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

The aftermath of Sheryl Davis-gate. Plus, David Sacks makes a donation.

<p>This article is from Power Play, a twice-weekly newsletter rounding up the latest City Hall and local politics gossip. To sign up, visit The Standard’s  newsletter page . The  filing of charges against former Human Rights Commission chief  Sheryl Davis   and ex-nonprofit exec  James Spingola  on Monday marks the end of a year-and-a-half-long scandal that shook City Hall — and the beginning of another act that will play out in court.  The charges represent the downfall of a once-revered Black leader, Davis, who sought to right past wrongs by injecting tens of millions of dollars into San Francisco’s overlooked communities. While the Dream Keeper Initiative she oversaw  lives on  through Mayor  Daniel Lurie ’s administration, its size and reputation have been diminished by the alleged crimes.  The allegations stemming from Davis’s 57-page arrest warrant affidavit are so vast that many of them have yet to be reported.  In addition to signing contracts for Spingola’s nonprofit, Collective Impact, while the two lived together, Davis is accused of actively steering contracts its way by influencing scoring panels and through other methods. Additionally, the affidavit says, Collective Impact was paying Davis for a car loan she took out when she ran the nonprofit, highlighting the extent to which her personal finances were intertwined with those of the group. And one of the more odd revelations: The Human Rights Commission paid $7,973 for an unknown person’s funeral at C.P. Bannon Mortuary in Oakland.  “While paying for a funeral is a thoughtful gesture that benefits those who knew the deceased, it does not benefit the general public,” the affidavit states. And more charges could be coming. San Francisco District Attorney  Brooke Jenkins  made it clear Monday that her office’s investigation continues, seemingly suggesting that other heads may roll.  The Davis-Spingola scandal could have lasting effects on the city’s Black community and the nonprofit world. Rev.  Devon Jerome Crawford  of Third Baptist Church said he’s hearing concerns that the charges will be used as an argument to further degrade funding for programs that benefit Black San Franciscans.  The case coincides with a difficult moment for the city’s finances, with  major cuts expected  amid a budget deficit, and nonprofit contracts are almost certainly on the chopping block. “The question I am raising to city leadership is, are we going to let this blunder become an excuse to walk away from our commitments to the Black community?” Crawford said. “What an individual does should not punish the future of our children and the well-being of our elders.” Theo Ellington , interim executive director of the Bayview Opera House, one of the groups that lost Dream Keeper funds after questions arose about the program, said the moment is a “punch in the gut” for the Black community. “We have to recover from this,” said Ellington, who is  running  for the Bayview’s District 10 supervisorial seat. “Just as SF recovers, the Black community is in need of the same energy, focus, and investment as the rest of the city.”  — G.G. Got tips? Send to us at  powerplay@sfstandard.com . MAN IN THE MIRROR:  Breaking news!  Saikat Chakrabarti  has been endorsed by the Justice Democrats, a group he, uh, cofounded. That didn’t stop him from promoting the endorsement in a campaign email as a “turning point” in the race to succeed Rep.  Nancy Pelosi . He got absolutely  pilloried  on social media for the obvious conflict of interest, but his campaign said the hubbub was warranted. They are “mostly completely different people from when he started the org,”  Tiffaney Bradley , Chakrabarti’s campaign spokesperson, wrote in a text. And Justice Democrats spokesperson  Usamah Andrabi  said Chakrabarti went through rigorous vetting, including interviews with local voters and organizers. “That entire process took months,” he said.  There’s little mystery behind Chakrabarti’s excitement: He’s got exactly zero city progressive groups  endorsing  him, despite  touting himself  as a progressive leader.  Mere months from the June primary, the usual suspects for such endorsements — AFT 2121, SEIU California, and the Harvey Milk LGBTQ+ Democratic Club, among others —  are backing  Supervisor  Connie Chan . The dearth of support for Chakrabarti is no surprise to  AjaiNicole Duncan , copresident of the Milk Club, one of the city’s leading progressive groups. Her members snubbed Chakrabarti because they haven’t seen him on the ground organizing in the city, she said. “It was, like, a hard fucking no,” Duncan said. “Excuse my language.” The endorsement snub is another symptom of a larger problem for Chakrabarti, highlighted last week by Politico: He  doesn’t have much of a local track record . The news outlet reported that he didn’t vote in San Francisco elections for a decade despite claiming to live here. Chakrabarti instead voted in New York in 2016 and 2018.  While local progressive orgs have shrugged off Chakrabarti, two progressive Democrats have endorsed him: Deputy Public Defender  Matt Gonzalez  and drag queen  Peaches Christ . The latter told Power Play that while she likes Chan, Chakrabarti energizes her more. And, she pointed out, once upon a time, another young progressive ran for San Francisco office without much local experience:  Harvey Milk , who  arrived in the city in 1972  and first ran for supervisor in 1973. “And we can all agree Harvey Milk did something spectacular for his city and represented us, even though Harvey Milk was famously a New Yorker,” Christ said. While that may be true,  a review of a 1972 ballot pamphlet  shows Milk one-upped Chakrabarti.  He had the endorsement of more than 30 San Franciscans.  — J.F.R. IN THE SACK:  It’s an old San Francisco Democratic saw for leftists and moderates to accuse one another of being/aiding/benefiting from Republicans. But once in a while, a real-deal elephant in a red MAGA hat swoops in and gives the accusation tangibility.  Enter  David Sacks , who is listed as an officer of various LLCs that donated $5,000 in late February to GrowSF for Change, the PAC of the Lurie-aligned political group GrowSF, according to a  recent Ethics Commission filing .  Former  White House AI and crypto czar  Sacks  once hosted a $13 million fundraiser for President  Donald Trump  at his Pacific Heights mansion. LLCs tied to  James Kull  and  Glenn Gilmore ,  known associates  of Sacks, donated $2,500 apiece to GrowSF. So what did that $10,000 pay for? GrowSF for Change reported spending $16,964 on an FM3 Research poll in the same filing, which covers campaign activity from Jan. 1 through March 22. We don’t know what is in the poll, but  GrowSF’s priorities  often align with the mayor, so take your pick of issues, from charter reform ballot measures to the earthquake bond. Emails between GrowSF and the LLCs reviewed by Power Play show no mention of Sacks, though that doesn’t preclude him from being mentioned in other messages. However, Gilmore is in the email exchange, and he has been identified as playing a role in setting up an exclusive club for Trump royalty. To hear GrowSF tell it, Gilmore didn’t add names to a form related to the donation, and an outside accountant inserted Sacks’ name because he’s an officer in the LLC. “At no point were we made aware that this contribution came from an LLC affiliated with David Sacks,”  Steven Bacio , co-founder of GrowSF, said in a statement. ”Had we known, we would not have accepted the donation. GrowSF is proud to be supported by more than 1,000 donors who share our commitment to San Francisco’s values.” Sacks did not reply to a request for comment, but it’s worth mentioning that he’s no stranger to spending on SF politics; he donated tens of thousands to the 2021 Board of Education recall effort, as well as the 2022 effort to reform local recalls. —  J.F.R. APRIL 1 RUMOR MILL : A slew of juicy tips came our way on Wednesday, for some reason. Some things we’re hearing: While there’s hubbub over the Commission Streamlining Task Force, supervisors have thought of a solution: They’ll form yet another commission to oversee the task force, which, yes, is in charge of giving the axe to commissions. As we reported on  Lurie’s China trip , we’ve learned he’s planning a surprising announcement: The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency will contract with the Chinese government to build a Central Subway extension from Chinatown to Sunset Dunes, along with a high-speed rail line from Bayview to Lands End. We have also confirmed that Pelosi is announcing a 2028 congressional run, as retirement is expected to be boring. And everyone’s favorite former supervisor,  Aaron Peskin , will be coming back to run for mayor again.  April Fools!</p>

