Jeffrey Phillips
- Office: Congress, District 11
- Election Date: June 7, 2022
- Candidate: Jeffrey Phillips
- Due Date: Monday, April 11, 2022
- Printable Version
Thank you for seeking GrowSF's endorsement for the June 7, 2022 primary election! GrowSF believes in a growing, vibrant, healthy, safe, and prosperous San Francisco via common sense solutions and effective government.
The GrowSF endorsement committee will review all completed questionnaires and seek consensus on which candidates best align with our vision for San Francisco and have the expertise to enact meaningful policy changes.
We ask that you please complete this questionnaire by Monday, April 11, 2022 so we have enough time to adequately review and discuss your answers.
Table of Contents
Vision
GrowSF believes in a growing, beautiful, vibrant, healthy, safe, and prosperous San Francisco. We work to propose and pass laws that align incentives of private businesses and individuals to promote shared prosperity for every San Franciscan.
As a candidate for federal office, your day-to-day responsibilities in office will affect not just San Francisco, but California and the United States as a whole. As a representative of the people of California and of San Francisco, the policies you bring to Washington should reflect the best of what we have to offer.
This section of our questionnaire seeks to help us gain an understanding of your alignment with our vision for San Francisco. Note that some of the questions may be outside the scope of the office you're running for.
Short-form questions
Please mark the box that best aligns with your position. You may explain any position if you so desire, but this section is designed to be a quick overview of your governing philosophy and view of the problems of the city, state, and/or country.
If you are not familiar with San Francisco in particular, feel free to skip the questions about it. But please do answer the questions about state and federal policy.
Small Business
| In San Francisco, in general, is it too hard, just right, or too easy to… | Too hard | Just right | Too easy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Open a new businesses | X | ||
| Run a business | X | ||
| Hire staff at a living wage | X | ||
| Obtain various licenses (liquor, entertainment, etc) | X |
If you want to explain any positions above, please feel free:
| Should the state or federal government have more say, the same say, less say, or the same amount but of a different variety on… | More say | Same amount | Less say | Same, but different |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Small business creation | X | |||
| Rules & permitting fees enacted by cities and states | X | |||
| Corporate tax policy | X | |||
| Tax incentives for high tech, green tech, or other desirable industries | X |
If you want to explain any positions above, please feel free:
Permitting and fees, between state, federal and what is enacted by cities is such a complicated question: who's holding who back? Who's asking too much? All in all, it's far too nuanced to give a single answer on that spectrum, but the point is, a lot of red tape needs to be cut, and maybe that means states need to reel back cities, or vice versa. I'm running for Federal office, so that's where I have to focus my energy and my policy positions, and when it comes to business local jurisdictions often matter most in how smooth or rough the process is, but it might not be beneficial to have a federal government step in and dictate that instead. Considering all the permits in SF, there's clearly room for improvement at the appropriate level.
I support a Green New Deal and robust incentives for green energy, so that's a place where I believe the Federal Government could do a lot to direct more tax dollars that way rather than relying on California and San Francisco to come up with and fund their own initiatives alone. Solar, wind, and battery storage are key, with provision to include apartment buildings and corporate leases, rather than just businesses and homeowners that own their whole buildings. And charging options on the street for electric vehicles!
Housing
| In San Francisco, in general, is it too hard, just right, or too easy to… | Too hard | Just right | Too easy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expand your home (adding new stories, rooms, decks, etc) | X | ||
| Demolish your home and redevelop it into multifamily housing | X | ||
| Redevelop things like parking lots and single-story commercial into multifamily housing | X | ||
| Build subsidized Affordable housing | X | ||
| Build market-rate housing | X | ||
| Build homeless shelters (including navigation centers and "tiny homes") | X |
If you want to explain any positions above, please feel free:
The most important thing about market-rate housing, the kind of housing that MOST people are able to live in, is to build it to such a scale that it actually brings down the average. Can't just be luxury units. But it's also important to recognize that most people don't qualify for income-gated "Affordable Housing", so while that is an awesome thing to provide for the very poorest, it exists in a segregated market that does not affect the average market rate. I want to see more smart, efficient, moderate building for regular working people and growing families to thrive in as their lives improve. And we should be building to last, with a plan to keep whatever we build up for 100 years, rather than looking to throw it out and start over every decade or two. Build once, out of solid materials, in styles that stand the test of time, and keep building until we reach a better balance.
