that’s a bit like saying that suffering the indignity of being kept waiting for hours in the emergency room makes you eligible to be a surgeon. 

Advertisement

The elephant in the room of Alcaraz’s unlikely ascension is the outsized controversy over last year’s Prop K — which closed a section of the Great Highway to cars and created the Sunset Dunes park — as well as the subsequent firestorm that cost Engardio his job. Alcaraz has refused to say how she voted on K. She told me she wants to look forward rather than “causing new divisiveness.”

Based on a defensive comment she made last week, though, I’m guessing she voted yes. “The way I voted on Prop. K is because we didn’t have all the facts,” she said at her appearance with Lurie. “We weren’t informed. I did the best I could with the information I was given.”

I asked her why she felt uninformed. “What I mean by that is the way in which Prop K was introduced,” Alcaraz said. “Obviously, the Sunset felt completely betrayed and blindsided. There was no public forum. We weren’t able to voice our feelings.”

The response suggests Alcaraz already has mastered the typical gripe of San Franciscans who don’t like a thoroughly aired out policy decision — and proceed to complain they aren’t being heard. That Engardio bamboozled his constituents is an assertion with which opposing sides will never agree. That the Sunset wasn’t able to voice its feelings before and after the vote on Prop K is laughably untrue.

Americans may have to settle for a (opens in new tab)TV host as defense secretary (opens in new tab) and an (opens in new tab)insurance lawyer (opens in new tab) as the U.S. Attorney in a key federal district for years to come. That’s a reality that liberal San Franciscans have to live with. But residents of District 4 will not have to accept Alcaraz. They will have their say about who represents them — and how respected by the mayor they feel  — in seven short months. 

Advertisement

If Lurie doesn’t regret this decision already, he may then.





Source link

San Francisco, CA

San Francisco has a tax plan to save Muni

Published

on

San Francisco has a tax plan to save Muni


A parcel tax plan to rescue Muni would charge most homeowners at least $129 annually if voters approve the policy in November.

The finalized tax scheme, which updates a version presented Dec. 8, comes after weeks of negotiations between city officials and transit advocates.

The plan lowers the levels previously proposed for owners of apartment and condo buildings. They would still pay a $249 base tax up to 5,000 square feet of property, but additional square footage would be taxed at 19.5 cents, versus the previous 30 cents. The tax would be capped at $50,000.

The plan also adds provisions limiting how much of the tax can be passed through to tenants in rent-controlled buildings. Owners of rent-controlled properties would be able to pass through up to 50% of the parcel tax on a unit, with a cap of $65 a year.

Advertisement

These changes bring the total estimated annual tax revenue from $187 million to $183 million and earmark 10% for expanding transit service.

What you pay depends on what kind of property you or your landlord owns. There are three tiers: single-family homes, apartment and condo buildings, and commercial properties.

Owners of single-family homes smaller than 3,000 square feet would pay the base tax of $129 per year. Homes between 3,000 and 5,000 square feet would pay the base tax plus an additional 42 cents per square foot, and any home above 5,000 square feet would be taxed at an added $1.99 per square foot.

Source: Jeremy Chen/The Standard

Commercial landlords would face a $799 base tax for buildings up to 5,000 square feet, with per-square-foot rates that scale with the property size, up to a maximum of $400,000.

The finalized plan was presented by Julie Kirschbaum, director of transportation at the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, at a board meeting Tuesday.

Advertisement

The plan proposed in December was criticized for failing to set aside funds to increase transit service and not including pass-through restrictions for tenants.

The tax is meant to close SFMTA’s $307 million budget gap, which stems from lagging ridership post-pandemic and the expiration of emergency federal funding. Without additional funding, the agency would be forced to drastically cut service. The parcel tax, a regional sales tax measure, and cost-cutting, would all be needed to close the fiscal gap.

The next steps for the parcel tax are creating draft legislation and launching a signature-gathering campaign to place the measure on the ballot.

