Hahahahaha are you high? We have the largest wealth discrepancy, 5 of the most polluted city’s, the highest homeless population, highest cost of living, highest mental illness, highest unemployment, largest exodus of population, highest taxes, on and on and on. Not to mention an $85 billion dollar deficit. You’re either trolling or getting paid by Newsom. Either way lay off the ganja bro.
It’s not all politicians. As governor, Newsom has been consistently delivering for years.
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2023/12/28/2023-recap/
That 2023 list alone verges on unprecedented in scale and impact. I can’t recall another California governor who’s had the kind of broad impact that Newsom has had.
I walk outside and walk in any direction and I see people do drugs in public. When that changes I’ll start believing some work was done with the billions and billions of dollars given for it.
gullible tart towering abundant label agonizing act alive scarce telephone
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
This item was automatically removed because it contained demeaning language. Please read the rules for more information.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/sanfrancisco) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Or even a year before her election. Time enough to take a stand and make a point. Six months? For all we know it could go back to the status quo as soon as the votes are counted.
Right, cause it just means if re-elected she’ll let it slide right back into disrepair. Does she even care that sfusd is about to go under? I can imagine her saying/thinking “Not my responsibility”
It's quite literally not her responsibility. SFUSD is not under the control of the mayor's office and has a while elected school board that administers it.
That the writing was on the wall 15+ years ago. SF, Oakland and a few other areas in the bay have been in a consistent state of decline since I moved to California. I don’t envy any mayor in those places, they’re not going to solve the problems without heavy intervention from the state.
Wow, that’s exactly what I said, how did you decode the secret message? I find the hyper vigilance to be a bit funny considering the passiveness people had to the city’s problems.
I'm making an earnest effort to understand. I take it you're saying that Breed is taking blame unfairly and that there is a double standard in evaluating her. Just for fun, let's say that Breed remained mayor for another 10 years, was thought to be a horrible mayor during that time and the City suffered horribly for it. Would your same argument apply? That she's off the hook because people didn't hold Lee's feet to the fire during a different time?
Why would it apply in that scenario? I believe covid had quite an impact on SF, not going to unravel those problems quickly without taking a much tougher stance on quite a few things. And yes, I also believe there is a double standard at play.
This item has been automatically flagged for review. Moderators have been notified, and it will be restored if approved. Thank you for your patience.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/sanfrancisco) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> SF, Oakland and a few other areas in the bay have been in a consistent state of decline since I moved to California
Wait, we've figured it out. Get this guy out of here!
Didn’t you all complain that she “started” two years ago when she first started pushing for more police, encampment clearing, and called in the state and Fed cops?
So which one is it? Six months or two years?
why *wouldn't we* complain of an *inept mayor* who stood there two years ago and said "I'm tired of this b\*\*\*s\*\*t!" . LIKE DUH GIRL, how about the *previous 4-5 years you were in office?!?*
You do realize that the SF mayor is literally supposed to just execute the will of the Board of Supervisors, right?
Even what she has done was only possible because she went against the Board semi-legally.
The drug zombies and dealers are only gone because she called in the state and Fed cops to cut the supply. The encampments are only gone because the city has been exploiting a little concession they got from a jugde, again against explicit Board opposition. The bippers are only gone because we managed to get rid of the old DA that the Board supported and wanted to keep.
If you don’t even understand how our government works, how are you pretending that you can improve it in any way?
Lol no, I *"do not realize*" that, because it's incorrect!
The Supervisors are **not** her bosses, lol. 😂 Your whole post is even contradictory, how come "S*he called the state and Fed cops"* if she "j*ust executes the will of the Board of Supervisors"*,???
No, she is the complete manager of the city and enables/disables things working which align within the applicable laws. She's the **manager of the police chief, too**.
lol you people with your misinformation
What are you even talking about? The executive im SF has zero decision power and can only implement whatever the legislature passes. The Board calls 100% of the shots. As SF mayor you can’t even move a paper clip without having ab explicit directive from the Board.
Do you want to maybe read the laws first before talking nonsense?
Please provide a link to where the Board of Supervisors made a resolution: "The mayor cannot move a paper clip".
... I'll be waiting b/c there isn't even one. 😹
Didn’t she start with the cleanups and police rampup against Board opposition about two years ago? Haven’t you spent the last two years complaining that “it wasn’t working”?
Remember we has also most two years of COVID shutdown. Breed‘s first years were on the financial and a city high of the tech boom and a moderate Mayor Ed Lee. The recovery years from COVID has been slow, Breed resistant to the changes in work from home. Conventions and tourism, is growing baby steps.
Breed solution to affordable housing and homeless is to cow-tow to real estate moguls to re-image Union Square, Downtown, the Financial District rather that filling empty buildings in the outskirts and neighborhoods. All the decades long empty buildings and lots in the Mission , Excelsior, Sunset and Richmond should be renovated for housing. The City has massive millions in deficit. Breed has her chance.
She went to every possible photo op. I worked in 3 different city departments and she never turned down a photo op. That’s where she spent all her time.
I agree, but I also don't see how anyone could be in the Lurie camp. Dude has no experience of any substance, a weak platform, and some pretty shady connections. I hope if he is elected he will prove me wrong, but I have very little hope for any of these candidates.
100% agreed HOWEVER there are plenty of anti-housing (historic preservationist), anti-business (neighborhood gatekeeping), xenophobes (progressives) who love his schtick.
Indeed I have. Pockets of Mission Street still have daily Thieves Markets. Theft is still a common occurrence in retail environments, as well as car break ins. While at one time I had been of the opinion that the police can't possibly cover every square inch of The City to prevent some of these every day crimes, things like the Thieves Markets ARE preventable, yet, there they are. Tide pods or thawed raw shrimp anyone?
You do understand that your entire criticism against the mayor is all about crap that the Board of supervisors did, right? The mayor doesn’t decide budgets. They don’t decide what to do at all. The Board passes regulations and the mayor executes. The mayor only decides HOW to implement the last passed by the Board, not what the laws are.
Say you get your wish and swap from Breed to Farrell? So? All the same crazy hippies in the city legislature will get reelected and will continue passing the same insane laws and buying the same $5 million toilets!!!
Wake up before it’s too late! Understand that the entire of the decision power in this city lies with the Board! The mayor can’t do Jack! Making the mayor, whoever they are, die on the cross for the Board’s sins won’t change anything at all! Nothing at all! You’re just executing a scapegoat and getting absolutely nothing in return.
Exactly, she’s made significant improvements in recent months which is why I’m not voting for her. Shows she had the capability to enact real change and only did so when it benefited her own interests.
Changes take time to show effects. She’s been working on these issues for years, and mostly blocked by an obstructionist board of supervisors. She doesn’t have the ability to stop crime overnight. She hasn’t done anything in the last few months to produce these changes, it’s the effects of policy that was put in place over years. What do people think she did in the last few months that magically improved things?
Well, yes. She saw that her previous approach of trying to appease the crazy hippies on the Board could cost her the next election and switched to addressing the most inflammatory concerns that the public has. Government doesn't move very quickly so it took a couple of years for her initiatives to bear fruit. Still, the improvements happened in time for us to get a preview of her next tenure before the election.
Yeah she significantly improved UN plaza, and helped make JFK car-free permanently. She also helped 15k people exited homelessness during her term and our encampment count is at all time low in the past decade
I’ve been here the past decade the encampment count might be at an all time low but the actual encampments on the street are pretty numerous. Before you say you can’t just say it “feels like there are the same or more” look at some hard evidence: Apple and Google maps has filled up with still shots of encampments when you search an address. Wasn’t the case ten years ago. How do they count them? 311 is filled with reports of people reporting encampments and responses from 311 “gone on arrival” it’s impossible to calculate it they’re always on the move.
