San Francisco Mayor Lurie’s Reliance on Wealthy Elites Raises Concerns of Privatized Governance
San Francisco’s newly elected mayor, Daniel Lurie, an heir to the Levi Strauss fortune, is facing scrutiny for his administration’s apparent shift towards prioritizing the influence of wealthy individuals and corporations in shaping the city’s future. Critics are voicing concerns that Lurie’s initiatives, ostensibly aimed at revitalizing the city, may inadvertently erode the public sector’s role in governance and favor private interests.
The San Francisco Standard recently unveiled two previously undisclosed initiatives spearheaded by Lurie’s office. These initiatives, while presented as separate endeavors, share a common thread: the elevation of affluent members of San Francisco’s elite to positions of influence in policymaking and urban development.
The first initiative, a mayoral council named the Partnership for San Francisco, comprises a roster of prominent Silicon Valley executives. This council includes CEOs such as Sam Altman of OpenAI, Tony Xu of DoorDash, and Marc Benioff of Salesforce. Leading the council are Katherine August-deWilde, formerly president of First Republic Bank; Laurene Powell Jobs, Steve Jobs’ widow and owner of The Atlantic; and Ruth Porat, president and chief investment officer of Alphabet, Google’s parent company.
According to The San Francisco Standard, the council’s purpose is to provide the mayor with "CEO-level views on policy." Funding for the council will be derived from dues paid by participating companies, effectively creating a privately funded advisory body to the mayor.
The second initiative is the San Francisco Downtown Development Corp, a public-private partnership designed to inject private capital into the city’s business development endeavors. This corporation will utilize a combination of public taxpayer funds and private donations to finance revitalization projects within the city’s business district. David Stiepelman, a former Goldman Sachs official, has been tapped to lead the Downtown Development Corp and is actively seeking funding sources for the organization.
The structure of the Partnership for San Francisco bears a striking resemblance to the Partnership for New York City, an organization established during New York’s fiscal crisis in the 1970s. The New York model involved inviting wealthy industrialists to guide the city’s recovery, a strategy that shifted power away from the public sector and towards private ventures.
These initiatives have sparked concern among observers who fear a trend towards privatized governance. The shift mirrors developments at the federal level, where public agencies have experienced budget cuts and revenue has been diverted towards a more corporate-driven approach to governance.
Critics argue that relying heavily on private sector expertise and funding risks skewing policy decisions in favor of corporate interests, potentially neglecting the needs of ordinary residents and the broader public good. Concerns have also been raised about transparency, as the initiatives were launched without prior public knowledge or input.
The composition of the Partnership for San Francisco has also drawn scrutiny. The inclusion of powerful Silicon Valley executives raises questions about potential conflicts of interest, as their companies may directly benefit from policy decisions influenced by the council.
The San Francisco Standard’s report highlights the need for greater transparency and public discourse surrounding these initiatives. As San Francisco navigates its urban challenges, ensuring that decisions are made in the best interest of all residents, not just a select few, is paramount.
The San Francisco Mayor’s office had no comment to give.
The question remains if these initiatives are truly geared toward the common good, or if they represent a move towards corporate control. Only time will tell what the results of these initiatives will be. It is, however, a situation that needs to be closely watched and discussed by the public.
It is important to remember that these initiatives are in their early stages. There is still the possiblity for public comment and input. It is important to remain informed and engaged in the process.
