Mamdani-inspired tax on SF’s empty grocery stores is off the ballot, but not off the table

Supervisor Bilal Mahmood spent months working on legislation to tax San Francisco’s vacant grocery stores. But when it became clear that the measure wouldn’t have the votes to make it through committee, let alone to the fall ballot, he changed tack — reaching out to New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s team, whose own push for city-run grocers inspired his plan in the first place. Now, instead of bringing a measure to the city’s electorate , he’s asking the Board of Supervisors to pass a narrower version by ordinance. The new proposal will trade what he called his original “carrot-and-stick approach” for incentives alone: fee waivers, corner-store conversions, and a zoning reform borrowed from New York City. Mahmood’s original measure, the Affordable Groceries Act, aimed to subsidize new stores primarily by taxing large chains that leave storefronts vacant. The District 5 supervisor said the fight was never just about empty storefronts: it was about who has to trek the farthest to fill a grocery cart. He represents the Tenderloin, which has the highest concentration of children in the city, and Japantown, which has the highest concentration of seniors. “Even having to walk more than a couple of blocks to get your groceries is a point of inequity,” he said. After Supervisor Connie Chan, the Budget Committee chair, pulled it from the agenda earlier this month, Mahmood asked the Rules Committee to send it directly to the full board instead. Supervisor Shamann Walton, who chairs the rules committee, agreed to hear the motion, a decision Mahmood thanked him for publicly. But based on conversations with other members this week, Mahmood concluded he didn’t have the votes to move it forward. Rather than force a vote he’d probably lose, he asked for a continuance, technically leaving the measure alive for “a future date,” according to a press release from his office. In practice, with the ballot filing deadline days away, that forecloses this November. Supervisor Stephen Sherrill, one of the measure’s original co-sponsors, was among those Mahmood said would not support advancing it. So, Mahmood went back to the drawing board. His retreat, he said, reflects a read on what would actually pass, not a change in goals. “I’m driven by results,” he said. “It’s clear that City Hall right now does not have consensus on a mix of a carrot-and-stick approach. But there does seem to be consensus around incentive-based approaches.” When the ballot measure started to falter, Mahmood said, he called Mamdani’s team for advice on an alternative. They pointed him toward zoning: a density-bonus program for housing developments that include ground-floor grocery stores, part of what New York calls its FRESH program. The plan Mahmood will introduce Tuesday sets out three legislative proposals, which he hopes his colleagues will pass on a rolling basis over the coming year. The first restores funding to Healthy Retail SF , a program that helps convert corner stores into outlets for fresh produce — an idea Tenderloin community groups have pushed for years. The second priority is to expand existing incentives: one that waives permit fees for new grocery stores, which Mahmood’s office estimates could save $50,000 to $80,000 per store, and another that bankrolls capital build-outs for stores opening in neighborhoods without full-service grocery access. The third proposal borrows from New York City’s FRESH program, offering density bonuses to housing developments that include a grocery store on the ground floor. The density bonuses would pair with zoning changes to make it easier to subdivide the oversized empty parcels, often 50,000 to 60,000 square feet, that Mahmood said have deterred new grocers, which typically need only 10,000 to 20,000 square feet. The collapse of the ballot-measure approach caps weeks of tension at City Hall. Mahmood’s measure had cleared an earlier hurdle only to be pulled from the Budget and Finance Committee agenda in mid-July — a move Mahmood said came at Mayor Daniel Lurie’s request. Lurie’s office has said it supports Mahmood’s proposed Affordable Grocery Fund but opposed the vacancy tax meant to help pay for it. “More taxes won’t achieve” more grocery stores, mayoral spokesperson Charles Lutvak said last week. Budget Committee chair Connie Chan’s office struck a similar note, saying through a spokesperson that she agreed with the measure’s intent but felt it wasn’t ready. Mahmood has also pointed to opposition from Amazon, which owns the shuttered Whole Foods on Market Street and would have been subject to the tax. He said a company lobbyist floated the idea of an exemption for that location, which he declined to grant, and warned that Amazon could spend heavily to defeat the measure — comparisons Amazon lobbyist David Noyola has disputed as inaccurate. Even with the ballot-measure setback, Mahmood’s push forced City Hall to reckon with the issue at a moment when food affordability has become a national flashpoint. A poll he commissioned in July found 61% of likely voters in San Francisco backed the vacancy tax, he noted. Public sentiment was on his side, he said, it was just a matter of political will. Mahmood’s pivot mirrors a broader search playing out in cities nationwide for politically viable ways to fight food deserts and tackle rising grocery costs. In Seattle, Mayor Bruce Harrell issued an executive order this year directing city departments to explore tools, including eminent domain, to keep grocery stores open in underserved neighborhoods. In Congress, a bipartisan bill would offer tax credits to small grocers serving food deserts, while a separate proposal would fund a USDA grant program to help open new stores in underserved communities. “Affordability is the crisis of our generation,” Mahmood said. “Every year, more families are forced to make impossible choices between rent, groceries, medicine, and childcare. This proposal may have been blocked, but the problem it sought to solve has not gone away.”

