Daniel Lurie? Mayor of SF?

I'm shocked -- in a good way

Well this should be interesting.

Honestly, I never thought Daniel Lurie would be elected mayor of San Francisco.

Understand, that has nothing to do with me not liking him. I know Daniel Lurie. We went out to dinner at the New Orleans Super Bowl. When I was writing an SF Chronicle column we talked on the phone a lot.

And I will never forget — apologies for repeating this story, but that’s what happens when you don’t have an editor — Daniel and I standing at the bar at Scott Weiner’s victory part in November of 2015.

We were watching the presidential elections results come in on the TV. And he kept saying, “This doesn’t look good.” And I kept saying — emphatically and erroneously — that there was NO WAY the American people would elect a buffoon like Donald Trump.

So yeah, I know him. I’d even say (and we may hear from his lawyers on this) that we are friends.

But, candidly, he seemed like a long shot. At one point in the campaign, he and I talked about an endorsement, but I was uncomfortable. I know Mark Ferrell a bit too. And I’m on record supporting incumbent London Breed on some decisions and programs.

And frankly, I just couldn’t believe a complete political outsider would be the people’s choice.

Turns out, that’s exactly what they want. (If you’d like further evidence, Aaron Peskin, the consummate City Hall insider, finished third.)

So congratulations Daniel. As they say on Saturday Night Live: I was with you all the way.

And, by the way, this just might work.

A little pushback on a few points.

First, that money won this race.

Certainly, the roughly $10 million Lurie spent on his campaign didn’t hurt his chances.

But if money won elections, we’d be congratulating President Kamala Harris. You can buy a lot of TV ads, but at a certain point viewers get tired of them. They may even start to piss them off.

Basically, a well-funded campaign is an advantage, but you need a message to win. Lurie hit the right talking points.

Second — and there’s no other way to put this — Lurie is rich. It wasn’t long before there were ads sneering at the “trust fund kid” who thinks he has all the answers.

I don’t know. There’s a certain number of very wealthy nepo babies, and I don’t see most of them doing anything particularly productive.

Someone like Lara Trump has all the advantages: wealth, name ID and opportunity. And she chose to use all that to record an off-key version of Tom Petty’s “Won’t Back Down.”

Compared to that, Lurie taking on what it probably the toughest job in American politics — big city mayor — seems pretty altruistic from over here.

Also, the take that Lurie is wandering into the wild, wild world of City Hall politics without a clue is a little glib.

Tipping Point, which he founded in 2005, is a $500 million charitable organization. As he often said, and I wrote in more than one column, the hallmark of Tipping Point was a regular review of the organizations that were getting donations.

And, unlike a ticket on the City Hall gravy train, where once you’re on the budget for funding you’re renewed every year, Lurie pulled the funds from underperformers.

There are criticisms that the oversight didn’t always work, but Lurie has the right idea. Bringing accountability to the vast network of city-funded public service agencies is a great goal.

So, now that he’s in the mayor’s office I’m sure he’ll want some advice.

Happy to oblige. Luckily the great thing about giving advice to the mayor of San Francisco is that there is no problem identifying the obvious pachyderm in the room issue.

Homelessness has defined San Francisco for eons. Seeing people living in poverty on downtown sidewalks reinforces the worst opinions of the city — a place where the number one draft choice of the 49ers is shot near Union Square.

Lurie needs a workable alternative. Not a short-term, put people in hotels for a couple of months scheme, but a sustainable, consistent and fair path to get people off the street and into shelter.

Lurie has such a plan. And I think it is a good one. I’m just not sure people realize how radical it is for San Francisco.

The obvious takeaway is his call for creation of 1,500 emergency shelter beds and 2,500 “interim” shelter beds. Enough that if you are living in a tent on the sidewalk, the city will have a clean, warm and safe (safe is very important) place for you.

But that’s it.

Lurie’s plan comes right out and says it. They are not going to invest in the fantasy of PSH — permanent supportive housing. A longtime standby of the Housing Coalition, PSH means a permanent house or an apartment for the unhoused.

It also comes at an estimated cost of $1 billion. And it would create large blocks of public housing that the city would have to maintain, supervise and administrate. It’s a road map for failure.

In a Lurie press release that notes the average waiting time for PSH housing is an incredible 14 years, advocate Elizabeth Funk made the case:

“San Francisco’s barometer for success has been permanent housing placement rather than getting people off the streets,” explained Funk, Founder & CEO of DignityMoves, the leader in creation of Interim Supportive Housing (“ISH”). “That approach not only makes this crisis more visible, it is inhumane, as it abandons people on the street for too long.”

Certainly, it is the responsibility of a major American city to shelter those who are unable to shelter themselves. No one can see someone living on the cold concrete without wanting to help.

But it is also the responsibility of a modern, wealthy American city to make life comfortable and enjoyable for its tax-paying residents. When a tent encampment is set up next to a neighborhood day care center, it is easy for San Franciscans to throw up their hands and say the city is out of control.

Lurie needs to clear those tents and keep them cleared. Doing so would be noticeable and widely praised. It should be a signature issue for him and hopefully a signature accomplishment.

As least during the campaign, he sounded as if he’s all in, regardless of legal fights:

“No matter the outcome of the Supreme Court’s decision,” he said, “the injunction does not stop the mayor from closing encampments—lack of action does.”

I think history will tell us that’s what doomed Mayor Breed. She had the job, but it didn’t seem anything changed. There was a push to clear encampments, but it may have seemed more like when SF cleared the streets to host the Super Bowl — performative action.

Voters saw that. And they it led them to decide what they wanted in a mayor.

An outsider.

They might be right.

Contact C.W. Nevius at cwnevius@gmail.com. Twitter and Threads: @cwnevius