Mayoral candidate Mark Farrell is a family man, and that is as much about his messaging as it is about his day-to-day: He frequently tells constituents he meets on the campaign trail that he’s “a dad first,” and his wife Liz and their three children often show up to the farmer’s markets and events where his team is out canvassing.
But when it comes to his record on family policy during his tenure as District 2 supervisor and interim mayor, some say the “family man” rep doesn’t stand up.
Last week, Farrell’s campaign launched his plans to deliver universal childcare in San Francisco by paying families for childcare and establishing more childcare facilities across the city.
To do so, Farrell proposes dipping into the nearly $500 million generated by the city from commercial property taxes since Proposition C passed in June 2018. The measure is often referred to as “Baby C,” in contrast to Proposition C in November of the same year that has since brought in hundreds of millions toward homeless and housing causes.
Some of Farrell’s opponents, however, have been quick to point out the irony in his proposal: Farrell in 2018 worked to defeat “Baby C” by proposing a competing measure with a poison pill that would have nullified it.
“All of a sudden, he cares about this issue, really?” said former board president Norman Yee, who, along with then-Supervisor Jane Kim, spearheaded the universal childcare measure in June 2018.
Yee, a father of two and grandfather of three, has spent much of his career working to build the city’s childcare infrastructure. He served on the San Francisco Board of Education for eight years and eight more as supervisor, oversaw the running of childcare centers through the education nonprofit Wu Yee Children’s Services and, more recently, published a book about all of that called “Child Care Warrior.”
Back in 2018, when Prop. C was on the ballot, Farrell joined other moderate supervisors — like Ahsha Safaí, Malia Cohen, Katie Tang, and London Breed — to create a competing measure: Prop. D, which suggested using the same funds (property taxes) to pay for low- and middle-income housing and homelessness services.
Prop. D also included a clause that stated that, should both measures pass, only the one with the most votes would be implemented.
And, Yee said, Prop. C’s opponents worked hard. “They also spent a lot of money trying to kill it,” said Yee. With major contributions from real estate companies and tech scions like Chris Larsen, Prop. D amassed a $1.3 million war chest. That’s more than four times the $300,000 backing Prop. C. And yet, 50.87 percent of San Franciscans voted for C, as opposed to 44.93 percent for D.
Farrell dismissed the context in which the “Baby C” came to be when asked about it during a campaign event on Thursday. “There are always competing priorities at the ballot,” he said. The bottom line is that it passed, he added. “As mayor, my job is to implement this vision.”
Since launching his platform in February, Farrell has repeatedly taken a stab at Mayor Breed for what he refers to as “failed leadership in City Hall,” and this issue is no exception. Farrell criticized Breed for not spending the nearly $500 million that Prop C has generated since 2018.
For the first couple of years after the measure passed, though, that was beyond the mayor’s control: The money was left sitting in a bank as the city went to court following a lawsuit from conservative taxpayer-advocate groups.
The city won that case in April 2021, but has been slow to spend the funds. Farrell criticized Breed for not outlining a comprehensive plan before the announcement last week.
“Mayor Breed has had three years to plan for the rollout of services, but has failed to deliver a meaningful plan for our children and families,” Farrell’s campaign said in a statement.
One day after Farrell’s platform was publicized, Breed published her own plans to expand the city’s early-childcare efforts.
Her announcement also touted the city’s achievements over the last five years: doubling the number of children receiving childcare and education subsidies from 6,000 to 12,000, cutting the waitlist to access childcare, renovating 40 early-care and education facilities, and increasing educator salaries and improving educator retention.
“Farrell’s childcare announcement was lifted entirely from Mayor Breed’s childcare and early education platform,” said Joe Arellano, the spokesperson for Breed’s re-election campaign. “Meanwhile, Mark Farrell was nowhere to be found the last five years.”
“When San Francisco kids needed Mark Farrell’s support to pass Prop. C in 2018 — the funding source for his childcare initiative — he turned his back on them and tried to kill it with a poison pill. Why should our kids and families trust him now?” added Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin, another mayoral contender.
Others, including Farrell, don’t quite agree. “There wasn’t opposition, there were just different priorities,” said Jeff Sheehy, a Farrell-backer who was in 2018 the District 8 supervisor and, somewhat inexplicably, a supporter of both measures — the childcare measure and the measure that would have killed it; he said he was letting residents decide between the two. In 2024, he continues, “The issue is, we have this money. It’s not being used.”
Mark Farrell: “Do as I say. Not as I do.” Big phony. Unapologetic (Farrell’s favorite word) elitist. Farrell also supports the bogus billionaire funded ballot measure that would turn all district supervisors into generalists/deputy mayors…….basically neutering them and their district specific constituents. Odd that he didn’t support generalist city wide (and accountable to no one but the mayor) supervisors when he was the supervisor for Pacific Heights. How do you think the Pac Heights mansion set would have felt about being lumped with low income renters in the Mission, artists and poets in North Beach and socialists in the Haight Ashbury? Farrell is a poseur. Flippy Floppy and flatulent.