| Should the state or federal government have more say, the same say, less say, or the same amount but of a different variety on… | More say | Same amount | Less say | Same, but different |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zoning | X | |||
| Taxes and fees on homebuilders | X | |||
| Oversight of cities' housing policies | X | |||
| Building subsidized Affordable housing | X | |||
| Building market-rate housing | X | |||
| Building homeless shelters | X |
If you want to explain any positions above, please feel free:
Again, this all depends on who's saying what. We have to be more specific here about the policies, and identify who's really holding things back from the bright and shining future we all hoped to see by the mid 21st century.
And like with the Green New Deal above, there's an exception for homeless shelters, because those don't generally finance themselves, and we would do well to leverage federal programs to provide for our least fortunate. It's beyond question that the unhoused deserve better than the tent cities and containment protocols that characterize our city's current efforts to deal with a problem that has been with us for so long without adequate remedy.
Public Safety
| In San Francisco, in general, is it too hard, just right, or too easy to… | Too hard | Just right | Too easy |
|---|---|---|---|
| File a police report | X | ||
| Recover a stolen item like a bike or laptop computer | X | ||
| Arrest & prosecute criminals | X | ||
| File a domestic violence or rape report | X | ||
| Charge & prosecute domestic violence or rape | X |
If you want to explain any positions above, please feel free:
Filing the report is easy; I had to do so just a few months ago. Getting anyone to actually investigate and follow up and most importantly attain any kind of compensation or justice for the crime is an entirely different matter. And I can't speak from experience on domestic violence or rape, but from people I've talked to, it seems the process there is not pleasant, and not particularly effective.
The way I see it, police don't even have the tools they need to track and apprehend most crimes, and I don't blame them for feeling frustrated. More boots on the ground isn't the solution, because we could have an officer on every corner and still not track down every robber in every getaway car. What we need are new tools, new technology, and municipal controls over that technology so it's not abused by the police either, but serves the people and can be called upon to track down perpetrators, without the messy hands-on policing and mistaken aggression that characterizes some of the worst incidents that make the headlines.
We all want a safer city, a city where anyone can leave whatever they want in a garage or in a parked car, and feel secure that they will be ok, and that anyone who thinks to rob them or hurt them will think twice because we have a system of justice that works swiftly, fairly, and reliably in the service of everyone who obeys our laws.
| Should the state or federal government have more say, the same say, less say, or the same amount but of a different variety on… | More say | Same amount | Less say | Same, but different |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Criminal justice administration at the state or city level | X | |||
| Police funding | X | |||
| Rehabilitation of prisoners | X |
If you want to explain any positions above, please feel free:
Depends again on what's being said. Funding seems like a clear case of a local conversation, but there should be uniform standards in our country about what rights prisoners have, how they're treated, before and after conviction. The important thing is to come to an agreement about what those standards are.
An important issue that comes to mind from a healthcare conference I'm attending this weekend is inmate healthcare. It's available, but only at a steep price, and most prisoners choose to go without it. That hurts everyone, especially in a post-pandemic world. So that's a good example of a place where wider standards and more federal money can be put to good use. I believe in Medicare for All, and that includes inmates. And it also includes you and your family. It includes everyone.
