San Francisco, CA

Mayor Lurie gets an A in vibes, San Francisco City Hall veterans say

Published

8 months ago

May 7, 2025

Mayor Lurie gets an A in vibes, San Francisco City Hall veterans say

Just over 100 days into his term, Mayor Daniel Lurie has done a few things right: schmoozing the Board of Supervisors, trying to clean up San Francisco’s streets and engaging in much-needed boosterism of a city with an unsavory reputation, said two veteran City Hall politicos speaking with Mission Local at an event on Thursday.

Eric Jaye, former Mayor Gavin Newsom’s chief strategist and now a political consultant, spoke on a panel with former city controller and PUC general manager Ed Harrington before a full house at Manny’s cafe. The event was moderated by Mission Local senior editor Joe Rivano Barros.

Both panelists said it was too soon to tell whether the Lurie administration would be a success, but that it is a sea change from the London Breed administration — at least in terms of vibes.

“I could make a long list of what he’s done wrong, a very long list,” Jaye said, of Lurie. “But I would give him honestly an A right now because the things he’s done right are so important.”

Those right things include: making good on the nice-guy persona that was a big part of his campaign talking up SF instead of tearing it down, and delivering chocolates to at least one supervisor on her birthday. The change in vibes at City Hall matters for getting his agenda through, Jaye said.

Lurie has also focused on cleaning up the streets. This is a huge undertaking that may not see quick success, but it’s one that is smart politically, said both Jaye and Harrington. “It’s a great goal to say we’re no longer going to tolerate open-air criminal activity in San Francisco,” Jaye said.

“The No. 1 job of the mayor is to keep the city safe. He should keep whacking.”
ERic Jaye

Said Harrington: “He seems to care. He’s out in the streets. I think that’s important.”

One of Lurie’s first high-profile moves upon taking office was to crack down on drug sales, drug use, and the sale of shoplifted goods in a few high-profile spots in the city, including Sixth Street in SoMa, and at the 16th Street BART plaza. He’s also conducted high-profile sweeps of areas like South Van Ness and Market, which led to mass arrests, but few charges.

In his victory speech, one of the few specifics Lurie offered was a promise that public safety would be his “No. 1 priority” and that he would focus specifically on drug dealing. “We’re gonna get tough,” he said, at the time. In an interview with Mission Local three months into his term, Lurie modified that statement: the city will not “arrest our way out of this problem” and needs to get people “into the help that they need.”

The mayor needs to tread a fine line, Jaye said. Mass arrests of people with substance use disorder are inhumane, he said. And to some extent, the mayor is playing Whac-A-Mole. Cracking down in one place will just shift the nefarious behavior elsewhere, in San Francisco, or across the wider Bay Area, Jaye said. But “the No. 1 job of the mayor is to keep the city safe,” Jaye said. “He should keep whacking.”

From left to right: Ed Harrington, Eric Jaye, and Joe Rivano Barros speaking on Mayor Daniel Lurie’s first 100+ days at Manny’s cafe on May 6, 2025. Photo by Kelly Waldron.

The true test of whether Lurie is going to be an effective mayor is the upcoming budget negotiation, both Jaye and Harrington said.

San Francisco faces an $818 million budget shortfall. Lurie will present the Board of Supervisors with his proposed budget on June 1. Supervisors can vote down his proposals up to a point, but will need to adopt a budget by July.

Lurie has asked all department heads to present him with a 15 percent cut to their department’s budget. The district attorney’s office has already pushed back. Lurie “has to make hard decisions,” Harrington said. “And we’re all going to be unhappy about them.”

San Francisco’s overall budget is about $15 billion, but lots of that is already earmarked for guaranteed services, said Harrington. There are rules requiring a certain amount of funding for things like libraries, parks, fire stations, etc.

In previous years, San Francisco had other sources of revenue, like pandemic-era funding, to help cover the gaps, he said. But, those funds are gone or have been spent down by prior administrations. Some remaining city reserves cannot be legally released if revenue is rising — and it is, albeit slightly, even as expenditures are outpacing revenue.

