Matthew Boschetto
- Office: Board of Supervisors, District 7
- Election Date: November 5, 2024
- Candidate: Matthew Boschetto
- 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.
Please complete this questionnaire by February 28, 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 Board of Supervisors, District 7?
I am running for D7 Supervisor because I have too much interest in the City’s future to sit on the sidelines any longer. I was honored to be offered upfront support and that made me take the opportunity seriously to put my hat into the ring and try to help fix the city I love. For me, it's time to take action and I believe there is a profound opportunity for long-term reform to make progress this election cycle. Most importantly, I want to see more people like me – people who come from the rank and file of everyday citizens – get involved with our political process.
What is your #1 policy goal?
My top goal, by far, is reestablishing the rule of law in San Francisco and making our city safe for all. A myriad of issues have contributed to the condition of public safety in San Francisco and all of these must be addressed. With respect to policing in particular, from policies and strategy, to structural obstacles to SFPD job performance, to the unsustainable officer staffing deficit (and its secondary effects), we need to shift the narrative back toward appreciation and support for SFPD’s basic mandate of enforcing the law and keeping the public safe. I believe public safety is the lynch pin of many other issues we face and its restoration will contribute massively to SF’s recovery. If we address this, we are a long way toward restoring our former glory.
How will you build the coalition and political capital to enact your #1 goal?
I think my greatest strength as supervisor will be building support across the board, in City Hall and with the different interest groups in the city. I am accessible and collaborative by nature. I can work across the aisle and maintain positive relationships, making compromises where it is essential to move the needle. While we need warriors for our cause in City Hall, we also need to be effective. I am more than confident in my ability to make alliances and reach compromises so we can make progress.
More importantly, I am already building support around this issue and addressing it before I am even in the seat. I am working with neighborhood groups to revitalize their community watch programs together with the SFPD’s newly formed Neighborhood Safety Team. I also have the sole endorsement of the POA in the district and look forward to coordinating with them and my colleagues on the board to support officers and make sure they have the resources they need to perform their jobs.
Will the power of the office of Board of Supervisors, District 7 be enough to achieve this goal?
This is a challenge for any Supervisor, as one of eleven, and given the limits of the Board’s power. But this is why effective consensus-building is of special importance and how an individual Supervisor can be most impactful. One of the reasons my candidacy feels almost obligatory to me is because these are not ordinary times in SF. The current condition of the city demands major changes and I see that as the opportunity of a lifetime.
Even if more moderate Supervisors remain in the minority after November, I am still highly confident in my ability to make a difference in District 7 and the City as a whole. Unfortunately, due to the unintended consequences of ranked choice voting,, District 7 has not had the leader it has needed for many years. I believe my work to revitalize community watch programs will make a huge difference by itself. I will be a community leader regardless of the makeup and power limits of the Board, driving for the priorities of my constituents and all San Franciscans.
What are your #2 and #3 policy goals?
My second and third goals are dealing with the addiction and mental illness crisis, and establishing financial transparency and accountability in City Hall. While all three of my priorities are connected, each certainly deserves massive work on its own. I hope to address mental illness and addiction by finding effective solutions to the issue and resolutely executing them, including more temporary shelters, treatment services and less over-reliance on harm reduction services and permanent housing. As for fiscal responsibility, I hope to address the deficit and bloat of the city’s budget and restore the level of basic services by moving away from the homeless industrial complex and uninformed or discredited programs. As a businessman, I plan to bring a business sense to the way the city views its revenues and expenditures and restore a culture of prioritizing outcomes relative to intentions. As the business world does every day, that means continuous evaluation of results and timely course-correction for failures..
Will the power of the office of Board of Supervisors, District 7 be enough to achieve these goals?
I would again refer to my answer above- if we have a majority of like-minded Supervisors on the Board, we can get a lot done fairly easily. If not, this will take a lot more work, but something I am confident I will excel at over my competitors. My 2nd and 3rd priorities share widespread support across the city. For example, I believe the idea of performance audits for city contractors is something that will draw support across ideological lines and address both issues. My ability to find solutions and work with others gives me confidence that I will be able to help move the needle on issues that matter.
What is an existing policy you would like to reform?
