Election Recap: A San Francisco Election Shake-up – a Couple Big "Ws" and a Few Missed Opportunities

The ConnectedSF team worked tirelessly to support the momentum for change in San Francisco. We're proud to have reached nearly 100,000 households with our CSF Voter Guide, hosted a well-attended Ballot Explainer event and conducted extensive text messaging outreach. Our mission was simple: empower voters with clear information about common-sense candidates and measures that could help reform city government.

While some results gave us reason to celebrate and others reminded us that change never comes easily, one thing is clear – San Francisco's spirit of reinvention remains strong.

Per usual, San Francisco’s ballot was long; consequently, so is our analysis. Buckle up – we saw some battle royales out there this time ‘round!

As we break down the election's “Good, Bad and Ugly,” one thing is clear: true progress often requires persistence, and our City's best chapters may still lie ahead.

Election Highlights:

  • City Hall gets a much-needed shake-up!

  • Crime is illegal again – and it’s about time!

  • Accountability makes a comeback.

  • SF loves to spend taxpayer dollars, while the rest of the state shows more common sense.

  • The Westside loses its fight for the Great Highway.

Come January, the new Board of Supervisors:

D1: Connie Chan — Far Left

D2: Mayor Breed will appoint Catherine Stefani’s replacement after she leaves for the Assembly — likely, and we are hopeful, a Moderate

D3: Danny Sauter — Left

D4: Joel Engardio — Moderate

D5: Bilal Mahmood — Far Left

D6: Matt Dorsey — Moderate

D7: Myrna Melgar — Far Left

D8: Rafael Mandelman — Left

D9: Jackie Fielder — Left of Lenin

D10: Shaman Walton — Far Left

D11: Chyanne Chen — Far Left

The Good

Mayor’s Race

If the theme of this election was “out with the old and in with the new,” then nothing says that more vividly than the ousting of Mayor London Breed, the repudiation of City Hall insiders, like Supervisors Aaron Peskin and Ahsha Safaí, and the election of Daniel Lurie to be the City’s 46th Mayor. Lurie’s outsider status was a clear advantage in a city desperate to steer San Francisco in a different direction. He managed to thread the needle successfully to capture the necessary second-choice votes, while retaining more first-choice votes than even he expected.

We tip our hats to Daniel Lurie and his campaign staff for waging a fair and strategic operation and are appreciative of every forward-thinking voter whose priority was to seek significant change and a big win in City Hall. This shot of new blood – and a clean, fresh slate – gives us hope and and a reason to be excited about the positive changes coming to our City. Let’s allow ourselves some hard-earned optimism, as we support the mayor-elect in his efforts to shepherd us through to a new age of accountability, transparency and effective government for all.

Prop M

Prop M was a big ”W” for small businesses and, to a certain extent, larger ones, too. Our small business community had been sounding the alarm for ages about being unable to continue staying afloat with the city environment so unstable and inhospitable. While medium-sized businesses will bear the brunt of this new tax scheme, it was a real boost for the majority of struggling businesses, and we’re all hopeful this will draw more commerce to our ghost town – oops, we mean downtown. This was a case of not letting the “perfect” get in the way of the “good enough,” and we are glad voters made it happen.

Plus, Prop M Killed Prop L

Prop M’s brilliant success meant the failure of Prop L. Unbeknownst to most voters, M served as a “poison pill” to L; all M had to do was receive more votes than L, and it would automatically prevail. This win is a two-fer: not only is M good for business, while L is not, but L also would have done nothing to help its stated purpose to “save the bus.” The paltry sum L would’ve generated would not have made a dent in the massive budget shortfall MUNI currently faces, which would have forced the agency to call taxpayers to its rescue again in 2026.

Seems like San Franciscans have had enough of transit agencies spending their money on bike lanes and slow streets, while allowing our public transit infrastructure to sink further into disrepair. Our transit agencies must fortify the public transit systems first before SF can be a transit-first city.

Prop C

Accountability remains the name of the game with this prop and, as one of only a few groups that endorsed this measure, we're delighted it passed. With four separate government agencies authorized to tackle corruption, it seems that none of them thinks it's their job. Prop C creates an Inspector General position centralized under the Controller and focused solely on government waste, fraud and corruption. Given the scandalous climate during this election cycle, we wager our new IG will be very, very busy. Will hope to see an end to the rampant corruption and grift that has become the hallmark of SF politics? Fingers crossed.

