Group chats and infighting: Inside tech elites’ madcap war against the billionaire tax

<p>The billionaires of California had a problem.  It was the fall of 2025, and a proposed ballot initiative to tax 5% of their net worth was rapidly collecting signatures. Crafted with punitive precision by the SEIU United Healthcare Workers West union, the tax would help replace healthcare funding decimated by the Trump administration — while also delivering a blow to the piggy banks of the state’s estimated 200 billionaires.  In an encrypted group chat on Signal, a who’s who of tech titans met to commiserate and toss out solutions: Should they appeal to the governor? Run counter-initiatives? Put up candidates for office? The members of the chat, some of whom are reported here for the first time, read like a Forbes list of Silicon Valley elite: Google cofounder Sergey Brin, venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, former Zynga CEO Mark Pincus, former Sequoia Capital head and chairman of The Standard Michael Moritz, Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan, PayPal cofounder Max Levchin, Sequoia partner Shaun Maguire, Stripe CEO Patrick Collison, Ripple cofounder Chris Larsen, Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong, venture capitalist Ron Conway, Greenoaks Capital founder Neil Mehta, investor and “All-In” podcast cohost David Friedberg, Future Ventures founder Steve Jurvetson and his wife, Genevieve — dozens of tycoons, some of whom were hyper-active in the chat and others who engaged not at all.  “It’s kind of like, ‘Who  wasn’t  in it?’ to be honest,” said one of two people who saw the chat and described its contents to The Standard .  “And it just kept getting added to.” At some point, a chat participant proposed an action more audacious than lobbying Gov. Gavin Newsom or funding an anti-tax measure: What if the group simply bought the signature-collecting company the union was using, then prohibited it from collecting more signatures?  “Of course, that’s what they would think,” said the person who had seen the messages. “That’s what you would do in business: If there’s an impediment, just buy it.” The proposal was emblematic of the strategies the billionaire class has tested over the last eight months: unorthodox, expensive, and increasingly desperate. Since the union’s Billionaire Tax Act campaign was launched last fall, the tech elites have organized in secret, scheduling and aborting Zoom meetings, starting and deleting and uninviting members from group chats, and casually throwing tens of millions of dollars at whatever idea seems poised to defeat the initiative and scare the union into submission. The campaign has not exactly been a rousing success. SEIU gathered nearly double the number of signatures required to qualify its tax measure for the November ballot, and the measure appears generally — if not overwhelmingly —  popular with voters . Currently, the best shot at defeating it lies not with the billionaires but with Newsom, who is aggressively attempting to negotiate it off the ballot before the June 25 ratification deadline. Still, the sprawling apparatus of political groups the Billionaire Tax Act has spawned — not to mention the newly activated network of ultrawealthy citizens it has angered — is poised to change California politics, even after the tax fight is over. “This was a catalyst to bring a lot of tech money into the state political system that otherwise had largely been on the sidelines,” said Marty Wilson, a Republican consultant and former California Chamber of Commerce official. “I think this served as a wakeup call for these folks.” Though the campaign against the wealth tax would soon spark a tidal wave of threats to leave California — and, in a few cases, billionaires relocating to Florida and Nevada — it began more humbly. The early conversations on Signal were “mostly kvetching,” said the person who saw the conversation.  Many of the billionaires (or almost-billionaires, in some cases) were united in their contempt for the tax, the unions, and the unceasing leftward drift of California — but there were also a fair number of disagreements. At one point, said a chat observer, Conway sent a strongly worded message urging the group not to be so critical of Newsom. When the chat disbanded in January and some members splintered into smaller private chats, Conway was not invited, the person said.  Ironically, Conway was one of the first among them to take decisive action against the tax.  The longtime Democratic donor gave  $100,000 in November to Stop the Squeeze, a group run by two of the governor’s advisers to explore how the initiative could be defeated, according to public filings. He then attempted to rally friends to the cause, writing in an email that the tax would be “devastating — driving out high net worth individuals, jobs, investment, and revenue for the future, cutting services and putting the state’s economy in a death spiral.” Between Newsom’s “staunch opposition” and a well-funded campaign, Conway argued, “we can defeat this measure when we inform voters of the true consequences for California.” ‘Passing this tax will destroy innovation in California.’ Conway was not alone in this argument:  Newsom and other prominent Democrats  have expressed concern that the tax would drive billionaires out of the state, reducing future tax revenue, and unfairly penalize homegrown entrepreneurs by including voting shares in private companies as part of the calculation of their personal wealth.  