Last week, Daniel Lurie was sworn in as the 46th mayor of San Francisco. It was a lovely Wednesday morning, and Lurie said a great many things. But he did not declare it to be a Thursday. Because it was a Wednesday. Words and the concepts behind them have meanings, some of which are immutable.
Lurie did, however, state that he is introducing a series of “Fentanyl State of Emergency” ordinances, consistent with his campaign-trail promise to declare a fentanyl state of emergency on “Day One.”
Fascinating: As we wrote on Nov. 25, Lurie’s oft-repeated campaign pledge to declare a fentanyl state of emergency would not be legally permissible. And this wasn’t a hypothetical case: Mayor London Breed pushed to declare a fentanyl state of emergency in 2021 and was rebuffed by the city attorney’s office.
In his successful campaign, Lurie called for accountability and transparency, and portrayed himself as someone who wouldn’t engage in the vapid and disingenuous games that define city politics. So it’s more than a bit disappointing that this development took place right on Day One.
A “state of emergency” isn’t just a euphemism for things going badly, or Lurie could’ve helped out his inaugural speaker, Steve Kerr, and declared a Golden State Warriors State of Emergency. Rather, it’s a narrowly defined and legally actionable term that allows a mayor to essentially rule by fiat.
So Lurie, despite his verbiage otherwise, will not be declaring an actual “fentanyl state of emergency,” because he can’t. Rather, he’s giving the other stuff he plans to do the name “fentanyl state of emergency.”
Will voters know the difference? Will they care? That’s hard to say. If San Franciscans perceive action on this issue, it’s difficult to believe anyone will be up in arms about semantic gamesmanship and branding attempts.
But this does not portend well. Daniel Lurie is in City Hall Room 200 not because he knows so much about government functioning, but because he knows so little. This was a selling point for disgruntled voters. So it’s to be anticipated he’d make some mistakes. Voters would figure to be understanding.
And yet, when it was revealed that Lurie’s demands could not, in reality, be enabled, he opted to alter reality to enable his demands.
Daniel Lurie outlined his next moves on the city’s fentanyl crisis in his three-and-a-half page memo. It’s short and brisk, but within it are a number of eye-opening statements.
- The memo states that Lurie will make the Drug Market Agency Coordination Center (DMACC) permanent — when it already was permanent, for all intents and purposes.
- The memo highlights the pending creation of a single “24/7 Drop-Off Crisis Stabilization Unit (CSU),” but this is a years-in-the-making effort, and is meant to handle far more than just fentanyl users. What’s more, it will have only 16 beds and serve perhaps 25 people a day (the memo extrapolates this to “9,000 people a year,” but this total seems to assume that nobody will end up here more than once). Finally, Mission Local has been informed that the estimated costs for such a site are around $8 million or so a year, and it’s not clear if those costs include security or janitorial. This may be a great project, but it does not scale. Especially in a budget crisis.
- The memo implies that the major time suck in taking decisive action comes from hold-ups at the Board of Supervisors.
But it’s not the Board of Supervisors that slows down government-nonprofit collaborations of the sort Lurie is hoping to roll out — or, certainly, not just the board. The scleroticism comes from putting out requests for proposals and crafting and reviewing and negotiating contracts, all of which is done at the departmental level, and can require months and months. Board of Supervisors review of those contracts is more akin to the cherry on the sundae.
But this cherry is what Lurie is moving to do away with. The legislation is not yet public, but the memo appears to call for the Board to vote to abdicate its ability to review and ratify contracts and transfer that power to the implementing departments — that’d be the Department of Public Health and, likely, the police, Human Services Agency and Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing.
That’s an interesting move. That’s a lot of trust being given to city departments whose performances, and stewardship of the city’s billions, have been a mixed bag. And, in the past, this has not uniformly gone well. You may recall that, in the name of expediting the construction of homeless housing and navigation centers, the Board of Supervisors allowed Public Works to circumvent the competitive bidding process. That was a well-intentioned move, but it instead enabled since-incarcerated Public Works boss Mohammed Nuru to send no-bid contracts to arch-fixer and permit expediter Walter Wong.
Everybody had the best of intentions. But, as Lurie put it himself in his inaugural address, “If we’re going to turn this city around, good intentions are not enough.”
Daniel Lurie ran on accountability. But his first big move appears to be giving departments carte blanche to enter into contracts.
That’s odd. And that also doesn’t get to the problem: What’s necessary is resources, and this city doesn’t have enough resources.