SF was headed for Mamdani-style grocery stores. Those plans have been spiked

Supervisor Bilal Mahmood said Mayor Daniel Lurie and another lawmaker have derailed part of his government-backed grocery store proposal after it was kept off the agenda of a committee hearing. He said Amazon also played a role in its destruction. The proposal, a two-part ballot measure authored by Mahmood last month, would establish a fund to subsidize grocery stores and levy a tax on vacant supermarkets and pharmacies owned by large businesses. Mahmood said he received a call Thursday afternoon from Supervisor Connie Chan, chair of the Budget Committee, informing him that the tax proposal would be stricken from Wednesday’s Budget and Finance Committee agenda. Chan told Mahmood of her disapproval and signaled that the mayor was opposed to the legislation, he said. “This is frankly just bad governance at the board,” said Mahmood. Mahmood said Lurie and Chan’s intervention makes it difficult for the proposal to move forward since it needs to be heard by the full Board of Supervisors by late July to make it to the November ballot. The dispute highlights competing visions for reviving San Francisco’s economy. Mahmood argues that vacant grocery and pharmacy sites should face financial pressure to reopen or lease to another operator, while Lurie has emphasized incentives and public-private partnerships to encourage businesses to return downtown. “Mayor Lurie is working to bring grocery stores to San Francisco’s communities,” his spokesperson, Charles Lutvak, said in a statement. “More taxes won’t achieve that. We support the Affordable Grocery Fund and will continue working with Supervisor Mahmood and the entire board to bring more grocery stores to the city.” Robyn Burke, a spokesperson for Chan, said the supervisor “agrees” with the intent of the measure, “but she also understands that much work needs to be done to this measure. Supervisor Mahmood has amendments he wants to make to his legislation. With that, she came to the conclusion that this measure is not ready at this time.” Mahmood says he has faced stiff opposition from business groups opposed to the proposal, including Amazon. The supervisor said a lobbyist for Amazon suggested last month that the retail giant could mount a campaign against the tax and requested that its vacant Whole Foods storefront on Market Street be exempt from the legislation. The supervisor declined to grant the exemption. Amazon lobbyist David Noyola denied this. “Amazon is in full overdrive trying to kill this ballot measure,” Mahmood told The Standard, adding that the company doesn’t “want to be held accountable for the zombie stores they hold,” using a term critical of companies that close a storefront but continue to hold the lease. Pro-business groups, including the Chamber of Commerce and Advance SF, have expressed skepticism about the idea to the supervisor. Nationally, the idea has proved controversial as moderate Democrats contend with a growing populist fervor within their party and the country reels from an affordability crisis. Amazon’s Whole Foods site on Market shuttered in 2023 after being open for a little over a year, emblematic of the anxieties surrounding downtown’s post-pandemic economy and worsening street conditions at the time. Since then, Lurie and others have launched efforts to rehabilitate the neighborhood, as office vacancies remain a challenge. Recent figures show some recovery as artificial intelligence companies increase demand. In April, the Downtown Development Corporation, a group created by Lurie’s allies in an effort to revitalize the neighborhood, announced a $25 million initiative to help businesses with below-market rate loans and move-in grants. Mahmood said he is spearheading the ballot measure because of the growing problem of disappearing supermarkets and pharmacies across the city, as well as rising food prices that are a national problem. Mahmood’s district covers the Tenderloin, a neighborhood known for a lack of pharmacies and supermarkets. The city in 2024 opened a free grocery store for low-income residents in the Bayview. Mahmood’s ballot measure would have a dual purpose. It would create a fund, fueled by philanthropic dollars or city coffers, to subsidize the conversion of corner stores into grocery stores with fresh foods or, as New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani has suggested, to lease out city-owned spaces at below-market rates to affordable grocers. It would also tax vacant grocery stores and pharmacies operated by large chains at $3 per square foot in the first year, $5 in the second, and $10 annually thereafter, capped at $250,000. Mahmood maintains that the tax would not affect small businesses, and that the affected companies would be able to avoid the penalty if they lease their vacant space to someone else, abandon their lease so someone else can take it over, or reactivate the storefront themselves. He said the argument businesses have used to defend closures — that crime and homelessness make it difficult to run a storefront — doesn’t pass muster. “I recognize during COVID there were concerns, but the data show that crime is down,” he said. “That excuse is no longer valid.” Amazon’s vacant Whole Foods site is roughly 65,000 square feet. A report from the city controller on the proposal’s cost is pending, said Mahmood. He claims the measure could generate several million dollars in tax revenue. Noyola pushed back against Mahmood’s description of Amazon’s position. “That’s an inaccurate characterization of a conversation I had with Supervisor Mahmood. Full stop,” the lobbyist said, adding that the business community at large tried to propose an exemption for the downtown neighborhood, not for the Whole Foods site specifically. Mahmood stood by his account, saying Noyola told him Amazon spent $250,000 opposing Proposition D — the Overpaid CEO Tax that failed in June — and could spend a similar amount opposing his measure. New York City’s Mamdani, whose progressive politics have proved popular after a slate of congressional wins by democratic socialist candidates during the city’s June primary, announced his first city-owned grocery store in May at an affordable housing complex in the Bronx. The SF Board of Supervisors’ rules committee is set to vote Monday on the fund aspect of Mahmood’s law. Mahmood said he has four supporters of his proposal: Supervisors Cheyenne Chen, Danny Sauter, Stephen Sherrill, and Myrna Melgar. He would need a vote from one more supervisor to move the fund measure from the full board to the November ballot.

