Jaime Gutierrez

• Office: Board of Supervisors, District 9
• Election Date: November 5, 2024
• Candidate: Jaime Gutierrez
• Due Date: February 28, 2024
• Printable Version

Table of Contents:

• Your Leadership
• Public Safety
• Drugs
• Mental Health
• Education
• Small Business
• Housing
• Transit Infrastructure
• Budget
• Personal
• Thank you

Your Leadership

Why are you running for Board of Supervisors, District 9?

Running for board of supervisors to be able to help people and the district. I am a voting citizen of the district and have been in the district my entire life with military service in Germany and a few years in my youth in Noe Valley.

What is your #1 policy goal?

To make the streets safe again.

How will you build the coalition and political capital to enact your #1 goal?

The San Francisco Police Dept is running at an employee deficit. I would work to get as many people on board that includes supervisors, citizens, and business owners to do everything to improve recruitment and retention in the SFPD. This attitude extends to other departments in the City as other departments are similarly suffering. The same problem being there are not enough workers to run the City infrastructure effectively.

Another point of interest is city workers are out of touch with the City because they live in bedroom communities that are far and away with different local challenges.

Will the power of the office of Board of Supervisors, District 9 be enough to achieve this goal?

No, I will have to collaborate with all stakeholders involved to navigate the complex issues that have brought San Francisco to its current state. The stakeholders are the Mayor, the fellow Supervisors, other elected officials, City departments, citizens, residents, and business owners.

What are your #2 and #3 policy goals?

Having clean streets and cleaning up fentanyl use.

Will the power of the office of Board of Supervisors, District 9 be enough to achieve these goals?

No. I will have to collaborate with all stakeholders involved to navigate the complex issues that have brought San Francisco to its current state. The stakeholders are the Mayor, the fellow Supervisors, other elected officials, City departments, citizens, residents, and business owners

What is an existing policy you would like to reform?

• Harm reduction needs to be reformed.
• Existing restraint on police procedures needs to be reformed.

What is an "out there" change that you would make to state/local government policy, if you could? (For example: adding at large supervisors, changing how elections work, creating a Bay Area regional government, etc.)

Repeal California Proposition 47 and the inheritance section of California Proposition 19.

Tell us one thing you think needs to change in SF that the average voter wouldn't know about.

There are more garbage cans in district 2 than there are in district 9. This needs to be equalized.

Public Safety

What is the #1 public safety issue today?

Night time personal safety.

There is an attitude of lawlessness on the streets that makes people feel unsafe. Muggings, robberies, home invasions, shop-lifting, shootings, open air drug use and open air drug dealing, routine and unenforced traffic infractions, car break-ins are examples of this lawlessness.

San Francisco currently has about 1,500 sworn police officers. Some have argued that the City should try to match the per-capita staffing levels that other large cities have. If we matched cities like New York or Paris, we would need to have about 3,400 sworn officers. What do you think of this idea? If you support it, how would the City fund recruitment at SFPD to achieve this staffing level? If you don't support it, what would you propose to do instead?

I support the idea of more police officers, but relating the quantity of sworn officers to New York or Paris may not be appropriate for San Francisco. New York suffered a catastrophic terrorist attack in 2001 that ushered in one of the largest police forces in the United States. Hence, New York is not a proper reference for officer counts. Paris on the other hand is the capital of a foreign country with a different Constitution and different history than the United States. Deriving sworn officer counts from an international city such as Paris similarly may not be appropriate.

With that said, San Francisco does need more officers to reduce the casual attitude toward lawlessness, but the quantity of sworn officers needs to be evaluated. For the moment, to be able to start somewhere, San Francisco should pursue the current sworn officer counts already established.

Funding Ideas:

• Airport projects are measured in billions of dollars. There must be some airport projects that can be deferred to support a core function of government which is security.
• The recent rescinding of not doing business with States that did not share core San Francisco values revealed a potential savings of 20% of costs of doing business with States that do support San Francisco values. This savings could be used for funding recruitment.
• A thirteen billion dollar budget (projected deficit considered) suggests an evaluation could be done to re-prioritize funding from underperforming programs to recruitment.
• Non-profit organizations found to be ineffective or unethical could have their funding redirected to SFPD recruitment.