The “Fentanyl State of Emergency” ordinances haven’t made their way to the Board of Supervisors yet, but when they do, it figures to be awkward. For the supes to not abdicate their powers of oversight will spark a conflict with the new mayor regarding his first significant act. Nobody is eager for that. And, with the legislation being titled the “Fentanyl State of Emergency” ordinances, not unlike “The Patriot Act,” any pushback can open a critic up to cheap populism.
Expect pushback from the supes anyway. Subtle pushback. Expect amendments. Expect calls for limitations on the applicable premises for the departments to hand out contracts, and on the timeline in which they can do it. As one supervisor noted, the limitations on a real emergency ordinance call for reviews every 90 days. Why not do that here, with an ersatz emergency ordinance?
It turns out that there is nothing new under the sun: Veteran City Hall dwellers likened this move to something Mayor Gavin Newsom might do: “Talking a lot and trying to match it to reality, when it doesn’t really fit.”
That’s fine, but the appeal of Lurie was that he’s not a smooth-talker and not a politician. The semantic games being played with the “state of emergency” are, in the end, frustrating and confusing. Voters did not go for Lurie because of his deep knowledge of government. They would likely be forgiving of technical errors, and are far more concerned with effort and results.
Lurie’s commitment to action, coupled with his lack of governmental experience, means he’ll likely make more errors in the future. Voters, again, are probably okay with that. Whether they’ll be okay with efforts to alter reality to accommodate those errors remains to be seen.
Just arrest and prosecute the fentanyl dealers. That’s what all of us normal people want.
Yes of course! Once they arrest and prosecute the fentanyl dealers, fairies and unicorns will drop out of the sky and declare that “All our problems have been solved”. Just as Lurie declared the “state of emergency”. One cannot just believe that there is one thing that will fix a problem overnight that was decades in the making. There are certainly many issues with the way our city is talking the homelessness and public health crisis, but not arresting and jailing enough people is certainly not one of them.
Dear Hyperbole Merchant:
Nobody said “all of our problems will be solved.” But we would have fewer working fentanyl dealers. So, one problem would be addressed. That’s how intelligent people address problems. If you know one, ask her.
Um, not arresting anyone and not jailing anyone is *exactly* how our previous city leaders have created this problem. We legalized shoplifting, fencing stolen goods, drug dealing and public drug use (in the name of “Harm Reduction,” which has only increased the harm done to vulnerable people). We handed out free needles and paraphernalia, and free hotel rooms (which were trashed and now we as a city are on the hook to pay for the damages!) So we have drawn addicts and criminals from all over the region and the rest of the country – and sadly, they are now our problem. The only real way to help them is to require them to get help – they won’t make this decision on their own because they are quite frankly incapable. And the only way to do this is (unfortunately) to arrest them and require them to enter treatment. Or to go back home to Kansas or wherever. They have a choice. But destroying our city should not be one of them.
Great summary. Progressives got pretty much everything they wanted and it hasn’t solved the problem, to put it mildly.
“Progressives got pretty much everything they wanted” = a throwaway BS line, not a fact that you can back up with anything real. But I understand the petty politik that forces you to point fingers instead of analysis.
City leaders ~!= (do not equal) the CA Superior Court judges that put in place the MANDATES to clear prison and jail populations going into the pandemic. The pandemic took effect THE SAME MONTH that the previous DA took office, and the CA court ruling came down weeks later. That’s not SF city leaders, that’s CA Superior courts saying people can’t be arrested for non-violent crimes and that many even convicted of violent ones must be probationed instead of incarcerated. It’s important to realize this distinction between SF political decisions and CA court legal mandates that were massive drivers of the current situation, and the so-called “moderate” Billionaire dark money intentionally conflated the two dishonestly as the fault of SF locals. I don’t think it’s anyone’s political preference to have the situation we have now, but put the accountability for the mandates that forced it where they actually lie – ironically the courts are almost completely immune from public sentiment and outrage over their decision making.
The article would be stronger with more focus on the ordinance details and less speculation about Lurie’s potential failures. A better balance between analysis and factual reporting is needed.
Hi Jason —
I can only work off the details we’ve got and that’s all in here. It’s not “War and Peace,” sir.
JE
@Joe – the other interesting bit in the memo is Lurie is seemingly looking to ramp up behested payments, which undoubtedly provides an opportunity for the oligarch class.