PST: Why SF’s crime rate has plummeted — and who’s taking credit

SF public defender, found in contempt, fined $26K for refusing to take on clients

<p>A San Francisco judge has ordered Public Defender Mano Raju to pay a $26,000 fine after finding him in contempt of court for his office’s failure to represent all indigent clients the court has asked it to.  San Francisco Superior Court Judge Harry Dorfman fined the elected official $1,000 for each instance of failing to provide a lawyer to 26 felony defendants this year. He must pay the fine by April 10.  “I am not telling Mr. Raju how to organize your office … but I do conclude that you have available lawyers to handle felony cases that you are refusing,” said Dorfman, adding that he would not “retreat from enforcing court order.” Raju sat beside his attorney during the proceeding Tuesday, which was watched by a packed courtroom, including a handful of public defenders from Northern California. Raju said he plans to appeal and expects a stay before the deadline.  The fine is an escalation of a months-long saga that has pitted the public defender’s office against what Raju claims is an overwhelmed court system that has left him unable to ethically represent clients. Since May, Raju’s office has refused to take new clients on one day each week because of his overworked staff.  Dorfman, who found that there are public defenders available to take cases five days a week, found Raju in contempt March 10 for continuing to refuse to take clients. “It was a disappointing ruling. We’re anticipating a higher court to stay his decision,” Raju said.  Prior to the ruling about the fine, several staffers of Raju’s office, including a lawyer, investigator, and social worker, spoke to the judge about their inability to take on new cases.  “It feels like blame and punishment is only being put on the public defender,” said felony attorney Tal Klement. He said the courts are overwhelmed by systemic issues that are out of his office’s control, like court availability, jail visiting hours for clients, and the district attorney’s charging decisions.  Klement said he has 161 open cases, regularly works 60 hours a week, and has developed health and strained his family life. Raju and his department say national studies show that they are understaffed to meet the demands of a far more resourced DA’s office that has refused to reduce the caseload by taking actions such as settling cases.  Meanwhile, the DA’s office has said that the public defender’s office is making a political choice in its refusal to take cases.  Chief Deputy District Attorney Ana Gonzalez said that when caseloads have skyrocketed in the past, no such emergency was declared. She said the number of new felony cases has been flat for four years.  She also argued that many of the court delays are due to the public defender prolonging cases by choice and refusing to settle cases.  In a prior hearing, Hadi Razzaq of the public defender’s office said the attorneys have myriad duties beyond trying cases. He said the office’s 47 felony attorneys each have an average of 61 cases, and taking on more would mean being unable to properly represent their clients. By comparison, the Public Defender has 125 lawyers while the DA has 140.  The public defender’s refusals have had a host of downstream effects. Fill-in private attorneys, who have taken on more than 600 additional cases, have also run out of resources to represent indigent defendants. This leaves many defendants lingering in jail until an attorney becomes available.  “We have now had to transport clients day after day after day,” Rani Singh, chief legal counsel at the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department, said at one of the hearings. “Our deputies have been told by clients that they are sick of waiting for attorneys, and some have refused to come to court because they don’t expect to get attorneys.”</p>