Any measure would need review by the city attorney’s office. But all stakeholders have agreed on the tax structure presented Tuesday, according to Emma Hare, an aide to Supervisor Myrna Melgar, whose office led negotiations over the tax between advocates and City Hall.

“It’s final,” Hare said. “We just need to write it down.”

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

San Francisco, CA

Claims in lawsuit against Great Highway park dismissed by San Francisco judge

Published

on

Claims in lawsuit against Great Highway park dismissed by San Francisco judge


A San Francisco Superior Court judge dismissed claims in a lawsuit against Proposition K, the ballot measure that permanently cleared traffic from the Great Highway to make way for a two-mile park. 

One advocacy group, Friends of Sunset Dunes, said the legal action affirmed Proposition K’s legal standing and called the lawsuit against the park “wasteful.” 

Advertisement

Proposition K passed with more than 54% of the vote in November 2024, but the debate didn’t end there. The Sunset District supervisor was recalled in the aftermath of that vote by residents in the district who argued their streets would be flooded by traffic and that the decision by voters citywide to close a major thoroughfare in their area was out of touch with the local community. 

What they’re saying:

Friends of Sunset Dunes hailed the judge’s decision in the lawsuit, Boschetto vs the City and County of San Francisco, as a victory. 

Advertisement

“After two ballot measures, two lawsuits, three failed appeals, and dozens of hours of public meetings and untold administrative time and cost, this ruling affirms Proposition K’s legal foundation, and affirms the city’s authority to move forward in creating a permanent coastal park to serve future generations of San Franciscans,” the group said in a statement. 

The group added that their volunteers are working to bring the coastal park to life. Meanwhile, “anti-park zealots continue to waste more public resources in their attempt to overturn the will of the people and close Sunset Dunes.” 

Advertisement

“Now that they’ve lost two lawsuits and two elections, we invite them to accept the will of San Franciscans and work with us to make the most of our collective coastal park,” said Lucas Lux, president of Friends of Sunset Dunes. 

The supervisor for the Sunset District, Alan Wong, doubled down on what he had stated earlier. In a statement on Monday, Wong said he is “prepared to support a ballot initiative to reopen the Great Highway and restore the original compromise.” The compromise he’s referring to is vehicles allowed to drive along the highway on weekdays and a closure to traffic on the weekends. 

Wong, in his statement, added that he’s talked to constituents in his district across the political spectrum and that his values align with the majority of district 4 residents and organizations. 

Advertisement

When he was sworn in last month, Wong indicated he was open to revisiting the issue of reopening the Great Highway to traffic. He also said he voted against Proposition K, which cleared the way and made Sunset Dunes official. 

Engardio’s two-cents

Last September, Joel Engardio was recalled as the Sunset District supervisor in a special election. The primary reason for his ouster was his support of Sunset Dunes, the park which also saw the support of other prominent politicians, including former Mayor London Breed, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and State Senator Scott Wiener. 

Advertisement

Engardio on Monday issued his own statement after the judge dismissed all claims in the lawsuit against Prop. K. 

“It’s time to consider Sunset Dunes settled. Too many people have seen how the park is good for the environment, local businesses, and the physical and mental health of every visitor,” Engardio said. “Future generations will see this as a silly controversy because the park’s benefits far outweigh the fears of traffic jams that never happened. The coast belongs to everyone and it won’t be long before a majority everywhere will embrace the wonderful and magical Sunset Dunes.” 

Advertisement

San FranciscoPoliticsNews



Source link

Continue Reading

San Francisco, CA

Commentary: Let’s Do Better in 2026 – Streetsblog San Francisco

Published

on

Commentary: Let’s Do Better in 2026 – Streetsblog San Francisco


Editor’s note: special thanks to all our Streetsblog supporters! We fulfilled our 2025 fundraising goals. If you’d like to help us do even more, it’s not too late to donate.