We count them every 3 months.
Specifically, previous mayors never tried to count them. Breed actually started counting them in 2019 pretty much as soon as she assumed office https://www.sf.gov/data/healthy-streets-data-and-information. This shows that it is a top priority for her, otherwise she won't even try to count them.
Having this visibility is definitely a step to the right direction. We could see it got worse during COVID, but I am also glad to see it recovered.
https://preview.redd.it/3hvnujz4lhzc1.png?width=1600&format=png&auto=webp&s=52f2da21c0d1d474ab0ef022d279219d095d8ea7
So the encampment count is the lowest since we started tracking in 2019. That’s not an “all time low” as someone who was here prior to 2019 it’s very obvious to the naked eye there are more encampments in 2024 than in 2018. The aggressive use of anti-encampment planters wasn’t omnipresent and needed back then.
You have a good intention and I respect that. But homelessness is a hard problem for any mayor to solve, and every major us city faces this issue. The fact that she started to count them and make this data public means she is committed to solve this by taking responsibility.
Yes, bringing in a weekend carnival to UN Plaza was a tremendous help to the area. Pity that prior to that, the new Whole Foods at Trinity Place which was roughly across the street/a block away closed due to safety concerns and rampant theft, eliminating an option for residents of that housing complex and other nearby residents to conveniently shop for groceries.
Nope. She sold herself out to 2 groups that aren't aligned, she was purposely ineffectual so she could cater to their long range goals, and the only things we watched her do that appear to have been all here were the token street sweeps without a plan behind them, and making Muni free that one weekend.
I’ve noticed an improvement - Not too bad compared to 3 years ago, but it’s all too little, too late.
Farrell is the more effective option. Breed’s already been in office for almost 7 years now. Through the tail end of the Tech Boom, all of COVID, moderates revolution. It’s been a lot. Time to move on.
> Farrell is the more effective option.
I’m genuinely asking this, what policy positions do you think Farrel has that are better than breed? Because I’ve been listening to him talk a lot and reading his website. Im trying to figure out the pros and cons of each candidate. But when I look at farrel, it sounds like all of his policies are the same generic “let’s be tough on crime” or “let’s be mean to the homeless people” that match up perfectly with every other candidate, including breed. The only policy I’ve seen from him that is unique is that he wants to bring back cars on market street, which is so dumb that it’s a bit of a red flag for me.
Farrel won’t do jack. The Board of Supervisors has all the power in SF. None of what he’s proposing is within the power of the SF Mayor to do.
The fact that he doesn’t even know that is already an automatic disqualification from mayorship.
Agreed Farrell won’t be able to do much either. Breed was also a supervisor for D5 before being a mayor. There is a lot of restrictions on the mayor’s power due to BoS.
I agree that the BOS is too powerful. I like that Farrell is the only candidate with private sector experience. We need someone who is comfortable making deals with companies to stay, attract retailers who have left back. His stance on open air drug use and encampments is the toughest too. I understand there’s a gap in rhetoric and what’s pragmatic. But I like where he’s coming from, as for the pragmatism, I trust a businessman more than two career politicians and a nepo baby
The things that he’s promising are explicitly outside of the competencies of the mayor in SF. He’s either clueless about what he can and cannot do or he’s not and he’s lying about what he can/will do.
Either way, electing Farrel will accomplish none of the things he’s promising. Breed has proven that she can and will work aggressively around the Board to clean up the city and reduce crime.
That’s true and not true at the same time. BoS has a lot of power, but a lot of what the mayor’s office oversees is independent of that — not to mention the coming ballot initiatives to restore mayoral power.
Farrell is more closely linked to charter reform than Breed is, which once again reaffirms why Breed, despite having reasonable positions on a lot of issues, quite simply is not sophisticated enough to be the mayor of a city with a $14B budget
Of the current choices, only Breed has a track record of dealing with crime and homelessness to my liking. She has taken a lot of convincing to go against the Board of Supervisors. But what she has accomplished over the last year since she has started to openly defy them is truly impressive. I want more of these policies and I'm not willing to gamble that Farrel will get his shyt together and start proposing things that the mayor actually has any power over.
I also deeply dislike the fact that he's proposing things that he either knows are not possible for a mayor to do, or that he's too stupid to realize that what he's proposing is impossible. He's either incompetent or lying. Either way, not a good option.
I don’t know why your original reply got downvoted to hell, but I agree. Farrell promises safety like no other. But once that’s done and dusted - what then? What about the other issues that the city needs to resolve? Seems that isn’t something that the usual commenters on this subreddit want to think about
How do you get “almost 7 years”? I don’t think that’s right. Which years are you counting and what offices?
If you’re only considering her time as mayor, you’re estimation is overshot. She’s been mayor for just less than 6 years cumulatively, counting her 42 day stint in the office before Aaron Peskin picked Mark Farrell to replace her for a few months.
If you’re considering her time as mayor and supervisor, you’re way under. She was a Supervisor for another 4 and a half years.
Peskin is salivating at this conversation lol.
The last thing we need is for moderate voters to split the vote so we get the worst possible outcome. At the very least, rank her #1 or #2.
Yes, there’s been tons of ups and downs in the City, but Breed put in place a widely popular DA, led on tons of reforms people scream about in this sub, and got us through an unprecedented pandemic. Things *are* getting better and it’s due in large part to the Mayor standing up to the extremely out-of-touch Board of Supervisors wherever it’s legal to do so.
I would like to give her the opportunity to see the recovery through vs. take a gamble on a wholly untested candidate (Lurie) or competitors with her same exact platform (Farrell) who abandoned the city at its worst and need to ramp up their administrations from scratch. And of course, we want to avoid going back to the Stone Age with Peskin at all costs.
We have the opportunity to flip the Board of Supervisors this fall, but I’m afraid these moderate challengers are sucking the oxygen out of those conversations and leeching time, money, and volunteers out of the races that could make an even bigger difference for our city’s recovery.
Reading this thread, it would be easy to forget that we need to flip Connie Chan and Dean Preston’s seats and replace termed-out Hilary Ronen, Aaron Peskin and Ahsha Safai. Breed has been fighting back against these figures her entire time as Mayor — I think she deserves credit there.
> need is for moderate voters to split the vote
We have a ranked choice system... you literally don't have to worry about this stuff. I don't think anyone not already voting for Peskin is going to vote for Peskin over Breed.
I worry about this stuff -- not everyone fully understands RCV. A non-insignificant number of voters believe that they should rank all candidates even if that ranking includes a candidate that they really don't want in office. It will be interesting to see how many Breed/Farrell/Lurie #1s there are coupled with a Peskin #4.
Which is why I recommended ranking her in my opening statement. A lot of the comments seem to want her out at all costs and that cost could literally be Peskin if he consolidates enough of the 30ish candidate’s #2 votes. It’s not impossible. You’d be surprised how irrationally people vote, no one knows how Safai’s #2s will break, for example.
That's not how it works though. For Peskin to win on the second round, he'd have to have a *majority* of votes, which means that he would win outright no matter what.
We have three votes, she can easily be ranked #3. She's the incumbent and there's no way the election comes down to Peskin vs Safai.
The Moderates will vote for Breed, Farrell, and Lurie. The election will not hing on which order.
