> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://puml.media/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Lurie caught lying about multiple SF ballot propositions
- URL: https://puml.media/lurie-caught-lying-about-multiple-sf-ballot-propositions/
- Published: 2026-10-29T17:29:11.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-29T20:26:34.000Z
- Description: Lurie is lying to San Francisco voters with all of the money and power at his disposal to get the election results he and his backers want: in each of these cases, the lies serve an agenda that entrenches and expands the political power of Big Money interests at City Hall.
- Author: Dan Raile
- Tags: Dispatches

In the run up to the November 3rd election, San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie has taken to lying with such audacity and frequency that it is beginning to make headlines. In the least likely example, The San Francisco Chronicle recently [published an article](https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/prop-f-police-san-francisco-22480865.php?taid=6ad8cec93bd36900013825ef&utm%5Fcampaign=trueanthem%2B3988&utm%5Fmedium=social&utm%5Fsource=twitter) about Lurie's repeated lies concerning Proposition F, one of the mayor's three City Charter overhaul measures, all of them enthusiastically endorsed by the Chronicle's editorial board. Unsurprisingly, the Chronicle finds creative ways to avoid saying precisely that Lurie has lied, opting instead to note that he is saying things which are "wrong" and "not true."

This is giving a lot of benefit of the doubt to a mayor who employs around-the-clock PR out of his own pocket to the tune of $1 million per year, for statements that have appeared in campaign mailers and the official San Francisco ballot handbook distributed by the Department of Elections. In this case, the lie Lurie continues to tell is load-bearing: He claims Proposition F will give the Police Commission more independence when, in fact, Prop F would diminish the independence of the Police Commission by giving the Mayor the power to unilaterally dismiss a Police Commissioner at will. Currently, removal from the Police Commission requires a majority vote of the Board of Supervisors, as happened last year when Commissioner Max Carter-Oberstone displayed too much independence for Daniel Lurie's liking.

Lurie has also been taken to task for lying about Proposition I, saying that it creates an "unaccountable slush fund" when in reality it funds the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community development; and claiming it will "blow a $120 million hole in the City Budget" when it preserves that revenue against a tax break he proposed just six months ago and has said he will revisit. Lurie also championed the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development's recent $23 million investment in rebuilding Freedom West cooperative as part and parcel of his "pro-housing" policies, while his Prop I opposition campaign sent out mailers featuring photos of cult members and claiming that Prop I's dedication of funds for developments like Freedom West constitutes funding "housing communes," and "communes just don't work." Lurie's lies have been so brazen on Prop I that [Mission Local](https://missionlocal.org/2026/10/daniel-lurie-san-francisco-elections/?ref=puml.media), [the Gazetteer](https://sf.gazetteer.co/hes-blatantly-lying-about-it-luries-distortion-of-prop-i-confuses-the-affordable-housing-debate?ref=puml.media), and [Beyond Chron](https://beyondchron.org/san-francisco-should-back-prop-i/?ref=puml.media) have all published pieces calling them out.

Then there is Prop D, the charter amendment Lurie and his allies spent millions of dollars to place on this November ballot, which would quadruple the number of signatures needed to place measures on the ballot. Lurie claimed on [KQED Forum this month](https://www.kqed.org/forum/2010101915732/whats-on-the-ballot-in-san-francisco?ref=puml.media) that other charter cities have an even higher signature threshold than what Prop D would mandate. But, as Mission Local [subsequently demonstrated](https://missionlocal.org/2026/10/daniel-lurie-san-francisco-elections/?ref=puml.media), this is blatantly false, because cities like Oakland, San Diego, San Jose and Los Angeles calculate their threshold as a percentage of the number of voters in the last gubernatorial election, whereas San Francisco uses a percentage of the total number of registered voters. Mission Local did the simple arithmetic to show that this distinction makes an enormous difference, and places a higher burden for San Francisco measures than is required in other cities. The upshot is that in the future only ballot measures that can afford to spend north of $1 million to secure a place on the ballot will have the opportunity to do so. Progressive ballot measures will never see the light of day, if Lurie has his way. 

Politicians lie, and that isn't exactly news. But Lurie rode in on [promises to root corruption out of City Hall](https://www.politico.com/newsletters/california-playbook/2024/09/26/corruption-narrative-takes-center-stage-in-sf-mayors-race-00181127?ref=puml.media), and is using that rhetoric even now while steering [over $100 million](https://sfstandard.com/2026/10/28/san-francisco-mayor-daniel-lurie-money-campaign-election-2026/?ref=puml.media) in private "donations" through the Mayor's office to support his programs and campaigns. Yet the cognitive dissonance has become too great even for the likes of the Chronicle and SF Standard (which is owned by key Lurie ally Michael Mortiz). Lurie campaigned on fully staffing and funding the Ethics Commission, for example, and has [actually cut its budget](https://sfstandard.com/2025/06/03/daniel-lurie-budget-ethics-commission/?ref=puml.media). He's also allowed the City's Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, which adjudicates public records requests, to [sit inoperable for months](https://www.sfpublicpress.org/transparency-case-trump-lurie-call-in-limbo/?ref=puml.media) awaiting new appointments while his office refuses to comply with public records requests.

Lurie's agenda is backed by an unprecedented campaign finance machine composed of a tight group of tech and real estate billionaires, and he holds sway over an ironclad majority on the Board of Supervisors. And yet he is lying to San Francisco voters with all of the money and power at his disposal in order to get the election results he and his backers want: in every case, the lies serve an agenda that entrenches and expands the political power of Big Money interests at City Hall, at the expense of everyone else. That's bad for democracy, and bad for the city's working class residents, who deserve a say in the future of their city even as they struggle to maintain a foothold in Daniel Lurie's San Francisco.