I think that commissions should not be able to dictate any policies or requirements that cut directly against departments following their mandate. It seems completely nuts to me that an unelected body like a commission can have operational power to undermine or direct the mission of the department they oversee – often led by commissioners without relevant or requisite experience. In the case of SFPD, the misalignment of power, experience and accountability of the Police Commission is of particular significance. It constitutes a danger to society. The Police Commission should evaluate policies, express concern and offer advice publicly, for example, but should not have unilateral power to determine policing practices, such as traffic stops. The legal code is legislated and changes are properly the concern of the Supervisors, not Commissioners. We need to reduce the politicization of all Commissions and the bloated bureaucracy in City Hall.
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.)
Tell us one thing you think needs to change in SF that the average voter wouldn't know about.
The average voter does not realize how much the office of supervisor was politicized with the advent of district-wide elections, in the 1970’s. The job of supervisor increased in breadth and scope, and led to both great and not-so-great characters to emerge. However we do it, we need to depoliticize the office of Supervisor and make it a community post once again- not one that is the first step to political stardom.
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 single most important public safety issue is the decriminalization and anti-policing movement. These initiatives have proven to be grossly ineffective at reducing crime and, in fact, have incentivized much of the crime we see and created a supportive ecosystem for it. While we can shout and scream about hiring more police, until we remove these bad policies, like Prop 47 and alternative policing initiatives, we can make little progress.
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 would be hugely supportive of a higher full staffing goal. Full staffing should mean that we can adequately address all calls, manage the paperwork, and still provide a proactive deterrent to crime. Force multiplying technology and removing operational red tape could relieve this while we rebuild the ranks. To do this, the city would need to greatly increase recruiting and academy capacity. Perhaps taking officers from other academies, like those state run, could bolster our intake while we build capacity at ours. We also need to be segmenting this cost in the general fund and not require a special earmark for public safety funds, like what is currently on the ballot as Proposition B. Lastly, we need to pursue ongoing interdepartmental work to support our PD while we establish full staffing, like bringing in CHP to perform traffic enforcement. Our PD compensation package also needs to be more competitive compared to other municipalities, even if it means consideration of ideas like housing subsidies. And to further improve our ability to recruit, we need to continue the recent shift in perceived public support for SFPD. We have a great start with the election of Brooke Jenkins, who has repaired the DA Office’s relationship with SFPD and has demonstrated actual support for SFPD’s efforts. But we can do more, including sending any signals we can to the Judiciary that turnstile justice is not acceptable to San Francisco citizens and prevent the Police Commission from running roughshod over SFPD policing practices. All efforts to improve appreciation for SFPD will help with recruitment.
What solutions might exist to improve public safety that don’t involve expanding the size of SFPD?
We need to invest into force multiplying technology to forward progress in the criminal justice world. For example, drones have proven to increase effectiveness fighting crime, while reducing the occurrences of OIS and police violence. Based on the fact that we have not been able to use LPR cameras and drones, we do not know how much of a multiplier these will provide, and how that affects the pressure on hiring. While I don’t want a surveillance state, including facial recognition cameras, it is crazy not to use technologies to support the police in its mandate, produce better results, and possibly save costs for the city. We should also reverse certain DGOs passed and under consideration by what I believe is a police-antagonistic Police Commission so that SFPD can do more with less.
What three things would you change about how SFPD operates?
I would first defang the Police Commission and simply make them an overseeing body, with the police chief solely answering to the Mayor again, which seemed to work for 100 years before the switch to joint appointments. I would change the compensation structure to include access to housing in San Francisco to all SF law enforcement and competitive signing bonuses, perhaps with vesting periods to account for early attrition risk, and provide increased benefits to those who delay retirement. Finally, I would reform the broader incentive structure for police officers so that being an effective officer is recognized and rewarded.
Do you support policies commonly referred to as “defund the police”? Why or why not?
Absolutely not. While there is opportunity for reform and progress in policing, the overall institution serves a great need, and the vast majority of officers are good, hard working members of our community. The results are clear that the defund movement has made our streets less safe. We cannot afford to make that mistake again.
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 signed it. I supported it. I voted for it. I do not believe an ideologue who treats the position like a legislator rather than as a prosecutor is fit to manage a DA’s Office. It should not be a surprise that his soft-on-crime policies were disastrous, conceived to undermine our institutions on an unsound theory of justice. Consequences matter, especially to crime deterrence.
| 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? | X | |
| Fine street food vendors operating without a permit? | X |
If you want to explain any positions above, please feel free:
Of all these I feel the street food vendors deserve the most leniency, however food safety laws are in place to keep people from getting sick or worse. While I do not assign the same guilt to somebody selling hot dogs as I do fentanyl, we need to remember why these codes were put in place: For the safety of the public. Moreover, there are people doing it right, street vending with permits, and they deserve that we maintain our requirements across the board.
