Keith Freedman
- Office: Mayor
- Election Date: November 5, 2024
- Candidate: Keith Freedman
- Due Date: July 1, 2024
- Printable Version
Thank you for seeking GrowSF's endorsement for the November 5, 2024 election! GrowSF believes in a growing, beautiful, vibrant, healthy, safe, and prosperous city delivered 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.
This questionnaire will be published on growsf.org, and so we hope that you use this opportunity to communicate with voters.
Please complete this questionnaire by July 1, 2024 so we have enough time to adequately review and discuss your answers.
Your 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.
Why are you running for Mayor?
Keith Freedman isn't just running for Mayor, he's advocating for transformation. In a city as diverse and dynamic as San Francisco, Keith stands firm in the commitment to all its people, not just the privileged few. He is dedicated to ensuring that every San Franciscan's concerns are addressed with integrity and action.
What is your #1 policy goal?
Restore the public trust in San Francisco and its governance.
How will you build the coalition and political capital to enact your #1 goal?
As a consultant and business owner for most of my career, much of what I've done is build relationships and buy-in from diverse groups of people. The scale of government is large, but the methodology is not challenging for me. People have to feel heard. We may not all agree, but when you build a solution with the input of all stakeholders, you end up with one for which each contributor feels accountable.
Will the power of the office of Mayor be enough to achieve this goal?
Unlikely. San Francisco has one of the least powerful mayors. This is mostly due to power being stripped slowly over time by a power hungry board of supervisors or by misrepresentation to voters. Voters' expectation of the Mayor's power doesn't meet reality. However, the right Mayor can overcome these challenges in a number of ways. First, by educating the electorate and giving them an opportunity to restore the power to the Mayor they expect them to have.
Second, by using the megaphone of the Mayor's office to draw attention to those whose power is also needed to accomplish policy goals.
Third, by politics. In the business world this is the art of negotiation. While I've always strived to find win-win business agreements, in politics it's also about finding a solution that benefits the constituency of those other elected officials needed to get something done.
What are your #2 and #3 policy goals?
Homelessness and crime. These are actually part of the first policy goal.
Most of San Francisco's big problems have a common origin.
Homelessness or, rather, our handling of homeless and unhoused people, is the root cause. The effects are that people, especially our most disadvantaged, are not well served. The negative impacts spread from there. This affects retail and tourism and quality of life for housed San Francisco residents.
I do not believe shelter beds are housing. They simply allow someone to sleep on a cot instead of a sidewalk, but for that person, it is little consolation. We need a solution that provides longer term viable accommodation including privacy and bathrooms. I believe my "Rising Tide" initiative will provide this source of accommodation and we can house all of our unhoused people by the end of my first year in office. In addition, I believe we can similarly house everyone who is currently in shelter beds. Shelters are an emergency accommodation and one we should reserve for emergencies like earthquakes, fire or other unforeseen circumstances.
We spend $768 million on simply maintaining the status quo. I will use this money to provide a viable solution which gives people dignity and self-worth.
Will the power of the office of Mayor be enough to achieve these goals?
I believe the Mayor can do this under emergency/executive orders for a short period of time. Long term would likely require some changes to zoning, other City ordinances and possibly State law.
What is the top single policy you would like to reform in 2025?
Government accountability and transparency.
Many of our city agencies and budgets are black boxes to the taxpayer. This isn't acceptable to me. This is where we must apply business principles to the operation of City government.
Is there an "out there" change 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.)
I am a strong supporter of district supervisors. I oppose a return to city wide supervisor elections for the same reason I would be opposed to a bay area wide encompassing government. San Francisco is a unique microcosm of bay area cities, and each of our districts are unique microcosms of San Francisco. District elections allow for otherwise underrepresented San Franciscans to have direct representation.
I would like to revisit our city charter and all of our city codes. Our city charter is a collection of strange "in the moment" emotional reactions from voters at the time and some of it makes no sense in this day and age.
Our other codes (planning, municipal, etc.) are a complex patchwork which are difficult for the average citizen to understand and are unnecessarily complicated. I'm open to creating a working group to investigate a complete rewrite of all of our City laws and codes. We need to modernize our codes, and we need to make sure all parts of the city and each of our citizens are treated equitably.
This isn't a high priority–If I accomplish my other goals I'll be satisfied with a job well done. This is nice to have but also may be a time consuming project that may require support of a successor to bring it across the finish line.
Tell us one thing you think needs to change in SF that the average voter wouldn't know about.
Uniformity in law enforcement. Even though voters choose a DA, and they may know there is a police commission, most think the Mayor is the start and end of law enforcement policy and implementation in SF. This is not the case. The Mayor can't unilaterally replace the police chief, for example. A separately elected individual decides what cases get prosecuted. If the voters wish to have this as a responsibility of the Mayor, they need to give the Mayor the ability to hire and fire a police chief without Board of Supervisor or even Police commission approval. Similarly, we need to evaluate whether or not an elected DA is right for San Francisco. About half the major cities in the United States have elected DA's, while the rest have DA's appointed by the Mayor (or chief executive of the city). Either the people need a better understanding of who is ultimately responsible for prosecution of crime, or they need to give this power to the person they believe is responsible for it now–the Mayor.
I believe this is also true of many of our city commissions. Most are ineffective and are filled to pay or accrue favor. Most don't require commissioners to be qualified in the field which the commission oversees. This is absurd, wasteful and unnecessary. If we want such additional oversight, the commissioners need to be well qualified. Given their effectiveness, however, I think we could do without most of them and be no worse off. We should expect our City agencies to be run by professionals in their field, and we have many other ways to hold them accountable. I believe the Board of Supervisors can adequately oversee these agencies in absence of commissions via their public hearing process. The Mayor and City Administrator can also similarly track and report on our departments/agencies.