A man with glasses sits in a chair, gesturing while speaking to an audience in a warmly lit room with plants and artwork in the background. — Ed Harrington at Manny’s on May 6, 2025. Photo by Kelly Waldron.

An older man in a blazer speaks into a microphone while seated in front of a colorful mural with large, illustrated hands. A glass of water sits on a nearby table. — Eric Jaye at Manny’s on May 6, 2025. Photo by Kelly Waldron.

The “easy ways” of fixing a budget deficit, Harrington said, have run out.

Of the money that is available for cuts, about two-thirds of it is employee salaries, Harrington said. Salary freezes, cuts or layoffs will mostly need to be negotiated with unions, he added.

But Lurie ran for office as a political outsider — unions backed his opponents in the race. He hasn’t done much since to curry union leaders’ favor, Harrington said.

“The biggest mistake he’s made is that he’s been very weak with organized labor,” Jaye added. “To make change in San Francisco, you have to make labor your ally. Otherwise they are going to wait you out, slow walk you, make problems for you.”

The budget battle, Harrington said, is one he would not want to deal with personally. Lurie has to say, “Look, the money’s not there,” Harrington said. “I don’t know that he has the wherewithal to do that, or the guts to do that, but I think that he doesn’t have much of a choice, because this is a big, big number.”

And how long does Lurie have before voters get restless? By the end of 2025, both said. If issues around neighborhood safety or the affordability of housing are not headed in the right direction, patience will wear thin.

“I don’t think anyone expected him to solve homelessness in 100 days,” Harrington said. “I think by the end of this year, though, if people don’t see more housing, if they don’t see a difference on the streets, they will be very upset.”

Source link

San Francisco, CA

Downtown San Francisco Immigration Court Set to Close In a Year

Published

9 hours ago

January 7, 2026

Press Room

Downtown San Francisco Immigration Court Set to Close In a Year

The federal immigration court in downtown San Francisco that started 2025 with 21 judges and will soon be down to just four, thanks to Trump administration mass-firings, will close by January 2027.

News arrived Wednesday that federal officials are planning to shut down the immigration court at 100 Montgomery Street in San Francisco by the end of the year, and transfer all or most immigration court activity to the court in Concord. Mission Local reported the news via a source close to the situation, and KTVU subsequently confirmed the move.

Jeremiah Johnson, one of the SF judges who was fired this past year, serves as vice president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, and confirmed the news to KTVU.

The Executive Office for Immigration Review, which oversees immigration court operations, has yet to comment.

As Mission Local reports, a smaller set of courtrooms at the other SF immigration facility and ICE headquarters at 630 Sansome Street will remain open for business.

The Concord immigration court saw five judge fired last year, though two had not yet begun hearing any cases. Seven judges remain at that court, and four remaining judges based at 100 Montgomery are expected to be transferred there by this summer.

Mission Local previously reported that out of 21 judges serving at the courthouse last spring, 13 have been fired in recent months, and four others are scheduled for retirement by the end of this month.

This is happening as the court has a backlog of some 120,000 pending cases.

As Politico reported last month, the Trump administration has fired around 98 immigration judges out of the 700 who had been serving as of early last year.

Olivia Cassin, a fired judge based in New York, said this was by design, and, “It’s about destroying a system where cases are carefully considered by people with knowledge of the subject matter.”

This is all perfectly legal, as Politico explained, because immigration judges serve in administrative courts as at-will employees, under the purview of the Department of Justice — and do not have the same protections as the federal judiciary bench.

A spokesperson for the DOJ has said that the department is “restoring integrity to our immigration system and encourages talented legal professionals to join in our mission to protect national security and public safety,” following “four years of the Biden Administration forcing Immigration Courts to implement a de facto amnesty for hundreds of thousands of aliens.”

Johnson also spoke to Politico suggesting that this recruitment language by the DOJ is disingenuous, and that the real intention is just to cripple the entire court system and prevent most legal immigration cases from being heard.