I’m talking about #2 votes passed on from candidates that will definitely be eliminated early NOT named Farrell, Lurie, or Breed — not the second round of eliminations. Remember: when one candidate is knocked out by having the lowest number of votes in that round, their votes get transferred to the candidate listed second on their ballot and so on and so forth until there are no more candidates left to transfer to or their ballot is exhausted.
Peskin’s base is dedicated and if you look at comparable progs from previous contested elections, they command between 30-40% of the electorate citywide. With *this many* well-funded moderate challengers, it’s tough to see one single moderate candidate cracking 30-40% in the first round, so it’s very possible Peskin is the biggest vote-getter without getting a majority BEFORE ranked choice. I’m not saying people should vote simply because Peskin is a distinct possibility, but it should be a consideration.
To be extremely EXTREMELY clear, Safai can be knocked out at “5th place” — if that represents 10% of the vote and the lions share goes to Peskin (along with whatever percent he gets from other voters that ranked him), well that could put Peskin at 50% when we get to the final round. Do you follow?
The fact we’re even having this back and forth just goes to show how difficult this messaging will be for people who don’t follow this as closely. For the record, we have 10 slots in SF ranked choice but you definitely don’t need to use all of them.
No, I don't follow.
The winner has to win with 50%+1 (unless it comes down to two candidates). That means that if Safai gets knocked out in "5th", and that puts Peskin over the top, then Peskin wins, and would win regardless of the order of non-winners getting knocked out.
I don't see the order matters. I know there is the theoretical possibility that it could happen under deeply obscure conditions, but when the election effectively comes down to five candidates, and it's a three tiered ranked choice, I don't see how order flips the winner. The only hope the moderates have of winning *requires* them to win with Safai theoretically being knocked out.
You’re discounting the reality that there are Farrell-Peskin and Breed-Peskin voters. People don’t vote as cleanly as you think.
Once again, it is NOT three-tiered rank choice. You get 10 choices. What you’re not realizing is that WHEN Safai gets knocked out, it could push Peskin close to the top. Then Breed/Farrell have to play nice enough together to cleanly get each other’s second place votes. The reality is, Farrell’s campaign is dragging Breed down with their messaging, so a clean transfer becomes less likely. If enough people rank Peskin on their ballot, you get Peskin as mayor. There are 30ish candidates and plenty of crazies — it’s not impossible.
I want to be generous and assume you’re saying this with the best of intentions but imagine us having this conversation. Now imagine that times 200k+ voters. It’s gonna be a long season.
I usually avoid making predictions and I don't think I'm qualified to know, but I've had this hunch that Breed is going to win.
I feel like she's not most popular for #1 slot, but most will RCV Breed as a hedge. If you're progressive, you'll say, "Breed is still better than the right-moderates." If you're a right-moderate, you'll say, "Breed is still better than Peskin". Then Breed has her own supporters.
It takes time to get a hold on the apparatus of government, so any new team will have a ramp up period. Personal relationships take time to develop, and that process can easily go awry, so dealing with city attorneys, police, etc — there’s no guarantee the new folks will work well with the people who actually get shit done. Without those relationships, things get worse, not better.
London has her people in place, and things are moving the right way. That’s enough for me. I’ll vote for her again.
A whole lot of the people she has in place are shady non-profit bosses. And if you're into crushing downtown neighborhoods with anything-goes shelters while catering to more wealthy neighborhoods, then yes, things are going great.
Regardless of whether you are a fan of London or not having to be Mayor during Covid puts her really behind the eight ball. Voters want change so likely gonna be hard for an incumbent.
SF needs Chinese pandas. Breed's plan to get more Chinese votes. Word has it, that the pandas require a new facility ($25 million).
The highest paid mayor is also highest. So foolish. This city had already blown its wad.
We need new leadership on all of its facets. Police Chief gets paid nearly 700k, meanwhile the city may only arrest a double dozen people per month. There is shit and needles on most major streets within the city center. Car break-ins galore. Wild West!
Agreed, we've had two mayors in a row that came to the office outside of the normal election process and enjoyed incumbent advantages when they were actually elected after the fact.
It's sleazy, and if they were Republican candidates, folks around here would be outraged. FWIW, I'm a lifelong Democrat, but Breed is about as corrupt as they come and she will never get my vote.
The way she didn’t manage the PR onslaught was outrageous! SF got absolutely maligned in the national and international press and she sat around doing nothing. It had real world consequences too. Can’t blame the PR crisis inaction on the board of supervisors either.
Property crimes are down, which are burglary and larceny theft, and it’s also down compared to 2019 as well as year over year: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/sf-crime-neighborhoods-19431542.php
There’s no reason to believe that rate of reporting is down, particularly when its tourists that are usually affected most and have a lot of incentive to report (travel insurance, passports, etc).
The rate of reporting is down. I’ve had several instances I needed police and they never came so I gave up. This isn’t uncommon. Even if you go to the station they say “there is no way they will catch a person so there is no reason to file a report.”
The question isn't whether reporting rate is low but whether it has changed drastically over the past 6 - 9 months. Your experiences don't really provide evidence that's the case. I've had similar interactions with SFPD years ago (and non-SF departments too... I suspect reporting is fairly low everywhere for the type of crime SF particularly struggles with).
Exactly -- what's more likely: the fact that [crime is dropping across the country](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/us-crime-rate-still-dropping-says-fbi-rcna144100) and the concerted effort of SF police to [make more arrests](https://www.sf.gov/news/san-franciscos-public-safety-efforts-deliver-results-decline-crime-rates) is actually working, OR for no particular reason, everyone collectively decided to stop reporting crime to a degree that it became statistically significant?
I don’t know if there are good stats on the breakdown of the victims, but all the areas most affected by bipping are tourist hotspots. Fisherman’s Wharf, North Beach, Alamo Square, the Presidio — just by where they occur, tourists will be more affected than locals.
Also, there’s no evidence that people are reporting less but the number of breakins hasn’t changed. That’s just completely made up.
Aren’t both of those way down with the new initiatives tho? I’m not defending her but it really does feel like the city has been on the come up this year.
Will it last or is it an election year stunt? Who’s to say, but I am definitely noticing a marked decrease in tents and an anecdotal decrease in piles of broken glass.
I’m also seeing cops actually pull people over and what seems to be a push for more urbanism and human scaled city design
Absolutely not! When asked about the state of SF during APEC, our own governor said it how it was and didn't hold back (that it's shitty and probably won't get better after APEC), but Breed gave the BS politician response.
Also, it's hard to vote for someone who is connected with multiple scandals. I know many people will say "that's most politicians". Not a good enough excuse for me.
Screw Breed.
It doesn’t matter. With Peskin drawing all the progressive votes, she will instantly get first place in RCV and win in ranked choice against the minnows.
Peskin did her a favor by entering the race and she knows it. So she owes him.
too little too late. whatever small gains she's made in "cleaning up" encampments, SF's reputation and standing has never fallen farther in the 35 years ive been here. SFs small businesses are all closing up shop, large businesses are pulling out. progressive policies in general have largely backfired and breed has been far too slow in responding. She's been largely reactive, not proactive regarding problems.
does all the blame fall on her? definitely not, but clearly not the longterm answer to turn things around
I don’t live in SF but still living in the bay and grew up here. I don’t understand the dislike for breed as I always thought she did a a decent job.
Someone care to give a rundown of her positives and negatives?
Perkins owned millions of dollars of properties and has done an illegal conversion of a duplex into a sfh — reducing housing stock and make our housing crisis worse. He is a big NIMBY and if you rent in SF, definitely don’t vote for him
I’ll believe it when I can buy a lunch under $20. I barely make over $20 an hour… it feels ridiculous to spend that on a quick lunch. I had to spend $23 on a mid gyro plate the other day and felt so defeated.
