We recommend voting for Stephen Sherrill in District 2.

Sherrill brings a lot of professional policy-maker and political experience to the table, along with a laser focus on responsive and effective governance. He served as senior policy advisor in the Bloomberg administration in New York City, led the Mayor's Office of Innovation here in San Francisco, and as District 2 Supervisor he has cut red tape and focused on helping small businesses, improving public safety, and lowering the cost of living. Through it all, Stephen has shown a consistent commitment to excellence in public service and government accountability.

We feel he's done a great job as Supervisor and are excited to see him continue to work alongside Mayor Lurie and his fellow Board members to get San Francisco back on track.

Without safe streets, parents won't let their kids walk to school, businesses can't keep their doors open, and people lose faith in the city. Rebuilding that trust starts with visible results like cleaner sidewalks, faster responses when people call for help, and better coordination across city departments to address public drug use and improve street conditions.

Why vote for Stephen Sherrill?

Stephen's top policy goals are:

1. Public Safety

Sherrill's top policy priority is public safety, and he's delivered several key victories:

He co-sponsored and passed a resolution to speed up 911 responses to reports of illegal activity near schools, parks, and playgrounds, ensuring that these vital areas don't get neglected.

Sherrill also co-sponsored Mayor Lurie's RV homelessness legislation, ensuring encampments blocking sidewalks, streets, and alleys are regulated with coordinated outreach and clear rules - helping to unblock enforcement of these rules.

Supervisor Sherrill supported more sober housing for people in recovery via the Recovery First ordinance, which supports greater investment in sober living facilities across the city. In his own words, people using drugs in public should "be directed into treatment and services, and moved off the sidewalks so that families and businesses are not forced to live with open air drug use." And he also supports expanding involuntary holds for people who do not have the mental capacity to care for themselves, either due to mental illness or substance abuse. He notes these holds must include clear medical standards for intervention, judicial oversight, transparency and accountability to prevent abuse or neglect.

Finally, to prevent tragedies, he led the city's new free firearm storage program, partnering with SFPD to allow residents to store firearms securely and at no cost at police stations.

2. Small Business

In Supervisor Sherrill's district, several commercial corridors have extremely high vacancy rates, leaving them blighted and hurting the businesses that have managed to hold on, like Van Ness from City Hall north to Broadway — a stretch with 53% ground-floor vacancy. To help, he introduced a plan to make it easier for chain stores to fill these longtime vacant spaces which local businesses don't want. The ordinance passed unanimously, opening the doors to new stores.

To support local businesses and people who want to start a business, he helped extend the "First Year Free" program which waives costly city fees for new businesses. To date it's helped over 11,000 local businesses.

3. Good Governance

Sherrill has long been an advocate for government accountability and effectiveness. He's criticized city hall for letting delays and opaque processes drag on for years, and has called for performance dashboards, departmental scorecards, and real consequences for missed goals.

He brought that ethos to bear during his time leading the Mayor's Office of Innovation. He broke through departmental barriers to build the All Street Integrated Database (ASTRID), which integrates data from nine street teams across four city departments. ASTRID provided, for the first time, homeless outreach workers with comprehensive, up-to-date information on the people they encounter and their history across teams and departments. People got better care, the city worked faster, and taxpayers saved money. A win-win-win.

Sherrill runs his own office with a focus on data - he measures his success by constituent satisfaction, with a focus on accessibility, accountability, and follow through.

On other issues

Affordability & Families: Stephen highlights the four-pronged issues of affordability - housing affordability, quality public education, great public transportation (safe, clean, and reliable), and affordable childcare. He has been vocal about making this city affordable for families by expanding the childcare subsidy to middle class households and by fixing zoning rules that ban daycares in many parts of the city. Additionally, to bring workers back downtown, he's exploring creating a new childcare subsidy for all downtown workers - regardless of residency.

Housing: Stephen supports streamlining building approvals, reducing CEQA friction for moderate-density developments, and capping discretionary appeals. He argues one of the biggest barriers is "the little hindrances" around permitting rather than outright opposition to construction. He also supported office-to-residential conversion incentives, legislation passed unanimously in 2025, which unlocks funding and tools to transform vacant downtown office space into housing.

