Mayor Daniel Lurie weighed in today on the only two contested supervisor races on the November ballot: He endorsed District 8 candidate Manny Yekutiel, the owner of his namesake cafe, and District 10 candidate Theo Ellington, a lobbyist and the director of the Ruth Williams Opera House.
Lurie initially said he had “no plans” to endorse in either race, according to the San Francisco Standard.
Both candidates are moderates, and would help the mayor retain a solid majority on the Board of Supervisors. Lurie’s endorsement could help both Yekutiel and Ellington significantly: The mayor is popular, and in June, voters approved every candidate he endorsed and voted alongside the mayor on every ballot measure.
A political action committee run by Lurie’s allies also spent significantly in the June races, and has the money to do so again before November.
The endorsement of Yekutiel is noteworthy: The District 8 candidate faces an allegation of sexual assault from political activist Brad Chapin.
Chapin says Yekutiel assaulted him at a house party in 2020 by squeezing his testicles to the point where it hurt, and trying to penetrate him with a finger.
Yekutiel has denied the allegations, and has thus far been relatively politically unscathed: Only a handful of politicians have pulled their endorsements of him, and on August 26, Yekutiel secured the endorsement of the San Francisco Democratic Party at a contentious meeting.
Lurie addressed the allegation in July, when he said he had no plans to endorse in either District 8 or District 10, the only districts with competitive races this cycle.
“As mayor, I take all allegations of sexual assault incredibly seriously,” Lurie told the Standard on July 2. “I don’t have all the information, but the [San Francisco Police Department] is doing their investigation, so that’s where I would leave it on that front.”
Yekutiel celebrated the mayor’s endorsement.
“I’m incredibly proud to have the Mayor’s endorsement, because I know what we can accomplish together,” he said. “We’ve spent years working side by side to make San Francisco better, and now we have the chance to bring that partnership to City Hall.”
In 2022, Lurie and Yekutiel co-founded the Civic Joy Fund, a nonprofit that gives grants to projects aimed at revitalizing San Francisco’s streets and runs block parties across the city, among other things.
In a statement, Lurie said that District 8, which includes the Castro, Noe Valley, and surrounding neighborhoods, needs a supervisor who is “committed to addressing our housing affordability crisis, and continuing our progress on public safety and the drug crisis.”
Yekutiel, he said, is “the only candidate who will help take us forward.”
Victories by Yekutiel and Ellington would increase the number of Lurie allies on the 11-member Board of Supervisors. There currently are five “moderate” supervisors who consistently vote for Lurie’s priorities, plus two (Bilal Mahmood and Myrna Melgar) who typically do.
But District 10 Supervisor Shamann Walton, who is part of the progressive coalition, is terming out this year. If he were to be replaced by Ellington, that would increase the board’s moderate majority.
Ellington has received a slew of endorsements from moderate political officials, including Sen. Scott Wiener, and thousands of dollars in donations from San Francisco tech executives aligned with the mayor. Ellington also won the endorsement of the San Francisco Democratic Party.
The news comes one week after Ellington received a historic $500,000 donation from Ripple executive Chris Larsen. In a sit-down interview with Larsen this week, before the tech executive knew of Lurie’s endorsement, Larsen said that Ellington was a “pragmatic problem solver” who was “cut from the same cloth as Lurie.”
Larsen said that, if elected, Ellington would likely work with the mayor on housing, “safe streets” and “economic opportunity,” rather than “sabotage” his agenda.
“I’m deeply honored to have earned the Mayor’s endorsement,” said Theo Ellington, in a statement. “I’m confident that, in partnership with Mayor Lurie, we can build the neighborhoods we deserve in District 10.”
Lurie also announced the following endorsements:
- Proposition A, which reforms city commissions: Yes
- Proposition B, creating a public bank: No
- Proposition C, which would direct funding to affordable housing: Yes
- Proposition D, increasing the number of signatures needed to place a measure on the ballot: Yes
- Proposition E, enabling the city administrator to reform the city’s contracting process: Yes
- Proposition F, increasing mayoral authority: Yes
- Proposition G, reopening the Great Highway to cars on weekdays: No endorsement
- Proposition H, increasing taxes to cover Muni’s deficit: Yes
- Proposition I, dedicating some of the city’s transfer tax to affordable housing: No
- Proposition J, a transfer tax to prevent foreclosures: Yes
The abstention from Prop. G is also noteworthy: Reopening the Great Highway to cars is popular on the Westside, where Lurie has a broad base of support.