Other unions  have complained about the one-time nature of the tax, and the fact that proceeds would go almost entirely to healthcare, rather than to the state’s general fund. Still, few of Conway’s peers took a public stance on the issue until December, when Silicon Valley Rep. Ro Khanna fired off a tweet defending the tax and mocking the billionaires fleeing the state to avoid it. (“I will miss them very much,” he wrote sarcastically.) While the debate had largely played out in private until then, the tweet from Khanna — who’d previously received support from Andreessen, Conway, and former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, among other tech leaders — opened the floodgates.  “Passing this tax will destroy innovation in California,” Tan tweeted in response to Khanna. “It’s not a tax, you’re confiscating 5% of people’s assets — which is illegal and will be overturned eventually,” commented “All In” host Jason Calacanis. “why stop with billionaires?! why stop at 5%?! keep going, ro, keep going!!” added his fellow host, Friedberg.  Khanna attempted to clarify his position in follow-up tweets, but the damage was done. Cooper Teboe, Khanna’s chief political strategist, said the congressman’s office was inundated with texts, calls, and emails from dozens of major Silicon Valley players expressing their displeasure. Some were polite, he said, but many were livid.  “We received many angry notes — both from folks we knew and those we’d never met — with notes of ‘Good luck, you’re going to need it, we’re coming for you now,’” Teboe said, adding that several offered him jobs in order to kneecap Khanna’s fundraising option. The messages were not empty threats: In the weeks following Khanna’s tweet, tech executives started hunting for someone to challenge the five-term congressman in his coming primary. Evan Low, a former California assemblymember and CEO of the LGBTQ+ Victory Fund, told The Standard he was approached by multiple tech founders and venture capitalists who said there would be “upward of $15 million” waiting for him if he decided to run against Khanna. Low said he immediately declined, out of respect for the congressman. The tech titans ultimately found a willing collaborator in Ethan Agarwal,  a tech founder and political unknown  running a long-shot campaign for governor. Agarwal, who has described himself as “fiercely pro-capitalism,” agreed to switch races after being courted by a group of tech pooh-bahs. Within weeks of Agarwal declaring his candidacy, Tan, Armstrong, Conway, and venture capitalist Blake Byers all contributed the maximum to his campaign, and “All-In” host Chamath Palihapitiya was cohosting fundraisers at the Atherton home of investor and Sacramento Kings owner Vivek Ranadivé.  Around the same time, some members of the Signal chat started talking up Matt Mahan, the moderate mayor of San Jose, as a fitting candidate for governor. Unimpressed with the field and angered by the introduction of the billionaire tax, members of the chat started discussing how they could convince Mahan to enter the race and how to support him once he did. In an interview, Eric Jaye, Mahan’s former campaign director, referred to it as a “loosely organized recruitment campaign” of tech donors. Teboe says he met with Mahan in November, and that the mayor was decidedly against running at the time. He also says he encouraged members of Mahan’s team not to trust the billionaires’ promises of campaign funding. Still, by late January, Mahan had changed his mind, throwing his hat in the ring and raking in donations from Moritz, Brin, Collison, and Netflix cofounder Reed Hastings, among other tech elite. Mahan called the idea that he  jumped into the race due to promises of billionaire funding “just flat wrong ,” adding that he launched his campaign when it “ became clear to me that no one else was going to run on the things we need to be successful in San Jose and across California.”   But Jaye said the money talk was “clearly part of the calculation” in launching the campaign. Added another political consultant of Mahan: “He was clearly led into the race by the siren song of billionaire money that swore it was going to be there for him.” As some of the state’s billionaires attempted to wrangle candidates for office, others tried launching political groups to confront the tax head-on — though they soon learned that was more difficult than they’d expected. In January, Larsen, Armstrong, and other tech leaders reached out to consultants behind Fairshake, a crypto PAC that had scored major legislative wins in the 2024 election cycle. The Fairshake officials hired a team in California and started a PAC called Golden State Promise. But despite the involvement of other tech titans and a $30 million fundraising goal, the PAC has so far only raised $10 million from a single donor — Larsen. A spokesperson for Golden State Promise said it was the “only well-funded campaign that is directly opposing the wealth tax” and plans to raise more as the campaign progresses. ‘Many of them are bold, and their tactics are stupid. None of it has worked, because they don’t know what they’re doing.’ Donations also failed to materialize for Stop the Squeeze, the group Conway funded in November. According to sources, many of the billionaires distrusted Newsom and were hesitant to fund an entity run by his longtime advisers. Plus, a rash of other groups were popping up that catered to the growing list of panicked billionaires.  Among them were California Renewal, a project of Mehta and other venture capitalists, which promised to build a lasting counterforce to the labor movement, and Building a Better California, a group seeded with $25 million from Brin to run initiatives to combat the tax. The California Business Roundtable, a 50-year-old institution, was also aggressively fundraising for its anti-tax efforts, thrilled that the tech industry finally seemed interested in pushing the policy agenda it had been championing for decades.  