• Office: Board of Supervisors, District 11
• Election Date: November 5, 2024
• Candidate: Michael Lai
• Due Date: June 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 June 28, 2024 so we have enough time to adequately review and discuss your answers.

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

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 11?

Like most residents in D11, I'm a first-generation immigrant. My parents and I came to the US with $100 in our pockets, and my mom bused tables at a Chinese restaurant. I went to public schools and my family was able to rent & buy in CA in the 90s when it was cheaper, so I lived on the same street as a teacher, firefighter, and lawyer. That diversity is what I love most about District 11, and why I want to raise my future kids here.

I spent the last decade tackling three of District 11's most pressing challenges, including workforce housing, affordable childcare, and supporting local businesses. Five years ago, I raised $17.9 million to found a new model for daycare with 30 locations providing teacher housing and today serve on the board of Wu Yee, the largest Head Start preschool in SF with 2 centers in Excelsior & OMI. For small businesses, I helped organize Chow Fun, an Asian restaurant tour supporting 39 AAPI small businesses this March, and recently raised $30,000 for a new Excelsior neon sign.

I'm new to politics, but we need new leadership. I ran for the SF DCCC in March (thank you for endorsing & supporting me!) and we won a supermajority for common sense & competence. I'm running for D11 supervisor to fight to keep my family's story alive, and fight for an often forgotten & marginalized district full of working families, prioritizing public safety, quality affordable childcare & schools, building housing (especially workforce & affordable housing), and small business vibrancy. I'm also running to flip a Board of Supervisors that has been dysfunctional, and be a 6th vote for many city wide priorities like downtown recovery and expanding mental health & drug treatment options.

What is your #1 policy goal? ✅

My #1 priority is safe & clean streets.

I used to be a volunteer preschool teacher at a Head Start Center in the Tenderloin, and last year my center shut down because the parents in the Tenderloin no longer wanted to send their kids there because of the needles on the street.

Safety is a complicated issue — part of it is crime, & part of it is the intersection of rampant open air drug use, retail theft, & clear illegal behavior without enforcement. Part of the feeling of safety is blight & vacancies — we need highly activated neighborhoods & economic opportunity with thriving small businesses, transit.

First, we need a fully staffed, efficient, and accountable police department. We need increased traffic enforcement & stop lights and cameras. We need higher clearance rates in our DA's office, and from judges around repeat offenders. We need more mental health beds, a reformed code around conservatorship, crackdown on fentanyl dealing, and expanded treatment & services, so people can get off the streets and into the care they need.

For cleanliness, we need a more efficient & less corrupt DPW, more street cleanups by partnering with Community Benefit Districts, and more enforcement for illegal dumping. We need to explore more trash cans in our neighborhoods, and we need community building to increase the culture of care for our streets.

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

Thanks in part to GrowSF's polling, it's clear that safe & clean streets is the #1 priority in San Francisco, so the will from the voters is already there.

I would start with a collaborative deep dive into problems around the safety & cleanliness systems in SF (e.g. SFPD, the Police Commission, SF Superior Court, the jails, DPW, etc.) and then define a policy roadmap & whether solutions need to happen at the SF level via ordinances, charter amendments, executive action, or what solutions have to happen at the state level. I would work with colleagues on the Board, the Mayor's Office, and Agency heads to build a shared picture of the problems & solutions.

Then, I would build a District 11-wide coalition & a city-wide coalition, of people, media, and capital (e.g. to fundraise for ballot propositions in the case of capital campaigns) — so, six areas. I'll give two examples: for people in District 11, as District Supervisor, one of my responsibilities would be to work with and uplift coordinate residents and community groups (from longtime groups such as the New Mission Terrace Neighborhood Association and OMI Collaborative to new ones such as Southside Forward and We Are OMI) & local agencies like Ingleside Police Dept & Taraval Dept, so we work as a coalition to act, and are consistent in showing up to important hearings, and more. For media, I would work across social media & media for press around important initiatives for certain populations (e.g. KTSF-26 for the Chinese population, which is the largest group of residents in D11).

Ultimately, we need to work with other District Supervisors alongside the Mayor's Office as well as San Francisco agencies (such as the SFPD and SMTA) to ensure they are aligned with broader, city-wide initiatives, and any changes are implemented effectively, and start with low hanging fruit to build momentum into more difficult solutions.

