Candidate Night at Bookshop West Portal
Daniel Lurie and Mark Farrell Speak to West Portal
Editor’s Note:The Westside Observer does not endorse candidates or issues, opinions of its authors and reporters are their own, not the Westside Observer.
• • • • • • • • • • October 2014 • • • • • • • • • •
Bookshop West Portal was the gathering spot for its “Meet a Mayoral Candidate,” an opportunity to greet West Portal residents and answer questions in an informal format. Candidates Mark Farrell and Daniel Lurie both spoke at the neighborhood bookshop and attracted considerable audience attendance. This article will present the events in order of appearance.
Mark Farrell
Bookshop West Portal was crowded with curious and politically minded attendees the evening of Saturday, October 5th, in anticipation of the beginning of the store’s second “Meet the Candidate” event. Supervisor and Interim-Mayor Mark Farrell took the hour to introduce himself and his political platform to the residents of West Portal.
The night was structured very similarly to the first event in the series (a short presentation made by the candidate followed by a round of questions from the audience on a range of subjects) with the one exception—allowing the audience to ask questions as they arose to create an open dialogue between citizen and candidate.
After briefly shaking hands and chatting with some familiar attendees, Farrell showed the fluency of a candidate who has told his story many times over. A born and raised San Franciscan, he grew up on the Presidio Army Base – his father was in the military when he met his mother – and he lived most of his life in San Francisco, where he and his wife continue to raise their children. He spoke about his twenty-year career in the private sector—first as an attorney in Silicon Valley, then in finance in the City where he started his own investment firm in 2009—as well as his six-month term as interim-mayor after the passing of former Mayor Ed Lee, making a not-so-veiled jab at Mayor London Breed for allowing SFPD to deteriorate and subsequently highlighting his toughness on clearing homeless encampments from the sidewalks.
Farrell believes the greatest opportunity for increasing housing is to up-zone the downtown, south of Market corridor, building dense housing and converting some of the empty office space into housing units, comparing the potential of revitalizing the area to the revival of downtown Manhattan post 9/11.”
Farrell pivoted to the fentanyl crisis that has permeated the City, calling the current policy of harm reduction a failure to significantly save lives from overdoses vs. treatment for the problems of addiction and drug availability. He connected the subject to San Francisco’s sluggish economy and the corporate desertion of the storefronts and office buildings downtown, citing that post-pandemic, employees are much more reluctant to work in-office, partially because they feel endangered when walking the streets of the financial district. In other words, solving the problem of drug use and trafficking (and the homelessness it can create) would be the beginning of a South-of-Market renaissance.
His plan for bringing businesses and people alike back to the financial district is to “up-zone” the “core 10 office buildings”, contending that “we’re not going to fill up all the existing office space with employers as they were before [the pandemic],” especially given the number of employees who choose the option to work remotely. Instead, Farrell proposes turning the vacant offices into residential space, as well as demolishing surrounding old, unsafe buildings in order to build new spaces for residents and small businesses. His overall vision for South of Market is a busy and populated dual residential-financial district that’s attractive to businesses and families alike. He ended on that same note – wanting to keep and bring families back to San Francisco.
The first audience question of the evening was about public safety and his plan to make places like the Tenderloin or Market St. safer for residents. He answered by invoking the various law enforcement branches that he would rebuild (SFPD) or request the presence of (i.e. National Guard) to adequately police neighborhoods. He broadly addressed the fentanyl crisis as a reason to request assistance from federal law enforcement to close the open-air drug markets and arrest and deport undocumented drug traffickers.
The prospect of federal intervention caused a bit of a stir in the audience—one bringing up concerns about San Francisco’s status as a Sanctuary City and the possibility that any undocumented migrant could get caught up in a federal crackdown. Farrell repeated that deportations would only target drug dealers. He wholly supports S.F.’s status as a Sanctuary City, but the feeling that such a plan would be playing with fire remained. (For those wondering, a Sanctuary City has no legal authority to prevent federal law enforcement from detaining and deporting undocumented migrants.)
The related issue— his plan for managing unsheltered people who overdose subsequently arose. One of his policies in addressing the drug crisis is to mandate 72-hour detox holds for those who have been revived with Narcan after a fentanyl overdose (state law enables the City to detain repeat drug users for up to 47 days). However, there are flaws in this particular plan, one of which is that these detox holds would take place in prison hospital wards instead of public health facilities. That’s an idea that seems anathema to the recovery of mental health, considering the trauma an incarceration can cause. Once the 72-hour hold has expired, patients go into a system of long-term treatment and care at a main crisis center (which Farrell intends to build) or another treatment facility before going to trial for the offense of possession of an illegal substance.