Drugs
In general, how should the City handle people who are abusing drugs on City sidewalks?
We need mechanisms to move users off the street. To use drugs in a public place is not right to those trying to live their everyday life, especially children. Allowing people to use and die on the street, is a most twisted form of compassion, if you can call it that. True compassion would be helping these people get off the street and into supportive infrastructure. I am a huge proponent of rethinking the instance of arrest, building up supportive infrastructures of mental health and drug courts, and incentivizing success through generous expungement programs. While there is no evidence to prove this is more effective than voluntary treatment, there is evidence that similar structures reduce many factors at work, including overall crime (see HOPE). I also am a big supporter of 5150 holds for those administered Narcan for overdoses, by city services, and I am against responsibility-free compensation such as monthly stipends that draw abusers to San Francisco (and therefore I supported Proposition F on the ballot this March).
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.
While I do not believe there is a safe way to recreationally consume Fentynal, I would support safe consumption sites if they were effective for getting drug users off the street, temporarily, and is one part of a more complete infrastructure as mentioned above. At the end of the day, our goal should be getting people OFF drugs, not supporting the safe use of them. Harm reduction only seems to be effective at getting drugs off the street and reducing overdose deaths, not as a means to recovery. As an alternative, I would arrest public drug users and get them into a strong recovery infrastructure in the courts. I would rather take the chance that a user can recover and have a better life and eventually have their crimes expunged as long as they are not a danger to others.
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?
Yes I do agree, but still do not think they are the best path forward to combat the addiction and mental illness epidemic we are facing. I much rather address the root causes of addiction and have solutions for recovery, than settling for an as-good-as-it-gets solution. Why are so many people addicted to something that can kill them instantly? This is the true tragedy. Drug addiction and mental illness is something that has affected people I love, and I know from experience that it comes from pain, trauma, and sometimes pure bad luck. We cannot give up on those in these throes, they are our brothers and sisters, somebody’s son or daughter. We owe it to our loved ones and our whole community to strive for something better than “safe” consumption.
Should fentanyl dealing be penalized differently from dealing other drugs?
Yes, absolutely. First off, we should work with federal law enforcement to make sure as many fentanyl dealers as possible are charged federally. We should remove sanctuary city protections for non-citizens who are charged for dealing fentanyl. There should also be a solution to increase the maximum penalties for fentanyl dealers charged locally. Additionally, we should be aggressively investigating the dealers of those who overdosed and charging them a minimum of manslaughter or attempted manslaughter. Whatever, within reason, we can do to incentivize people not to sell it, we should be doing it. Bottom line is that the penalty needs to be severe enough to be a deterrent.
Mental Health
Should San Francisco amend our current laws around mental health crisis intervention to better help people suffering on the streets? If yes, why and how? If not, why not?
Yes, absolutely. I think a lot of this is at the level of the state and, thankfully, Gov Newsom has passed legislation reforming the Reagan era rollback of conservatorship and state run mental health facilities. We should be utilizing this as soon as we can and begin rebuilding our infrastructure in the city, and advocating for more state-run facilities. While SF is often the butt of jokes, this is certainly a state issue whose burden needs to be shared by all municipalities. In SF alone, if we can at least produce the temporary beds, we can get people off the streets immediately. Places like Reno have done this, and saw great results – we should be doing the same.
What is the role of government in providing care for those who cannot care for themselves?
I certainly think there are situations that require our compassion. If you are somebody who lives in SF, fell into homelessness, and are trying your best to get back into a livable situation, you deserve permanent solutions. Children should not be left on the streets, and SF families should take priority getting into permanent services. All this could be done much more effectively if we truly sorted out cases between involuntary and voluntary difficulties. In some cases conservatorship is necessary to protect the individual from themselves and, often, the public from the individual. We should also not be a beacon for drug tourism. Those who can show no other connection to our city do not deserve our services because we have neither the ability nor the budget capacity to solve a regional/national problem on our own.
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.
Yes I do agree. I think once it spills into the public arena, showing the person is clearly in a mental crisis and has little control over it, the community needs to step in to help that person. In cases of drug addiction and mental crisis, many times intervention is needed to get them out of the cycle and, at the end of the day, is much more compassionate than leaving them on the streets to suffer or die.
If you agree with this view, please outline some guardrails and oversight the City must provide to prevent abuse.