Prop 36

Californians continued voting their accountability conscience up and down the State, and nowhere was this seen more acutely than in the passage of Prop 36. Everyday Californians, fatigued by an escalation in city-wide crime and weakened penalties, made crime illegal again by supporting harsher penalties for repeat offenders. Let's face it – the plague that is fentanyl is unlike anything we've ever seen before, and its consequences have been taking our City down a treacherous path for years. Passing Prop 36 to crack down harder on dealers and treat this deadly drug more seriously was a move that was, frankly, long overdue. Its devastating impact on our communities left us no other choice.

Prop 36 delivers another crucial win: implementing the main tenets of Alexandra's Law – a measure with strong bipartisan support, but previously blocked by the CA State Senate's Public Safety Committee. In its original form, Alexandra’s Law would have required the courts to warn people convicted of distributing certain illicit drugs that they could be convicted of homicide, if a person were to die as a result of their dissemination of those drugs. Kind of mind-blowing that the courts are required to give similar admonishment to convicted drunk drivers, yet the California State Senate Public Safety Committee felt it was too “nuclear a warning” for CONVICTED fentanyl dealers. Thankfully, CA voters disagreed.

EVERY county in the State voted to pass Prop 36, despite the efforts of the Governor and the legislature to keep it off the ballot. We should all ask ourselves: why the disconnect? And are our leaders even listening?

We look forward to sharply curbing would-be criminal behavior, holding criminals accountable, providing addicts with greater access to the treatment they need and enabling stores to stay open and be free from the effects of repeated shoplifting. To echo Bill Maher, “Californians decided it was time to lock up the criminals, not the toothpaste.”

Prop 33

Sometimes, the third time is not a charm, and we have never been luckier than that being true for Prop 33. So, can we please let expanding rent control efforts be thwarted for the foreseeable future?!

If you are concerned about housing in San Francisco, we are happy that you recognized Prop 33 was a terrible idea. Prop 33 would have given local governments significant power to limit residential rent prices, including for first-time tenants. Prop 33 wouldn’t have forced local governments to build more affordable housing, and it would not have provided any immediate relief to people facing homelessness. Even worse, Prop 33 did not contain any specific protections for renters, seniors, veterans or the disabled.

The only impact of this terribly written prop would be to eliminate basic rights for property owners and negatively impact the housing market and new construction. This is not the direction California needs to go with housing or rent right now. Well done, again, voters!

Prop 5

This measure aimed to make it easier for local governments to increase taxes by lowering the voting threshold required to pass local bonds – from a 2/3 majority to 55%. Once again, we see CA voters demanding accountability – this time by denying our leaders the ability to raise taxes more easily. Clearly, the majority of State voters correctly assessed that giving fiscally irresponsible elected officials carte blanche to reach into our wallets was not in their best interests. Inexplicably, however, San Francisco voted in favor of giving more power to our elected officials to take our money – 🤯🤯🤯. Fortunately, SF was wildly outvoted, and CA saved SF from itself.

Politicians have become annoyed that voters won’t always give them what they want, whenever they want it. Consequently, their solution was not to govern better or spend money more wisely, it was to pass measures to ensure they could raise the money with fewer impediments.

Despite how inundated voters were by the gigantic ballot explanation booklets that came in the mail and the onslaught of targeted advertising, Californians sent a clear message to our electeds that we are finished rubber-stamping their fiscal incompetence. Looks like the voters closed their wallets to a government spending spree. Whew!

THE BAD

Supervisors Races

For the first time in a long time, the City had a shot at voting in some fresh new supervisor faces who espoused creative, exciting ideas, but, for some reason, many districts took a perplexing “pass” on recasting City Hall. Maybe some saw SF’s many ills as a product of Mayor Breed’s failed policies rather than pointing fingers at the current Board of Supervisors. Or maybe voting in a new “outsider” mayor was all the change voters could muster at once. Regardless, the composition of the new BOS is looking, at best, like more of the status quo and, at worst, even more left-leaning than the Board we have until Inauguration Day.

Our friends at the Briones Society provided a helpful layperson’s breakdown of the current BOS versus what we can expect from the new BOS going forward. We modified it slightly and for our purposes here, Moderate = reliably pro-public and in favor of public safety and law enforcement.

