Stephen Sherrill
- Office: D2 Supervisor
- Election Date: June 2, 2026
- Candidate: Stephen Sherrill
- Due Date: Oct 6, 2025
- Printable Version
Thank you for seeking GrowSF's endorsement for the June 2, 2026 election! GrowSF believes in a growing, beautiful, vibrant, healthy, safe, and prosperous city via common sense solutions and effective government. Our work includes running public opinion polls to understand what voters want, advocating for those changes, and ensuring that the SF government represents the people.
The GrowSF endorsement committee will review all completed questionnaires and seek consensus on which candidates best align with our vision for San Francisco.
Please complete this questionnaire by Oct 6, 2025 so we have enough time to adequately review and discuss your answers.
Your Policy Goals
We'd like to get some details about your high-level goals and how you intend to use your elected office to achieve them.
What policies do you hope to change or preserve by running for Supervisor? Please be specific, and list them in order of priority.
Public safety: Law enforcement must play a stronger role in removing illicit drug activity (both the use and sale) from our streets - and especially in areas where families should feel safe like playgrounds, parks, schools, and bus stops. We are opening more treatment beds every day, but the people most in need are being allowed to remain on the streets despite their desperate need for treatment and services. Our next police chief must implement a comprehensive plan to address public drug use.
We also need faster, more coordinated responses when people call for help. That means tackling open-air drug use head-on, keeping our sidewalks safe and clean, and improving coordination across city departments so families and small businesses feel secure in their neighborhoods. I also want to preserve the progress we’ve made in fully staffing SFPD and expanding safety technology that makes a visible difference for residents and officers alike.
Small business: City Hall should be a partner, not an obstacle, for our entrepreneurs and small businesses. I want to make it faster and less expensive to start and operate a business, while cutting down on the duplicative reviews that slow everything to a crawl. At the same time, we must preserve programs that lower costs and make it easier for neighborhood shops and restaurants to take root. I’m proud of extending the First Year Free program, but it needs to be made permanent. We should also liberalize rules around temporary pop-ups so creative entrepreneurs can test new concepts, modernize zoning to allow needed amenities like childcare centers, and simplify overlapping Health and Building codes.
Construction and development: Building anything in San Francisco is far too expensive, unpredictable and drawn out. The biggest missed opportunity of the past twenty years was not doing everything we can to unlock the housing currently stuck in the development pipeline. We need to simplify approvals so projects can move forward on a clear timeline. That means cutting back on unnecessary delays, pushing for reforms to lower construction costs, and ultimately giving families, workers, and seniors more housing options across the city.
Increase access to childcare: Affordability is the primary reason that San Francisco suffers from demographic gaps of families, young people, and the working class. Housing is a huge driver of that, but so is access to childcare. We need to expand the Baby C childcare subsidy to 200% of AMI (which we have money already set aside for), fix zoning rules to allow more facilities to open, and consider extending a childcare subsidy to all downtown workers regardless of residency in order to drive economic revitalization.
City Hall reform: Each of the aforementioned areas is held back by inefficiency in City Hall. The bureaucracy is not empowered to push forward on the issues that best serve the public. We need to shrink the layers of inefficiency and focus resources where they matter most: the services people rely on every day. The Prop E “commission on commissions” will put forth recommendations in the coming months, and we need to act on those.
Why those policies?
These areas rise and fall together. When families and businesses don’t feel safe, they leave. If small businesses can’t open and thrive, our neighborhoods suffer. If we do not bring down the cost and time it takes to build or ensure access to childcare, we will not keep families here. And if City Hall does not change the way it operates, none of the progress we make will last.
How can San Francisco become the #1 choice for families? It starts with these policies: making our city safer, more affordable, and more responsive to the people who call it home.
Explain why your #1 goal is your #1 goal.
Public safety has to come first. 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.
How will you build the coalition and political capital to enact your #1 goal? What obstacles will you face, and how will you overcome them? Will the power of the office of Supervisor be enough to achieve this goal?
I will build coalitions the same way I have governed so far: by listening directly to my constituents and working with anyone who is serious about solutions. And then I’ll speak out. For two decades, the biggest obstacle to strong public safety has been resistance from a loud minority who think the status quo is acceptable. It’s time for elected officials to be honest about what residents already know: public safety matters. We need leaders who will support our police officers and back common-sense policies, like enforcing existing laws against public drug use.