Executive experience
Please describe your experience running large organizations, managing executive teams (including hiring, firing, and performance management), driving cultural change and clear communication throughout all levels, effective financial management (budgets, reporting, audit, etc.), and any other experience relevant to running a city with a $14B+ budget and tens of thousands of employees.
I have been a technology consultant in the bay area for most of my career. My first job in SF was as a director of technical operations for a global capital management company. Next I ran a professional services department for a tech reseller with customers in all industries. This led me to start a consulting career. About 8 years ago I started a small business in San Francisco which I shepherded through the pandemic. This gave me a unique understanding in how to navigate city permitting, planning, licensing and taxation. I also developed relationships with police, business owners, community organizers, tourists and the general public.
I celebrate the diversity we have in San Francisco, not just the cultural diversity but the diversity in ideology, thought processes and individual backgrounds. This diversity gives us a unique opportunity to produce solutions unlikely elsewhere where a city's citizenry all have similar beliefs and upbringings. This is a power we have in the past and must once again leverage For A Better San Francisco
Please describe a time when you had an underperforming subordinate and how you handled the situation, including (and especially) how you were able to increase their performance.
Note: Please remember that this questionnaire will be public, so do not include any personally identifiable information.
Most of my career I have been in a position of authority. My first job in San Francisco, when I was 26, all of the people who reported to me were older than I and had been doing their jobs longer than I have. The first task in this situation is to earn respect. This is done in many ways, but primarily by understanding each person's skill set, strengths and weaknesses. Where there are strengths, utilize them; where there are weaknesses, educate, or support, rather than shame and humiliate. Most people WANT to do well in their job. Even a job some might find boring can and should provide some satisfaction. When people are supported and valued, they produce higher quality work.
In cases where someone simply can't or won't do a job as required, the solution depends on the circumstances. As an owner of a small business where we can't just reassign someone to a different job or department, this involved discussions to determine if the problem was a lack of support or training on behalf of the company or a lack of ability or interest on behalf of the employee. If the former, then the business processes and training need revisiting. If the former, then I generally make clear what is required and provide a timeline. If improvements are made, then we work for additional improvement; if not, then I've had to let people go.
-
- In summary, assume a person goes to work with the best of intentions. If something is wrong, look first at the institution, expectations and training. If those are not to blame, then work with the person to figure out the root cause. Repair when possible.
Please describe a time when your organization faced an extreme challenge and how you got the organization through it.
My San Francisco small business is based on our tourism industry, one which was decimated by the pandemic and is still suffering. I had to lay off most of my employees during the pandemic. We had to lean up business operations, change cost structures and rework supply chains. Ultimately, the business ended up better able to weather the ongoing issues with tourism and conference activity, but at a personal cost to those who lost their jobs.
The Board of Supervisors may not be aligned with your goals. In that case, how will you be able to execute with an adversarial Board?
My sense of the upcoming supervisor election is that I'll be able to work with most of the existing and new board members. We certainly will not agree on everything, and if the BoS majority disagrees, that may be an indication that I need to revisit my position. However, in cases where I feel even the majority on the BoS are out of touch or have taken the wrong position, where the Mayor has the authority to act without them, I'll simply advise them, as a courtesy, of what I will do–that alone is a dignity not provided to our Board of Supervisors by the current office-holder. In other cases, I'll seek assistance beyond the BoS in the form of assistance from the state or bringing issues directly to the voters.
I am running for Mayor to be an advocate of the people of San Francisco. Where I can't speak for them, I will insure them an opportunity to speak for themselves.
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 your plan to increase SFPD staffing?
San Francisco police budget is a little over $750 million. Of that, $80M is overtime pay. The lowest hanging fruit is to fill vacancies so that we get regular pay officers for that $80 million. This would give us 50% more productive hours than overtime provides.
I'm torn on what our staffing levels need to be. To me we need to staff for the level of safety we want as a city. While crime is rampant, we need more officers. If we're able to get crime under control and deter people from using San Francisco as a criminal destination for people across the bay, then we can likely maintain that status quo with the staffing we have.
We need to find the money. My initial thoughts are that we do whatever we must to temporarily increase staff in order to get our current crime waves under control (open air drug dealing, car break-ins, burglary, etc.)
An earlier question asked about a bay area wide government. While I don't agree with that concept, I strongly feel our bay area neighbors should cooperate more. Police and police staffing is one area that makes a lot of sense. Most other Bay Area cities have officers that were trained at the SFPD academy. I'd like all our bay area cities to be able to borrow officers from each other as needed. One of the first things I'd do in office is to convene a working group to determine how best to make that work.
In this case, we could use surplus officers from other cities temporarily to put a swift end to our various crime waves. This would also give ready staffing for any big events, such as a large conference, superbowl or other events that require additional police staffing.
Traffic enforcement has been declining since 2014, and fell off a cliff in 2020. It is now near zero. Why do you think this crash in enforcement happened and what is your plan to ensure SFPD actually performs their jobs?
As a multiple victim of crimes in San Francisco, my preference is that SFPD focus on crime prevention and arrests. We should revisit whether traffic related issues should be in the SFPD purview. Perhaps we can empower MTA or some other agency with minor traffic infractions like speeding, failure to stop at signs/traffic lights, and other nuisance crimes.
