Latest news with #Lurie
San Francisco Chronicle
a day ago
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
S.F. Mayor Daniel Lurie will loom large over the city's next recall fight
San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie finds himself in a difficult position now that the campaign to recall Supervisor Joel Engardio has officially qualified for the ballot. Engardio, a staunch moderate, has been a loyal supporter of Lurie's policies, backing his legislative efforts and appearing by his side at news conferences. But the Sunset District supervisor is facing political peril: Organizers are seeking to oust Engardio over his enthusiasm for a major road closure that was unpopular among his constituents. With the question of whether Engardio should be removed from office heading to Sunset voters in September, Lurie must decide whether to back Engardio and risk being on the losing side of the voters' will. Alternatively, the mayor could choose to stay out of the recall fight and send a potentially chilling message to Engardio and other allies. 'It's a dilemma,' said political consultant Eric Jaye. 'On the one hand, you risk your reputation with the voters. On the other hand, you risk your reputation with other politicians. And politicians like fellow politicians who are willing to stand up and be counted when the going gets tough for them.' The animating issue behind the recall battle is the fact that Engardio supported the closure of the Upper Great Highway to cars and most voters in his district did not. Lurie opposed the successful ballot measure last year that permanently shuttered the road to vehicles to make way for Sunset Dunes Park. He also drew broad support for his mayoral campaign from voters throughout the west side, including the Sunset. However, as mayor, Lurie has advanced a major rezoning of the west side to allow for denser housing construction in a swath of the city that has seen little residential development in recent decades. The move upset some west side residents, and it could be a factor in the effort to remove Engardio, who has made positive comments about the mayor's rezoning plan. 'I would be stunned if this vote didn't turn on that issue,' Jaye said. 'You have a constituency of people who are concerned about traffic and a constituency of people concerned about Engardio ignoring the will of his district. We're going to see whether or not Engardio and Lurie are ignoring the will of neighborhood voters with their massive upzoning.' But Todd David, a supporter of Engardio, doubted that any effort to link Lurie's rezoning initiative to the highway closure would be an effective recall strategy. David was one of the principal organizers of Proposition K, the measure that permanently turned the Great Highway into a promenade for pedestrians, runners and cyclists. He said an attempt to combine the highway discontent with mayoral rezoning frustration would probably fail to win over voters who did not already sign the recall petition. 'You're not bringing along a whole bunch of new people,' he said. 'There are outliers who will never support an upzoning in their neighborhood that are just a 'no change' crew, and I think that 'no change' crew is the crew that signed the recall. Overwhelmingly, people support more new housing in their neighborhood, including the Sunset.' So far, Lurie has not indicated how he might proceed. He has not weighed in on the recall qualifying for the ballot or signaled whether he will publicly back Engardio in the September election. In an earlier interview with the Chronicle, he said that, when it came to the Great Highway closure, he 'understand(s) everybody's concerns … but as a city, we have to move forward.' 'We will continue to monitor and make adjustments where we can as we see any impacts,' Lurie said. Engardio, meanwhile, told the Chronicle on Friday that he was 'in touch with the mayor and his team and we will have conversations soon.' 'I've been working closely with the mayor to pass legislation that addresses pressing issues that Sunset residents care about like public safety, housing, and our local economy,' he said in a statement. If Engardio were to be removed by voters in his district, the mayor would face another hard choice. At that point, he'd be tasked with appointing Engardio's successor. The decision would allow Lurie to handpick someone aligned with him, ensuring that the Board of Supervisors' political balance does not shift in the short term. But Lurie would also need to be mindful of the fact that the appointee would serve only until an election in June. The mayoral appointee would presumably run in that election, but they could face stiff competition from a progressive eager to build off the recall momentum to recapture the seat. When Engardio won the district in 2022, he defeated progressive Supervisor Gordon Mar by just 460 votes. So Lurie would probably want to appoint an Engardio-like moderate who doesn't have Engardio's political baggage from the Great Highway closure. 'The mayor is doing an incredible job, and he is able to get a lot done because he has a majority of pro-growth, pro-safety people on the board' of supervisors, said Sachin Agarwal, a co-founder of the moderate group Grow SF that supported Engardio's 2022 supervisor run. 'The most important thing we can do is continue to have that majority, and whether that's Joel or someone the mayor supports, we need someone who is focused on the basics.' Regardless of what Lurie does, David, the Engardio supporter, said he thinks the embattled supervisor can prevail by pointing to the ways he's tried to deliver on essential issues. For example, Engardio worked to secure funding for merchants to help them deal with impacts of controversial street construction, and he backed the return of algebra curriculum to eighth grade as well as the continuation of merit-based admissions at Lowell High School, David noted. As for Lurie's potential role, David said the mayor has had 'an outstanding working relationship with the Board of Supervisors.' 'I think it would be in the mayor's interest to want to continue to have a strong ally on the board,' he said. 'If, God forbid, Joel got recalled, then the mayor also would get to appoint somebody, but that person's name ID would be much lower than Joel's going into election season.'