SF voted to close juvenile hall. Seven years later, it costs $543K per kid

<p>A child arrested and taken to San Francisco’s Juvenile Justice Center first sees the sun-drenched parking lot where a police car or van brings them to the facility. When they step inside, their eyes have to adjust quickly to darkness. In the reception room, staff sitting behind an imposing, semi circular desk process them in and assign them a bed. Next is a hallway so long and curved, from some perspectives it seems to never end. The juvenile hall was built in the classic prison architecture style of the 1990s. Multiple locked doors separate cells from hallways from the yard. They close with loud, reverberating clangs. The 75-square foot cells are painted beige and light blue, and feature bed frames and sinks built into the brick.  For decades, progressive-minded activists, attorneys, and politicians have tried to shut down the hall, arguing that the jail-like space near Twin Peaks is no place for children. The closest they ever came to success was a 2019 vote by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to close the facility within three years. At the time, Mayor London Breed criticized the legislation as “not the most responsible thing to do without a real plan of action.”  By 2019, the Juvenile Justice Center had come to exemplify all the apparent wrongs of a previous era’s tendency to lock up children. On an average day, it housed less than a fifth of its capacity, which contributed to an eye-watering cost of $270,000 annually to lock up a child, according to  a San Francisco Chronicle investigation . But the city  never had a clear plan  for where to put the young people that had been jailed there. Then California Gov. Gavin Newsom changed the rules — youth who committed the most serious crimes, who had been imprisoned in state facilities, suddenly became San Francisco’s responsibility. This mirrored the “realignment” process that moved many incarcerated people out of state prisons and into local jails. Chief Juvenile Probation Officer Katy Weinstein Miller was once part of a working group set up to close the facility. Now she runs it. “This building is far from ideal,” she admitted about the dark, echoey space.  Seven years after the Board of Supervisors’ decisive vote and five years beyond the deadline to close it, the justice center doesn’t just remain open and operational — it is even more expensive than it was when the city vowed to close it.  San Francisco isn’t the only county stuck with an oversized juvenile hall. Giant, chronically empty juvies litter California, a hangover headache from an era of mass incarceration. And like San Francisco’s hall, as the population in these facilities has fallen, the price to keep them open has soared. What sets San Francisco apart is that its leaders — progressive minded, and maybe a little naive — tried to fix things. They moved to stem the bleeding and close the hall, recruiting high-ranking officials from city government and lifelong juvenile justice activists who dedicated years to the effort. And they completely failed. Today, the annual cost of jailing one youth in San Francisco is $534,000 — roughly double the 2019 price — with a daily average population of 31. In part, today’s increased cost is a sign of success. On any given day in 2025, San Francisco jailed one-third fewer youth than it did in 2018. But many of the costs of operating the enormous, mostly empty hall are fixed, meaning the per child cost has ballooned. Some advocates say this is the price of running a much more humane hall. It may be the most expensive juvie, but it may also be better than it’s ever been before. So what’s San Francisco getting for its money? ‘A major public policy blunder’ In the mid-1990s, the homicide arrest rate for juveniles in California was skyrocketing, mirroring a grim national trend. San Francisco was a poster child for the troubling phenomenon. In 1993, San Francisco’s juvenile arrest rate was the highest in the state, 50% higher than the California average. In 1995,  the California Legislative Analyst’s Office predicted  that the number of juvenile violent crime arrests in the state would increase 60% by 2004. “The primary focus of the juvenile justice agenda, at least among the [San Francisco] Probation Department, was to build a new juvenile hall,” said Daniel Macallair, executive director of the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice and a practitioner-in-residence at San Francisco State University. At the time, the justice center consisted of a number of so-called cottages with a maximum occupancy of 135. “It was overcrowded all the time. Kids had been sleeping on the floors,” Miller said. “I worked in the mayor’s office when we built this building and everyone believed we needed that size.” A prison building boom was already underway in California and other states across the country, and now it had reached the kids. The federal government began distributing hundreds of millions of dollars to states and municipalities  earmarked for the construction  of larger juvenile detention facilities. But by the time San Francisco’s new juvie opened in 2005, the crime wave was over.  Youth crime rates continued to plummet for the next two decades. According to  a 2025 report  by the advocacy group The Sentencing Project, juvenile arrests fell 75% from 1995 to 2023. From 2000 to 2023, the youth incarceration rate declined 74%. The nation was riddled with empty jails built for kids. “It was a major public policy blunder,” Macallair said. “And we spent hundreds of millions of dollars on it.” San Francisco’s juvenile hall “was never full from the day they cut the ribbon,” Miller said. ‘It was a misnomer’ Continuing to operate the current facility is expensive. But after voting to close the hall, the city soon realized the alternatives would cost even more.  The legislation  vaguely stated the intention to “expand community-based alternatives to detention, and provide a rehabilitative, non-institutional place or places of detention, in a location approved by the Court.” But those alternatives could never have led to the full closure of juvenile hall because state law requires that youth arrested for certain offenses be detained at secure facilities.  The mandate also didn’t come with any funding. To this day, San Francisco is still paying off its mostly empty juvie, paying more than $2 million each year to service the total $22.3 million remaining debt on the facility’s construction. The jail won’t be paid off until 2034. A new justice center or even a remodel of the old one would cost millions the county doesn’t have. Patti Lee, the assistant chief of defense for the Public Defender’s Office, who previously worked in the public defender’s juvenile unit for three decades, had lobbied for the legislation. She said she told the supervisors at the time that it wouldn’t be that easy. She believes the campaign to close the Juvenile Justice Center mismanaged expectations. “ Maybe we shouldn’t have said close juvenile hall,” she said. “It was a misnomer.” A “Close Juvenile Hall Work Group” considered alternative spaces — a former foster home, an old hospital — but ultimately rejected them all. Covid slowed their work, and emptied the hall even further. In 2020,  as the average daily population  at juvie plummeted to 17, the yearly cost to jail a child reached just shy of $900,000.  The work group submitted its final report in November 2021, a month before the Board of Supervisors’ legislation targeted for the closing of the hall. It offered recommendations for how to improve the city’s juvenile justice system writ large, but no plan to wind down operations at the current facility. Macallair, who was also on the work group, acknowledges that the primary objective of the Close Juvenile Hall Work Group was in its name. It was expected to offer a solution. “I think the [work group] failed on that,” he said.  ‘It’s going to cost more’ On an average day  in 2018 , 47 beds at the Juvenile Justice Center were occupied of a total 150, and it cost $266,000 a year to jail a child.  In 2025, the cost had nearly doubled, to $543,015 — calculated by dividing total budget by daily population. The facility had an average daily population of only 31, leaving nearly 80% of beds empty. Many cells are now used for storage. Fewer kids mean higher fixed costs per child. And the population itself has greater needs. The city stopped sending youths to alternative facilities outside the city, some of which closed due to low occupancy. In 2022, California dissolved its state youth prison system, which housed children convicted of very violent acts. Counties were suddenly responsible for creating “Secure Youth Treatment Facilities,” requiring additional segregated housing units, individually tailored rehabilitation plans, and 24/7 counselors. In San Francisco, the program has cost an additional $8.7 million from fiscal years 2019-20 to 2024-25. Still, Miller admits that the cost of the hall is high. “You have fixed costs when you run buildings, so it’s really expensive,” she said. “And also [the kids] are worthy of really important investments for themselves and for all of us. If we don’t do that, no one is safer. And they’re going to live a kind of life that none of us want for them.” Macallair frames the cost in terms of the now-shuttered youth prisons formerly run by the state. “ You had one staff person for 30 kids and there was a lot of violence,” Macallair said. “You have to have a good ratio of staff to kids in order to change the environment. So it’s going to cost more.” But not everyone agrees. “ I think it’s overstaffed for the few kids that we have,” said Lee. When asked about the high cost of running the hall, she replied, “ I still find that shocking.” ‘It’s better now than it was’ At a glance, the justice center hasn’t changed much in decades, from its imposing intake area to its Escher-like hallway. “All of these secure facilities for kids that came online in the early 2000s, they feel of a particular era,” said Miller. “ We built these institutions that looked like jails and prisons for kids in the early 2000s, probably across the whole country. They all looked the same. One of the architects who helped design this building told me a few years ago that they would never design a building like that today.” But while the building is the same, the programming has changed significantly since 2019. Of the eight living units, only five are currently used for their intended purpose. One is a “merit room” with video games, a piano, and a recording studio. Two others were repurposed as a gym and a cooking space for a newly introduced culinary course. Aside from the living spaces, the justice center also has an indoor basketball court, a dedicated wing for classrooms where the incarcerated attend school, and a very large backyard with a barbecue and planter boxes where food is grown. The homiest room in the facility is a space where families come to visit their imprisoned loved ones. The room has a view of the ocean in the distance.  A colorful side room caters to toddlers and small children, either younger siblings coming to visit their locked up siblings, or babies visiting their young parents. In the corner, a tiny cloth playhouse is set up for toddlers. The hall hosts workshops aimed at deprogramming toxic masculinity and understanding the impacts of crimes on their victims, developed by incarcerated people at Soledad State Prison and San Quentin, respectively. Soon after children arrive at the hall, they’re greeted by a “credible messenger,” an employee of a community-based organization with carceral experience, who is more able to connect with the youth than regular staffers. Credible messengers are an almost constant presence. “Because I’ve been a critic of the place for a long time, it’s hard for me to concede we have a rich array of services,” said Macallair. “It’s better now than it was before.” Community justice activists, Public Defender’s Office staff, and the president of the Juvenile Probation Commission agreed. Much of the praise for how the hall has changed is credited to Miller.  ”Katy Miller is probably the best chief probation officer that we’ve had the fortune to work with,” said Lee. “She’s very pro-child.” But that praise comes with a caveat that echoes the failed 2019 push to close the hall. “ A jail is a jail is a jail,” Lee said. “You can only slap so much lipstick on a pig. If you ask any youth that goes into juvenile hall, whether it was back in the ’80s, ’90s, or currently, their first request is, ‘When can I get out?’” In 2024, the Juvenile Probation Department commissioned the architectural firm KMD to design a remodeled justice center. The plans envision a campus-like space, with a green central plaza in place of two of the existing living units. Large windows and natural light accentuate a series of new and renovated buildings. Dedicated training spaces would teach kids how to barber, smith, cook, and grow vegetables. If the current hall reflects an era that tried to solve youth crime by locking kids up and throwing away the key, the KMD design is a contemporary dream of how to rehabilitate kids into happy, productive adults. The designs were spurred not by any work group or Board of Supervisors vote, but primarily by the Juvenile Probation Department. Kids detained at juvie for longer stays were paid for their input on the new designs. “ When our kids were given the opportunity to dream, what they actually dreamed up looks like a junior college and not like a house,” said Miller.  The projected cost to realize this new, blue-sky dream? $220 million.</p>

