Marjan Philhour
- Office: Board of Supervisors, District 1
- Election Date: November 5, 2024
- Candidate: Marjan Philhour
- Due Date: February 28, 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 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.
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 Board of Supervisors, District 1?
Running for District 1 Supervisor is an opportunity to make a significant impact in the Richmond, a community I have been a part of for decades. Our community faces unique challenges that I am committed to addressing effectively as District Supervisor. My top concern is public safety. Our police department is woefully understaffed, which is making the challenges we face in our neighborhood worse. We must also focus on supporting our local businesses, housing creation, and quality education. Families and working people have been pushed out of the City for years - it's time for a new direction to ensure everyone can find opportunity in San Francisco.
What is your #1 policy goal?
My top priority is ensuring our public safety infrastructure is rebuilt and fully resourced. Decreased access to resources for police officers over the years has resulted in an increase in crime in our community. We must ensure we have a fully staffed police department with adequate technologies, allowing those officers to spend more time in the areas they serve.
How will you build the coalition and political capital to enact your #1 goal?
Establishing stronger public safety in District 1 requires a multifaceted approach that involves all members of the community and remains consistent. This means actively engaging with residents to understand their concerns and gather input on public safety issues. Regular meetings with police leadership and officers will help align their efforts with community expectations and foster mutual respect. Alongside partnerships with community organizations and alliances with other supervisors, these efforts will ensure the strength of my public safety measures.
Will the power of the office of Board of Supervisors, District 1 be enough to achieve this goal?
The power of the office of the Board of Supervisors provides a significant platform to address public safety, but achieving this goal will require leveraging additional resources and partnerships. As District Supervisor, I will prioritize funding for law enforcement, but the impact of this funding will depend on the effectiveness of our communication and alignment with the police department. Collaborating with community members and organizations is also vital in driving my decisions as Supervisor. Coordinated efforts can address the root causes of crime and improve overall safety. I am committed to listening to residents' concerns and basing public safety measures on those sentiments.
What are your #2 and #3 policy goals?
Revitalizing and protecting local small businesses is also top priority. I have run numerous small businesses in San Francisco and have witnessed first-hand, alongside other Richmond residents, the disappearance of many local storefronts. I have personally dealt with the struggles associated with opening and maintaining a small business in San Francisco. New initiatives aimed at supporting businesses are necessary to uplift our local economy. Providing access to grants, business development services, incentives for local hiring, and public-private partnerships are a few changes that would greatly benefit the state of our local businesses. Facilitating greater collaboration among local businesses is also important to help stores remain open and competitive. Bottom line: making it easier to open and operate a small business will help the Richmond and the City.
Being available and responsive to Richmond residents, is critical. I will hold regular office hours in the Richmond, not just at City Hall, and establish resident-led committees on key issues like small business, transportation, and housing. These committees will ensure diverse voices are heard, allowing us to craft inclusive and effective policies. By prioritizing direct communication and collaboration, we can advocate for diverse housing opportunities and ensure that subsidized affordable housing units are available, ultimately enhancing stability for middle-income families and working people.
Will the power of the office of Board of Supervisors, District 1 be enough to achieve these goals?
The power of the office of Board of Supervisors is a significant platform that can drive meaningful change in public safety, support for small businesses, and responsiveness to residents. As Supervisor, I will prioritize funding for law enforcement to ensure our police department is fully staffed and equipped with the latest technologies, which is essential for improving public safety. For small businesses, I will leverage my experience and city resources to streamline bureaucratic processes, provide access to grants, and foster public-private partnerships, ensuring local businesses thrive. By holding regular office hours in the Richmond and forming resident-led committees, I will maintain direct communication with the community, ensuring that policies are inclusive and responsive to the diverse needs of our residents. Through these combined efforts, the office will not only be enough but will be a catalyst for real, positive change in our district.
What is an existing policy you would like to reform?
My top priority is to improve public safety in the Richmond, crucial for the wellbeing of residents and attracting investment to our community. Over the past decade, legislative hostility towards the SFPD has led to inadequate recruitment and staffing, undermining their effectiveness. As Supervisor, I will reverse this trend by advocating for policies that support and resource our police department. We need at least 2,200 officers for basic safety but should aim for more to allow officers to have a presence on public transportation, as well as in schools, and staff footbeat patrols in commercial corridors like Clement, an Asian business district where many residents have advocated for police presence to restore a sense of safety.
