Across California, jurisdictions are moving swiftly to strip Cesar Chavez's name from public spaces. The impetus? A growing reckoning with Chavez's complicated legacy — particularly his harsh stance against undocumented immigrants, which included organizing patrols along the U.S.-Mexico border and reportedly encouraging violence against migrant workers who crossed picket lines. For a city that prides itself on being a sanctuary for immigrants, having a major thoroughfare named after someone with that track record is, shall we say, awkward.

But this is San Francisco, where urgency goes to die in committee. Other cities rename streets. We form working groups. The distinction matters because it reveals the fundamental bureaucratic reflex of City Hall: when faced with a straightforward decision, add process. Add stakeholders. Add meetings. Add a timeline that stretches to the horizon.

To be fair, renaming a street isn't trivial — businesses need to update addresses, signage costs money, and residents deserve input. But let's not pretend this requires a NASA-level task force. The street was only renamed from Army Street in 1995, and plenty of old-timers still call it that anyway.

Here's the real question taxpayers should be asking: how much is this working group costing, and could a supervisor just introduce a bill already? If the political will exists — and in this town, virtue signaling is practically a municipal sport — then skip the bureaucratic theater and put it to a vote.

Or, in true SF fashion, we could spend two years studying the issue, commission a report no one reads, and table it for the next election cycle. Place your bets.