Dem mayor unleashes task force in attempt to rescue crime-ridden city: 'Restore order to our streets'
San Francisco Mayor David Lurie launched the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) Hospitality Task Force and secured a key vote in support of the Fentanyl State of Emergency Ordinance this week as he works to clean up San Francisco's streets and restore common sense policies to the liberal city.
San Francisco has had one of the slowest economic recoveries from the COVID-19 pandemic in the country. Images of San Francisco's open-air drug markets, homeless encampments and empty office buildings have caught the nation's attention since the pandemic.
The SFPD Hospitality Task Force will target San Francisco's business and tourist districts, increasing police presence, dedicating resources to high-traffic areas and offering support to the hospitality industry.
"Helping people feel safe walking downtown is the key to unleashing our city's comeback," Lurie said. "We are creating the conditions for a thriving commercial center by launching the SFPD Hospitality Task Force. The Hospitality Task Force will break down silos to increase the police presence across the areas that drive our city's economy, not just during large conferences, but 365 days a year."
Former Aoc Chief Of Staff Announces Run Against Pelosi, Calls Dems 'Paralyzed And Unprepared' Under Trump
Major retailers, including Nordstrom and Saks Off Fifth, pulled out of San Francisco's downtown due to rising crime and dwindling foot traffic. After more than 20 years in the heart of downtown San Francisco, Westfield abandoned the San Francisco Centre mall in 2023, citing a decline in sales, occupancy and foot traffic.
Read On The Fox News App
San Franciscans voted Mayor London Breed out of office in November. She was elected in 2018 and led the city through its struggling pandemic recovery. Lurie, a Levi's heir and political outsider, began his first term as mayor in January.
He campaigned on cleaning up San Francisco's streets, public safety, tackling the city's drug crisis, creating housing, cutting through corrupt bureaucracy and "breathing life back into our downtown."
California Plans To Continue Allowing Trans Athletes To Compete In Girls' Sports Despite Trump Executive Order
"With a safe, bustling downtown, we will attract businesses, shoppers, tourists and conventions, creating jobs, generating revenue and helping us provide better services for everyone in San Francisco," Lurie said of the new task force.
Also this week, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted 10-1 in favor of Mayor Lurie's Fentanyl State of Emergency Ordinance.
"As a candidate for mayor, I promised San Franciscans that I would work in partnership with the Board of Supervisors to take action on the critical issues facing our city," Lurie said. "As mayor, I am proud to be delivering on that promise today. The Fentanyl State of Emergency Ordinance gives us the tools to treat this crisis with the urgency it demands. And with our partners on the board, that's exactly what we will do."
The ordinance will equip the city with the resources "to get drugs off the street and keep San Franciscans safe" by unlocking funding and expediting the contracting process to allow for expanded treatment options, increased shelter capacity and health initiatives. The full Board of Supervisors will address the ordinance Tuesday for a second and final reading before Lurie can sign the ordinance into law.
Click To Get The Fox News App
"I don't think there's a problem facing San Francisco today that isn't caused by or made significantly worse by street-level drug addiction," Supervisor Matt Dorsey, who voted in favor of the ordinance, said.
"Mayor Lurie's emergency ordinance aims to surge resources that deliver solutions as big as the problems. This is a needed approach to restore order to our streets, to diminish San Francisco's attraction as a drug-use and drug-dealing destination and to save lives."Original article source: Dem mayor unleashes task force in attempt to rescue crime-ridden city: 'Restore order to our streets'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
13 minutes ago
- Fox News
Musk signals potential softening of feud with simple one emoji response to clip of Trump wishing him well
President Trump's relationship with Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, which appeared to publicly blow up last week as the two feuded in public, took a softer tone on Monday when Musk responded to a clip of the president on X. "We had a great relationship and I wish him well — very well, actually," Trump said on Monday in a clip that was posted by conservative influencer ALX. Musk responded to that post with a heart emoji on Monday evening. Earlier in the day, Fox News Digital reported that the public spat between the two billionaires appeared to be losing steam after Musk seemingly issued support from Trump's handling of the anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles. "Governor Gavin Newscum and 'Mayor' Bass should apologize to the people of Los Angeles for the absolutely horrible job that they've done, and this now includes the ongoing L.A. riots," Trump said late Sunday in the post Musk shared. "These are not protesters, they are troublemakers and insurrectionists." Additionally, Musk also re-posted one of Vice President JD Vance's posts on X about the riots. "This moment calls for decisive leadership," Vance said, sharing a screenshot of a post from Trump about how his administration would address the riots. "The president will not tolerate rioting and violence." Musk also appeared to post a self-deprecating joke about himself on X on Sunday which many interpreted to be a veiled reference to the fallout with Trump. "It's outrageous how much character assassination has been directed at me, especially by me!" Musk posted. While speaking with reporters in the Oval Office on Thursday, Trump said that he was "very disappointed" by Musk's vocal criticisms of the bill. The president claimed that Musk knew what was in the bill and "had no problem" with it until the EV incentives had to be cut. On X, Musk called that assessment "false." Trump turned to social media to criticize Musk, who he appointed to find ways to cut $2 trillion after forming the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). "Elon was 'wearing thin,' I asked him to leave, I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!" Trump said in one post. In another post, Trump said, "I don't mind Elon turning against me, but he should have done so months ago. This is one of the Greatest Bills ever presented to Congress. It's a Record Cut in Expenses, $1.6 Trillion Dollars, and the Biggest Tax Cut ever given." "If this Bill doesn't pass, there will be a 68% tax increase, and things far worse than that. I didn't create this mess, I'm just here to FIX IT. This puts our Country on a Path of Greatness. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" At one point, Musk referenced late pedophile Jeffrey Epstein in relation to Trump as part of the larger tirade in a comment that several Republicans told Fox News Digital went "too far." Musk deleted that post days later. Other posts from Musk included a claim that Trump would not have won the election without his help while accusing Trump of "ingratitude." In another post, Musk suggested that Trump should be impeached and replaced by Vice President Vance. Trump told Fox News on Friday that he isn't interested in talking to Musk, adding that "Elon's totally lost it." Trump also said to Fox News' Bret Baier that he isn't worried about Musk's suggestion to form a new political party, citing favorable polls and strong support from Republicans on Capitol Hill.
