Matthew Susk
-
Office: Board of Supervisors, District 3
-
Election Date: November 5, 2024
-
Candidate: Matthew Susk
-
Due Date: February 28, 2024
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 3?
I am a 3rd generation San Franciscan and former small business owner. I am the only candidate that will bring deep private sector experience to City Hall. My campaign is built on 3 key promises: safe streets, thriving businesses, and government accountability. We need outsiders to clean up the mess career politicians created.
What is your #1 policy goal?
Public safety. Safety is the first thing City Hall must guarantee.
How will you build the coalition and political capital to enact your #1 goal?
Supervisors must work on behalf of the neighbors, not vocal special interest. Ideology has reduced the quality of life in SF. Neighbors and small businesses overwhelmingly want more police. I will introduce legislation on day 1 streamlining recruiting, increasing staffing, and creating a culture of supporting the SFPD.
Will the power of the office of Board of Supervisors, District 3 be enough to achieve this goal?
Yes, through legislation and new commissioners.
What are your #2 and #3 policy goals?
Support our business community
Build more housing
Will the power of the office of Board of Supervisors, District 3 be enough to achieve these goals?
Yes, primarily through legislation.
What is an existing policy you would like to reform?
Discretionary review. Bad actors weaponize DR to hold up code compliant projects for years. I would like to eliminate bad faith DR. There should be a fee for those who initiate reviews that are upheld, similar to the legal system.
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.)
Change BOS meeting to 7PM on Tuesday, so that the public can attend more easily.
Tell us one thing you think needs to change in SF that the average voter wouldn't know about.
City Hall gives far too much leeway to nonprofits and doesn’t require transparency. The money does not get to the end user efficiently. We need accountability. There are over 280 nonprofits focused exclusively on homelessness yet the unsheltered homeless population has increased by 65% since 2005.
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?
Drug dealing. We must make drug dealing in SF prohibitively expensive, so dealers stop coming here to sell. We can do this by enforcing, arresting and charging drug dealers to the fullest extent of the law. SF will no longer be the city where dealers come to sell or users come to buy drugs.
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 think it’s a great idea and we should aim for that, but we need to be realistic. Doubling our sworn police officers will be a massive challenge. Our most recent police academy class graduated 15 and there is a nationwide law enforcement shortage.
We must change the narrative from staffing the police to recruiting for the police. I have built relationships with the top private sector recruiting firms that will teach best practices to our SFPD staff to recruit the best law enforcement officers. We should implement 4 changes immediately to bolster recruiting and retention. (1) Free driving school for anyone that is entering the police academy (2) significantly expand the first responder down payment assistance fund (3) offer $75K signing bonus to new recruits and lateral hires (4) expand the DROP program.
Additionally, we must equip our officers with the latest tools so they can do their jobs more effectively and spend more time on the streets. If we can reduce time behind a desk by 20% that is equivalent to hiring an additional 300 officers to the street!
What solutions might exist to improve public safety that don’t involve expanding the size of SFPD?
-
Increase the number of part time and volunteer positions available.
-
Hire more dispatchers.
-
Increase our partnerships with state and federal law enforcement.
-
Expand the use of license plate cameras so that officers are proactively warned when a stolen vehicle enters the city.
-
Utilize new technologies so that officers can spend more time in the field.
-
Checkpoints when entering the city during certain hours of the day.
What three things would you change about how SFPD operates?
-
Reform the police commission.
-
Eliminate forced overtime.
-
Expand the Crisis Intervention Team.
Do you support policies commonly referred to as “defund the police”? Why or why not?
No.
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 fully supported the recall. City Hall must be focused on results not ideology.
| 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:
Question 4: Fentanyl is killing almost 3 people per day. We must draw a line in the sand.
Question 9: We don't need to incarcerate street vendors making a living, but we must enforce laws.
Drugs
In general, how should the City handle people who are abusing drugs on City sidewalks?
It is inhumane to watch two people die, per day, from drug overdoses in San Francisco. San Francisans are the most compassionate people in the world, but our street conditions are the opposite of compassionate.
We must utilize all available resources to help treat, but not perpetuate addiction. We must reallocate spending to outcomes based organizations. We must monitor recovery based on success not “touches.”
Do you support the creation of safe consumption sites in San Francisco? If so, please detail how they should be run. If not, please explain a viable alternative.
No. SF is facing a crisis of overdoses and widespread addiction. We must offer enhanced medical support - including access to safe medical detox facilities, homeward bound, and specialized programs offering comprehensive services.
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?
We must utilize every resource we have to help treat addiction, not perpetuate it. We should have zero tolerance for public consumption of illegal drugs.
Should fentanyl dealing be penalized differently from dealing other drugs?
All illegal drug dealing should lead to arrest.
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?
Implementing measures such as increased access to experienced mental health services, crisis intervention teams, and transitional housing could significantly improve outcomes for those in need. We must expand conservatorship, 72 hour holds are not working.
What is the role of government in providing care for those who cannot care for themselves?
Provide essential social services, healthcare, and support systems. The city must help promote their well-being and dignity. The suffering on our streets can and must come to an end.