I object to the implied goal in the SF Standard article linked in the question. The goal of enforcement isn't, and should never be, revenue generation. It should be to deter or eliminate the activity in question. If we're effective in enforcing laws, people simply don't break them and there's no citation revenue to be had.
Without consequences, there is no change in behavior. Similarly, a lack of consequences reinforces behavior. So I'm all for increasing enforcement, but we have to balance the tradeoffs between enforcing one thing over another and what it costs us (both financially and indirectly) to make such choices. If we had unlimited money, we could staff so that we can do everything all at once. As it is we need to find better ways to achieve our goals or we must prioritize.
What is the #1 public safety issue today?
Open-air drug dealing.
What will you change about how SFPD operates?
SFPD policies seem to prevent them from preventing crime. I believe the officers want to do their jobs but are prevented from doing so due to strange policies. These policies may be well meaning but are poorly executed.
I cannot make blanket statements about whether or not I'd fire the chief, as some of my opponents have done, (see how I handle staffing issues in a previous question), but I wouldn't rule it out.
I believe The Chief has lost the respect of many officers, and this isn't a good starting place. However, it's as likely that the chief has been poorly managed, so I think before putting him on the unemployment line, I'll need to make sure better leadership doesn't solve the problem.
I supported and will continue to support ballot measures and policy changes that better utilize technology for better and more effective law enforcement.
In college I wrote tank simulators for the army. I wanted to use my technological skill set to make our military more effective and less deadly. While that was a specific implementation, my ideology is the same. San Francisco should utilize technology to make the city safer.
What will you change about how the Police Commission operates?
See above, but I'm open to disbanding the commission or fixing it. I do believe this role can be moved to a combination of the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor's office, but at the very least we need to have qualification criteria for this and any other commission members.
Some have argued that Police Chief Scott should be fired and replaced. Regardless of your position on Chief Scott, how will you ensure the Chief of Police is effective? If that position includes firing the Chief, please explain why you will fire him, and how you will hire a good replacement given the fact that the Police Commission picks the set of candidates.
This is standard operating practice for any business/employer. The job description should be well understood. There should be periodic performance reviews. If the Chief worked for any big San Francisco business, he'd likely be on a PIP (Performance Improvement Plan). However, because the role has been politicized, the Mayor simply has to defend him.
In my opinion, doing so diminishes the Mayor, who should, instead, be working with the Chief for improvement rather than doubling down on insisting the emperor has new clothes.
As stated a couple times before, I'd make every effort to make clear to the Chief what is expected, offer whatever assistance I could to help him achieve those goals and then consider replacing him if sufficient progress hadn't been made.
Do you support the policies referred to as "defund the police"? Why or why not?
NO
I understand the origins of this policy, but we need to work harder at making sure the police work in a way that suits our society now, not simply discard the institution because their origins are racially motivated
You can see more on this topic here: https://mayor.keithfreedman.com/issues/crime/
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 think the bar for a recall should be high. However, I supported this recall. Not just because his methodology wasn't making San Francisco safer, or because he was using the office to force a personal ideology upon the people of San Francisco (given it's an elected position, this is well within his purview – as is the right of the people to correct him as they did), but because he was ineffective at the job.
That being said, Chesa got a bad rap. While he did plenty to exacerbate crime and gave criminals the impression that San Francisco is an ideal place to engage in criminal activity with minimal consequences, our crime problem predated his tenure.
I had been a victim of crime in San Francisco numerous times prior to Chesa and found the response from The City lacking in nearly all cases. While his methodology may ultimately have proven successful, he failed to properly prepare the people of San Francisco for the messy process we would have to go through to get to the end he foresaw. In the end, this did his mission a disservice, as now we will be reluctant to try again anytime soon.
The most recent crime committed against me (in February, 2024) was not handled in an ideal way by the SFPD, but they eventually caught one of the perpetrators and the DA is working to bring satisfactory justice. I don't believe this would have happened under Chesa, so as a victim of crime, I support community policing..
As a business owner, I have hired formerly incarcerated people and people on probation. I believe in second chances, but without consequences, there is no change in behavior. Consequences need to be commensurate with the change desired/required, and once someone has paid their debt to society they need to be given an opportunity to prove themselves. In some cases recidivism is caused by necessity because people are given few viable alternatives–a single bad choice shouldn't burden one their whole life. My Rising Tide initiative will provide people with work opportunities and incentives to businesses to hire and give people this much needed second chance.
| Should San Francisco… | Yes | No |
|---|---|---|
| Try to achieve "full staffing" for SFPD? (Defined as about 2,100 officers, according to the City)? | x | |
| Retain the cite-and-release policy for misdemeanors like shoplifting and car break-ins? | ||
| Arrest and prosecute street-level fentanyl dealers? | x | |
| Prioritize diversion instead of incarceration for fentanyl dealers? | ||
| Investigate, arrest, and prosecute fentanyl distribution ringleaders (like organized crime and cartel members)? | x | |
| Arrest and prosecute street-level vendors of suspected stolen goods? | x | |
| Investigate, arrest, and prosecute the leaders of theft rings and fencing operations? | x | |
| Arrest and prosecute street food vendors operating without a permit? | ||
| Fine street food vendors operating without a permit? | * |
If you want to explain any positions above, please feel free:
A phrase you'll commonly hear from me is "without consequences, there is no change in behavior." I don't have an issue with a cite-and-release one time. However, recidivism requires a stronger response.
I'd like to see more plea bargains involving longer probation terms with prison terms for violating probation. As it is, we might as well write these citations on toilet paper–at least then we might get some use out of them.