Transportation & Safe Streets: He supports reintroducing Vision Zero–style safe design measures and voted to adopt the new Street Safety plan. During Board deliberations, he noted that 12% of city streets are responsible for 68% of severe crashes, and pushed for hardened daylighting, curb extensions, and speed hump installation. He voted in support of adopting the new Street Safety plan, and at the Board hearing pointed to data showing how a small share of streets cause the most severe crashes — pushing agencies to prioritize interventions like daylighting, curb extensions, and speed humps.

Fiscal Discipline: Stephen believes the city has overpromised and underdelivered; his approach emphasizes small, evidence-backed pilots and scaling only once metrics prove success.

We recommend voting for Alan Wong for the Board of Supervisors, District 4.

Alan Wong was appointed to District 4 Supervisors by Mayor Daniel Lurie in September, 2025. Lurie ran an open process to find a new Supervisor, and Alan was selected from a set of five finalists for the position. We think that the number one priority for the District 4 Supervisors is to make D4 voters feel heard again—and Alan has been doing just that.

To demonstrate this, Supervisor Wong's first act was to submit a ballot measure to re-open the Great Highway. This reflects the majority opinion in the district and sends a clear signal that he isn't bringing his own agenda to the Board, but is there to enact their will. Only two other Supervisors signed on to the measure, so it did not meet the threshold to qualify for the ballot.

Alan grew up in the Sunset, attended Lincoln High, and has an extensive track record of public service. He's been a labor organizer, a Legislative Aide to former District 4 Supervisor Gordon Mar, led Public Policy and Comms for the Children's Council of San Francisco, and, most recently, was a Trustee on the Community College Board. He is also a First Lieutenant with the Army National Guard. Alan brings experience working across different political and interest groups to do what's in the best interest for the communities he represents.

We believe Alan has the level-headed temperament, experience in public service, and dedication to the district to bring stability back to City Hall. And we think the district deserves some continuity of leadership after the past couple tumultuous years.

Why vote for Alan Wong?

Alan's top policy goals are:

1. Public Safety. Alan believes public safety and a fully staffed police force should continue to be the city's top priority. He says "Public safety investments are critical for residents to feel safe, for small businesses to flourish, and for commerce and activity to return to our neighborhoods."

   To help solve the 500-officer shortage, he supports strengthening recruitment for bilingual officers who speak Cantonese, Mandarin, Spanish, and other languages and civilianizing certain desk roles so more sworn officers can return to patrol.

2. Making Government Work for D4 Residents. District 4 residents consistently ask for responsiveness from City Hall. Alan says he will dedicate half of his staff time to constituent services -that's things like filling potholes, installing stop signs, and working to improve traffic. He has committed to reply within 24 hours to any constituent concern and to follow through across city agencies to make sure issues are resolved. He wants every Sunset resident to have a voice at City Hall, "especially seniors, working families, small business owners, and longtime residents who don't always have time to organize but whose lives are deeply affected by city decisions."

3. Supporting Small Business. Alan says "opening a business in San Francisco is a painful, grueling process that can shut doors before they have a chance to open." He supports Mayor Lurie's efforts to make it easier for businesses to open and run in the city., In our questionnaire, he said he would launch a program to collect feedback and identify laws for repeal, to reduce or eliminate high fees, and give small businesses a "straightforward checklist of items to complete rather than a byzantine maze of never-ending bureaucracy." He'd also like to provide hands-on support to fix problems. We think this is a great way to identify and prioritize the highest priority issues for D4 business owners but also the city at large.

4. Families & Education. The Sunset has long been a home for families just starting out, which means Sunset residents need great schools and daycares for their little ones. Alan wants to ensure families can thrive in the Sunset by supporting early childcare and school choice. We suggest that he should make it easier to open childcare facilities, improve safety and transportation around schools, and push the school district to provide parents with clearer, more transparent enrollment and school-quality information.

On other issues

1. Affordability. Alan understands that families are hurting with the rising cost of living. That's why his first vote on the Board of Supervisors was in favor of Mayor Lurie's Family Zoning plan. It will create new starter homes for new families in the neighborhood, make it easier to add rooms to existing homes, and stabilize rents.
2. Transit & Parking. As a life-long Sunset resident, Alan knows how important parking is. But he knows that not everyone can drive, so a fast, safe, and affordable bus network is just as important. He will find ways to preserve parking without slowing down the bus, and make it easier to access small businesses.
3. Fiscal Discipline. Alan plans to take a pragmatic and holistic approach to the budget role that he will play on the Board of Supervisors; he wants to prioritize core services, scrutinize spending, and consider a mix of savings and revenue options.
4. Great Highway. Alan attempted to get a repeal of the Great Highway closure onto the ballot to give voters a final say on the issue, but only Supervisors Chan and Chen signed on to support it, so it did not succeed.