Departments blow off Lurie again. Plus: DCCC gives out endorsements

<p>In a repeat of Mayor  Daniel Lurie ’s  first frustrating budget cycle  last year, a significant chunk of City Hall departments are once again failing to meet his reduction targets. Of the roughly 50 departments that have posted 2026-27 budgets, 18 haven’t tightened their belts enough, according to Power Play’s review of  submissions  to the mayor’s office. Last year at this time, 22 agencies did not meet the mark. The city’s budget remains dire , with a two-year deficit of $877 million, according to the  latest estimate . That’s a fair chunk of the roughly $16 billion in annual expenses. And that’s not tallying the total cost of actions by President  Donald Trump , who has threatened to  withhold SNAP benefits  and whose One, Big, Beautiful Bill aims to  curtail Medicare spending . In December, Lurie  ordered departments  to come up with $400 million in reductions, including eliminating discretionary programs, restructuring departments, reducing citywide work orders by 10%, centralizing duplicative expenses, and proposing near-term investments to save money in the long term. The mayor’s office gave each department a “reduction target.” While some departments have bowed to the mayor’s demands and hit their marks, others are refusing to go along and are articulating their reasons in writing.  In City Hall bureaucratese, they’re essentially telling Lurie to go kick rocks. Resistors include the San Francisco Fire Department, which argued in its budget submission that meeting the mayor’s mandates would harm emergency response time. The department is asking for $385.6 million — $11 million more than its target and $7 million more than it was allotted last year.  “Any reduction of that scale would have material impact to the front-line emergency services that the department is responsible for,” the department wrote.  The police are asking for $693.7 million — $11.3 million over the target — though SFPD staff noted that ongoing negotiations with the police union may change the financial landscape. The pushback on budget cuts by the fire and police departments is not necessarily surprising considering the mayor’s priority of funding public safety agencies. But they’re not alone.  Departments that haven’t fully hacked away at their budgets include the Agency for Human Rights, Ethics Commission, Human Services Agency, and War Memorial and Performing Arts Center. Mayor’s ofice spokesperson  Kate Poltrack  said federal budget cuts are driving the city’s deficit to historic levels. “Our office will work collaboratively” with departments and others, she said, “to deliver a responsible budget that prioritizes core service.” Turning in budgets that don’t do as the mayor asks is a common tactic by city departments, and last year such maneuvers bore fruit: The district attorney’s office and other public safety agencies  were spared cuts  after playing chicken with Lurie. Not every department saw success with the strategy, though: After departments like Homelessness and Supportive Housing refused his order,  Lurie seized control of their budgets  and slashed them anyway.  — J.F.R. and G.G. Got tips? Send to us at  powerplay@sfstandard.com . Programming note: Power Play will be off Sunday. PROTESTER VS. PRESSER:  A Wednesday press conference called by Lurie, Supervisor  Bilal Mahmood,  and the Building & Construction Trades Council’s  Rudy Gonzalez  saw 10 protesters chanting “Tax the rich” throughout. The half-hour briefing was supposed to celebrate  a proposal to spur development .  But the chant took a darker turn. During Gonzalez’s speech, a woman was heard yelling “Tax the Jews” and “Tax Israel,” a video obtained by Power Play shows. While the video does not show the protesters, the antisemitic shouts can be heard coming from a single person.  “Suggesting that Jews are wealthy is a tired trope, and targeting our community at an event focused on creating economic opportunity for San Franciscans is decidedly antisemitic,” Lurie said afterward. “I will never accept hate directed at the Jewish community or any community in our city. Those are not San Francisco values — we’re better than that.” San Francisco’s Democratic Socialists of America chapter, whose members were part of the protest, said in a statement that the culprit was not affiliated with their group: “DSA members and other protesters asked her to stop, but she refused. We want to be clear that whatever hate she holds isn’t shared by DSA members, and we categorically reject antisemitism.” (DSA has been highly critical of the U.S. government’s support for Israel.)  Christin Evans , a small-business owner who attended the protest, told Power Play that the woman who made the remarks was a passerby.  — G.G. DCCC ENDORSEMENT:  San Francisco’s political establishment revealed its preferences Wednesday night for the June election, as the Democratic County Central Committee issued its coveted endorsements. On the June ballot: supervisor races in Districts 2 and 4, a school board seat, a judicial contest, and two ballot measures: an earthquake safety bond and one that would strengthen  term limits . Three incumbents — Supervisors  Stephen Sherrill  and  Alan Wong , along with school board President  Phil Kim  — secured the DCCC’s endorsement. Since 2024, the governing body of the local Democratic Party has shifted from a progressive majority to a more moderate and YIMBY-aligned body, and both Sherrill and Wong have been given the stamp of approval for supporting Lurie’s upzoning plan. Sherrill’s main challenger in District 2,  Lori Brooke , drew some support, including from former supervisor and DCCC member  Michela Alioto-Pier . In District 4, Wong’s opponents,  Natalie Gee  and  Albert Chow,  won backing from some members. But Wong’s incumbency, along with Lurie’s influence, had solidified his path to endorsement. In the judicial race, prosecutor  Phoebe Maffei  received the nod over public defender  Alexandra Pray .  Both of the ballot measures sailed through with “yes” endorsements, but the  controversial term-limit charter amendment  resulted in a closer vote.  — H.L. LOVE ME NOT:  Speaking of the west side’s electoral slugfest: Wong, Gee and Chow will duke it out Thursday at a District 4 candidate forum hosted by Sunset United Neighbors. Other candidates are getting the cold shoulder:  David Lee,  the San Francisco State University politics professor and theater performer  Jeremy Greco.   Greco is a newcomer, so that’s not a surprise. But Lee has run for both state Assembly and for supervisor of the Richmond. He has raised more than $31,000. While it’s not as much as Wong’s $72,000 or Gee’s $143,000, once he receives public financing, he will be on even footing.  So why exclude him?  Insiders note that moderate Democrats think of Lee as a spoiler, pulling attention, donations, and other resources away from his fellow moderate-aligned District 1 candidate  Marjan Philhour , and contributing to their collective loss in 2020 against Supervisor  Connie Chan . There’s speculation that moderate-aligned groups may be afraid Lee will play spoiler for Wong, with whom he’d naturally share votes. Selena Chu , a board member of SUN, told Power Play there’s a simple reason for excluding other candidates: The group polled its members on who they wanted to see at their forum, and Lee polled at 2%. While Chu declined to provide numbers for the other candidates, she said Wong, Gee, and Chow polled far higher. Ultimately, Chu said, the group wanted to ensure that working families aren’t stuck at a political event for hours. “How early do D4 people sleep? Quite early. We want to be respectful to our membership. We hope [Lee] understands,” she said.  — J.F.R.  DESIGN BATTLE:  The never-ending saga over the Great Highway is entering its final, farcical phase. Supporters of reopening the roadway to cars have filed paperwork seeking another ballot measure, launching a campaign called “Great Highway for everyone.” They’ve  rolled out a logo  featuring a family of four strolling along the beach at sunset, seemingly enjoying the coastline. Backers of Sunset Dunes say the imagery only helps their cause. “It appears that even Sunset Dunes opponents recognize that San Franciscans love our coastal park free of car pollution and danger,” said  Lucas Lux , president of Friends of Sunset Dunes. “Please give them our thanks for designing a campaign graphic for us.” But the trolling didn’t stop there. Lux and his supporters quickly unveiled a redesigned, AI-generated version of the logo — depicting a traffic-choked roadway lined with cars and exhaust fumes. “Here’s one they can use that shows what they’re actually advocating for,” Lux said. The text at the bottom of the AI-altered logo: “Are we seriously still talking about this?” Jamie Hughes , the campaign spokesperson, said Lux should get his eyes checked, noting that  the family in the original image is on the beach, not in the park. “As seen with the ‘Sunset Dunes project,’ clearly their only focus continues to be making a mockery of our beautiful coast.”  — H.L. Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly included Public Works in a list of departments that did not meet its budget target from the mayor last year.</p>

