It’s budget season in San Francisco, a period marked by frustration, disappointment, and anger. This is the case even in boom times; during this budget season, with this budget deficit, these feelings have been amplified to an extraordinary degree. Many vital programs, upon which many San Franciscans depend, will have their budgets cut, if not eliminated entirely. Mayor Daniel Lurie has pointed out, again and again, that this budget is painful, and that no one is happy with it, including the mayor himself.
This is not an op-ed about the merits of the mayor’s budget, or its priorities generally. Much has been said and written on that subject: The continued fast-tracking of cash to the SFPD and the wooing of corporations and the ultra-wealthy at the expense of services for the city’s most vulnerable has, and should, be interrogated. This is about a piece of legislation that has thus far flown under the radar of most San Franciscans, clearly as intended by the office that wrote it, and the supervisors hoping that it passes along with this budget.
Last Wednesday the Budget and Appropriations Committee voted 4-1 on a key provision of 2018’s Prop C, the Our City Our Home Fund. As a refresher, Prop. C imposed new taxes on businesses with gross receipts of more than $50 million. The funds from these taxes are directed to homeless services throughout the city, with specific requirements for how the funds should be issued. Fifty percent of the funds are earmerked for permanent, long-term housing, with additional requirements for mental health services, and allocations for prevention, shelter, and hygiene.
The reason that the majority of the revenue was dedicated to permanent housing is clear to anyone with an even passing knowledge of San Francisco’s homelessness crisis: Getting people into stable, long term housing works, in a way that temporary shelters (at best) or jail cells (at worst) cannot. Voters approved this funding requirement, with a supermajority (eight out of 11) members of the Board of Supervisors required to alter the allocation of funds.
Lurie’s proposed amendment to the Prop C legislation would remove the supermajority requirement, essentially giving the mayor a mandate to change the specific voter-approved percentage allocations, a combination of setting floors for housing, and a ceiling for shelter without presenting a plan that respects the will of the voters and a supermajority of the board:
Section 4. Under the authority in Business and Tax Regulations Code Section 2811, the Board of Supervisors authorizes the City to expend future revenues that will be deposited in the OCOH Fund through fiscal year 2026-27, after addressing the specified costs required under subsections 2810(b)(1) and (2), among any or all of the eligible programs to address or prevent homelessness as described in subsections 2810(b)(3)\A}-(D), notwithstanding the specific percentage allocations that would otherwise apply, subject to approval by the Board of Supervisors by appropriation.
The change would allow the mayor to take from the funds intended for housing—again, a real, long-term solution that works—in order to allocate more funding towards temporary shelter. Public image is a great concern of the mayor and his calculus is clear: More shelter means a greater ability to temporarily clear encampments, as in the case of last year’s APEC or Dreamforce conferences.
One might sympathize with a mayor with minimal experience trying his best to present a specious version of reality; however, this attempt takes funding directly from housing the homeless, the only real solution to our homelessness problem.
Help us save local journalism!
Every tax-deductible donation helps us grow to cover the issues that mean the most to our community. Become a 48 Hills Hero and support the only daily progressive news source in the Bay Area.
Aside from the short-sightedness of Lurie’s approach, a dangerous precedent is being set. In a city with an extremely powerful executive branch, Lurie is attempting to disregard the will of voters who overwhelmingly approved Prop C, and its allocation requirements. This is a direct attack on the very concept of voter approved initiatives. If a mayor can use a politically aligned (or merely supplicant) board to overturn the will of San Francisco voters, a dangerous erosion of our city democratic process has begun, something that is being pushed and celebrated by San Francisco’s right-wing tech oligarchs. This despite the very real concerns nationwide about our democracy descending into totalitarianism; it’s hardly a stretch to describe Lurie’s actions as Trumpian.
San Franciscans recently voted down Prop. D, signaling their desire to retain a balance of powers, and not further strengthen the mayor’s powers at the expense of legislative and community oversight.
Even more baffling are the votes by members of the current Budget and Appropriations Committee, Sups. Connie Chan, Matt Dorsey, and Joel Engardio, to seemingly abdicate their roles as checks on the mayor’s power, absolving themselves of their responsibilities as elected officials. Despite the talk of good vibes and conviviality that have emanated from City Hall since Lurie’s election, the jobs of these supervisors is to reflect and implement the will of their constituents, not merely surrender to the demands of their executive.
The financial strains facing our city are very real. Residents of San Francisco, disappointed though they may be, will largely understand the constraints placed upon this budget. The mayor’s attempt to subvert San Francisco’s democracy should not be met with such sympathy. It is the responsibility of every San Franciscan, including our Board of Supervisors, to reject this blatant power grab, and all that it represents.
Whit Guerrero is a member of the Homelessness Oversight Commission