The $30M nonprofit quietly fueling Lurie’s domination of City Hall

It’s no secret that Mayor Daniel Lurie has attracted an eye-popping amount of money to San Francisco politics. He spent $10 million of his own cash in 2024 to pave his way to City Hall, and a PAC supporting him that year shelled out $6.6 million. Since being in office, Lurie has personally spent at least $1 million on political consultants, a remarkable expense for a mayor. But an entity linked to him could dwarf all of that. Believe in SF — the 501(c)(3) nonprofit behind the San Francisco hype video released Wednesday that features the mayor, Steph Curry, and other city stars — projects to spend nearly $30 million between 2025 and 2027 on priorities championed by Lurie, according to a previously unreported Internal Revenue Service filing . Who is funding the nonprofit remains unknown. Its website doesn’t disclose its donors, and the group’s yearly financial report with the IRS is not yet available. The organization has also created a 501(c)(4) “action” fund, an entity that can lobby City Hall electeds and is expected to spend roughly $4.7 million through 2027, according to another IRS filing. Catie Stewart, a San Francisco-based political consultant, described Believe in SF’s holdings as “eye-watering” and the strategy behind the group as “very smart.” “It’s unprecedented,” Stewart said of the nonprofit’s spending. “But it’s not surprising. It’s part of their strategy since day one: Poll a ton, be positive, bring in star power.” The spending represents a new dimension in San Francisco politics: a well-financed operation, funded by unknown donors, that can promote the mayor’s agenda without the disclosure requirements that govern campaign finance. Nonprofits are generally not required to publicize their contributors. Taking into account all other spending in Lurie’s orbit since he announced his candidacy in late 2023 , the expenditures are on a scale never before seen in the city. Records show Believe in SF’s 501(c)(3) has established itself as a public relations and policy research arm, founded by Adam Clammer and Alec Perkins, financiers behind the 2024 PAC that helped Lurie get elected. The group has hired public affairs firm The Media Company — overseen by Dan Newman and Brian Brokaw — to manage its activities. Clammer and Perkins were also behind a PAC this year that carries a similar name — SF Believes — and raised $1.8 million for the mayor’s preferred candidates and ballot measures during the June 2 primary. All the money appears to be working : The primary was a boon for Lurie, with the reelection of two supervisors who are allied with him and the rejection of a pair of dueling tax measures he opposed. Public polling shows the mayor is highly popular among San Franciscans. The IRS filing for Believe in SF, submitted in May 2025, offers a breakdown of how the nonprofit intends to spend its money. In 2025, Believe in SF expected to spend $8.27 million, with $5.2 million going toward digital, direct mail, and newspaper advertising and $1.6 million toward polling and policy research, among other expenses. The filing says the nonprofit plans to spend $10 million a year in 2026 and 2027 on similar activities. (Nonprofits registered as 501(c)(3)s are not allowed to support or oppose political candidates.) The video released Wednesday — which shows a coyote running through the city and interacting with the likes of former Mayor Willie Brown and former 49ers quarterback Joe Montana — appears to be just a small slice of the group’s expenditures: The budget for the promotion was in the low six figures, according to a source. The nonprofit fits Lurie’s model of public-private partnership, in which wealthy donors and corporations fill gaps that City Hall’s budget cannot cover. A former nonprofit executive who led Tipping Point Community for 15 years and grew up in the world of socialite philanthropy , Lurie has leaned on corporations and wealthy donors to give money to address homelessness , filling empty storefronts , and other causes. He has inspired the establishment of the Downtown Development Corp. and Partnership for San Francisco to fuel the post-pandemic recovery and establish a better relationship between City Hall and local business leaders. Believe in SF’s filing describes the nonprofit’s activities in detail: Its policy research will commission expert analysis and studies on “critical city issues such as charter reform and government efficiency, public transportation, housing and homelessness, mental health and addiction, the city budget, public safety, and economic development.” Many of those topics go hand-in-glove with Lurie’s policy positions: He is pushing for multiple charter reform ballot measures in November and has called for the reform of permitting , urging more efficiency in that realm. Lurie has also advocated for funding public transit through another November ballot measure , as well as revamping the city’s approach to homelessness and addiction , among other priorities. Meanwhile, Believe in SF’s public opinion research will gauge “awareness, attitudes, and trends regarding new city policies and resident priorities regarding city issues such as public safety, public education, homelessness, and parks will take place through surveys and focus groups.” The organization’s website — which displays the mayor’s commonly used tag line “Let’s go, San Francisco” — states that it “works to help San Franciscans see the city’s progress with clarity and optimism. Through research, storytelling, and public education, we shine a light on how real change is taking shape every day in safer streets, flourishing neighborhoods, and a growing sense of possibility across the city.” Newman and Emily Matthews of The Media Company declined to share the identity of Believe in SF’s donors. “Will of course file and report and share everything as required,” Newman said in an email. Newman said the nonprofit is legally separate from the PACs supporting Lurie and his priorities, and the estimate of the organization’s yearly expenses is “very rough,” since it was filed during incorporation. A spokesperson for the mayor’s office, Charles Lutvak, declined to comment. The nonprofit’s spending comes as Lurie has reached into his own pockets to drive his political career . Throughout 2025, his first year in office, he made regular deposits of hundreds of thousands of dollars into his “Daniel Lurie for Mayor 2024" campaign account, spending big on a coterie of political consultants and a speechwriter. He has also spent about $100,000 on an opposition research firm, an unusual arrangement for a mayor who is not currently mounting a campaign. The spending is allowed under local laws as long as the individuals Lurie hires do not lobby him or make government decisions, such as signing a city contract. His well-heeled donor base has also stepped in to help. During the June 2 primary, Believe in SF’s Clammer and Perkins’ PAC put $389,000 behind Supervisor Alan Wong and $233,000 behind Supervisor Stephen Sherrill. Wong was appointed by Lurie last year, and Sherrill is a close ally of the mayor on public safety, housing, and other issues. The PAC has garnered some controversy: Jan Koum, a WhatsApp founder and supporter of President Donald Trump, gave $250,000 to the committee .

