It’s no secret that SF’s Mid-Market home to many Broadway theaters and concert venues can be a little rough around the edges, so the district’s Supervisor Bilal Mahmood hopes to jazz it up as a “theater arts district.”
It is a rather unfortunate thing for theater-goers that many of SF’s biggest Broadway-type show venues are in the Mid-Market part of town that some might describe as a sort of skid row. Though this is great for the panhandlers, and in turn, that may be good for the drug dealers.
But that district’s Supervisor Bilal Mahmood thinks he has an idea to disinfect that blight for not only the theater crowd that hits the Orpheum, Golden Gate, and ACT Strand theaters, but also the concert-going set rolling up to the Bill Graham Civic Auditorium or The Warfield. NBC Bay Area reports that Mahmood is proposing to establish a theater arts district on Market Street between Fifth and Ninth streets.
How do we revitalize downtown? By investing in public safety, small business, and the arts.
Today, I'm announcing a proposal to realize that vision through the Theater Arts District.
Over 1 million visitors come to the mid market neighborhood to visit our theaters – Warfield,… pic.twitter.com/RfRXf3dp8F
“The idea basically is that if you walk down Market Street, it is the economic engine of for the city arts and culture, now there is a lot of focus on downtown and office and tech, but really not enough focus on the arts and culture which has been the beating heart of our city for so long,” Mahmood told NBC Bay Area. “So imagine art-filled crosswalks that actually feature your favorite plays and musicals, interactive imagery and lighting and LED lighting and billboards that actually indicate with San Francisco character,” Mahmood said.
Of course, anyone can tell you that spillover Tenderloin sketchiness is basically the whole problem with Mid-Market, so any revival of the neighborhood would have to address that. Mahmood insists his plan will, with existing increased SFPD foot patrols, the nearly three-year-old Drug Market Agency Coordination Center, and some new small business grants going out from the Office of Economic and Workforce Development.
Mahmood estimates the plan would cost $5 million, most of which he hopes to round up through private philanthropic donations. And tellingly, his tweet declares that anyone who is “interested in helping, please reach out and let’s partner to create the Theater Arts District together.”
The California Democratic Party will hold its midterm convention at Moscone Center in San Francisco this weekend, and while there’s not a whole lot of suspense, it’s always an opportunity to see which way the party is leaning in a crucial election year.
The message so far: Don’t talk about economic inequality—and don’t mention the billionaire tax.
All the candidates for governor, and all the candidates for the other statewide offices, will be there. Mayor Daniel Lurie will address the crowd.
The party issues endorsements in contested primaries, and the San Francisco Congressional race was wired from the start for state Sen. Scott Wiener. The 151 super-delegates who voted in the pre-endorsement caucus are mostly party insiders—elected officials and representatives of some Democratic clubs. Wiener, to the surprise of nobody, got 117 votes as the candidates of the party establishment (which is, at this point, controlled by corporate Dems. Sup. Connie Chan got 30 votes Saikat Chakrabarti got none.
So Wiener will get the party nod on the consent calendar.
No candidate for governor is close to a front-runner, but they will all have a chance to make their case to the delegates—and to the news media. Most candidates hold press conferences after their speeches, and we get to ask the kinds of questions that get ducked in debates and formal campaign events.
The party will be voting on endorsements for all Constitutional officers, but it’s unlikely any candidate for governor will get enough of a majority. On the other hand, Working Families Party leader Jane Kim is running for insurance commissioner, and there’s a chance of an endorsement in that race.
Sponsored link
Other than Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Ro Khanna, no big names are speaking. For whatever reason, Gov. Gavin Newsom, the top Democrat in the state and a candidate for president, is not on the agenda.
Sen. Bernie Sanders is in town; he’ll be speaking at Stanford Friday, with Khanna (who some suggest might also be a presidential candidate, and was invited to speak at the conference’s Progressive Caucus), but is not on the list. Sen. Elizabeth Warren is also in town, speaking Thursday night at Manny’s; she didn’t make the cut, either.
That seems silly to me: Sanders and Warren are both immensely popular with the party’s grassroots, and if this convention is about generating energy for the mid-terms, they could help.
But that’s a sign that the party today is very much in the control of the Corporate Democrats, who don’t want anyone to talk about, for example, the billionaire tax.
Several union leaders are scheduled to speak—but nobody from SEIU-UHWW, which is leading the campaign for taxing the rich.
Put Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren on the stage and that’s exactly what they would promote—which is what Newsom and his allies fear.
So I am looking at a tepid, predictable convention, with very few speakers challenging the billionaires or the “abundance” agenda that Newsom supports. Not a good sign for a voting populace that is fed up with business as usual.
We will be there, and will bring you the details as they happen.
48 Hills welcomes comments in the form of letters to the editor, which you can submit here. We also invite you to join the conversation on our Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
Tim Redmond has been a political and investigative reporter in San Francisco for more than 30 years. He spent much of that time as executive editor of the Bay Guardian. He is the founder of 48hills.
President Donald Trump defiantly vowed to continue slapping tariffs on imported goods on Friday after the US Supreme Courtoverturned the so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs he implemented last year.
In a press conference held hours after the Supreme Court ruled against the president’s tariff regime, Trump said that he had other tools at his disposal that allowed him to hit foreign products with taxes.
