At a public hearing that laid bare the fractures in the mayor's economic pitch, Lurie's plan to offer tax relief to real estate developers was dissected, questioned, and — let's be honest — largely dismantled by critics who see the proposal as a giveaway dressed up as economic stimulus.

Here's the thing: we're generally fans of lower taxes. If you want to get things built in a city that desperately needs housing and commercial revitalization, making it cheaper to build is Economics 101. San Francisco's notoriously hostile business environment has driven out companies and stalled projects for years. In theory, developer tax cuts could be a smart tool.

But theory and execution are two very different things in San Francisco governance.

The problem with Lurie's proposal isn't the concept — it's the lack of accountability baked into the plan. Tax cuts without clear benchmarks, without measurable deliverables, and without sunset clauses aren't fiscal conservatism. They're blank checks. And San Francisco has written far too many of those already.

Where are the guarantees that these cuts actually translate into units built? Into jobs created? Into commercial spaces filled? Without hard numbers tied to real outcomes, this isn't pro-growth policy — it's just the city leaving money on the table and hoping developers do the right thing. Spoiler: hope is not a fiscal strategy.

The hearing exposed what happens when a mayor tries to thread the needle between progressive San Francisco's deep suspicion of developers and the economic reality that we need construction to happen. Lurie ended up pleasing nobody — progressives see a corporate handout, and fiscal hawks see sloppy policy.

We want to root for tax cuts that spur development. We really do. But if you're going to spend political capital on pro-business policy in this city, you'd better come correct with the details. This wasn't it.