City Hall Digest: Why is the City of San Francisco Boycotting 30 States? Plus: #ToiletGate

City Hall Digest is TogetherSF Action’s weekly dispatch from San Francisco’s City Hall, broken into bite-sized pieces—because understanding local government is your right (and duty!).

$1.7 Million Toilet Project Is a Microcosm of Governmental Dysfunction

A column in The San Francisco Chronicle calling attention to the city’s exorbitant spending on a single public toilet went viral last week as politicos and residents alike balked at the price tag and the two-to-three-year timeline. The column outlined the tedious review process for the project, which included an architect drawing up a custom plan, subject to community review; a multi-phase review by the San Francisco Arts Commission; review by the Rec and Park Commission; and a review by the Board of Supervisors. That’s all before the project is even put up to be bid on by contractors, and doesn’t even get into the additional time added to the project by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) laws.

Our Executive Director Kanishka Cheng worked on the original Noe Valley Town Square project when she was a city planner, so she’s seen this type of dysfunction up close. “No one’s in charge,” she told The Chronicle in a follow-up piece. “Nobody’s coordinating with each other. Nobody’s seeing the priority as delivering the project quickly, efficiently, under budget and on time.”

The follow-up piece also pointed out that while this is the first time a story about a $1.7 million toilet has gone viral, it’s actually not the first time San Francisco has paid that much for a single public toilet. The lesson? We have to start paying closer attention.

Performance Does Not Equal Progress: City Boycotts 30 U.S. States

In 2016, in response to a slew of states enacting anti-LGBT laws, Supervisors Scott Wiener, David Campos, and Mark Farrell authored legislation that banned city-funded travel to those states. This legislation also prevented the City of San Francisco from doing business with any companies headquartered in those states. This blanket ban was later expanded twice to include states with restrictive abortion (2020) and voting laws (2022). All told, the City of San Francisco technically can’t do business with companies in 30 states. 

Despite the ban, city departments have been granting waivers to allow some business with partners in banned states to continue, to the tune of $791 million worth of contracts and purchase orders. But the ban has still stymied progress on projects, according to a new letter from Supervisors Rafael Mandelman, Catherine Stefani, Aaron Peskin, Hillary Ronen and Ahsha Safaí to the City Administrator’s office. The fact that the City must apply for a waiver to get around the ban adds significant bureaucracy and costs, and the fact of the ban itself limits bidder competition. 

The letter also points out that the ban hasn’t been effective, as it has failed to pressure those state governments to change their policies. The intention behind this was good, but the negative impact on San Francisco far outweighs the benefit. This is a good opportunity to remember to demand that our elected officials display our Californian values in ways that actually move the needle on the biggest issues San Franciscans care about like housing, education, safety, and economic opportunity.

Poll Shows Voters Are Angry With Elected Officials—And They Want Accountability 

A new voter poll taken by the San Francisco Standard reports that San Franciscans blame elected officials for the city’s biggest problems like homelessness, lack of social services, low-performing schools, and crime. The poll cites low approval ratings for the mayor and board of supervisors, rising support for building more housing across the city, and relatively strong voter support for District Attorney Brooke Jenkins, who is running to keep her seat.

San Francisco voters have not ousted an elected incumbent supervisor in 20 years. This poll, coupled with this year’s recall elections, indicates that voters may have finally had enough with the status quo.

City College in Desperate Need of New Path Forward

There are two opportunities for voters to help right the sinking ship that is City College on San Franciscans’ ballot this November. City College should be a place for young adults to earn a free college degree and for adults of all ages to continue their education. Right now, it’s hanging by a thread: it’s facing a $7 million deficit, struggling to maintain accreditation, and has seen a 66 percent decline in enrollment since 2012. (It’s worth noting that, in a rare instance of positive news for the institution, CCSF’s bond rating—i.e., how well they can pay their debts—was upgraded by Moody’s from a “negative” rating to a “stable” one yesterday.) 

This November, there are four open seats on the school’s seven-member board of trustees and there’s also a ballot measure that would funnel taxpayer money to the school. We’re recommending Jill Yee and Dr. Murrell Green for the board, but we’re recommending a no vote on Prop O—the funds created by the prop wouldn’t address the school’s core issues because the measure was authored by the special interests currently responsible for the incompetence at the institution. 

Paid for by TogetherSF Action. Not authorized by any candidate or a committee controlled by a candidate. Financial disclosures are available at sfethics.org.