We shouldn’t stop there. Real change takes hard work, including regular conversations with SFPD, the District Attorney, Sheriff, and public health officials to understand the operational hurdles and fix them. That means ensuring officers have the tools and technology they need, like reducing the time it takes to issue citations from 90 minutes to 10. Without that follow-through, policy becomes just virtue signaling. With persistence, data, and collaboration, we can deliver results people can actually see and feel on their streets.
Will the power of the office of Supervisor be enough to achieve the other goals?
Yes. Supervisors have the ability to reform the permitting and planning process, lower costs for small businesses, and demand accountability at City Hall. It will take focus and persistence, but the tools are there if we are willing to use them.
San Francisco has areas of procedural and legislative bloat, making it hard for the city to serve its residents effectively. Give three examples of legislation that should be repealed.
First, the Mayor should have the ability to hire and fire the Police Chief unilaterally.
Second, CEQA appeals go to the Board of Supervisors, which is asked to make legal judgments without any required background or education in the legal matters at hand. It inherently becomes a political issue and not an environmental one. CEQA appeals should be handled at a staff level.
And lastly, lease agreements, especially those made by enterprise departments, should not have to be individually approved by the Board of Supervisors. We need to empower the Port, for instance, to act quickly and decisively, as any commercial landlord would. I am not a commercial real estate expert, nor are any of my colleagues. While the Board should retain full powers of oversight and the ability to intervene in cases of malfeasance, having to sign off on each lease is a waste of time and resources.
What is an "out there" change that you would make to state/local government policy, if you could? For the purpose of this question, you are not constrained to the office of Supervisor.
Government should be as easy to use as your phone. I would build a single digital, AI enabled platform where residents can access every city service, from reporting a pothole to applying for housing, and track their requests in real time. It should not only help you find what you came for but also flag resources you did not know were available.
That, and subways.
Your Leadership
We'd like to learn more about your leadership style and plan to execute effectively once you assume office.
When in office, how would you balance the needs of the electorate with the demands of special interests? Where do you foresee this being the biggest challenge?
My constituents are my most important special interest. San Francisco goes wrong when leaders stop listening to the people they represent. The best way to avoid that is to keep showing up- knocking on doors, attending neighborhood meetings, and hearing directly from residents. That’s where my decisions will be grounded.
When in office, how would you balance the needs of your district with the needs of the city? Where do you anticipate this being the biggest challenge?
What is good for District 2 is often good for San Francisco, and vice versa. Families want safe streets, strong schools, and clean neighborhoods whether they live in the Marina or the Mission. The challenge comes when people try to pit one district’s needs against another. My job is to keep the focus on solutions that serve the whole city while making sure D2’s voice is always at the table.
How do you think the day-to-day management of a Supervisor’s office can be improved? How do you plan to run your office?
Constituent services are at the core of what a Supervisor’s office should do. For many residents, our office is their first point of contact with City Hall, and it is my job to make sure that when someone reaches out, they get a timely and effective response. I run my office with a focus on accessibility, accountability, and follow-through. Too often, Supervisor Offices can get caught up in the politics of their jobs and lose sight of the day-to-day. Both me and my staff ensure that constituent services remain our north star, including being out in community on the daily.
On a more basic level, ensuring that each member of the staff has clear responsibilities is paramount. My office today has a chief of staff, a policy lead, a constituent services lead, and a comms lead. In addition we assign each team member policy areas, neighborhoods, and key constituent groups to concentrate on.
If you could measure the success of your term by 1 metric, and 1 metric only, what would that metric be?
Constituent satisfaction. I think about it like a Net Promoter Score. If you call my office with a request or a complaint, did you feel heard and did you get a result? If the answer is yes, then we are succeeding. That is the clearest test of whether I’m delivering for the people I represent.
The Issues
Next, we will cover the issues that voters tell us they care about. We hope to gain a better understanding of your policy positions, and we hope that you use this opportunity to communicate with voters.
Public Safety
What is the #1 public safety issue today? Why do you believe this is the #1 issue?
The fentanyl crisis is still the biggest public safety challenge we face. It is first and foremost a human tragedy, taking hundreds of lives each year. It is also driven by an illicit drug market that operates openly on our streets. And it is a neighborhood safety issue, because families and small businesses do not feel safe walking down sidewalks where drug use is in plain sight. Until we confront this crisis on all three fronts, we will not restore confidence in our city.
What power would you have to solve this issue?
I can make sure the fentanyl crisis stays at the top of the city’s agenda. That means pushing for stronger enforcement, demanding better coordination between departments, and making sure our budget decisions back up our priorities.
