Brian Sam Adam
- Office: Supervisor, District 10
- Election Date: November 8, 2022
- Candidate: Brian Sam Adam
- Due Date: Tuesday, July 12
- Printable Version
Thank you for seeking GrowSF's endorsement for the November 2022 General Election! GrowSF believes in a growing, beautiful, vibrant, healthy, safe, and prosperous city 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 Tuesday, July 12 so we have enough time to adequately review and discuss your answers.
Topical questions
These issues have been in the news recently. Please tell us your opinion and how you might address them as Supervisor:
A Place For All legislation
Supervisor Mandelman's "A Place For All" legislation requires that the city make a plan to end unsheltered homelessness.
-
If you are a sitting Supervisor, did you vote for it? Why or why not?
-
If you are not in office, do you support it?
JFK Promenade
Do you support making JFK Drive accessible only to people walking, biking, using personal mobility devices like wheelchairs, and other non-automotive uses?
I support it. If elected as supervisor, I would vote to maintain no-car JFK drive.
Great Highway
The Great Highway is currently open to cars on weekdays and open to people walking, biking, using personal mobility devices like wheelchairs, and other non-automotive uses on weekends. Do you support this compromise position?
I support the compromise position for now. I think it is better to implement traffic slowing measures and convert inner blocks in the Richmond/Outer Sunset to slow streets. Opening up roads for pedestrians grants people more public space, opens the possibility for new parks, or long-term conversion into mixed use development.
Affordable Homes Now ballot initiative
GrowSF is running a charter amendment ballot initiative alongside the Housing Action Coalition, YIMBY Action, SPUR, Habitat for Humanity, Greenbelt Alliance, and the NorCal Carpenters Union. This ballot measure will make it faster and cheaper to build housing. Do you support it?
I support it with reservation. In 2019, another initiative was approved. In my reading, this largely serves the interests of builders and raises the max affordability rent to 140% of the HUD median income.
I think we need to take additional steps to make more housing built; in its current state, the initiative may only send tax dollars to builders or create buildings that will remain empty and fail to house anyone currently living in the City or people working in San Francisco that currently commute.
Board of Education recall
In February San Franciscans recalled three members of the Board of Education. Did you support these recalls? Why or why not?
I did not support the recall. Rather than reaching compromises with educators to end distance learning or addressing situations at the many schools in SFUSD, a huge emphasis was placed on Lowell and the change to a lottery system and the renaming of several schools.
District Attorney Chesa Boudin recall
In June San Franciscans recalled District Attorney Chesa Boudin. Did you support this recall? Why or why not?
I supported the recall with reservation. I think there is a huge disconnect between what the DA does, what people think the DA is supposed to do, and what we were told was happening.
I think the former DA bungled a number of cases, but there was a lack of cooperation between the Mayor's Office, the DA, and other criminal justice organizations to implement a variety of policies.
A huge emphasis was placed on repeat offenders and individuals who went on to commit violent crimes while out on bail or after having had their cases dismissed. These were blunders, but they are not unique to reform policies.
Donald Trump's administration approved a criminal justice reform bill that coincided with many of the changes the former DA attempted to implement. Many other cities and counties in New York, Texas, and Massachusetts implemented policies with success.
I hope DA Jenkins can make some improvements while making residents safer.
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.
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 city's problems.
Small Business
| In general, is it too hard, just right, or too easy to… | Too hard | Just right | Too easy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Open a new business | x | ||
| Run a business in the city | x | ||
| Hire staff at a living wage | x | ||
| Obtain various licenses & permits (liquor, entertainment, etc.) | x |
If you want to explain any positions above, please feel free:
Housing affordability and speculation are a fundamental obstacle to promoting business. If employee cost-of-living was lower, employees could be paid less.
Currently, businesses juggle payroll and scheduled working hours to maximum income from people with income greater than $100,000 while paying full-time or part-time employees $50,000 or below.
If employees could be paid less, they could maintain additional business hours to increase revenue rather than being open for 3-5 hours each day. In the current system, individual employees take on additional risk and precarious conditions, i.e. unstable working hours, multiple jobs, etc.
Housing
| 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 buildings 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:
Very few residents in San Francisco want to see homeless shelters, safe sleeping sites, or navigation centers in their neighborhoods. However, I think a clear communication policy and transparent process can win support. Navigation centers are essential to connecting evicted or recently unhoused individuals or families with the resources/info they need to get rapidly rehoused. The majority of Homeless and Supportive Housing funds are dedicated to just this.
