San Francisco, CA
SF divided over 'Slow Streets' program: Here's what residents are saying
SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) — Hate them or love them, slow streets were first introduced in San Francisco at the beginning of the pandemic as a way get people outside while social distancing.
A portion of Sanchez street in the Noe Valley neighborhood is a Slow Street. Families share a blissful moment while in the midst of this concrete valley.
“It’s been incredible. It’s been the best way to meet neighbors, the community. You see kids learning how to ride their bicycles, you grab coffee with people you never met before,” expressed Sarah Katzen, a Noe Valley resident.
Just to refresh your memory, the SFMTA introduced the concept of Slow Streets as an way to incorporate other ways of getting around-you know, bicycling, running, walking. They’re not closed to cars, the city just wants you to drive slowly but really who wants to drive at a snail’s pace when you can drive at a normal speed on other streets. And that’s how the controversy of Slow Streets began.
“Pedestrians do not need to walk on the street. Lake Street is half a bock from more than 1,000 acres of trails and parks in the Presidio,” that was at least one opposing voice out of many who spoke at a hearing before the Board of Supervisors in 2022.
San Francisco’s highly-debated ‘Slow Streets’ program to continue. But what does it actually mean?
Huge crowds took to San Francisco City Hall Tuesday, some wanting ‘Slow Streets’ opened to normal traffic at normal speeds, others pushing for the continuation of the program.
Not every neighbor living on or near Lake Street in the inner Richmond district has embraced their slow street. In fact, some argue the program was forced upon them.
Someone even wrote “communism” on a Slow Street sign.
We heard there have been tense moments between pedestrians, bicyclists and drivers.
We wanted to see if that was true and decided to set up a chair to observe.
We found more-than-your-average number of cars insisting on driving on Lake street. Some even exceeding the suggested 15 miles per hour.
In Noe Valley, the slow street program has also been divisive.
“We see guys, they’ll yell at people on the street for being on the street, ‘get out of the street,’ right next to a sign here. So that’s the kind of response that we’re getting for the motorists,” explained a Noe Valley resident who only gave us his first name, Rich.
Some say slow streets are safe streets. So far 14 pedestrians have died in traffic accidents in the city,
MORE: Infant dies following horrific crash at SF West Portal bus station, police say
A 78-year-old female driver who crashed into a bus stop in the West Portal neighborhood over the weekend is no longer in police custody.
However, no one has ever been killed on a slow street.
A few locals have also complained that having a slow street has increased the amount of traffic on the adjacent streets.
ABC7 News was able to analyze San Francisco County transportation data available for roads adjacent to slow streets. Though data wasn’t available for all of them.
The one’s we could review actually showed little to no traffic impact on nearby streets since the program was adopted.
But even those who want to keep them, say there are STILL issues that need to be addressed.
For example, a few construction workers now double park for most of the day on this slow street.
“There’s a lot of contractors or people who feel like because it’s a slow street they can just park. They’re not pulling permits, they’re not doing things the right way. They’re just doing it because it’s easy for them. I understand that but it does make it a hazard for people who are bicycling or walking because if forces them into oncoming traffic. That is very unsafe,” said Molly Hayden, a Page Street Steward.
She told us there is little to no enforcement which is the responsibility of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation agency, the SFMTA.
“We are doing out best to allocated our limited resources in a way that we see meets the highest value for that time.,” explained Amanda Eaken, Chair of the SFMTA Board of Directors.
MORE: Valencia Street update: SFMTA looks to get alternative for controversial center bike lane approved
San Francisco is considering a replacement for a center bike lane that’s been blamed for hurting businesses on Valencia Street.
SFMTA encourages people to report all incidents to the 311 customer service center.
Neighbors and merchants were adamantly opposed to having a slow street on a section of West Portal Avenue back when it was proposed. They fought both their district supervisor and the SFTMA and were successful.
George Wooding of the Midtown Terrace Homeowners Association said the slow street would have hurt business owners.
“What you do is you end up excluding a tremendous number of potential customers in an area and just destroying the merchants,” said Wooding.
We polled every leading San Francisco mayoral candidate. Mark Farrell said he supports most slow streets. Everyone else told us they favor keeping slow streets but all believe improvements are needed.
MORE: Former SF interim Mayor Mark Farrell on why he’s running for official seat, plan for downtown
We asked Eaken how the SFMTA plans on improving things to fit the specific needs of each community.
“So through a lot of detailed outreach and engagement and listening, learning from those community members what are their unique needs, we can then design which are those particular interventions. So this is really a conversation and collaboration to make sure that each streets meets the particular needs of that place,” added Eaken.
Copyright © 2024 KGO-TV. All Rights Reserved.
San Francisco, CA
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
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
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.
San Francisco, CA
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.
San Francisco, CA
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.
-
Detroit, MI5 days ago2 hospitalized after shooting on Lodge Freeway in Detroit
-
Technology2 days agoPower bank feature creep is out of control
-
Dallas, TX3 days agoDefensive coordinator candidates who could improve Cowboys’ brutal secondary in 2026
-
Health4 days agoViral New Year reset routine is helping people adopt healthier habits
-
Nebraska2 days agoOregon State LB transfer Dexter Foster commits to Nebraska
-
Nebraska2 days agoNebraska-based pizza chain Godfather’s Pizza is set to open a new location in Queen Creek
-
Iowa2 days agoPat McAfee praises Audi Crooks, plays hype song for Iowa State star
-
Entertainment1 day agoSpotify digs in on podcasts with new Hollywood studios