The next Police Chief must implement a comprehensive strategy to address not only the sale but also the public use of illicit drugs. As a legislator, my power lies in building coalitions, setting clear expectations, and creating the pressure needed to turn plans into action.
What three things would you change about how SFPD operates?
First, consistent enforcement against open-air drug use so people see that laws are applied on our sidewalks. Second, stronger traffic enforcement to keep pedestrians and cyclists safe from reckless driving. Third, improve systems for residents to report crimes and receive timely follow-up so people know their concerns are taken seriously. Can we follow the example of the 311 app? I think so.
Finally, we need to continue expanding the use of security cameras and automated license plate readers to support investigations and deter crime.
What small change do you think would have the biggest impact?
Smarter use of technology to reduce paperwork and speed up reporting—so officers spend more time in neighborhoods and less time behind a computer. A citation for public drug use shouldn’t take 90 minutes to complete. Streamlining basic tasks like this would make our police force far more effective without adding staff or cost.
| Should San Francisco… | Yes | No |
|---|---|---|
| Try to achieve “full staffing” for SFPD? (Defined as about 2,100 officers, according to the City) | Y | |
| Arrest and prosecute street-level fentanyl dealers? | Y | |
| Investigate, arrest, and prosecute fentanyl distribution ringleaders (like organized crime and cartel members)? | Y | |
| Arrest and prosecute street-level vendors of suspected stolen goods? | Y | |
| Investigate, arrest, and prosecute the leaders of theft rings and fencing operations? | Y |
When considering appointments to the Police Commission, which sets SFPD's use of force guidelines, what do you consider to be important in the candidate? Please include what you believe the ideal candidate’s views are on the following: public drug use, sidewalk vending (including food and stolen goods), use of police technology (drones, AI), and shoplifting.
When appointing members to the Police Commission, I look for candidates who take public safety seriously and are committed to both accountability and results. The Commission sets the framework for how we keep San Franciscans safe, and it is critical that commissioners understand the urgency of our challenges while supporting the officers who do the work every day.
I would prioritize candidates who believe that enforcing existing laws on public drug use, open-air fencing, and organized theft is essential to restoring confidence in our city. They should support the careful and transparent use of technology, including drones, AI-assisted tools, and automated license plate readers, to help officers work more effectively and responsibly.
On sidewalk vending, I want commissioners who can distinguish between permitted vendors operating in good faith and those selling stolen goods, and who will work with city departments to shut down illegal activity while supporting legitimate small businesses.
I would seek commissioners who recognize that policies such as cite-and-release have had real impacts on neighborhoods. We need to give officers the discretion and tools to address repeat offenses such as shoplifting and car break-ins, while maintaining fairness, oversight, and a focus on keeping communities safe.
Finally, we must ensure that our roster of Commissioners is not a heterogenous body of all advocates, or all prosecutors, or all former law enforcement professionals. Diversity of expertise is critical.
Substance abuse
In general, how should the City handle people who are abusing drugs on City sidewalks?
The City needs to respond quickly and consistently. People using drugs in public should be directed into treatment and services or moved off the sidewalks so families and businesses are not forced to live with open drug use. I am laser focused on making sure we address this reactively and proactively.
We can no longer keep walking by. Treatment and services must be offered to everyone suffering, but there cannot be a choice to remain on the street. We must use both the carrot and the stick. And that means writing citations for misdemeanor drug use.
If someone is passed out from drugs on the sidewalk, how should the City respond?
The City should respond immediately with medical care. Our street crisis response teams must be equipped to address the person’s immediate needs and connect them to ongoing support to ensure it never happens again. However, that situation also reflects a grave disability. After providing medical attention, we need to offer the individual a clear choice: enter a treatment program or face legal consequences. Compassion means helping people recover, but it also means refusing to accept that someone should be left to die on our sidewalks.
Do you support the creation of safe consumption sites in San Francisco? If so, please detail how they should be run. If not, please explain a viable alternative.
No. The research on safe consumption sites is mixed, especially given the realities of fentanyl. Instead of experimenting without clear evidence of success, the City should focus on proven strategies and invest more in abstinence-based recovery programs, which have already shown promising results despite limited funding. I also want to see expanded access to overdose reversal medications, increased prescriptions for treatment, and access to treatment beds right when people are ready to take that step.
Do you support sober housing? Why or why not?