I'm all for diversion, but, again, consequences need to be commensurate with needed change in behavior. The ringleader of the crime committed against me had previously had bench warrants for her arrest, had been on probation and then decided not only to commit a crime, but to make it a group outing and involve her friends. This is an example of prior consequences being insufficient to create the change required.
Many small business owners have come to the same conclusion. If you survey our small business community, you'll likely find a desire to dispense with such programs. However, I believe people should be given an opportunity to learn from their mistakes. If this can be done with a diversion program, then so be it, but when that fails, consequences need to be higher.
Street vendors are operating illegal businesses in San Francisco. Legal businesses have to comply with permitting, labor codes, health codes, occupational health and safety, and pay taxes. These illegal businesses do none of those. This makes them unsafe and is unfair competition. I have no issue with the concept of street vendors, and would like to see an expansion of our single use, street fair, and street vendor licensing, but those who aren't following the same rules as other businesses must be shut down.
As with the diversion programs, fines/warnings are fine the first time, but repeat offenses require increasing consequences.
Drugs
Today, people are openly dealing drugs, including fentanyl, with little or no consequences. Why is this happening and what will you do to change this?
There should be no illegal business activity on San Francisco streets. This goes for hot dog vendors, street vendors selling likely stolen goods, or drug dealing.
My master's thesis was funded by the US Counter Drug Initiative. This gave me an insight into drug trafficking, sales, and government response to drug use, trafficking and sales. I truly believe the only effective way to stop illegal drug sales and use are on the demand side. The profits are too great and the consequences too small to stop dealers. However, this doesn't mean that the government shouldn't try to put pressure on the supply chain.
The basic economic concept of supply and demand will curb some of the market. If we can reduce the supply, prices go up, and that helps curb demand. With drug use, there are unintended consequences–some drug abusers commit other crimes to pay for their drug use. If the costs go up, incidents of related criminal activity may go up as well. People addicted to drugs like meth and fentanyl are often unable to draw the logical conclusion between actions and consequences. The best and only long term solution is rehabilitation and treatment.
In San Francisco, attempts to curb supply is akin to draining the bay with a colander. But we should do more enforcement on the supply side and offer more treatment options to address the demand side.
In general, how should the City handle people who are abusing drugs on City sidewalks?
I'm a proponent of safe consumption sites. These save the drug user from unnecessary personal humiliation and save the public from having to also suffer the consequences of someone else's drug addiction. In addition these sites insure personal safety and quicker access to treatment, as well as an opportunity to offer rehabilitation and treatment.
Do you support the creation of safe consumption sites in San Francisco? If so, please detail how they should be run, including how the City should handle people abusing drugs in public, outside of those sites. If not, please explain a viable alternative to reducing overdoses and drug addiction.
YES. See above.
As a board member of the South of Market Business Association, I advocated for SOMBA support of one of the first safe consumption sites – right near my business. Because it is small and has limited space, the benefits are muted, but noticeable.
Just like my plan to provide viable housing (not shelter beds) for unhoused people, where we can then expect them to stay in their new home instead of on the public streets, we need enough safe consumption sites that we can expect people to use them instead of consume on the public streets.
Until we can provide a viable alternative with sufficient supply, we can't expect people living on the streets to conduct their lives off the streets.
Should fentanyl dealing be penalized differently from dealing other drugs?
I generally prefer the government use fewer classifications than more. Fentanyl is quickly becoming the new drug of choice, but something more nefarious is likely on the horizon. Treating all similar classes of drugs the same makes more sense than changing the laws as the world builds a better mousetrap.
I'm open to a discussion of changing the penalties for all similar classes of drugs. But I don't currently have a position on what direction that should go. My preference is to do more enforcement with our current laws while focusing on curbing demand. After those are done, we will have sufficient data to decide what changes are needed on the deterrent side.
As Mayor, what directives will you give SFPD and other departments to end fentanyl dealing and clean up drug-dealing hotspots? How will you ensure they do their jobs effectively?
This will be a moving target. Our current structure of assigning officers to specific stations makes it more difficult to deploy where necessary. I'd like to see a city wide drug task force which comprises police officers, health department, small businesses and community members. We need these combined resources where Police have ready access to security cameras, and trusted members of the public have direct access to draw a swift police response when open air drug dealing or use are going on.
The current methodology of calling 911 or 311 with a police response in hours or even days clearly isn't working. Business owners and aware residents know what goes on and we can trust when they see a problem it's real and should be taken seriously. I believe we can work together to have better and more effective responses to these crimes without risking individual public safety.
Some elements of this concept are described here: https://www.police1.com/police-products/investigation/video-surveillance/articles/working-toward-a-common-goal-marrying-publicprivate-partnerships-with-technology-to-reduce-crime-LRuMOF7AElbYuBr3/ , here: https://popcenter.asu.edu/content/tool-guides-partnering-businesses-address-public-safety-problems-page-4 , and here: https://www.houstontx.gov/police/cpted/other_crime_prevention_resources/Partnering_with_Businesses_to_Address_Public_Safety_Problems-COPS_Guide.pdf
Mental Health
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 believe that the government's role is to draw lines where 2 people's rights intersect. People should be allowed to make personal choices and be held accountable for those choices.
People are allowed to make choices we may disagree with as long as they are informed and of sound mind to do so. When people are incapable of making their own choices, someone must make choices for them. If that person has someone with a power of attorney who is making sound decisions, they should continue doing so, but when someone has no one to help them make choices, the government must do this for them.