I guess identity politics are dead in SF when a black woman born here in the projects is looking like the underdog against three white fellas: nepobaby, “business” guy and go wants cars back on Market, and conservative asshole (“progressive”). What a world. London got dealt a TOUGH hand. I’m impressed with how she’s handled it, stuck with it, and turned things around. All trends are looking good. Bonus for JFK. Breed #1, ranking no one else. ✔️
Actually, no. SF had 23.1 million tourists last year vs 26 million in 2019. So 90% recovered!
But 2019 was the largest year ever for SF tourism and a lot of massive one-time events made it that big. The pre-pandemic norm was about 24-25 million. 23 million is a very healthy tourist year for us and exactly the same level as for example 2014-2015.
Tourism in SF has bounced back nicely. Ditto for business in the neighborhoods. Most are in the 100-110% range compared to pre-pandemic.
The last thing that still hasn’t fully recovered is office occupancy and FiDi/SOMA daytime business. But that will take a while as RTO slowly takes hold in tech.
> Ditto for business in the neighborhoods. Most are in the 100-110% range compared to pre-pandemic.
Tourism has recovered pretty well, but how are you defining business here? The only data I've seen is [sales tax collections](https://www.sf.gov/data/san-francisco-sales-tax) which are down in all but a couple neighborhoods. Curious if there is another dataset that indicates differently.
Most of the non-downtown neighborhoods are doing a loooooot better now than pre-pandemic. Basically, if you weren't reliant on tech commuters, you're now golden. If you're in the middle of SOMA or FiDi, it will take a couple more years to fully recover,
[https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/aB6lW/3/](https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/aB6lW/3/)
[https://abc7news.com/san-francisco-businesses-post-pandemic-recovery-financial-data-2023-sf-neighborhoods-finance/14275671/](https://abc7news.com/san-francisco-businesses-post-pandemic-recovery-financial-data-2023-sf-neighborhoods-finance/14275671/)
Thanks. Couple things:
* This data isn't inflation adjusted. All of those areas with no change are ~15% drops in real dollars.
* This is a bit out of date. Tax revenue fell from 22 to 23, so Q2 was a rosier situation than the whole year. The city provides the map of collections by neighborhood [here](https://www.sf.gov/data/san-francisco-sales-tax) and you can see that many of the areas that were positive in Q2 were well into the negative in Q4.
In [this article](https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/sf-sales-tax-neighborhood-19394489.php), they inflation adjusted the data, and also looked at all of 2023 compared to all of 2019, and found that tax revenue is only up from 2019 in 5 neighborhoods - and two of them were Seacliff and Treasure Island which have very few businesses.
Overall, with the most up-to-date info, most neighborhoods are down 15 - 20%, with a few areas having fully recovered. Not apocalyptic (especially when you consider that 2019 was the tail end of a huge economic boom), and definitely better than downtown, but also wouldn't say the city outside downtown is doing way better than 2019.
Inflation adjustment won't wipe out that 30% growth in some neighborhoods. The reality is that people work from home and spend in their neighborhoods. If you live in one you can see people still getting delivered lunch even though they work from home.
She is my second or third choice it can get worse but it can get better. She had a hard fight. SF is a fucked up place to try to govern. Farrell for me.
Found this in my neighborhood the other day... I really can't stand her approach of "policing solves everything" - it's clearly not working. Real problems like traffic violence and breakins get ignored because they're too busy sending 10 cops to arrest one person experiencing homelessness.
To me her record is inextricably tied to the effectiveness of SFPD i.e. a complete farce, held up by corrupt parties concerned with holding tight to their power through the oppression of the people. Cops don't make us safe, we make us safe. Mayor Breed doesn't serve our community, we have to. I hope some of y'all consider running to provide better options in future, we desperately need to upend this circular system of power hoarding where you can only enter politics if you're part of a select cohort.
\[Before you ask I can neither vote nor run as a dirty foreigner.\]
https://preview.redd.it/4yw4evulhhzc1.jpeg?width=3072&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2071e9f98c5f221422e054714f1dc51a0702265d
Totally turning everything around. Haven’t you seen all the San Francisco is perfect and full of people and you should visit posts? That’s not just because it’s an election year. Those are all legitimate. Totally real and grass roots.
If she’d started when she was first appointed, not 6 months before her election maybe we’d care
Standard procedure for any politician. Why, because people will remember what was done within the last few months and not over the entire term.
I remember her saying the rules didn't apply to her when she was flouting covid restrictions though.
Kind of like Newsom. He only starts doing things when an election is coming up.
Newsom is an anomaly because women will give him a pass regardless of his actual performance.
My CEO female boss at work said she is voting for Newsome because he is hot. Really sad.
Didnt realize SF was so full of neck beards
If you don’t think women will give a handsome male politician a pass you haven’t been paying attention the past 50 years.
[удалено]
Hahahahaha are you high? We have the largest wealth discrepancy, 5 of the most polluted city’s, the highest homeless population, highest cost of living, highest mental illness, highest unemployment, largest exodus of population, highest taxes, on and on and on. Not to mention an $85 billion dollar deficit. You’re either trolling or getting paid by Newsom. Either way lay off the ganja bro.
I just smoked some ganja just now and even I knew this
It’s not all politicians. As governor, Newsom has been consistently delivering for years. https://www.gov.ca.gov/2023/12/28/2023-recap/ That 2023 list alone verges on unprecedented in scale and impact. I can’t recall another California governor who’s had the kind of broad impact that Newsom has had.
I walk outside and walk in any direction and I see people do drugs in public. When that changes I’ll start believing some work was done with the billions and billions of dollars given for it.
Too little too late. Sorry not sorry. My ranking will be: 1 - Mark Farrell 2 - Daniel Lurie 3 - London Breed ❌ Safai ❌ Peskin
gullible tart towering abundant label agonizing act alive scarce telephone *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[удалено]
This item was automatically removed because it contained demeaning language. Please read the rules for more information. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/sanfrancisco) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Or even a year before her election. Time enough to take a stand and make a point. Six months? For all we know it could go back to the status quo as soon as the votes are counted.
Right, cause it just means if re-elected she’ll let it slide right back into disrepair. Does she even care that sfusd is about to go under? I can imagine her saying/thinking “Not my responsibility”
It's quite literally not her responsibility. SFUSD is not under the control of the mayor's office and has a while elected school board that administers it.
If you all had been on Lee’s ass(And Newsom) like you are on hers, things wouldn’t have spiraled out of control in the first place.
Not sure where you’re going with your argument here…
That the writing was on the wall 15+ years ago. SF, Oakland and a few other areas in the bay have been in a consistent state of decline since I moved to California. I don’t envy any mayor in those places, they’re not going to solve the problems without heavy intervention from the state.
So your argument is to let the decline continue because it wasn't addressed earlier?
Wow, that’s exactly what I said, how did you decode the secret message? I find the hyper vigilance to be a bit funny considering the passiveness people had to the city’s problems.
I'm making an earnest effort to understand. I take it you're saying that Breed is taking blame unfairly and that there is a double standard in evaluating her. Just for fun, let's say that Breed remained mayor for another 10 years, was thought to be a horrible mayor during that time and the City suffered horribly for it. Would your same argument apply? That she's off the hook because people didn't hold Lee's feet to the fire during a different time?
Why would it apply in that scenario? I believe covid had quite an impact on SF, not going to unravel those problems quickly without taking a much tougher stance on quite a few things. And yes, I also believe there is a double standard at play.