Among other things, Trump said he was going to issue a 10% global tariff using his authority under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 that allows the president to levy tariffs to address “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficits with foreign nations.
However, as a Friday analysis by the libertarian Cato Institute explains, any tariffs enacted through Section 122 expire after 150 days without authorization from Congress, which in theory could put vulnerable congressional Republicans on the spot to vote for or against the president’s signature policy this summer right before the 2026 midterm elections.
The president’s decision to plow ahead with his politically unpopular tariffs drew immediate criticism from Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), who said during an interview with MS NOW that Trump was creating even more economic uncertainty.
“What he’s done is just doubled down and tried to make it worse,” Klobuchar explained, “which, of course, is going to create more cost and chaos for the American people.”
Klobuchar: "The scariest part from his press conference, in addition to the continued assault on the rule of law and the Constitution, is that he plans to continue doing this … [but] I think you're starting to see bipartisan opposition to the president's tariffs, which would… pic.twitter.com/pqniYagtyW
Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman also predicted more chaos in the months to come from Trump’s trade policies, particularly when it comes to businesses that will now lobby to get back the money illegally seized from them by the president’s unconstitutional tariff regime.
Writing on his Substack, Krugman argued that Trump finding alternative means to levy tariffs would not “obviate the need to refund the tariffs already collected,” because “if you seized money without constitutional authority, finding other revenue sources going forward doesn’t make the original seizure legal.”
David Frum, staff writer at The Atlantic, predicted that the coming lawsuits aimed at getting refunds for the illegal tariffs would be a massive mess.
“The post-tariff litigation is going to be nightmarish,” he wrote on social media. “Wrongfully taxed plaintiffs will now sue for return of their illegally taken money. Can their customers then sue for a portion of the higher prices caused by the wrongful taxes? More Trump chaos.”
However, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent downplayed the possibility of American businesses and consumers getting refunded for the tariffs.
While speaking at the Economic Club of Dallas on Friday, Bessent was asked if he expected a “food fight” for the $175 billion in tariff revenues that government has illegally collected since April.
“I’ve got a feeling the American people won’t see it,” Bessent said of the tariff money.
Bessent: I got a feeling the American people won't see the $175 billion in tariff revenue we collected pic.twitter.com/rj0Bmm0Exg
However, some Democrats indicated that they were not simply going to let the administration getting away with money they unlawfully confiscated from US businesses and consumers.
“Donald Trump illegally stole your money,” wrote Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). “He should give it back to you. Instead Trump is scheming up new ways to force Americans to pay even more.”
Democrats on the US House Ways and Means Committee wrote that “Trump does not want to refund the money he illegally stole from you,” vowing the party “won’t stop fighting to get your money back.”
Democratic Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker wrote Trump a letter after the Supreme Court ruling demanding that the president provide every family in his state a $1,700 refund for the tariffs, which he said “wreaked havoc on farmers, enraged our allies, and sent grocery prices through the roof.”
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
It is one of 31 colleges that the Education Department says have ended relationships with The PhD Project, a nonprofit that for decades has helped Black, Latino and Native American students get business doctorates.
Education Department officials had accused The PhD Project, which has helped Black, Latino and Native American students earn doctorates in business since the 1990s, of violating federal anti-discrimination law by restricting admission to its programs by race.
UC Berkeley is among 31 colleges nationwide to end partnerships with the group, the department’s Office for Civil Rights said. Negotiations are ongoing at 14 additional schools, according to the department.
UC Berkeley spokesperson Janet Gilmore said that participants from the campus had attended the organization’s programs in past academic years but that the university “presently has no formal relationship with The PhD Project.”
The PhD Project hosts an annual conference for prospective doctoral students, and its website says it has helped more than 1,700 people earn doctoral degrees.
“Our vision is to create a broader talent pipeline of current and future business leaders who are committed to excellence and to each other,” the group said in a statement Thursday. “The PhD Project was founded with the goal of providing more role models in the front of business classrooms and this remains our goal today.”
The PhD Project drew fire from right-wing activists and politicians last year after Christopher Rufo, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and frequent higher education critic, posted on X about a conference it held for prospective doctoral students who “identify as Black/African American, LatinX/Hispanic American, or Native American/Canadian Indigenous.”
The group now says its programs are open to students of any race interested in pursuing a business doctorate.
The Education Department, however, has continued to investigate universities over their ties with the group. In announcing settlements in those cases Thursday, the department said the 31 schools had either already severed their partnerships with The PhD Project or agreed to do so going forward. The universities had also pledged to review other partnerships with outside groups “to identify any that violate Title VI by restricting participation based on race,” the department said, referring to the part of the Civil Rights Act that prevents discrimination in federally funded programs.
Asked if UC Berkeley had conducted that review, Gilmore said by email that the university “complies with all state and federal laws and consequently has not had to change any of its practices under the PhD Project agreement with the U.S. Department of Education.”
The Washington Post reported Thursday that those reviews had led some campuses to cut ties with other groups that support people of color. California State University had promised its Cal Poly Pomona campus would end its relationship with The Links Inc, a community service organization led by Black women, the Post reported.
Judge ruled this week against Trump administration’s anti-DEI directive to colleges
The announcement of the PhD Project settlements came a day after a federal judge in a final ruling invalidated Education Department guidance that had sought to restrict colleges’ ability to promote diversity on campus.
That “Dear Colleague” letter, sent to schools and colleges last year, accused U.S. educational institutions of discriminating against white and Asian students, said “DEI programs” including race-based scholarships and graduations constituted discrimination, and warned schools to discontinue them or face losing federal funds. But in a victory for the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups that had sued to block the guidance, the court found the letter itself vague and discriminatory and the Education Department last month dropped its appeal.
In the meantime, the Trump administration has launched dozens of investigations into diversity efforts at school districts and universities nationwide, including UC Berkeley, prompting some to shut down or change their programs.
“All the programs that were being scrutinized helped create more belonging for Black students and queer and Latinx and Asian students,” said Antonio Ingram, senior counsel at the NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund.
The court decision might embolden colleges to push back, he said. But he also called the decision a “reckoning” that would illustrate whether universities had abandoned programs because of legal concerns or a broader culture of compliance with the federal government’s demands.
“Will these schools reopen the Black Student Union? The queer resource center? Time will tell. But I think it’s a lot easier to close down a facility than open it,” he said.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon said the PhD Project settlements are evidence the department is succeeding in its efforts to stamp out DEI and enforce what it describes as a merit-based, color-blind education system.
“This is the Trump effect in action: institutions of higher education are agreeing to cut ties with discriminatory organizations, recommitting themselves to abiding by federal law, and restoring equality of opportunity on campuses across the nation,” McMahon said in a statement.
Right-wing organizations have continued to file complaints with the department alleging that programs that emphasize serving students of color violate federal civil rights law. Earlier this month the Legal Insurrection Foundation, a conservative group, complained to the department about a list of UC Berkeley programs and scholarships – including the African American Student Development Office, the Black Resource Center, the Latinx Student Resource Center, the African American Initiative Scholarship and the Lloyd A. Edwards Scholarship – that it said illegally exclude students based on race, either explicitly or indirectly through “racial signaling.”
The same group made similar charges in a December complaint to the Department of Justice arguing that centers for undocumented students at California public universities, including UC Berkeley’s Undocumented Students Program, unlawfully discriminate against American-born students.
Neither federal agency responded to inquiries about whether they are investigating the two complaints.
Berkeleyside partners with the nonprofit newsroom Open Campus on higher education coverage.
Felicia Mello covers UC Berkeley and other East Bay colleges as Berkeleyside’s senior reporter for higher education. She works in partnership with Open Campus, a nonprofit newsroom focused on strengthening… More by Felicia Mello
by Io Yeh GilmanFebruary 10, 2026 (MissionLocal.org)
From left to right: Saikat Chakrabarti, Scott Wiener, and Connie Chan. Photos by Mariana Garcia.
No matter who wins November’s election to succeed Nancy Pelosi in U.S. Congress, it seems that the Congressional Progressive Caucus will be gaining a new member.
At Monday night’s Q&A at the Mission’s Cultura y Arte Nativa de las Americas, State Sen. Scott Wiener, District 1 Supervisor Connie Chan, and former Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez staffer and tech multi-millionaire Saikat Chakrabarti all worked to establish their progressive bona fides.
All three candidates made it clear they would be most excited to join the Progressive Caucus if elected. They also all called for accountability for fossil fuel companies, abolishing ICE and Medicare for All.
The progressive bent was perhaps unsurprising, given that the three were speaking to members of the Working Families Party, a group critical not just of Republicans but also of corporate Democrats.
The event, open to the public, drew about 100 people, with many more joining online. Organizers chose some questions in advance, and others from audience submissions.
They honed in on the areas where candidates’ progressive credentials were in question.
Chakrabarti defends donations to moderates, explains local record
For Chakrabarti, that meant asking about his election donations in 2024.
Those included $500, the maximum donation, to the unsuccessful campaign of Michael Lai in District 11, and $500 for Bilal Mahmood, who unseated the city’s lone socialist supervisor, Dean Preston, in District 5. Chakrabarti also voted for Daniel Lurie for mayor.
Lai, Mahmood and Lurie are all moderates and ran against local progressives.
Chakrabarti tried to explain. “When it comes to Michael, that was an oversight on my part,” Chakrabarti said — a “former” friend from the Bernie Sanders campaign worked on Lai’s campaign, and recommended that Chakrabarti donate.
As for Mahmood, “he’s, I believe, progressive,” Chakrabarti said (one person in the crowd let out an incredulous laugh). Chakrabarti listed some of the progressive policies Mahmood has supported, including the labor-backed CEO tax on June’s ballot.
“I’d be lying if I didn’t admit I was excited to see the first South Asian supervisor in the city and first Muslim supervisor in the city,” he added.
Saikat Chakrabarti at a Working Families Party forum on Feb. 9, 2026. Photo by Io Yeh Gilman
As for Lurie, “I’ll be honest, I was not a fan of any of the people running for mayor,” Chakrabarti said to chuckles from the crowd. He also noted that Aaron Peskin, the consensus progressive candidate in that race, was his second choice.
