Short-timer mayor London Breed today, at long last, named her choice for the District 2 supervisor seat vacated by Assemblywoman Catherine Stefani: Stephen Sherrill. And, like most everyone in District 2, you’re probably asking “Who’s Stephen Sherrill?”
That’s a good question. But the more relevant question might be, “Why Stephen Sherrill?”
But first, the former: Sherrill is a 38-year-old who has resided in District 2 since 2016 — though only in August 2023 did he change his registration from “no party preference” to Democratic. Oddly enough, on that same 2023 re-registration, his birthplace was changed from New York to California.
This was, presumably, an error. In San Francisco, political affiliation may at times seem immutable, but it’s malleable. A birthplace really is immutable.
Sherrill has, since 2022, worked in the Mayor’s Office of Innovation and, since April of this year, been its director. That office is funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies. Sherrill, a Michael Bloomberg protégé, previously worked in the Bloomberg mayoral administration. In between working for Bloomberg and Breed, Sherrill worked in private equity, marketing and e-commerce.
Bloomberg, a self-made billionaire and former New York City mayor, has put at least $28.9 million into San Francisco political causes. That includes $1.5 million he dropped into Breed’s ill-fated re-election campaign.
Breed, of course, endorsed Bloomberg for president in 2020, and attended his “Mayors for Mike” Harvard University program.
Come Jan. 8, she will find herself in need of gainful employment.
So, very briefly, that’s a bit of the who. But do these connections explain why Breed gave Sherrill this job? Certainly nobody with an ounce of sense, political or otherwise, would say anything like that on the record. And, absent hard evidence of a specific quid-pro-quo — in writing or uttered to a witness or into a tapped telephone line or wire, Rod Blagojevich-style — then nothing illegal transpired here.
But that doesn’t make it look great.
“He is dedicated to making San Francisco safer and more affordable for everyone,” Mayor Breed said in a statement this morning, “including supporting the housing, transit and infrastructure we need … With his experience in both the public and private sectors, I know he will be a strong addition to the Board of Supervisors, and a committed neighborhood advocate.”
Yet it warrants mentioning that no appointment like this would come to pass in other California cities. Despite what many well-funded, ridiculous people were telling you this election season, San Francisco’s mayor is already clothed in immense power. Unlike other cities in this state, her appointment powers for vacant elected positions are unilateral. They are also far broader than those of most any other mayor.
For the vast majority of District 2 residents, this is likely the first they’re hearing of Sherrill. He may turn out to be a whiz at legislation and a sympathetic ear for all the problems District 2 residents bring to their elected representatives. But he is not well known among neighborhood groups, and has not yet made a palpable effort to become better known. Notably, Sherrill’s introductory press release quotes San Francisco royalty and a YIMBY, but no District 2 neighborhood leaders.
Separate and apart from his personal qualities and professional competencies, the series of political connections recounted earlier do not elicit great confidence in government.
By the next scheduled election in June 2026 (though it could potentially come sooner), this may not matter, if Sherrill turns out to be a fine public servant. He may yet establish a great rapport with Mayor-elect Daniel Lurie. Otherwise, he’s an easy target for an opposition researcher.
District 2 is one of the more old-school enclaves of the city. Rarely is a Yale University degree, which Sherrill possesses, a handicap. But for many D2 residents, “Yale” is not the correct answer to the age-old San Francisco question, “Whereja go to school?”
“Marina Middle School” might go down better. “Marina Middle School … with your goddaughters Theresa and Isabella” might go down better still. Sherrill does not have answers like those.
Mayor Breed won only four of the 47 precincts in District 2. She performed worse here than 2019 DA candidate Chesa Boudin — and he did not do well. Any associations with the deeply unpopular incumbent will not be helpful to her new District 2 supervisor, moving forward.
Sherrill’s YIMBY bona fides were appealing to Breed. Regardless of what one feels about constructing all levels of housing citywide, this will not put Sherrill in good stead with his constituents in the Marina, Jordan Park, Pacific Heights, etc. If the goal is passing pro-housing legislation leading up to the scheduled June 2026 election, that makes some sense. But, beyond that, trouble is brewing. A more well-known community candidate could’ve likely gotten away with not being on the same page as much of District 2 on development issues. But that’s not Sherrill.
Breed gave a long look at putting her former legislative aide Conor Johnston in the vacant District 2 seat. Johnston is a smart and experienced legislative hand, but he is also an emphatic, and even vitriolic, Breed partisan who has carved out a persona, both online and in person, as something of a professional wrestling heel of San Francisco politics.
Also relevant: He only just moved into District 2.
That the two apparent finalists for this position were Johnston and Sherrill does not, on its face, indicate an overriding level of respect or concern from the mayor for the voters of District 2, who have already indicated how they feel about her.