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.)
I support including at-large Supervisor seats along with the District seats (which are mandated by law.)
Tell us one thing you think needs to change in SF that the average voter wouldn't know about.
Over 70% of our police force does not live in San Francisco. We need to ensure that police, teachers, firefighters, and other front line workers can afford to live in the City they serve. That means creating housing for all income levels, not just subsidized housing that middle class residents do not qualify for.
The Issues
Next, we will cover the issues that voters tell us they care about. We hope to gain a better understanding of your policy positions, and we hope that you use this opportunity to communicate with voters.
Public Safety
What is the #1 public safety issue today?
The #1 public safety issue today in District 1 is the lack of police presence and coverage. The Richmond District police station has been heavily impacted by the SFPD staffing crisis of the past few years and is over 500 officers short of recommended staffing levels. We currently have about 48 officers working out of Richmond Station - about half the number of officers the Richmond police district should typically have. We should have 10 to 12 sworn officers and 6 patrol cars on any given shift, but we currently only have about 6 officers and 3 cars due to the staffing shortage. Without adequate police staffing, our residents cannot be guaranteed the level of safety that is needed. Slower police response times have led to more crime and an overall lack of confidence in the safety of our district. This has also impacted our businesses, as theft has led to countless store closures. Restoring the level of safety our residents deserve must start with dedicating funds and resources to our police department.
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 matching the per-capita police staffing levels, as many of our public safety issues have arisen from scarcity of police resources. A fully staffed police department will enhance response times, improve community policing efforts, and ensure a visible law enforcement presence in our neighborhoods. Bringing our police staffing levels to over 2,200 officers would allow for many additional benefits, such as police presence on MUNI and in our schools, as well as staffing footbeats in merchant corridors like Clement. While recruiting this many officers will be a challenge, I believe it is a necessary goal.
What solutions might exist to improve public safety that don't involve expanding the size of SFPD?
Improving public safety isn't just about expanding the SFPD; it's also about ensuring existing public safety partners can do their jobs effectively. Current policies and laws often hinder police efficiency. For example, officers may spend upwards of 30% of their shifts filling out reports instead of being out in the community. While we all support greater transparency and accountability, the sheer volume of required reporting has become a detriment to our public safety infrastructure. To address this, we must streamline reporting processes and reduce unnecessary bureaucratic burdens, which recently passed Proposition E strives to implement. Strengthening community policing through regular neighborhood meetings, community events, and foot patrols can also improve rapport between police officers and the public, however this can't happen with an understaffed department. Fostering relationships with local organizations and neighborhood watch groups supports public safety. Additionally, implementing better mental health programs, addiction treatment, and homeless outreach can address the root causes of many public safety issues before they escalate into violence.
What three things would you change about how SFPD operates?
-
Streamline and Optimize Police Reporting: Officers can spend a substantial part of their shifts bogged down with paperwork. Simplifying and automating these reporting processes will allow officers to spend more time in the field and less time on administrative tasks, thereby improving overall efficiency.
-
Upgrade Police Technology: Unlike the SFFD and other public safety departments, the SFPD often misses out on cutting-edge technology due to legislative hostility in City Hall. Providing the police with modern technology tools will enhance their ability to respond to incidents, conduct investigations, and improve overall public safety. Proposition E aimed to address this, however it is still in the implementation process.
-
Address Obstructionism within the Police Commission: The Police Commission, despite being an entirely civilian and volunteer body composed of many activists, wields some control over SFPD operations. This level of control can lead to inefficiencies and hinder effective policing. It's essential to re-evaluate the balance of power to ensure that the commission's oversight supports rather than obstructs the police department's ability to maintain public safety.
Do you support policies commonly referred to as "defund the police"? Why or why not?
No, I do not support defunding the police. Law enforcement plays a critical role in maintaining public safety, investigating crimes, and responding to emergencies. Over the past years, we have seen an increase in certain crimes in the Richmond that are directly related to police short staffing.
