So... why?

Let's be honest about what's happening here. Lurie inherited the lowest bar in modern municipal history. Years of runaway spending, a homelessness crisis managed with all the strategic acumen of a game of whack-a-mole, and a City Hall culture that treated accountability like a foreign concept. When you follow that act, simply showing up with a plan and a pulse goes a long way.

As one local put it bluntly: "The former mayor was so terrible. Good god."

And that's the thing — a lot of this is vibes. One SF resident asked the question plenty of us are thinking: "For what specific accomplishments? This is just vibes. Honestly asking." It's a fair point. Popularity polls a year into a mayoralty are less a report card and more a mood ring. Every recent SF mayor — Ed Lee, London Breed — rode this exact same honeymoon wave before the structural rot of city governance dragged them back down to earth.

Another resident offered the more seasoned take: "Most mayors were popular one year in, because they're still riding on their 'throw the previous guy out' wave. What inevitably happens is that the 'pushing homeless from A to B to C back to A' schtick runs out of steam."

That's the real test. We don't need a popular mayor. We need a fiscally disciplined one. One who can resist the San Francisco reflex of throwing hundreds of millions at problems with zero measurable outcomes. One who understands that public safety isn't a culture war issue — it's the baseline requirement for a functional city.

Lurie has the goodwill. He has the runway. But goodwill is a depreciating asset, and San Francisco's problems are structural, not cosmetic. If the budget keeps ballooning, if the nonprofit-industrial complex keeps feasting on city contracts with no results, and if tent encampments just rotate neighborhoods like some grim game of musical chairs, the poll numbers will follow the same trajectory they always do.

We're rooting for competence here. But popularity isn't a policy. Show us the receipts.