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.
San Francisco, CA
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.
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.
Few things are more valuable in the Bay Area than real estate. In San Francisco, the median house price is now over $2 million. Last month, at least seven houses in the city sold for $1 million over the asking price, and buyers regularly offer to pay in cash or waive contingencies to stay competitive. Yet there is one thing that remains even more valuable than a house, and possibly more valuable than money itself: stock in Anthropic or OpenAI.
Last week, 160 Noe Street, an Edwardian home in San Francisco’s desirable Duboce Triangle neighborhood, was listed for sale at $2.9 million—or the equivalent amount in Anthropic or OpenAI shares, as based on those companies’ current valuations. Rachel Swann, the listing agent, says she was inspired to set these unusual terms after meeting several Anthropic employees at an open house for a different property. “These people have a lot of paper wealth, but they don’t always have the liquidity to do things they want,” Swann says. Some of these employees were expecting to come into as much as $50 million from their Anthropic shares, and wondered if they could use that as leverage to buy a house, according to Swann. “This kept coming up over and over again.”
Swann’s listing is unconventional, but not singular. In April, an investment banker named Storm Duncan offered to exchange his Mill Valley home and an adjacent parcel of land for Anthropic shares. And in May, Vijay Chattha, who owns an agency that does PR for tech companies, listed his Healdsburg home for $2.5 million, or $2 million in Anthropic stock. “I want to sell my house, and I want to invest in Anthropic,” Chattha says. “Why not combine the two?
Chattha’s house—a three bed, three bath with a pool and a bocce court in a part of Sonoma County that abuts some of the region’s most famous wineries—also comes with coveted short-term rental status, allowing the owner to list it on platforms like Airbnb. Only a handful of properties in Healdsburg come with that status, and only about a dozen come up for sale in a given year.
Chattha is offering a $500,000 discount to Anthropic employees because he believes the value of Anthropic shares will grow faster than any other investment, and his vacation home in wine country is the best bargaining chip he has to try to access them. “If you look at Anthropic’s growth last year, it’s insane,” he says, noting the $380 billion valuation the company claimed in February. “Now they’re raising at $965 billion. That’s three X in like three months.” He added that he was open to exchanging the house for shares in Anthropic, but not OpenAI, because he prefers using Anthropic’s products.
The real estate listings come at a time when investors are salivating at the record-high valuations of Anthropic and OpenAI, and even those considered wealthy by Bay Area standards are feeling FOMO about the affluence that could come from these companies’ debuts on the stock market. (On Monday, Anthropic submitted paperwork for its initial public offering; OpenAI is also reportedly preparing to file in the coming months.) Despite the unprecedented valuations of these companies, many people believe their stock prices will only go up, and that anyone who gets a piece now could win the jackpot.
People are clamoring to buy equity in OpenAI and Anthropic on the secondary market, leading to a frenzy of transactions that may or may not be legitimate. As a result, Anthropic updated its policy around “unauthorized Anthropic stock sales” this spring, which notes that “if someone purports to sell Anthropic shares without proper board approval, that transaction is invalid.” A spokesperson for Anthropic pointed back to this policy when asked about the possibility of exchanging company shares for real estate.
Welcome to our running tally of Election Night results. Or, as this is California, well beyond tonight, as results continue to trickle in.
The first batch of results should arrive at 8:45 p.m., with three more to follow tonight. The Department of Elections has the breakdown.
San Francisco is voting in three special elections, for District 2 and District 4 supervisors and for a Board of Education member. Both supervisor races are referendums on housing, especially District 2, while the main backdrop of the D4 race is all the hot feelings around the fate of the Sunset Dunes Park (nee Great Highway).
The winners of all three special races will have to compete again in November for their seats.
Keeping it local, SF is also voting on four ballot measures. Prop A is for a bond to pay for an emergency water-system. B is for term limits. C and D are dueling measures related to the “overpaid CEO” tax. (Links go to our reporting on each race or issue; or click here for our Election 2026 page.)
Vote local, think national: Which two candidates will advance to the November election to replace Nancy Pelosi?
Statewide races include the primaries for governor, education superintendent, lieutenant governor, and much more.
Polls close soon. If you haven’t voted yet, find your polling station here.
Tuesday, June 2, 5:40 p.m.
Two and a half hours until our polls close. Before we go down the local rabbit hole, a reminder that other states have primary action today: New Jersey, Iowa, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Montana.
