Mayor Daniel Lurie’s package of proposals to address the Fentanyl crisis has enough votes to pass, and may wind up with a supermajority.
Although the plan reduces Board of Supes oversight of some contracting and allows departments to issue some contracts without the normal bidding process—and is not backed up by any specific plan—at least six and possibly seven supes are already making statements of support.
The outcome shows a dramatic difference between the new administration’s political approach and that of former Mayor London Breed.
The package, described as a “fentanyl emergency” program, had five cosponsors when Lurie sent it to the board.
The Mayor’s Office put out a press release late Wednesday announcing that Board President Rafael Mandelman had signed on, guaranteeing passage next week. That move came after Lurie’s staff worked with the supes to add some amendments. From Mandelman’s statement:
“I appreciate the Mayor’s willingness to work with members of the Board to address their concerns regarding this legislation. I’m happy to support the result – a package of sensible reforms to streamline the City’s response to the crisis on our streets that also preserves an oversight role for the Board,” said Board of Supervisors President Mandelman. “I look forward to working with Mayor Lurie and his team to advance policies that will support recovery in San Francisco and reclaim our public spaces for use by all members of the public.”
When the package came before the Budget and Finance Committee Wednesday, Chair Connie Chan, one of the leaders of the progressive bloc, voted in favor. She said that the Mayor’s Office (unlike the previous administration) had made an effort to reach out to and work with all of the supes, including the progressives.
Chan noted that the crisis on the streets was not new, and not the fault of San Francisco:
From my perspective is really from the draconian policies of decades from our federal government that cumulatively contributed to what we are seeing right now be it a mental health crisis, a drug addiction crisis as well as homelessness.
She added that “the previous administration and poor management of our city resources” made the crisis worse.
She also said that Lurie was operating very differently than his predecessor:
I have great respect for mayor Lurie taking on this task and willing to commit not just himself but his resources and his team time to come to the table and figure out ways to problem solve … discussing in earnest about what is it that we’re trying to accomplish collectively through this legislation. So I think that we have come to a space what I would call a sweet spot of both making sure that the administration have the opportunity to address the things that as what we’re seeing with a sense of urgency on our streets but at the same time allowing the legislative branch to still have oversight.
Sup. Jackie Fielder, a progressive stalwart, told me that she hasn’t taken a stand on the specifics, but “of course I want to work with the Mayor’s Office to take immediate action on the fentanyl crisis.”
The only member who has expressed serious concerns about the package is Sup. Shamann Walton.
So it’s going to pass.
Some of the speakers at the hearing, and the board’s own Budget and Legislative Analyst, expressed concerns.
Nicholas Menard, representing the BLA, said that there are “very big tradeoffs.” He said that waiving competitive bidding could “increase the opportunity for waste and fraud.”
Small business representatives, particularly those who work for minority and women-owned businesses, who get some modest advantages in public contracts, said that the bill might very well cut them out of the process. Instead of working together, one speaker said, “you are seeing us as friction.”
A speaker from the San Francisco AIDS Foundation noted: “While this ordinance purports to strengthen the city’s response to homelessness, behavior health, and substance use disorders, it fails to offer concrete solutions or meaningful strategies to address these crises.”
In other words: It’s not a particularly effective plan, and it could have very bad outcomes.
That didn’t change anyone’s vote.
The politics are fascinating: If London Breed had introduced this package a year ago, the progressive supes would have likely lined up against it.
And, of course, the board has changed; the conservative forces now have five solid votes, and the progressives are in the clear minority.
But it also appears that after years of being dismissed, ignored, and cut off by a hostile and often vindictive administration, some are just happy to have a mayor who is willing to reach out and work with them:
“It is, indeed, a new day in San Francisco,” Chan said.
That doesn’t change the policy issues, or the fact that this is a huge step toward giving the mayor new authority, when he has no concrete plan. There are all sorts of problems with this package.
Still, Lurie is trying a very different approach than Breed used. So far, for better or for worse (and there’s a little of both) it’s working.