San Francisco Chronicle
2 days ago
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
Mayor Daniel Lurie proposes merger of two scandal-ridden S.F. departments
What once were two scandal-ridden San Francisco city departments will be one, if Mayor Daniel Lurie has his way. Included in Lurie's $15.9 billion annual budget plan he introduced Friday is a proposal to fold the Department on the Status of Women into the Human Rights Commission. Both agencies were the subject of high-profile scandals over the last year that led to the departures of their respective leaders. Lurie's official budget proposal said the combined entity would be called the Agency on Human Rights and it was intended to help 'improve outcomes for residents and grant recipients.' Consolidating the two departments would allow them to 'collaborate on community-facing grant services and their charter-mandated functions to defend civil rights,' the mayor's budget document said. The Human Rights Commission, the department that manages the city's social equity initiatives, oversees the Dream Keeper Initiative that former Mayor London Breed created to invest tens of millions of dollars in the city's Black community. But the department's former director resigned last year after news reports revealed problematic spending practices and highlighted her personal connection to the head of a nonprofit funded by the department. The Department on the Status of Women, meanwhile, has historically funded programs to fight gender-based violence but in recent years shifted to focus more on supporting women in politics. Its former director was removed in April following an administrative probe into a side job she held without making a timely disclosure and a contract her department awarded to a friend. The investigation found she had committed what Lurie called 'unlawful activities and mismanagement.' Lurie proposed folding the women's department into the Human Rights Commission as part of his plan to close the city's roughly $800 million two-year deficit, which must be reviewed and approved by the board of supervisors in the coming weeks. Details of the merger need to be worked out, but the two commissions that oversee the departments are expected to remain in place. Mawuli Tugbenyoh, acting director of the Human Rights Commission, acknowledged that the proposed merger was a 'significant change' but said it provided an opportunity to bring together two agencies with strong histories of advocacy. He said in a statement that there are 'no immediate changes to staff roles or day-to-day operations planned.' 'Over the coming weeks and months, HRC will work with staff across both departments to ensure we move forward together in a way that reflects our collective values, honors the expertise of our teams, and centers our shared mission,' Tugbenyoh said in his statement. He said his staff had already been through 'a year of enormous change and transition' and promised that 'we will navigate the way ahead with an eye on strengthening our ability to serve communities most in need." Officials from the Department on the Status of Women had not responded to requests for comment about the proposed merger as of late Friday afternoon. Lurie's office had no comment beyond the mayor's remarks about his overall budget plan, when he said he wanted to address the city deficit 'head-on.' 'A crisis of this magnitude means we cannot avoid painful decisions, and I am prepared to make those decisions,' Lurie said in his budget speech. 'We are doubling down on the core services that drive our economy, showcase the beauty and diversity of our neighborhoods, and enhance the quality of life for all San Franciscans.' At the Human Rights Commission, questions surfaced last year about then-Director Sheryl Davis' handling of the department after journalists revealed that she was living with the leader of Collective Impact, a nonprofit that was one of the biggest recipients of funding from the Dream Keeper Initiative. Stories also showed that the department flouted purchasing rules, revealed conflicts of interest and raised questions about whether Davis used her position to boost her personal brand. The stories led to Davis taking a leave of absence and Breed ultimately asking for her resignation, as well as an audit of the troubled department and the city canceling contracts with Collective Impact. Months later, the Department on the Status of Women was also enmeshed in scandal, after the Chronicle revealed that its director, Kimberly Ellis, had directed city funding to her friends and preferred organizations, including to a political group that later hired her as a consultant. After the Chronicle's investigation, Lurie asked the Commission on the Status of Women, which oversees the department, to remove Ellis. Ellis has denied the allegations as baseless and sued the city, arguing that she was the victim of a 'calculated campaign to remove her from office' for reporting misconduct by a subordinate.