Here are Peter Cohen and Calvin Welch of the “progressive” branded affordable housing cartel CCHO carrying water for the oligarchs at the Ethics Commission opposing prohibition of behested payments.
The interesting thing is that CCHO and its nonprofit members do not receive behested payments in any meaningful amounts. Those are the slush funds associated with citywide electeds like inaugural committees, etc.
Either the politically connected and active city funded nonprofits strut and pose upon command like the prize hogs that they are or they get cut off.
fb {dot} watch /x5x7aSI1Le/
I can’t get link to work, but I’ve seen that clip. It is bizarre. If I were to question your fulminations, that one would shut me up.
Fair enough, but Lurie is barely in office and already you are lobbing grenades at him. Surely you want to be seen as balanced and open?
At least give him some time to see if these policies work. And if then they do not, crucify him with our blessing.
There is a distinct difference between questioning a democratically elected office holder’s actions and motives and “lobbing grenades.” An essential function of a professional independent journalist is to hold electeds accountable to the public. The City Attorney David Chiu has already determined (when Breed tried it previously) that declaring a “fentanyl state of emergency” is not appropriate and won’t pass legal muster. The gesture (and verbage) is hyperbolic and hollow and will accomplish little. Not terribly encouraging. There is no there there or here sadly.
@Tom – Joe is scrutinizing the memo, which is linked in article.
The risk that Lurie faces, having purchased the office with no political experience, is that he has no political base that has his back. Lurie’s stated reliance on technocrats while marginalizing voices of residents only increases his risk.
If things go south and the voters realize that Lurie is not all that, flying solo by instrument, he’s going to be pushed out of the airplane by the crew without a parachute.
“has no political base”
Most ppl value doing over turd-layering ordinances. Lurie’s going to earn a political base real fast when we can see sustained improvements in our neighborhoods and at hotspots like Mission&6th, BART plazas.
Here’s an edit: Lurie might be able to earn a political base real fast if we see sustained improvements in our neighborhoods and at hotspots like Mission&6th, BART plazas.
If Lurie fails to consolidate and deliver, then he’ll be out there all alone, with nobody having his back.
Is he going to worry? Unlikely, he’s not part of the musical chairs game hustling for the next post.
Not a good beginning Mr Mayor and I was so hopeful!
Like Covid-19, the fentanyl crisis has been allowed to simmer in San Francisco in congruence with other cities across the US.
Lurie’s entrance and his focus on fentanyl and crime may provide some relief from our city being pilloried as a leading example of civic failure, but I don’t expect our street-level challenges to diminish much any time soon.
We have been extraordinarily lucky that we have not seen a disaster like the one happening in Los Angeles now. With nearby quakes in the last few days, we should be reminded that (besides having a beautiful geography and a near-perfect climate) our problems can’t all be contained within a few neglected neighborhoods.
Smooth-talker or no, Lurie will be faced with some major problems next week when a fascist and con man returns to the White House.
Donald Trump has investments in the city, and will certainly try to strike some “deals.”
What will Mayor Lurie do?
More importantly, what will we do?
If SF has had Feinstein, Pelosi, Newsom and Harris at the highest levels of the Democrat Party, and San Francisco looks like this, then it ain’t ever gonna happen with these Dems.
Barbara Lee is running for Mayor of Oakland, a city that is suffering like all cities, yet the Democrats could not be bothered to formulate an urban policy. That’s created a vacuum that’s allowed cities like SF and Oaklyn to be used as political cudgels by Republicans to successfully bludgeon the Democrats as incompetent and malicious.
We are on our own. All we have are each other. Let the nonprofit class prattle on about privilege and how not being economically destitute makes one rich. As we’re seeing in LA, ain’t nobody got our neighbors’ backs but us.
In the old HBO tv show The Wire, Mayor Carcetti goes from one department to another on his first day in office and harasses city workers into action, trying to make it look like the new administration is getting busy solving problems.
It sounds like Lurie is being advised to do something similar, since it’s doubtful that he would know how to do the same thing on his own, given his utter lack of experience in government.
The city doesn’t have enough resources? Please, the city has plenty of resources, they are being squandered.
Funny how all his supporters don’t care about being lied to. Lurie’s ideas have all been tried before he’s not going to fix anything. I wasn’t very fond of the previous mayor either but replacing her with a clueless billionaire won’t fix SF’s problems.
Campos did the same thing except it was a shelter state of emergency. He thought he could shake something loose at state level.