And while, again, there is nothing yet provably wrong here, today’s appointment carries the whiff of transactionality. It will be more than a mere whiff if Breed assumes a future role under the aegis of Bloomberg. Vamos a ver.
San Francisco’s mayor — again, clothed in immense power — has a uniquely free hand at making appointments.
“Of the ten cities surveyed here, no other city among the most populous grants total discretion for appointments, let alone without strict time parameters for action necessary, to one individual,” reads a 2013 San Francisco study on various cities’ processes for filling vacant elected positions.
“It is perhaps best summed that the City and County of San Francisco, when filling vacancies to publicly elected positions, takes action through Mayoral appointments that are unchecked in a manner that supersedes most all other governing body’s [sic] functions surveyed herein, including offices of considered ‘higher status’ at the statewide level.”
Well, that’s what it is to be a strong mayor in a strong mayor system: Nice work if you can get it. As for the discontents: The next scheduled election is June 2026.
I cannot help but notice the difference in tone today between the fawning and flattering piece on the new D9 supe Fielder and her staff. And this hit piece on Breed and the new D2 supe.
Can ML not accept that different parts of this city have radically different viewpoints? And that D2 and D9 are polar opposites in terms of ideology? Newsom was as much a product of D2 as Ammiano and Campos were of D9.
Can’t we all just get along?
Tom —
One of these is a news story about the Mission’s elected supervisor and the other is a column about District 2’s appointee. You’re right: There is a difference.
JE
I did not see a difference in tone between the two pieces.
I’d imagine that SF conservatives would feel uncomfortable with the conservative record of a conservative appointee who worked for a conservative billionaire mayor to a conservative district being published, and they are taking the inconvenient truth as an attack.
Perhaps the difference in tone comes down to 1), Fielder was overwhelmingly elected by her constituents in a blow out election, while this guy is being appointed by the outgoing (because she lost in a blowout) mayor in an rather obvious quid pro quo. and 2), because this is an opinion column, written by the guy who is by far the city’s most gifted political journalist.
Jack, thank you for advising me that ML, or at least this article, is an “opinion column”.
Obviously an editorial piece is allowed to demonstrate bias in a sense that an article purporting to be “news” is not.
I know that sources like 48 Hills and Fox News are propaganda organs with an ideological agenda. But I had assumed that ML was primarily a news source striving for objectivity and balance. Thank you for correcting my misperception.
Tom —
This is a reported column of the sort that has been appearing in newspapers for more than 100 years. It is very frustrating to receive media criticism from media illiterates. Please do better.
JE
When a centibillionaire drops a million dollars on a politician and a few months later said politician takes obsequious action, the tone is somber in its own right.
This whole article points out a non-issue. The mayor has the power to appoint. The voters in District 2 have the power to elect someone else in 2026 (or sooner, if they want to bother with a recall). This is precisely what happened in District 3 some years ago: David Chui left his supervisor district to join the California State Assembly. The Mayor (Lee?) appointed someone competent but without strong political backing from power brokers in the local district. Peskin then won his former seat back in the next election and served two more terms. Enough said.
Consider how this mayor making the appointment got her own appointments first. Payola. Look into it please. It’s AN ISSUE for sure.
The oligarchy continues.
There’s a lot of anger among progressives because of their shrinking power. Articles like this based on finger-pointing and self-imagined and hoped for conspiracies are one big reason for this. Lots of false accusations and name calling, but no resolutions for homelessness, crime, rampant drug abuse, or any of the real problems this city faces. If the biggest scandal we had I this town was London Breed making a desperate attempt to assert power because she somehow is paying back Bloomberg, I’d be so grateful.
Johnston did, in fact, move to D2 in order to get the job. Simply reaching out would’ve cleared that up.
Johnston is, in fact, a punk, not electable.
Alex —
The point I was trying to make was that Johnston was not, until very recently, a D2 resident. Of course you must reside in a district to represent a district, but an appointed supervisor doesn’t have to establish residency for even 30 days like an elected one — you just have to be living there when you’re sworn in.
I have altered the text to reflect that. But I do not think district residents would think “Oh, that’s fine. He just moved here very recently to get the appointment.”
Yours,
JE
“Why Stephen Sherrill?”
Payback for Bloomberg’s 1 Million donation to local corrupt politico.
Typical payola with a side of job-seeking by London Greed.
She has absolutely zero cares about the future of SF, it was always about herself. You can’t measure how glad I am she’s unemployed finally. Good riddance to trashy liars!
I’m late to this conversation. All I can say is that I lived in NYC during the Bloomberg administration and it was easily the most competent mayoral administration I’ve ever experienced in any city. So maybe 1 of 11 Supervisors who served in that Bloomberg administration can actually have a positive input on a very dysfunctional SF government.