Axios
2 days ago
- Business
- Axios
Lurie rolls out sweeping cuts in proposed $15.9 billion budget
Mayor Daniel Lurie plans on making steep cuts in order to close a massive deficit after unveiling the city's budget proposal on Friday. Why it matters: San Francisco has faced severe fiscal challenges since its pandemic-driven downturn. The big picture: Lurie's spending plan totals $15.9 billion in the 2025-2026 fiscal year and $16.3 billion in 2026-2027. State of play: His proposal prioritizes public safety at the expense of some city jobs and nonprofit funding, a move he said was needed to preserve core services that "drive the economy" and "provide clean and safe streets." Lurie's plan calls for downsizing the city's workforce by 1,400 jobs — of which 100 are currently filled — and cutting $100 million meant for nonprofits to stave off an $817.5 million two-year shortfall. What they're saying:"Here's the bottom line: we have to stop spending more than we can afford," the mayor said in a statement. "Unfortunately, in a crisis like this, there are no easy fixes. We are facing some incredibly difficult decisions." Between the lines: The proposal avoids any cuts to public safety personnel, such as police officers, firefighters and first responders. It also sets aside $400 million in reserves, including for potential litigation as the city navigates federal and state funding cuts. $75 million would go towards maintenance projects such as fire station repairs and pothole or curb ramp fixes, and $50 million would be invested in 22 technology projects, including a citywide data management system. Other priorities include maintaining street cleaning funding and a $90 million commitment over three years for homelessness services and interim housing. Lurie has also made an ongoing effort to tap into the private sector to help pay for some mental health and homelessness services, amid other initiatives, to reduce the burden on the budget. The other side: Labor groups and nonprofits lambasted Lurie for initiating layoffs and gutting community-based services for homelessness, food access and legal support, which could now face "total elimination," said Anya Worley-Ziegmann, a coordinator at the People's Budget Coalition, which is made up of 150 local nonprofits and public sector unions. "Difficult choices have to be made in unprecedented times, but the mayor is taking familiar routes: balancing the budget on the backs of working-class San Franciscans while protecting the wealthy and powerful," she told Axios in a statement. "It is unconscionable to ask frontline workers ... to pay for a budget shortfall they did not create," added Kim Tavaglione, executive director of the San Francisco Labor Council. The intrigue:
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
City Unions Slam Mayor Lurie's Budget: "This is the budget Airbnb wants."
Layoffs threaten public services while big tech gets a free pass. SAN FRANCISCO, May 30, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- City unions are denouncing Mayor Lurie's budget proposal, which includes massive layoffs of city workers. City unions—including IFPTE Local 21, SEIU Local 1021, and the SF Building Trades—issued the following joint statement condemning the cuts and demanding a budget that protects public jobs and the essential services they support. "Layoffs are totally unnecessary. We can find the funds to save jobs and uphold San Francisco values," said Rudy Gonzalez, Secretary-Treasurer of the San Francisco Building & Construction Trades Council. "We are deeply disappointed that the mayor has chosen to cut crucial public services that San Francisco residents and small businesses rely on, rather than working with city workers on the pathway forward that we laid out five months ago. Corporations that profit off our city's workforce and infrastructure are trying to avoid paying their fair share of taxes, and San Franciscans are paying the price," said SEIU 1021 President Theresa Rutherford, who has worked at Laguna Honda Hospital for over 20 years. Union leaders point to big tech tax avoidance as the real reason behind the deficit. Corporations like Airbnb are actively suing the City for tax breaks amounting to $415 million, more than half of the total projected deficit. Union leaders argue that Airbnb is being given the mayor's blessing to avoid paying their fair share in taxes. "This is the budget that Airbnb wants. None of these job cuts should be on the table, but the mayor has decided that tax breaks for Airbnb are more important than public services," said Sarah Perez, San Francisco City Employee and SF Vice President for IFPTE Local 21. "And, this budget is a big payday for private contractors. Cutting public jobs often means handing over important work to for-profit companies, increasing costs and inviting corruption." IFPTE Local 21, SEIU Local 1021, and the SF Building Trades represent tens of thousands of city workers across every city department. In the coming weeks, city workers and community allies are planning to mobilize for their demand to reverse proposed layoffs. View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE IFPTE Local 21 Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