I was on my way to dinner with friends on Christmas Eve when my westbound K Ingleside train was turned back at West Portal without explanation. I waited for the next train. It was turned back too. I asked one of the Muni drivers what was going on, and he said no M Ocean View or K Ingleside trains were running past the station.

I guessed it had something to do with the weather—the rain was coming down in sheets. I realized getting an Uber or Lyft at the station, with everybody else doing the same thing, probably wasn’t going to work. I had a good umbrella and rain coat so I started to walk down West Portal Avenue, ducking under awnings as I looked for a good spot to call a Lyft.

I didn’t get far before I saw why the trains were stopped, as seen in the lead photo.

Advertisement

I don’t know exactly how this blundering driver managed to bottom out his car on the barrier between the tracks. But, for me, it symbolized everything that’s wrong with San Francisco’s auto-uber-alles policies that continue to put the needs of individual drivers above buses and trains full of people. Mayor Lurie reiterated San Francisco’s supposed transit-first policy in his end-of-year directive. But if it’s a transit-first city, why are motorists still prioritized and permitted to drive on busy train tracks in the first place?

Photo of West Portal Ave.’s original configuration, before it was “upgraded” with angled parking and to allow drivers to use the tracks. Photo: Open SF History

Why isn’t the barrier in West Portal positioned to keep drivers from using the tracks, as it was historically? Why do we even have pavement on the tracks? And why haven’t we banned drivers from using West Portal Avenue and Ulloa Street as thoroughfares in the first place, where they regularly interfere with and delay trains?

I should have stopped walking and summoned a Lyft. But being forced by the shitty politics of San Francisco, combined with a shitty driver, to call yet another car, pissed me off. I thought about all the people who got off those trains who can’t afford to call a ride-hail. I thought about the hundreds of people trapped inside trains that were stuck between stations. I continued walking and thinking about all the times I’ve visited Europe and been through similarly busy, vibrant merchant corridors such as West Portal with one major difference: no cars.

Amsterdam. Not saying to turn West Portal into a pedestrian mall necessarily, but it shows what’s possible. Photo: Streetsblog/Rudick

Yes, even on “car-free” streets in Europe, typically cars and delivery vehicles can still cross and access the shops directly for deliveries. But some streets are just not meant to be a motoring free-for-all. Anybody who doubts that merchants flourish in car-free and car-lite environments should either get a passport, or they should take a look at the merchant receipts after a Sunday Streets event. On the other hand, Papenhausen Hardware, which helped block a safety plan that prioritized transit movements through West Portal, went out of business anyway in 2024.

As I walked in the driving rain, my thoughts drifted to 2024’s tragedy, in which a reckless driver wiped out a family of four when she crashed onto a sidewalk in West Portal. San Francisco had an opportunity to finally implement a transit-first project and prevent a future tragedy by banning most drivers from the tracks and preventing them from using West Portal as a cut through. And yet, a supposedly safe-streets ally, Supervisor Myrna Melgar, aligned with a subset of the merchants in West Portal and sabotaged the project.

Since then, I’m aware of at least one other incident in West Portal where an errant driver went up on the sidewalk and hit a building. Thankfully, there wasn’t a family in the way that time. Either way, West Portal Avenue, and a whole lot of other streets that have hosted horrible tragedies, are still as dangerous as ever thanks to the lack of political commitment and an unwillingness to change.

Advertisement
Another look at the car that blocked Muni on Christmas Eve. Photo: Streetsblog/Rudick

I finally got to my friends’ house, 35 minutes later. They loaned me some dry clothes and put my jeans in the dryer. We had a lovely meal and a great time. My friend drove me to BART for an uneventful trip home (not that BART is always impervious to driver insanity).

In 2026, advocates, allies, and friends, we all need to raise the bar and find a way to make sure politicians follow through on transit first, Vision Zero, and making San Francisco safe. Because the half-assed improvements made in West Portal and elsewhere aren’t enough. And the status quo isn’t working.

On a closely related note, be sure to sign this petition, demanding that SFMTA finish the transit-only lanes on Ocean Avenue.



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending