San Francisco residents need an organization that can follow public money and decisions before the damage is done. I propose a Community DataBank, beginning with Pacific Heights and Cow Hollow, supported by a modest, publicly approved allocation of our taxes. Residents should be able to find out what government is doing without requiring everyone to research City Hall.
My earlier proposal placed two desks outside the Mayor’s Office, staffed by neighborhood association members who would watch who goes in and out and follow the public business behind those visits. The DataBank would give those desks useful work and reliable records. A visitor’s presence would prompt a question; official documents would establish what actually happened.
Use disclosed calendars, lobbying filings, and public records to follow official business, respecting privacy and building rules. Set scheduled hours so residents know when someone is available. Publish each request and response in the relevant issue file. If officials correct an entry, preserve the correction and its explanation. The record should help residents participate early and give departments a practical way to answer questions once for everyone without repeated paperwork.
Invite the Pacific Heights Residents Association and Cow Hollow Association to develop the first demonstration. Both have newsletter channels, and Cow Hollow has a block captain network. Neither has agreed to participate. Their existing email networks offer a practical starting point without inventing a new organization’s audience overnight.
Each association could send its own invitation. Residents would choose whether to join the DataBank and share contact information. Existing private lists would stay with the associations. Renters, homeowners and people who cannot afford membership dues would have equal access to public information. Phone and paper participation would remain available.
Keep a private contact register, public files on neighborhood decisions and a public money ledger. Every public entry should identify its source, responsible agency, and update date. Show missing answers plainly. Record what officials promised alongside what they delivered, with corrections visible to readers.
Once a week, send a brief that takes five minutes to read and asks residents about a concrete priority. AI can help summarize documents, but people must check accuracy and include differing views. Publish participation totals. Never present an advisory neighborhood response as an official election result.
Start with two assignments: trace a street repair allocation through completed work and follow one development application. Show the applicable rules, applicant, decision dates, review opportunities, and official answers. Residents need this information while they can still participate. The pilot would create no automatic neighborhood veto over development.
The money trail begins with the fund. San Francisco’s General Fund receives local tax revenue and supports many services. Other revenue, including particular grants and bond proceeds, has restricted uses. The Mayor proposes spending; supervisors adopt appropriations. Departments carry out authorized work. A budget, a payment, and a completed repair are different records.
Street history deserves accuracy. A 2005 Public Works report says Dianne Feinstein used millions from a General Fund surplus for street repairs in the early 1980s. It says gas tax and road fund revenues were going to cleaning rather than paving by 2005. It does not establish that Feinstein moved road money into the General Fund.
For a damaged block, identify the responsible agency, funding source, repair schedule, commitments, payments, and completion record. Include dated photographs and service request numbers. When a department cannot connect a payment to the block, ask it to explain. Residents should not have to guess where their repair money went.
Herb Caen joked about rush hour double parking on Pine in 1995. We can document today’s obstructions on Bush and Pine and ask merchants, delivery operators, and officials for workable loading arrangements. Two blocked lanes on a three-lane block leave one moving lane. Photograph the conditions and measure delays before prescribing changes.
I have heard complaints about water department favoritism and poor accountability dating to the Willie Brown years. Those accounts require records and a management response. City rules permit dismissal for cause with procedural protections. Experienced workers should also receive paid time to train successors before their practical knowledge retires with them.
Request $7,520 for a ninety-day demonstration, through an approved General Fund grant supported by existing municipal tax revenue. Funding requires an available appropriation, a sponsoring department, and an eligible operator. Neighborhood taxes are not automatically reserved for associations. No grant, operating agreement, or City Hall space has been secured.
Volunteers would coordinate the database, check records, and staff the desks. Plan for eight coordinator hours and twelve reporting and desk hours weekly, shared among a roster. Record volunteer hours separately from cash spending. Shifts, backup coverage, and training would make the service dependable.
The cash budget provides $2,000 for database setup and secure hosting; $1,500 for limited independent planning or legal review; $1,200 for outreach; $1,800 for administration and insurance; and $1,020 contingency. Publish estimates and actual costs. The volunteer roster would provide scheduled desk coverage during agreed hours.
A qualified nonprofit or fiscal sponsor would administer the grant and support volunteers. Six volunteer resident representatives, three from each neighborhood with tenant representation, would oversee priorities under published selection rules. Disclose financial interests and conflicts. Public information must remain accessible to people who buy no membership or shares.
Start the clock after funding and agreements are in place. Target 200 consenting residents, ten weekly briefs, two maintained issue files and three monthly spending statements. Seek responses from at least fifty distinct residents. Report unanswered questions and missed targets alongside successes. Renewal should depend on results and actual costs.
The grant would support nonpartisan information and participation, with terms expressly prohibiting spending on candidate or ballot measure campaigns. Publish the DataBank’s own grant and invoices. Pacific Heights and Cow Hollow can test the method, then share it with other neighborhoods, with fair support for communities that have fewer resources. Our taxes should help us oversee our city.
John van Sicklen Maeck II is a writer based in San Francisco.
