Look, we're not against civic improvement. Far from it. We want this city to glow up. We want clean streets, thriving small businesses, and neighborhoods where you don't have to play hopscotch over broken glass on your morning walk. But there's a difference between genuine development and performative progress — and San Francisco has a long, expensive history of confusing the two.

The city's track record on development speaks for itself. We've spent billions on housing, homelessness, and infrastructure over the past decade, and the average resident would be hard-pressed to point to proportional results. Permitting remains a bureaucratic nightmare. Construction costs are among the highest in the nation. And every "revitalization" initiative seems to come with a new layer of oversight committees, consultants, and reports that cost seven figures and recommend more reports.

As one SF resident put it: "I'll believe in the glow up when my rent doesn't require a second job and the sidewalks don't require hiking boots."

Here's what an actual glow up would look like: streamlined permitting so small businesses can open in weeks instead of months. Transparent budgets where taxpayers can track every dollar from allocation to outcome. Zoning reforms that let housing get built without a decade of appeals. In other words, less government theater, more government function.

San Francisco has all the ingredients — the talent, the tax base, the cultural energy. What it lacks is the political will to cut through its own red tape. A real glow up doesn't start with a press release. It starts with a city that respects its residents' time, money, and intelligence enough to deliver results instead of vibes.

We'll keep the champagne on ice.