Sanctuary or snitch? Bay Area counties trade immigrant data for cash

<p>Even as several declare themselves sanctuaries, counties in the Bay Area are sending personal information about incarcerated immigrants to the federal government. In return, they’re getting millions of dollars from the Department of Justice through a program that critics argue violates state law. In 2024, California counties and the state’s prison system received more than $59.4 million from the little-known State Criminal Alien Assistance Program— more than any other state, and more than the next seven states combined, according to the  most recently available DOJ data . Some Bay Area counties received more money for jailing undocumented immigrants than entire states. From 2015 to 2024, California took in $728 million in SCAAP funding.  According to  the Department of Justice , which administers SCAAP, the program reimburses states and counties “for incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens with at least one felony or two misdemeanor convictions for violations of state or local law.” In exchange, counties must share a list of the name, date of birth, country of origin, and date of incarceration for every person in jail or prison that year. A private company helps the federal government identify undocumented people on the list. Critics say that cooperation with the feds violates the 2017 California Values Act, which established the “sanctuary state” and bars cooperation with immigration authorities. San Francisco and Santa Clara counties have forgone SCAAP money since 2016.  San Mateo County Sheriff Kenneth Binder, who was sworn in last November, said that although the previous sheriff applied for SCAAP cash, the office “has declined the 2024 award of the grant and has no intentions of applying for future SCAAP funding.” With the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in full swing, some Bay Area counties are saying they’ll back out of SCAAP. But even under pressure from residents, other counties don’t appear inclined to give up the free federal cash. Is it legal? The federal government created SCAAP in 1994 , partially in response to California Gov. Pete Wilson’s complaints that the state was forced to pay to jail undocumented immigrants.  According to the LA Times , Wilson threatened to leave a shackled undocumented prisoner on the doorstep of a federal prison if California didn’t receive reimbursement. In 2024, 35 of the 58 California counties received SCAAP money, along with the state’s prison system.  California has the nation’s largest estimated population of undocumented people: 2.9 million, according to a 2023  Migration Policy Institute analysis . But its dominance in SCAAP funding is still disproportionate compared with other states that also have large immigrant populations. For decades after the program’s creation, SCAAP wasn’t controversial in California. To most sheriffs, it was a paperwork chore that came around every September and covered part of the budget. It flew under the radar of pro-immigration activists.  The  Obama , Biden, and  first Trump  administrations all proposed cutting SCAAP. Sen. Dianne Feinstein defended the program and  even pushed to expand it  to cover the cost of jailing undocumented people who were charged with a crime. When Donald Trump was first running for president, some in the San Francisco public defender’s office noticed SCAAP money came with strings attached. “There was this pressure and expectation from [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] that you have to work closely with them,” said Angela Chan, assistant chief attorney at the public defender’s office. According to Chan, the feds expected that sheriff departments receiving SCAAP funding would respond to requests to hold undocumented people upon their release from jail so that ICE could detain them. “Under the Obama administration, they were adding more conditions when it came to getting SCAAP reimbursement.” In 2016, Chan helped convince the San Francisco’s sheriff to pull out of SCAAP. Chan went on to help write the  California Values Act . The bill, passed in 2017, sharply limits how much police can cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. “SCAAP violates the letter of the law,” Chan said. She points to language in the act that prohibits California law enforcement from sharing “personal information … about an [undocumented] individual,” including the person’s name, which is required under SCAAP reimbursement requests. Nonetheless, millions of dollars pour into the state each year. California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office said he is committed to upholding the California Values Act while appearing to sidestep the controversy. “California has made a conscious decision not to assist with the Trump administration’s destructive mass deportation campaign by limiting the use of its resources for federal immigration enforcement — and courts have upheld that choice as a lawful exercise of state power,” Bonta’s office said in a statement. “That said, we are unable to provide legal analysis on participation in specific programs.” Who even knows they’re in SCAAP? Some sheriffs have said they didn’t know their counties were receiving SCAAP money. In July 2025, Santa Cruz County’s new sheriff, Chris Clark,  said he hadn’t known  the county participated in the program and pledged to discontinue it.  A representative of the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office said the county in no way cooperates with the federal government to identify undocumented people. When told that the most recently available records indicate that Sonoma County received SCAAP money, he expressed surprise and said he would look into whether the sheriff still participated in the program. The office did not respond to further requests for comment. Activists  recently pressed Marin County  and Alameda County to discontinue their participation in the program. In Marin, activists packed a Jan. 20 Board of Supervisors meeting and dominated public comment with demands that the county back out of SCAAP. Some carried signs bearing a photo of Renee Good, the Minneapolis woman fatally shot last month by ICE officers.  At the next meeting a week later, Marin County Executive Derek Johnson read a statement defending the use of the money. “SCAAP is a long-standing administrative reimbursement program that helps offset certain jail costs months after incarceration has occurred,” he said. The county has no apparent plans to stop taking the money. The Sheriff’s Department did not respond to requests for comment. At an Alameda Board of Supervisors meeting that same day, Alameda Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez acknowledged the community pressure to leave SCAAP. “I’ve been committed to looking into that,” she said but declined to promise anything further.  In 2024, Alameda County was the second-largest recipient of SCAAP money in California after Orange County, receiving $1.2 million. But if the county were to stop receiving the funds, making up the difference would likely prove difficult — the county’s latest budget shortfall, $105.7 million, was its largest in recent years. For its part, the Trump administration doesn’t appear keen on continuing to send tens of millions a year in SCAAP funding to California. In February 2025, just after Pam Bondi became attorney general, she  outlined a directive  to deny DOJ funding to sanctuary jurisdictions. She ordered a 60-day pause on SCAAP and other funding to California, but the order was overturned by a federal judge in San Francisco, and the money kept coming.  In July, Bondi’s office  sent letters to counties  that don’t receive SCAAP funds, including San Francisco, and asked that they hand over immigrants’ identifying information anyway, for free. Where does the data go? SCAAP critics worry that the information local law enforcement provides to the federal government in exchange for funding could lead to ICE detaining undocumented people after they’re released from a local jail or state prison.  Public defenders and immigration attorneys in the region could not confirm any case of a SCAAP reimbursement request leading directly to an immigrant’s detention. But they remain concerned that it might’ve happened without their knowledge, or could happen. ”We don’t believe that it is an appropriate role for any county in California to act as an agent of, particularly this administration’s, ICE programs,” said Kate Chatfield, executive director of the California Public Defenders Association.  At the meeting in Marin, Johnson said SCAAP “does not involve immigration enforcement, does not authorize cooperation with ICE operations, and does not require real-time reporting or notification for immigration purposes.” Chan disagrees that SCAAP reporting never includes “real-time” reporting on individuals while they’re incarcerated. “It depends how long that person is in local jail,” Chan said. “Certainly there can be people [counties] report to ICE through SCAAP reimbursement who are still in their custody.”  Chatfield doesn’t think the information shared via SCAAP is as harmless as the Marin County executive contends. “ They want this information for some reason,” she said. “No, I can’t point to cases where they’ve used [SCAAP information to detain people]. But clearly they want counties to act as a dragnet for information. … They’re asking sheriffs to be data brokers, to be selling people’s data.” Chatfield noted that the money Marin County receives from SCAAP represents just 0.67% of the sheriff’s annual budget. “So they’re willing to sell out their noncitizens for pennies.”</p>

