Laura Wells
- Office: Controller
- Election Date: June 7, 2022
- Candidate: Laura Wells
- Due Date: Monday, April 25
- 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 25 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 | |||
| Run a business | |||
| Hire staff at a living wage | x | ||
| Obtain various licenses (liquor, entertainment, etc) |
If you want to explain any positions above, please feel free:
Although I do not know all the specific details, I know that SF has been a leader in the country in advancing living wages and having a strong small business presence. I believe other cities should adopt this approach, which helps with local employment, transportation and the environment, and maintaining strong communities.
| 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:
Increased regulation is often the approach legislators take, and it hurts small business relatively more. They cannot compete with large corporations that have lawyers and other staff to deal with regulations. Instead of more regulation, the state should hire back more tax auditors, for example, and assign them to the wealthiest corporations (and individuals) rather than the smaller businesses (and ordinary taxpayers). Also implement public banking at state, regional, and local levels. Public banking has been on the Green platform especially since the 2008 global financial meltdown. A State Bank would partner with local banks to make good loans to small businesses, as well as to homeowners and students, and the interest would be invested back in the state or locality. It also would help the cannabis industry avoid the obstacles put up by out-of-state banks.
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) | |||
| Demolish your home and redevelop it into multifamily housing | |||
| Redevelop things like parking lots and single-story commercial into multifamily housing | |||
| Build subsidized Affordable housing | x | ||
| Build market-rate housing | |||
| Build homeless shelters (including navigation centers and "tiny homes") |
If you want to explain any positions above, please feel free:
San Francisco would probably be the best city in the US to implement a Vienna-style social housing program. SF could provide superior, affordable housing to the city's residents, directly or through public-private partnerships. This approach would make for better land use and be easier on the environment than "tiny homes" which, although very cute, are still SFRs, single family (or single-person), residences which use more resources than multi-family housing.
| 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 | ||||
| Taxes and fees on homebuilders | x | |||
| Oversight of cities' housing policies | ||||
| Building subsidized Affordable housing | x | |||
| Building market-rate housing | ||||
| Building homeless shelters | x |
If you want to explain any positions above, please feel free:
At the state and local levels, most of the benefits of 1978's Prop 13 have gone toward wealthier homeowners and especially corporations. Keeping the good parts and fixing the bad of Prop 13 would help residents of the whole state and cities like San Francisco.
On net, does building new market rate housing help alleviate our housing crisis?
Again, a Vienna-style social housing program would help. "Market rate" housing developments would then compete with high-quality social housing, and that makes even private housing more affordable.
Are funds for affordable housing and homelessness services spent well?
No. Rather than have complicated and ultimately degrading system of services, a Universal Basic Income has been shown to be helpful in experiments (that have not gotten enough media coverage) around the globe. UBI can more effectively help people get out of poverty at less cost to the city's budget
San Francisco is in the midst of a record-breaking housing shortage, high homelessness rate, and is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to seemingly make no progress on solving these issues. Would you support a full audit of San Francisco's government to determine how funds are spent?
Yes. One of the powers of the Controller's office is that of audit, and I believe that overall systems audits are what's required. Housing is one of the big areas, along with the questions of "What happened to California's system of affordable and great schools and universities?" and "What happened to an improved "Medicare for All" system in 2022 when there was a budget surplus, a pandemic, bills to implement and to fund, and a one-party super-trifecta in Sacramento with a governor and super-majorities in both houses of the legislature, and a history of putting the bill on Schwarzenegger's desk twice in seven years, and in 12 years of Brown and Newsom, zero times?" Yes. Audit.
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 | ||||
| Homeless services | x | |||
| Affordable housing | x | |||
| Parks | ||||
| Roads | ||||
| Bus, bike, train, and other public transit infrastructure | ||||
| Schools | ||||
| Medical facilities | ||||
| Drug prevention and treatment | ||||
| Arts |
If you want to explain any positions above, please feel free:
Please see other responses above about social housing, public banking, implementing a version of Universal Basic Income, and a healthcare system in the state like that of other wealthy, industrialized nation-states.
| 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 | ||||
| Street cleanliness | ||||
| Homeless services | ||||
| Affordable housing | ||||
| Parks | ||||
| Roads | ||||
| Bus, bike, train, and other public transit infrastructure | ||||
| Schools | ||||
| Medical facilities | ||||
| Drug prevention and treatment | ||||
| Arts |
If you want to explain any positions above, please feel free:
Please see other responses about housing, public banking, Universal Basic Income, and a healthcare system in the state like that of other wealthy, industrialized nation-states. These solutions would help across the board. As to police, unfortunately across the country too many public safety needs have been put into the hands of a highly militarized force of people with guns. That does not make for good results, and it's very expensive. During Green mayor Gayle McLaughlin's time, the city of Richmond became a model of how to re-orient the police and the public toward more safety in the communities.
What are the top three issues facing San Francisco, California, or the Nation and what would you like to see change?
Climate crisis, focus on militarized approaches, and a system that promotes extreme inequality with increasing poverty alongside increasing numbers of billionaires. "Reduce reuse recycle recover restore" is a good slogan for Earth Day, and the first and more important is REDUCE when it comes to resource usage, militarization and billionaires. As a Controller candidate, I firmly believe the tax structure desperately needs to change to avoid a de facto oligarchy, as well as to provide money for public services and infrastructure.
Tell us one thing you think needs to change in San Francisco, California, or the Nation that the average voter wouldn't know about.
One overarching thing that needs to change is that people need to be able to organize ourselves toward a better world in a myriad of issue areas. What the average voter/person doesn't know is that you can know a lot more of the truth about the problems we're facing, and the possible solutions, and still have a [LOOK AT MY BLOG]
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 Controller?
What is your #1 goal?
How will you build the coalition and political capital to enact your #1 goal?
Will the power of the office of Controller be enough to achieve this goal?
What are your #2 and #3 goals?
Will the power of the office of Controller be enough to achieve these goals?
What is an existing policy you would like to reform?
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.)
Personal
Tell us a bit about yourself!
How long have you lived in California? What brought you here and what keeps you here?
What do you love most about California and/or your hometown?
What do you dislike the most about California and/or your hometown?
Tell us about your current involvement in the community (e.g., volunteer groups, neighborhood associations, civic and professional organizations, etc.)
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.