At one point, there were so many organizations fundraising off the threat of the Billionaire Tax Act that two donors — Ritankar Das of Titan Holdings and Genevieve Jurvetson — tried to organize a Zoom call to get them all in one place. The idea, according to someone with knowledge of the plans, was for donors to appear with their screens blacked out to maintain privacy while representatives for each organization took turns pitching their visions — like an episode of “Shark Tank” in the dark. The idea was eventually scrapped over fear that details would leak to the press, the source said.  There were also disagreements over strategy: Golden State Promise came out early with attack ads against the tax, while Building a Better California refused to take a public stance. (Spokespeople for the latter group, which has sponsored three ballot initiatives that would invalidate the tax if passed, regularly claim the point is not to defeat the tax but to enact wholesale governmental spending reforms.) The groups even bickered about what to call the tax, according to one person on the inside: Golden State Promise refers to it in ads as the “billionaire tax,” while Building a Better California prefers the more inclusive “wealth tax.” Members of the Signal chat also quibbled about how much to trust Newsom, according to two political consultants familiar with the discussions. While the governor had come out strongly against the initiative, some of the group members remained terrified that he would cut a back-door deal with tax architect Dave Regan, president of SEIU-UHW. “They kind of wanted two things,” one of the consultants said. “On one hand, they want the governor to make the wealth tax go away, which requires negotiations. On the other hand, they don’t want the governor to give in to Regan. So guys, which is it?” As the billionaires were bickering over details, supporters of the tax were stockpiling signatures. Despite Building a Better California pushing up the cost by paying collection firms a whopping $15 per signature for its counter-measures, the coalition of labor unions supporting the tax reported in April that it had collected 1.6 million signatures — almost twice as many as needed to qualify for the ballot. In a  victorious press conference  the next day, SEIU-UHW executive member Mayra Castaneda described the fight for the tax as a “David-versus-Goliath battle,” adding,“David has just won the first round.” A few weeks later, David won the next round, too. Mahan, the billionaires’ chosen candidate for governor, lost decisively in the June 2 primary, earning just 3.7% of the state vote and conceding immediately after the polls closed.  (As  multiple postmortems  have revealed, the tech donors ultimately gave millions less than the Mahan campaign needed to succeed.)  Agarwal, the challenger they’d drafted to defeat Khanna, failed to make it out of the primary, too, earning just 6.5% of the vote in the district and coming in fourth, behind two Republicans.  Headlines the next day crowed at the failure of the Silicon Valley candidates, while Khanna’s team took a victory lap. “Many of them are bold, and their tactics are stupid,” said Teboe of the billionaire donors. “They’re trying to deploy the same tactics they’ve used in business into politics. None of it has worked, because they don’t know what they’re doing.” Still, the fight is far from over. The state Legislature still has two weeks to get the tax off the November ballot by offering a compromise bill that satisfies SEIU-UHW. Newsom is  reportedly  working hard to negotiate a legislative solution, rounding up interest groups and other unions to come out in opposition to the tax. In the last several weeks, three healthcare groups and a major union, the California Teachers Association, have publicly denounced the initiative. Polling has put public support for the measure at around 50%, leaving it vulnerable to well-funded outside attacks. And the  recent defeat of San Francisco’s Proposition D  — a tax on companies that pay their CEOs significantly more than their workers — suggests that California’s appetite for taxing the rich does have its limits. Moderate candidates and propositions backed by billionaires like Moritz and Larsen also over-performed in the city’s elections this month. The billionaires also seem to be slightly better organized as they head into round three. Past the “throwing spaghetti at the wall” phase, many seem to have coalesced around the efforts of Building a Better California, which qualified two of its counter-initiatives for the ballot just days after the unions qualified the Billionaire Tax Act. The group has raised more than $100 million for its efforts — mostly from Brin, but also from Moritz, Collison, DoorDash CEO Tony Xu, venture capitalist John Doerr, and others.  Even consultants for other groups praised Building a Better California’s leader, little-known Sacramento consultant Ned Wigglesworth, for doing the one thing tech billionaires truly value: shipping product. “[Wigglesworth] has really captured the hearts and minds of the billionaire class,” one consultant said. “They got the signatures, they did all this outreach, and they did it in a very short amount of time. And for a very impatient crew, I think that stands out.” Regardless of whether the tax passes, that may be the most lasting outcome of this fight: organizing the state’s famously impatient tech tycoons and getting them engaged in the notoriously slow world of Sacramento. Perhaps counter to what SEIU-UHW wanted, Silicon Valley billionaires are now more active in state politics than ever — and they have nearly a year’s worth of experience in starting political organizations, staffing up with Sacramento consultants, and convincing their favored candidates to run for office. “We’re going to have a new political era with a new governor and with all these billionaires [involved],” said one strategist. “If there’s a way that [Building a Better California] can make this permanent, they have now solidified their real estate in the new political world.”</p>