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 supported the recall of Chesa Boudin. His disinclination to prosecute crime exacerbated crime on our streets and increased recidivism. While I support police reform and addressing the impacts of mass incarceration, Chesa Boudin's policies did not protect residents, leaving them to face higher levels of crime.
| Should San Francisco… | Yes | No |
|---|---|---|
| Try to achieve "full staffing" for SFPD? (Defined as about 2,100 officers, according to the City) | X | |
| Change the cite-and-release policy so officers can arrest suspects of misdemeanors like shoplifting and car break-ins? | X | |
| Arrest and prosecute street-level fentanyl dealers? | X | |
| Prioritize diversion instead of incarceration for street-level fentanyl dealers? | X | |
| 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:
The street food vendor issue is more complex than a simple yes or no answer because it's directly tied to our city's tangled bureaucracy. When restrictions don't align with basic supply and demand, it's inevitable that a gray market or "black market" will emerge. However, we must safeguard public health.
Fentanyl is causing countless deaths in our City. Dealers of this deadly drug should be arrested and prosecuted.
Drugs
In general, how should the City handle people who are abusing drugs on City sidewalks?
People who are abusing drugs on City sidewalks should be arrested and placed into drug treatment programs. This approach addresses the immediate issue while providing a pathway to treatment and recovery by providing a clear incentive structure away from living on the streets.
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.
We have not had adequate success with safe consumption sites in San Francisco. While I understand the concept, we must now focus on more effective strategies to help individuals who struggle with drug use into treatment. We can't rely solely on harm reduction; we need a comprehensive approach that includes abstinence-based treatment programs. It's not compassionate to allow people to continue overdosing without meaningful intervention. We need new solutions to tackle this crisis effectively.
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 that safe consumption sites will not effectively reduce drug addiction and use without enforcing zero-tolerance for public consumption of illegal drugs. The full commitment to the purpose of safe consumption sites will not be achieved if drug users continue to use drugs on our streets and operate open-air drug markets.
Should fentanyl dealing be penalized differently from dealing other drugs?
Fentanyl is incredibly potent and has a high risk of causing fatal overdoses, which makes its distribution particularly dangerous and deserving of more severe penalties.
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?
Amending San Francisco's laws around mental health crisis intervention is essential to provide more effective and compassionate care for individuals suffering on the streets. We must commit to expanding psychiatric bed space in hospitals and treatment centers. It's unacceptable that individuals seeking mental health treatment often wait far too long for care. Additionally, enhancing early intervention programs and public education will help reduce the prevalence of drug overdoses and addiction in our city.
What is the role of government in providing care for those who cannot care for themselves?
The government has an obligation to provide basic shelter, food, and healthcare services to those who cannot care for themselves. In San Francisco, we face a substantial homelessness issue, complicated by drug addiction and mental health impairments. Individuals experiencing homelessness deserve respect and compassion, which the government must provide through basic services. Criminalizing homelessness is inhumane and counterproductive. However, relying solely on a service-based approach to dealing with homelessness is not effective. We need to implement conservatorship alongside incentives to encourage positive changes. By combining support services with necessary interventions, such as mental health holds and addiction treatment programs, we can address the root causes of homelessness and create a safer, healthier environment for everyone.
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.
Under strict circumstances, I agree that involuntary mental health holds can be necessary. Without support from the government, individuals unable to take care of themselves often end up deteriorating on the streets, falling further into addiction or illness. Many cycle through hospitals and the criminal justice system without receiving meaningful care. Conservatorship laws ensure that the city can care for individuals in the most dire situations and lift them from a perpetual state of homelessness and illness.
If you agree with this view, please outline some guardrails and oversight the City must provide to prevent abuse.
Conservatorship programs must contain strict guidelines to prevent abuse or oversight failures. It's crucial that individuals' rights are properly protected. A clear requirement for placing someone in an involuntary hold is that they pose a threat to themselves or others. Once an individual is placed in an involuntary program, there must be consistent and transparent steps for processing them into the program and administering their care. Strong standards of care, an independent oversight body, and family involvement are essential safeguards to protect individuals' rights when placed into a conservatorship program.