What solutions might exist to improve public safety that don't involve expanding the size of SFPD?

• More community events that involve the police department. This is to encourage more positive engagement with the public.
• Own Recognizance programs need to be re-evaluated to prevent catch-and-release.
• Judicial sentencing guidelines can be re-evaluated.
• Convert harm reduction centers to detox centers.

What three things would you change about how SFPD operates?

• Improved response times.
• More foot and bike patrols.
• Banning the use of personal cell phones while on duty.

Do you support policies commonly referred to as "defund the police"? Why or why not?

No, I do not. The police should always have everything they need including compensation to do their job and be able to get to their homes safely every night after being on duty.

Please explain why you did or did not support the recall of DA Chesa Boudin. If you were ineligible to vote in that election, please explain how you would have voted.

I did support his recall because he had a direct link to our crime problem getting worse and the SFPD morale going down as a result of prosecuting police rather than criminals. His actions encouraged officers to retire early and made recruitment incredibly challenging. His tenure and dramatically progressive values had a direct impact on the City's current challenges with crime.

Try to achieve "full staffing" for SFPD? (Defined as about 2,100 officers, according to the City)

YES

Change the cite-and-release policy so officers can arrest suspects of misdemeanors like shoplifting and car break-ins?

YES

Arrest and prosecute street-level fentanyl dealers?

YES

There is a common attitude that corporations or companies that sell products that injure or kill should be held liable for these injuries and deaths. There is much business regulation preventing the production and sale of injurious or lethal products.

Sellers of fentanyl should be held to the same standard as fentanyl is a recognized commodity that injures and kills.

Prioritize diversion instead of incarceration for street-level fentanyl dealers?

NO

Investigate, arrest, and prosecute fentanyl distribution ringleaders (like organized crime and cartel members)?

YES

Arrest and prosecute street-level vendors of suspected stolen goods?

YES

Stealing is wrong and supporting people who steal is likewise wrong.

What is conveniently overlooked is the loss of time that a victim of theft loses.

Every car break-in represents a loss of time for the owner of the vehicle to restore the vehicle. Furthermore, any items stolen from the vehicle represent stolen time from the victim.

Businesses that endure stolen goods lose the time that was needed to earn the money to be able to purchase the items from a supplier for resale.

Time that was needed to either acquire the money to pay for the item stolen and possibly time needed to save up to be able to purchase the item that was stolen.

A person's time can not be replaced and subsequently this makes theft a very detrimental crime.

Every society classifies theft as wrong. Indeed, every language has a word referring to a thief.

Theft ultimately represents the deprivation of time and material from one person caused by another person.

Suppression of this deprivation is a core responsibility of the government.

Investigate, arrest, and prosecute the leaders of theft rings and fencing operations?

YES

Arrest and prosecute street food vendors operating without a permit?

NO

As far as arresting and prosecuting, this solution is too extreme for first time offenders, but with individuals that have been issued three citations then prosecution would be warranted. This is because the vendor is not learning how to be civil. Progressive discipline seems to serve this scenario better.

Fine street food vendors operating without a permit?

YES

An argument for food related permits is to maintain a health standard. Similar to the product quality statement, if a recognized franchise began serving food that poisoned customers (such as the Chipotle incident) there would be a rapid condemnation. Thus, to promote safe standards of fundamental commodities being served food, street food vendors ought to have a permit.

Drugs

In general, how should the City handle people who are abusing drugs on City sidewalks?

Open air drug use is not a behavior we should tolerate on the City sidewalks. This behavior is an expression of disregard for others - particularly children and people who choose to abide by the law. Fundamentally the behavior is uncivil. Therefore, drug use on City sidewalks must be discouraged.

Ultimately, if a person needs to abuse drugs on a City sidewalk, then their judgment has become detrimentally impaired. Either the individual does not care for the concerns of others or the individual has become too myopic for their own safety. Both mental states require intervention which may include an arrest or navigation to a health center.

At a minimum, drug abuse on a City sidewalk should culminate in SFPD disposing of the drug user's substances and paraphernalia and escorting the drug user to a detox facility.