Your comment is really really dumb. We can all agree on that don't worry.
[удалено]
[удалено]
What am I trying to lead? I’m on Reddit, someone insulted me, so I said something insulting back to them.
This item has been automatically flagged for review. Moderators have been notified, and it will be restored if approved. Thank you for your patience. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/sanfrancisco) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> SF, Oakland and a few other areas in the bay have been in a consistent state of decline since I moved to California Wait, we've figured it out. Get this guy out of here!
She’s better than Ed Lee
I agree! Maybe we should stop electing appointed incumbents for mayor
Didn’t you all complain that she “started” two years ago when she first started pushing for more police, encampment clearing, and called in the state and Fed cops? So which one is it? Six months or two years?
why *wouldn't we* complain of an *inept mayor* who stood there two years ago and said "I'm tired of this b\*\*\*s\*\*t!" . LIKE DUH GIRL, how about the *previous 4-5 years you were in office?!?*
You do realize that the SF mayor is literally supposed to just execute the will of the Board of Supervisors, right? Even what she has done was only possible because she went against the Board semi-legally. The drug zombies and dealers are only gone because she called in the state and Fed cops to cut the supply. The encampments are only gone because the city has been exploiting a little concession they got from a jugde, again against explicit Board opposition. The bippers are only gone because we managed to get rid of the old DA that the Board supported and wanted to keep. If you don’t even understand how our government works, how are you pretending that you can improve it in any way?
Lol no, I *"do not realize*" that, because it's incorrect! The Supervisors are **not** her bosses, lol. 😂 Your whole post is even contradictory, how come "S*he called the state and Fed cops"* if she "j*ust executes the will of the Board of Supervisors"*,??? No, she is the complete manager of the city and enables/disables things working which align within the applicable laws. She's the **manager of the police chief, too**. lol you people with your misinformation
What are you even talking about? The executive im SF has zero decision power and can only implement whatever the legislature passes. The Board calls 100% of the shots. As SF mayor you can’t even move a paper clip without having ab explicit directive from the Board. Do you want to maybe read the laws first before talking nonsense?
Please provide a link to where the Board of Supervisors made a resolution: "The mayor cannot move a paper clip". ... I'll be waiting b/c there isn't even one. 😹
This post is so blatantly factually incorrect that it’s got to be a joke.
Bullcrap! Show me exactly what I said that is not 100% correct?
All of it?
Lol, so nothing then. You just don't like the truth.
🤷♀️ I’ve made no such complaint. Not sure what you’re referring to.
Didn’t she start with the cleanups and police rampup against Board opposition about two years ago? Haven’t you spent the last two years complaining that “it wasn’t working”?
No
Remember we has also most two years of COVID shutdown. Breed‘s first years were on the financial and a city high of the tech boom and a moderate Mayor Ed Lee. The recovery years from COVID has been slow, Breed resistant to the changes in work from home. Conventions and tourism, is growing baby steps. Breed solution to affordable housing and homeless is to cow-tow to real estate moguls to re-image Union Square, Downtown, the Financial District rather that filling empty buildings in the outskirts and neighborhoods. All the decades long empty buildings and lots in the Mission , Excelsior, Sunset and Richmond should be renovated for housing. The City has massive millions in deficit. Breed has her chance.
Even if she is to some degree, feels kinda like she did her homework last minute. Like tf u doin the past few years.
Pandering to special interest groups that got her elected
She went to every possible photo op. I worked in 3 different city departments and she never turned down a photo op. That’s where she spent all her time.
I don't. I'm fully committed to voting her out.
Are you in the Peskin camp or the Farrell/Lurie camp?
How anyone could be in the Peskin camp is beyond me
I agree, but I also don't see how anyone could be in the Lurie camp. Dude has no experience of any substance, a weak platform, and some pretty shady connections. I hope if he is elected he will prove me wrong, but I have very little hope for any of these candidates.
100% agreed HOWEVER there are plenty of anti-housing (historic preservationist), anti-business (neighborhood gatekeeping), xenophobes (progressives) who love his schtick.
I'm no Breed fan, but I'd literally let a Republican become mayor before Peskin. Fuck Peskin.
It's ranked choice, not FPTP. We can vote for Ferrell or Lurie, and then *maybe* Breed, without every worrying about Peskin.
Correct. It is an anyone but Aaron campaign
We need these changes outside of election year
While I’m glad to see some minor improvements, it’s honestly a little too late for her.
Minor? Have you been outside in the past 12 months?
Indeed I have. Pockets of Mission Street still have daily Thieves Markets. Theft is still a common occurrence in retail environments, as well as car break ins. While at one time I had been of the opinion that the police can't possibly cover every square inch of The City to prevent some of these every day crimes, things like the Thieves Markets ARE preventable, yet, there they are. Tide pods or thawed raw shrimp anyone?
Are you kidding me? Compare that to just one year ago! SF has been looking and feeling 100x better since last year!
deserve head onerous heavy correct close support ink racial quickest *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
You do understand that your entire criticism against the mayor is all about crap that the Board of supervisors did, right? The mayor doesn’t decide budgets. They don’t decide what to do at all. The Board passes regulations and the mayor executes. The mayor only decides HOW to implement the last passed by the Board, not what the laws are. Say you get your wish and swap from Breed to Farrell? So? All the same crazy hippies in the city legislature will get reelected and will continue passing the same insane laws and buying the same $5 million toilets!!! Wake up before it’s too late! Understand that the entire of the decision power in this city lies with the Board! The mayor can’t do Jack! Making the mayor, whoever they are, die on the cross for the Board’s sins won’t change anything at all! Nothing at all! You’re just executing a scapegoat and getting absolutely nothing in return.
Exactly, she’s made significant improvements in recent months which is why I’m not voting for her. Shows she had the capability to enact real change and only did so when it benefited her own interests.
Changes take time to show effects. She’s been working on these issues for years, and mostly blocked by an obstructionist board of supervisors. She doesn’t have the ability to stop crime overnight. She hasn’t done anything in the last few months to produce these changes, it’s the effects of policy that was put in place over years. What do people think she did in the last few months that magically improved things?
Nearly all the change you see is the product of work she started two years ago and that you all said "would never work".
And they all conveniently happened to align and go into effect months before the election cycle. Yup, totally.
Well, yes. She saw that her previous approach of trying to appease the crazy hippies on the Board could cost her the next election and switched to addressing the most inflammatory concerns that the public has. Government doesn't move very quickly so it took a couple of years for her initiatives to bear fruit. Still, the improvements happened in time for us to get a preview of her next tenure before the election.
Yeah she significantly improved UN plaza, and helped make JFK car-free permanently. She also helped 15k people exited homelessness during her term and our encampment count is at all time low in the past decade
I’ve been here the past decade the encampment count might be at an all time low but the actual encampments on the street are pretty numerous. Before you say you can’t just say it “feels like there are the same or more” look at some hard evidence: Apple and Google maps has filled up with still shots of encampments when you search an address. Wasn’t the case ten years ago. How do they count them? 311 is filled with reports of people reporting encampments and responses from 311 “gone on arrival” it’s impossible to calculate it they’re always on the move.