San Francisco Chronicle
2 days ago
- Business
- San Francisco Chronicle
New S.F. data is most detailed yet on how long it takes to move through city's notorious permit process
The time it takes to get approval to build something in San Francisco has fallen since a number of streamlining measures were implemented last year — but some departments still struggle to meet the city's new target times. That's according to new data compiled by the Planning Department and the Department of Building Inspection, which is published in a new dashboard tracking the processes as part of Mayor Daniel Lurie's PermitSF initiative. The effort aims to simplify the city's notoriously long and often convoluted permitting process. The dashboard includes two main components: one tracks the median number of days it takes to get through the entire planning or building process, and the other breaks down how long the planning and building departments each take to complete their steps in the process. Together, the dashboard and underlying data provide more transparency into San Francisco's permitting process than previously existed. Using the data, a Chronicle analysis found that the time it takes to approve a project or issue a permit has sped up in recent years. Michelle Reynolds, a spokesperson for PermitSF, noted that the city made 'significant changes' to the planning and building review processes starting in January 2024, in response to state law as well as local changes under former Mayor London Breed. The time spent in both planning and building dropped after those changes were implemented, the data show. Planning approval plummeted from a median of 222 to 133 days, and building went from a median of 258 to 209. So far this year, the median times are on track to be even faster. Within the process, each step now has its own target for how long it's supposed to take — a metric dubbed the 'shot clock' in a press release from Lurie's administration. Such goals 'make the process more predictable for homeowners and businesses' and hold departments accountable for any delays, the release said. The target times went into effect this month. So far, according to the dashboard, the city seems to be faring well: Over the last year, though the targets had not yet been set, the building department completed tasks within the target window most of the time, and the planning department only missed its target for resubmission reviews. Still, that doesn't mean that all projects and permits are suddenly sailing through: In both the planning and the building departments, nearly 30% of permits took longer than the target 30 days to get through a first review. Missed target times will be incorporated into staff performance plans, according to Lurie's office. The metrics don't measure any time spent on required pre-application neighborhood outreach, which can add significant delays to projects. Michelle Reynolds, a spokesperson for PermitSF, noted that in July 2023, the city removed the pre-application requirement for most projects, although some bigger projects, like new construction or additions over a certain size still need it. Additionally, the total time metric for planning approval does not include checking whether the application is complete, a process that can take multiple rounds of submittals to the city. That metric is measured, however, in the planning department's 'shot clock' dashboard, with a target time of 21 days. The new data also reveal how long permits spend at each 'review station,' or city departments that need to check various permits for safety and code compliance. While the complexity of what each department must review varies with each project, some hit the city's new targets more often than others. A number of stations fell behind in the first review stage, which is when a plan is first checked for compliance (the city sets a 30-day target for these), but most hit the target for rechecks, or reviews of plans that have been revised, over the last year (a 14-day target). Of departments that completed at least 200 reviews from May 2024 and through April 2025, only one missed the target on most projects for both first reviews and rechecks: the Bureau of Urban Forestry, which handles permits on street trees and foliage. (Because the targets are new, the Bureau of Urban Forestry was not technically held to these targets over the 12 months ending in April, but has been starting this month.) In an email, Chris Heredia, a spokesperson for the Bureau, said that slower response times are due to a 'staffing issue,' as inspectors, who are also tasked both with upkeep of existing city trees, can only allocate about 20% of their time to permits. 'San Franciscans want trees with new construction,' he wrote, noting that construction, and the load on inspectors, had seen an uptick. 'We don't have an adequate number of urban forestry inspectors to meet the demand.' Still, he said that review times had improved in recent months.