“These are the candidates and propositions that will keep our city safe, make government more accountable, strengthen public education, and help ensure a broad-based economic recovery so everyone can continue to call this incredible city home,” Lurie said.
The billionaire class is trying to flip District 10. Chris Larsen drops $500,000 into the race for Theo Ellington. GrowSF is already spending for him. Now Mayor Lurie reverses his promise to stay out and endorses him too.
This is what a power grab looks like in San Francisco: enormous outside money, City Hall muscle, and a concerted effort to replace an independent District 10 seat with one more vote for the mayor’s agenda. D10 is not for sale.
Lurie disgusts me more with each passing day. Breed on steroids.
F the oligarchy.
SA allegations are kind of nothing for “moderate” dems these days… most of them supported a genocide as well, or similarly looked the other way. It’s over for the moral high ground. It is having disastrous consequences.
Albert, such allegations would be a deal breaker. Except that in this case there is not a shred of independent evidence to support the claim. Given the damage that such claims can cause to any career or candidacy, there must be a burden of proof for such allegations. Otherwise it would be too easy for any rogue, spurious and uncorroborated allegation to torpedo a candidate or politician.
Ok here’s another for the “what are they really thinking” file. What’s so great about mannykins? Shouldn’t be hard to come up with a compliant aspiring puppet candidate in for any supes race, one that’s free of rapey baggage. So why don’t they just cut this guy loose?
What is so amazing about Yekutiel that the mayor and the SF Democratic Party is going all out for this guy who has so much baggage?
The same folks (rightfully) screaming about Platner are all in for this chump? The “moderates” have lost their damn minds.
I’m not surprised but incredibly disappointed.
This is no surprise to many of us that Daniel Lurie, who is a Zionist, would support Yekutiel who is also a Zionist. It’s not a stretch to infer from this support that the decision was highly influenced (funded/assigned) by a Zionist aligned group such as the ADL or AIPAC or the Christian Zionists for Israel. It’s not a stretch to make a connection with support coming from Israel itself.
Daniel Lurie is not a good man and he is a terrible mayor. He is accelerating gentrification in San Francisco and is brazenly changing city politics to reflect the professional managerial class that the Democratic Party deep state believes is the proper archetype for America. They are no different than Republicans who espouse the same belief for a homogeneous republic with the oligarchs firmly at the top of society and government. Daniel Lurie is destroying San Francisco and he must be recalled post-haste.
If anyone from Jackie Fielder’s office is reading this post, I urge them to begin preparing for the next mayoral campaign to lead San Francisco away from oblivion.
Jackie Fielder is my mayor in the same spirit as Zohran Mamdani is NYC and world’s mayor.
Without getting into the role that it actually plays in a local SF election… I often ask but rarely receive an answer- What exactly is a Zionist in your opinion? Is it someone who has any sort of connection to or support for Israel, or do they need to hold some type of specific political position within the spectrum of Israeli politics? Conversely, what would make someone sufficiently non-zionist? Are there acceptable forms of Zionism or do they have to be ready to denounce Israel all together and advocate for its demise? Honestly curious, looking forward to your reply
A Zionist believes in Israel as a Jewish state and an anti-Zionist believes insistence on Israel as a Jewish state is antithetical to equal rights. Many zionists believe in equal rights for Palestinians both within Israel proper and the occupied territories, but they still believe that the Israeli government should ultimately be dominated by Jews, ie “right to self-determine” (I’ve never met a Zionist who advocates for a one-state solution).
It wasn’t always that way and originally there were Zionists who believed Israel from the river to the sea should be a safe haven but that Jews would co-exist in a majority Arab society (Ben Gurion wasn’t one of them). Ultimately, history has shown that, in the words of Israeli historian Benny Morris, population transfer was “inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism.”
An anti-Zionist draws a direct line between Zionism and deprivation of rights for Palestinians. A Zionist does not. Hope that helps.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply and explanation. Guessing that maybe you are someone with at least a remote tie to the situation or just someone who takes the time to research things. I was hoping to hear back from the person who posted the comment, but no such luck. Every time I hear someone (often younger in age) throw around the Z word, they very rarely have a solid explanation of history. Though they often accompany it with the G word and the A word.
It just seems particularly strange to hear in the context of local SF politics. To me, it would be like people running around and screaming about Hellenist candidates for supervisor or Arabists or Lusitanists.
