A new proposal from the Board of Supervisors would expand the city's landmark paid parental leave program, potentially making fully paid family leave available to workers who've been on the job for a shorter period of time. On its face, it's the kind of policy that's hard to argue against. Who doesn't want new parents to have time with their kids?

But here's where we pump the brakes.

San Francisco's paid parental leave mandate doesn't come from some magical city fund. It's funded by employers — many of whom are already navigating sky-high commercial rents, brutal tax burdens, and a business environment that's driven countless storefronts to shutter. Expanding eligibility means expanding costs, and those costs don't evaporate. They get passed along — in hiring freezes, reduced hours for other workers, higher prices, or simply one more reason for a small business owner to set up shop in Austin instead.

Nobody is anti-parent here. The question is whether a city government that can't keep its own budget balanced should be mandating ever-expanding benefits on private employers. San Francisco already has among the most generous worker protections in the country. At some point, you have to ask: is the goal to help working families, or is it to burnish a supervisor's progressive credentials before the next election cycle?

The real pro-family policy would be making San Francisco affordable enough that one income could go further — cutting the red tape that inflates housing costs, reining in the taxes that squeeze middle-class families, and letting businesses grow so they can voluntarily offer competitive benefits to attract talent.

Instead, we get another mandate. Another compliance burden. Another reason the city's small business vacancy rate looks like a horror movie.

We're all for parents getting time with their newborns. We'd just love to see City Hall spend half as much energy making San Francisco a place where families can actually afford to stay.