“During Trump One, when I was appointed, there was a policy that got some pushback called ‘No Dark Courtrooms.’ We were to hear cases every day, use all the [available] space,” Johnson said, speaking to Politico. “Now, there’s vacant courtrooms that are not being utilized. And any attempts by the administration saying they’re replacing judges — the math just doesn’t work if you look at the numbers.”

Two Democrats in the House, Reps. Dan Goldman of New York and Zoe Lofgren of California, have recently introduced legislation that would move immigration courts out of the Executive branch, but that seems likely to go nowhere until Democrats regain control in Congress.

Source link

San Francisco, CA

San Francisco supervisors call for hearing into PG&E’s massive blackout

Published

21 hours ago

January 7, 2026

Press Room

San Francisco supervisors call for hearing into PG&E’s massive blackout

SAN FRANCISCO – San Francisco supervisors are calling for a hearing by the board into the massive power outage in the city last month.

Calls for a hearing

What we know:

Supervisor Alan Wong and other lawmakers say residents deserve answers about the outage on December 20, which, at its height, affected about a third of the city.

Wong added that the credits offered by Pacific Gas and Electric are insufficient to cover lost food, wages and many other disruptions. The utility has offered customers and businesses impacted by the Dec. 20 blackout $200 and $2,500 respectively.

Wong in a statement said power was gradually restored during the initial outage, but that periodic outages continued for several days and that full restoration was achieved on Dec. 23.

“This was not a minor inconvenience,” said Sup. Wong. “Families lost heat in the middle of winter. Seniors were stranded in their homes. One of my constituents, a 95-year-old man who relies on a ventilator, had to be rushed to the hospital at 2 a.m. People watched their phones die, worried they would lose their only connection to 911.”

Wong’s office had sent the utility a letter after previous outages on Dec. 7 and Dec. 10, regarding the utility’s lack of reliability. The letter called the frequency of the outages unacceptable.

PG&E agreed with Wong’s office’s characterization of service specific to the Sunset District and met with the supervisor.

Despite this development, the root cause of the outage on Dec. 20, that impacted some 130,000 residents citywide, was due to a substation fire near Mission and 8th streets. That fire remains under investigation.

Wong thanked fellow supervisors Bilal Mahmood, Connie Chan, Stephen Sherrill, Danny Sauter, and Myrna Melgar for co-sponsoring his request. The boardmembers have asked board President Rafael Mandelman to refer their request to the appropriate committee.

Wong is separately submitting a letter of inquiry to the SF Public Utilities Commission requesting an analysis of cost and implementation of what it would take for San Francisco to have its own publicly-owned electrical grid.

The other side:

A PG&E spokesperson addressed the board on Tuesday, asking for the hearing to be scheduled after they get results of an independent investigation.

“We have hired an independent investigator company named Exponent to conduct a root-cause investigation. We are pushing for it to be completed as soon as possible with preliminary results by February which we will share with the city,” said Sarah Yoell with PG&E government affairs. “We are proud of our ongoing investments to serve San Francisco.”

Yoell assured the utility would be transparent with whatever they find.

PG&E added that they have met all state requirements and that they have a current Safety Certificate approved by OEIS (Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety).

Loss of inventory

Abdul Alomari, co-owner of Ember Grill in the Tenderloin, said his business lost electricity during the massive outage.

“It’s not just me. Across the street, all these restaurants here, nearby businesses. It hurst a lot of people. I’m just one small voice from so many people here that got hurt,” said Alomari.

He plans to attend the PG&E hearing and said Tenderloin merchants already have a tough time.

“Less people come here, the Tenderloin, Every single bit of help helps. It doesn’t help that every three months we get a power outage for four hours and we lose business,” said Alomari.

He said compensation from PG&E alone is not the answer. He wants reliability and stability.

“That’s only short time if we have things like this happen all the time, eventually it’ll off set what we get,” Alomari said.

The Source: PG&E statement, interviews with the supervisors, interview with a restaurant owner and original reporting by Amber Lee.

PG&ESan FranciscoNews

Source link

San Francisco, CA

San Francisco has a tax plan to save Muni

Published

1 day ago

January 6, 2026

Press Room

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.

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.

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.

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.”

Source link