To protect and prosecute: The tough-love doctrine of Brooke Jenkins

San Francisco voters approve rent aid for the city’s poorest residents


<p>In San Francisco, even affordable housing can be unaffordable to those who most need it. Of the 66,000 extremely low-income households in the city, the Department of Disability and Aging Services estimates that roughly 80% spend more than a third of their income on rent.&nbsp;</p>



<p>To reduce that burden, voters approved Proposition G, which creates a program paid for by the city&#8217;s general fund that would help cover the difference between what qualified residents can afford to pay in rent and what is charged by their landlords.</p>



<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-datawrapper-chart" data-chart-id="325912"></div>



<p>The fund would only be available to extremely low-income households earning up to 35% of the area median income ($36,700 for a single person) and would be managed by the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development. Eligible disabled residents only have to earn up to 25% of area median income to qualify.&nbsp;</p>



<p>According to the City Controller’s Office, the fund would receive between $161 million and $222 million over 20 years and would subsidize roughly 550 to 600 units in the city.&nbsp;The fund can also draw from other revenue streams such as special taxes.</p>



<p>“Given the lack of viable alternatives, cities and other local government agencies are the final bulwarks in the fight to end homelessness,” the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association wrote in its endorsement, which also criticized federal and state governments for reducing funding for housing and social services.&nbsp;</p>



<p>Supporters of the new fund included the Council of Community Housing Organizations, Bayview Senior Services, Compass Family Services, Community Youth Center of San Francisco, Mission Housing, and the San Francisco Tenants Union.&nbsp;</p>



<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-related-posts-container">
<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-related-post"></div>



<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-related-post"></div>



<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-related-post"></div>
</div>



<p>Proponents argue that seniors, families, and people with disabilities are particularly vulnerable to displacement in San Francisco, and the program prevents homelessness, which is costlier to address.</p>