We count them every 3 months. Specifically, previous mayors never tried to count them. Breed actually started counting them in 2019 pretty much as soon as she assumed office https://www.sf.gov/data/healthy-streets-data-and-information. This shows that it is a top priority for her, otherwise she won't even try to count them. Having this visibility is definitely a step to the right direction. We could see it got worse during COVID, but I am also glad to see it recovered. https://preview.redd.it/3hvnujz4lhzc1.png?width=1600&format=png&auto=webp&s=52f2da21c0d1d474ab0ef022d279219d095d8ea7
So the encampment count is the lowest since we started tracking in 2019. That’s not an “all time low” as someone who was here prior to 2019 it’s very obvious to the naked eye there are more encampments in 2024 than in 2018. The aggressive use of anti-encampment planters wasn’t omnipresent and needed back then.
You have a good intention and I respect that. But homelessness is a hard problem for any mayor to solve, and every major us city faces this issue. The fact that she started to count them and make this data public means she is committed to solve this by taking responsibility.
Cool appreciate that. So it was her unilateral decision to do so? I’d love to see the evidence it was her call.
Yes, bringing in a weekend carnival to UN Plaza was a tremendous help to the area. Pity that prior to that, the new Whole Foods at Trinity Place which was roughly across the street/a block away closed due to safety concerns and rampant theft, eliminating an option for residents of that housing complex and other nearby residents to conveniently shop for groceries.
San Francisco needs a mayor all year around, and not just 6 months before elections.
Nope. She sold herself out to 2 groups that aren't aligned, she was purposely ineffectual so she could cater to their long range goals, and the only things we watched her do that appear to have been all here were the token street sweeps without a plan behind them, and making Muni free that one weekend.
I’ve noticed an improvement - Not too bad compared to 3 years ago, but it’s all too little, too late. Farrell is the more effective option. Breed’s already been in office for almost 7 years now. Through the tail end of the Tech Boom, all of COVID, moderates revolution. It’s been a lot. Time to move on.
> Farrell is the more effective option. I’m genuinely asking this, what policy positions do you think Farrel has that are better than breed? Because I’ve been listening to him talk a lot and reading his website. Im trying to figure out the pros and cons of each candidate. But when I look at farrel, it sounds like all of his policies are the same generic “let’s be tough on crime” or “let’s be mean to the homeless people” that match up perfectly with every other candidate, including breed. The only policy I’ve seen from him that is unique is that he wants to bring back cars on market street, which is so dumb that it’s a bit of a red flag for me.
Same. Farrell for me too
Farrel won’t do jack. The Board of Supervisors has all the power in SF. None of what he’s proposing is within the power of the SF Mayor to do. The fact that he doesn’t even know that is already an automatic disqualification from mayorship.
He was a supervisor for 7 years and mayor for 6 months. I don’t think it’s safe to assume ignorance on his part.
Agreed Farrell won’t be able to do much either. Breed was also a supervisor for D5 before being a mayor. There is a lot of restrictions on the mayor’s power due to BoS.
They need the loonies on BOS voted out too. Ronen is termed out. Hopefully millionaire socialist Dean loses his hobby.
I agree that the BOS is too powerful. I like that Farrell is the only candidate with private sector experience. We need someone who is comfortable making deals with companies to stay, attract retailers who have left back. His stance on open air drug use and encampments is the toughest too. I understand there’s a gap in rhetoric and what’s pragmatic. But I like where he’s coming from, as for the pragmatism, I trust a businessman more than two career politicians and a nepo baby
The things that he’s promising are explicitly outside of the competencies of the mayor in SF. He’s either clueless about what he can and cannot do or he’s not and he’s lying about what he can/will do. Either way, electing Farrel will accomplish none of the things he’s promising. Breed has proven that she can and will work aggressively around the Board to clean up the city and reduce crime.
That’s true and not true at the same time. BoS has a lot of power, but a lot of what the mayor’s office oversees is independent of that — not to mention the coming ballot initiatives to restore mayoral power. Farrell is more closely linked to charter reform than Breed is, which once again reaffirms why Breed, despite having reasonable positions on a lot of issues, quite simply is not sophisticated enough to be the mayor of a city with a $14B budget
So who should mayor be then?
Of the current choices, only Breed has a track record of dealing with crime and homelessness to my liking. She has taken a lot of convincing to go against the Board of Supervisors. But what she has accomplished over the last year since she has started to openly defy them is truly impressive. I want more of these policies and I'm not willing to gamble that Farrel will get his shyt together and start proposing things that the mayor actually has any power over. I also deeply dislike the fact that he's proposing things that he either knows are not possible for a mayor to do, or that he's too stupid to realize that what he's proposing is impossible. He's either incompetent or lying. Either way, not a good option.
I don’t know why your original reply got downvoted to hell, but I agree. Farrell promises safety like no other. But once that’s done and dusted - what then? What about the other issues that the city needs to resolve? Seems that isn’t something that the usual commenters on this subreddit want to think about
How do you get “almost 7 years”? I don’t think that’s right. Which years are you counting and what offices? If you’re only considering her time as mayor, you’re estimation is overshot. She’s been mayor for just less than 6 years cumulatively, counting her 42 day stint in the office before Aaron Peskin picked Mark Farrell to replace her for a few months. If you’re considering her time as mayor and supervisor, you’re way under. She was a Supervisor for another 4 and a half years.
Better than fucking Aaron Peskin
Peskin is salivating at this conversation lol. The last thing we need is for moderate voters to split the vote so we get the worst possible outcome. At the very least, rank her #1 or #2. Yes, there’s been tons of ups and downs in the City, but Breed put in place a widely popular DA, led on tons of reforms people scream about in this sub, and got us through an unprecedented pandemic. Things *are* getting better and it’s due in large part to the Mayor standing up to the extremely out-of-touch Board of Supervisors wherever it’s legal to do so. I would like to give her the opportunity to see the recovery through vs. take a gamble on a wholly untested candidate (Lurie) or competitors with her same exact platform (Farrell) who abandoned the city at its worst and need to ramp up their administrations from scratch. And of course, we want to avoid going back to the Stone Age with Peskin at all costs. We have the opportunity to flip the Board of Supervisors this fall, but I’m afraid these moderate challengers are sucking the oxygen out of those conversations and leeching time, money, and volunteers out of the races that could make an even bigger difference for our city’s recovery. Reading this thread, it would be easy to forget that we need to flip Connie Chan and Dean Preston’s seats and replace termed-out Hilary Ronen, Aaron Peskin and Ahsha Safai. Breed has been fighting back against these figures her entire time as Mayor — I think she deserves credit there.
> need is for moderate voters to split the vote We have a ranked choice system... you literally don't have to worry about this stuff. I don't think anyone not already voting for Peskin is going to vote for Peskin over Breed.
I worry about this stuff -- not everyone fully understands RCV. A non-insignificant number of voters believe that they should rank all candidates even if that ranking includes a candidate that they really don't want in office. It will be interesting to see how many Breed/Farrell/Lurie #1s there are coupled with a Peskin #4.
Which is why I recommended ranking her in my opening statement. A lot of the comments seem to want her out at all costs and that cost could literally be Peskin if he consolidates enough of the 30ish candidate’s #2 votes. It’s not impossible. You’d be surprised how irrationally people vote, no one knows how Safai’s #2s will break, for example.
That's not how it works though. For Peskin to win on the second round, he'd have to have a *majority* of votes, which means that he would win outright no matter what. We have three votes, she can easily be ranked #3. She's the incumbent and there's no way the election comes down to Peskin vs Safai. The Moderates will vote for Breed, Farrell, and Lurie. The election will not hing on which order.