Education
| In San Francisco, in general, is it too hard, just right, or too easy to… | Too hard | Just right | Too easy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Attend a school of your choosing | X | ||
| Transport children to school | X | ||
| Hire teachers | X | ||
| Fire teachers | X | ||
| Set public education curriculum | X |
If you want to explain any positions above, please feel free:
I simply don't know a lot about these issues, but I know the SF school system is uniquely complicated, and doesn't seem to make anyone happy, even after the recalls. Teachers aren't getting paid, which is deeply troubling to me, and I'm also concerned about education standards: I want to see our most advanced students at every high school have access to advanced math beyond Calculus: Linear Algebra, Multivariable Calculus and Differential Equations are essential to a modern workflow and many private school students encounter these before going to college. Our students should too. And Diff Eq senior year depends on early Calculus, which depends on Algebra and Geometry in middle school, which in turn depend on fifth grade fractions and so on.
And transportation is a whole other issue which is comorbid with the way schools are assigned and makes for a messy system which I, were I a parent, would have extreme difficulty navigating in the best of circumstances. We need to do better for our future.
| Should the state or federal government have more say, the same say, less say, or the same amount but of a different variety on… | More say | Same amount | Less say | Same, but different |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Standardized education curricula | X | |||
| Public School funding | X | |||
| Private Schools | X | |||
| Religious Schools | X | |||
| Staffing levels | X | |||
| Advanced, remedial, or special needs education | X |
If you want to explain any positions above, please feel free:
This is another one where I feel like local control is desirable, so it's a hard question as to what I could do at a Federal level to step over the State, which controls a lot of these, to hand that local control back to you.
Standardized testing broadly sucks. It's good for assessment at certain points, and great to compare students across regions. It makes a terrible target to actually teach to, though, and real life is a lot broader than a series of multiple choice questions.
Private and religious schools should be private and religious, so long as they can meet basic standards. They're certainly no substitute for public education in my mind, which should be both accessible to all students, and beyond adequate for our best. A student in San Francisco should be able to go to a San Francisco public school and get an education that prepares them for a great public or private university anywhere in the country. I was able to attend public school on the peninsula and get into Caltech from there, and let me tell you, I wish I'd had a little more math, and a lot more access to resources, but it was fundamentally attainable. I want that for any family who aspires to that.
And what can I say about staffing? We should have more teachers, and pay them like they matter. Like we don't expect to lose the best and the brightest after a few years to burnout and private industry. If I can direct more federal funding toward that, I will. More than any shiny new science lab or expensive computer system, a good teacher with enough time to actually teach to the best of their abilities can change lives. I can think of a few who changed mine. I wouldn't be here running today without them.
Budget
| Do you think San Francisco spends too little, too much, or just enough on… | Too little | Just enough | Enough, but badly | Too much |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Police and public safety | X | |||
| Street cleanliness | X | |||
| Homeless services | X | X | ||
| Affordable housing | X | X | ||
| Parks | X | |||
| Roads | X | |||
| Bus, bike, train, and other public transit infrastructure | X | |||
| Schools | X | X | ||
| Medical facilities | X | |||
| Drug prevention and treatment | X | |||
| Arts | X |
If you want to explain any positions above, please feel free:
Clearly we don't have infinite money, so this is more of a wishlist than a city budget proposal. I should note that Homeless services and Schools are exceptional cases where it is both true that we need to spend more, and the money we are spending isn't going where it needs to. Administrative overhead and (particularly with homeless services) recurring expenses at the sake of real solutions take up an unconscionable portion of the budget. We can't just give them more money, but the fact remains there isn't enough money left over to get the results we need, so we need a systemic redesign, not just a budgetary adjustment.
And it's not that our roads are perfect, but that they should be used less as we prioritize bike and transit infrastructure. The difference between a bus line and a light rail tunnel is huge, and we need a lot more of that outside the same corridors that have been served by rail for a hundred years now. The Central Subway is just the first step in my opinion, and I aim to bring in federal money to do more there.