<p>Meanwhile, moderate political groups like GrowSF and TogetherSF opposed the measure on the basis it would do little to broadly address housing affordability or bring rents down. </p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="7609" height="5075" src="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/20240715-sunsetprojectdrawsnimbyire-tv0227.jpg?w=2500" alt="Construction workers in safety gear work at a site between modern buildings. Fences and signs are visible, with various construction materials around." class="wp-image-291735" srcset="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/20240715-sunsetprojectdrawsnimbyire-tv0227.jpg 7609w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/20240715-sunsetprojectdrawsnimbyire-tv0227.jpg?resize=300,200 300w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/20240715-sunsetprojectdrawsnimbyire-tv0227.jpg?resize=768,512 768w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/20240715-sunsetprojectdrawsnimbyire-tv0227.jpg?resize=2500,1667 2500w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/20240715-sunsetprojectdrawsnimbyire-tv0227.jpg?resize=1536,1024 1536w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/20240715-sunsetprojectdrawsnimbyire-tv0227.jpg?resize=2048,1366 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 7609px) 100vw, 7609px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Should Prop. G pass, San Francisco would need to set aside at least $8.25 million a year to help extremely low-income households with rent.</figcaption></figure>



<p>With Prop. G&#8217;s passage, San Francisco will have to contribute at least $4 million to the fund starting in fiscal year 2026-27, and at least $8.25 million in each subsequent year, but only up to $14 million.&nbsp;</p>



<p>In years with a projected budget deficit higher than $250 million, the law would allow the city to reduce its contributions. Prop. G also includes what is known as a “sunset clause,” which states that the fund would end in 2046 unless voters reauthorize it.&nbsp;</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="5187" height="3458" src="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/inlined01_20240520-housingballotccdc.jpg?w=2500" alt="A man in a blue plaid jacket intently listens to a woman in a teal outfit speaking at a podium. Several masked and unmasked people stand in the background." class="wp-image-277000" srcset="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/inlined01_20240520-housingballotccdc.jpg 5187w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/inlined01_20240520-housingballotccdc.jpg?resize=300,200 300w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/inlined01_20240520-housingballotccdc.jpg?resize=768,512 768w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/inlined01_20240520-housingballotccdc.jpg?resize=2500,1667 2500w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/inlined01_20240520-housingballotccdc.jpg?resize=1536,1024 1536w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/inlined01_20240520-housingballotccdc.jpg?resize=2048,1365 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 5187px) 100vw, 5187px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">District 3 Supervisor Aaron Peskin, along with Mayor London Breed, right, have made lowering the cost of living a key priority in their respective mayoral campaigns.</figcaption></figure>



<p>This is not the first rental assistance program of its kind. The Board of Supervisors also launched the <a href="https://www.sf.gov/sites/default/files/2023-08/SOS%20Policies%20and%20Procedures%20Manual%202023.pdf">Senior Operating Subsidy Program</a>, which started with $5 million in 2019 and received a one-time investment of $52 million from the state, meant to cover the period between 2019 and 2024.&nbsp;</p>



<p>That program was initially piloted to seniors age 62 or older in two specific housing complexes developed by the Mayor&#8217;s Office of Housing and Community Devellopment before expanding to all qualified seniors leasing new construction units in the office’s developments.</p>


Asian Art Museum

Office of the City Administrator

Adult Probation Department

Airport

Arts Commission

Office of the Assessor-Recorder

Board of Appeals

Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors

Office of the City Attorney

Department of Children, Youth and Their Families

Controller's Office

Planning Department

Civil Service Commission

District Attorney's Office

Department of Building Inspection

Department of Early Childhood

Department of Emergency Management

Department of Police Accountability

Department of Public Health

Department of Public Works

Office of Economic and Workforce Development

Environment Department

Ethics Commission

Fine Arts Museums

Fire Department

Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing

Human Rights Commission

Department of Human Resources

Human Services Agency

Health Service System

Juvenile Probation Department

Public Library

Municipal Transportation Agency

Office of the Mayor

Public Defender's Office

Police Department

Port

Public Utilities Commission

Recreation and Park Department

Department of Elections

Retirement System

Rent Board

Sheriff's Department Office of Inspector General

Sheriff's Department

Department of Technology

Office of the Treasurer & Tax Collector

War Memorial

Department on the Status of Women

General City Responsibilities

General Administration & Finance

Culture & Recreation

Community Health

Human Welfare & Neighborhood Development

Public Works, Transportation & Commerce

Public Protection

SF Civil Grand Jury

The Abatement Appeals Board provides a final review process for City permitting decisions. It ensures fair and efficient adjudication of permit-related disputes before an impartial panel. The board holds authority to make binding decisions on appeals concerning notices of abatement.