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, safe consumption sites run the risk of overdosing and perpetuate the disease of isolation. A better solution is detox facilities. A person needs to be defoggged in order to make the critical decision that they want to recover. Safe consumption sites do not provide the environment for somebody to recover because they are still getting intoxicated and thereby remaining in a mental state incapable of seeking recovery.

Some have argued that safe consumption sites (or sobering centers) are only viable if they are paired with implementing zero-tolerance for public consumption of illegal drugs like fentanyl and heroin. Do you agree or disagree with this view?

I agree, but safe consumption sites should be repurposed to detox facilities.

Should fentanyl dealing be penalized differently from dealing other drugs?

No.

During the Crack Epidemic, laws were changed to force a judge to sentence mandatory incarceration for possession of crack-cocaine. An unfortunate consequence of this policy was a disproportionate number of people of color became incarcerated.

This is a very good example of distortions that can and do occur with attempts to fine tune law. (San Francisco is riddled with these distortions to the extent that ever more fine grained tuning is attempted that leads to even greater distortions. The proposal for exemptions from CEQA for various construction is an example of this fine tuning.)

Thus, fentanyl should be penalized similarly to other illicit dangerous substances such as crack-cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, etc.

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?

San Francisco should do everything in its power to help people on the streets living with mental health issues to - at a minimum - prevent them from falling into the pitfalls of the disease of addiction and alcoholism.

If the current policy is to permit a mentally ill person to be unhoused, then this is a bad policy. The intent of Donaldson vs. O'Connor 1975 was to address involuntary institutionalization to deprioritize mental health facilities, but the Court was unanimous that a person capable of taking care of themselves or somebody taking care of them was not to be subjected to mandatory institutionalization. However, we must consider that living on the street with or without a tent is a clear indication a person is unable to take care of themselves and they do not have friends or family in positions to take care of them. This beckons a call for a re-evaluation of how mentally ill people are to be helped.

Furthermore, our society already has an instrument to intervene into a person's life that removes the person's ability to make informed decisions for themselves. This instrument is used regularly and used for people with considerable assets and means. This instrument is called the Declaration of Incapacity.

A Declaration of Incapacity is becoming much more frequent as the largest generation in American history is entering the age where dementia becomes evident. Two physicians are required to legally declare a person is incapable of making informed decisions for themselves. Families, social workers and courts rely on this document to be able to help make more effective decisions for the affected person. This is also required to protect the affected person from predators trying to steal the person's assets. Elder abuse is rampant in this country.

Thus, our society already recognizes dementia as a devastating condition that requires a legally recognized procedure to declare a person incapable of making decisions for themselves in order to protect a person suffering from dangerous circumstances such as causing them to become homeless or mismanaging their medication.

This procedure could be extended to other forms of mental illness to be able to protect our mentally ill population from other predators that include drug dealers.

What is the role of government in providing care for those who cannot care for themselves?

If we want a just government, then Government must assume the role of caretaker if a person is a danger to themselves or others. If we do not want a just government, then San Francisco can continue its existing policies.

Using dementia as an example, should the City of San Francisco not help a senior that succumbs to dementia and all of its perils? Is the idea acceptable to see demented seniors unhoused in our community? Particularly, when this person lived in the green house at the corner when we were growing up?

To accept the idea of not helping a demented senior as City policy is unjust.

To leave other mentally ill people - that incidentally are members of a family somewhere - to remain unhoused or unhelped is similarly unjust.

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.

I agree with involuntary mental health holds, but the facilities need to be accommodating for their conditions and not cold wards. This means proper funding and the commensurate re-prioritization of fiscal policy. I worry that people with mental health diagnoses are vulnerable to a host of predators on the streets which makes leaving the mentally ill on the streets an unjust choice.

If you agree with this view, please outline some guardrails and oversight the City must provide to prevent abuse.

Multiple physicians need to agree on the mental health diagnosis. As an example, this agreement is required for declarations of incapacity for people with dementia. In fact, the protocols for dementia are appropriate guardrails the City can follow when presented with a mentally ill patient.

If a person poses a threat to themselves or others then it is the duty of the City for their safety and the safety of the public at large to mandatorily institutionalize them.

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.

I do not disagree with this view.

Education

Should the Board of Education be reformed to bring more accountability and better performance to the Board, and boost public school performance? If so, how; if not, why not?