You’ve been in San Francisco for years, a member asked, so “why didn’t you start engaging in San Francisco progressive communities years ago?” Voting records show Chakrabarti resided here from 2010-11 and from 2020 to the present.
Chakrabarti said he’d been more focused on federal politics in his work with Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez, and with his policy think tank, New Consensus.
“That’s why I’m running for Congress,” he said. “If I wanted to run for supervisor or something else in the city, I’d start by volunteering and working on campaigns here and working my way up, the way I’ve done in national politics.”
Scott Wiener talks Gaza ‘genocide,’ taxes and legislative chops
Wiener, who is not on the progressive “team” in San Francisco because of his stances on issues like housing and taxes, also received a grilling from the Working Families Party.❮❯
Unleashing Creative Minds: SF S.T.E.A.M. Academy
At SF S.T.E.A.M. Academy, we empower young minds through immersive bilingual learning in English and Spanish. Our curriculum intertwines science, technology, engineering, arts, and math to foster innovation, curiosity, and a love for learning.Safe • Bilingual • InnovativeVisit us at our Open House!
They pointed out that the last time the group interviewed Wiener, he declined to say whether Israel’s attack on Gaza amounted to genocide, much like he did at the first congressional debate in a clip that went viral. A few days later, though, Wiener posted a video saying that he does think Israel’s actions constitute genocide.
“Can you walk us through your thought process for what the turning point was for you?” organizers asked.
Wiener said that he had always considered what Israel was doing in Gaza an atrocity, but had just “chose to use different words that were, in my view, quite equivalent to genocide.” This included “cratering an entire population,” “absolute destruction,” “a moral stain” and the Yiddish word “shanda,” which means disgrace.
Scott Wiener addresses attendees of the Working Families Party forum from Zoom on Feb. 9, 2026. Photo by Io Yeh Gilman.
“The word ‘genocide’ is a very sensitive one, and the community is very divided on it, and for a lot of people it is very raw,” he said. “But ultimately I chose to use the word ‘genocide’ and I stand by that.”
Organizers also asked Wiener about his opposition to Prop. 33, a failed November 2024 statewide initiative that would have allowed cities to expand rent control.
“I did not oppose it. So that is not accurate,” Wiener said, explaining that for many years he has supported reforming California’s rent control laws, which in San Francisco only apply to buildings built before 1979.
Wiener also fielded a question about his work on a tax measure that will go before Bay Area voters in November to fund public transit.
Without the funds, BART and Muni service will be decimated. They asked why his tax a sales tax that, like all sales taxes, is regressive and disproportionately affects the poor, rather than a progressive gross receipts tax which hits larger businesses.
A gross receipts tax, Wiener responded, would not have passed the legislature. “We could have fought that fight for a gross receipts tax, and then had no bill, and then had no ballot measure, and have BART, Muni, AC Transit, Caltrain crater or have massive service cuts.”
Near the end, Wiener, who has far more legislative experience than the other candidates, made a pitch for taking his years into account.
“It’s not good enough to have progressive ideas,” he said. “You have to have the ability to turn those progressive ideas into progressive laws.”
Chan on housing and the Great Highway
Chan’s politics and strong union support tend to place her solidly into San Francisco’s progressive camp, but she was still questioned about her stances on urbanist issues, including upzoning to allow taller buildings and closing the Great Highway to cars.
Though building taller, denser housing and pedestrianizing roads tend to be progressive issues in a national context, San Francisco’s progressive establishment often opposes urbanist changes.
Many of the city’s unions and progressive supervisors opposed this year’s upzoning legislation and last year’s Proposition K, which closed the Great Highway.
Connie Chan at the Working Families Party forum on Feb. 9, 2026. Photo by Io Yeh Gilman.
Chan said that lack of protections for small businesses and rent-controlled tenants motivated her opposition to upzoning, which increased the maximum height of buildings on many of San Francisco’s commercial corridors from four stories to six or eight stories.
“That is the reason why I was really hoping that I could get support to amend the zoning plan,” she said, “to fight against real estate, speculative investments and displacement.”
Chan proposed amendments to the upzoning plan that lowered allowable heights on commercial corridors in her district and removed all existing housing — not just rent-controlled housing — from the plan.
These amendments were ultimately not incorporated into the plan because they likely would have put the city out of compliance with state housing law.
As for the Great Highway, Chan said that until there is a better public transit system and people “want to ditch their cars,” the question she will be asking is, “Are there access and routes for people who have to drive their cars?”
An endorsement from the Working Families Party is forthcoming.
The top two vote getters in the June 2 “jungle primary,” regardless of party affiliation, will advance to the Nov. 3 general election.
Join the 3,250 readers who keep Mission Local free for all!
Because of you, Mission Local reached and surpassed our $300,000 year-end fundraising goal. All we can say is thank you.
Thank you for choosing to invest in a local newsroom rooted in San Francisco’s communities — one that listens first and reports deeply.
If you haven’t yet had a chance to give, it’s not too late to be part of this community. Your contribution today helps sustain the reporting our city relies on all year long.
We’re grateful you’re here — and we’d be honored to have you join our donors.