And for affordable housing, as I said above, we need housing that's both affordable and accessible to all people to bring the market down, not just special projects for the poorest among us; otherwise we have a city of slums and super-condos, with nothing in the middle for regular people like you and me. And personally, I'd like to see housing combined with bike-first infrastructure. Imagine a whole community built around safe streets, with minimal parking requirements met by a community garage on the outskirts, and a broad grid of car free streets for bikes and light electric vehicles and children. Wouldn't that be a community worth settling down in to raise a family? I have a dream that could happen right here, in our city, if we're willing to build it today.
| Do you think the state or federal governments spend too little, too much, or just enough on… | Too little | Just enough | Enough, but badly | Too much |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Police and public safety | X | |||
| Street cleanliness | X | |||
| Homeless services | X | |||
| Affordable housing | X | |||
| Parks | X | |||
| Roads | X | |||
| Bus, bike, train, and other public transit infrastructure | X | |||
| Schools | X | |||
| Medical facilities | X | |||
| Drug prevention and treatment | X | |||
| Arts | X |
If you want to explain any positions above, please feel free:
Basically the same answers as above, except I don't really know how much state and federal money goes into street cleaning, and I don't see a great place for more federal spending on drugs and cops. One thing I would like to see is a program to help wire the city streets with passive cameras that are only logged in response to crime reports. It seems like that could help in a lot of cases where we have footage of robbers leaving the store, and then it's anyone's guess where they go next. Being able to track them from there to the getaway care, to the hideout, to the fence, and tackle the kingpins rather than the desperate low-level thieves would do a great deal to stem the tide of untraceable, unsolvable crimes that leaves us with an 8% clearance rate.
With most of the other categories, it stands to reason that the state and federal government should kick in funding, and leave it to local citizens to choose where it goes.
What are the top three issues facing San Francisco, California, or the Nation and what would you like to see change?
My top policy goals are (1) Medicare for All, (2) Green New Deal infrastructure, and (3) Building housing that's accessible to everyone and affordable to regular people and working families—not just the rich—not just the poor—everyone. And it seems like those are things that make our city, our state, our nation, healthier, cleaner, and more liveable for the greatest number of people. The savings pass directly to regular people—to you and me.
Tell us one thing you think needs to change in San Francisco, California, or the Nation that the average voter wouldn't know about.
I don't think most people realize how much it costs to hire a person. Beyond the salary, there are healthcare costs, regulations and licensing fees (depending on the industry), general insurance for the place of business, pension and bonus allocations, compliance issues, inspections, city and state fees, payroll overhead, and so many other little things. Knocking out a big few, like letting medicare for all take healthcare off the business owner's table, can make a big difference to the bottom line, but there are also a lot of little things that will take a great deal of care and energy to unwind, but to do so would create an environment where more people can be hired, more people can work, and regular people have more freedom and opportunity to go where they want to and work where they want to. The freedom to walk in off the street and get hired is something I've only heard about from my parents and their parents. It's a completely different world today, but that also means that the way it is today doesn't have to be the way it is tomorrow. We have changed, and we can change again, if we have new and better leaders taking us down a new path that centers the work above…whatever we're centering now.
Policy
Now that we know where you align and differ from our vision for San Francisco, we'd like to get some details about how you intend to use your elected office to achieve your goals.
Why are you running for Congress?
I'm tired of being represented by activists, lawyers and the extremely rich. Everyone has a place in government, but what I don't see in representation is regular people, humble people who center the work and not the celebrity. Those who want to serve the public rather than serving themselves and their donors and special interests. And in the wake of the pandemic, with the failures of the system we're working with laid so bare, I see an opportunity, and an alignment where the timing was right for someone new to actually give a new paradigm a chance to take hold that appeals beyond the traditional centers of electoral power, and resonates with working families and the kind of people who often get frustrated with politics as usual.
What is your #1 policy goal?
