For a city where "summer" is famously the foggiest, coldest season and where Mark Twain (probably never) said the coldest winter he ever spent was a summer in San Francisco, a legitimately warm March is noteworthy. We're talking temperatures that had people doing something San Franciscans almost never do: complaining about heat.

As one amused observer from Seattle put it, watching from afar: "I couldn't believe the temperatures I kept seeing out of there. I was a little jealous, but also I know anything over 70 is pure hellfire." Honestly? For a city where most apartments don't have air conditioning because they've historically never needed it, that's not entirely wrong.

Now, before anyone turns this into a sweeping policy argument in either direction, let's just appreciate the data for what it is: one month that was unusually warm. It's worth noting, it's worth tracking, and it's worth keeping an eye on — particularly because San Francisco's infrastructure, housing stock, and city services are not built for sustained heat. Most rental units in the city have zero cooling systems. The city's emergency heat response plans have historically been an afterthought compared to earthquake preparedness.

If warmer months become more common, the practical question isn't about federal climate legislation — it's about whether San Francisco's city government is adapting its building codes, its public health responses, and its emergency planning accordingly. Or whether they're too busy renaming things and adding bike lanes to notice.

March was hot. The thermometer doesn't lie. Whether City Hall is paying attention is another question entirely.