I do not want the mayor to be able to unilaterally appoint Bloomberg private equity dudes to city governance. Just don’t like it. Nope. Just sayin’.
Breed had multiple conniptions because Supervisor Preston is white, but she has no problem with appointing white men as supervisors.
Conniptions? Care to elaborate?
Do you live under a rock or what? On multiple squirm worthy occasions during the 5 years Preston was D5 Supervisor, London Breed went off the rails at BofS public hearings when Preston called her crappy behavior like Breed’s practice of requiring her appointees to sign secret and undated letters of resignation, like her practice of deleting emails to do with public decision making as an elected, and her refusal to spend Prop C money on what the voters intended. Breed had public temper tantrums that were unfitting and un becoming of any elected leader. She abused the race card and more than once referred to Preston as a “white savior.” Good riddance.
After trashing Dean Preston for +5 years for being a white guy, Breed appointed yet another whiter than white DINO(democrat in name only).Breed started a whisper campaign that she was going to appoint Psycho Conor Johnston as new D2 but he lives in D8 and makes his $$ peddling weed and “Cookies.” Expedited permits for weed shops with armed security guards coming to a neighborhood near you. “Clean and safe” weed shops.
Johnston is a putz. He wouldn’t have lasted a day as a nominee. Go figure he was Breed’s chief of staff mostly because of his family connections to SF corruption.
It would have been SO AWESOME to see my frenemy Conor Johnston appointed to D2 supe.
I agree the “white savior” thing is distasteful. I can’t say from what you wrote whether the other stuff is evidence of racial animus or not. Your response is substantive, so thanks! To answer your question I live above ground in D1.
Yup. Dorsey too, although his conservative pro-war-on-drugs take on public safety unfortunately proved to resonate with the newly gerrymandered District 6.
D6
D6 was lost when Chris Daly was conflicted out of Eastern Neighborhoods upzonings for most all of D6 because Planning drew the lines to within 150′ of Daly’s condo. The progressive supes could have rejected that disenfranchisement of D6 voters, but they did not.
Peskin admitted that EN was a mistake although he ran for mayor on it this year. The progressives folded tent and signed onto upzonings in exchange for housing in-lieu fees and community benefits. The resulting influx into luxe condos permanently changed the demographics of D6 to more like D8.
Yet another unforced error.
Bloomberg was a very effective
Mayor.
He was followed by the trainwreck
Known as deblasio..
If sherill has even half the know how
Bloomberg had, it’s a smart choice.
Bloomberg was a good mayor, following the steps and policies of Giuliani who reduced NYC crime by 80%. In fact, Giuliani’s anti crime policies transformed NYC. As you rightfully pointed out, the demise began with de Blasio and continues to this day. Bloomberg was known to be a tough boss so hopefully Sherrill is a good choice for the district.
Hi Julia —
By and large, not only is crime lower than in Giuliani’s last years, it’s *far* lower. But don’t take my word for it, here are the NYPD numbers:
https://www.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/historical-crime-data/seven-major-felony-offenses-2000-2023.pdf
Crime was also *far* lower under De Blasio than Giuliani. That doesn’t make De Blasio a good mayor or even a decent one. But it does make you think.
Best,
JE
An expert on nyc politics *and* sf politics, spanning decades, wow! It’s an honor to read your comment.
The Blagojevich tapes were amazing because it was an insider view of political negotiations. Sure he was brash and crass, but that doesn’t change the game. Blago went to prison, Pritzker – captured on the juiciest tape – went to the Governor’s mansion.
https://youtu.be/-Aju46LA-kQ?feature=shared
Yep. And across the Governor’s Mansion are homeless, toothless beggars, more homeless sleeping on the steps of Abraham Lincoln’s library. Sounds familiar?
Bzzt.
Campers,
Joe pretty much has the category of … how do I put this ? …
Smartest, best informed, independent, hardest working, best connected and accessible political journalist in San Francisco.
That’s why the comments following his work are best in City.
Like many here (my, there are some gray beards) have followed his work faithfully since his SF Weekly days.
That pub and Guardian and Examiner and new Standard are all controlled now by super wealthy males who have culled their staff and the opinions of brilliant readers like me by firing staff and removing Chat Features in the one-way flow of their bullshit.
Even Tim Redmond won’t face his readership Keyboard to Keyboard and maybe he never did and it was always Brugman’s call to allow threads that ran into the hundreds.
Ahhhh, where was I when I interrupted myself ?
Oh yeah, in my always less than humble opinion the two greatest Joe’s to ever come out of San Francisco are Dimaggio and Eskenazi.
Happy holidays to y’all from dis ole dawg and De Renzo and Skippy.
Go Niners !!
h.