Live updates: Hilton extends lead over Becerra; Wiener tops poll

Lurie’s budget spares city jobs — but grant funding cuts may lead to nonprofit layoffs

San Francisco City Hall jobs are safe, for now — but next year, not so much. Mayor Daniel Lurie released his annual proposed budget on Monday, aiming to close a $643 million deficit. Despite devastating federal disinvestment and a still-recovering economy, additional layoffs did not materialize this year. The budget cuts some social safety net programs as the city seeks to offset expected federal reductions that threaten to leave tens of thousands of San Franciscans without health care and food stamps. “Today, I am proud to submit a balanced budget that is fiscally responsible and strengthens our social safety net, so even in the face of federal cuts, San Franciscans know they can count on this city,” Lurie said in livestreamed remarks to the city. It’s not all roses: the budget slashes grant funding to nonprofit services focused on helping the poorest citizens, immigrants, and communities of color. The funding loss may result in as many as 1,050 layoffs among nonprofit service providers, advocates said Monday. Earlier this year, dire budget projections led labor unions to brace for layoffs among the city’s 34,000 employees in Lurie’s budget proposal, and in April, the mayor handed out a small set of pink slips to 127 employees. Speaking to The Standard last month, SEIU 1021, which represents one of the largest swaths of city employees, warned that strikes next year could “shut down the city.” In a statement, SEIU 1021 San Francisco Vice President Kristin Hardy said, “We are pleased and relieved to see that Mayor Lurie did not include further layoffs in the next fiscal year’s budget. San Francisco is at a pivotal moment in its recovery, and we cannot afford to go backward.” Still, she added, the union continues to fight against nonprofit reductions, and for Lurie to keep three Department of Public Health community clinics open, which are slated for closure under the budget reductions. “They are absolutely vital to the clients who receive services there, who are some of the city’s most vulnerable residents,” Hardy said. “And we want to ensure that nonprofits providing critical public services have the funding they need to retain the frontline workers who do that hard work every day.” Lurie said his budget closes a $300 million structural deficit, meaning the city has reduced ongoing spending by roughly $300 million to better align with projected revenues. But that only bit a chunk out of a $1 billion structural deficit that is projected by 2029. At a press conference on the budget Monday, Lurie told reporters he didn’t want to shrink the entire deficit at once. Instead, he said, he wanted to “responsibly” shrink government by focusing on core services. Cutting too quickly, he said, may threaten the city’s economic recovery and the city's continued ability to provide its remaining social safety net. “You’re seeing the city come back; it’s an economic recovery we can all feel,” Lurie said, “but it’s fragile. We need to nurture it.” At the same time, Lurie added, “we wanted to protect our immigrants and their legal rights, we wanted to protect our LGBTQ-plus and our trans community. We’re always going to lean into our values here in San Francisco, and our budget reflects that.” The continued deficit may mean that future layoffs are still on the table. Departments need to start work to prevent that now, Lurie wrote in his budget, by collectively reducing $81.5 million in personnel costs over the next year through “recognition and attrition.” The challenge will be figuring out “how we think about getting the best services for our residents as we continue through the hiring slowdown,” said Sophia Kittler, the city’s budget director, at the Monday press conference. Some city employees got better news than others: Police officers and firefighters were promised 14% raises after contract negotiations this year, at a cost of roughly $100 million over two years . Other city unions will negotiate their contracts next year. The mayor’s budget book is a sprawling 150-plus-page document, but some notable programs he invested in include $90 million in shelter and housing for families and youth, $34 million in federal risk reserve spending to backfill CalFresh and Medi-Cal disinvestment, restoring proposed cuts to LGBTQ+ community services, community organization-led legal services for the poorest San Franciscans, and investments in maternal and infant health. Perhaps controversially, Lurie proposed a $100 million reserve for homelessness prevention and legal services from a pot of funding created by the 2018 ballot measure Proposition C, which was championed by Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff . It is aimed at helping homeless young adults, and past efforts to divert funding to other uses have sparked outcry from the Board of Supervisors and homeless advocates. To meet the looming fiscal challenge, Lurie has cut back City Hall grant funding for nonprofit programs serving San Francisco’s poorest communities. Early budget documents submitted from departments to Lurie signaled to the city’s 700-plus nonprofits that they would face devastating cuts in services for immigrants, senior citizens, people with disabilities, and disadvantaged communities of color. The People’s Budget Coalition, a collective of more than 150 community organizations that receive city grant funding, said that while Lurie’s budget restores some funding, most of the devastating cuts departments promised are preserved in the mayor’s budget. The layoffs they anticipated have not been significantly averted, the coalition said. “Mayor Lurie says we need to make ‘hard choices,’” the coalition wrote. “But balancing the budget on the backs of working-class residents has become too easy for this administration.” Gabriel Medina, executive director of La Raza Community Resource Center on Valencia Street, learned in February that his organization would lose $660,000 in city grants, but half of it was restored in the mayor’s proposed budget. Instead of two layoffs, he may only have to make one. The funding loss still will hit Spanish-speaking immigrants hard, Medina said. The city depends on organizations like La Raza Community Resource Center to connect monolingual San Franciscans to Medi-Cal and CalFresh, as well as emergency financial assistance when they’re displaced in emergencies such as fires. Medina said hundreds of families would lose out on such services from La Raza Community Resource Center alone. It’s far from a done deal. The mayor’s proposed budget is only a step in the city’s budget process. Now the Board of Supervisors will negotiate the budget with the mayor and in concert will deliver a compromise by July. “We are going to spend the next month doing Board of Supervisors advocacy,” Medina said. “The good news is, we might get half from the mayor, but maybe could get half from the board.” “We’re just waiting to see,” he said. Lurie’s budget also does not assume any funding from Proposition D, the Overpaid CEO Tax, which is on the ballot in Tuesday’s June primary election. If approved, it would bring as much as $300 million annually to San Francisco’s coffers starting in 2028. Supervisor Connie Chan had urged Lurie to dip into the city’s reserve budget to serve as a “bridge” until that funding materialized. Lurie told reporters Monday he would not modify the budget if Prop. D passes, adding the city needs to be “fiscally disciplined” and not spend money “that we don’t have.” While the proposed cuts will be painful, they’re less devastating than initially estimated for two reasons: The mayor got lucky, and he also manufactured his own luck. A budget status report issued by the City Controller’s Office in May revealed a $339 million surplus compared with previous projections, mostly due to better business tax revenue from “worldwide sales” among a number of San Francisco businesses, a matter mostly out of city government’s control. But a $108 million boost in property transfer tax revenue came due to renewed investor interest in commercial real estate, which the administration has cited as evidence that its efforts to revitalize downtown are gaining traction. A hiring freeze Lurie announced last year also saved the city roughly $130 million, according to the mayor’s office.