Will the power of the office of Board of Supervisors, District 11 be enough to achieve this goal?

Given that District 11 is likely a tipping point seat for public safety & other priorities, there would be more power on the Board of Supervisors than there has been previously to increase public safety.

There are a few specific levers that I have as a supervisor:

• First, introducing ordinances or charter amendments to ensure that we are passing evidence based solutions (e.g. to recruit and retain police officers and first responders).

• Second, approving & negotiating in the budget process

• Third, commission appointments. For public safety the police commission is especially important.

• Fourth, being the interface between agencies and the D11 community, and holding hearings to hold agencies accountable.

• Fifth, the power of press.

Still, achieving the goal (e.g. lower traffic deaths through increasing traffic enforcement & implementing more speed cameras & cushioning to pick one example) ultimately requires better execution from frontline agencies that deliver safety & cleanliness. It requires partnership with the Mayor, other supervisors, partnership with state level and federal level legislators (e.g. fentanyl required collaborating with Speaker Emerita Pelosi and her work getting SF onto US DOJ's Operation Overdrive initiative), and consistent dialogue with residents.

As D11 supervisor I will bring an obsessive focus on outcomes & an ability to work across at all levels, laterally, up to the highest levels of state & federal, and down to the most grassroots level.

What are your #2 and #3 policy goals?

#2 Affordable housing:

Many of San Francisco's problems are downstream of not building enough housing, especially affordable housing, and our sky-high rents reflect this. We need to make it easier to build all types of housing and fund affordable housing. Recent state level policies are a great start (e.g. SB423, AB 2011), but the Board of Supervisors needs to upzone & make permitting easier. Once housing is approved, we need to tackle solutions to make it easier for developments (especially affordable developments) to pencil (e.g. restructuring impact fees).

In addition, we need to increase funding for affordable housing, and especially in D11, which is ⅔ homeowner ⅓ renter, explore ways to increase incomes of homeowners through lot splitting or other ways to allow owners to turn single family homes into duplexes or fourplexes.

#3 Economic recovery for small businesses & downtown:

District 11 has multiple small business corridors that are struggling (Mission, Ocean, Geneva, Randolph) — from talking to old businesses like May from Hong Kong Bakery, Laura at New Royal Bakery, or new businesses like Freshito, foot traffic is down since COVID while costs are up. We need to increase sales & vibrancy for small businesses while making it easier to operate.

Simultaneously, SF's tax structure is predicated on downtown's tax base, and the city's budget shortfall is tied to a slow downtown recovery post COVID. We should pursue creative innovative, like a university or biotech space downtown, as well as incentives to get businesses of all sizes back (e.g. childcare centers downtown), which would also help save transit by increasing ridership.

Will the power of the office of Board of Supervisors, District 11 be enough to achieve these goals?

It depends on the balance of the Board, and on the Mayor (e.g. we may need 8 votes to veto if the Mayor is misaligned in certain ways). As Supervisor I have the above five levers I mentioned.

However, as a former founder & community organizer, my mindset is whatever it takes to drive outcomes, not just the JD of a supervisor.

For example, when I hear about PG&E rate hikes from my residents, I'll talk to my state level endorsers & relationships such as Senator Scott Wiener or Asm. Buffy Wicks. When I think about economic development, I think about what creative private partnerships need to happen (e.g. can we incentivize movie studios to film in McLaren Park? Can the empty Pacific Super on Alemany be turned into a job creating commercial space?). Great schools are a priority for me but jurisdictionally much more with the Board of Education, so I've played a role in helping recruit a slate of school board candidates. Cultural change? We need social media & media.

What is an existing policy you would like to reform?

I would repeal the Prop I transfer tax, which doesn't make sense in a macro environment when projects are not penciling. Part of stumping for Prop C in March was allowing this to happen.

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.)

There are lots, but I think an integrated Bay Area regional transit agency could make a lot of sense to merge the 27 transit agencies all with their own systems, specs, and bureaucracies.