District 4 needs a serious, values-driven public servant, and we believe Alan is still the best candidate — and that he will do the outreach, build the coalition, and ultimately drive this issue to a good outcome.

We recommend voting for Phil Kim for the Board of Education.

Phil has both the experience and the track record that SFUSD needs. Phil is a former public school student and teacher, and a lifelong educator. He led STEM education and policy at K-12 public schools across 20+ states and 300+ schools. He has a Masters in Education, and is currently pursuing his doctorate in Education. Since he joined the Board in 2024, Phil has used his deep understanding of how other school systems have improved student outcomes to begin the process of improving SFUSD's. He was unanimously elected President by his fellow commissioners in January of this year.

We think Phil has done a great job working with the Board and our Superintendent over the last year and a half to get SFUSD back on track, and would like to see him continue his work.

"We are seeing literacy and math outcomes improving for the first time in years, even as we underwent significant budget reductions last year. As a Board, we must stay focused on effective progress monitoring of our student outcome goals, and holding the superintendent accountable to our guardrails."

Why vote for Phil Kim?

Phil's top policy goals are:

1. Student Outcomes

Phil believes school systems exist to improve student outcomes, and has shown relentless focus on bringing 3rd grade reading, 8th grade math, and college and career readiness markers to a competitive level. For the first time in years, we're seeing improvements. There's a lot of work to be done to get SFUSD where we all want it to be, but we think Phil is uniquely positioned, and experienced, in driving all parts of the school system towards the right outcomes.

2. Safety & Stability

Phil believes that a safe school is one that is properly resourced with highly competent and trained educators and school operators. He worked with the Board and Superintendent to prioritize and protect teachers' jobs during budget cuts. Phil states that steadiness in personnel is also important towards students feeling safe, and that training, coaching and development are needed to ensure great teachers stay. He is also committed to partnering with the Board and Superintendent to ensure school security staff are better trained and coordinated to prevent and respond to incidents.

3. Access

San Francisco has one of the largest percentages of students enrolled in private schools. Phil believes we must offer language immersion and other sought-after programs in San Francisco to attract more families to SFUSD, and drive enrollments up.

On other issues

1. Data Transparency

Phil is committed to making data publicly accessible. While SFUSD does report its data biannually, it's hard to find, and harder to understand. This is unacceptable. Phil Kim aims to fix that by aligning the Board and Superintendent on goals, the strategies to achieve them, and the data to measure progress. We look forward to seeing clearer, more digestible, public facing dashboards in the future.

2. Fiscal sustainability

One of Phil's first actions as President of the Board of Education was to ensure our Superintendent was evaluated on metrics that would align SFUSD with fiscal sustainability. As a result, the district has gone from "negative" fiscal certification to "qualified" and is aiming for the highest, "positive" certification by July of next year, completing the rapid transition out of state oversight.

What is it?

Proposition A is a $535M bond (estimated $933M total repayment over 26 years) to upgrade earthquake safety and emergency response facilities across San Francisco. Bonds in San Francisco are paid via existing property taxes and do not raise taxes.

Fund allocations

• Emergency Firefighting Water System: Up to $130M — seismic upgrades and expansion of the high-pressure water system, including cisterns, pipes, and tunnels
• Fire stations: Up to $100M — retrofit or replace neighborhood fire stations
• Police stations: Up to $72M — retrofit or replace neighborhood police stations
• Potrero Yard (Muni): Up to $200M — replace the 110-year-old bus facility with a seismically safe one that can keep Muni running after a major earthquake
• Other public safety facilities: Up to $33M — repairs and retrofits, subject to approval by the Capital Planning Committee

The Mayor and Board of Supervisors may revise these allocations.

Read the full annotated legal text →

Why vote Yes?

Bonds are an excellent way to pay for infrastructure projects: we get to build today and pay it off later with inflated dollars. And, bonds in San Francisco are designed to not raise taxes - we only pass new ones as old ones get paid back. On average, the cost to homeowners is about $7.45 per $100,000 of assessed value (so about $80 per year for a home assessed at $700,000).

The Potrero Yard bus facility is 110 years old and seismically unsafe. Fire stations across the city are in need of retrofits to withstand a major earthquake. And the Westside's firefighting water system still lags behind the rest of the city. This bond will fund critical upgrades to all of these facilities.