Io covers city hall and is a part of Report for America, which supports journalists in local newsrooms. She was born and raised in San Francisco and previously reported on the city while working for her high school newspaper, The Lowell. Io studied the history of science at Harvard and wrote for The Harvard Crimson.More by Io Yeh Gilman
At stake for the only Chinese-American candidate are thousands of Chinese-American votes
by Yujie Zhou February 20, 2026 (MissionLocal.org)
District 1 Supervisor Connie Chan attends a San Francisco Board of Supervisors meeting on Oct. 21, 2025. Photo by Mariana Garcia.
To prevail in her San Francisco congressional race, Connie Chan, the only major Chinese-American candidate, must win over a good number of the 73,000 or so Chinese American voters in California’s 11th congressional district — about 16 percent of the electorate.
A major factor for them is an island nearly 7,000 miles away: Taiwan.
China-Taiwan relations are tricky for any politician, as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez learned this week when her answers on the issue were microscopically scrutinized around the world.
For Chan, the consequences are local. To be too supportive of an assertive U.S. policy that encourages arms sales to Taiwan would be seen by many Chinese voters here as provoking conflict.
The District 1 supervisor seems to have passed that test earlier this month, when she met with three San Francisco Chinese leaders known for having a strong following in the local community: Henry Der, the former California deputy superintendent of public instruction; and retired judges Lillian Sing and Julie Tang.
The meeting allowed Der, Sing and Tang to learn the specifics of Chan’s views — and, in turn, serve as conduits for potentially thousands of local voters for whom this issue is paramount.
The local Chinese community is far from monolithic, but the majority rank maintaining peace with China around Taiwan as a top priority, said Tang.
For many, Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi’s 2022 visit to Taiwan looms large — and is a cautionary tale. The junket was the highest-profile U.S. visit to the island in 25 years, and greatly aggravated the mainland Chinese government. It subsequently encircled the island with unprecedented military exercises.❮❯
Unleashing Creative Minds: SF S.T.E.A.M. Academy
At SF S.T.E.A.M. Academy, we empower young minds through immersive bilingual learning in English and Spanish. Our curriculum intertwines science, technology, engineering, arts, and math to foster innovation, curiosity, and a love for learning.Safe • Bilingual • InnovativeVisit us at our Open House!
Der called Pelosi’s trip provocative.
Many people in Taiwan “are happy with the status quo. In other words, it’s ambiguous,” said Der, who opposes authoritarian governments and doesn’t often disagree with Pelosi. Still, he and the retired judges blamed the visit for riling up China.
He, like many in the Asian community here, doesn’t want a war or poor relations with China. Many here prize travel to China and Taiwan, and believe business and commerce between the two are vital.
“We don’t need these military exercises by either side,” he said.
Tang, for her part, was even more alarmed about Pelosi’s visit. “She almost provoked a Third World War,” she said.
Peace, and an internal matter
Chan, the three elders recalled after their Feb. 9 meeting, took a stance that stressed supporting the One-China Policy, which has been an official U.S. policy since the 1970s and remains the mainstream view in Congress.
The policy, which is deliberately vague, recognizes the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal government of China while allowing the United States to maintain unofficial relations with Taiwan.
Second, Chan stressed that she is for peace. When the three leaders asked her to elaborate, Der recalled Chan telling them that there should be direct dialogue between China and Taiwan — without the U.S. government dictating the terms and conditions.
This is a notable distinction. Der, Sing and Tang walked away from their meeting with Chan believing her desired policy would be for China-Taiwan relations to be an internal matter between the two governments. This aligns with Beijing’s wishes, but differs from the congressional mainstream.
It also differs from the views of Pelosi and the four current Chinese members of Congress. All support the United States playing a role in China-Taiwan relations, and view arms sales to Taiwan as a means of keeping China in check. Pelosi has been particularly critical of the Chinese government and its human-rights record.
When asked about China policies and her meeting with Der, Sing and Tang, Chan’s campaign released a statement noting that “her focus will be on best representing the interests and priorities of San Francisco, and she will always work for peaceful resolution of conflict.”
While still heavily Chinese, California’s 11th congressional district has fewer Chinese voters than San Francisco writ large, as it excludes Chinese-American enclaves such as the Excelsior, Visitation Valley and Portola.
Still, it includes more than 73,000 Chinese voters, according to political consultant David Ho’s rough estimate, accounting for around 16 percent of its 470,000 voters.
Der, Sing and Tang applauded Chan’s stance, saying it reflected a non-confrontational attitude espoused by many within the Chinese American community. All three subsequently said they would endorse her candidacy.
“What I got out of the conversation,” said Der, “is she doesn’t want the United States to dictate what that dialogue should be between Taiwan and China.”
Chan, for her part, said in a statement that “the U.S. should be an agent for peace and stability, and that will be her guiding principle on foreign policy.”
Political minefield
In a way, China-related issues are, for Chan, similar to what Gaza has been for fellow candidate Sen. Scott Wiener: A political minefield in which the candidate must balance the expectations of core supporters while ensuring their positions withstand broader, even national and international scrutiny.
After receiving significant pushback for declining to answer a question about whether or not Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, Wiener — who is Jewish and has been a supporter of Israel, but a critic of its present leadership — within days shifted to saying, yes, he did think Israel was committing genocide.
Chan, 47, emigrated to the United States at age 13. She was born in Hong Kong and moved to Taiwan at age 5.