I also assume that the explanation you offered this time is the simplified one. I can only imagine how many different shades of Zionism there must be, given the incredibly diverse types of Jews from around the globe. One thing I often think about is the fact that the bulk of Israeli Jews come from the Arab speaking and Muslim world, and that they are often the most hardcore Zionists compared to the (often) more liberal, European Jews. Who are average Americans to call out these Arabized Jews on their Zionism?
With regard to your final paragraph, are there absolutely no Zionists that support rights for Arabs in the territories? And lastly, in your opinion, what exactly does Anti-Zionist mean to the average American leftist in the modern context? To me, it seems like Zionism is already done, sort of like Manifest Destiny in the US. I mean, does it just mean to destroy Israel? I can’t quite get what people are arguing sometimes. For its size, Israel is a powerful country (which is not just “propped up” by the US as many claim).
Not that it matters, but the majority of Israeli Jews come from Europe/Russia. There are around 8 million Jews in Israel, of which around 1.5 million are Haredi, the fastest growing segment. There are not 4+ million Mizrahi/Sephardic Jews; that they’re the majority is a dated talking point.
Ashkenazi Jews may be the most liberal as a generalization (I guess secular Tel Aviv denizens mostly fit the criteria), but “liberal” is not apt description of Haredi Jews, who are also mostly Ashkenazi. And the thing is, Haredi do not serve in the IDF, so who does that leave doing the killing?
Point is, I wouldn’t put too much stake in who the “hardcore Zionists” are by origin. Nearly all of the ultra-violent West Bank settlers are Ashkenazi. It doesn’t matter where their recent ancestors are from.
The San Francisco Latino Democratic Club condemns the San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee’s decision to endorse Manny Yekutiel for District 8 Supervisor while a serious allegation of sexual assault remains unresolved. Let us be clear: Manny Yekutiel denies the allegation, and the DCCC’s process did not determine whether the alleged assault occurred. But that is precisely why tonight’s endorsement exposes such profound hypocrisy. For years, influential members of the DCCC have treated accusations against Latino men and other men of color as sufficient grounds for public condemnation, political exclusion, and permanent reputational damage—before any neutral investigation, hearing, or opportunity to respond. Under that standard, an accusation itself became the verdict. Last night, those same political leaders suddenly discovered the importance of uncertainty, jurisdiction, evidence, and due process when the accused was a well-connected candidate supported by some of San Francisco’s most powerful political interests. Due process cannot be a privilege reserved for the elite. Either it belongs to everyone, including men of color, or it is not due process at all. The contradiction is especially glaring for Lily Ho and Nancy Tung. As chairs of the SFDCCC and of the DCCC’s Special Committee on Sexual Assault and Harassment, these so called “leaders” publicly presented publicly themselves as champions committed to accountability and creating safer political spaces. The DCCC cannot claim to center survivors when politically convenient and then retreat behind procedural limitations when accountability threatens an ally. It cannot demand that some accused individuals prove their innocence while extending others the full benefit of every doubt. It cannot use allegations as political weapons against men of color and then call for restraint, nuance, and fairness when one of the establishment’s preferred candidates faces scrutiny. We hold accountable every DCCC member who cast one of the twelve votes to endorse Yekutiel. Each affirmative voter made an individual choice to provide exceptions to some and award the Democratic Party’s credibility, resources, and institutional support despite an unresolved allegation and a process that produced no determination on the underlying facts. It’s a political racist double standard. This statement is not a declaration of anyone’s guilt. It is a demand for one consistent standard. If an accusation alone disqualifies a Latino man or another man of color, political connections must not transform that same accusation into an inconvenience that can be managed, minimized, or ignored. The principles of fairness, accountability, and due process must not change according to a person’s race, influence, donors, or proximity to power. The twelve members who voted for this endorsement must answer publicly for their decision. San Francisco Democrats deserve to know why due process has so often been denied to men of color but invoked as a shield for members of the political elite. Our community sees the double standard. We reject it, and we will not remain silent about it.
I agree with Lurie’s slate on the propositions, with the exception of H which I oppose.
Given that I am also a D8 resident who will vote for Manny, this looks like a good slate card to me.
I have no view on D10 or the Great Highway thing.
Bill and I frequently disagree but I think it’s praiseworthy to state when you don’t have a position on xyz issue. Really! The alternative is to act like you have a well informed opinion about everything, which is pretty much impossible. So good job Bill.