I think it is hard to redevelop properties and add units, not because of regulations per se, but because of cost. Few individuals can take on the huge costs to expand their home or demolish it to rebuild it, leaving such work to large firms or small-time landlords. This means that upzoning or the striking down of regulations may only result in "imaginary gains." Homeowners can borrow against home value that has been speculated into existence or sell at a higher rate because of the "possibility" of expansion; the same goes for builders or financial investors that may sit on land or old property until zoning opens up and dramatically increases the value of their plot — even though shovels will never break ground.
I am willing to support individuals and firms to make the changes or construction they want to see. Ultimately, I think our current housing situation will depend on public housing or a regional effort to provide housing at a loss to convert renters into homeowners. Slight upzones / rezones will ultimately maintain the status quo, i.e. we will still have thousands of unhoused people and tens of thousands of residents with subsidized rent (tax dollars that go into the hands of private landlords).
Public Safety
| 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:
Unfortunately, stolen items are largely impossible to retrieve without a dramatic increase in invasive policing and investigation. I think more housing, employment options, and job training will be more productive applications of tax dollars versus using a fraction of that to hire more officers to attempt to throw people in jail or prison where they may get the same thing, i.e. stable slave labor employment, training/GED-completion, "housing."
However, the criminal justice process can be reformed to make it easier for victims to get their cases resolved. Domestic violence and rape cases are notoriously underreported and hard to prosecute because of the nature of these crimes. Victims may be uncomfortable getting rape kits or too traumatized to get one immediately, i.e. they blame themselves. Alternatively, undocumented or poorer residents may see domestic violence and rape as the less evil between risking deportation, homelessness, etc.
Expanding safety nets ensures all people will have the security and freedom to bring charges against family, partners, etc that may have raped them or abused them or their family without fear of homelessness, further violence, etc. Currently, much of this work is left to private individuals and nonprofits.
Education
| 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 | ||
| Evaluate performance of schools | x |
If you want to explain any positions above, please feel free:
I think the school system is changing in San Francisco to let people attend schools that are closer to them. This may make it easier to commute with children to school on foot + keep neighborhoods vibrant with foot traffic.
I think hiring teachers is difficult and easy for different reasons. Private schools are willing to accept people with no teaching credentials and train them on the job to fill their headcount needs; this is actually a model we should reproduce. (this model may be a dramatic benefit to society in virtually every industry and a largely ignored means of reducing homelessness and crime)
However, the individual cost for seeking a teaching credential and the low return on investment for being a teacher + the cost of living in San Francisco means hiring and keeping teachers in the public education system will be a challenge, especially since the SFUSD budget this year is 1.3 billion.
Again, it comes down to pay — and paying public school teachers means more taxes. Reducing cost of living can help hiring more teachers at a lower cost versus handing out relatively few tuition vouchers for a handful of students to attend a private school. Emphasizing a student's individual performance, the quality of a particular school, or the responsibility of families ultimately ignores funding issues, unequal access to opportunities/classes, and the compounding effects of all these factors.
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 | |||
| 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:
Homelessness services are largely band-aid efforts. We need long-term solutions to reduce peoples' reliance on tax subsidies — subsidies that are ultimately to private landlords in an inflated housing market.
People are ready to question the efficacy of nonprofit funding or lack of transparency, but do not extend this skepticism to the police and other criminal justice organizations. The SFPD's 2021 and 2020 staffing reports highlight a disconnect between what is effective policing and how we use dollars. Foot patrols reduce property crimes, e.g. larceny theft, car break-ins, etc, yet only the Tenderloin police district.
A Department of Emergency Management 2019 911 call data highlights that many calls for service do not really require armed officers to be on the scene, e.g. calls to move an unhoused person.
However, only 10% of these calls have been addressed by CART or the street crisis team. An education campaign to demonstrate the effectiveness of CART and the street crisis team will convince residents to rely on 311 instead of 911. Hiring more civilian staff with the right training to staff CART and the street crisis team can reduce the need for more expensive, sworn staff manhours. This frees up the existing 1,400 full-time sector patrol officers to respond to other calls, participate in more foot patrols, or perform more community outreach.
For instance, only 2-3 officers per police district (20-30 total out of 1,400 full-time officers) are trained to be familiar with homelessness, housing services, and drug treatment facilities. This lack of training just means officer man hours will be wasted when unhoused people they interact with could be sent to services.
What are the top three issues facing San Francisco, and what would you like to see change?
-
Housing affordability — housing should be cheaper by focusing on public or subsidized housing that converts renters into homeowners.
