A few years ago, I was one of San Francisco’s harshest critics.
Writing for the Pacific Research Institute, I documented rising crime, retail theft, open-air drug markets, and a criminal justice philosophy that often seemed more focused on reducing incarceration and prosecution than on protecting public safety. During recalled district attorney Chesa Boudin’s years in office, property crime surged, retail theft became a national symbol of urban disorder, overdose deaths reached record levels, and confidence in city government collapsed.
I don’t regret those criticisms.
The conditions that existed in San Francisco during those years were real. Car break-ins became a national punchline. Retailers fled Union Square. Open-air drug markets flourished in the Tenderloin. Residents and business owners increasingly questioned whether city leaders were willing or able to maintain basic public order.
Nor was concern limited to conservatives. By 2021, neighborhood groups, business organizations, crime victims, community leaders, and even the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board were openly questioning whether the city had lost its way. The debate was no longer about ideology. It was about outcomes.
Recently, Manhattan Institute fellow Christopher Rufo reminded readers of that era with a vivid account of drug gangs and open-air dealing in the Tenderloin. Much of what he described would have been instantly recognizable to San Franciscans during the city’s darkest years.
Yet the more important question in 2026 is not where San Francisco was. It is whether San Francisco has learned anything from that experience.
The evidence increasingly suggests that it has.
The city that became a national symbol of urban dysfunction is now showing measurable signs of recovery. That recovery did not happen by accident. It followed years of public frustration, political change, and a growing insistence that government focus less on intentions and more on results.
And the results are beginning to show.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, violent crime fell by 21 percent in 2025, while property crime fell by 29 percent. Compared with 2019, violent crime is down 34 percent and property crime is down 54 percent. Homicides fell to just 28, the lowest number recorded in San Francisco since 1954. Car theft declined by 45 percent, the largest reduction among 35 major American cities studied by the Council on Criminal Justice.
Perhaps more important than the numbers themselves is how San Francisco compares with other cities. The Chronicle found that the city’s reductions in violent and property crime exceeded those of Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas, San Antonio, Las Vegas, and Atlanta. That suggests local leadership and local policy choices are contributing to the improvement rather than simply riding a broader national trend.
The improvement did not occur in a vacuum. San Franciscans who had long tolerated rising disorder increasingly demanded a different approach. The recall of District Attorney Chesa Boudin, growing pressure on city leaders to address open-air drug markets, renewed attention to quality-of-life offenses, and a broader focus on public safety signaled a shift in priorities. While no single policy explains the city’s improvement, it is difficult to separate recent gains from the political and policy changes that preceded them.
The positive signs extend beyond crime.
Union Square retail vacancies have declined from their post-pandemic highs while new retailers continue to open downtown. Artificial intelligence companies are leasing millions of square feet of office space and making long-term commitments to the city. OpenAI, Anthropic, and other firms are helping drive the strongest office leasing market San Francisco has seen since before the pandemic.
After years of stories about businesses leaving, San Francisco is once again attracting investment, talent, and optimism. Much of this aligns with the election of Mayor Daniel Lurie.
None of this means the city’s problems have been solved.
As Rufo noted, the Tenderloin continues to struggle with addiction, overdoses, and street disorder. Open-air drug markets have not disappeared, and far too many families are still losing loved ones to fentanyl and other drugs. In many respects, addiction and overdose deaths remain the city’s most significant public-safety challenge.
Years ago, I wrote an article asking, “How Many Will Die?” in response to policies that appeared to tolerate addiction. That question remains relevant today.
But acknowledging the city’s unfinished challenges should not obscure the larger story. San Francisco remains a cautionary tale about what can happen when ideology overtakes outcomes and government loses sight of its responsibility to maintain public order.
It is also becoming a case study in what happens when voters demand change.
The lesson is not that San Francisco’s problems were exaggerated. The lesson is that they were real. Nor is the lesson that government is powerless to address them. San Francisco’s recent progress suggests that public policy still matters, leadership still matters, and voters still matter.
The recovery remains fragile, and the Tenderloin remains a profound challenge. Yet for the first time in many years, San Francisco appears to be moving in the right direction. That is a development worth recognizing—and a reminder that even deeply troubled institutions can change course.
The city has. The Giants are still working on it.
Steve Smith is a senior fellow in urban studies at the Pacific Research Institute, focusing on California’s ongoing crime challenges.