Some have argued that San Francisco should place people who are experiencing mental health crises on the streets into involuntary mental health holds at psychiatric facilities. Do you agree or disagree with this view? Please explain why or why not.
I agree. It's not compassionate to leave those with acute psychiatric problems on the streets without help. We must use facilities - finding a balance between compassionate care and effective solutions.
If you agree with this view, please outline some guardrails and oversight the City must provide to prevent abuse.
Implement objective criteria for placement, regular review by independent mental health professionals, and transparent decision-making processes to ensure the rights and dignity of those receiving support.
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?
Yes. The board must be judged based on the outcomes of our students. Private school enrollment has skyrocketed and public school enrollment has plummeted. Those with the fewest resources are suffering the most. We must provide the highest quality public education in San Francisco.
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.
I supported the recall for all 3. Each member was more focused on renaming schools than reopening schools. The Board of Education must be judged based on the outcomes 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? | X |
If you want to explain any positions above, please feel free:
Small Business
What would you change about the process of new retail business formation in San Francisco?
Guaranteed to receive all permits to open a new business within 60 days.
Should all businesses be permitted by-right? If not, which business categories do you think should require special government approval?
Yes, except vice (adult, cannabis etc) businesses. Business owners do a deep analysis of their markets before investing thousands of dollars into a business. In this analysis they uncover that there is a market need for their product or service. I do not think Supervisors should control what, when, or where businesses can operate. I started and ran a small laundry business in San Francisco. I know first hand how hard it is to operate in this city. We must have consistent regulations, so that the business community can operate.
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 make ABC permits easier, faster, and cheaper. Restaurant and bar owners need every advantage the city can offer.
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 think that vice businesses should be more closely regulated.
| 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:
Housing
Do you believe that San Francisco has a shortage of homes? Why or why not?
Yes. The average police officer commutes 1 hour and 20 minutes each way. Hiring employees is impossible for small businesses. We must build more housing so police officers, teachers, and essential workers can live in the communities they serve, elders can age in place, and young families can thrive in SF.
Do you believe that housing prices are set by supply and demand constraints? Why or why not?
Yes.
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?
Drastically reduce the permitting time required to build housing. The Housing Element is effectively broken down into 3 buckets: deeply affordable, 60%-120% average median income, and market rate. We must pass all 3. The reason we will fail is the middle bucket. If we want to potentially pass then we must support the building community and get projects to pencil. We will do that by shortening permitting times, reducing impact fees, and reducing permitting fees. If we don’t do that now we will fail the housing element and lose all control.
Should homeless shelters be exempt from CEQA, Discretionary Review, and Conditional Use permits?
Building a successful shelter requires community involvement and buy-in. We should do everything possible to drive down costs and timelines.
Should subsidized Affordable housing be exempt from CEQA, Discretionary Review, and Conditional Use permits?
We must find ways to drive down costs for these projects. The planning department has clearly defined rules. If projects are code compliant they should be built.
Should market rate housing be exempt from CEQA, Discretionary Review, and Conditional Use permits?
DR must have a higher threshold - 1 neighbor should not be able to hold up a project and CEQA should not be site specific. Ambiguity adds risk to projects. We must have consistent regulations.
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)
Loosen/abolish depending on area. I believe we must build the vast majority of our new housing along major transit corridors.
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?
Yes, we must update many parts of the building and fire code to keep up with modern technology.
| 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:
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. Certain groups (students, elders, essential workers etc) should get deeply discounted fares, but I believe that everyone should have to pay a nominal amount. We need accountability. I believe that fares must go up or cost must go down, and SFMTA must plug their deficit.
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?
We must enforce fares. I’ve been told that 1/3rd of riders aren't paying and the city is losing over $75 million per year. By not enforcing fares not only are we missing revenue, but we are making public transit unsafe. We must make SFMTA safe, clean, and sustainable.
Recent State funding requires Muni and BART to enforce fare payments in order to receive that funding; do you agree with this requirement?
Yes.
Should it be the policy of San Francisco to build a citywide protected bike lane network? Why or why not?
We must expand a safe bike network.
| 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:
Question 3: I think cars should be ticketed for using the bus lanes. I don't think the city should prioritize buses over car traffic. Cameras on the front of buses should enforce lane violations.
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 will guarantee safety, lower the burden to do business, and build more housing. We must get the basics right to stabilize our tax base. We will then double down on the public services that the public wants and divest from those that are underperforming or are no longer necessary.
| 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 am a 3rd generation San Franciscan. I first moved into District 3 when I was in middle school. My wife and I live in Russian Hill.
What do you love most about San Francisco?
My family lives here. Nothing beats having family around the corner. I cherish the district neighborhoods, each with its own unique cultures and captivating beauty. The culinary scene is an endless delight, with delicious restaurants galore.
What do you dislike the most about San Francisco?
That City Hall has prioritized ideology over outcomes. This is the greatest city on earth and we must do everything we can to right the ship in November.
Tell us about your current involvement in the community (e.g., volunteer groups, neighborhood associations, civic and professional organizations, etc.)
-
Russian Hill Neighbors Safety Chair
-
San Francisco Police Department Community Police Academy Graduate
-
Georgetown University of Northern California Member
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.