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?
The Board of Education must be reformed to prioritize accountability and the educational outcomes of all students. Ensuring all board meetings and decisions are publicly available will increase transparency, allowing parents and stakeholders to monitor the decisions impacting students' education. Forming diverse advisory boards of parents, teachers, and community members can also ensure that Board of Education policies reflect the public's concerns.
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.
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, I supported the recall of Board of Education members Collins, López, and Moliga. The recall was necessary due to their failure to prioritize the educational needs of our students during a critical time. They focused on renaming schools and other non-essential issues instead of addressing the urgent needs of reopening schools and improving remote learning during the pandemic. This lack of focus on core educational responsibilities and student welfare led to a significant loss of trust among parents and the community. We need leaders on the Board of Education who are committed to accountability, transparency, and prioritizing the best interests of our students.
| 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 | |
| Offer AP courses to high school students who want them? | X | |
| Require schools to improve student performance, and fire teachers who consistently underperform? |
If you want to explain any positions above, please feel free:
Yes, schools should be required to improve student performance, but firing teachers who consistently underperform should be approached with care and consideration. We need to support our teachers with the resources, training, and professional development they need to succeed. Accountability is crucial, but it should come with a framework that helps teachers improve rather than just punishing them. Only after providing ample support and opportunities for growth should termination be considered. Our ultimate goal should be to create an environment where both teachers and students can thrive.
Small Business
What would you change about the process of new retail business formation in San Francisco?
Small businesses are the lifeblood of our local economy, so we need to streamline the process of business formation to prevent more closures. Right now, the process is inefficient and slow, which discourages business development and hurts our economy. By creating a centralized, online one-stop portal, new businesses could apply for all necessary permits and licenses simultaneously, reducing the current complexity. Additionally, allowing businesses to track their status and apply for expedited reviews would speed up the business development process. Offering better advisory services to prospective business owners and reducing existing costs and barriers would make San Francisco a more attractive place for business development.
Should all businesses be permitted by-right? If not, which business categories do you think should require special government approval?
Permitting all businesses by-right could simplify the process and encourage economic growth. However, certain categories of businesses should still require special government approval due to their potential impact on the community, safety concerns, or regulatory requirements. Businesses such as alcohol-related establishments, healthcare facilities, large-scale businesses, those with significant environmental impacts, and transportation facilities merit further discussion.
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?
The City should use data along with small business and community input to determine the actual impact, then proceed accordingly.
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?
The City should use data along with small business and community input to determine the actual impact, then proceed accordingly. Any decision regarding cannabis permits should involve thorough community engagement and input to ensure that it aligns with the values and needs of our community. Balancing economic arguments with community sentiment is key, and we must carefully consider the impacts on our neighborhoods before making any changes to the current permit system.
| 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:
When it comes to reducing the time and cost of obtaining permits to open a new business, as well as expanding the number of by-right activities and attracting businesses of all sizes to the city, it's essential to take a balanced and thoughtful approach. Streamlining the permit process to no more than three months and reducing costs can significantly benefit small business owners, fostering economic growth and encouraging entrepreneurship. However, we must ensure that any changes do not compromise public safety, community interests, or environmental standards. Expanding by-right activities can simplify the process for low-impact businesses, but we need to carefully evaluate which activities should still require oversight to protect the community. Attracting businesses of all sizes is important for a vibrant economy, yet it must be done in a way that supports local small businesses and aligns with the needs of our neighborhoods. Therefore, while the general direction of these proposals is positive, each action requires careful consideration and input to ensure that we achieve a balanced and sustainable approach to business development in San Francisco.
Housing
Do you believe that San Francisco has a shortage of homes? Why or why not?
Yes. Restrictive housing policies, bureaucratic hurdles, and insufficient housing creation at all income levels has caused a shortage that impacts everyone - low-income residents to middle-class families - pushing them out of their homes and often out of the city entirely.
Do you believe that housing prices are set by supply and demand constraints? Why or why not?
Yes. Zoning laws limit where and how much housing can be built, and the lengthy permitting process slows the construction of new homes. San Francisco's desirability, due to its economic opportunities and cultural attractions, creates very high demand. Coupled with these constraints on housing creation, the limited supply has driven up prices.
