Neither of these is a platform. One is a food preference. The other is a conspiracy theory dressed up as community organizing.

Let's start with the candidates. The Sunset is one of the most interesting neighborhoods in the city — a genuinely middle-class, family-oriented district where people own small businesses, commute on unreliable Muni lines, and worry about property crime and housing costs. These voters don't need a supervisor who shows up to ribbon cuttings at the night market. They need someone with a real plan for permitting reform, public safety, and keeping the city from taxing working families into oblivion.

Then there's the progressive wing, which has organized under the banner of stopping billionaires from buying elections. Look, outside money in local politics is a legitimate concern — we'll be the first to say so. But framing every candidate who doesn't embrace maximum government spending as a puppet of tech oligarchs isn't activism. It's laziness. It lets you skip the hard work of actually engaging with policy by just pointing at a boogeyman.

The Sunset deserves a real debate about real issues. How do we speed up housing permits without bulldozing neighborhood character? How do we make Muni functional enough that residents don't need a PhD in transit data just to get to work? As one local noted about the city's real-time bus tracking, "There's a whole different art" to figuring out whether your bus is even real or a ghost on the app. That shouldn't require artistry — it should require competent governance.

And how about a candidate willing to talk honestly about the budget? San Francisco spends more per capita than nearly any city in America and still can't deliver basic services reliably. That's not a revenue problem. That's an accountability problem.

Voters in District 4: demand substance. You're not getting it yet.