San Francisco sits on top of major earthquake faults, and much of the city's west side still lacks a dedicated high-pressure firefighting water system. If a major earthquake hits, firefighters in the Sunset and Richmond won't have reliable water to fight the fires that follow. Prop A directly addresses this with $130M for the Emergency Firefighting Water System — expanding pipes, cisterns, and tunnels to neighborhoods that are currently unprotected.

That isn't to say that the Westside lacks any firefighting water infrastructure, though. In fact, the firefighting infrastructure out there is about on par with most other cities. But San Francisco is still traumatized by the 1906 earthquake and fire, leading policymakers to want to overbuild our fire fighting systems. This desire was bolstered by the Pacific Palisades fire, where the hydrants lost pressure, leaving firefighters unable to effectively combat the blaze. The same thing will happen to the Westside if there's a similar conflagration to fight.

Seasoned SF voters may say "I swear I've voted for this before..." and they'd be right. In fact, San Francisco voters have approved three previous ESER bonds since 2010 — $412M in 2010, $400M in 2014, and $628.5M in 2020. While those bonds delivered real results (25 fire stations renovated, new stations built, and approximately 30 cisterns constructed), the Westside improvements from the 2020 bond didn't happen. Post-COVID inflation nearly tripled construction costs from roughly $15M per mile to $42M per mile, leaving large portions of the Richmond and Outer Sunset "unfunded." That's a real failure, and Westside residents have every right to be frustrated and skeptical.

Prop A is how we fix it. The $130M EFWS allocation in this bond picks up exactly where the 2020 bond fell short, with cost estimates that reflect today's construction reality — not pre-pandemic wishful thinking. The bond also funds $100M for fire station retrofits, $72M for police stations, and $200M to replace the 110-year-old Potrero Yard so Muni can keep running after a major quake. A citizens' oversight committee will audit spending annually.

The next major earthquake isn't waiting for us to get our act together. Vote Yes on Prop A to finish the Westside fire safety system and make sure our first responders have what they need when the big one hits.

What is it?

Proposition B would limit the Mayor and Supervisors to two terms in their lifetime.

What Prop B changes

• Lifetime two-term limit, instead of two consecutive terms, for both the Mayor and Supervisors.

The current system allows for two consecutive terms, but with no lifetime cap — so a Supervisor could serve two terms, sit out for a cycle, then come back for more.

What Prop B doesn't change

• Terms stay at four years.
• The two-term maximum stays the same — only the lifetime vs. consecutive distinction changes.

Who does Prop B affect?

All current and former Mayors and Supervisors, including those who have already served two terms, are affected. Any Mayor or Supervisor who has already served two terms at any time in the past would not be eligible to run again.

Read the full annotated legal text →

Why vote Yes?

Prop B is a tiny change that brings the legal definition of term limits in line with how people already think they work. When voters hear "two-term limit," they assume it means two terms total, not two terms in a row. Prop B just makes the written rule match the common understanding.

Whether or not it passes, not much will change about term limits. Since San Francisco adopted term limits in 1990, exactly one person has ever come back to serve nonconsecutive terms: Aaron Peskin. One person in 36 years. Everyone else has either gone on to higher office or retired from politics.

Let's be honest: Whether you vote yes or no, not much will change. It's a minor procedural update to make the law match the common understanding of term limits. We think it's better for the law to be clear and match what people already assume, but if you prefer the status quo, that's fine too.

On term limits themselves

Though term limits enjoy overwhelming bipartisan support among voters, and we think you should vote yes to make the law match the common understanding, we'd be remiss to not point out that the research on term limits is largely negative.

Research from the University of Chicago, Brookings, and studies published in the Journal of Politics finds that term limits increase polarization, shift power to lobbyists and bureaucrats, and do not measurably increase diversity among elected officials. Legislators subject to strict term limits become more reliant on special interests for policy expertise, and less responsive to constituents.

Most jurisdictions that have enacted strict term limits have ended up loosening them. Six states — Idaho, Utah, Massachusetts, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming — repealed their legislative term limits entirely. California extended its limits from 6/8 years to 12 years total in 2012. Arkansas and Michigan did the same. At the city level, Los Angeles extended its council term limits from two terms to three in 2006, and Denver extended its limits similarly. The pattern is clear: voters approve strict limits, discover they lose experienced leaders and institutional knowledge, then roll them back.