The Government should take this responsibility seriously and from the viewpoint of individual liberty. Our first goal should be to help restore a person's decision making capability if that is possible. Where it isn't, we need to provide long term solutions that aren't simply a different form of prison, but at the same time protect the general public from people who are incapable of making choices for themselves.
If you agree with this view, please outline some guardrails and oversight the City must provide to prevent abuse.
Independent oversight.
It's always an emotional challenge when I'm compelled to justify anything Ronald Reagan has ever done, but the factual basis he had for abolishing the state's conservatorship laws was valid–institutions were keeping "sane" people locked up in asylums because they had a financial incentive to do so. I disagree that throwing the baby out with the bath water was the right approach–and we can see that it has had disastrous effects on our cities and our citizens.
The short answer is–people making the decision to keep someone in a facility or institution need to have no financial incentive or connection to the facility, doctors, corporations, or anyone else receiving a financial (or other) benefit from having that person in their care.
This applies not just to a facility but to individual care providers. If we bothered collecting the data prior to Reagan's action, we likely would have noticed trends where an individual doctor had a statistically improbable number of people diagnosed incorrectly. With modern day data modeling, collecting the right data will quickly point to anomalous actors.
Other solutions may include where it won't affect a patients treatment, occasionally move them to a new facility under a new doctor's care. A new provider with a fresh outlook on a patient may notice things that another one hadn't observed. This will produce better data about what care practices are working and which providers are more effective.
If you disagree with this view, please outline your preferred alternative solution, possible drawbacks, and the oversight it might need.
See above. Effectively I place myself in the middle but more on the "help people in need." side of the equation.
Education
What reforms should be made to the way the Board of Education is elected or conducts business?
I think we need fewer elected officials in San Francisco. The thought is that this gives voters more control over things, but really it just makes things convoluted and creates less accountability. It also takes longer and more expensive to affect change when needed with expensive recalls, etc…
For any such positions, there should be criteria in order to maintain a proper balance of stakeholders for any group overseeing a city agency or organization.
In the case of the school board, like the building commission, we should have one teacher, one parent, one administrator, and an at-large position, perhaps an accountant or someone similarly useful.
Some parents prefer their children attend private religious schools, others prefer public magnet schools for specific skills (like the Ruth Asawa School for the Arts or Lowell), others prefer public or private charter schools with nontraditional curricula, and others prefer homeschooling. Should all of these educational options be available to students in San Francisco? Why or why not?
I support parents' right to educate their children as they see fit, but I am opposed to voucher programs or anything else that siphons public funds to private schools. If parents wish to spend their own money sending children to private schools, they are free to do so. I do support some public funds for homeschooled children–textbooks, standardized testing and other supplies the school would pay for that student anyway.
I would like to see more charter schools, magnet and specialty schools. Not all students learn the same, and we need to do more to find the right education fit to allow students to excel.
As Mayor, how will you support SFUSD in its efforts to achieve financial stability and sustainability, especially in regards to school closures?
Unfortunately, this is more the responsibility of the School Board, but the Mayor can certainly shame them and rework the budget. I'd like to have an independent review of SFUSD. Something is wrong, we need to find out exactly what it is.
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. Like many voters who supported their recall, I felt their priorities were misplaced.
It seems some folks just want these positions as a springboard for some political future and not to perform the task for which they were elected.
| Should San Francisco… | Yes | No |
|---|---|---|
| Offer Algebra in 8th grade to students who want it? | x | |
| Offer Algebra in 7th grade to students who want it? | x | |
| Require schools to improve student performance, and fire teachers who consistently underperform? | * |
If you want to explain any positions above, please feel free:
I am a teacher. Teachers are underpaid and underappreciated. I have mixed emotions about Tenure. Tenure was introduced to prevent the arbitrary dismissal of faculty who expressed unpopular views at the time. Historically this has protected speech and forced important changes in our society in areas such as black rights, women's rights, LGBTQ+ rights and is moving positive changes in American Indian/Native & Indigenous people's rights, LatinX rights, and shining a light on the darkness of Asian hate and anti-semitism. Without the liberty of Tenure, our public education institutions would not sever one of their primary purposes–stimulation of difficult discussions.
Where Tenure forces us to retain faculty who are no longer serving to educate our students, then we must do something. Currently the bar to terminating a tenured teacher is fairly high. I support revising this criteria to find a way to eliminate non-performing teachers while retaining the right to speak freely and teach in unique and nontraditional ways.
We need to revisit our measurements to determine the best ways of evaluating teacher success.
For example, there are cases where 2 people teach the same class. For one a majority of students get A's, the other the average grade is a B. This alone is not a valid measurement of which teacher is better. Where I would measure these teachers' success is not in just the outcome of their classes, but how those students performed in subsequent classes. If the students who got b's in their Algebra class are now getting A's in their calculus class, it's likely attributable to the Algebra teacher's performance. They may have been more demanding, or covered difficult material in more depth or didn't give extra credit to inflate grades, where the other teacher may have.
Currently we don't have the data or the mechanisms to do holistic evaluation of teacher performance. It's hard to hold teachers accountable without better mechanisms. We have avoided these kinds of metrics out of experience. In the worst case, we don't want to have to wait 2-4 years to gather the data necessary to make adverse determinations, but by not doing so we do as much harm by terminating or driving away good teachers.
This entire mechanism needs to be reworked, and then I support firing teachers who consistently underperform.
Housing
Do you believe that San Francisco has a shortage of market-rate homes? Why or why not?