When talking about the intake on this, I think we need to be clear about what the parameters are. As I said before, if somebody is given Narcan by city services, these people should be put in a 5150 hold for the first one, a 5220 hold for the second, and so on. We should use these holds as opportunities to get people into voluntary treatment. This is a very clear line. Yet, for those who are in an acute mental crisis, we need to determine what crosses the line. While I am not an expert in this, we certainly know when we see them which cases do cross that line and must be addressed.
If you disagree with this view, please outline your preferred alternative solution as well as any drawbacks it might have and oversight it might need.
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 school board needs to re-prioritize its mandate to educating our children. I tell people that the USD is a microcosm of City Hall and in many ways a canary in the coalmine. As Supervisor, I will lean on the BOE and superintendent to prioritize educational outcomes over other ideological objectives so we can have a world class public educational system. I think we have brought some great accountability to the board with the recall, and hopefully they hear the message loud and clear if we pass Proposition G through.
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, I think people should have the freedom to choose where they want their kids educated, including homeschool. I have a lot of pride in SF’s rich and diverse traditions and cultural viewpoints, and you see them in its educational landscape. One thing that always should be protected is our diversity of thought and open mindedness and I believe this is a direct result of the environment kids are raised and educated in. I hope to keep SF diverse and protect all the traditions that live inside it. I also believe more choice means more competition to continuously strive for educational excellence among schools.
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 did. I think the handling of the COVID pandemic and prioritizing idealistic initiatives over educational outcomes – like the mural issue and renaming of schools, made them wholly unfit for the office they served.
| 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? | X |
If you want to explain any positions above, please feel free:
The USD’s mandate and mission should be simple: to maximize the educational outcomes of each child, regardless of beginnings, socio-economic and racial status, or capacities. We must provide those who have the ability to excel the means to do so. We are the capital of innovation, these schools should be churning out the next change agents of our world. That does not mean you leave people behind, but simply give an opportunity for exceptional kids to self-improve as much as they can, and shine as adults. And to create a public school culture of excellence, we must have the ability to terminate underperforming teachers as an ongoing practice. Childhood education is simply too important to our future to tolerate mediocrity in its provision.
Small Business
What would you change about the process of new retail business formation in San Francisco?
First and foremost, it should be a lot cheaper to open a business in SF. It should take less time, it should require fewer permits, it should involve very little soft costs. It is a shame that it costs a cafe founder $50k+ in soft fees before they break ground. While I am a bigger supporter of Main Street than Wall Street, I do think the formula retail businesses can increase vitalization of certain commercial corridors, and can be done in a collaborative fashion at the benefit of local shops. Whatever action we take, should create a more friendly business environment so small businesses can open and thrive.
Should all businesses be permitted by-right? If not, which business categories do you think should require special government approval?
I think most should be by-right, but a select few should require some level of regulation where it impacts public safety. For example, there has to be some control around planning where there is heavy construction, like fire code. Then some businesses should require a bond, like towing and ambulance firms, and have a level of regulation around who has a license and what their procedures are. Where there is no health or public safety need present, it should certainly be by-right and streamlined so businesses can get up and running ASAP. The market should determine whether a business will or will not make it in a neighborhood, not the local neighborhood and merchant associations.
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?
I do not disagree with this. I tend toward letting the market decide things, rather than the government. I do, however, consider those that have already had to pay exorbitant amounts of money for theirs in the current model, and think they need remuneration if this system is reformed. Considering how hard it is to run a successful restaurant in SF, largely due to costs, I think we would owe it to them. Finally, if you’re paying $250k for a license, you’ll do it in the Marina and other high traffic areas, and the south east and west will have few new and exciting places for people to convene. I’d love more full-bar restaurants on the south side of the city!
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?
I have the same position as above, but this one I think is a bit more complicated. I think due to the nature of marijuana, while I support its legalization and many use cases, it should be kept away from children as much as possible. Therefore I would always make sure there are requirements in place, like making sure they are at least 300 ft from a school.
| 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:
These are all things that I would have greatly benefited from as a small business owner. I believe small businesses are the backbone of the city, and hope by finding financial health we can provide more breaks and incentives to them.
Housing
Do you believe that San Francisco has a shortage of homes? Why or why not?
Yes I do. I think SF will always have to deal with this due to its size, layout, and desirability. When you mix this with bad housing and planning policies, you make the matter much worse. The over-politicization of housing by community voices has led to an imbalance of production, supply and demand, and skyrocketing prices.
Do you believe that housing prices are set by supply and demand constraints? Why or why not?
