Instead, we're getting a sideshow.

The transfer tax question is straightforward and important: San Francisco charges a tiered tax on property sales that can run as high as 6% on transactions over $25 million. In a city hemorrhaging office tenants and watching commercial vacancies hover near record highs, asking whether this tax is discouraging investment isn't radical — it's basic fiscal hygiene. Every dollar of tax burden on real estate transactions is a dollar that factors into whether someone buys, builds, or bails on San Francisco entirely.

But the District 4 race has devolved into a mud fight over political organizations, endorsements, and personal credibility — with precious little oxygen left for the actual policy debate. One candidate, Albert Chow, has faced serious questions about his nonprofit's tax filings and a history of inflammatory claims. As one SF resident put it bluntly, the situation amounts to "a severe case of convenient amnesia." Meanwhile, political groups jockeying for influence in the race have drawn their own scrutiny. Another local noted they're "torn" because while they have concerns about outside groups meddling in district races, the alternatives aren't exactly inspiring confidence either.

Here's what frustrates us: the transfer tax question matters. San Francisco is sitting on billions in budget deficits and simultaneously taxing real estate transactions at rates that make investors look to Oakland, San Jose, or Austin instead. You can't tax your way to a thriving city when the tax itself is part of why people leave.

District 4 voters in the Sunset deserve candidates who can articulate a clear position on fiscal policy — not ones who spend their campaigns relitigating personal feuds and dodging accountability for missing tax returns. The real estate transfer tax is a lever that affects housing costs, commercial development, and city revenue. Whoever wins this seat should be ready to pull it thoughtfully.

Less circus. More math. That's the ask.