Mayor Lurie releases his budget next week. Here’s how Trump royally screwed it

More and more, San Francisco’s 2026 budget process is resembling a slasher flick. Shadows are dancing across City Hall’s marble-wrought grand staircase, with President Donald Trump threatening to leap into view, ready to gouge hundreds of millions from the city’s coffers. The threat is real: Roughly $2 billion of San Francisco’s $16 billion budget flows from Washington, funding hundreds of grant programs across nearly every city department. Trump has already started turning off the tap. With a $643 million deficit looming, Mayor Daniel Lurie has days to reveal how the city absorbs the pain — and who feels it most. Trump has already made real cuts to healthcare. And while San Francisco has fought back — filing more than a dozen lawsuits against the administration and winning most of them so far — a single appellate loss could imperil billions. Fear that Trump may further upend any number of federal revenue streams undergirds every hard fiscal choice in front of Lurie. On June 1, the mayor will propose his draft budget to the Board of Supervisors and voters, revealing the true extent of the bloodletting. Trump’s policy choices are projected to disenroll up to 45,000 San Franciscans from healthcare and tens of thousands from food stamps. To protect those programs, Lurie is trimming across all 55 city departments rather than gutting public health and human services, his budget director, Sophia Kittler, told The Standard. “This is a loss to the whole city,” Kittler said. “We’re treating it as a citywide deficit.” The impacts are already here. Government layoffs loom, and nonprofit social safety-net programs know they face the chopping block. In anticipation of deep layoffs, labor has signaled a historic general strike is possible next year. In the meantime, tens of thousands of San Franciscans may lose crucial services, from food stamps to doulas. So what can San Francisco do to save itself? And how devastating will the impacts be? The answers are uncertain, but the city is preparing anyway. Threats in the shadows Since it’s a city and a county, San Francisco is uniquely vulnerable to federal meddling. Large counties often administer healthcare, serving as a pass-through for federal funding, creating a single vulnerable pot of money. But the city also depends on federal and state grants, both of which are primarily funded by the federal government. Trump could whisk much of it away with the stroke of a pen or the tap of a button on his social media platform, Truth Social . Much of it is also at risk in court. San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu is litigating more than a dozen lawsuits against the federal government, most of which touch on funding to the city. “Our legal efforts to defend our communities and protect our federal funding are paying off,” Chiu said in a statement. “We have seen many early wins in the lower courts, preserving billions of dollars in federal funding for our city.” Yet the risk still persists. The largest of these suits seeks to challenge the Trump administration’s effort to axe grants for any program it deems related to diversity, equity, and inclusion. As Chiu’s office wrote , Trump’s rules sought to instill his anti-immigrant, anti-LGBTQ+, anti-choice, and anti-equity policy preferences on federal spending. A court granted a preliminary injunction against Trump imposing new restrictions on those grants last year, Chiu’s office said the decision preserved billions in funding that help San Francisco support early childhood development, critical health services, safe and effective transportation, and housing to our most vulnerable. Each lawsuit represents a distinct fiscal vulnerability, a situation that insiders speculate will prompt Lurie to budget cautiously. He doesn’t have much room for error — the city has about $433 million in its federal-risk reserve fund, which Lurie and the Board of Supervisors created last year. If the worst federal funding losses happen, it won’t be enough. One Big Beautiful screw you You might’ve noticed that downtown still isn’t the hotbed it once was. That carries economic implications, since the city largely fills its general fund coffers from taxes generated by employee-filled high rises, including property taxes. In that weakened economic state came Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act , also known as H.R. 1, which threatens to see tens of thousands of San Franciscans lose Medi-Cal coverage and CalFresh food access — which in turn will prompt a roughly $300 million, two-year loss in federal payments to San Francisco to administer those programs locally. It isn’t a straight cut. Instead, the legislation implemented stricter work and filing requirements and is projected to cause people to lose their care. The Lurie administration budgeted $34 million to help those people navigate stricter filing requirements and retain access to Medi-Cal and CalFresh, but it remains to be seen how successful the effort will be. The funding losses primarily hit the Department of Public Health and the Human Services Agency. Those program losses equal roughly half of the city’s $643 million budget deficit. Lurie’s office chose to distribute the pain of that funding loss across the city’s 55 or so departments. Kittler said the other choice would be to decimate public health programs and food stamps, and that wasn’t a choice at all. Stemming the bleeding The Board of Supervisors will haggle with the mayor over budget details throughout June. There aren’t many choices before them. The city can either cut its funding or increase its revenue. Both choices carry risk. As nonprofit leaders have told The Standard, Lurie’s intention to cut community social service programs may have downstream impacts: if nonprofits that help tenants fight their evictions lose funding, for instance, more people may pressure homeless services in the coming months. Supervisor Conie Chan, the budget chair, laid out another plan in an early-May budget briefing with reporters. She said San Francisco shouldn’t live in fear of D.C. “You can absolutely plan that way. But then what you will end up with is just cuts and cuts and cuts,” Chan said. Instead, she said, Lurie should dip into reserves until 2028, when the Overpaid CEO Tax would begin generating an estimated $300 million annually. Dipping into reserves could leave San Francisco vulnerable to other Trump cuts, which may be anathema to risk-averse Lurie. It is also wholly dependent on voters approving the tax in June. Lurie opposed the tax. But if it does pass, he’ll have one more tool to forestall the worst of Trump’s cuts, whether he wanted it or not.