San Francisco's current two-consecutive-term limit isn't a loophole, but it is a misunderstanding. When voters passed Proposition N in 1990, the measure specifically used the word "successive" to describe the term limit, not "lifetime." The 1995 Charter rewrite preserved this language. And in Arntz v. Superior Court, a California court treated San Francisco's consecutive structure as intentional, not an oversight. So while it's not a loophole, unless you're a lawyer you probably didn't know that two terms didn't technically mean two terms

Peskin is the only person in SF history to serve five nonconsecutive terms. But let's be clear: he didn't exploit a loophole. He followed the law, and voters re-elected him every time.

These are fair points. But they're also academic. The real-world evidence from San Francisco is that voters like the term limits, termed-out officials don't come back, and the consecutive limits are a theoretical safety valve that one person used one time.

What is it?

Beginning in 2027, Proposition C would make two changes to City business taxes.

1. Raise the small business tax exemption from $5M to $7.5M in SF gross receipts, so they would not be subject to this tax.
2. Raise rates slightly for other businesses.

All thresholds would automatically adjust with the Consumer Price Index.

According to the Controller's Office, the changes would reduce annual City revenue by an estimated $30M to $40M.

Competing measure

Prop D is also on this ballot and changes the same tax code. Prop C makes smaller rate adjustments and raises the small business exemption, while Prop D significantly increases rates and changes how the tax rate is calculated by looking at compensation across all employees, globally, not just those located in SF.

If both pass, the one with more votes wins. Prop C's conflicting measures clause allows non-conflicting parts of the losing measure to still take effect. Prop D's clause would void the loser entirely.

Read the full annotated legal text →

Why vote Yes?

Prop C is a balanced adjustment to SF business taxes that helps small businesses while raising rates on larger ones to partially offset the cost.

Here's the core issue: the $5M small business exemption voters approved in Prop M (2024) was a huge step forward, but costs keep rising. Bay Area prices have climbed roughly 15% since 2021, and for businesses, the increases in rent, labor, and supplies have been even steeper. A restaurant, retailer, or service business doing $6M in gross receipts is not a corporate giant — it's a mid-size employer with thin margins that's getting squeezed. Raising the exemption to $7.5M would keep the threshold in line with real-world costs and extend tax relief to more of these growing businesses.

Is Prop C a perfect solution? No. The rate increase is small and won't fully close the revenue gap, but it's the reasonable, moderate solution on this ballot. San Francisco cannot tax its way to prosperity — and Prop C reflects the reality that keeping small businesses alive and growing is what will ultimately generate the revenue the city needs.

Vote Yes on Prop C to keep San Francisco affordable for small businesses.

What is it?

Proposition D would raise the gross receipts tax rates by 800%, and look at global median worker compensation, rather than SF-based workers only.

Despite the name, this is not a tax on executives — it's a tax on sales (technically a "gross receipts" tax). Businesses typically pass these costs on to customers.

The ratio between top executive compensation and median worker compensation will determine the tax rate. The bigger the gap, the higher the tax rate. Prop D would change the comparison base from the median pay of employees located in San Francisco to the median pay of all employees globally, which will significantly lower the median compensation used for the calculation, causing the tax rate to increase dramatically.

Since the city has not defined a method of calculation, we expect that the Dodd-Frank rules for reporting CEO pay would be used for public companies, but an honor system would have to be used for private companies. There's no enforcement mechanism beyond a tax audit to ensure that private companies report accurate pay ratios, the measure does not specify any penalties for misreporting, and there is no recommended way to calculate compensation which may allow companies to exclude certain forms of compensation (e.g. stock options, bonuses, etc.) from the calculation. These limitations are not new to this measure, but they are worth noting given the significant increase in tax rates and the corresponding increase in the incentive to underreport pay ratios.

The measure would also prohibit the Board of Supervisors from reducing the tax without voter approval and raise the City's state-law spending limit for four years.

According to the Controller's Office, the changes would increase annual City revenue by an estimated $250M–$300M. However, we expect this law to be challenged in court, locking up the revenue for years and creating uncertainty for businesses.

Rate changes

Here's how the rates change for businesses subject to the tax based on gross receipts in San Francisco:

For businesses subject to both the Top Executive Pay Tax and the Gross Receipts Tax:

For businesses that mainly manage operations from SF but earn revenue elsewhere, the tax is levied on SF payroll instead:

Competing measure

Prop C is also on this ballot and changes the same tax code. Prop C makes smaller rate adjustments and raises the small business exemption.