Yes. Sober housing is essential to breaking the cycle of addiction. It provides people in recovery with a safe, stable environment where they can focus on rebuilding their lives. We need more of it in San Francisco, and I was proud to sponsor Dorsey’s Recovery First ordinance, which encourages greater investment in sober living facilities across the city.
Almost all of us know someone who has overcome addiction through sobriety and abstinence-based methods. Let’s be a city that acknowledges and supports that path to recovery.
Would you continue or change the city’s harm reduction policies that distribute drug use paraphernalia beyond clean needles, such as pipes, foil, etc.?
For far too long, the City has facilitated the distribution of items like pipes or foil without real intervention or a plan to connect people to treatment. This only enables addiction and undermines public trust in our health system. All of San Francisco’s efforts to address dangerous drug use need to focus on saving lives - and that means a reduction, not a normalization, of drug use.
We need to pair outreach with immediate access to treatment beds and make sure recovery services are available. I support ending the distribution of drug use supplies that make it easier to remain in addiction instead of moving toward recovery.
Mental Health
Should San Francisco amend our current laws around mental health crisis intervention to better help people suffering on the streets? If yes, why and how? If not, why not?
Yes. Our laws need to reflect the reality of what we see every day on our streets and respond with the urgency this crisis demands. Too often, people in the midst of severe mental health crises cycle between sidewalks, jails, and emergency rooms without ever getting lasting care.
San Francisco must set clearer standards for intervention and expand the tools available to first responders, health professionals, and families so they can connect people with treatment and services before tragedy strikes. That means strengthening our conservatorship laws, improving coordination between city agencies, and continuing to invest in long-term solutions.
However, I also readily acknowledge that we need more beds in locked facilities to accommodate more people who have been conserved. Thoughtfully addressing our current budget deficits will allow us to reinvest strategically in the future, and this would be an area of focus for me.
What aspects of San Francisco’s conservatorship policies would you change?
Without more beds to put people in, changing conservatorship policies (by which I mean broadening its definition and moving cases faster through the system) will have no measurable effect on our city. We need to be honest about that bottleneck; if not, we are doomed to have circular conversations.
That said, San Francisco needs three fixes: use state tools more effectively, build the missing treatment capacity, and cut the process delays.
-
Fully implement SB 43 with clear criteria and training.
SB 43 broadened “grave disability” to include severe substance use disorder and inability to meet basic needs. San Francisco announced readiness, but we’ve initiated virtually no conservatorships based solely on the new criteria. City Attorney and DPH should better standardize this process to prioritize SB 43 cases for people repeatedly cycling through ERs and streets. -
As previously mentioned, the biggest bottleneck is placement. There is a significant shortfall of acute beds and more long-term options. We should aggressively expand care and staff them so less people are on our streets.
-
We also need to quicken the court pipeline and strengthen oversight so cases don’t stall; require data-sharing across DPH/SF General//SFPD/etc. (building on ASTRID) so judges see the full history; and use CARE Court more proactively for those who meet criteria as an on-ramp or alternative, per the 2024 statutory updates.
Bottom line: Use SB 43 as intended, build and staff the beds to place people safely, and move cases faster so the residents most in need actually get sustained treatment and neighborhoods see real relief.
Some have argued that San Francisco should place people who are experiencing mental health crises on the streets into involuntary mental health holds at psychiatric facilities. Do you agree or disagree with this view? Please explain why or why not. If you agree with this view, please outline some guardrails and oversight the City must provide to prevent abuse. If you disagree with this view, please outline your preferred alternative solution as well as any drawbacks it might have and oversight it might need.
Yes - in many cases involuntary holds are necessary. Leaving people to deteriorate, overdose, or die on our streets is not compassionate. We have seen through the fentanyl epidemic what happens when the City fails to act boldly. Lives are lost, families are shattered, and neighborhoods suffer.
That said, we can’t pretend we currently have the facilities or staff capacity to treat everyone experiencing a mental health crisis. The City needs a clear inventory of existing resources, an accurate estimate of unmet need (which is substantial), and a funding plan to close that gap.
Because resources are often limited, we often prioritize those most willing to accept treatment—leaving the most severely ill individuals in dangerous situations for themselves and others. That must change. We need to focus our limited capacity on the people in the greatest crisis, even when that means involuntary intervention.
With that said, any expansion of involuntary holds must include:
-
Clear medical standards for when intervention is warranted.
-
Judicial oversight and review to protect against arbitrary or prolonged detentions.
-
Transparency and accountability within the system to prevent abuse or neglect.
-
A pathway to real treatment rather than simply cycling people through a temporary hold and back onto the streets.
