In 1977, a Polish clergyman named Karol Wojtyła, who would later rise to become Pope John Paul II, drove a light blue Ford Escort. This seemingly ordinary vehicle would become a symbol of great value and intrigue after his election to the papacy.
The aftermath of his rise created significant complications for Poland’s ruling communist regime, as reflected in the comments made by officials at the time. One apparatchik was caught on an open microphone lamenting, “My God, my God, from now on, we’ll have to kiss his ass,” while another astutely observed, “Only if he lets us.”
Fast forward to San Francisco, where a similar dynamic is unfolding after the election of Daniel Lurie, a political newcomer. Unlike many traditional candidates, Lurie embarked on his campaign independent of the city’s major financial backers, some of whom actively opposed him.
This has sent ripples through the city’s influential donor community, leading to a blend of anxiety and intrigue among the wealthy elite who are now evaluating how to navigate their relationship with the new mayor. The pressure group TogetherSF, which had previously spent large sums during its campaigns without success, recently merged with Neighbors for a Better San Francisco, the most expansive political money group in the area.
In the wake of this merger, Neighbors proudly initiated the “Blueprint for a Better San Francisco,” branding it as an “evolution” of TogetherSF. This new group aims to affectionate overcome the awkwardness of courting a mayor who has expressed discomfort with some of its key figures, particularly Neighbors’ executive director Jay Cheng.
Upon his election, Lurie made it clear that he wanted to distance himself from Cheng, primarily due to Cheng’s involvement in ethical controversies. Last year, both Neighbors and Cheng were fined over $54,000 for ethical violations in their role with the 2022 recall of District Attorney Chesa Boudin. Additionally, the Mark Farrell mayoral campaign, heavily supported by Cheng, faced an unprecedented $108,000 ethics fine just before the November elections.
Cheng’s presence at the recent opening gala for Blueprint raises questions about how the new organization will function. While Cheng could influence the group’s direction, Lurie’s evident misgivings complicate this dynamic further.
The San Francisco political donors now face a conundrum: should they invest in an organization led by individuals who have previously squandered large amounts of donor money, or in a group that the mayor openly wants to avoid?
Despite the ethical cloud hanging over Neighbors, the gatherings organized by Blueprint have drawn regular citizens eager to engage in acts of civic-mindedness, such as picking up trash in the streets. While there’s merit in community service, it has inadvertently been used to critique public agencies, which have grown weary of the reliance on private efforts to underscore their limitations.
Public Works employees have pointed out the significant challenges associated with private clean-up initiatives, particularly when they were not fully informed in advance of where the collected trash would be deposited. Disputes often arise when the public blames city agencies for the clutter left behind by these efforts.
Nevertheless, community action to beautify the city has allowed groups like TogetherSF to expand their influence. Their events, initially promoted as good citizenship, served the dual purposes of volunteerism and strategic data collection of those interested in changing the city’s political climate.
The former TogetherSF has now faded, but the need for like-minded groups remains strong, especially as the 2026 supervisorial elections draw nearer. Blueprint could fill the void left by its predecessor by continuing to engage and mobilize affluent donors who are equally frustrated with the city’s governance.
If these influential groups can forge collaborations among themselves while building a rapport with Mayor Lurie, they could emerge as key players in San Francisco’s political landscape.
Wealthy donors are presented with options. Groups like GrowSF are actively hiring former consultants connected to Lurie, demonstrating a willingness to adapt to new political currents. Also, AbundantSF appeals to urbanist interests, providing a platform in San Francisco that contrasts sharply with the more conservative viewpoints expressed by others.
The financial stakes for political influence in local politics remain relatively low when compared to philanthropy or art collecting. For a fraction of what one might pay for a display of fine art, a powerful donor could wield considerable influence over local governance.
Unlike other large donor groups, Neighbors funds campaigns and operates independent expenditure committees aimed at specific political outcomes. Their strategy focuses on maximizing the effectiveness of financial resources to meet desirable ends. If a donor is aligned with the mayor’s priorities, it can often overlook their ties to organizations that had fallen out of favor with the mayor.
But the critical question remains: how long can that relationship endure if Lurie maintains a distance from these groups? The San Francisco political arena is poised for a transformation, and how established groups maneuver their relationships with the mayor will define their roles moving forward.
As the new dynamics unfold, all eyes will be on Lurie’s interactions with Neighbors and Blueprint. This period of political recalibration in San Francisco promises to be as intriguing as the shift in global religious leadership witnessed decades ago, with the potential for significant changes in the city’s governance contributing to an increasingly engaged civic landscape.
image source from：missionlocal