Also, to achieve a 2mg dose you need a lot more than 2mg of illicit product. The powder next to the penny is weight, which doesn’t translate. People would be dropping like flies.
To wit, Lurie’s stated goal is to seize a pound of fentanyl a day (368 lbs a year). Using the magic math, in the memo they put the number of lethal doses at 83 million a year. That would mean one cartel produced fentanyl pill is approximately equivalent to 200 fatal doses. For some perspective, Amerixans consume tens of thousands of these pills a day.
Even if SFPD could pull down a pound a day, it’s not enough to make a dent. It would seem people underestimate what law enforcement is up against, which is a Bay Area enterprise worth billions that employs thousands upon thousands of foot soldiers. There is too much money to be made. Law enforcement can’t win.
RLE,
The Cartels are being bypassed by the classic ‘3 guys in a garage with passing grades in high school chemistry and a supply of totally legal precursors’.
Really, and I know it’s true cause I saw it on TV.
Guy said there are hundreds of these mom and pop labs in Mexico and they’ll be here soon and a couple of pounds a week is possible which makes you millionaire for week’s work.
Death rate dropped cause labs are cutting their product cause they realized they were killing their customers.
go Niners !!
h.
Larry, Darryl, and Darryl are likely out of business as precursors are constantly scheduled. The Gupta method is what you’re talking about.
For all their millions, cartels cannot synthesize precursors or pre-precursors. It’s not for lack of trying.
Sounds like the new mayor is following the trend of “tough love”. The voters are tired of laws and want politicians who can find workarounds petty stuff like Constitutional rights, not like that’s anything new. Politics is just where people can exaggerate reality into fiction, and agencies will oblige.
I don’t think nitpicking is what we need. We had 165,000 in prison in California 10 years ago and now under 90. We need a situation where if you shoplift, we have undercover cops and make sure you spend a few weeks in jail and the second time, a few months, miserable and regretting your decision. We need fentanyl dealers in prison for years. We need undercover cops who look like anyone else, with GPS Laptops in cars and the person who breaks in gets a year, whether locked or not. We need people to have a calculation if you do wrong, that leads to suffering, not prospering. Let’s criticize the criminals and put more money into tutoring poor kids so they have a future, and for adults acting like this, no sympathy. Let’s not criticize Lurie. This is a chance for real change and if Lurie fails we’re going to end up with a status quo that has more sympathy and respect for the criminals because they had a bad childhood than for the people who work hard and play by the rules and make sure their kids study and follow the rules and have kids they are working hard to raise and create jobs and start businesses and say no to drugs. We need more of that in SF, not nitpicking Lurie so we end up with a return to the filth. We need to make it LESS pleasant to be a fentanyl user in San Francisco than other towns, not more. Let’s fight the criminals, not Lurie. Let’s help Lurie succeed.
Lurie has no control over the CA Superior Courts that decide who is incarcerated and for what crimes. The DA has a small amount of control over that compared to the Courts. The pandemic mandates to clear prisons and only arrest for non-violent offenses directly coincided with the SF DA taking office. Hands were tied, priorities were changed, PR was lacking and Billionaire dark money seized on the (real) issues to point unrealistic fingers that crookedly curve back at themselves, if we really evaluate them. Get the 501c3 501c4 collusion money out of our political process or the ever-ratcheting political finger pointing and backroom deal-making will only exacerbate the problems that no single group has a realistic way of solving alone. Votes, not Cash.
Not sure where you mean by Laurie isn’t a smooth talker. He’s an extremely smooth talker and that’s why many people voted for him.
If the “supes” want to keep their jobs, they will vote for his vision. San Franciscans have had it.
Try something new,
Like decriminalizing drugs and legalizing sex and gambling.
Takes dealers and cops and pimps out of the equations.
Pass out prescriptions instead of citations.
h.
SF should get retired MDs to write prescriptions for pharmaceutical opiates and warehouse addicts in spartan housing so that they can use behind closed doors and their addictions can be medically managed.
Is sex not legal now?
Seethe and cope at the loss of your hyper progressive, obstructionist dynasty. To write an article lambasting the new mayor for throwing some stuff at the wall to attempt to battle the fentanyl crisis, when your chief complaint is a semantic one, is just bonkers. I take it you are comfortable with the status quo of misery in our streets. Mr. Eskinazi, you generally write well, but this article is among your lowest points.
Nathan —
If you think my chief complaint is semantics, you’ve missed the point by a light year. Try reading it again. The words are all on the page.
JE