That is important to Der, Sing and Tang, who all endorsed Chan in her two successful supervisorial campaigns and will do so again now.
Tang said that, even if Chan did not explicitly say so, her years in Hong Kong, Taiwan and San Francisco’s Chinese community give her “a sense of where the community comes from.”
“She will bring to the table ideas and propositions that are informed by her lived experience,” said Der. “With [peace] as a core issue, all the others will come out okay,” Sing added, saying that she was impressed by Chan’s sincerity.
While a new member of Congress would have limited sway over foreign policy, the fact that Chan is an immigrant from San Francisco means that “people will automatically look to her as to where the Chinese community stands on the China, Taiwan, Hong Kong issues,” said Der.
And, at least for Der, it could help bring down the temperature.
The “‘China is an enemy of the U.S.’ rhetoric by both Democrats and Republicans is very dangerous toward the welfare of Chinese Americans,” he said. “It impacts us.”
Join the 3,250 readers who keep Mission Local free for all!
Because of you, Mission Local reached and surpassed our $300,000 year-end fundraising goal. All we can say is thank you.
Thank you for choosing to invest in a local newsroom rooted in San Francisco’s communities — one that listens first and reports deeply.
If you haven’t yet had a chance to give, it’s not too late to be part of this community. Your contribution today helps sustain the reporting our city relies on all year long.
We’re grateful you’re here — and we’d be honored to have you join our donors.
Yujie is a staff reporter covering city hall with a focus on the Asian community. She came on as an intern after graduating from Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism and became a full-time staff reporter as a Report for America corps member and has stayed on. Before falling in love with San Francisco, Yujie covered New York City, studied politics through the “street clashes” in Hong Kong, and earned a wine-tasting certificate in two days. She’s proud to be a bilingual journalist. Find her on Signal @Yujie_ZZ.01More by Yujie Zhou
Tell Gov Whitmer to support AG Nessel’s Anonymous ICE Reporting Platform!
In the wake of ICE’s murderous campaign to kidnap our neighbors and restrict our Constitutional rights, we call on Governor Whitmer to support Attorney General Nessel’s recently launched anonymous reporting platform. We call on Whitmer to form an accountability commission to review ICE’s many crimes and constitutional violations. This group of masked secret police has been terrorizing communities with impunity for far too long.
Michigan will not be safe until we know that we have the ability to hold ICE accountable for their many assaults upon our communities and country. Our residents must also be able to do so knowing they are protected by our State from what has been proven to be an extremely corrupt and vengeful Trump regime.
Anonymity & Privacy Protection: Individuals can now report misconduct without revealing their identity or contact information.
Secure Evidence Submission: Photos, videos, and documents can now be submitted securely to protect the integrity of the evidence.
Independent Oversight: Reports MUST be reviewed by an impartial body, ensuring transparency and fairness in the investigative process.
Legal Protections for Whistleblowers: Michigan residents who report abuses MUST be protected by state and federal whistleblower laws.
Collaboration with Advocacy Groups: The platform MUST work closely with civil rights organizations to ensure that the process remains accessible, credible, and effective.
University of San Francisco professor Patrick Murphy is proposing significant reforms to a voter-approved measure that many consider the third rail of state politics: Proposition 13.Craig Lee/The Examiner
As California considers taxing the wealth of billionaires, one San Francisco academic said he believes it’s long past time to rethink and revamp what many consider to be the original wealth tax — the state’s property-tax system.
The system voters put in place through Proposition 13 in 1978 is costing the state about $45 billion per year — and possibly a lot more, according to an analysis by Patrick Murphy, a professor of political affairs at the University of San Francisco. The people who benefit from the system tend to be white in a minority-majority state and both wealthier and older than the average Californian, Murphy said.
In a kind of draft policy proposal, Murphy argues that California could have a much fairer system that helps out less-affluent home owners and first-time buyers if the state were to replace one of Prop. 13’s key provisions related to property valuations.
The revision he’s pitching would take “what’s easily the biggest tax subsidy that we have on the books and tries to use it towards what I would argue is a state goal,” Murphy told The Examiner.
A key piece of the so-called tax revolt of the 1970s and ’80s, Prop. 13 was sparked by concern that people were being priced out of their own homes because their property taxes were rising faster than their incomes.
At the time, California property values were rising rapidly. So too were residents’ property taxes, because those impositions were determined by the market values of the properties.
Prop. 13 made two key changes to the state’s property-tax system. It generally set the tax rate on properties to 1% of their worth, down from a statewide average of about 2.7% at the time it was passed. It also set a baseline for assessed value as the last purchase price, and it limited how much property values could appreciate to 2% annually.
That second provision generally means that the longer someone owns a home or other property, the greater the difference between its assessed worth for taxes and its actual market value. It also means, in effect, that the longer a person owns a home, the greater their Prop. 13 tax break.
In a report last year using data provided by online brokerage Redfin, the San Francisco Chronicle scrutinized the size of the gap between assessed and actual values and the resulting tax breaks in counties around the state.
In The City, the average home was assessed at $1.01 million but had an actual market value of $1.58 million, according to the Chronicle’s report. Thanks to that difference, typical homeowners were paying about $5,700 less in property tax each year than they would have if Prop. 13 wasn’t capping valuations.