Who is funding the 2026 California Primary? We dig into the money on PST

Spending on SF ballot measures shatters this decade-long record

Got plans Wednesday evening? Join Standard reporters Hannah Wiley and Emily Shugerman at Manny’s from 6 to 7 p.m. for “Show Me the Money: The Hidden Finance Behind California’s Elections.” Purchase tickets here . When the San Francisco Board of Supervisors banned flavored tobacco in 2017, the cigarette industry responded in turn, pouring a whopping $12 million into a failed repeal of the city’s law during the June 2018 primary. When it comes to ballot measures during primary elections, all was quiet for about eight years … until now. The June primary will be the most expensive in at least a decade on a per-ballot measure basis: With only four propositions before voters, campaigns are raising an average of $3 million per measure, about $300,000 more than the pricey 2018 race, when there were eight. This year, donors have thrown down $12.2 million for ballot propositions, with the majority of that centered on dueling measures over the Overpaid CEO Tax: Measures C and D. The closely watched contest — with huge sums coming from labor and corporate interests — will have lasting political repercussions. A victory for Measure C, which would block the CEO tax and expand relief for small businesses, would signal that business-friendly politics still hold sway in San Francisco and that voters trust the city’s economic recovery over new corporate taxes. A win for Measure D, the Overpaid CEO Act, would suggest a growing populist appetite that could embolden labor and put the city’s moderate majority on notice. The competing measures have been seeing a last-minute surge of donations over the last week. Measure C has raised $200,000 from Meta, while Measure D has raised $500,000 from congressional candidate Saikat Chakrabarti , $400,000 from SEIU Local 1021, and $385,000 from IFPTE Local 21. And it’s not just C and D that are causing totals to soar: Prop. A, a $535 million bond for earthquake safety, has secured $2 million in donations from the likes of crypto billionaire Chris Larsen , DoorDash, and Reddit CEO Steven Huffman . That puts it in roughly a tie with the March 2024 police staffing proposition (which failed) for the fourth-most-expensive primary ballot measure in a decade. Still, 2018 was one for the record books, with $22 million raised on measures. San Francisco State politics professor Jason McDaniel said the spending this cycle is due to a variety of factors that make it hard to draw any specific conclusion, but there are some notable takeaways. He said moderate groups like GrowSF , which emerged during the pandemic, have had several years to refine their fundraising strategies and are now far more effective at raising money for their causes. He also noted that several of the candidates and measures on the June 2 ballot are directly tied to Mayor Daniel Lurie ’s vision for the city, including its economic recovery. It’s no secret that Lurie’s friends have some serious dough . And, similar to certain statewide races , C and D have reignited the war between Big Tech and Big Labor. That’s when voters really see “an increase in spending,” McDaniel said. Tech companies in years past would typically get involved in political issues tied directly to their industry, McDaniel said. But frustration with progressive politics in San Francisco and other cities has pushed the companies to get more involved in races that aren’t directly tied to tech. “Our current era of more tech-inspired spending is about a more broad-based agenda, not about promoting their industry per se,” he said. “It’s more of a competing vision of the city.” — Gabriel Greschler and Hannah Wiley Got tips? Send them to us at powerplay@sfstandard.com . WHAT ABOUT ME?: A potential early endorsement from a prominent group has upset a major candidate in the District 8 supervisor race. The seat, representing the Castro, has long been viewed as the LGBTQ+ political stronghold. The moderate-leaning Alice B. Toklas LGBTQ Democratic Club is moving to exclusively endorse healthcare advocate Gary McCoy in the November 2026 race, with a club membership vote scheduled for June, prompting pushback from former SFMTA commissioner and small-business owner Manny Yekutiel . At a club meeting Tuesday night, when members voted to move forward with the endorsement process, Yekutiel handed out flyers calling the process undemocratic, unnecessary, and insider-y because other candidates were ignored. The campaign added that it simply wants a fair shot in the process and will continue working to earn the club’s support. However, Alice club cochair Jane Natoli praised McCoy’s deep commitment to the club, for which he has also been a co-chair. “He’s someone who has been there for a long time,” Natoli said. Sources told Power Play that the club’s leadership has internal disagreement over the early endorsement, but McCoy’s supporters appear to have enough of a supermajority to advance it. And it’s widely expected that McCoy will secure the sole endorsement. Another candidate, Democratic County Central Committee member Michael Nguyen , said he respects Alice’s decision. — Han Li POA-PILE ON: Mailer after mailer has hammered District 4 supervisor candidate Natalie Gee for her answer to a 2-year-old Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club candidate questionnaire, where she checked a box marked “yes” when asked if the Police Officers Association (the controversial union representing San Francisco’s rank-and-file cops) should be disbanded. We’ve seen six mailers hitting her on her views on public safety, including contributions to former District Attorney Chesa Boudin . Three of the mailers specifically reference her POA position. The race for the District 4 seat — representing the Sunset, one of the city’s most contested swing districts — has become one of the most expensive supervisor races of the cycle, a proxy battle between Lurie-aligned moderates and progressive-aligned challengers. It’s “disqualifying,” read the attack ads from the independent expenditure committee SF Believes, which supports Lurie’s appointee, incumbent Supervisor Alan Wong. Funny that. Because Wong also said the POA should be disbanded. Depending on the year, the POA has been everything from toxic political pariahs for defending officers involved in high-profile shootings, to haloed saviors when the electorate has larger public safety fears. When the group’s power ebbs, it flexes it in the political sphere. SF Believes, which is floating the ads, is a Lurie-aligned independent expenditure committee backed by financiers Adam Clammer and Alec Perkins and has spent roughly $486,000 in the race so far. (That’s a lot of mailers!) A Power Play tipster pointed us toward a 2020 Harvey Milk questionnaire Wong filled out during his race for the City College Board of Trustees, amid George Floyd-era protests, wherein Wong gave the same answer as Gee. So if Wong echoed Gee, are his remarks also “disqualifying?” SF Believes ain’t squawkin’. And the SF POA, which endorsed Wong, did not respond to a request for comment. But Frank Noto , a Wong supporter and president of Stop Crime Action, blasted the questionnaire for its age, saying it “does not reflect” Wong’s current views or record. “Since then, he has been clear and consistent on supporting public safety,” Noto said. For her part, Gee said Wong’s change in stance was in character for the supervisor. “They are trying to confuse voters and distract from the fact that the candidate they are propping up has changed his positions on everything from defunding the police to upzoning to supporting affordable housing,” she said. “I trust that voters in the Sunset are smart enough to look past absurd mailers full of lies and half-truths.” — Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez

She taught Lurie’s business-world team how City Hall works. Now she’s done

Staci Slaughter is departing as chief of staff for Mayor Daniel Lurie. On Tuesday, Lurie gave insight into her role — she was a mentor, a guide, the Obi-Wan to the mayor’s Luke . And, importantly, she helped map the administration’s road to economic recovery. “Through it all, she invested the time to give the current and future leaders of our city the tools to succeed and grow,” Lurie said in a statement. “From the youngest mayor’s office staff to the most seasoned department heads, so many people across the government have benefited from her wisdom and mentorship. “I am no exception,” he added. Slaughter will stay on through the city’s annual budget process, with negotiations expected to conclude at the end of June. Lurie is expected to name a successor soon. Slaughter’s departure marks a quiet but significant transition for an administration that bet big on talent from outside government — and largely won. Her exit raises the question of whether Lurie’s business-world leadership can navigate what comes next: a $1 billion budget deficit, restless unions, and a city in mid-recovery. Slaughter taught a business-friendly cadre of leaders the arcane ways of city government. The outside perspective was always part of the plan, including former Twitter CFO Ned Segal and former McKinsey consultant Kunal Modi, two of Lurie’s policy chiefs. Slaughter helped the administration dream up its big-picture strategy for civic investment. Considering Lurie’s stratospheric approval rating, often in the 70s, it’s fair to say residents approved of her plans. While the bulk of her career was in leadership positions with the San Francisco Giants, including serving as the organization’s first female vice president, Slaughter cut her teeth in Frank Jordan’s mayoral administration as his press secretary from 1992 to 1996, serving as a senior adviser. Cammy Blackstone, former board chair of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, has known Slaughter since her time with the Giants. Blackstone said Slaughter knows how to keep calm amid the nonstop crises of local government work. “Her demeanor, she’s unflappable,” Blackstone said. “She really got [Lurie] into his stride.” That’s an important attitude when met with the fraught tensions of government. Slaughter stared down a gantlet of negotiators at the bargaining table with the San Francisco Unified School District, in discussions that led to the historic teachers strike . Lurie’s office is distinct from past mayors in that he appointed policy chiefs who oversee broad areas of government, like public safety, homelessness, and public health. Instead of overseeing departments, Slaughter served as a strategist alongside those policy chiefs. A review of her calendars, which are public, reveals her priorities: Chief among them, she was mired in briefings with the mayor’s budget director, Sophia Kittler, to chart a course out of what is expected to be a $1 billion structural budget deficit by 2029. Slaughter also booked dozens of meetings with Carol Isen, the city’s human resources director and chief labor negotiator. Sources said Slaughter played a key role in negotiations with the police and fire departments, which last month were awarded 14% salary increases at a cost of $100 million annually. Local think tank SPUR warned that those rosy contracts may prompt other unions to make similar demands when their contracts are up next year . Leaving was always part of Slaughter’s plan, Blackstone told The Standard. Slaughter wanted to get Lurie’s administration up and running and see it through this most recent budget. Because of her onetime leadership position at the Giants, and her husband’s role as a partner at Keker, Van Nest & Peters, Slaughter didn’t need the money, most City Hall insiders speculate — she joined Lurie’s administration purely out of loyalty to San Francisco. “This was truly government service on her part,” Blackstone said.

