San Francisco, CA

San Francisco’s system of governance is a mess. There’s a fix — but it will take a village

Published

2 months ago

November 15, 2025

San Francisco’s system of governance is a mess. There’s a fix — but it will take a village

Streamlining San Francisco’s City Charter, empowering the mayor and raising the threshold for placing measures on the ballot will help the city function better.

Jessica Christian/S.F. Chronicle

For many of us, focusing on a task is difficult when we’re working in a chaotic, disorganized space. Cluttered room, cluttered mind as they say.

The same is true for the government. When you have rules and laws that are messy and conflicting, solutions to intractable problems can easily become obscured by towering piles of bureaucracy.

Here in San Francisco, our rule books are a hoarder’s house of clutter.

Article continues below this ad

San Francisco’s charter is akin to a constitution — it outlines central rules and principles for governing our joint city and county. But over decades, this document has become filled with so much legal ephemera that it now spans 548 pages — the longest of any city in the country.

By way of comparison, Seattle’s charter is only 23 pages.

Make us a Preferred Source on Google to see more of us when you search.

Add Preferred Source

Unsurprisingly, this has led to less-than-ideal outcomes.

Among them: A literally uncountable number of commissions, including commissions that oversee departments that no longer exist, a lack of clarity over who’s responsible for what and unnecessarily complex and opaque processes that breed corruption.

Article continues below this ad

This mess is largely San Francisco’s own creation, which means the city needs to do the vast majority of the work to clean it up. The law dictates there’s no way to fix these bloated rules without a ballot initiative.

That effort is already underway.

Voters passed Proposition E last November, which ironically created a new commission to evaluate existing commissions and recommend which could be combined or shuttered. The Prop E committee is scheduled to release its recommendations to Mayor Daniel Lurie and the Board of Supervisors in February. Prop E also requires these recommendations to be placed in a draft charter amendment that will go through the typical legislative process at the Board of Supervisors before being sent to voters in a likely November 2026 ballot measure.

But commission reform is only one necessary component of overhauling San Francisco’s charter. Larger changes are needed — and they form the heart of a report released Monday by the urban think tank SPUR.

The report, dubbed “Charter for Change,” makes 10 key recommendations that SPUR argues should also be incorporated into the November 2026 ballot measure.

Article continues below this ad

Many of the recommendations reinforce those SPUR made in a similar report last year that focused on improving San Francisco’s governance. For example, the group argues the mayor should be given the authority to hire and fire most department heads.

Some will no doubt cry foul over the idea of expanding executive power — especially after the fiasco this week with the resignation of Mayor Lurie’s pick to fill the open District 4 seat left by the recall of Joel Engardio. But this is nevertheless a common-sense suggestion.

San Franciscans largely hold the mayor responsible for the state of the city. Under the charter, however, the mayor has unilateral authority to appoint just four of the more than 50 department heads and lacks explicit authority to fire some of them.

Citizens have limited ability to hold their government accountable when power is spread out over diffuse boards and nominating commissions. But when the mayor controls departments, you know who to vote out when things aren’t getting done.

SPUR also suggests empowering the city administrator by turning the position into a chief operating officer focused on essential city operations, long-term projects and reforming San Francisco’s byzantine purchasing rules.

Article continues below this ad

None of these changes will mean much, however, if we continue to expand our monstrous rule books with ultra-long, complex ballots that give voters the chance to add even more clutter.

Right now, it’s too easy to place measures before voters. Non-charter amendments can be put on the ballot unilaterally by the mayor, with only 4 of 11 Board of Supervisors votes and by any group that collects signatures from 2% of registered voters.

These low thresholds invite political posturing and disincentivize thoughtful policymaking. In 2022, for example, then-Mayor London Breed and progressive supervisors placed two competing housing measures on the ballot instead of finding a legislative compromise. Unsurprisingly, confused voters rejected both measures. And last year, Prop E was — ironically — one of two competing commission-streamlining measures on the ballot; voters rejected the alternative, Prop D.

SPUR recommends raising the threshold for non-charter amendment ballot measures: The Board of Supervisors would need a majority vote, the mayor would need board approval and groups would need to gather signatures from 5% of registered voters, a percentage in line with other charter cities.

What about proposals that would amend the charter?

Article continues below this ad

To keep San Francisco’s charter from getting even more clogged, SPUR proposes raising the threshold for putting charter amendments on the ballot. Right now, it can be done by a majority vote on the Board of Supervisors or by groups that gather signatures from 10% of registered voters.

SPUR wants to see the signature-gathering requirement pushed to 15%, and it also wants to empower the mayor to veto a charter amendment proposed by a board majority — although the board could then override that veto with its own supermajority vote.

These changes, however, would require a tweak to state law. We’re hopeful that one of San Francisco’s state lawmakers will take up the cause in Sacramento.

Far from diluting voters’ power, the tweak would bring San Francisco in line with other charter cities in California — while also accounting for our unique status as the only joint city and county in the state.

Other large charter cities and major economic centers in California — such as Los Angeles, San Jose and San Diego — require groups to gather signatures from 15% of registered voters to place charter amendments on the ballot.