Unfortunately, no, not fully in SF. SF has a completely regulated housing market, so you cannot consider its prices without that effect. I spend a lot of time thinking about the tensions between regulation and deregulation of the housing market and believe it to be one of the toughest issues to navigate in our city. More supply is likely to have some effect on affordability, but not nearly as much as a less physically constrained and regulatorily constrained city (i.e., rent control, building codes, discretionary reviews, building costs, approval delays and ROI challenges for developers).
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?
Hillis and Breed said we will not meet it, there is no doubt. I think the best we can do, if we want to retain the right to our planning, is really reform our system and come up with solutions that result in units being built. We need to work with the state on this, we need to show resolve as a city toward it.
Should homeless shelters be exempt from CEQA, Discretionary Review, and Conditional Use permits?
Though I do think this level of housing should always involve government oversight, I think these projects should be streamlined while we are dealing with the current epidemic, especially considering the court injunction against sweeping camps.
Should subsidized Affordable housing be exempt from CEQA, Discretionary Review, and Conditional Use permits?
I think we need to find a way to get to a by-right format for any type of housing that doesn't serve the homeless and lowest income sectors. We need to get to a place where we can let the market determine the supply and demand of housing in the city, and then build out an aggressive rent relief program to help demographics in the middle income brackets afford market rate housing. Then, I believe if we can codify many things considered discretionary, like design continuity, we can have a roadmap to density that satisfies the communities that are in place. While the DR process needs a lot of reform, I do believe in community engagement and applaud companies like Brookfield Properties and their approach to the Stonestown development. The city, further, should be incentivizing big projects like these to maximize their housing and make it easier to break ground.
Should market rate housing be exempt from CEQA, Discretionary Review, and Conditional Use permits?
Refer again to the above. If we follow a program like that, most housing would be market rate. The big barriers to this would be the repeal of Costa Hawkins and the implementation of vacancy control, which will further constrain the market dynamics and stop projects from breaking ground. We also should incentivize by removing the soft costs, as much as we can, so more projects, especially those stuck in the pipeline, can break ground.
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)
I think we should loosen them, but I would like to see this done within reason (that is, with the input of communities to be most impacted by them). I am critical of the current housing element, because I think it ignores great opportunities for very large, dense projects across the city that would relieve the focus on current housing stock. The west side has places where it can certainly place large dense projects, with some in the pipeline, and will easily pass with community support. Yet, while many people in the D7 hold this view, just as many are generally protective of single family home neighborhoods. The proposed planning map, most of which will not be developed in the foreseeable future, caused more opposition to the cause. While it makes sense from a planning perspective, it will always be politically difficult in place like District 7. I will try to balance the community voice in D7 with the need to reform the planning process and facilitate projects breaking ground.
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?
I generally think requirements like these, especially if they increase cost, should add some benefit to public safety or sustainability. If they do not, there should be an equally valid reason for the requirement. Still, there is a cost to this, insofar as it adds more layers to the city bureaucracy.
| In general, is it too hard, just right, or too easy to… | Too hard | Just right | Too easy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expand your home (adding new stories, rooms, decks, etc) | X | ||
| Renovate your home (update bathroom, kitchen, etc) | X | ||
| Demolish your home and redevelop it into multifamily housing | X | ||
| Redevelop things like parking lots and single-story commercial into multifamily housing | X | ||
| Build subsidized housing | X | ||
| Build market-rate housing | X | ||
| Build homeless shelters (including navigation centers and “tiny homes”) | X |
If you want to explain any positions above, please feel free:
For the conversions of single family to multifamily, there is a ton of opposition to that in D7. I am not objectively opposed to it, but a position that is more protective has a lot of support in this part of the city. If you have a conversation with me, I think you’ll find I have ideas for housing that are different from the incumbent D7 Supervisor’s. I believe mine can provide better solutions than hers. I will not bow to TODCO or the state, but I am thinking seriously about how we can get more units and accessibility across the city. I also want more focus on ownership and I believe there is room for innovative initiatives here once we restore the financial health of the city.
Transit Infrastructure
Should Muni be free for everyone? If so, what other programs would you take money from in order to fund this change, or what new tax would you propose to fund it?
No Muni should charge a fee while we regain financial balance. I will push for the city to clean up the streets, promote the enforcement of laws on Muni and BART, improve the quality of the ride, and increase ridership. Once the budget is balanced, we can look at how we can lower the cost of transit for city residents, including ways to make it free for some residents.