Why does it take so long to get results in California? CalMatters has you covered on that story. We shouldn’t expect a call tonight on the governor’s race.
The last big election was November 5, 2024. (Remember?) Ten days later, there were still races to call in San Francisco.
So if you’re waiting for the pundits (and maybe even us) to tell you What It All Means, you might have to wait a while.
More from The Frisc…
San Francisco, CA
San Francisco voters to decide on dueling measures on Top Executive Pay Tax changes
San Francisco voters weighed in Tuesday on two competing measures that seek to change the Top Executive Pay Tax, with one of the measures also including a change to the Gross Receipts Tax.
Should both measures pass, the one with the most votes will take effect, according to the propositions’ legal text.
Currently, the measures state that most businesses with San Francisco gross receipts up to $5 million are exempt from the Gross Receipts Tax. And businesses that use more than half of their city payroll for in-house administrative and management services pay an Administrative Office Tax instead of a Gross Receipts Tax.
The Top Executive Pay Tax is a tax some large businesses pay if their highest-paid managerial employee earns more than 100 times the median pay of their San Francisco employees. Businesses that have city gross receipts up to $5 million and are not subject to the Administrative Office Tax are exempt.
Proposition C
Proposition C states it would increase the number of businesses that could be exempt from the Gross Receipts Tax and would stop any further increases to the “Top Executive Pay Tax” after a final rate bump.
The proposed measure says it would raise the Gross Receipts Tax exemption ceiling to $7.5 million. The $7.5 million ceiling would also apply to the Top Executive Pay Tax exemption.
As for changes to the Top Executive Pay Tax, Proposition C states it would implement the 2028 tax rate increase in 2027, but then stop any future increases.
Supporting Proposition C are Rodney Fong, CEO of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, and Chris Wright, senior vice president of Advance SF, an organization of companies, which includes Bank of America, OpenAI, Waymo, the SF Giants CEO and others.
Fong and Wright, in their argument for the measure, say giving businesses more tax breaks would help keep more employees on payroll and would give companies the ability to “contribute to city services in a predictable and balanced way.”
Critics of Proposition C, such as the San Francisco Tenants Union, slam the measure as “billionaire-backed” and argue it would kill the Top Executive Pay Tax and would hand out more tax breaks to businesses at a time when the city is in a budget deficit and faces cuts to essential services.
Proposition D
Proposition D also seeks to change the Top Executive Pay Tax, which is collected from some large businesses where the highest-paid managerial employee earns more than 100 times the median compensation paid to other employees.
If approved, the measure would change the calculation of the tax using the compensation of all employees, not just employees based in San Francisco. Top Executive Pay Tax rates would also be increased for San Francisco gross receipts and payroll.
Supporters have billed the measure as a way to counteract federal cuts to Medicaid. A report by the City Controller’s Office said the measure could result in $250 million to $300 million in additional revenue.
“Proposition D is the solution to our budget deficit. It asks large corporations — not small businesses, not working families — to contribute a little more,” supporters said in the city’s official voter guide.
The measure has the backing of most of the Board of Supervisors, along with labor unions and Rep. Nancy Pelosi.
Opponents, including Mayor Daniel Lurie and state Sen. Scott Wiener, have argued Proposition D would negatively impact the city’s recovery following the COVID-19 pandemic.
“San Francisco is already one of the most expensive cities in the country to live and do business. Adding extreme and unpredictable tax increases risks driving employers away just as we are trying to bring jobs, workers, and foot traffic back downtown,” said Supervisor Matt Dorsey in the city’s voter guide.
-
Kentucky1 minute agoFayette County school board chair, KEA sue to block Kentucky law that would oust current members
-
Louisiana5 minutes agoLouisiana insurance officials to announce retirement of Katrina, Rita bonds
-
Maine17 minutes agoMaine’s abrupt plan to cut $400M in construction projects roils the industry
-
Maryland19 minutes agoMan found dead in South Carolina after shooting ex-girlfriend in Maryland
-
Michigan24 minutes agoGotion wants Michigan township to pay the $23.7M it owes in incentives
-
Massachusetts32 minutes agoFrench-Mediterranean Eatery Charts Opening In Boston
-
Minnesota34 minutes agoDennis Peterson
-
Mississippi39 minutes agoMHSAA private schools will have enrollment multiplier starting in 2027-28 season