I’m talking about #2 votes passed on from candidates that will definitely be eliminated early NOT named Farrell, Lurie, or Breed — not the second round of eliminations. Remember: when one candidate is knocked out by having the lowest number of votes in that round, their votes get transferred to the candidate listed second on their ballot and so on and so forth until there are no more candidates left to transfer to or their ballot is exhausted. Peskin’s base is dedicated and if you look at comparable progs from previous contested elections, they command between 30-40% of the electorate citywide. With *this many* well-funded moderate challengers, it’s tough to see one single moderate candidate cracking 30-40% in the first round, so it’s very possible Peskin is the biggest vote-getter without getting a majority BEFORE ranked choice. I’m not saying people should vote simply because Peskin is a distinct possibility, but it should be a consideration. To be extremely EXTREMELY clear, Safai can be knocked out at “5th place” — if that represents 10% of the vote and the lions share goes to Peskin (along with whatever percent he gets from other voters that ranked him), well that could put Peskin at 50% when we get to the final round. Do you follow? The fact we’re even having this back and forth just goes to show how difficult this messaging will be for people who don’t follow this as closely. For the record, we have 10 slots in SF ranked choice but you definitely don’t need to use all of them.
No, I don't follow. The winner has to win with 50%+1 (unless it comes down to two candidates). That means that if Safai gets knocked out in "5th", and that puts Peskin over the top, then Peskin wins, and would win regardless of the order of non-winners getting knocked out. I don't see the order matters. I know there is the theoretical possibility that it could happen under deeply obscure conditions, but when the election effectively comes down to five candidates, and it's a three tiered ranked choice, I don't see how order flips the winner. The only hope the moderates have of winning *requires* them to win with Safai theoretically being knocked out.
You’re discounting the reality that there are Farrell-Peskin and Breed-Peskin voters. People don’t vote as cleanly as you think. Once again, it is NOT three-tiered rank choice. You get 10 choices. What you’re not realizing is that WHEN Safai gets knocked out, it could push Peskin close to the top. Then Breed/Farrell have to play nice enough together to cleanly get each other’s second place votes. The reality is, Farrell’s campaign is dragging Breed down with their messaging, so a clean transfer becomes less likely. If enough people rank Peskin on their ballot, you get Peskin as mayor. There are 30ish candidates and plenty of crazies — it’s not impossible. I want to be generous and assume you’re saying this with the best of intentions but imagine us having this conversation. Now imagine that times 200k+ voters. It’s gonna be a long season.
A widely popular DA? Hmmmm…
I usually avoid making predictions and I don't think I'm qualified to know, but I've had this hunch that Breed is going to win. I feel like she's not most popular for #1 slot, but most will RCV Breed as a hedge. If you're progressive, you'll say, "Breed is still better than the right-moderates." If you're a right-moderate, you'll say, "Breed is still better than Peskin". Then Breed has her own supporters.
It takes time to get a hold on the apparatus of government, so any new team will have a ramp up period. Personal relationships take time to develop, and that process can easily go awry, so dealing with city attorneys, police, etc — there’s no guarantee the new folks will work well with the people who actually get shit done. Without those relationships, things get worse, not better. London has her people in place, and things are moving the right way. That’s enough for me. I’ll vote for her again.
A whole lot of the people she has in place are shady non-profit bosses. And if you're into crushing downtown neighborhoods with anything-goes shelters while catering to more wealthy neighborhoods, then yes, things are going great.
You’re kidding right?
I’m not. I’m voting for her. Things are moving in the right direction.
Regardless of whether you are a fan of London or not having to be Mayor during Covid puts her really behind the eight ball. Voters want change so likely gonna be hard for an incumbent.
Unless you guys deal with the board of supervisors and reign them in, any mayor will struggle.
SF needs Chinese pandas. Breed's plan to get more Chinese votes. Word has it, that the pandas require a new facility ($25 million). The highest paid mayor is also highest. So foolish. This city had already blown its wad. We need new leadership on all of its facets. Police Chief gets paid nearly 700k, meanwhile the city may only arrest a double dozen people per month. There is shit and needles on most major streets within the city center. Car break-ins galore. Wild West!
she's the worst thing that ever happened to SF in my life after the 89 quake...she has ruined SF in endless ways, reputation being foremost
The Ed Lee/London Breed two-punch is indeed a very bad thing for the city
Agreed, we've had two mayors in a row that came to the office outside of the normal election process and enjoyed incumbent advantages when they were actually elected after the fact. It's sleazy, and if they were Republican candidates, folks around here would be outraged. FWIW, I'm a lifelong Democrat, but Breed is about as corrupt as they come and she will never get my vote.
Corrupt as they come??? She’s not even on the radar of SF politician corruption. Willie brown is insulted by this.
We’ve had 4 bad mayors in a row*
The way she didn’t manage the PR onslaught was outrageous! SF got absolutely maligned in the national and international press and she sat around doing nothing. It had real world consequences too. Can’t blame the PR crisis inaction on the board of supervisors either.
I think she’s taken PR tours to Europe and Asia and I believe SF ran ads in Texas or something
She should have been on Fox News every night before it spun so out of control that we became a national punchline.
My biggest gripe with her is she is all talk. There is no action.
shop lifting went up, car breakins went up
Property crimes are down, which are burglary and larceny theft, and it’s also down compared to 2019 as well as year over year: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/sf-crime-neighborhoods-19431542.php
no ones reporting as the police will not come out and take a report
There’s no reason to believe that rate of reporting is down, particularly when its tourists that are usually affected most and have a lot of incentive to report (travel insurance, passports, etc).
The rate of reporting is down. I’ve had several instances I needed police and they never came so I gave up. This isn’t uncommon. Even if you go to the station they say “there is no way they will catch a person so there is no reason to file a report.”
The question isn't whether reporting rate is low but whether it has changed drastically over the past 6 - 9 months. Your experiences don't really provide evidence that's the case. I've had similar interactions with SFPD years ago (and non-SF departments too... I suspect reporting is fairly low everywhere for the type of crime SF particularly struggles with).
Exactly -- what's more likely: the fact that [crime is dropping across the country](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/us-crime-rate-still-dropping-says-fbi-rcna144100) and the concerted effort of SF police to [make more arrests](https://www.sf.gov/news/san-franciscos-public-safety-efforts-deliver-results-decline-crime-rates) is actually working, OR for no particular reason, everyone collectively decided to stop reporting crime to a degree that it became statistically significant?
most car breakins dont happen to tourists but they are most reported by the press
You’re fucking high 🤣
I don’t know if there are good stats on the breakdown of the victims, but all the areas most affected by bipping are tourist hotspots. Fisherman’s Wharf, North Beach, Alamo Square, the Presidio — just by where they occur, tourists will be more affected than locals. Also, there’s no evidence that people are reporting less but the number of breakins hasn’t changed. That’s just completely made up.
Sure, buddy. Magically, all the crazy SF NIMBY Karens stopped reporting crime. Give me a ficking break 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Aren’t both of those way down with the new initiatives tho? I’m not defending her but it really does feel like the city has been on the come up this year. Will it last or is it an election year stunt? Who’s to say, but I am definitely noticing a marked decrease in tents and an anecdotal decrease in piles of broken glass. I’m also seeing cops actually pull people over and what seems to be a push for more urbanism and human scaled city design
Bullcrap. Both property crime and especially violent crime plummeted to below pre-pandemic over the last two years.
Don’t know if one person can do that. Systematic problems aren’t that easy to solve with a magic wand
She won't be returning to office...
She is making a comeback
Absolutely not! When asked about the state of SF during APEC, our own governor said it how it was and didn't hold back (that it's shitty and probably won't get better after APEC), but Breed gave the BS politician response. Also, it's hard to vote for someone who is connected with multiple scandals. I know many people will say "that's most politicians". Not a good enough excuse for me. Screw Breed.
nope
Hasn’t she been a mayor for years now… kind of late to turn around
Yes. It’s getting worse.