Better Board of Education members need to be chosen by the voters. The School Board has been an entry position for aspiring politicians to enter City government which is an inappropriate position for that purpose. Also, the pandemic was a unique time that revealed the inadequacies of the Board because children were not in school. Particularly when other districts had their children in schools. That time was when the voters learned that the Board was not doing its job. Therefore, I put the accountability of the former and current Board onto the voters.

The alternatives are shorter times in office or Mayoral appointment. Both of those solutions have their merits and problems.

There needs to be more parental involvement in school board decisions. If the parents are against a Board position, the Board must be required to comply.

Some parents prefer their children attend religious schools, others prefer magnet schools for specific skills (like the Ruth Asawa School for the Arts or Lowell), and others prefer charter schools with nontraditional curricula. Do you think all of these educational options should be available to students in San Francisco?

Yes, we need more diversity in educational choices. This creates the City we are trying to preserve by having many points of view.

Did you support the recall of Board of Education members Collins, López, and Moliga? Please explain why you did or did not support the recall of each member.

Yes, they were abusing their positions by not providing education for students during the pandemic and promoting divisive policies that culminated in recall campaigns. If they had been doing their jobs which required listening to parents they would have finished their terms.

Offer Algebra in 8th grade to students who want it?

Yes. This is a family choice.

Offer Algebra in 7th grade to students who want it?

Yes. This is a family choice.

Offer AP courses to high school students who want them?

Yes. This is a family choice.

Require schools to improve student performance, and fire teachers who consistently underperform?

Yes.

There are countless personal examples of teachers who touch our lives personally. We hear - whenever we choose to listen - many people crediting their success to teachers. Crediting teachers that opened their eyes - or our eyes - to a facet of the world that we found wonderful. A wonder that gave us a thirst for knowledge that we couldn't quench.

Those teachers changed our lives. They became our heroes.

What about the opposite? Can there be teachers that stifle this thirst? Can there be teachers that convince us a subject is horrible and should be loathed? Can we all say we never had a bad teacher? Of course, we have all had bad teachers.

Can these types of teachers have the potential to change our lives to the opposite effect and convince us to close our eyes to the wonder of a subject? Yes.

These teachers are dangerous to our children and children should not be put into a known danger. Hence, an under-performing teacher should be taken out of the classroom.

Small Business

What would you change about the process of new retail business formation in San Francisco?

We believe businesses will prosper if they have more customers. The City can help by providing more parking, easier automobile access, and better policing.

I would make retail business and business districts as attractive as possible. Try to get together with landlords of empty places to encourage them to bring businesses into their properties. I would make an attempt to reduce the red-tape in the business permitting process required by the City.

Should all businesses be permitted by-right? If not, which business categories do you think should require special government approval?

If a business is legal and sanctioned for a district then a business should have a right to be permitted.

Some in the Small Business community have argued that San Francisco should increase the number of available ABC permits (also known as a liquor license) to lower the cost of running a business and increase customer revenues from alcohol sales. Others have argued against increasing the number of permits because they don't want more competition, or have already paid a lot of money for their liquor license. What do you think the City should do?

This is a free market issue, if the survival of a business is based upon preventing others from obtaining a liquor license, then other businesses should have an equal opportunity to compete.

The City should have as many liquor licenses as may be requested if that will help bring back tourism and night life.

Similarly, some in the legal cannabis retailer community have lobbied to reduce the number of available permits. Economists have argued that this reduces competition, raises prices for consumers, and raises profits for retailers. What do you think the City should do?

This is a very district specific issue.

If a neighborhood or district is accepting of a cannabis retailer then the City should offer as many permits that are requested. Conversely, if a neighborhood or district is not accepting of a cannabis retailer then the City should not offer permits at all.

Reduce the time to obtain all permits to open a new business to no more than 3 months

YES, this will help to revive the economy.

Reduce the cost of obtaining permits to open a new business

YES, this will help to revive the economy.

Reduce the number of activities which must obtain permits, and expand the number of by-right activities

YES, this will help to revive the economy.

Try to attract businesses of all sizes to the City?

YES, this will help to revive the economy.

At this point, contemporary regulation has shut down the once thriving Mission Street business corridor in District 9.