Abatement Appeals Board

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 1

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 2

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 3

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 4

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 5

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 6

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 7

The Access Appeals Commission provides final reviews for a wide range of City permitting decisions. It ensures an efficient, fair, and expeditious permit issuance process through an impartial panel. The commission holds authority to make binding decisions on appeals related to City permits.

Access Appeals Commission

Access Appeals Commission Commissioner 1

Access Appeals Commission Commissioner 2

Access Appeals Commission Commissioner 3

Access Appeals Commission Commissioner 4

Access Appeals Commission Commissioner 5

The Adult Day Health Care Planning Council advises on the development and improvement of adult day health care services. It provides expertise in healthcare planning, policy recommendations, and program evaluation. Key responsibilities include assessing community needs and advising on service delivery enhancements.

Adult Day Health Care Planning Council

Adult Probation Department supervises individuals on probation and facilitates their reintegration into the community. It provides reentry and rehabilitative services, including victim restitution and financial assistance for crime victims. The department values public safety, offender rehabilitation, and community partnerships.

Cristel Tullock

The Advisory Committee of Street Artists and Crafts Examiners evaluates arts and crafts applicants and monitors program compliance. It conducts studio visits and public screenings to ensure adherence to established criteria. Members also revise program criteria and undertake additional tasks as needed.

Advisory Committee of Street Artists and Crafts Examiners

The Advisory Council on Human Rights advises on anti-discrimination laws and racial equity initiatives. It provides expertise on reparations and public policy impacts on Black communities. It guides efforts to establish partnerships with Historically Black Colleges and Universities in San Francisco.

Advisory Council on Human Rights

San Francisco Airport manages air traffic operations and ensures safe aircraft movement. It provides parking facilities and maintains airport infrastructure to accommodate travelers and staff. The department oversees ground transportation and coordinates with airlines for efficient passenger services.

Mike Nakornkhet

The Airport Commission oversees policy and strategic planning for San Francisco International Airport. It makes key decisions on airport development projects and financial management. It ensures compliance with regulations and collaborates on initiatives like terminal naming.

Airport Commission

Airport Commission Commissioner 1

Malcolm Yeung

Jose F. Almanza

Mark Buell

Susan Leal

Airport Director

Animal Care and Control Department manages animal sheltering, adoption, and emergency response services. It enforces animal-related laws and regulations, ensuring the humane treatment and safety of animals. The department also provides public education on responsible pet ownership and animal welfare.

Animal Care and Control Department

Virginia Donohue

Animal Care and Control Department, Director

The San Francisco Arts Commission oversees the integration of arts into city life and ensures public access to cultural experiences. It makes decisions on public art programs and allocates grants to support local artists and performances. The commission actively shapes policies affecting the arts ecosystem in San Francisco.

Arts Commission Commissioner 1

Arts Commission Commissioner 2

Arts Commission Commissioner 3

Arts Commission Commissioner 4

Debra Walker

Suzanne Ferras

Jessica Rothschild

Seth Brenzel

JD Beltran

Marcus Shelby

J Riccardo Benavides

Nabiel Musleh

Charles (Chuck) Collins

Lydia So

Arts Commission Commissioner 15

San Francisco Arts Commission invests in a vibrant arts community and shapes cultural policy. It enlivens the urban environment through public art programs and supports diverse artistic expressions. The commission facilitates meetings and discussions to engage the community in cultural development.

Ralph Remington

Arts Commission, Director of Cultural Affairs

The Asian Art Commission determines policy and administers the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco. It oversees museum operations and collaborates with the Asian Art Museum Foundation on fundraising efforts. Commissioners ensure the museum's strategic direction and financial sustainability.

