While stories like the recent one in the SF Standard by Han Li While we’ve provided a good overview of Proposals D and E, what’s desperately missing is context: why is TogetherSF spending nearly $10 million to pass a bureaucratic reform measure? Here’s a hint: it’s not about bureaucracy.

Last summer, the United States Supreme Court, following a strictly partisan vote, gave almost unlimited powers to the American president. Proponents of Proposition D are now trying to do the same thing here in San Francisco by trying to remove the tools we use to check executive power.

According to internal TogetherSF documents, disclosed by The Phoenix Project in September, TogetherSF is working on a six-year plan to take control of San Francisco government, from top to bottom. The plan is two-fold: elect their candidates to open seats and pass ballot measures that will fundamentally reshape the power structure of San Francisco government. Proposition D falls into part two, along with another charter amendment that would bring district elections back to citywide. Together, these amendments will effectively consolidate San Francisco’s power at the top.

Democracy, whether in a country like the United States or a city like San Francisco, is based on a handful of fundamental principles. One of these principles is responsibility. A government, or a chief executive, that cannot be held accountable to its citizens can never be fully democratic. For decades, San Francisco has held its government and mayor accountable both through the Board of Supervisors and healthy commissions that provide a kind of soft oversight over executive agencies.

Proposition D is touted by its deep-pocketed backers as aimed at cutting bureaucracy and red tape, but this is misleading. Proposition D aims to reduce accountability, and therefore democracy, in our city.

San Francisco faces a very competitive race for mayor. Among the leading candidates is a conservative financier who enjoys the support of TogetherSF and whose detractors have dubbed him MAGA Mark. Another candidate is a generation-long progressive leader in San Francisco. Whether Mark Farrell, Aaron Peskin or other major candidates such as incumbent Mayor London Breed or billionaire Daniel Lurie win this divisive race, supporters of the other candidates know that the mayor will be held accountable and have his power limited by commissions. and the Supervisory Board. This knowledge means that all factions will continue to have a say in municipal government. Another word for this is democracy.

Power-sharing can sometimes be time-consuming and complicated, but it’s better than a streamlined system that gives too much power to the mayor, especially at a time when unprecedented amounts of money are flooding politics here.

These tens of millions of dollars are not only disconcerting to so-called “progressives,” but to all San Francisco residents who believe their government should be open and accountable to the community’s interests. San Francisco has experienced a tug-of-war between downtown business interests and organized neighborhood residents for nearly 150 years. These struggles defined both the City Charter of 1932, which radically consolidated power in the hands of elites, and the Charter Amendments of 1976, which brought district elections for supervisors and transferred a part of the power to the neighborhoods.

TogetherSF, as a political pressure group, is more than a new player in this fight. Guided by their billionaire backers, such as co-founder, board member and largest backer Michael Moritz, TogetherSF and similar organizations like Neighbors for a Better San Francisco and GrowSF, are bringing in more money downtown, business and real estate. interests than ever. They also understand that as long as democracy in San Francisco remains strong, they are unlikely to win. They are therefore trying to change the rules of the game.

I hope and believe that San Franciscans will overcome this new iteration of corporate takeover.

Jeremy Mack is executive director of the Phoenix Project.