What the City has fundamentally done with current policy is convert city business districts into neighborhood business districts. That is to say, business districts must not be nearly wholly dependent on revenues from the neighborhood which in certain cases is not sustainable.

Geary Street, a once recognized destination for commerce, can not be sustained by residents of Richmond alone. The Richmond district is so isolated by transit constrictions in and around Golden Gate Park that Geary Street does not receive the visitors it needs to thrive.

Mission Street is so difficult to travel to with an automobile or park that it is nearly empty. Furthermore, Mission Street is too big to be sustained by the neighborhood alone.

There needs to be a change.

Housing

Do you believe that San Francisco has a shortage of homes? Why or why not?

No, the real issue is the cost of living. If a person has a high salary or independent means then housing is readily available. Otherwise, there is not enough housing that a working person can afford. This creates the perception of a shortage of housing.

Do you believe that housing prices are set by supply and demand constraints? Why or why not?

No. There are many influential factors that compel housing prices beyond supply and demand. For sales of properties, if the property is a rental and subject to rent control, the value of the property is negatively affected. Conversely, if the property is not rent controlled, its value is substantially higher.

Furthermore, the appraisal process to encourage lending for properties acts as a ballast for substantial corrections in property values. Thus, when a baseline is set - which is really high in San Francisco - the timeline for an affordable correction is long.

San Francisco will almost certainly fail its Housing Element certification, which will cause the State to take over local land use regulations. What should we do now?

San Francisco should sue the State of California.

The population of San Francisco is not growing to meet the projected population used to specify present threshold requirements. The elephant in the room is the collapse of population that is occurring with the passing of the Boomer generation - the largest generation in history. None of the population projections are considering this event which has already commenced with half of the generation in retirement.

Furthermore, the departure of this generation will not be replaced by GenX or GenZ, so there is going to be plenty of housing in San Francisco. Whether it is affordable is another matter.

Should homeless shelters be exempt from CEQA, Discretionary Review, and Conditional Use permits?

No, they should not be dangerous. We don't know what corners would be cut if given the opportunity. Shelters should be safe for residents.

Should subsidized Affordable housing be exempt from CEQA, Discretionary Review, and Conditional Use permits?

No, they should not be dangerous. We don't know what corners would be cut if given the opportunity. Housing should be safe for residents.

Should market rate housing be exempt from CEQA, Discretionary Review, and Conditional Use permits?

No, they should not be dangerous. We don't know what corners would be cut if given the opportunity. Housing should be safe for residents.

Should San Francisco retain, loosen, or even abolish the existing limits on height, density, and bulk for residential buildings? (ie taller, denser, and fewer/reduced setbacks)

San Francisco is not Manhattan. The current population of San Francisco does not require large residential buildings particularly with the San Andreas fault one mile south.

San Francisco Planning requires that new street-facing windows comply with City-imposed design requirements that both raise the price of windows while lowering their thermal and noise insulation. Should the City abolish these requirements?

If the requirement is based on aesthetics then the City should abolish these requirements. If the requirement is based upon safety, then the City should maintain these requirements.

Impediments to business need to be reduced to revitalize the economy.

In general, is it too hard, just right, or too easy to Expand your home (adding new stories, rooms, decks, etc):

Too hard. This is why there were expeditors in the DBI.

In general, is it too hard, just right, or too easy to Renovate your home (update bathroom, kitchen, etc):

Too hard. This is why there were expeditors in the DBI.

In general, is it too hard, just right, or too easy to Demolish your home and redevelop it into multifamily housing

Too hard, because the neighbors do not want it.

In general, is it too hard, just right, or too easy to Redevelop things like parking lots and single-story commercial into multifamily housing

Too hard, because the neighbors do not want it. Planning and permitting process, building requirements are other issues.

In general, is it too hard, just right, or too easy to Build subsidized housing

Too hard, because the neighbors do not want it. Planning and permit processing with building requirements are also very expensive and time consuming.

In general, is it too hard, just right, or too easy to Build market-rate housing

Too hard, because the neighbors do not want it. Planning and permit processing with building requirements are also very expensive and time consuming.

In general, is it too hard, just right, or too easy to Build homeless shelters (including navigation centers and "tiny homes")

Too hard, because the neighbors do not want it. Planning and permit processing with building requirements are also very expensive and time consuming.