But San Francisco is also the only California city and county governed simultaneously by a mayor. Given this distinctive setup — and the unique responsibility it confers on the mayor — it makes sense for the mayor to play a role in shaping charter amendments.

The state should do its small part to help San Francisco improve its governance. That said, California cannot save San Francisco from itself. If we want to clean up our system of governance, we’ll have to do it ourselves.

Some version of charter reform will be on the ballot next year.

The editorial positions of The Chronicle, including election recommendations, represent the consensus of the editorial board, consisting of the publisher, the editorial page editor and staff members of the opinion pages. Its judgments are made independent of the news operation, which covers the news without consideration of our editorial positions.

Can our leaders set infighting aside and craft a comprehensive measure to meaningfully improve our charter? And, if so, will residents be willing to relinquish some of their power of direct democracy so that the city can function as smoothly as they insist they want it to?

The California Legislature can’t answer that question. Only San Francisco can.

Reach the editorial board with a letter to the editor:www.sfchronicle.com/submit-your-opinion.

Source link

Related Topics:Election Featured opinion Politics San Francisco

Click to comment

San Francisco, CA

San Francisco District Attorney speaks on city’s crime drop

Published

6 hours ago

January 9, 2026

Press Room

San Francisco District Attorney speaks on city’s crime drop

Thursday marks one year in office for San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie.

Lurie was elected in the 14th round of ranked choice voting in 2024, beating incumbent London Breed.

His campaign centered around public safety and revitalization of the city.

Mayor Lurie is also celebrating a significant drop in crime; late last week, the police chief said crime hit historic lows in 2025.

Overall violent crime dropped 25% in the city, which includes the lowest homicide rate since the 1950s.
Robberies are down 24%.
Car break-ins are down 43%.

San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins spoke with NBC Bay Area about this accomplishment. Watch the full interview in the video player above.

Source link

San Francisco, CA

San Francisco celebrates drop in traffic deaths

Published

18 hours ago

January 8, 2026

Press Room

San Francisco celebrates drop in traffic deaths

San Francisco says traffic deaths plunged 42% last year.

While the city celebrates the numbers, leaders say there’s still a lot more work to do.

“We are so glad to see fewer of these tragedies on our streets last year, and I hope this is a turning point for this city,” said Marta Lindsey with Walk San Francisco.

Marta is cautiously optimistic as the city looks to build on its street safety efforts.

“The city has been doing more of the things we need on our streets, whether its speed cameras or daylighting or speed humps,” she said.

Viktorya Wise with the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency said there are many things the agency has been doing to ensure street safety is the focus, including adding speed cameras at 33 locations, and it’s paying off.

“Besides the visible speed cameras, we’re doing a lot of basic bread and butter work on our streets,” Wise said. “For example, we’re really data driven and focused on the high injury network.”

Late last year, Mayor Daniel Lurie announced the city’s street safety initiative.

“Bringing together all of the departments, all of the city family to collectively tackle the problem of street safety,” Wise said. “And all of us working together into the future, I’m very hopeful that we will continue this trend.”

Source link

San Francisco, CA

Year 1 of the Lurie era is done. Here’s how he kept — or whiffed — his biggest promises

Published

1 day ago

January 8, 2026

Press Room

Year 1 of the Lurie era is done. Here’s how he kept — or whiffed — his biggest promises

On Jan. 8 of last year, San Francisco tried on its new mayor like a pair of Levi’s 501 jeans.

So far, it has liked the fit.

For 365 days, Mayor Daniel Lurie has taken swings at solving the city’s ills: scrambling to scrap the fentanyl scourge, working to house the homeless, and shaking his proverbial pompoms with enough vigor to cheerlead downtown back to life.

So is San Francisco all fixed now?

The eye test tells one story. The data tell another. But politics is more than paper gains and policy battles. It’s also a popularity contest — and Lurie has categorically been winning his, riding high on a stratospheric 71% approval rating.

Lurie’s rainbow-filled Instagram posts have gone a long way toward soothing locals’ doom-loop fears, but the political fortress he’s built over the past year could easily crumble.

After all, his predecessors as mayor, London Breed and the late Ed Lee, each enjoyed positive approval ratings (opens in new tab) in their first year in office. But the honeymoons lasted only about that long before voters gradually soured on their performance. Should San Franciscans’ adulation for Lurie similarly ebb, his policies might meet more resistance.

Still, if there’s one pattern with Lurie’s efforts in his freshman year, it’s this: While he hasn’t achieved all of his lofty goals, he has fundamentally changed how the city approaches many of its problems, potentially setting up success for future years.

As we enter Lurie: Year 2, here’s a rundown of where the mayor has delivered on his campaign promises, where he’s been stymied, and why voters may continue to give him the benefit of the doubt. At least, for now.