Controversial SF judge to face last-minute challenger in June election

<p>A former state attorney, now in private practice, is running to unseat a controversial judge on the San Francisco Superior Court. Anthony Tartaglio, 39, a workers rights attorney who spent five years as a deputy attorney general, filed paperwork Tuesday morning to challenge Judge Michelle Tong, a frequent target of complaints from the San Francisco district attorney’s office and advocates for tough-on-crime judicial rulings. “I’m running for Superior Court judge because justice and the rule of law are essential to keeping San Francisco safe and vibrant,” Tartaglio said in a statement.  A graduate of UC Law San Francisco, Tartaglio began his legal career as an intellectual property lawyer before serving under state Attorneys General Xavier Becerra and Rob Bonta. As a workers rights attorney, he has clients that include municipal employees who blow the whistle on public corruption. Tartaglio’s wife, Natassia Kwan, also a private practice attorney, previously worked for the city attorney’s office and was active in the Stop Asian Hate movement. Tong’s controversies Tartaglio said his decision to run was inspired in part  by a November story in The Standard  detailing a child’s abduction that occurred after Tong ruled that the child could travel to Kazakhstan with his mother for two weeks. They never returned, and the child’s father blamed Tong for the abduction. The Chronicle  first reported  on the case in 2024. During Tong’s brief assignment to criminal court, she faced more challenges from the district attorney’s office than any other jurist, according to public records obtained by The Standard. The DA can challenge judicial assignments in the hopes of being assigned someone else — a strategy known as “judge-shopping.”  But Ellen Chaitin, a retired judge, wrote in  an op-ed  that the district attorney’s “blanket disqualification” of Tong would undermine the independence of the judiciary. Tong spent 17 years at the San Francisco public defender’s office before being elected to the bench in 2020. She handles  civil harassment and traffic court cases , considered the least desirable assignments in the city’s court system. “It’s a privilege and an honor to serve San Francisco and its constituents,” Tong said Tuesday. “I am looking forward to serving another six-year term.” Tong has opened a committee for her reelection campaign with $100,000, half from her and half from family members. Facing Tartaglio’s campaign, she will begin fundraising efforts, she said.  Tong has faced criticism from moderate political groups. The nonprofit Stop Crime SF, which runs a judicial watch program, gave Tong its lowest score on a late-January  report card . Tartaglio’s entry is likely to make this the only contested judicial race on the June ballot. All recent efforts to unseat sitting judges have been unsuccessful. In the 2024 election cycle, amid heightened public-safety concerns, two attorneys challenged two incumbent judges  but failed . In 2018, four progressive attorneys sought to unseat incumbent judges, and  all fell short. More than a dozen judges are up for reelection this year; if they face no challengers, they will be automatically reelected to six-year terms and will not appear on the ballot.</p>

The SF Immigration Court death spiral accelerates

Supervisor pushes 2026 measure barring ex-lawmakers from running again … and again