YES. Rockethomes describes San Francisco as a "sellers market" (https://www.rockethomes.com/real-estate-trends/ca/san-francisco). In other words, demand exceeds supply.
The goal for a fair housing market is for supply to slightly lead demands. We don't want oversaturation of housing or we'll end up with a market crash that also affects our entire economy like what happened to Detroit and to a lesser extent, our neighbor Vallejo.
Our city has a need for new housing for many reasons. New housing generates more tax revenue and lowers our city's per-capita costs. New housing allows our community to grow with new neighbors, families and children. More density brings more productivity. Businesses thrive and grow. Neighborhoods are revitalized, and people are healthy and live longer: https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/focus/vol13/iss1/11/
I'd like for "market-rate" to mean something more affordable than it does now. We can do this in a way that preserves the value of homes people currently own. One of the fears of new home building is that existing homes will lose value. The reality is the opposite is true. San Francisco neighborhoods that have seen the most new construction have also seen the greatest increase in property values across all housing. A rising tide lifts all boats.
Do you believe that housing prices are set by supply and demand constraints? Why or why not?
Partly.
It's one reason why we have to create and subsidize separate classes of housing for certain economic classes in order to make room for them in our community.
There are many factors here. Housing costs are high, partly because of various state and local building codes, but primarily due to inefficient city bureaucracy causing construction to take a long time. Holding costs of property and the slow RoI are disincentives to housing production.
We have to lower the cost of building housing before we can expect housing prices to go down. Once done, an increase in production is necessary for stable and long term affordability.
Under State law, San Francisco must build over 82,000 new homes by 2031. Do you think this is a good goal?
Yes. I'd like to aim higher, but it's a good goal.
Follow-up: Do you believe we're on track to achieve this goal?
NO
Follow-up: What will you do to meet the goal?
Streamline the permitting, inspection and planning processes that make it time consuming and difficult to even start construction, let alone complete construction, in a timeframe suitable for investment.
Should homeless shelters be exempt from CEQA, Discretionary Review, and Conditional Use permits?
If a shelter is an emergency response to a natural disaster or act of war, then yes. We should build this as quickly as possible for an emergency need.
If they are intended for long term habitation, then they should meet reasonable codes such that we can ensure safety of occupants.
I believe the context of the question relates to our current use of shelter beds for long term homeless housing. In this case, they need to be safe and meet environmental standards as well as other occupancy standards.
As Mayor, will you order the construction of thousands of new homeless shelters across the City, even if neighbors object?
My Rising Tide initiative will provide long term viable housing rendering shelters and shelter beds unnecessary.
If implementation of that Initiative is delayed, then I will do whatever is necessary to make sure unhoused people have better choices than sleeping on the streets.
I don't believe shelter beds are a better choice for many unhoused people–if they were, they would have chosen them already, but I'm willing to work with the community to find a viable solution should the Rising Tide not provide a swift enough solution.
Should subsidized affordable housing be exempt from CEQA, Discretionary Review, and Conditional Use permits?
Anywhere people are expected to live long term needs to comply with health and safety regulations. Affordability shouldn't put one's health at risk more than simply being poor already does.
Should market-rate housing be exempt from CEQA, Discretionary Review, and Conditional Use permits?
NO. Anywhere people are expected to live long term needs to be safe.
Regarding conditional use permits, I tend to disagree with them as implemented. Nearly every lot in San Francisco has some sort of zoning or conditional use variance. There is no cohesion in our city planning, and we need a more uniform planning code. But as a short-term or emergent solution, I'm ok with conditional use permits for housing.
Market-rate housing is currently infeasible to build in San Francisco even though it's being built elsewhere, such as Seattle and Minneapolis. San Francisco's fees and requirements make building housing much more expensive here, including the requirement that 12-16% of homes must be sold to income-restricted households at below market rates. Do you support lowering this requirement to an economically viable percentage, even if that percentage is 0%?
The problem is even more complex than just our fees and requirements. Our city processes are intentionally slow and inefficient. Once you get the go ahead to build, it still takes years to get through all the permitting and inspections. Our entire planning and department of building inspection (DBI) processes need an overhaul.
I fear if we lower the affordable housing component, it won't result in lower home prices, just more margin for the builders. I don't mind people making a reasonable profit for a job well done, but the only real outcome of lowering the affordability in our current environment is that builders will make more money. This is also the most cost effective way for the city to grow its affordable housing stock.
Reducing the holding and construction costs are the most effective solution. This is also necessary to meet housing production goals.
We also have to be cognizant of the impact construction has on the community. It's reasonable to ask people on a block to endure the inconvenience of construction for a short time after which there will be a long period of peace and quiet and a time to meet and enjoy new neighbors. But it's unreasonable for people to expect their block to be a construction zone for 4 years, never knowing what days or times work will actually be going on.
Should San Francisco retain, loosen, or even abolish existing limits on height, density, and bulk for residential buildings? If so, where and how?
I'm a proponent of the "Parisization" of San Francisco. Most of our neighborhoods can handle increased height limits, but we don't want the whole city to turn into Manhattan.
I'd like to constrain the really tall buildings to the areas where they already exist, and we can fill in the gaps there, but in our other neighborhoods, we can handle less density (but more than single and two-family homes). We can do this in a way that preserves the character of our neighborhoods. Increased density is good for these neighborhoods as it will allow the city to increase services (such as road maintenance, transit service, etc.) to these neighborhoods and they'll be better able to support local businesses to keep their favorite shops and restaurants in business.