While the gap between assessed and actual values — and thus the implied tax breaks — varies across the state, collectively it adds up to tens of billions of dollars in lost revenue.
Prop. 13’s provisions cover both residential and commercial properties. In 2018, researchers at the University of Southern California dug into how much the law benefited owners of commercial properties. They reported that if such properties were assessed at their market value, their owners would have been paying about $11.4 billion a year more in taxes on them.
Murphy and his collaborators have been trying to do a similarly thorough study of the effect of Prop. 13’s limit on valuations on residential property taxes, but haven’t yet been able to get access to the parcel-by-parcel data they’d need to do that.
But using the less fine-grained data from the Chronicle’s report, Murphy and his collaborators estimated that statewide, residential property owners were getting about a $35.8 billion annual tax break thanks to the Prop. 13 valuation limit.
Although commercial property values — and the value of the Prop. 13 benefit they receive — have declined a bit in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, Murphy estimated that the likely cost of the law’s valuation provision is in the neighborhood of at least $45 billion to $50 billion. And it could be as high as $70 billion, he said.
To put that in perspective, an expenditure of that size by the state government would be the third largest budget item after health and human services and K-12 education.
Although the exact number is uncertain, Murphy’s estimate looks to be a fair one, said Kirk Stark, a law professor and tax-policy expert at UCLA School of Law.
“It’s a lot of money,” Stark said. “It’s a major expenditure.”
From a public-policy perspective, that money isn’t well spent, Murphy and other tax experts argue. Instead of middle-class or lower-income people, Prop. 13’s tax breaks largely flow to the well-to-do. As of 2014, about half of all the benefits it provided went to homeowners who made at least $120,000 a year, according to a 2016 study by the state Legislative Analyst’s Office. At the time, the median household income in the state was about $60,000.
Prop. 13 is “the worst kind of tax expenditure along almost every dimension,” said Darien Shanske, a professor at UC Davis’ law school who focuses on state and local tax policies.
The law also has had its share of unintended consequences, policy experts say. It discourages people from selling their homes to buy new ones, because they could face major increases in their taxes. It has also prompted the state to rely much more heavily on income taxes, which can be notoriously volatile and can lead to major budget adjustments from year to year.
Because property taxes are largely local taxes, the caps Prop. 13 put on them stripped much of the power local governments had to control their own finances, Stark said. And because commercial properties tend to sell less frequently than residential ones — and thus are reassessed less often — the law has increasingly shifted the burden of property taxes in the aggregate onto homeowners, he said.
“I can’t really articulate a useful policy goal that I think Prop. 13 accomplishes,” said Brian Galle, a tax-law professor at UC Berkeley’s law school who, along with Shanske, is one of the co-authors of the proposed billionaire tax.
Brian Galle, a professor at UC Berkeley’s law school who is a co-author of a proposed wealth tax: “I can’t really articulate a useful policy goal that I think Prop. 13 accomplishes.”Craig Lee/The Examiner
A representative of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association — the anti-tax group named after the activist who successfully pushed through Prop. 13 — did not respond to a request for comment on Murphy’s critique.
But for his part, Murphy argues there’s a far better way to do property taxes.
He proposes getting rid of Prop. 13’s limit on valuation growth. To protect less-affluent homeowners from skyrocketing property taxes, he would instead greatly increase the state’s valuation exemption.
Under current law, homeowners get to deduct $7,000 from the assessed value of their home, which amounts to a $70 tax break. Murphy would increase that exemption to $500,000. That would mean someone in a $500,000 home wouldn’t pay any property taxes, and someone in a $1 million home would only pay tax on half that amount. Instead of owing $10,000 a year in property tax, they would pay $5,000.
Murphy would also limit that exemption to owner-occupied homes. Vacation homes wouldn’t qualify, and neither would residences owned by investment companies or people who don’t live in the state.
Murphy estimated that at $500,000, the exemption would deprive the state of about $26 billion, or about half the estimated total from Prop. 13’s valuation provision. The exemption could be larger or smaller, depending on policymakers’ preferences for redistributing the Prop. 13 tax break, he said. One possibility might be actually giving a tax refund to those whose homes are worth less than the exemption, he said.
“I like $500,000, because it’s super easy,” he said.
Although they quibbled about some of the details, other tax-law experts said Murphy’s proposal has merit.
“Overall, it’s a great idea,” Shanske said.
“In general, what he is proposing makes a lot more sense than an upside-down, arbitrary tax expenditure,” he said.
Even so, don’t expect a major revamp of Prop. 13 anytime soon. Murphy’s analysis and proposal is still in the formative stages; he said he’s still hoping to do a more thorough study of Prop. 13’s actual costs.
Murphy said that while he’s spoken with politicians and other policymakers about his ideas, he hasn’t gotten much traction with them yet. For decades, Prop. 13 has been considered the third rail of California politics — no one wants to touch it for fear of their political life.
Almost 50 years after its passage, Prop. 13 still enjoys broad support: 65% of California adults who responded to a 2024 Public Policy Institute of California survey — and 69% of likely voters — said they considered the proposition “mostly a good thing.”