CNN
17 minutes ago
- CNN
Trump officials quietly discuss moves in LA that avoid invoking Insurrection Act, but it's not off the table
President Donald Trump and Stephen Miller, the architect of his immigration crackdown, have repeatedly used the word 'insurrection' to describe the protests in Los Angeles, hinting they might invoke a rarely-used law by that name to dramatically escalate US military intervention on city streets. But behind the scenes, administration lawyers have been working to craft a much less confrontational way of protecting the federal government's ability to carry out immigration enforcement, hoping to avoid further inflaming the situation, according to multiple people briefed on the discussions. At issue is the Insurrection Act, which permits the president to use military forces to end an insurrection or rebellion on US soil. On Monday, the administration mobilized more than 700 Marines based out of the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center to join the thousands of National Guard troops Trump activated over the weekend. But they were deployed under a different legal authority and so far, most of those troops have worked to protect federal buildings, not put down civil unrest on city streets. Invoking the Insurrection Act would allow them to expand their mission. Trump has taken part in conversations surrounding the act, according to two sources familiar with the matter, but has not made a final decision on what to do. One administration official said those involved had effectively decided not to use the act – but the lawsuit announced by California Monday challenging the move to federalize National Guard members may change their calculus. Now, that official and others said, the administration is going to weigh what happens on the ground in LA Monday night and over the next few days – and could still invoke the act if necessary. A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment. Trump's top advisers have been watching closely. Over the course of the day Monday, Homeland Security and Pentagon officials provided regular updates on the situation in Los Angeles to the Situation Room, where Miller presided. The message from Miller was clear: the administration wasn't backing down in LA, and they wouldn't 'give up' the city, according to a source familiar with the discussions. On Monday, Miller posted on X, 'This is an organized insurrection against the laws and sovereignty of the United States.' Homeland Security assets, like US Customs and Border Protection resources and personnel, are expected to remain in the city for the foreseeable future as Immigration and Customs Enforcement continues to carry out immigration enforcement operations. Speaking to reporters Monday, Trump said of the protests: 'I wouldn't call it quite an insurrection, but it could have led to an insurrection. I mean that was a serious, that was a lot of, that was a lot of harm that was going on last night. I watched it very closely, and it was amazing the job that the National Guard did.' Hours earlier, Trump said of the demonstrators, 'They're insurrectionists. They're bad people, they should be in jail.' Attorney General Pam Bondi has been actively involved in crafting the administration's response. The White House Counsel's office coordinated with the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche's office to help outline the legal strategy for the president's weekend memorandum that authorized the deployment of National Guard troops under federal authority. That was done over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, the sources said. The president's order in LA relies on what is known as Title 10 powers. In the Justice Department's view, those powers allow the president to use the military to intervene when enforcement of federal law is being impeded. Trump confronted a similar debate during his first administration, when he and Miller similarly pushed for a heavy-handed use of troops to quell riots in Washington and Portland, Ore., in the wake of the police killing of George Floyd. In 2020, Attorney General Bill Barr rejected a heavier federal response and sent in US Marshals and other civilian law enforcement to protect the federal courthouse, which was under siege from nightly violent protests. In Washington, D.C., the federal government used National Guard military police from other states, under authorization of governors in those states, in Washington, D.C., to help federal law enforcement restore order. Asked in September 2020 about using the National Guard, he suggested he could not intervene in racial justice demonstrations without a request from state authorities. 'Look, we have laws. We have to go by the laws,' Trump said at an ABC News town hall: 'We can't call in the National Guard unless we're requested by a governor.' CNN's Samantha Waldenberg contributed to this report.