San Francisco Planning requires that new street-facing windows comply with City-imposed design requirements. Supporters argue that this policy enhances 'neighborhood character' while critics argue that these policies raise the price of window replacements while lowering their thermal and noise insulation. As Mayor, you can direct the Planning Department to maintain or discard these requirements. What will you do?
I have no current position on this. I'm open to hearing all sides before I weigh in.
To help understand my thought process, I offer the following. In general, I believe it is reasonable to maintain a "look and feel" of our neighborhoods. However, we cannot stop the march of time. If new materials offer benefits but can't match a specific look, we shouldn't rule them out.
| 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)? | |||
| 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:
My experience (through friends and colleagues) is that renovations can be quick and painless and others have had terrible experiences. I think the current process allows for some efficiency but only if a homeowner (or their contractor) knows how to navigate the current system.
I've even known cases where the DBI advises people to hire a permit expeditor to get things done. As a customer facing city agency, one shouldn't need to hire a specialty service just to navigate a city permitting process. I think it's fine where people need an architect or electrician or other specialist to do work or request permits, but it shouldn't require a PhD in paperwork.
Small Business
Should all businesses be permitted by-right? If not, which business categories should require special government approval?
I am a strong supporter of our formula retail policies. These are things that make San Francisco a unique and special place. Go to San Jose or many other big cities and you'll have the same experience as any other–you can eat at the same chain restaurants and shop at the same stores. There is no reason in particular to choose those cities over any other. When people visit San Francisco they have an "only in San Francisco" experience.
This is not only what makes San Francisco a special place to live but also to visit. Our local small businesses are integral to what defines San Francisco.
We need to encourage more unique businesses while also allowing those businesses to be successful and benefit from economies of scale.
So I don't support a blanket "by-right" permitting for any business, but I would like to make it easier to open and operate small businesses and encourage unique products or a unique delivery experience which can only be provided by non-chain small businesses.
For businesses that require government approval or permits, what will you change about the process of new retail business formation in San Francisco?
The permitting process needs to be simplified. I'd like to see a "one stop shop" for all business permitting needs. People should be able to go to one location, with a single sign-on, where they can first find out all the licenses and permits they need, apply for and track them all in one location.
We are at the head of Silicon Valley, this technology should be easily produced here. If this can't be done with existing budgets, I would likely bring a bond measure to the people to build such a solution.
To expand on that, I'd like all citizens to have a single-sign-on city system where they can similarly see all their city related businesses, including bus passes, citations, water bills, etc.
**Some in the small business community have argued that San Francisco should increase the number of available ABC permits (also known as liquor licenses). Currently, some bars and restaurants buy licenses from each other **because there aren't enough licenses available, which increases those establishments' operating costs and deprives others who don't participate in trading licenses of revenue opportunities. 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?**
My wish is to abolish the ABC. It's an archaic entity born out of an end of prohibition. As with most state laws, Counties can often administer state laws more efficiently and effectively than the state can.
I believe in limits on liquor licenses, but not sure the State is best to determine how many our city requires. We can do that ourselves. Like all small businesses, I am sensitive to both over-saturation and monopolization. We need to find the right balance to provide our citizens with the night-life and entertainment options while preserving tranquility in neighborhoods.
| Should San Francisco… | Yes | No |
|---|---|---|
| Reduce the time to obtain all permits to open a new business to no more than 3 months? | x | |
| Reduce the cost of obtaining permits to open a new business? | x | |
| Reduce the number of activities which must obtain permits, and expand the number of by-right activities? | x | |
| Try to attract businesses of all sizes to the City? | x |
If you want to explain any positions above, please feel free:
See above.
Transit Infrastructure
Some have argued that the cost of fare enforcement exceeds the benefit. Others say not enforcing fare payment starves Muni and BART of revenue, lowers the quality of service, and makes the systems less safe. What is your position?
Transit fairs make up 18% of the MUNI budget (approximately $220 Million). Field collection and processing have 67 staff members with an approximate cost of $5 million. The return on investment on fare collection is high. In addition, they estimate 20% of riders evade fairs. If we double the fare collection staff, we could bring in $44 million at a cost of another $5m. This would be a good business decision. However, The City serves not just to make money where it can but to serve the general public. Is the public better serviced by finding a way to reduce fares. Are some people not paying because they're entitled, or because they can't afford to pay or don't feel riding muni is worth the cost?
When I first moved to SF, the first few Mayors all promised "free muni" That promise ended with Ed Lee who at least did us the courtesy of not making a promise he couldn't keep. I'd love to see MUNI free for residents. But the money has to come from somewhere. Not collecting fares would not save as much money as one might think, since we'd have to move some fare collection resources to security, maintenance and sanitation.
Next year we will be able to pay for muni using credit cards and tap-and-pay systems. This will make it easier for people to pay for muni and will allow for us to not overcharge people who are dependent on muni. We would still need to fight fare evasion if for no reason other than as a courtesy for those who do pay. It's simply unfair that most of us pay and others simply get away with evading.
So, for now, unless and until we have a viable option for free transit, everyone who uses should pay or have a just cause for non-payment.
I would like to expand discount or free fares to include college students and younger seniors. The more we can encourage use of public transportation the better off we all become.
As Mayor, will you direct SFMTA to build a citywide protected bike lane network? Why or why not? Please also explain how you will hold MTA accountable for this task.
I'm a proponent of independent oversight. I think voters expect this to be a responsibility of the various commissions, but they just don't work correctly.
I'd prefer get rid of them and have committees made up of stakeholders who can hold each other and our city departments accountable.