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 think at this point we cannot afford to continue down the current path of non-enforcement and away from rule of law. If we are charging fees, they should be enforced. I do think we should provide assistance to those who need it and deserve it, but restore the rule of law to those who do not seek proper channels of support.
Recent State funding requires Muni and BART to enforce fare payments in order to receive that funding; do you agree with this requirement?
As you can probably tell from my answers on housing, I appreciate the city’s right to self determination and am not a fan of state overreach. Like housing too, the gun is held to our head on this issue. If we had real leadership elsewhere and found financial health, we may be able to show the state we can maintain quality, without fares. Until then, we really need the money, as we do elsewhere.
Should it be the policy of San Francisco to build a citywide protected bike lane network? Why or why not?
Yes, I believe bikes should have a protected network throughout the city. The city is made up of a large number of bike commuters, including families. They should have access to safe routes across the city.
| Yes | No | |
|---|---|---|
| Do you support banning cars from central downtown areas and certain retail or residential corridors? | X | |
| Do you support congestion pricing? | X | |
| 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? | X | |
| Should Uber, Lyft, Waymo, and other ride-share services be permitted to operate in San Francisco? | X | |
| Should San Francisco allow more bike share and scooter share companies? | X | |
| 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)? | X |
If you want to explain any positions above, please feel free:
I believe we can truly find solutions to improve pedestrian safety, the quality of public transportation, and dedicated bike paths without hurting vehicular access to San Francisco. I think solution the maximize all mobility, are the solutions that will create the most vibrant version of San Francisco.
Budget
San Francisco is facing a large budget deficit due to declining tax revenues from our struggling downtown. What will your approach be to fix this?
We need to address the financial inefficiencies that plague the city. First and foremost, we need to perform audits of each city department, contractor, and grantee to make sure they are fulfilling their mandate. I will push for funds to be reallocated from underperformers to more efficient solutions and partners. We should then look to see how much we can save through these solutions. Hopefully, working through the inefficiencies of the budget, we can get close to balancing it. This has never been more crucial when we need to stimulate markets like small business, housing, and commercial real estate.
I also want to create a tool for the everyday SF resident that brings all relevant financial data on a UX friendly platform. That way we democratize the data of our city and provide true financial transparency to all residents, no matter their financial literacy or educational level. Being SF, there is no reason why we cannot use available technology and open source data to do this, and it would be much better than current options like OpenBook. I think this is a level of transparency many at City Hall do not want, but its implementation would incentivize much more accountability.
| 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:
My method for analyzing the current budget is by looking at spending from 2010 to now and comparing the increases by department, accounting for inflation. It is pretty shocking when you consider that we have stayed relatively flat as a population. My next steps are tracking the year-by-year growth of the departments in that timeframe, tracking it with headcount increase, and noting reasons put forward in each budget. I think from there we can start to ask about the necessity of these increases and whether they have led to an increase in public safety, health, and prosperity in SF.
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 City and my family has lived in Miraloma Park for 5 generations. We are kept here by the simple fact we love it. If we were to leave to seek more affordability, or a better housing situation, we would have done that long ago with our e-commerce business. We have faced many of the issues discussed above, including having our house robbed – and we have chosen to stay. I’d rather deal with the hardships of living in the city than bail out for somewhere I barely know. That is a huge part of why I am doing this- we dug in long ago!
What do you love most about San Francisco?
By far its people. The City has always attracted and produced millions of open-minded, interesting people. That diversity of cultures translates into good food, art, and music – it is no wonder we are a world class city. It is why it is worth the cost to stay, and worth it to fight to keep it.
What do you dislike the most about San Francisco?
I don’t like the establishment politics that have dominated the City for decades. Career trajectories and political idealism have been prioritized by elected officials over the true needs of their constituencies. I felt frustrated with it for many years, and I know many everyday residents feel the same. Even worse, people have corrupted our institutions and perverted them for private interests. I really hope more small business owners and city servants jump in and reclaim the power structures of the city for the everyday citizen.
Tell us about your current involvement in the community (e.g., volunteer groups, neighborhood associations, civic and professional organizations, etc.)
As an owner of a property in North Beach, I have worked closely with neighborhood groups and the supervisor’s office to get support for potential projects. Unfortunately my first idea fell through when the pandemic hit, but it was my first experience dealing with the political community in SF, both in and out of City Hall. I am also an active member at Miraloma Park Improvement Club and volunteer with Lakeside HOA, helping both revitalize their community watch programs.
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.