Transit Infrastructure

Should Muni be free for everyone? If so, what other programs would you take money from in order to fund this change, or what new tax would you propose to fund it?

No, it is a service that needs to be paid for because it does not fund itself.

Some have argued that the cost of fare enforcement exceeds the benefit. Others have argued that not enforcing fare payment starves the Muni and BART systems of revenue, lowers quality of service, and makes the systems less safe. What is your position?

Charging people would make it safer because some people who do not pay cause the current complaints of ridership occurring today. Paying riders become invested in their experience.

Furthermore, the current state of MUNI encourages people to prefer their automobiles.

Recent State funding requires Muni and BART to enforce fare payments in order to receive that funding; do you agree with this requirement?

Transportation is a civic responsibility. Therefore, participation in this responsibility by paying for its use is a great way to secure funding from sources not from San Francisco such as taxpayers from California.

Should a person in Modoc County be required to pay for riders in San Francisco via their State taxes if San Francisco decides riders do not have to pay for MUNI? Conversely, if San Francisco riders are paying for their ride, then a person in Modoc County might better be persuaded to help San Francisco for transportation funding.

Should it be the policy of San Francisco to build a citywide protected bike lane network? Why or why not?

No, because bicyclists, pedestrians, and automobiles must adhere to the rules of the road. Protected lanes do not guarantee a reduction of accidents. Furthermore, the bike lane network is expensive and bicyclists are not taxed for road infrastructure as automobiles are.

Also, Families with automobiles suffer by making their travel times longer with lane reductions and removal of potential turn opportunities.

Furthermore, Valencia Street has been negatively impacted by a bike lane for which many people are calling for its removal.

In general, whenever a minority imposes costs on the majority without consensus, resentments are raised and conflict ensues. We need to avoid this potential dilemma over bike lanes. Alternatively, if the bicyclists are willing to pay for the improvements through fees or other forms of tax, then a citywide protected bike lane network could be considered.

Do you support banning cars from central downtown areas and certain retail or residential corridors?

No, some people have to drive their cars such as families.

Do you support congestion pricing?

No, because we need more visitors from outside San Francisco.

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?

No, this destroyed the Latino community business corridor on Mission Street. Repeating the bus lane down Mission Street is encouraged to assist the community to recover. Geary Street could be similarly affected.

Unfortunately, a choice must be made between supporting businesses along bus lanes or on-time bus schedules. Interestingly, for all the purported support for minority businesses, Mission Street has been shockingly overlooked.

Should Uber, Lyft, Waymo, and other ride-share services be permitted to operate in San Francisco?

Yes, if the fare rates are commensurate with regulated taxi cabs and appropriate taxes are collected for each ride.

Otherwise, no.

Should San Francisco allow more bike share and scooter share companies?

Yes, if they manage their resources without using public property. Also, appropriate taxes are collected for each use.

Otherwise, no.

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)?

The question of liability needs to be clear before a decision is made pertaining to this issue. Who is responsible for damages as a result of an accident?

If the liability is with the rider, then no.

If the liability is with the City, then no.

If the liability is with the bike and scooter share companies, then yes.

Budget

San Francisco is facing a large budget deficit due to declining tax revenues from our struggling downtown. What will your approach be to fix this?

We need to re-envision a new business, entertainment or theater district that is more attractive to customers. People need to be safe and automobile accessibility and parking needs to be available and affordable.

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

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 was born and raised in or next to District 9 for 57 years.

What do you love most about San Francisco?

The people, culture and weather.

What do you dislike the most about San Francisco?

The lack of cleanliness, the thievery, the crime, the drug problem, misappropriation of public funds, lack of accountability, the fleecing of the City by its workers.

Tell us about your current involvement in the community (e.g., volunteer groups, neighborhood associations, civic and professional organizations, etc.)

I have worked for the City for many years. I went to public schools. I worked at Safeway at Church and Market. I was a substitute teacher for the SFUSD. I worked for the Own Recognizance Project. I worked for the office of Self Help... I was cab driver. I currently work for MUNI. I also help people re-establish their lives after they decide they want to change.

Thank you

Thank you for giving us your time and answering our questionnaire. We look forward to reading your answers and considering your candidacy!