Let's start with transit. When asked about her opposition to the Geary quick-build project — a bus-only lane that would speed up commutes for thousands of riders in the outer avenues — Chan's response was essentially: well, it happened anyway. That's right. She actively lobbied the mayor to delay the project, and when it moved forward despite her objections, she shrugged and pointed to the finished product as if she hadn't tried to kill it. As one local put it, "Despite her opposition and letter to the mayor asking to delay that project, the quick build did happen." Profiles in courage, folks.

Then there's the Sunset Dunes issue, where Chan wants federal pressure to reopen a stretch for car traffic — overriding years of community process, significant public investment, and the preferences of most residents. One SF resident summed it up perfectly: "Time, money, the people's majority vote; all will be trashed. That's how she views efficiency of limited resources. She should stick to HOA boards."

This is the pattern with too many SF supervisors. Campaign on progressive-sounding promises about safety, livability, and responsive government. Get into office. Block the actual infrastructure improvements that would deliver those things. Then run again on vibes.

What makes this analysis noteworthy isn't that a politician stretched the truth — that's baked into the game. It's that someone bothered to do the homework. As one Bay Area resident reacted: "ACTUAL REPORTING?! ON ISSUES?! My mind is blown."

Same, honestly. San Francisco deserves elected officials whose records can survive a basic fact-check. And voters deserve the information to make that call. When the promises and the performance don't match, the only responsible thing is to say so — loudly, clearly, and before the next election.