San Francisco will almost certainly fail its Housing Element certification, which will cause the State to take over local land use regulation. What should we do now?
We can revise parts of the Housing Element with input from experts and the public to ensure a plan that will create housing in transit corridors. With the right leadership and community engagement we will not fail the certification.
Should homeless shelters be exempt from CEQA, Discretionary Review, and Conditional Use permits?
Should subsidized Affordable housing be exempt from CEQA, Discretionary Review, and Conditional Use permits?
Should market rate housing be exempt from CEQA, Discretionary Review, and Conditional Use permits?
What you are asking in the questions above is if homeless shelters, subsidized housing, and market rate housing should be built. You list mechanisms that have been intended to be helpful which at times have been used to obstruct. I believe these types of housing should be built, and that the laws we have in place should not be weaponized to do the opposite of what they were created to do.
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 needs to explore ways to increase our housing supply to address the current shortage and affordability crisis. By finding solutions that create more housing options, we can make it easier for families and individuals to find homes they can afford. It's important that any changes are made thoughtfully, taking into account the capacity of our infrastructure, engaging with the community, and ensuring that new developments are designed to blend well with our neighborhoods. Ultimately, the goal is to create a more inclusive and sustainable city where everyone has access to quality housing.
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?
While maintaining the architectural character and historical integrity of the city is important, strict window requirements are not necessary to do so, and more flexible guidelines would greatly benefit residents and merchants.
| 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) | |||
| Renovate your home (update bathroom, kitchen, etc) | |||
| Demolish your home and redevelop it into multifamily housing | |||
| Redevelop things like parking lots and single-story commercial into multifamily housing | |||
| Build subsidized housing | |||
| Build market-rate housing | |||
| Build homeless shelters (including navigation centers and "tiny homes") |
If you want to explain any positions above, please feel free:
Navigating the process of expanding, renovating, or redeveloping property in San Francisco can be quite complex. Homeowners often face significant challenges when trying to add new stories, rooms, or decks to their homes, as well as when undertaking renovations such as updating bathrooms or kitchens. These obstacles extend to larger projects like demolishing homes to create multifamily housing or converting single-story commercial spaces and parking lots into multifamily units.
Building subsidized housing and market-rate housing is similarly fraught with bureaucratic hurdles. Efforts to construct homeless shelters, including navigation centers and "tiny homes," also encounter numerous regulatory barriers. Streamlining these processes could foster a more dynamic and responsive approach to addressing San Francisco's diverse housing needs, ensuring that both new and existing residents can find suitable living spaces.
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?
I appreciate that MUNI is free for our kids and students, however at this time it would not be sustainable to make MUNI free for everyone.
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?
I believe we need a balanced approach to fare enforcement. While it's true that the cost of enforcement can be high, it's also important to ensure that Muni and BART have sufficient revenue to maintain high-quality service and safety. We should look for ways to streamline and modernize fare enforcement, potentially through technology that reduces costs and improves efficiency. Additionally, increasing police staffing and encouraging police ridership on public transit can act as a deterrent to fare evasion and enhance overall safety. Balancing these elements will help create a more secure and efficient transit system for all users.
Recent State funding requires Muni and BART to enforce fare payments in order to receive that funding; do you agree with this requirement?
I understand the need for Muni and BART to enforce fare payments to receive state funding, as this revenue is crucial for maintaining and improving our public transportation systems. Enforcement should be coupled with increased police staffing and police ridership on public transit, which can act as a deterrent to fare evasion and enhance overall safety. We should also explore alternative funding mechanisms to reduce reliance on fare enforcement while still meeting state funding requirements, ensuring our transit systems remain both secure and efficient.
Should it be the policy of San Francisco to build a citywide protected bike lane network? Why or why not?
