It’s the 100th day of the Mayor Daniel Lurie administration and, while some things are new at City Hall — namely, a collegial relationship between the mayor and the Board of Supervisors — the new mayor owes much of his record so far to his predecessor, according to a Mission Local analysis: Of the nine substantial pieces of legislation passed or initiated by the Lurie administration since Jan. 8, six of them were initiated under former Mayor London Breed.
Mission Local tracked all of Lurie’s substantive acts in his first 100 days; everything excluding routine acts like expending grants, or symbolic gestures. Of the laws he has passed or proposed, only three were not tied to Breed.
Those are: Lurie’s first piece of legislation, a signature ordinance to expand his powers over contracting to address homelessness and mental health issues; a proposed ordinance to pay for police overtime (Breed routinely approved extra police overtime, too); and his proposal to solicit private donations to pay for fire trucks.
The carryover from the Breed administration is much longer:
- A law to spur office-to-residential-unit conversions, namely by waiving costs like inclusionary housing fees, an effort that has been in motion since Oct. 15, 2024.
- The Cole Valley “entertainment zone” introduced Dec. 10, 2024.
- Another five entertainment zones, part of a program that also started last year
- The renewal of the “First Year Free” program that waives the cost of registration and related fees for new businesses, created in 2021 by Breed, then-Supervisor Hillary Ronen and Treasurer José Cisneros.
- SoMa zoning changes to allow for more housing, legislation that was introduced last year.
- The upzoning plan that increases building heights across San Francisco’s western neighborhoods, a signature Breed policy that Lurie expanded upon by further increasing proposed height limits and density decontrol.
Lurie is not always taking credit for Breed’s accomplishments, but he is clocking in those wins: He has touted low crime rates and high Muni ridership rates (from last year), and listed his legislative wins (whether he initiated them or not) on his 100 day “progress report.”
Lurie also appears to be taking some ideas from his mayoral opponent Mark Farrell, namely by welcoming Waymo to Market Street. Farrell said bringing cars back to Market Street would help boost downtown, an idea Lurie cribbed when he said, “This is about revitalizing downtown.”
Lurie has also endorsed state legislation, but that is also tied to past initiatives, including a bill to address illegal street vending that was first proposed last year, and state legislation to spur the creation of nightlife venues in San Francisco, part of a years-long effort.
Executive orders, like a new permitting initiative and enforcement of “troubled spots” across the city, including 16th and Mission streets and Sixth and Market streets, have also been similar to Breed’s MO. Except that Lurie appears to be visiting the troubled zones far more frequently.
“The Breed administration of the last six months, policy-wise, is difficult to distinguish from the Lurie administration of the first 100 days,” said Eric Jaye, a veteran political consultant. After all, both Lurie and Breed ran similar campaigns.
“In all fairness to him, I don’t think he ran a campaign where he said, ‘I’m going to have vastly different policies than under London Breed,’” added former board president Aaron Peskin, also a 2024 mayoral candidate. “I don’t think there’s been a bait and switch here.”
“His policies are the same; whether he’s implementing them efficiently or better is purely to tell,” Peskin added.
But, Lurie staffers say, the important change, thus far, is how Lurie is implementing his agenda: Working well in coalition with others, at least during the honeymoon phase, and enjoying broader public support. Twice as many San Franciscans say the city is on the right track under Lurie as they did in Breed’s final year: 43 percent vs. 22 percent, according to a Chamber of Commerce poll.
“Mayor Breed did not have the political allies nor the support from voters to get things done,” said John Whitehurst, a political consultant.
That political and popular buy-in may be crucial to actually implement his agenda, even if it isn’t new.
“Credit-taking is a political art form, and people can pull it off without being resented,” added Rich DeLeon, a San Francisco State University emeritus professor, who recalled many instances of former mayors celebrating the achievements of those who preceded them.
The new mayor, for his part, knows as much. “Getting through this painful period of tough decisions requires a change in the culture of politics that has held us back for too long,” Lurie said during a press conference to mark his 100 days in office on Thursday, speaking specifically about upcoming budget cuts. “Over the last 100 days, we have started to break down the invisible wall that has existed between the two sides of City Hall for decades.”
“I’m incredibly proud of what we’re building, but I’m not satisfied,” he added. “Today is not a victory lap; it’s a progress report.”
“In all fairness to him, I don’t think he ran a campaign where he said, ‘I’m going to have vastly different policies than under London Breed,’” added former board president Aaron Peskin, also a 2024 mayoral candidate. “I don’t think there’s been a bait and switch here.”
“His policies are the same; whether he’s implementing them efficiently or better is purely to tell,” Peskin added.
Is that supposed to read “too early?” instead of “purely?”
I think all too many here may be confused about what the voter’s number 1 top priority was in the last election: better results on crime, clean streets, and reducing homelessness/addiction. You can toss that moderate vs. progressive war into the bay on the outgoing tide. People want the City to just do its job – and to do it well.
“Mayor Breed did not have the political allies nor the support from voters to get things done,” – Because Breed is a shameless liar who played politics with every single thing she did, and her record of lies caught up with her. Remember who backed her doing so.
The reason Mayor Breed was not reelected was not because her concept of governing San Francisco was wrong. It was because she did not do it. That is, she did not do it until the election season began. By then, it was too little, too late.
Kelly, I think that your shock that many of Breed’s policies remain may be misplaced.
Although Breed lost, the result was not a wholesale rejection of moderate centrist policies. Rather it was a statement by the voters that Lurie could do a better job of executing those policies.
As such it was not a “revolutionary” vote. Had the voters wanted a more left-wing set of policies they would have elected Peskin instead.
Rather, the message was “stick to the core values but do a better job of implementing them”. The BofS elections were in fact more radical – the message was that the Board should be more moderate and more aligned with the Mayor.
The word “moderate” has so little meaning in this context, even as you pretend to apply it to an outmoded Left-Right paradigm that doesn’t really apply in SF. That’s what the recall-pushers used to describe themselves in 2020. It’s for “lukewarm” intellects, it means they’ll bend any which way the wind blows their pile of campaign money, no matter who blows it that way. Lurie was a rejection of Breed’s “moderate” BS, and he promised a new SF that looked nothing like what the “moderate” goons’ representation bought us for 4 years.
And Peskin isn’t even particularly “left-wing” in defending the rights of renters who make up over 1/2 of the city – because he also defends property owner interests at the same time. If anything Peskin was the true moderate of the previous BOS, standing up to Breed’s circuses and power grabs and defending his constituents’ interests in his district, working with his fellow supervisors the while. Whereas “Moderate” Engardio is facing a recall and the prospect of getting a job because he, like Breed, is a craven political liar and their time is over in SF, at least for the moment. “Moderate” means nothing useful in this context, just another shade of beige PR.
The reality however is that Lurie’s policies do not represent a true departure from Breed’s, which is the article’s position as well. Lurie is also pro-business, pro-SFPD, tough on crime, drugs and homelessness, and so on. The 2024 vote was a rejection of Breed’s personal style but not of her policy instincts.
Leftist or not, Peskin was the 2024 protest vote for change, and he lost badly. Anyone who expected more “progressive” policies from Lurie was always going to be disappointed. The glory days of Ammiano, Daly, Campos, Avalos, Preston, Ronen etc. are long gone.
Bullshit Left vs Right analysis again.
He still has to manage the City’s deficit and he’s pissing off the union. Things are about to get tough. He declared a hiring freeze and yet the City continues to hire. Make it make sense.