Misery on the streets

Jason Henry for The Standard

Headwinds: While Candidate Lurie promised to declare a fentanyl “state of emergency” on his first day in office, he quickly found it wasn’t legal to do so. (Per the city’s administrative codes, an emergency needs to be sudden and unforeseen; the fentanyl epidemic was neither.) Instead, the mayor asked the Board of Supervisors to grant him similar powers that an emergency declaration would have afforded him, and they agreed. But as Lurie touted his efforts to curb drug use on Sixth Street, all those drug dealers just moseyed on down to the Mission. The mayor’s first year in office ended with 588 drug overdose deaths, according to the office of the medical examiner (opens in new tab). That’s an improvement from the 635 in 2024, but it’s still an appalling body count — and December 2025 isn’t even part of the official tally yet.

Silver linings: The mayor employed his newfound powers to speed up approvals of initiatives, notching well-publicized wins, like fast-tracking the 822 Geary stabilization center, where police can place mentally ill folks instead of arresting them. It’s got a 25% better success rate at connecting patients to treatment than previous facilities, according to city data, part of a noted change for the better in the Tenderloin. And while some of the police’s high-profile drug busts didn’t net, you know, actual drug dealers, law-and-order-hungry San Franciscans were just happy to see batons fly.

Shelter-bed shuffle

Source: Manuel Orbegozo for The Standard

Headwinds: On the campaign trail, Lurie talked a big game about his nonprofit experience, which he claimed had allowed him to cinch deals to create shelter that seasoned politicians had been too slow to enact. He even promised 1,500 treatment and recovery beds built for homeless folks in just six months. By midyear, he had backed off that promise. The real number of beds Lurie created in 2025 is about 500, and that’s after 12 months — twice the amount of time he gave himself.

Silver linings: Housed San Franciscans gauge success on homelessness with their eyeballs, not bureaucrats’ spreadsheets. By that measure, Lurie is succeeding. As of December, the city counted (opens in new tab) just 162 tents and similar structures, almost half as many as the previous year. (And as a stark counter to what some would call an achievement, for people on the streets, that can mean danger — without a thin layer of nylon to hide in, homeless women say they are experiencing more sexual assaults.) And drug markets haven’t vanished; they just moved to later hours. But are folks really getting help? Rudy Bakta, a man living on San Francisco’s streets, would tell you no, as he’s stuck in systemic limbo seeking a home. He’s just one of thousands.

Reviving the economy

Headwinds: Lurie asked for (opens in new tab) “18 to 24 months” to see downtown booming again, so we shouldn’t ding him for Market Street’s continued slow recovery. Foot traffic downtown has generally risen, reaching 80% of pre-pandemic levels by midyear, but slumped to roughly 70% as of November. While it doesn’t sound like much, that’s a reversal of the rising trend the city controller had projected. Office attendance is also slipping. It had risen past 45% of pre-pandemic occupancy in January 2025 but by the fall had slid below 40%.

Other economic indicators are wobbly too. Hotel occupancy “lost steam” in November, the controller wrote, nearing pre-pandemic levels in the summer but dipping below 2019 levels in the fall. The poster child for downtown’s troubles is undoubtedly the San Francisco Centre, the cavernous, and soon tenantless, shell of its former self. And while public employee unions are undoubtedly happy that promised layoffs were avoided, Lurie’s light hand in his first-ever budget pushed some even harder decisions to 2026’s budget season.

Silver linings: There’s a brighter story to tell outside the Financial District: Neighborhoods are where the action is nowadays. Just ask anyone dining at one of Stonestown Galleria’s 27 restaurants. This is where Lurie’s Instagram account (opens in new tab) truly has generated its own reality, crafting an image of a retail and restaurant renaissance. While that neighborhood vibrancy may lead some to shrug their shoulders concerning downtown’s continuing malaise, it’s worth noting that San Francisco’s coffers depend on taxes generated by the businesses nestled in those skyscrapers. There’s a reason we had a nearly $800 million budget deficit last year.

Fully staffing the SFPD

Headwinds: At first glance, Lurie appears on track to meet his campaign promise to staff up the city’s police force. “I’ve talked with current command staff and former command staff. We can recruit 425 officers in my first three years. We will get that done,” he said at a 2024 League of Women Voters forum. True to his word, the SFPD hired and rehired roughly 144 officers last year. There’s just one problem: The department recalculated the number of officers it needs in order to be fully staffed, raising the number to 691. And the police academy, which already struggled with graduating officers, might be hampered in the aftermath of a cadet’s death, after which top brass reassigned the academy’s leadership.

Silver linings: Crime is trending down, and that’s what voters care about, full stop. The reduction is part of a national trend (opens in new tab), yes, but San Francisco’s rates are experiencing an exceptional drop. Really, Lurie really should be sending Breed a thank-you card. Her March 2024 ballot measure Proposition E (opens in new tab) gave the SFPD carte blanche to unleash a bevy of technological tools to enable arrests, including drones and license plate readers, which have seen noted success. “Soon as you slide past that motherf—er with stolen plates, they’re gonna issue a warning to every SFPD station in that area, if not the entire city … and they start dispatching to that area,” rapper Dreamlife Rizzy said in a recent podcast, as reported by the New York Post (opens in new tab). That is music to any crime-fighting mayor’s ears.

Source link