Small Business
What would you change about the process of new retail business formation in San Francisco, across zoning, permitting, renovations, fees, and financing? Please be as specific as possible.
Starting a business in San Francisco takes too long and costs too much. We need to cut red tape, shorten timelines, and make the process clear from start to finish so it functions as a map, not a maze. That means streamlining permitting and inspections by consolidating reviews across departments and setting clear standards for response times. It also means simplifying zoning rules so neighborhood-serving businesses such as childcare centers, cafés, and fitness or recreational studios can open without lengthy conditional use hearings. Or more simply, prospective businesses need to have a clear, linear, checklist about what they need to do in order to open.
One critical element is culture - every permitting department needs to align with a clear goal for the city: their job is to help businesses to open safely and successfully. If you polled businesses owners in our city, I’d bet they would say this doesn’t feel like the case today.
One example is that we must ensure that a new plan reviewer cannot go back and change a prior approved plan without clear life-safety reasons for doing so.
We should expand and make permanent programs like First Year Free, which I championed the extension of, to waive startup fees and lower early costs for entrepreneurs. At the same time, we need a more flexible approach to renovation and building codes that maintains safety while removing redundant requirements that delay projects for months.
| Which of these types of businesses should be permitted by-right vs require special government approval? | Allowed | Needs Permission |
|---|---|---|
| Bars that don’t serve food | X (depends on the neighborhood) | |
| Bars that serve food | X | |
| Vice businesses (strip clubs, liquor stores, etc.) | X | |
| Formula retail (Starbucks, Safeway, Whole Foods, etc) | X (depends on the neighborhood & business type - ie grocery store vs. fast food) | |
| Cafes & restaurants | X | |
| Professional offices | X |
If San Francisco adopted policies that allowed all non-vice businesses to open without special hearings, what would you do to help local small businesses compete?
I would make sure San Francisco doubles down on the investments and programs that give small businesses a real chance to open and thrive for the long haul. Programs like First Year Free, which I championed the extension of, show how we can lower barriers and costs for entrepreneurs during their most vulnerable early stage.
We can go even further by cutting red tape through streamlined permitting and licensing, expanding fee waivers and micro-grants, activating commercial corridors, and improving technical assistance for immigrants and first-time business owners who may not have the same access to resources.
Restrictive zoning, permitting, and bureaucracy often hurt small businesses far more than large chains, which have the money and lawyers to navigate them. Time and again, regulations intended to “protect” small businesses end up putting them out of reach- and that’s what we need to change.
| Should San Francisco… | Yes | No |
|---|---|---|
| Reduce the time to obtain all permits to open a new business to no more than 3 months | Y | |
| Reduce the cost of obtaining permits to open a new business | Y | |
| Reduce the number of activities which must obtain permits, and expand the number of by-right activities | Y | |
| Try to attract businesses of all sizes to the City? | Y |
If you want to explain any positions above, please feel free:
Housing
Do you believe that San Francisco has a shortage of homes? Why or why not?
Yes. San Francisco hasn’t built enough housing for decades, and that shortage drives up rents and home prices across the city. If we want families, workers, and future generations to live and thrive here, we need to build more homes at every level of affordability.
Do you believe that housing prices are set by supply and demand constraints? Why or why not?
The math is simple. When there isn’t enough housing, prices go up. When we increase supply across all income levels, prices go down.
Do you think Mayor Lurie’s Family zoning plan is too ambitious or not ambitious enough? Why?
Zoning is only one piece of the puzzle. Where we need to be much, much more ambitious is on lowering the cost of construction. We have tens of thousands of units of housing stuck in the pipeline, and we will never meet our development or affordability goals if zoning is the endgame. For instance, the way that we generate money for affordable housing today - through inclusionary fees on market rate construction - isn’t generating nearly the amount of money we need while at the same time driving up construction costs.
Many aspects of our building code are wildly outdated and don’t take advantage of available technologies that would make construction cheaper AND safer. Zoning is a critical component of housing affordability, but we need to look beyond zoning and get ambitious about getting shovels in the ground.
Do you believe that building more housing is the #1 way to reduce the cost of living in San Francisco? Why or why not?