If both pass, the one with more votes wins. Prop D's conflicting measures clause would void Prop C entirely if Prop D gets more votes.

Read the full annotated legal text →

Why vote No?

Prop D claims to target overpaid executives. It doesn't. It's a massive tax on grocery stores, pharmacies, and retailers that would be passed on to San Francisco consumers through higher prices.

Here's the problem: this tax is based on the ratio between a CEO's pay and their company's median employee pay. Companies with large numbers of hourly workers — cashiers, stock clerks, pharmacy techs — naturally have high pay ratios because the median employee earns $30K–$35K. Meanwhile, tech companies where the median employee earns $300K+ have low pay ratios and sail right under the 100:1 threshold.

The numbers tell the story. Under Dodd-Frank pay ratio disclosures, which we expect SF to rely on for public companies:

• Google/Alphabet: 32:1 ratio (median employee makes $331,894) — exempt
• Amazon: 43:1 ratio — exempt (but see below)
• Meta/Facebook: 65:1 ratio (median employee makes ~$379,000) — exempt
• Walgreens: 410:1 ratio — 801% tax increase
• Kroger (Foods Co): 457:1 ratio (median employee makes $34,213) — 801% tax increase
• Albertsons/Safeway: ~506:1 ratio (median employee makes ~$31,781) — 794% tax increase
• Starbucks: 6,666:1 ratio (median employee makes $14,674) — 797% tax increase
• Lowe's: 659:1 ratio (median employee makes $30,606) — 797% tax increase

Amazon's low ratio deserves a closer look. Their CEO received no new stock grants in 2024, which artificially deflated his reported compensation. In 2021, when the CEO received stock grants, Amazon's ratio was 6,474:1. Also note that Whole Foods is folded into Amazon's numbers, so while Safeway will have to raise prices to compete, Whole Foods gets exempted. The Dodd-Frank formula is easy to game if you structure executive pay the right way.

In other words, a tax marketed as going after overpaid tech CEOs would actually exempt tech companies and hit grocery stores, coffee shops, pharmacies, and retailers with an ~800% tax increase. Companies get a lower tax bill for paying their median employee $332K than for paying them $31K.

Consider what this means in practice. Grocery stores operate on net profit margins of 1–3% — in 2023, the industry average was just 1.6%. An ~800% increase in this tax doesn't leave room for absorbing the cost, instead companies have exactly two options: raise prices or leave the market. So what do you think Safeway does? Raise prices and lose all their customers to Whole Foods, or leave the market entirely? We think there will be a lot more empty storefronts in San Francisco if this passes.

We understand the need for revenue. Federal Medicaid cuts from H.R. 1 are real and will cost San Francisco over $300M per year. But a poorly designed tax is worse than no tax at all. An ~800% rate increase across all brackets is extreme.

The Controller's Office warns that actual revenue could vary significantly because the tax applies to a narrow base of payers and businesses may relocate out of San Francisco. When the city's existing business tax structure was just reformed in 2024 with Proposition M, piling on an 800% rate hike to one component sends exactly the wrong message to businesses considering whether to stay.

Prop C is also on this ballot and addresses the same tax with more modest rate adjustments and a higher small business exemption. If you want to strengthen the overpaid executive tax without driving grocers and pharmacies out of the city, Prop C is the better option.

Vote No on Prop D.

We recommend voting for Scott Wiener for Congress in District 11.

Scott Wiener has spent the last decade as one of California's most persistent and effective pro-housing legislators. As a former San Francisco supervisor and now the state senator representing District 11 (San Francisco), he has built a record on the issues that most directly shape San Francisco's quality of life and cost of living: housing production, transit, and government's ability to actually deliver.

In this field, Wiener stands out because he has already passed big, controversial laws in hostile political conditions — and that matters in Washington, where rhetoric is cheap and follow-through is not. Like every candidate, there are things we don't align with Wiener on (his positions on AI regulation and public safety diverge from ours in places), but he's still the best choice for getting results.

"Results over rhetoric. My job isn't to maintain ideological purity; it's to improve people's lives."

— Senator Scott Wiener

Why vote for Scott Wiener?