We need to take a holistic approach to examining our city's roads, bike lanes, and overall transportation infrastructure. This involves engaging the community to gather input, reducing congestion and inefficiency, and considering the many differing needs on our streets. By fostering open dialogue and collaboration, we can develop a comprehensive transportation plan that enhances safety for cyclists, addresses environmental concerns, and ensures equitable and accessible transportation options for all residents. This inclusive approach will help us create a more efficient, sustainable, and livable city for everyone.
| Yes | No | |
|---|---|---|
| Do you support banning cars from central downtown areas and certain retail or residential corridors? | ||
| Do you support congestion pricing? | ||
| 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? | ||
| Should Uber, Lyft, Waymo, and other ride-share services be permitted to operate in San Francisco? | ||
| Should San Francisco allow more bike share and scooter share companies? | ||
| Should San Francisco allow bike and scooter share companies to operate with fewer restrictions on the number of vehicles they offer for rent, and in more places (including inside Golden Gate Park)? |
If you want to explain any positions above, please feel free:
Addressing the complex transportation issues in San Francisco requires a balanced and thoughtful approach that takes into account the needs and opinions of all residents. We must carefully consider how to manage car traffic in central downtown areas and certain retail or residential corridors, and evaluate the impact of different traffic management strategies. Prioritizing public transit efficiency and ensuring strict enforcement of traffic regulations could improve overall transit flow. Additionally, we need to assess the potential benefits and challenges of expanding bike share and scooter share programs. Allowing these companies to operate with fewer restrictions on the number of vehicles and in more locations, including inside Golden Gate Park, could offer more transportation options, but it must be done in a way that ensures safety and convenience. Our goal should be to develop a comprehensive transportation strategy that reduces congestion, promotes sustainable travel, and meets the diverse needs of our community.
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 must scrutinize city vendor contracts and nonprofit contracts to ensure that funds are being used efficiently and effectively. By holding these entities accountable, we can reduce wasteful spending and ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely. Additionally, we must move away from virtue signaling and focus on pragmatic, centrist solutions that address the real issues facing our city.
Fiscal responsibility is crucial. We need to make sure that every dollar is spent efficiently, cutting unnecessary expenses and prioritizing programs that provide the most significant benefit to our community. By implementing common-sense policies we can create a more transparent and effective government. This approach will help us address the budget deficit and ensure that our city operates in a manner that truly serves the needs of all San Franciscans.
| Do you think San Francisco spends too little, too much, or just enough on… | Too little | Just enough | Enough, but badly | Too much |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Police and public safety | X | |||
| Street cleanliness | ||||
| Homeless services | ||||
| Affordable housing | ||||
| Parks | ||||
| Roads | ||||
| Bus, bike, train, and other public transit infrastructure | ||||
| Schools | ||||
| Medical facilities | ||||
| Drug prevention and treatment | ||||
| Arts |
If you want to explain any positions above, please feel free:
If the metric we are using to assess the efficacy of our basic services and programs is monetary, we will not be able to actually solve our budget crisis.
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 in the Richmond and moved back here to raise my family in 2006. What keeps me here is the strong sense of community, the inspiring resilience of our residents, and my deep commitment to making a positive impact so that future generations can live here.
What do you love most about San Francisco?
The city's neighborhoods each have their own distinct character, and there is always something new to discover. From the beautiful parks and scenic waterfronts to the innovative spirit and activism of our residents, San Francisco embodies a dynamic and inclusive environment.
What do you dislike the most about San Francisco?
There is an increasing divide between San Francisco's potential and its current challenges. Issues such as homelessness, public safety, and bureaucratic inefficiencies can overshadow the city's many strengths. We need to focus on pragmatic, centrist solutions that address these issues head-on, ensuring that San Francisco remains a vibrant and livable city for all its residents.
Tell us about your current involvement in the community (e.g., volunteer groups, neighborhood associations, civic and professional organizations, etc.)
I am actively involved in various community efforts, including co-founding the Balboa Village Merchants Association to support local businesses. I am engaged in my children's school activities, serving as a PTA member and room parent, and advocating for quality education. Additionally, I work closely with neighborhood groups to uplift voices and address local issues, particularly in the areas of small business support and public safety. My advocacy extends to engaging with civic and professional organizations to promote policies that enhance public safety, affordable housing, and economic growth. This involvement allows me to stay connected with the community and work collaboratively towards a better future for San Francisco.
If you see any errors on this page, please let us know at contact@growsf.org.