Building more housing is a massively important step (maybe the first step) of driving affordability in San Francisco, but it’s only one of the four legs of the affordability stool:
-
Housing affordability
-
Quality public education
-
Accessible public transportation
-
Affordable and accessible childcare
Affordability is absolutely critical to making it easier for families to be in San Francisco, and it will take a multi-pronged approach. But just waiting for better schools or better transit before building housing? No. Inaction is not the answer.
| Should any of the following be exempt from CEQA, Discretionary Review, and Conditional Use permits? | Should be exempt | Should not be exempt |
|---|---|---|
| Homeless shelters | X | |
| Affordable housing | X | |
| Market rate housing | X |
| 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 | ||
| Renovate your home (update bathroom, kitchen, 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 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:
Transit Infrastructure
Do you believe the MUNI funding crisis should be solved by taxes alone? Why or why not?
No. And I applaud MUNI for recognizing that this isn’t just a revenue problem. We need to right-size overhead, improve efficiency, and ensure MUNI delivers reliable service before asking voters for more money. The changes made so far are solid, but we should continuously reexamine city departments to find new ways to improve performance and reduce waste.
Should it be the policy of San Francisco to build a citywide protected bike lane network? Why or why not?
Yes. But at the same time, we need to design safe and reliable corridors for every mode of transit (bikes, buses, and cars) so they complement rather than compete with each other. Each mode should work better because it was designed with intention and balance in mind.
Is Vision Zero the right goal? Why or why not?
Yes. The goal should always be zero traffic deaths. We can and should pursue that goal through smarter street design, better enforcement, and education- without banning or punishing specific modes of transit.
Should San Francisco prioritize buses over car traffic by creating more bus-only lanes and directing traffic enforcement officers to ticket drivers who ignore the restrictions?
It’s not about picking winners and losers between buses and cars. It’s about smart street design that separates modes of transportation so everyone can move safely and efficiently. The 38R on Geary is a perfect example.
Budget
San Francisco is facing a large budget deficit due to declining tax revenues from our struggling downtown. What would your approach be to fix this?
We can not expect to fully rebuild our economy until we tackle fentanyl and get our streets cleaned up. That is how we bring back conventions, increase tourism, and get workers back in office. At the same time, we need to make sure city spending matches today’s reality by cutting bloat and focusing resources where they make the biggest impact.
It also must be noted that building more housing will be the fastest way to increase the City’s tax base.
City Hall staffing has grown 27% while the city’s population has stayed stagnant. Would you support right sizing city government to rebalance the budget? Why or why not?
Yes. We can’t keep expanding government while the city itself shrinks. Right-sizing means focusing on frontline services and reducing bureaucratic bloat. We should prioritize attrition and better management over mass layoffs, but the bottom line is the same. San Francisco needs a government that’s better, not just bigger. Strategic investments in technology will be key to delivering more with less.
Personal
Tell us a bit about yourself!
How long have you lived in San Francisco? What brought you here and what keeps you here?
I’ve lived in San Francisco for 10 years. I came here to try something new at a turning point in my life, and I found love, both with the city and with my now-wife, whose family has lived in San Francisco and the Bay Area for five generations.
I love raising our children here. There’s no city like it. To me, San Francisco has always felt like a place meant for families, and I want to make sure more families can build their future here too.
What do you love most about San Francisco?
San Francisco is both a cultural and intellectual capital and a collection of small, vibrant neighborhoods. Our merchant corridors, each with its own character, and nestled within a world-class city. The city is nothing short of remarkable. It’s that mix - the international influence combined with hyperlocal neighborhoods - that I love. And being able to access the outdoors doesn’t hurt either!
What do you dislike the most about San Francisco?
Our residents deserve cleaner and safer streets.
Tell us about your current involvement in the community (e.g., volunteer groups, neighborhood associations, civic and professional organizations, etc.)
As the sitting District 2 Supervisor, I am careful not to blur any lines with community groups, though of course I’m happy to say that I paid my dues for my local neighborhood association, PHAN, on time. In the past, I’ve been involved with Northern Neighbors and the First Tee of San Francisco, and we support a variety of arts organizations and the recovery community as well.
Why do you want to run for public office?
Since my first job out of college on a mayoral campaign in my hometown, I’ve been drawn to local government. The challenges we face can feel intractable, but I believe they’re solvable with focus and accountability.
When the District 2 seat became available last year, I stepped forward because I felt we weren’t prioritizing the quality-of-life issues that affect us every day- and at the same time, we weren’t making enough progress on the existential issues like affordability. I believe we need to win on the little things, like clean streets, safe parks, and improved sidewalks, in order to build the trust required to win on the big things like housing, education, and transit.
This all starts with listening to the community, giving people a voice, and then acting aggressively to invest in the future of our families and small businesses.
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.