San Francisco Supervisor Alan Wong launches “Dumb Laws” contest to identify outdated city rules and processes

A public call to flag regulations seen as outdated, burdensome, or unnecessary

San Francisco District 4 Supervisor Alan Wong has launched a citywide “Dumb Laws” contest inviting residents and small business owners to submit examples of local laws, regulations, permit requirements, and administrative processes they believe are outdated, unnecessary, or overly burdensome.

The initiative is framed as a public intake effort: participants are asked to identify specific rules or procedures and explain how they affect daily life, commerce, and routine interactions with city government. The stated goal is to generate a list of concrete candidates for reform and to focus attention on provisions that may no longer match current conditions or policy priorities.

How the contest fits into a broader permitting and “rules modernization” debate

The contest arrives as San Francisco continues to grapple with criticism that layered requirements across departments can slow openings, renovations, and routine compliance for businesses and property owners. In recent months, City Hall has advanced multiple proposals aimed at modernizing permitting and removing requirements described by officials as no longer aligned with present-day needs.

Within that context, Wong’s contest functions as a crowdsourcing mechanism rather than a standalone legislative package. Any repeal or amendment of municipal rules would still require drafting legislation, committee review, public hearings, and votes by the Board of Supervisors, and in some cases coordination with or action by relevant departments and commissions.

What submissions are expected to include

While the contest centers on the label “dumb laws,” the scope extends beyond the city’s legal code to include rules embedded in departmental processes. Submissions are expected to target items such as:

• permit steps viewed as duplicative or unclear;
• requirements that appear mismatched to current business practices or building standards;
• legacy restrictions that remain on the books despite changing technology or city operations;
• administrative processes that add time or cost without a clear public-purpose rationale.

Constraints: public safety, accessibility, and legal boundaries

Not every unpopular or inconvenient rule is eligible for simple removal. Many city requirements are tied to state law, federal standards, settlement agreements, labor and contracting obligations, or public-safety and accessibility protections. Some policies can only be altered through complex revisions that preserve core protections while changing how compliance is achieved.

The contest focuses public attention on identifying specific rules and procedures; any changes would still move through San Francisco’s legislative process.

What happens next

Wong’s office is expected to compile submissions and identify themes that could translate into targeted legislation or administrative changes. The practical outcome will depend on whether proposals can be written narrowly enough to remove obsolete requirements while maintaining enforceable standards for health, safety, accessibility, and fair administration across the city.

For residents and businesses, the next measurable milestones will be whether a public list of submissions is released, which items are selected for follow-up, and whether any proposed revisions are scheduled for hearings and votes at the Board of Supervisors.