The last major effort to reform the law came in the form of Proposition 15, a 2020 measure that would have lifted Prop. 13’s protections on commercial properties. Despite the backing of unions and being what policy experts thought of as an obvious and needed reform, that initiative failed on a 52% to 48% vote.
But Murphy said he has half a hope that one of the candidates in this year’s governor’s race might take up his ideas, if only to stand out from the crowded pack or to pitch as an alternative to the wealth tax, which would impose a one-time 5% tax on anyone with $1 billion or more in assets.
“You bill it as the O.G. of the wealth tax,” he said.
If you have a tip about tech, startups or the venture industry, contact Troy Wolverton at twolverton@sfexaminer.com or via text or Signal at (415) 515-5594.
Workers on an aerial lift check their installation of a new banner featuring an image of President Donald Trump on the facade of the US Department of Justice headquarters building in Washington, DC, on February 19, 2026.
(Photo by Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images)
“It is an incredible affront to our democracy to display the president’s face on one of the most sacred US judicial buildings,” said one critic.
Critics reacted with outrage on Thursday after a large banner featuring President Donald Trump’s face was hung on the outside of the US Department of Justice.
The banner shows a large blue banner draped from the side of the department’s headquarters in Washington, DC, with the slogan, “Make America Safe Again” written across the bottom.
Although the Trump administration in the past has hung up banners with the president’s face on other federal buildings, including the US Department of Labor, many critics were particularly alarmed by a banner going up at the DOJ given how the department has been pursuing criminal prosecutions against his political enemies, including New York Attorney General Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey.
“This is a stunning confirmation of the grim reality,” wroteMS NOW justice and intelligence correspondent Ken Dilanian, “which is that Donald Trump has seized control of the once independent Justice Department and is using it to pursue his political objectives—including trying to punish his perceived enemies.”
Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) marveled at “the irony of a twice-impeached, convicted felon putting his own picture on the wall of the Department of Justice,” while adding that “President Trump is weaponizing the DOJ as his own personal law firm.”
Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ) objected to the banner and reminded his social media followers that “the Department of Justice is supposed to work for and represent you, not him.”
Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) linked the banner to the ongoing scandal of the DOJ’s continued failure to release all files related to the criminal investigation of late billionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
“Want more evidence that the Justice Department is covering up the Epstein files to protect Epstein’s best friend Donald Trump?” wrote Lieu. “Look at this photo.”
Attorney Brian Farnkoff, a former DOJ official, described the banner as “an abomination and an outrage,” while acknowledging it was symbolic of how the president has taken over the department to use as a weapon against his enemies.
David Frum, staff writer at the Atlantic, also said that the symbolism being conveyed by the banner was apt.
“The Trump DOJ is a pure creature of presidential whim, retribution, and cover-up,” he wrote, “so this banner has the virtue of candor at least.”
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen, said that the banner showed “Trump is laughing at the idea that the Justice Department is independent of the White House.”
“It is an incredible affront to our democracy to display the president’s face on one of the most sacred US judicial buildings,” Gilbert added. “It’s also beyond satirical that Trump, who is at the center of numerous current court cases and was convicted of numerous felonies, is splashing his face on the exterior of the Department of Justice.”
Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who’s expected to run for president in 2028, called the Trump DOJ banner “beyond parody,” and asked, “How many dictatorship-style monuments, building name changes, and fake awards do Americans have to endure?”
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
This Sunday’s Town Hall: Announcing This Week’s Progressive Town Hall: Every Sunday at 4pm ET/1pm PT RSVP HERE Join PDA activists online from across the country to discuss the importance of progressives reclaiming the American story from the MAGA right, an issue of heightened importance as we’re now within one... Continue reading →
We protest Heritage Foundation EVERY MONDAY (Join us!!!!) By admin | September 2, 2025 | Uncategorized Cliff Cash Comedy Premiered Jul 26, 2025 Every Monday at The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Ave. Washington D.C. 4pm protest 6pm pizza Every Friday at Fox News D.C. 400 N. Capitol St. Washington D.C. 4pm protest 6pm pizza We are... Continue reading →
Milk Club Trans Caucus Meeting Date: Tuesday, April 28 Time: 5-7 PM Location and Zoom Link: Meeting info available to members of the Milk Club Trans Caucus. Please reach out to trans@milkclub.org if you would like to join the Milk Club Trans Caucus.
San Francisco Young Democrats meet with SFDems Chair Nancy Tung Wednesday, April 29th | 2pm Location: SC T-160 (third floor of Student Center) Register The San Francisco Young Democrats at SF State are teaming up with SFDems to make sure their voices are heard. Want to get more plugged into San Francisco... Continue reading →
One Million Rising: Strategic Non-Cooperation to Fight Authoritarianism Virtual Event · Hosted by No Kings Time Wednesdays 8 – 9:30pm EDT Location Virtual event Join from anywhere About this event Across the country, authoritarian forces are getting bolder and more dangerous. Trump and his allies are not hiding their agenda: mass deportations,... Continue reading →
THURSDAY, JUNE 29, 2023 AT 2 AM – 4 AM PDT How to create trust in a group? Details Event by Extinction Rebellion Empathy Circles online EMPATHY CAFE Duration: 2 hr Public · Anyone on or off Facebook How to create trust in a group? This is the question that arose in our... Continue reading →
by 
by 