Lurie to spend $34M to protect thousands of SF’s Medi-Cal recipients from Trump’s cuts

President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act may turn San Francisco’s healthcare system into one big beautiful mess. The new work requirements under the bill HR1 may result in 45,000 San Franciscans losing healthcare within two years, according to city estimates. Roughly 21,000 people may lose eligibility for CalFresh, the food stamp program. Mayor Daniel Lurie plans to leverage city coffers to fill in the gaps, even as he balances mounting pressure to prevent layoffs and maintain nonprofit grant funding amid a fiscal crisis. Lurie is allocating $34 million from the city’s federal funding reserve to keep people enrolled in the Medi-Cal and CalFresh programs, his office shared exclusively with The Standard. “Even though we have zero funding from the feds to do this, and zero funding from the state to do this, we are taking it as our responsibility as a city to help [people] meet those work requirements,” said Trent Rhorer, executive director of the Human Services Agency. It’s the second and largest withdrawal from the fund since its creation last year to buttress San Francisco against financial turmoil from an unpredictable president. Lurie is moving to intervene in the hope of keeping residents enrolled before deadlines hit. CalFresh work requirements take effect in June; Medi-Cal follows in January, with a requirement of 80 hours a month to maintain coverage, along with stricter reporting schedules. The city isn’t acting out of compassion alone: If those 45,000 people lose healthcare coverage, San Francisco could absorb up to $400 million in uncompensated costs, the city estimates. Prevention, Lurie is betting, is cheaper than the alternative. The fund will pay for the hiring of more than 150 staffers at the Human Services Agency, the city department that confirms eligibility for Medi-Cal and CalFresh, processes the paperwork, and provides other support. They join the roughly 760 who are already with the agency and will help San Franciscans navigate — and survive — the new federal paperwork requirements before deadlines hit. Intending to cut what he called “waste and fraud” in Medicaid, Trump in July signed HR 1, a bill of nearly 1,000 pages filled with huge cuts to the social safety net, ramped-up Immigration and Customs Enforcement funding, and tax breaks. The law’s twice-annual reporting requirements may result in as many as 10 million people losing healthcare nationally by 2034. Medicaid, the national program known as Medi-Cal in California, insures the lowest-income Americans, seniors, and people with disabilities. In San Francisco, the funds support safety-net providers like Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and the Laguna Honda Hospital, a hospice. Lurie is due to deliver his proposed budget to the Board of Supervisors at the end of the month. He is legally mandated to close the $643 million deficit; to get there, he has laid off 127 of the city’s roughly 34,000 workers, with more cuts expected by June. “While federal cuts make it harder for San Franciscans to access health care and put food on the table, this budget will protect our city’s social safety net and help residents stay on the benefits they rely on,” Lurie said, in a statement. “We are delivering a responsible budget that prioritizes core services, safeguards vulnerable communities, and continues San Francisco’s broad, durable economic recovery.” In balancing the budget, Lurie must also weigh how much of the city’s tax dollars to spend to backfill any federal cuts coming San Francisco’s way, even as those risks aren’t immediately clear. To that end, Lurie and the Board of Supervisors last year placed $400 million into the newly created Federal and State Revenue Risk Reserve, some of which is paid for by $220 million in unused medical reimbursement accounts, a pot of money raised through controversial fees that restaurant owners argue hurt local businesses . Lurie is proposing to tap into that money to help CalFresh and Medi-Cal recipients. The economic ripple effects extend beyond healthcare. The local economy may take a hit of about $6 million monthly from lost CalFresh enrollment alone — a loss felt most sharply at corner stores, where as much as 80% of sales can come from CalFresh recipients. The Department of Public Health is also using its budget to buttress the loss of Medi-Cal, redirecting funds to beef up the Healthy San Francisco program, the city’s stab at universal healthcare in 2007, when Gov. Gavin Newsom was mayor, prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act. “We’re leveraging all of our resources to help people connect to Medi-Cal coverage,” said Dan Tsai, director of the Public Health Department. The funding isn’t Lurie’s only prescription for the crisis. The Human Services Agency is launching a website that will direct people to work and volunteer opportunities to meet the new work requirements, courtesy of the Mayor’s Office of Innovation. And to meet San Franciscans where they are, the Human Services Agency has rolled out a mobile enrollment truck equipped with staff and all the needed paperwork — have forms, will travel. Rhorer said there’s a misconception that some people don’t want to meet the new Medi-Cal requirements. Some have jobs, he said, but can’t work enough hours to meet healthcare requirements. Others can’t find a gig at all. The perception of widespread laziness is “just not reality,” Rhorer said. “People don’t choose to be poor. People don’t say, ‘I’d rather not have any money.’ People are literally struggling to find and retain employment.”

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

SF Superior Court

SF Superior Court Presiding Judge

judicial assignments; court administration (CRC 10.603); CEO direction

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 Council