New York Times
17 minutes ago
- New York Times
Live Updates: Trump Sends Marines to L.A. on 4th Day of Immigration Protests
Members of California's National Guard outside of the Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles on Sunday. The state of California on Monday filed suit against the Trump administration over its move to take control of the state's National Guard and deploy its troops to Los Angeles to protect immigration enforcement agents. Gov. Gavin Newsom had foreshadowed the filing in a social media post earlier on Monday. Before the complaint was filed, the state's attorney general, Rob Bonta, said in a news conference on Monday that the lawsuit would ask a court to hold unlawful and set aside Mr. Trump's order. 'We don't take lightly to the president abusing his authority and unlawfully mobilizing California National Guard troops,' Mr. Bonta said. The lawsuit argues that Mr. Trump's federalization of the state's National Guard was illegal because he bypassed Mr. Newsom, Mr. Bonta said, and because it violated the Tenth Amendment, which protects state rights. He argued that local law enforcement had been capable of handling the situation and could have requested support from state partners had it been necessary. Mr. Bonta also said that the situation had been calming before Mr. Trump's move incited new unrest. 'Trump and Hegseth jumped from 0 to 60,' Mr. Bonta said, referring to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. 'Bypassing law enforcement expertise and evaluation, they threw caution to the wind and sidelined strategy in an unnecessary and inflammatory escalation that only further spurred unrest.' The U.S. Justice Department press office declined to comment. Mr. Newsom's office foreshadowed the litigation in a letter to Mr. Hegseth on Sunday. 'In dynamic and fluid situations such as the one in Los Angeles, state and local authorities are the most appropriate ones to evaluate the need for resources to safeguard life and property,' Mr. Newsom's legal affairs secretary, David Sapp, wrote in the letter. 'Indeed the decision to deploy the National Guard, without appropriate training or orders, risks seriously escalating the situation.' Mr. Trump said on Saturday that he was imposing federal control over at least 2,000 National Guard troops for at least 60 days in order to quell the protests, and directed Mr. Hegseth to determine which ones to use. The order did not specify that the troops needed to come from California, but so far the California National Guard has been used, according to the U.S. Northern Command. Mr. Trump's order suggested that protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids and detention facilities were interfering with federal functions, and that they constituted a rebellion against the federal government's authority and its ability to enforce federal law. That is the standard for invoking the Insurrection Act to use the military for domestic policing. But the order did not invoke the Insurrection Act. Instead, it cited only a statute that allowed the president, under certain circumstances, to federalize a state's National Guard. It also appeared to gesture toward a claim of inherent presidential power to use troops to protect federal functions. Mr. Bonta acknowledged that isolated pockets of trouble have surfaced amid protests that remained peaceful, and he suggested that it was Mr. Trump's provocation that caused them to deteriorate into violence. Mr. Bonta also said his office had studied the 1807 Insurrection Act and was prepared to respond if Mr. Trump later tried invoking it as an alternate legal authority to deploy the U.S. military to address the protests. But Mr. Bonta reiterated that he was not aware of any conditions suggesting that the protests in Los Angeles necessitated federal troops, and that the local authorities were 'completely prepared' to address any developments. Mr. Trump's order raises many legal complexities, including whether a rebellion against federal authority is indeed taking place, and whether a court could reject a president's claim that the situation rises to the level that would make it lawful to send in troops. But there is also a basic procedural issue: whether it was lawful for Mr. Hegseth to cut Mr. Newsom out of the administration's decision-making process. Mr. Trump's order instructed Mr. Hegseth to consult with state governors about calling up National Guard units, and the call-up statute Mr. Trump cited said that orders for National Guard call-ups 'shall be issued through the governors of the states.' But Mr. Sapp's letter complained that Mr. Hegseth had sent a directive to the general in charge of California's National Guard informing him that the federal government was taking control of 2,000 of its troops without consulting Mr. Newsom or relaying the order through the governor. In the letter to Mr. Hegseth on Sunday, Mr. Sapp focused on that procedural problem and added that local law enforcement authorities in Los Angeles had the matter in hand. He also invoked the principle of states' rights. 'There is currently no need for the National Guard to be deployed in Los Angeles, and to do so in this unlawful manner and for such a lengthy period is a serious breach of state sovereignty that seems intentionally designed to inflame the situation, while simultaneously depriving the state from deploying these personnel and resources where they are truly required,' Mr. Sapp's letter said. Mr. Trump's move was the first time in about 60 years that a president had sent troops under federal control into a state to quell unrest without a request from the state's governor. That last happened during the civil rights movement, when state governors were resisting court orders to desegregate public schools. The last time a president used military force to carry out police functions on domestic soil was in 1992, when President George H.W. Bush sent troops into Los Angeles to calm widespread rioting that followed a jury's acquittal of police officers who had been videotaped beating a Black man, Rodney King. But in that case, both the California governor and the mayor of Los Angeles had requested the federal assistance.