<div class="content-grid article-content"><div class="Metadata_container__fxAzw"><div class="flex flex-row gap-x-md"></div><div class="Metadata_metadata__W_0LF"><span>By <a class="" href="https://sfstandard.com/author/han-li/">Han Li</a></span><time datetime="2025-12-15T14:00:00.000Z">Published Dec. 15, 2025 • 6:00am</time></div></div><div class="floats"><p class="paragraph-block article-body undefined text-left">A San Francisco supervisor wants to permanently lock the doors to City Hall for termed-out colleagues who boomerang back into their old jobs after a break from politics. </p><p class="paragraph-block article-body undefined text-left">Freshman Supervisor Bilal Mahmood said he will announce a 2026 ballot measure Monday alongside members of the San Francisco Young Democrats that would limit supervisors and mayors to two four-year terms, arguing that the current rules make it difficult for fresh faces to get into politics. </p><p class="paragraph-block article-body undefined text-left">“This is about the next generation and equal access to the opportunity to run for office,” he said. </p></div><div class="!p-0 !m-0"></div><div class="floats"><p class="paragraph-block article-body undefined text-left">The city charter bans former supervisors and mayors from serving more than two consecutive terms but allows them to run for office again after sitting out an election cycle. </p><p class="paragraph-block article-body undefined text-left">Mahmood noted that last year’s elections ushered in several new members on the board, which now includes <u><a data-post-id="7e1f4feb-62aa-4f51-b7b8-e81a74846fa5" href="https://sfstandard.com/2024/11/18/sf-board-of-supervisors-2024/">six millennials</a></u>. He said the younger board has already helped balance a budget, while passing laws to build more housing and increase public safety.</p><p class="paragraph-block article-body undefined text-left">The measure appears to target former Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin, an old-school progressive who termed out this year after dominating San Francisco politics for two decades. Peskin remains a thorn in the sides of Mayor Daniel Lurie and other moderate Democrats at City Hall, and his opponents worry that he could stage a comeback in 2028.</p><p class="paragraph-block article-body undefined text-left">Mahmood denied that his proposal is about Peskin. “No one should be able to exploit the loophole to run for a third term,” he said. </p><p class="paragraph-block article-body undefined text-left">Supervisors have the authority to place a measure on the ballot, normally with four votes. Because Mahmood’s proposal would amend the charter, he needs five cosponsors, which he claims he has secured. </p></div><div class="!p-0 !m-0"></div><div class="floats"><p class="paragraph-block article-body undefined text-left">The measure would not apply to other citywide elected offices, including district attorney, city attorney, treasurer, sheriff, public defender, and assessor-recorder.</p></div><h2 class="heading-block article-body text-left">Peskin: ‘I’m flattered’</h2><div class="floats"><p class="paragraph-block article-body undefined text-left">While Mahmood is pitching his measure as a much-needed reform, it’s unclear how much of an effect it would have, considering how rare it is for former supervisors and mayors to term out and return to the same City Hall position. </p><p class="paragraph-block article-body undefined text-left">Since San Francisco returned to district elections 25 years ago, Peskin has been the only supervisor to <a href="https://sfbos.org/former-supervisor-aaron-peskin" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">serve more than two terms<span class="sr-only"> (opens in new tab)</span></a>. He was first elected in 2000 and served on the board for eight years, then took a seven-year hiatus before returning in 2015. He unsuccessfully ran for mayor last year after terming out again, and moderates fear he might challenge his successor, Supervisor Danny Sauter, in 2028.</p></div><figure class="ImageBlock_ImageFigure__ZnquR inset-image mobile-grid-full mobile-grid-full" data-align="none"><div class="relative"><div><img alt="Aaron Peskin presides over a Board of Supervisors meeting." class="block lazyloaded" data-nimg="1" decoding="async" height="1707" loading="lazy" sizes="(min-width: 1001px) 600px, (min-width: 768px) 700px, 100vw" src="https://assets.sfstandard.com/image/994911177489/image_r4bul2p779657f7tm2orh3ar2d/-S3840x2561-FPNG" srcset="https://assets.sfstandard.com/image/994911177489/image_r4bul2p779657f7tm2orh3ar2d/-S640x427-FPNG 640w, https://assets.sfstandard.com/image/994911177489/image_r4bul2p779657f7tm2orh3ar2d/-S750x500-FPNG 750w, https://assets.sfstandard.com/image/994911177489/image_r4bul2p779657f7tm2orh3ar2d/-S768x512-FPNG 768w, https://assets.sfstandard.com/image/994911177489/image_r4bul2p779657f7tm2orh3ar2d/-S828x552-FPNG 828w, https://assets.sfstandard.com/image/994911177489/image_r4bul2p779657f7tm2orh3ar2d/-S1024x683-FPNG 1024w, https://assets.sfstandard.com/image/994911177489/image_r4bul2p779657f7tm2orh3ar2d/-S1080x720-FPNG 1080w, https://assets.sfstandard.com/image/994911177489/image_r4bul2p779657f7tm2orh3ar2d/-S1200x800-FPNG 1200w, https://assets.sfstandard.com/image/994911177489/image_r4bul2p779657f7tm2orh3ar2d/-S1920x1280-FPNG 1920w, https://assets.sfstandard.com/image/994911177489/image_r4bul2p779657f7tm2orh3ar2d/-S2048x1366-FPNG 2048w, https://assets.sfstandard.com/image/994911177489/image_r4bul2p779657f7tm2orh3ar2d/-S3840x2561-FPNG 3840w" style="color:transparent;background-size:cover;background-position:50% 50%;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-image:url(&quot;data:image/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,%3Csvg xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg' viewBox='0 0 2560 1707'%3E%3Cfilter id='b' color-interpolation-filters='sRGB'%3E%3CfeGaussianBlur stdDeviation='20'/%3E%3CfeColorMatrix values='1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 100 -1' result='s'/%3E%3CfeFlood x='0' y='0' width='100%25' height='100%25'/%3E%3CfeComposite operator='out' in='s'/%3E%3CfeComposite in2='SourceGraphic'/%3E%3CfeGaussianBlur stdDeviation='20'/%3E%3C/filter%3E%3Cimage width='100%25' height='100%25' x='0' y='0' preserveAspectRatio='none' style='filter: url(%23b);' href=''/%3E%3C/svg%3E&quot;)" width="2560"/></div></div><figcaption class="basis-full mt-[10px] text-xs text-gray-550 font-inter leading-[18px]">Former Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin dominated local politics for two decades and remains a thorn in the sides of Mayor Daniel Lurie and other moderates.<span class="image-caption-divider"> | </span><span class="image-credit"><span class="sr-only">Source: </span>Justin Katigbak/The Standard.</span></figcaption></figure><div class="floats"><p class="paragraph-block article-body undefined text-left">Peskin on Friday told The Standard he feels targeted by Mahmood’s effort. </p><p class="paragraph-block article-body undefined text-left">“If it only applies to one person, it seems like a huge waste of space on the ballot,” Peskin said while enjoying a brownie at Caffe Trieste, his de-facto clubhouse in North Beach. “But I’m flattered. I have no plans to run for any office.”</p></div><div class="floats"><p class="paragraph-block article-body undefined text-left">Former Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier, who served two terms representing the Marina and Pacific Heights from 2004 to 2011, was rumored this year to be eyeing a 2026 campaign for her old seat. She said in an interview that she wouldn’t run again but criticized the proposal as limiting voter choice.</p><p class="paragraph-block article-body undefined text-left">“Further restricting term limits in San Francisco only serves to restrict candidate debate and the ultimate choice of the voters,” Alioto-Pier said. “At the end of the day, voters choose who they want to represent them, and nothing plays a bigger role than a well-organized campaign and a well-fought race.”