The next several questions spanned a range of subjects, including how he would set himself apart from the other mayoral candidates and what he would do to mitigate the effects of the climate crisis (he somehow ended up talking about housing, small businesses, and public transportation) and his plans to improve the SFMTA, a subject that drew sighs from himself and the audience. To this point, he, like Aaron Peskin, acknowledged the disconnect between city residents and the current SFMTA administration, that there needs to be room for collaborative dialogue. Improvements would include firing and replacing the current SFMTA director, ceasing plans for unnecessary projects in favor of reducing the SFMTA deficit, updating MUNI’s operating software to a system from this century (literally), and ensuring MUNI riders pay their fares.
One of the last questions of the evening tackled the city housing crisis and what to do about providing more affordable housing units. Farrell believes the greatest opportunity for increasing housing is to up-zone the downtown, south of Market corridor, building dense housing and converting some of the empty office space into housing units, comparing the potential of revitalizing the area to the revival of downtown Manhattan post 9/11. However, Farrell gave a less-than-convincing answer when it came to affordable housing. He contends that building more housing will naturally force the average price to go down. Still, he didn’t speak about what measures he would take—if any—to ensure that builders don’t artificially inflate the numbers.
In terms of new housing with guaranteed affordable units, he stated that despite the thousands of new units San Francisco has in the pipeline, the planning and permitting process is so long and complicated that it prevents building new complexes. As mayor, he would ensure that the process is streamlined so that contractors can start building in a reasonable amount of time.
He cited that with the housing market as it currently is, building affordable housing essentially guarantees that the builder loses money. Although he said he had a plan for balancing out these losses, he did not go into detail. Even with his sound analysis of the barriers preventing more affordable or market-rate housing, he gave the impression that increasing affordable housing units specifically is a secondary priority.
Farrell wrapped up the night by answering a question about the SFUSD and the support he would give it as mayor. Because the school board is independently elected, city officials cannot directly interfere with policy, but in working alongside the district, he would do as much as he could to ensure that students are safe going to and from school, as well as on time. One of his plans is to make it illegal for encampments to be on the same block as a school, implementing a minimum distance requirement to ensure students won’t be accosted on their way to class. He also intends to work with MUNI to coordinate morning bus routes and frequency to ensure kids can get to school on time.
Mark Farrell is clearly a veteran of San Francisco politics and is strong in his stances on and approaches to how to tackle the problems the City faces. Some of his policies provoke controversy, and some of them seem like simple good sense. Attendees lined up after the hour to ask him questions about specific points (his position on prop K, for instance) or to simply say hello.
He gave the audience a lot to think about, and whatever someone’s opinions were that night, it was clear why he’s a frontrunner in the race for Mayor of San Francisco.
Daniel Lurie
First-Time Candidate Daniel Lurie Makes a Case for New Blood in City Hall
Bookshop West Portal’s penultimate “Meet the Candidate” session on Friday, Oct. 19th, saw the largest audience yet in anticipation of hearing mayoral candidate Daniel Lurie speak. Extra chairs were brought out to accommodate the dozens of people still standing, and a steady hum of chatter rose and fell as attendees waited for the candidate’s arrival. The size of the crowd was a testament to the curiosity surrounding Mr. Lurie and his candidacy and perhaps a sign that San Franciscans are starting to embrace the idea of shaking up the city government. His entrance into the mayoral race and success at establishing himself as a serious candidate has been most notable because he has never held any political office, a fact that he sees as an advantage over the more seasoned candidates.
Striding into the bookshop with numerous hellos and handshakes (the very picture of an old-school candidate), Mr. Lurie gave the audience a giggle as he walked to the front of the room as if to start his speech, then immediately excused himself and made a dash for the bathroom. He returned to the makeshift stage with a grin, clearly not above laughing at himself. But his mood quickly became serious as he launched into his presentation about his candidacy and political platform. Listening to him speak, it became evident that he does not have the same veneer one acquires over a political career. However, he made up for it with affability, enthusiasm, and earnestness, showing how much he loves this City and why he’s running for mayor.
Homeless solutions included building more shelters and contemporary housing, increasing preventative measures like short-term rental assistance, and monitoring the success of the hundreds of non-profits working with unsheltered people.”
He wove his background with his decision to run for mayor. Similar to the other candidates, he is a lifelong San Franciscan raising his family in the City. He recounted the incident that made him decide to enter the political arena – when walking to the park with his two young daughters one day in June last year, they encountered a naked, mentally ill man wandering across the street. That encounter made him decide he had more work to do helping people in the City (here, he referred to his foundation, Tipping Point Community). He recalled how both his father, Brian Lurie (a rabbi and ex-president of the National Israel Fund), and stepfather, Peter Haas (famously the CEO and Chairperson of Levi’s), were role models that taught him generosity, empathy, and his responsibility to fight for the rights of others; with all of this in mind, he made his bid for S.F. mayor.