Asian Art Commission

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 1

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 2

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 3

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 4

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 5

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 6

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 7

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 8

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 9

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 10

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 11

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 12

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 13

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 14

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 15

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 16

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 17

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 18

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 19

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 20

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 21

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 22

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 23

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 24

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 25

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 26

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 27

Asian Art Museum showcases Asian art and culture through exhibitions and educational programs. It offers diverse collections and hosts special events to engage the community. The museum fosters cultural appreciation and understanding by providing access to its extensive art collections.

Dr. Soyoung Lee

Asian Art Museum, Director

The Assessment Appeals Board #1 hears property tax assessment appeals in San Francisco. It evaluates evidence presented by taxpayers and the Assessor to determine property values. The Board has the authority to make final decisions on assessments regardless of property type or value.

Assessment Appeals Board #1

Assessment Appeals Board #1 Commissioner 1

Assessment Appeals Board #1 Commissioner 2

Richard Lee

Stephen Wasserman

Adena Gilbert

Paul Bellar

Quirina Mitchell

Hilary Winslow

The Assessment Appeals Board #2 adjudicates property tax assessment appeals for San Francisco taxpayers. It evaluates evidence presented by taxpayers and the Assessor to determine accurate property values. The Board exercises authority to render final decisions on residential properties and specific real estate assessments.

Assessment Appeals Board #2

Assessment Appeals Board #2 Commissioner 1

Assessment Appeals Board #2 Commissioner 2

Assessment Appeals Board #2 Commissioner 3

Claire Ervin Lee

Louisa Mendoza

Joyce Lewis

Nicholas Goldman

Michelle Domingo

The Assessment Appeals Board #3 provides a platform for San Francisco taxpayers to contest property tax assessments. It conducts hearings where evidence from both taxpayers and the Assessor is evaluated. The Board makes binding decisions on property assessments based on presented evidence.

Assessment Appeals Board #3

Assessment Appeals Board #3 Commissioner 1

Assessment Appeals Board #3 Commissioner 2

Assessment Appeals Board #3 Commissioner 3

Marc Dickow

Assessment Appeals Board #3 Commissioner 5

Assessment Appeals Board #3 Commissioner 6

Assessment Appeals Board #3 Commissioner 7

Assessment Appeals Board #3 Commissioner 8

Assesses property, applies exemptions, collects transfer taxes, and records official documents.

Assessor-Recorder

Joaquín Torres

The Ballot Simplification Committee ensures voter materials are clear and understandable. It reviews and revises ballot language to accurately reflect propositions and measures. The committee advises on simplifying complex legal and technical terms for voter comprehension.

Ballot Simplification Committee

The Bayview Hunters Point Citizens Advisory Committee provides policy advice on planning and land use matters in Zone 2 of Bayview Hunter's Point. It offers expertise in land use policies, zoning issues, and urban development. The committee advises the Board of Supervisors, City Boards, and commissions on relevant projects and initiatives.

Bayview Hunters Point Citizens Advisory Committee

The Behavioral Health Commission advises on mental health policy implementation and quality service delivery. It reviews and advocates for effective mental health services, ensuring policies meet community needs. It educates stakeholders to integrate mental health considerations into broader health strategies.

Behavioral Health Commission

The Bicycle Advisory Committee advises on making bicycling safer and more accessible in San Francisco. It provides recommendations to city agencies to address traffic violence and climate change. The committee advocates for cyclists and addresses biking-related complaints.

Bicycle Advisory Committee

The Board of Appeals provides final review for a wide range of City permitting decisions. It ensures an efficient and fair permit issuance process through an impartial panel. The Board exercises authority to make binding decisions on appeals.

Jefferson Robert Eppler

John Trasviña

Jose Lopez

Rick Swig

Board of Appeals Commissioner 5

Board of Appeals conducts final reviews of City permitting decisions through an impartial panel. It ensures an efficient and fair permit issuance process. The department operates under rules established by the City Charter of 1932.

Julie Rosenberg

Board of Appeals, Executive Director

The Board of Examiners provides a final review process for City permitting. It ensures an efficient, fair, and expeditious evaluation of the permit issuance process. The commission operates as an impartial panel with quasi-judicial authority.

Board of Examiners