</p><p class="paragraph-block article-body undefined text-left">Mahmood’s effort coincides with a campaign by two board members of the San Francisco Young Democrats to <u><a data-post-id="1a9157ff-4839-4dd4-a731-a81759d3b487" href="https://sfstandard.com/opinion/2025/12/12/term-limits-loophole-san-francisco-politicians/">change the city’s term-limit rules</a></u> with a June 2026 ballot measure, an effort the pair announced Friday in an op-ed in The Standard.</p><p class="paragraph-block article-body undefined text-left">The coalition behind the effort is holding a rally Monday at City Hall to “end this practice once and for all.” Mahmood is expected to attend and announce his proposal. </p></div><div class="w-full bg-warm-gray-50 border border-warm-gray-300 rounded-xl flex flex-col gap-md px-lg py-[20px]"><div class="flex flex-row text-medium leading-[1.1] text-black font-inter gap-xs"><span class="italic font-normal">More about</span><a href="https://sfstandard.com/tag/board-of-supervisors/"><span class="font-bold underline decoration-highlight decoration-[3.2px]">Board of Supervisors</span></a></div><ul class="flex flex-col gap-md"><li class="flex flex-row gap-sm pb-md border-b border-warm-gray-300"><a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/12/15/moderate-political-group-attacks-supervisors-who-voted-lurie-s-upzoning-plan/" tabindex="-1"><div class="flex-none w-[90px] h-[60px] overflow-hidden"><img alt='Four serious-faced people, three women and one man, appear in a panel discussion with a red "VOTED NO" stamp and the "grow SF" logo in the corner.' class="object-cover w-full h-full lazyloaded" data-nimg="1" decoding="async" height="1222" loading="lazy" src="https://assets.sfstandard.com/image/994911177489/image_accani85ud2cvfn5q67q4j6p25/-S3840x2168-FPNG" srcset="https://assets.sfstandard.com/image/994911177489/image_accani85ud2cvfn5q67q4j6p25/-S3840x2168-FPNG 1x" style="color:transparent;background-size:cover;background-position:50% 50%;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-image:url(&quot;data:image/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,%3Csvg xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg' viewBox='0 0 2164 1222'%3E%3Cfilter id='b' color-interpolation-filters='sRGB'%3E%3CfeGaussianBlur stdDeviation='20'/%3E%3CfeColorMatrix values='1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 100 -1' result='s'/%3E%3CfeFlood x='0' y='0' width='100%25' height='100%25'/%3E%3CfeComposite operator='out' in='s'/%3E%3CfeComposite in2='SourceGraphic'/%3E%3CfeGaussianBlur stdDeviation='20'/%3E%3C/filter%3E%3Cimage width='100%25' height='100%25' x='0' y='0' preserveAspectRatio='none' style='filter: url(%23b);' href=''/%3E%3C/svg%3E&quot;)" width="2164"/></div></a><a class="h-fit" href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/12/15/moderate-political-group-attacks-supervisors-who-voted-lurie-s-upzoning-plan/"><h3 class="text-medium sm:text-lg leading-[1.3] font-medium text-warm-gray-900 font-ivar-headline">Moderate political group attacks supervisors who voted against Lurie’s upzoning plan</h3></a></li><li class="flex flex-row gap-sm pb-md border-b border-warm-gray-300"><a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/12/12/san-francisco-daniel-lurie-budget-donald-trump-layoffs/" tabindex="-1"><div class="flex-none w-[90px] h-[60px] overflow-hidden"><img alt="A man with short dark hair and a serious expression faces right, with two blurred figures in the background." class="object-cover w-full h-full lazyloaded" data-nimg="1" decoding="async" height="666.6666666666666" loading="lazy" src="https://assets.sfstandard.com/image/994911177489/image_bic0blmc6d2i37opt5nl266g3b/-C100.00%25x100.00%25%2C0.00%25%2C0.00%25-S2048x1365-FPNG" srcset="https://assets.sfstandard.com/image/994911177489/image_bic0blmc6d2i37opt5nl266g3b/-C100.00%25x100.00%25%2C0.00%25%2C0.00%25-S1024x683-FPNG 1x, https://assets.sfstandard.com/image/994911177489/image_bic0blmc6d2i37opt5nl266g3b/-C100.00%25x100.00%25%2C0.00%25%2C0.00%25-S2048x1365-FPNG 2x" style="color:transparent;aspect-ratio:1.5;background-size:cover;background-position:50% 50%;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-image:url(&quot;data:image/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,%3Csvg xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg' viewBox='0 0 1000 666.6666666666666'%3E%3Cfilter id='b' color-interpolation-filters='sRGB'%3E%3CfeGaussianBlur stdDeviation='20'/%3E%3CfeColorMatrix values='1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 100 -1' result='s'/%3E%3CfeFlood x='0' y='0' width='100%25' height='100%25'/%3E%3CfeComposite operator='out' in='s'/%3E%3CfeComposite in2='SourceGraphic'/%3E%3CfeGaussianBlur stdDeviation='20'/%3E%3C/filter%3E%3Cimage width='100%25' height='100%25' x='0' y='0' preserveAspectRatio='none' style='filter: url(%23b);' href=''/%3E%3C/svg%3E&quot;)" width="1000"/></div></a><a class="h-fit" href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/12/12/san-francisco-daniel-lurie-budget-donald-trump-layoffs/"><h3 class="text-medium sm:text-lg leading-[1.3] font-medium text-warm-gray-900 font-ivar-headline">Lurie orders $400M in city budget cuts amid worsening deficit</h3></a></li><li class="flex flex-row gap-sm"><a href="https://sfstandard.com/opinion/2025/12/09/commissions-streamlining-task-force-unions/" tabindex="-1"><div class="flex-none w-[90px] h-[60px] overflow-hidden"><img alt='A large crowd holding signs that read "FIX OUR CITY" during a protest or rally, with many wearing blue and purple.' class="object-cover w-full h-full lazyloaded" data-nimg="1" decoding="async" height="2001" loading="lazy" src="https://assets.sfstandard.com/image/994911177489/image_lj6dj16ss152l6sdbrmsunh93u/-S3840x2561-FPNG" srcset="https://assets.sfstandard.com/image/994911177489/image_lj6dj16ss152l6sdbrmsunh93u/-S3840x2561-FPNG 1x" style="color:transparent;background-size:cover;background-position:50% 50%;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-image:url(&quot;data:image/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,%3Csvg xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg' viewBox='0 0 3000 2001'%3E%3Cfilter id='b' color-interpolation-filters='sRGB'%3E%3CfeGaussianBlur stdDeviation='20'/%3E%3CfeColorMatrix values='1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 100 -1' result='s'/%3E%3CfeFlood x='0' y='0' width='100%25' height='100%25'/%3E%3CfeComposite operator='out' in='s'/%3E%3CfeComposite in2='SourceGraphic'/%3E%3CfeGaussianBlur stdDeviation='20'/%3E%3C/filter%3E%3Cimage width='100%25' height='100%25' x='0' y='0' preserveAspectRatio='none' style='filter: url(%23b);' href=''/%3E%3C/svg%3E&quot;)" width="3000"/></div></a><a class="h-fit" href="https://sfstandard.com/opinion/2025/12/09/commissions-streamlining-task-force-unions/"><h3 class="text-medium sm:text-lg leading-[1.3] font-medium text-warm-gray-900 font-ivar-headline">Voters wanted SF government to change. These powerful interests want the opposite</h3></a></li></ul></div><div class="floats"><p class="paragraph-block article-body undefined text-left">“San Francisco stands for progress. But our city charter stands for something else: a policy that lets termed-out politicians wait in the wings and reclaim their seats, again and again,” the petition’s organizers, Ruth Ferguson and Adrianna Zhang wrote. </p><p class="paragraph-block article-body undefined text-left">Mahmood said working with the coalition that’s pushing the 2026 measure has inspired him to clear a path for a new generation that wants change. </p><p class="paragraph-block article-body undefined text-left">While Mahmood said his effort is about creating more opportunities to shape the city’s political future, he noted President Donald Trump’s public musings about seeking a third term as part of his motivation.</p><p class="paragraph-block article-body undefined text-left">“San Francisco leadership is committed to two terms,” Mahmood said. “We want to send a clear message to Washington: Two terms, and you’re done.”</p></div></div>

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