Current Board of Supervisors:

D1: Connie Chan — Far Left

D2: Catherine Stefani — Moderate

D3: Aaron Peskin — Far Left

D4: Joel Engardio — Moderate

D5: Dean Preston — Left of Lenin

D6: Matt Dorsey — Moderate

D7: Myrna Melgar — Far Left

D8: Rafael Mandelman — Left

D9: Hillary Ronen —Left of Lenin

D10 Shamann Walton — Far Left

D11: Ahsha Safai — Far Left

Moderate = 3 Supes, Left = 1 Supe, Far Left = 5 Supes, Left of Lenin = 2 Supes

Come January, the new Board:

D1: Connie Chan — Far Left

D2: Mayor Breed will appoint Catherine Stefani’s replacement after she leaves for the Assembly — likely, and we are hopeful, a Moderate

D3: Danny Sauter — Left

D4: Joel Engardio — Moderate

D5: Bilal Mahmood — Far Left

D6: Matt Dorsey — Moderate

D7: Myrna Melgar — Far Left

D8: Rafael Mandelman — Left

D9: Jackie Fielder — Left of Lenin

D10: Shaman Walton — Far Left

D11: Chyanne Chen — Far Left

Moderate = 2 Supes + 1 hopeful, Left = 2 Supes, Far Left = 5 Supes, Left of Lenin = 1 Supe

While some are claiming a “moderate” victory, all we can say is, “Yikes!” We’re finding it difficult to see from our vantage point that the new Board will reliably support any of the issues most important to CSF members: public safety, a looming $1B budget deficit and transportation policies that work for everyone. We passed up a rare opportunity to elect candidates who could dig the City out of the same failed policies it’s been buried under for years and years – if only we’d voted out the incumbents…from the state senator race on down the ballot. One thing looks certain: we may have missed our chance to bring the BOS back to the center, where common-sense legislation might have prevailed.

The reality is that the “moderate coalition” groups that held together through the 2022 recalls and November ‘22 and March ‘24 elections each saw too much potential for solidifying their own influence and power this November, and they took it at the expense of the City. With so many battles to wage (Prop D, Prop K, the mayor's race, etc.), each group jockeyed exclusively for its own success, supported measures and cherry-picked candidates who would elevate that group’s status. With such a packed ballot and fractured moderate machine, it became impossible to ensure that moderate candidates, like Marjan Philhour or Matt Boschetto, prevailed.

Prop F

Support for full police staffing support failed. This is a head-scratcher, given the pro-law enforcement momentum coming out of the March election and the success of Prop 36. Our guess is that if this initiative had not been hijacked by Safaí, and to a certain extent Stefani, and had been allowed to proceed on the March 2024 ballot, it would have passed. The window for this measure was decidedly March, and our politicians playing bad politics destroyed its chances.

The question this raises? Why is SF willing to allow first responders, such as our firefighters, 911 operators and nurses, more leniency and freedom to tap into the retirement fund as a way of recruiting and retaining them, but the same was not afforded our police officers, who we also desperately need? It seems like we repeatedly speak out of both sides of our mouth – we refuse to commit to supporting a fully staffed SFPD on the one hand, but we crave safer streets, a stop to anti-Asian violence and an end to the hemorrhaging of our SFPD staffing on the other. Common sense looks further away than ever before. If we aspire to safer streets, less criminal activity and more community policing, we need to vote for measures that help recruit and retain police officers. This was a missed opportunity for our collective public safety.

THE UGLY

Prop K

This was, by far, the most controversial measure on the ballot. Why? Because nothing divides a neighborhood (or city) more than shutting down a major thoroughfare that people use every day to drive their kids to school or themselves to work, and need for access to important services, like the hospital or local businesses. Instead, Prop K was a victory for the elitist few who now can use the Upper Great Highway as their personal promenade, driving home their point that recreation should take precedence over daily living.

What we saw in the fight over Prop K was a clash between affluent, self-interested, ideological activists and everyday San Franciscans – working families, small business owners, seniors and people with disabilities – whose lives will be negatively impacted by the longer commutes, more traffic headaches, quiet streets becoming cut-through zones and decreased access to business corridors.

The ultimate success of Prop K was based not on public support but on backroom deals and deliberate sidestepping of the democratic process. This measure, designed to overturn an accepted compromise, should never have been included on a Citywide ballot – and it has fueled local constituents' anger and a sense of helplessness that the rest of the City could have a say in what happens just outside their front door. The fact that the messaging coming out of the pro-K machine was full of inaccuracies, misrepresentations, promises and demonstrable dishonesty did not help.

Behind the Yes on Prop K campaign stood a powerful alliance: Joel Engardio, Myrna Melgar and other supervisors who quietly pushed through a ballot measure they knew would anger many Westside constituents, along with Abundant SF, KidSafeSF and the Bike Coalition who brought their money, manpower and social media machine. This group mastered their game plan, blindsiding the neighborhoods most affected.

