San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie, pictured in 2025. Creative commons.
In July, Mayor Daniel Lurie told the San Francisco Standard, “I am the first one to say we are not where we want to be. We have to make this city more affordable, so that families can stay here and thrive here.”
“We.” As if the power to enact swift policy change doesn’t rest in mayoral hands. Daniel Lurie is well aware of the housing crisis gripping San Francisco. More recently however, Lurie opposed Proposition I, the Affordable Housing Guarantee Act—a tax measure that would allocate funds toward affordable housing.
With support from the San Francisco Police Officers Association and SF Firefighters Local 798, Lurie predicted the measure would fail. Moreover, they claimed Proposition I would financially hinder the mayor’s endeavor to hire more first responders.
A statement from the firefighters’ union quotes Daniel Lurie as saying,
“Proposition I creates an unaccountable slush fund for the groups that wrote it. I do not believe that this measure will lead to any affordable housing being built, but it will redirect $120 million of public funds away from investing in clean and safe streets, emergency response and better city services. The stakes are too high to be fooled by yet another intentionally misleading ballot measure thrown on at the last minute. Voters have the opportunity to join labor and business to expand our investment in affordable housing through Proposition C, without cutting a single police officer or firefighter. We are strongly united in voting NO on Proposition I, and YES on Proposition C."
Defer, defend, delay
Per SF.gov, Prop C would more than double the city’s contribution to an affordable housing trust, at least theoretically.
“Contributions” would bank on a continuing population boom to infuse that trust with their property taxes. At best, this would only defer the implementation of affordable housing in San Francisco to some distant, faraway future.
And that’s if the housing crisis driven by obscene A.I. wealth spirals further out of control. If Mayor Lurie truly wants to “make this city more affordable,” why is he pushing a policy that would aggravate our housing crisis?
At the No-Ban-No-Wall rally in February 2017. Kenneth Lu, City Hall, San Francisco, CA.
It appears the Levi’s heir would rather shift focus to hiring more police and away from affordable housing. In the statement, President of the San Francisco Police Officers Association Louis Wong says, "We are finally turning the corner on staffing after years of losing officers, and this is exactly the wrong moment to drain the fund that's paying for that comeback. San Franciscans have been clear: they want more officers walking their neighborhoods, not fewer. This measure writes a blank check to nonprofits and hands the bill to public safety."
Mayor Lurie cites City Controller Greg Wagner’s conclusion that Proposition I would increase the city’s yearly budget deficit by $120 million. They fear it would take money from the city’s general fund, begging the question, where else should it come from?
Eviction Defense Attorney Rose Thornton, who supports Prop I, told the San Francisco Chronicle the measure is not a slush fund. The Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development would enact a new transfer tax fund, to be audited annually by the Controller’s Office. “Because this tax was passed in 2020 to finance affordable housing,” she said, “any claim of a deficit by using that money for affordable housing is a manufactured deficit. This is just assurance that City Hall politicians cannot redirect the funding that voters intended to be used for affordable housing.”
