San Francisco and Oakland are each gearing up for November ballot measures that would significantly expand mayoral powers. While both mayors share the goal of reshaping their city charters, their strategies for winning voter support could not be more different.
Funding and signature gathering
Mayor Daniel Lurie’s San Francisco campaign has poured roughly $4.5 million into hiring signature‑gatherers to place three charter amendments—Propositions D, E and F—on the ballot. The total effort is part of a nearly $14 million push funded by the mayor’s allies.
Across the Bay, Oakland Mayor Barbara Lee’s measure has raised only $37,000 this year. Rather than a massive signature‑gathering operation, Lee secured council approval to place a single amendment—Measure EE—directly on the ballot.
Community engagement tactics
Lee’s approach emphasized extensive public interaction. She hosted three live‑streamed question sessions at City Hall, sat through every hearing, and fielded dozens of speakers. The council’s 4‑4 split was broken by Lee’s vote, allowing the amendment to advance.
In contrast, Lurie relied on a series of ten meetings—six small‑group sessions and four larger workshops—held in Room 201 of City Hall from December through March. A 31‑member panel, largely composed of pro‑business and moderate voices with three labor representatives, reviewed the proposals. Critics described the process as “superficial,” noting that only emailed comments were accepted at the first meeting and that the mayor unveiled the propositions just one day after the final session.
Scope of the proposed changes
San Francisco’s three measures would:
- Make it harder for residents to place initiatives on the ballot and remove the mayor’s unilateral initiative power (Prop D).
- Give the city administrator authority to reform contracting procedures (Prop E).
- Allow the mayor to hire and fire certain department heads without council input (Prop F).
Oakland’s single Measure EE would:
- Permit the mayor to appoint additional department heads and veto council budget decisions.
- Strip the mayor of tie‑breaking vote power.
- Give council members the ability to communicate directly with staff, call staff to testify, and override a mayoral veto with a two‑thirds vote.
Stakeholder involvement
Both charter efforts were shaped by the urban policy think tank SPUR, which contributed recommendations and placed three of its members on both cities’ working groups. SPUR declined to comment on the differing processes.
San Francisco’s working group counted 31 members, while Oakland’s was limited to eight. Oakland’s group held 14 community meetings from October to December, drawing more than 750 attendees and conducting a resident survey that collected 433 responses. San Francisco’s group held fewer public sessions and relied heavily on written feedback.
Mayor and official statements
Charles Lutvak, spokesperson for the San Francisco mayor’s office, said the process invited public comment multiple times and earned support from small businesses, labor unions and residents. He added that Mayor Lurie ran on “fixing this system” with his City Hall Accountability Plan, which voters approved in 2024.
Oakland’s mayor Lee has not issued a formal statement for this rewrite, but the council’s vote and her active participation in hearings signal strong commitment to the charter amendment.
What voters can expect
San Franciscans will see three separate propositions on the November ballot, while Oakland voters will decide on a single measure that bundles several changes to mayor‑council dynamics. Both sets of reforms represent the most substantial charter revisions in decades for their respective cities.
As the election approaches, the differing outreach methods may influence how residents perceive the legitimacy and desirability of the proposed power shifts. Voters who value transparent, community‑driven processes may look favorably on Oakland’s extensive hearings, while supporters of rapid, business‑oriented reform may back San Francisco’s well‑funded campaign.
Original reporting: Mission Local — read the source article.