-
Public safety, education, and employment — in the long run, we need more funding in our K-12 system + a dramatic expansion of job training programs or the willingness of public or private employers to train employees on the job (this is, after all, the reality for most college grads). I fundamentally believe that this + housing affordability will let us better use the existing police force to address current crime levels
-
The environment and public transit —San Francisco is already ahead of the game when it comes to water usage and renewable energy, but we need to expand clean transit options and ways for people to travel around the bay without impacting the environment. In the long run, the cost of food will probably go up as California agriculture shrinks due to the effects of global climate change. We need to start thinking about the ways we effectively house residents, employ them, and keep cities up and running to stop climate change or live with it.
Tell us one thing you think needs to change in SF that the average voter wouldn't know about.
The way police staffing is currently used.
Long-form questions
This section is optional.
We know your time is short, so please feel free to respond to the questions below which you think are most relevant to the position you're running for (but you are, of course, welcome to answer all of them). It is not necessary to answer these questions to secure our endorsement, but more context always helps us make better decisions.
Public health
Do you support the creation of safe consumption sites in San Francisco?
Yes, but only as a transitional support environment. Drug abuse is only an issue when people are unable to hold stable employment or keep a roof over their head… which may ultimately result in crime. Many residents, sadly, are able to maintain housing and employment despite alcohol abuse or abuse of "acceptable drugs", e.g. caffeine, cannabis, nicotine.
Do you support our current laissez-faire approach to open-air drug usage? What would you change?
Only with reservation. It can only be a temporary harm-reduction effort. For drug users that are unhoused or unemployed, they are much likelier to have a host of underlying conditions.
They need (supportive) housing, mental or behavioral treatment, and training/employment to bring more stability to their lives. Otherwise, the current policy does nothing except reduce the damage of prison time or fines that drug users will probably be unable to pay.
Education
How should the Board of Education be reformed to bring more accountability and better performance to the Board?
Should the ban on middle school algebra be reversed?
No.
I went through a system where students were tested into "advanced math" or put into Algebra I in middle school. In high school, students were given the chance to go into Algebra I or Geometry as freshmen.
Unless we can secure more funding for schools, e.g. more teachers to effectively support different tracks, we will ultimately be privileging one set of students over another. I think it is more important to raise the bottom line versus hypothetical "stars." This system has a greater risk of creating classes of remedial students that need more time and attention but will not get it (as someone who has worked with college and high school students in remedial English and HS freshmen).
My own personal view is that education is largely subpar for many students with a shallow understanding of English grammar (nevermind what that's supposed to teach a student) or a test-to-test understanding of Math concepts.
In the meantime, people can seek extracurricular activities or work with their students to promote the creation of math clubs or other avenues for supporting growth if desired.
Emphasizing merit and individual performance distracts from unequal funding and opportunities, disparities in teacher training or experience, and the relative opportunities each pupil may or may not get from their families — and further distracts us from considering the purpose of higher education.
Should charter schools be allowed to operate in San Francisco?
Urbanism
Do you support raising the price of parking and driving in San Francisco?
Do you support banning cars from central downtown areas and certain retail or residential corridors?
Do you support congestion pricing?
Should San Francisco expand its protected bike lane network?
Should San Francisco prioritize buses over car traffic by creating more bus-only lanes and directing traffic enforcement to ticket drivers who ignore the restrictions?
Should Uber, Lyft, and other ride-share services be banned?
Should San Francisco allow more bike share and scooter share companies?
Should San Francisco allow bike and scooter share companies to operate with fewer restrictions on the number of vehicles they offer for rent, and in more places (including inside Golden Gate Park)?
Do you support keeping JFK Drive and the Great Highway car-free permanently?
Should Muni be free for everyone? If so, what other programs would you take money from in order to fund this change?
Probably. Muni's ~1.4 billion budget is largely funded by tax revenue, state and federal grants, and ticketing fines/parking costs. The current revenue from fares is only ~16% of the budget. (BART's operating expenses are ~80% covered by fares)
Making all San Franciscans pay $375-$450 a year — less than a monthly muni pass's cost ($81 with no BART) —would fill in the gap for the fare funding.
Taxes
Would you repeal Prop 13, if you had the authority to do so? Or, if not repeal it, how would you change it?
I would repeal it, if I had the authority to do so. Prop 13, I believe, has a dramatic effect on our housing market. Its repeal opens the path for reducing other taxes which can be seen as regressive, e.g. taxes on gas, sales tax, etc.
It further opens the way to removing parcel taxes without dramatically impacting funding for public schools or municipalities.
