Can we ‘reform’ the City Charter without addressing economic inequality? – 48 Hills

Report on Proposed San Francisco Charter Reform and its Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Introduction: The Imperative for Institutional Reform

A comprehensive review of the San Francisco City Charter, the city’s foundational governing document, is being advocated for, as it has not been fully revised since the 1990s. The charter has undergone over 100 piecemeal amendments in the last decade, resulting in an unwieldy and outdated structure. This initiative aligns with Sustainable Development Goal 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), which calls for developing effective, accountable, and transparent institutions at all levels. Key concerns driving the reform effort include an over-concentration of executive power in the mayoral office, which has historically impeded progress on critical urban development goals, including the allocation of funds for affordable housing, a key target of SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities).

2.0 SPUR’s Proposed Reforms and Governance Implications

The San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR) has proposed a series of significant changes to the charter, intended for the November 2026 ballot. These proposals are set to be reviewed by a new Charter Reform Task Force. The proposed reforms aim to streamline city operations and rebalance governmental power structures.

2.1 Key Areas of Proposed Change

• Reallocation of Power: The proposals suggest increasing the authority of the mayor, the city administrator, and the Board of Supervisors.
• Administrative Efficiency: Certain agencies currently defined within the City Charter could be moved to the Administrative Code to improve operational flexibility. The city’s complex contracting process is also targeted for simplification.
• Limits on Direct Democracy: A significant proposal involves making it more difficult for citizen activists and supervisors to place measures directly on the ballot for voters.

While administrative streamlining supports SDG 16.6 (Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions), concerns have been raised that these changes could centralize power and reduce public oversight, potentially undermining the participatory aspects of governance central to SDG 16.7.

3.0 Impact on Participatory Governance and Public Services

San Francisco has a history of utilizing direct democracy to enact progressive policies that advance multiple SDGs when traditional legislative avenues are blocked. The proposed limitations on this mechanism could have significant consequences for achieving sustainability and equity targets.

3.1 Historical Precedents of Direct Democracy

• SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities): Proposition M (1986), which limited office development, was a voter-approved initiative that protected the city’s urban fabric. Similarly, voters have approved taxes on corporations to fund housing for the unhoused, directly addressing targets within SDG 11 and SDG 1 (No Poverty).
• SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions): The Department of Police Accountability was established in 1982 through a voter initiative, creating a model for police oversight and accountability that would have been vetoed by the mayor at the time.

Critics of the reform argue that while representative democracy is the ideal, the influence of concentrated wealth in mayoral elections necessitates direct voter initiatives as a crucial tool for advancing policies that support SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and ensure that urban development is inclusive and sustainable.

4.0 Fiscal Sustainability, Economic Inequality, and the SDGs

The context for these reforms is a significant municipal budget deficit. Proponents of reform argue that a streamlined government is necessary to make “tough decisions” for a sustainable fiscal future. However, this approach is viewed as a euphemism for austerity measures that could disproportionately harm vulnerable populations and undermine progress on several SDGs.

4.1 An Alternative Fiscal Path Aligned with the SDGs

An alternative to budget cuts involves addressing fiscal challenges through progressive revenue generation, a strategy that directly supports SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). This approach posits that adequate funding for public services is achievable without austerity.

1. Progressive Taxation: Implementing modest taxes on the city’s wealthiest residents could generate sufficient revenue to close the budget gap and fund essential public services.
2. Investing in Public Goods: Enhanced revenue could secure robust funding for public transit, affordable housing, quality child care, public health systems, and education, which are foundational to achieving SDG 11, SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), and SDG 4 (Quality Education).
3. State-Level Advocacy: A comprehensive approach to fiscal reform includes advocating for changes at the state level, such as permitting local income taxes, which could create a more equitable and stable revenue base than current regressive tax structures.

Ultimately, any charter reform process must consider its impact on the city’s ability to finance and implement programs essential for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. A focus on institutional efficiency must be balanced with a commitment to democratic participation, social equity, and the creation of a just and sustainable economic system.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
   • The article extensively discusses issues central to urban life in San Francisco, including the provision of affordable housing, the functionality of public transit (Muni), and the maintenance of clean streets. It highlights a conflict where the mayor refused to spend allocated funds for affordable housing, directly impacting the city’s sustainability and inclusivity.
2. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • This is the most prominent SDG in the article. The entire piece revolves around the need for San Francisco’s City Charter reform. It examines the balance of power between the mayor and the Board of Supervisors, the accountability of elected officials, the transparency of governance, and the importance of public participation through direct democracy (voter initiatives). The debate over making governance more “efficient” versus preserving public input and oversight mechanisms is a core theme of SDG 16.
3. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • The article addresses economic inequality by proposing a solution to the city’s budget deficit: taxing the “10,000 richest people in the city.” This fiscal policy is suggested as a way to fund essential public services like affordable housing, child care, and health care, thereby reducing the gap between the wealthy and the rest of the community and addressing the influence of “big money” in politics.
4. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • The article mentions the goal of having a “strong health care system” and references the creation of a commission to oversee the Public Health Department as a progressive reform, connecting governance structures to public health outcomes.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Under SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities):
   • Target 11.1: “By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services…” This is directly identified when the article discusses the mayor’s refusal “to spend money that the board allocated for affordable housing” and the voter-approved initiative to tax corporations “to provide housing for the unhoused.”
   • Target 11.2: “By 2030, provide access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all…” This is relevant to the mention of achieving a “functional Muni” and the discussion around the SFMTA’s lack of accountability, which affects the city’s public transit system.
2. Under SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions):
   • Target 16.6: “Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.” The entire discussion on charter reform—addressing an “unwieldy” document, the mayor’s excessive power, and the lack of accountability in agencies like the SFMTA—relates to this target. The article points out that before district elections, there was “no oversight, no accountability.”
   • Target 16.7: “Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.” This target is highlighted by the article’s focus on “direct democracy.” It describes how voters and supervisors use ballot initiatives to pass progressive reforms that elected officials might otherwise block, such as the creation of the Department of Police Accountability and limits on office development. The proposed changes that would “make it harder for activists to put measures directly before the voters” are a direct challenge to this target.
3. Under SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities):
   • Target 10.4: “Adopt policies, especially fiscal, wage and social protection policies, and progressively achieve greater equality.” The article’s proposal to solve budget issues by “taxing the 10,000 richest people in the city at a very modest rate” is a clear example of a fiscal policy aimed at achieving greater equality and funding social programs.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. For SDG 11 Targets:
   • An implied indicator for Target 11.1 is the amount of public funding allocated and spent on affordable housing programs. The article specifically mentions the mayor’s refusal “to spend money that the board allocated for affordable housing,” making this a measurable point of contention.
2. For SDG 16 Targets:
   • An indicator for Target 16.7 is the number of laws and policies enacted through voter-led initiatives. The article provides historical examples (Prop. M, Office of Citizen Complaints) and frames the ability of supervisors or voters to place measures on the ballot as a key mechanism for participatory governance. Changes to this process could be measured.
   • Another implied indicator for Target 16.6 is the degree of mayoral versus legislative control over city departments and budgets. The article discusses the mayor’s power to ignore board mandates and control commissions, suggesting that the balance of power is a key metric for institutional accountability.
3. For SDG 10 Targets:
   • A specific indicator for Target 10.4 is the tax rate applied to the highest income earners or wealthiest individuals. The article explicitly suggests “taxing the 10,000 richest people” and allowing “local income taxes” as a measurable policy action to fund public services and address inequality.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: 48hills.org