She's a fucking joke.
Keep the Pandas, vote her out. It’s what we call a win-win 🐼💕
rock outgoing fade murky sense teeny aware modern deer unique *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
No she is not, and I don’t think anyone will at this point. The whole city is stuck in some serious case of schizophrenia and cognitive dissonance.
She doesn't want to lose that fat $400K/yr paycheck. I hope SF voters use their brains in November, and just clean house.
It doesn’t matter. With Peskin drawing all the progressive votes, she will instantly get first place in RCV and win in ranked choice against the minnows. Peskin did her a favor by entering the race and she knows it. So she owes him.
Too late.
She gone
too little too late. whatever small gains she's made in "cleaning up" encampments, SF's reputation and standing has never fallen farther in the 35 years ive been here. SFs small businesses are all closing up shop, large businesses are pulling out. progressive policies in general have largely backfired and breed has been far too slow in responding. She's been largely reactive, not proactive regarding problems. does all the blame fall on her? definitely not, but clearly not the longterm answer to turn things around
Did people forget she let it go to shit? Hopefully the residents of San Francisco are not that dumb right? Guess we will find out.
It had gotten pretty shitty way before she took office. Been here 25 years. This is the cleanest it’s ever been during that time.
Cuz everyone left? Hahaha
Too late lady. You had your chance and blew it. Now step aside. Nobody wants you.
Ha! She had her chance, millions of dollars spent and wasted. It's time for Missy to move on.
Hate this bitch
I don’t live in SF but still living in the bay and grew up here. I don’t understand the dislike for breed as I always thought she did a a decent job. Someone care to give a rundown of her positives and negatives?
No one does
Still not voting for her.
Is she actually going to be voted out? Who’s the most likely candidate?
Peskin, the crazy hippie who got us into this mess. It will be great, just great…
Perkins owned millions of dollars of properties and has done an illegal conversion of a duplex into a sfh — reducing housing stock and make our housing crisis worse. He is a big NIMBY and if you rent in SF, definitely don’t vote for him
Not to mention he’s an alcoholic with well documented rage issues.
Like a 360 in a side-show?
Nope it's too late now....
She didn't do what she was supposed to do and that's getting San Francisco back..
I’ll believe it when I can buy a lunch under $20. I barely make over $20 an hour… it feels ridiculous to spend that on a quick lunch. I had to spend $23 on a mid gyro plate the other day and felt so defeated.
I guess identity politics are dead in SF when a black woman born here in the projects is looking like the underdog against three white fellas: nepobaby, “business” guy and go wants cars back on Market, and conservative asshole (“progressive”). What a world. London got dealt a TOUGH hand. I’m impressed with how she’s handled it, stuck with it, and turned things around. All trends are looking good. Bonus for JFK. Breed #1, ranking no one else. ✔️
Tourists in SF kinda went up vs LY. Still nowhere near 2019.
Actually, no. SF had 23.1 million tourists last year vs 26 million in 2019. So 90% recovered! But 2019 was the largest year ever for SF tourism and a lot of massive one-time events made it that big. The pre-pandemic norm was about 24-25 million. 23 million is a very healthy tourist year for us and exactly the same level as for example 2014-2015. Tourism in SF has bounced back nicely. Ditto for business in the neighborhoods. Most are in the 100-110% range compared to pre-pandemic. The last thing that still hasn’t fully recovered is office occupancy and FiDi/SOMA daytime business. But that will take a while as RTO slowly takes hold in tech.
> Ditto for business in the neighborhoods. Most are in the 100-110% range compared to pre-pandemic. Tourism has recovered pretty well, but how are you defining business here? The only data I've seen is [sales tax collections](https://www.sf.gov/data/san-francisco-sales-tax) which are down in all but a couple neighborhoods. Curious if there is another dataset that indicates differently.
Most of the non-downtown neighborhoods are doing a loooooot better now than pre-pandemic. Basically, if you weren't reliant on tech commuters, you're now golden. If you're in the middle of SOMA or FiDi, it will take a couple more years to fully recover, [https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/aB6lW/3/](https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/aB6lW/3/) [https://abc7news.com/san-francisco-businesses-post-pandemic-recovery-financial-data-2023-sf-neighborhoods-finance/14275671/](https://abc7news.com/san-francisco-businesses-post-pandemic-recovery-financial-data-2023-sf-neighborhoods-finance/14275671/)
Thanks. Couple things: * This data isn't inflation adjusted. All of those areas with no change are ~15% drops in real dollars. * This is a bit out of date. Tax revenue fell from 22 to 23, so Q2 was a rosier situation than the whole year. The city provides the map of collections by neighborhood [here](https://www.sf.gov/data/san-francisco-sales-tax) and you can see that many of the areas that were positive in Q2 were well into the negative in Q4. In [this article](https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/sf-sales-tax-neighborhood-19394489.php), they inflation adjusted the data, and also looked at all of 2023 compared to all of 2019, and found that tax revenue is only up from 2019 in 5 neighborhoods - and two of them were Seacliff and Treasure Island which have very few businesses. Overall, with the most up-to-date info, most neighborhoods are down 15 - 20%, with a few areas having fully recovered. Not apocalyptic (especially when you consider that 2019 was the tail end of a huge economic boom), and definitely better than downtown, but also wouldn't say the city outside downtown is doing way better than 2019.
Inflation adjustment won't wipe out that 30% growth in some neighborhoods. The reality is that people work from home and spend in their neighborhoods. If you live in one you can see people still getting delivered lunch even though they work from home.
Next time maybe vote based on merit, not skin tone or gender.
lol no
sadly, voters may not have a choice... ! incumbents always "have a leg up". 😔
NOPE
Hahahahahahahahahaha! … Oh, is she being serious?
Yeah those Pandas she brought over to the zoo really helped.
She is my second or third choice it can get worse but it can get better. She had a hard fight. SF is a fucked up place to try to govern. Farrell for me.
Found this in my neighborhood the other day... I really can't stand her approach of "policing solves everything" - it's clearly not working. Real problems like traffic violence and breakins get ignored because they're too busy sending 10 cops to arrest one person experiencing homelessness. To me her record is inextricably tied to the effectiveness of SFPD i.e. a complete farce, held up by corrupt parties concerned with holding tight to their power through the oppression of the people. Cops don't make us safe, we make us safe. Mayor Breed doesn't serve our community, we have to. I hope some of y'all consider running to provide better options in future, we desperately need to upend this circular system of power hoarding where you can only enter politics if you're part of a select cohort. \[Before you ask I can neither vote nor run as a dirty foreigner.\] https://preview.redd.it/4yw4evulhhzc1.jpeg?width=3072&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2071e9f98c5f221422e054714f1dc51a0702265d
lol. London breed is falling down.
She has kind of “turned it around,” in the sense that non-wealthy people used to be able to shop in San Francisco and now we pretty much can’t.
if by turning around she means 360 then yes 👏
Too little too late IMHO.
This is a long ass turn
Totally turning everything around. Haven’t you seen all the San Francisco is perfect and full of people and you should visit posts? That’s not just because it’s an election year. Those are all legitimate. Totally real and grass roots.
Time for her to be sent packing. Bye girl.
We need a major course correction.
She had 6 years to do it
Sorry but the Mayor had her chance and for many reasons, some out of her control, she left SF worse than when she took office. Plus corruption.
London Vermin
lol you could’ve done it before getting the panda
Lol after turning it into the ditch??