He addressed his policy proposals, as well as his experience working with City Hall in his capacity as a private contractor. He set out the affordable housing issue, citing the need to attract and retain more teachers, firefighters, police officers, nurses and artists back to the City. He pointed out the fractured state of the planning and permitting systems, first quoting a letter from the White House that measured the average permitting time in S.F. at 33 months, then recalled how the state had effectively put the City on notice in 2023 for its abysmal housing record. Having gone through the process of constructing housing himself, Lurie spoke about his plans for streamlining the process, pointing to the success of the housing project at 833 Bryant (145 affordable housing units) spearheaded by Tipping Point. As mayor, he plans to impose a 180-day limit on the Department of Building and Inspections for approving a project to match the state-mandated 180-day timeframe for the City Planning Commission and his “get through permitting in one year” plan.
Another top priority for Lurie is public safety. So far, he noted, every candidate has been in agreement about two things – the misery that is the SFMTA, and the need for “a fully staffed police department... a fully staffed sheriff’s department… [and] a fully staffed 911 dispatch office,” with officers “walking the beat.” But re-strengthening law enforcement is only one side of the coin: in addition to increasing the number of police officers, he wants to employ new technology for increased public surveillance and updated methods to track convicted lawbreakers in real-time. He spoke specifically about the need for first-time offending drug dealers to wear pre-trial geolocation monitors to alert the police, should they return to their former stomping grounds. “We have to get tough on these drug dealers,” he said.
In spite of Lurie’s good intentions, however, there was concern over preserving constitutional rights—especially the right to privacy—in the face of increased use of surveillance technology, e.g., facial recognition software, real-time monitoring, etc. He commented, “We always have to look out for our civil liberties, but… if you’re committing crime in San Francisco, we should be able to hold you accountable,” and made reference to his support for drones used by law enforcement and increasing the number of traffic cameras to hold reckless drivers accountable. Unfortunately, his reassurances fell short, the audience called to mind the 2001 Patriot Act; moreover, supposedly neutral tech like AI facial recognition software has a record of misidentification as well as a bias against people of color. The question of oversight of using this tech to forestall discrimination against a particular group or community remained.
Reducing widespread drug use and providing more treatment options are other key points in his campaign platform. “We have to make sure that if someone wants help… there’s a bed for them,” he said, before citing a statistic that a person seeking treatment is turned away 50% of the time because of the lack of beds and facilities. He also mentioned the expensive revolving door of 72-hour detoxes in public hospitals that often see return patients (last year, 13,000 people were brought into hospitals for 72-hour detox holds, 64% of them were released after the hold was up). His remedy to this includes an increased number of care coordinators to make “warm handoffs” to treatment programs and facilities, more of which need to be built.
Mr. Lurie gave no specific details on the subject.
The questions went on to include preserving and growing small businesses. “Right now, our small businesses are viewed by City Hall… as a revenue source,” Lurie contended, but “my department heads are going to be in the business of serving the small business community… we’re going to say, ‘how can we make your life easier?’“
Homeless solutions included building more shelters and contemporary housing, increasing preventative measures like short-term rental assistance, and monitoring the success of the hundreds of non-profits working with unsheltered people.
To spend the city budget strategically, he wants to create a central database that tracks where city money and contracts go to hold recipients accountable and create a more strategic distribution of funds; he will also require non-profits receiving a million dollars or more to register as lobbyists.
Accountability is the thread that connects all of these issues for Lurie, from individual city employees to the mayor themself. He spoke about department heads’ responsibility for succeeding or failing in achieving their mandate. His intention is to re-interview current department heads to gauge whether they’re still the best person for the job and if they are willing to do the work he will demand of them. He also plans to adopt the same strategy of weekly interdepartmental meetings that Diane Feinstein employed when she was mayor; these meetings are meant to both set weekly goals and ensure that each department meets them. “If they can’t get the job done,” Mr. Lurie said of the department heads, “I will find someone who will.”
Throughout the night, Mr. Lurie continually hammered home the point that if the City wants to see meaningful change it’s time to elect a mayor that hasn’t already become a cog in the machinations of City Hall and its politics. He pointed out that every other candidate running for mayor has spent at least a decade in office but somehow haven’t made any of the changes they claim to want. “If you want real change, I’m the only one going,” he said, but “if you want more of the same, you’ve got plenty of options.” He hung two questions in the night air—”Do you think it’s time for a change?” and “Are you willing to take a chance on me?” The voters will soon give him their answers.
Maura Corkery lives and works in West Portal.
October 31, 2024