Medicare for All. We can halve the cost of everyone's health care if we're not paying insurers to deny claims or hospital bureaucrats to overcharge for it. Working people, and business owners benefit from having one system that's no longer the responsibility of every single company or private citizen to tend to. Every other country we might seek to emulate has a system like this in place, and it's time for the US to join them. Obamacare isn't even affordable anymore; ask any freelancer or contract worker; the stopgaps and compromises that kept us afloat the last 12 years are showing their flaws, and it's time for real change.
How will you build the coalition and political capital to enact your #1 goal?
Medicare for All already has over 100 cosponsors, and we can win over the rest with a strong campaign that leverages other policy goals like divestment from fossil fuels and wasteful spending to drive the point home in Congress as we continue to make the case to citizens across the country. What we need now is new leadership to bring this to the fore, and more votes to make it happen. We are building that power across the country and this election is a key part of that.
Will the power of the office of Congressmember be enough to achieve this goal?
Not alone, but the goal can't be accomplished at all without a change in the representation here in San Francisco. The incumbent has blocked the bill from coming to the floor just as she took away the Public Option at the last minute when Obamacare was under negotiation twelve years ago. This election is a key part of making this happen, and only a new candidate, without any ties to big donors and entrenched political lobbies can hope to carry this through. That's why I'm running.
What are your #2 and #3 policy goals?
(2) A green new deal, including federal funding for transformative investments in solar, wind, and battery power, as well as infrastructure spending on local transit and high speed rail projects that can be federally mandated in years rather than decades, to supercharge the economy and tie the nation together.
(3) Smart housing initiatives that clear out the red tape that holds back building and investment in new homes that address the missing middle, providing well-built, desirable homes in safe, comfortable neighborhoods where regular people can grow families and life in peace and security, with a greener footprint and ready access to jobs and transportation infrastructure. We live here at a nadir of both planning and vision, where it seems like the dreams our grandparents had of what the American Dream should be are fading away into a frustrating stagnation, and we need bold visions, radical new approaches and a willingness to dare to dream big again.
Will the power of the office of Congressmember be enough to achieve these goals?
Yes. Over the past two years our federal government has squandered something like five or six trillion on short term stopgaps that have low or even negative returns on investment. We can do so much better by taking a step back and actually planning how to use the power of the federal government to secure long term projects and lasting, high-return investments in our future. Only the federal government can do that; the state is continually caught between budget shortfalls and mismanaged windfalls, and our city is still recovering from the pandemic and in no position to overburden our citizens with new bonds or divert money from programs we've already committed to that are barely holding on as it is. Only the power of the purse at the federal level can revitalize the engine of growth that has kept our nation going this long. We are at a point where this is a pressing existential need. We change things now, we invest in growth today, or there may not be a bounty to enjoy tomorrow.
What is an existing policy you would like to reform?
Immigration reform is an important area of policy to focus on. We live in an awkward peace on several fronts there. Not only do we fail to acknowledge residents as citizens, including Dreamers who have been waiting most of their lives to enjoy the full benefits of the only country they've ever known, but we also have an uncomfortable halfway solution with regard to H1B visa holders, who are severely limited in number, and then tied to their employer so that they can't demand the same rate of pay by moving to another firm. This not only hurts them, but hurts local knowledge workers, who resent being undercut by people working for much less, with fewer rights. I believe any job worth asking a human to do is worth paying full price for, so that the labor market is competitive for all participants, and that means we need visa reform. This improves the lives of those workers we bring in and those of their coworkers as well. It's going to take a long time and a lot of effort to forge a new system that satisfies everyone involved, but the time has come to admit we need to fix immigration in a way that moves us forward as a growing nation and puts everyone on a secure footing to grow together.
What is an "out there" change that you would make to state/local government policy, if you could? (For example: changing how elections work, creating a Bay Area regional government, etc.)
