Dear Daniel Lurie,
First of all, congratulations on your new position as mayor of San Francisco.
I only heard you speak a few times during your recent campaign, and I may have missed hearing some of the promises you made. But I don’t think you promised what I’m about to suggest.
Opponents in the recent election said you lacked experience in San Francisco politics, not having previously served in elected office here.
You could claim that as an advantage. You have no record of passing laws that favor special interests, and no one can accuse you of creating failed government programs while in office.
Now, however, to avoid those accusations after you take up residence in City Hall, you may want to learn more about how others have navigated the labyrinth of our city’s government: how budgets can be successfully proposed, negotiated, cut, and overspent; how a mayor can survive without accepting (or by accepting) the favors of real estate developers, high-tech CEOs, and wealthy donors.
Given your own experience as a wealthy donor, you may already know how to deal with that part of the population once you sit at your desk in Room 200. However, there remain some other challenges for which you could probably use a close advisor or two. Far be it from me to offer my own services in this modest proposal, but I do have a suggestion about another candidate or two.
This proposal is fundable. Since you declined to accept a salary for your new position, and last time I read about it, the mayor of San Francisco is paid $364, 582 per year, why not use that sum to pay your new advisors? (Some may call it subcontracting, but I would not.)
I know $364, 582 is not a lot to cover administrative expenses these days, but it’s a start. As for leading candidates, I know of at least two former city officials with ample experience in administrative matters. Why don’t you hire Aaron Peskin and London Breed to advise you?
I can’t guarantee they will take the offer, especially if you can’t give them more than half of $364, 582 per annum; but perhaps they would each work half-time. As I understand it, both will be out of work quite soon, and they might welcome the chance to share their knowledge of City Hall’s workings.
If you can’t afford both of these advisors, I’d recommend Peskin; he can tell you everything you need to know about the Board of Supervisors, how to get veto-proof laws passed. Maybe he’ll share his plans for affordable housing, too.
One benefit from hiring your former opponents would be a lot of publicity. “Mayor Hires Rivals as Advisors” or “Lurie Pays Opponents” might win considerable attention, possibly even praise, before your first day on the job. Then if things don’t go well, if you find that the city has insufficient funds to protect the unhoused, the undocumented, the unemployed, and others who need the public safety your campaign promised, you can always blame your advisors.
If by chance the collaboration proves beneficial to San Francisco, and enables you to increase affordable housing, reduce drug addiction, prevent school closings, hire more teachers and public health officers, and keep Muni running, your inclusive administration might end up serving as an example for state and national leaders.
The incoming president could offer Kamala Harris a position as attorney general, if Matt Gaetz doesn’t work out. He could put Elizabeth Warren in charge of the treasury, after Elon Musk’s oversight nearly bankrupts the country. He could ask Bernie Sanders to take over the Pentagon and cut its weapons budget, etc.
In any case, if you hired Peskin and Breed, anyone who says the new mayor bought his office would have to add that you also bought your opponents, which would be considered a compliment in some quarters, especially among plutocrats.
I myself seek no position in your administration. I prefer to write open letters. All I’m asking today is that you give San Francisco two or three mayoral candidates for the price of one.
Joel Shechter is the author of several books on satire.