Scott Wiener's top policy goals are:

1. Build more housing to lower the cost of living

Wiener's strongest argument in this race is simple: he has actually passed pro-housing law at scale. SB 35 forced cities that weren't building enough housing to approve qualifying projects automatically. SB 423 extended and tightened that framework. And SB 79, signed in 2025, legalized mid-rise apartment buildings near major transit stops throughout California. Those laws did not solve California's housing crisis on their own, but they changed the terms of the fight — making it harder for cities to dodge their housing obligations and easier to get badly needed homes approved.

But state law can only do so much. The country is short 8 million homes, and Congress controls the federal tools that decide how housing gets paid for and built — tax credits, Section 8 vouchers, and environmental review rules. Wiener wants to expand housing tax credits, fund rental assistance, reward cities that build, and cut through federal red tape. He treats housing as both a building problem and a rules problem. We need someone in Congress who gets how permitting, timelines, and financing keep homes from getting built.

2. Protect transit and urban infrastructure San Francisco depends on

San Francisco's affordability depends on whether people can get around the city and region reliably. In 2023, Muni and BART were staring down a multi-billion-dollar fiscal cliff that threatened service cuts across the region. Wiener built the coalition that kept both systems running — bringing together labor, environmental groups, suburban counties, business associations, and urban riders to secure $1.1 billion in emergency state funding.

That funding bought time, not a permanent fix. With federal COVID relief exhausted and ridership still well below pre-pandemic levels, Bay Area transit is now facing another fiscal cliff in 2026 — BART alone is staring at a $376 million deficit, and Muni faces 50% service cuts without new revenue. Wiener's response was SB 63, the Connect Bay Area Act, which authorizes a regional sales tax measure on the November 2026 ballot that would generate roughly $980 million per year to stabilize transit across five Bay Area counties. He has done this work twice now — and he is not done.

In Congress, he wants to fix how the federal government funds transit, fight for money to keep trains running (not just build new things), and protect clean energy transit programs from getting cut. Too many politicians talk about transit as branding. Wiener has spent years doing the hard work of keeping it alive.

3. A record of governing, not just campaigning

The next Congress will be a difficult environment for a junior Democratic House member from San Francisco. Wiener's argument for why he can still get things done is credible: he has passed over 100 bills in the state legislature, often against powerful opposition. He has authored major laws not just on housing but also on mental-health and addiction treatment coverage (SB 855) and net neutrality (SB 822). That willingness to pick fights, including with his own party, and the discipline to come back with a revised version when a coalition falls short, is exactly what federal legislating requires.

Why not the other candidates?

Connie Chan has built her political career around opposing things — blocking housing, fighting development, and siding with the most obstructionist factions on the Board of Supervisors. She actively tried to weaken San Francisco's housing plan at a time when the city desperately needed to build more. She has no meaningful legislative accomplishments to point to. Sending someone to Congress whose primary skill is saying no is not what San Francisco needs right now.

Saikat Chakrabarti is running on vibes, not a track record. He talks constantly about his connections to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, but you may have noticed that AOC herself hasn't uttered a single positive word about his campaign. There's a reason for that: she fired him. Chakrabarti has been in national politics for years but has no actual record of passing legislation or delivering results for any constituency. San Francisco deserves a representative who has actually done the work, not one who name-drops someone else's.

On other issues

Technology and AI: Wiener authored SB 1047, a first-in-nation AI regulation bill, which was opposed by SF-based tech companies big and small. Governor Newsom vetoed it in 2024. Wiener followed it up with SB 53, a much narrower transparency-focused bill that drew broader industry support. We think the Federal government has a role in setting up AI regulations and guardrails, and think Wiener's approach in California has been somewhat misguided. That said, voters in the tech sector should evaluate his track record on the merits rather than the headline, and importantly, compare him to the alternatives. Both Chakrabarti and Chan would sooner ban AI than regulate it.

Healthcare and treatment: SB 855 expanded mental-health and addiction treatment coverage, and his campaign platform continues to emphasize lower drug costs and broader access to care.

Civil rights and immigration: Wiener has made LGBTQ rights and immigrant protections a major part of his public record. San Francisco voters care about that, and they should.

Public safety: Wiener opposed Prop 36, which GrowSF supported and nearly 70% of California voters passed. His approach to the fentanyl crisis emphasizes treatment access and federal interdiction funding over the accountability measures GrowSF favors. That's a real difference, but it doesn't change the overall calculus in this race.

Scott Wiener has shown he can pass hard laws on the issues San Francisco most needs solved. In a field where his opponents are defined by obstruction or aspiration, Wiener is defined by results. That's why he has our endorsement.