I want to see ranked choice voting implemented beyond our city, at the state and national levels, and a new system of mixed-member proportional representation in the Senate, to allocate new seats based on first-rank votes. This opens the way to more parties and broader coalition governments. It's clear to me that the two party system is no longer sufficient to represent the interests of regular Americans. And as we see in San Francisco and California in general, two parties often amounts to one dominant party that everyone joins, and one party that will never see representation. This flattens the policy landscape, homogenizes our choices in elected officials, and leads to stagnation and incumbent complacency, where things can go from bad to worse in a long gradual decline, without much recourse. By opening the way to new parties and less established candidates, we can break the single party stranglehold that keeps our government from reaching its true potential to support citizens in all our diversity of opinion.
Personal
Tell us a bit about yourself!
How long have you lived in California? What brought you here and what keeps you here?
I was born in California, lived across the bay in Livermore until I moved down to San Carlos in 4th grade. I went to college at Caltech down in Pasadena, and I came back up because I missed the fog. I wanted to be close to my family and for a few years I needed to take care of sick parents, which limited my opportunities to go elsewhere for a while, but I always new I wanted to end up in San Francisco. I spent most of my free time up in the city and finally found a place I could afford through Craigslist about five years ago. It was build in 1907 and the floors aren't quite level, but it's somewhere I could make a home, and I love it here. There is no other city as wide in its diversity or as alive in its potential to spark new connections and generate new ideas. The air itself is alive with artistry and innovation, and I've seen it transform throughout my life, for both the better and the worse, and I can't imagine anywhere else I'd rather dedicate my life to growing within. I will sorely miss it when I have to start commuting to DC, and I'll always be glad to come back home.
What do you love most about California and/or your hometown?
California is a place where the world comes to reinvent, to become, to transform. And my hometown of San Carlos was a cozy little suburb that was quietly part of that, home to a loving mixture of lifelong locals and new arrivals looking for a friendly, inviting atmosphere. It's certainly different than growing up in the city itself, but even down there we felt the influence of San Francisco, and I traveled often up to the city, especially for arts and education, school trips and choir concerts. I love the brilliant sunsets and the deep peaceful forest trails, and I seek them both here in the city when I can get away. Unlike so many cities, ours is one where the urban and the suburban coalesce into a beautiful harmony, affording different sights and sounds and experiences in every neighborhood, as in every town along the peninsula and around the bay. We have everything here, within our reach, and I love that.
What do you dislike the most about California and/or your hometown?
There is still so much left to do, and beside all the peace and prosperity, there is a real pain that comes through, from unresolved conflicts, long festering wounds, and whole populations for whom the Californian dream has yet to (and may never) manifest. We have yet to come up with real solutions that can address those fundamental inequalities, and so we live in a land of abundance where people still go hungry, still find no shelter from the cold. And they still stay here, because other places are worse off yet, but that brings no comfort as we enjoy the fruits of paradise beside them, uncertain how best to help our fellow people.
And on a personal note, it makes me sad that with the housing market what it has become without adequate building, I may never be able to afford the kind of home my parents lived in, or even an apartment in the city large enough to build a family. I know so many in my generation are in a similar situation, looking at our parents once-modest accommodations and feeling like there is no way that could ever be us, with the way prices have risen and building has been so held back.
Tell us about your current involvement in the community (e.g., volunteer groups, neighborhood associations, civic and professional organizations, etc.)
In the course of my campaign I've been attending a number of local groups, listening to and talking with people, helping out where I can on issues I care most about. I've ridden with the safe streets bike protesters, marched with the women's march and climate activists, and tried to promote vaccine awareness wherever I can. I can't really claim to be from any particular group, but rather I'm open to listening to and walking in the shoes of all who want to help regular people and make this city a better place. I've known people across the spectrum from far far leftists to moderate liberals, and they all have different opinions about where GrowSF fits into all of that, but I believe on a fundamental level, we're all just people trying to live better lives together. Whether you support me here or not, I'll still be following your conversation and listening, and supporting where I can. We are all San Francisco.
Thank you
Thank you for giving us your time and answering our questionnaire. We look forward to reading your answers and considering your candidacy!
If you see any errors on this page, please let us know at contact@growsf.org.