However, it would need to come with homeowner relief; I believe that home prices would decrease as a result of this, and the state government should support homeowners to refinance or renegotiate huge amounts of debt to prevent them from going underwater or centralizing homeownership in the hands of private firms.
Additional steps would need to be taken to prevent further land or property speculation to make it less profitable — since increased property tax is no guarantee of anything.
Are taxes and fees on small businesses too low, just right, or too high?
Should San Francisco pursue any and all avenues to impose parcel taxes that could bypass Prop 13, which keeps property taxes on multi-million dollar property artificially low?
Are sales taxes too low, just right, or too high?
Small Business & Entrepreneurship
What would you change about the process of new business formation?
Should San Francisco welcome all businesses, regardless of size?
San Francisco should consider ways to privilege local businesses or promote competition where possible or practical.
San Francisco should support the growth of alternative business models, e.g. cooperatives.
Do you think the government should decide which businesses can and cannot open in San Francisco?
Should all businesses be permitted by-right? If not, which business categories do you think should not be by-right?
Probably. We may only need additional review in the case of mixed zoning where the community or local government may desire to see a different arrangement, e.g. more housing with less businesses or vice versa.
Housing & Homelessness
Do you believe that San Francisco has a shortage of homes?
Yes.
Do you believe that housing prices are set by supply and demand constraints?
No.
Should San Francisco upzone? If so, where and how?
In historically commercially or industrially zoned areas. In low density, low height neighborhoods that are willing to increase size. Along transit corridors.
Should homeless shelters be exempt from CEQA, Discretionary Review, and Conditional Use permits?
Should subsidized Affordable housing be exempt from CEQA, Discretionary Review, and Conditional Use permits?
Yes.
Should market-rate housing be exempt from CEQA, Discretionary Review, and Conditional Use permits?
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 Supervisor?
To support a policy that builds more houses. To make the effects of City spending more clear / more results-driven. To support public transit. To support education, job training, and on-the-job training hires, i.e. apprenticeships.
What is your #1 policy goal?
Reallocation of HSH or other department funds to build public housing.
How will you build the coalition and political capital to enact your #1 goal?
Emphasize the growth of homeownership and stability, and the business and public safety benefits we may see.
Large scale landlords, speculators, and people who want to use their home as an investment tool will not be happy with this.
Will the power of the office of Supervisor be enough to achieve this goal?
Depends on support from the Mayor or a dramatic City charter amendment making it the City's duty to provide a certain amount of housing.
What are your #2 and #3 policy goals?
Job training and education support + public transit support.
Will the power of the office of Supervisor be enough to achieve these goals?
We can consider levying tax against businesses who hire in certain ways or extend tax benefits for people who are willing to take on the cost of hiring new employees without specific credentials.
What is an existing policy you would like to reform?
Work with the Mayor's Office and DHR to review and revise the permanent civil service to make it easier to hire employees.
What is an "out there" change that you would make to local or regional government policy, if you could? (For example: adding at-large supervisors, changing how elections work, creating a Bay Area regional government, etc.)
Bay Area regional government, 100%. Housing affordability, homelessness, environmental issues, public transit effectiveness, etc. can only be solved with dramatic regional cooperation. We don't have the space to solve our problems inefficiently, e.g. Houston put a dramatic dent in homelessness by committing to build new homes and actively house people … at the cost of huge urban sprawl and car infrastructure.
Upzoning and infill will need to be discussed with equity and the environment in mind. I genuinely believe that situations like the Syrian refugee crisis that started in Europe will multiply in the coming decades. Supporting my policies and a Bay Area regional government ensures we will be ready to grow and survive these disasters while keeping our conscience if we cannot abate global climate change and global economic disparity.
Personal
Tell us a bit about yourself!
How long have you lived in San Francisco? What brought you here and what keeps you here?
2 years. I came for work in the public sector. I like that San Francisco is a dense, walkable place. It has a lot of neighborhoods that look like a bunch of bits of the Bay Area crammed into 49 square miles.
What do you love most about San Francisco?
Walkability and transit. (and the weather!)
What do you dislike the most about San Francisco?
Lack of housing affordability and largely conservative/capital-oriented policies dressed up in "woke" clothing, i.e. other more "conservative" states and cities accomplish what progressives dream they could — worker-friendly, progressive things are accomplished elsewhere in "conversative" clothing.
(and the weather!)
Tell us about your current involvement in the community (e.g., volunteer groups, neighborhood associations, civic and professional organizations, etc.)
I am a member of my union. I have written some advocacy pieces for Seamless Bay Area Transit. I have written some news articles for my local paper.
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.