As Mayor, will you direct SFMTA to install more automated red light cameras and automated speed enforcement cameras?
As someone who has been falsely accused of an automated red light violation, I'm generally against the current process. If we can implement a better system for people who have been inaccurately accused by such automated systems, then I'm open to expanding them.
As it is, if you get one of these in the mail, your option, other than paying a ticket you don't believe was legitimate, is to put faith in a written dispute process which is unclear and has no accountability. I believe this process to be a violation of people's due process rights under the constitution.
I'd like to see an online dispute system which offers more transparency. Offer people a first offense waiver, and a simpler way to navigate the dispute/court process. If this is implemented, I would potentially support increased use of automated enforcement.
Should Market Street remain off-limits to private vehicles and remain a bus/bike/taxi-only street? Why or why not?
I was against this plan when it was first proposed. This represents a disruption to market street businesses, but I think we've done a reasonable job of implementation and market street is safer and more lively as a result.
I am undecided, but would be open to expansion if it also benefits local businesses.
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?
I think the bus rapid transit lanes are helpful. We need to be measured in expanding them. We have seen cases where this harms local businesses without providing better or faster service for riders. Where these lanes exist, we should enforce them.
MUNI seems to think that they can make public transit seem like a better alternative to driving by simply making traffic worse rather than providing better quality of service that will entice ridership.
I prefer carrots over sticks, and this approach is a large stick when a carrot is a better option.
As Mayor, how will you increase the frequency and reliability of buses and trains?
As with all our city agencies, our agency policies need to be reevaluated. There are various policies on how drivers can and cannot maintain a schedule. I saw a driver stop the bus in the middle of the road and run into a convenience store for a drink while everyone sat waiting for them, including traffic in the lane they were blocking.
There seems to be no accountability. I don't know if this is just a matter of management or if this needs to be addressed in the union contract, but exclusive of traffic, Muni should be accountable for the schedule.
We need to do more to make sure we have capacity where and when people need it. This is something that should be constantly evaluated as work, work from home, and societal demands change along with seasonality.
When I first moved to San Francisco, MUNI published a thick book "the SF MUNI Timetable." I had a copy on my desk. One of my new colleges looked at it and noted, "ahh, look at that, one of the greatest works of fiction known to mankind." There has been slight improvement since then–at least now we save money by not printing that book.
As Mayor, will you order SFMTA and DPW to install more pedestrian safety infrastructure, such as protective barriers, bollards, crosswalks, and lighting?
I think keeping pedestrians and traffic separate is better for both pedestrians and traffic. Where it's reasonable to do so, we should.
Budget
San Francisco is facing a large budget deficit due to declining tax revenues from our struggling downtown, increasing payroll costs, and inflexible budget set-asides for special programs. What will your approach be to fix this?
We can't spend money we don't have. Until we can restore revenue, we will have to get aggressive with cuts where they make sense.
I'm NOT running on a "cut the budget" campaign. I believe we have a lot of inefficiencies in our city government, and resolving those may not only balance our budget but generate a surplus.
Beyond that, we need to resolve the root causes of these issues. We can't reasonably combat the global perception of San Francisco while we have people sleeping on the streets, open-air drug dealing and unchecked crime. While people who live here have learned to adapt to these things, we can't expect tourists to choose to spend their time and money here until we can offer a high quality experience. Similarly, a renewed San Francisco will allow us to bring back conferences and businesses. While the new work-from-home environment can be blamed for some of our commercial vacancies, much of this has to do with the cost of doing business or a lack of desire on behalf of employees to work out of San Francisco.
These things will take time, and until then we may need to tighten the belt if bringing business-minded efficiency to our operation of city agencies doesn't shake out the spare change needed to balance the 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:
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 Colorado and began my career there (with a brief stint in Los Alamos, New Mexico). Colorado is a great place, but as a Gay man looking to be open with who he is, living in the city where Matthew Shephard would later die and the local gay bar was set ablaze every few years wasn't a place I felt comfortable doing so. I lucked into an early career as a consultant which would allow me the flexibility to travel and work. Around that time I got a call out of the blue from a recruiter in San Francisco who found my resume on my college web page–this was shortly after the inception of Yahoo. My Interview went well, and I was offered a job before lunch time. I asked for what I thought would be enough money to live in San Francisco (50% more than I was making in Colorado). Little did I know, this wasn't enough money to maintain my same lifestyle, but I fell in love with San Francisco.
We have great culture and diversity. The City was beautiful. Much of The City still is. We were also a city of change. We were open to new technology, new business concepts, new ideas and new neighbors. Most San Franciscans are still rooted in these beliefs and concepts. and we need leadership who will allow people to flourish.
What do you love most about San Francisco?
What do you dislike the most about San Francisco?
It's too expensive and too bureaucratic. One shouldn't have to take out a loan to go on a date or take the kids to a ball game and a night on the town. When one is forced to interact with a city agency, it's a tedious, arduous and often confusing process.
There's an entitlement among our city leaders. Many seem to view their job as a step on the way to a better position. This both causes them to do things in a way that may not be in San Francisco's best interest, but advances their personal political future, or they are reticent to take strong needed action to resolve issues in a way that may be politically unpopular when they seek a higher office.
Tell us about your current involvement in the community (e.g., volunteer groups, neighborhood associations, civic and professional organizations, etc.)
I serve on the San Francisco Tourism Improvement District Board, the South of Market Business Association, and am a member of AFT Local 2121 and co-chair of a chartered democratic club. I have previously served on the Council of District Merchants Associations.
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.