But here's the thing: their strategy, while effective, is turning neighborhoods upside down. They've perfected their playbook for outmaneuvering residents, and unless we wake up to these tactics, they'll keep running this play for years to come.

What started as temporary COVID street closures has evolved into something far more concerning: shutting down major roads based on flawed surveys, performative community input sessions and an adherence to a transportation ideology that serves only a small percentage of residents.

What has unfolded over the last four years is a cautionary tale for the future:

  1. In March 2020, when the world shut down, an already ideological, anti-car SFMTA acted swiftly and shut down a handful of streets – creating “slow streets.” This was a great idea in some circumstances – in neighborhoods with very little greenspace – but they also closed essential thoroughfares located adjacent to (Lake Street) and even within (JFK in Golden Gate Park and a handful of large thoroughfares in the Presidio) large parks.

  2. Most residents expected these streets would reopen after the lockdown was lifted. When they weren’t, and the slow-street phenomena continued, neighbors were forced to create pressure groups, like Open Lake Street and Open the Great Highway, to fight for these already safe (with wide sidewalks and bike lanes), yet critical, streets to be re-opened.

  3. Simultaneously, a collection of anti-car groups and politicians decided that nearly 1.5 miles of JFK Drive should be closed permanently to cars, taking 1,000 free parking spaces with it. With the support of Mayor Breed, politicians and special interest groups put Prop J on the November 2022 ballot. It passed.

  4. In November 2022 after the loss of Prop I, a compromise pilot program was negotiated, such that the Upper Great Highway would remain closed to vehicle traffic on weekends but would open during the week to cars. (This program was supposed to last through 2025 and then be reevaluated with community input.)

  5. Meanwhile, Mayor Breed, after striking a compromise with Open Lake Street to end its slow-street status, revoked this agreement after Prop J passed. Even with SFMTA stacking the deck with survey questions favoring street closure, the majority of Lake Street residents (and their neighbors) still voted to reopen their street. (Coincidentally, the founders of Abundance SF and KidSafe SF were seated in the front row at the next Mayoral State of the City address just a few months later and went on to support her failed mayoral campaign.)

  6. Fast forward to 2024 – having learned from the rancorous battles over street closures, this time the anti-car coalition took a different approach with the Upper Great Highway. Rather than honor the 2022 compromise, they orchestrated including Prop K on the November ballot, pushing for permanent 24/7 closure. With at least five supervisors among their supporters, they were able to put Prop K on the ballot without lifting a finger to collect signatures. The same propaganda strategy that proved so effective with JFK Drive was in place well before most Westside residents even knew they would be blindsided by Prop K – filing at the last possible deadline and leaving Sunset and Richmond residents with minimal time to mount an opposition.

This is not how our democratic process is supposed to work and has left many feeling frustrated and, worse, helpless. Our supervisors have a duty to serve the residents and businesses in their districts, not pander to ideological, paternalistic special interests and donors.

By catering to the most extreme positions on transit, housing and environmental issues, some of our city leaders have created a perfect storm of radical transportation policies. The irony? Once people realize what's happening, this overreach may end up damaging the very causes they claim to champion.

So, sure, the anti-car coalition won this battle, but at what cost? They're turning neighbor against neighbor, district against district. And while it might look like just another bikes-versus-cars showdown, this runs deeper and could have serious consequences for our City's future. This crusade – wrapped in rhetoric about lifestyle choices, mobility and privilege – threatens to undo San Francisco's recent progress toward more moderate, practical policies.

LOOKING FORWARD

San Francisco's November 2024 election resulted in both much-needed progress and the revelation that persistent challenges still exist. The election of outsider Daniel Lurie as mayor signals voters' desire for meaningful change, while measures like Prop M supporting small businesses and Prop C creating an Inspector General position demonstrate a clear appetite for accountability and reform.

However, the path forward isn't without obstacles. The new Board of Supervisors composition could suggest continued political gridlock and ongoing tensions between different visions for the City's future, particularly around housing and transportation

Yet San Francisco's story has always been one of resilience and reinvention. While change can be messy and contentious, this election demonstrates that San Franciscans remain committed to finding solutions to their City's challenges. With new leadership, strengthened oversight measures and continued civic engagement, San Francisco is positioning itself for a promising new chapter – even if the journey there requires patience and perseverence.