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

We need governance reform to make the government deliver outcomes again in San Francisco — for example, over the past 20 years, the Board of Supervisors has systematically chipped away the power of the mayor by increasing the number of commissions & splitting appointments to commissions. We also need to civil service reform to make it much faster to hire and fill vacancies.

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?

We have an interconnected set of public safety concerns: violent crime, property crime, organized theft rings, dealers dispensing fentanyl. Though crime stats have been down year over year, it doesn't matter if it happens to you. Recently, there was a homicide in D11. There are theft operations targeting businesses and residents alike. Simultaneously, fentanyl has fueled a tragic number of overdoses, with little enforcement and repercussion.

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?

In general, it seems that in the US vs. Europe (in the Paris example), we overspend on per capita prisons in the US, and underspend on per capita policing, which is much more preventative.

I am supportive of increasing San Francisco's police force beyond the current sworn officer level, provided they are also efficient & accountable. Right now D11 has two major police stations — Ingleside, and Taraval. Captain Amy Hurwitz at Ingleside has indicated 15 years ago they were at 120 officers; now, it's 71. Taraval is at 55. We need to get to fully staffed.

On specific per capita numbers, I would want to do a deeper analysis of the types of incidents SFPD tackles relative to these other cities, and the structure of the departments & agencies in SF vs. these other cities, to do an apples-to-apples comparison of per capita staffing levels.

I would pursue an array of different funding sources, including reallocation of resources from less essential services, potential state and federal law enforcement grants, and even creative philanthropic capital when possible.

In addition, it's critical to pair policing with complementary community-based approaches and increasing treatment & mental health beds for drug addicts or the mentally ill.

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

At a time when our sworn officers are down, we need to increase efficiency among officers on the beat, which involves reducing unnecessary paperwork. While Prop E was not a perfect piece of legislation, I supported it because of its ability to lower undue or duplicative paperwork burden.

We can implement technology in line with the Obama 2014 21st Century policing section on technology usage, such as the Flock Safety system with automated license plate reading that is already being rolled out. We can make data systems better by digitizing court records in SF Superior Court.

We can also develop better partnerships across public safety agencies, such as the partnership between the US Attorney, US DEA, SFPD, the CA Highway Patrol and more on fentanyl dealing in the Tenderloin.

What three things would you change about how SFPD operates?

First, we should use best practice recruit & retention strategies to fully staff the department. Currently, we spend $42 million on SFPD overtime, and our recruitment bonus is only $5000 per year, compared to $75,000 per year in Alameda. We should increase our recruitment funding and use the most innovative digital marketing approaches we can. As part of this, we should aim to recruit a diverse pool of candidates that reflect San Francisco's demographics. For example, District 11 is 56.6% Asian and 21% Latino, and it's important that there are beat cops who can speak Cantonese & Spanish.

Second, we should expand the SFPD's investigative units, which will increase units focused on responding and deterring crimes of property, theft, and drugs.

Third, we should utilize technologies in the 2014 Obama Administration 21st Century Policing report, such as the Flock Camera system, and much more, to increase the efficiency and the lack of bias within the police department.

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

No. I support a well-funded, properly trained, and accountable police force to maintain public safety. I believe we also need a holistic approach that simultaneously invests in community-based solutions to address the root causes of crime, such as early childhood education, mental health services, homelessness support, and youth development initiatives. By investing in these areas alongside police staff, we can create a safer, more resilient community that addresses public safety comprehensively.

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 was the only one of SF Examiner's "3 Frontrunners in the D11 race" to support the recall of DA Chesa Boudin. The social contract felt broken with a district attorney who was not holding people who broke the law accountable, such as fentanyl dealers and those who attacked Asian elders.

DA Boudin's policies were also demoralizing for the police department, who didn't want to give cases to a DA who didn't prosecute them. Most importantly, many communities who were most affected by lax justice policies, for example elderly Asian communities, largely supported the recall.

Just recalling a DA with a progressive ideology is not enough to solve a problem as complex as public safety (we need to fully staff the police department, elect new judges, and much more). In addition to advocating for commonsense public safety measures like arresting fentanyl dealers, we need to address the root causes of crime — poverty, drug addiction, homelessness, and more; while being mindful of real concerns about the disproportionate historic racial impacts in policing.

Should San Francisco…	Yes	No
Try to achieve "full staffing" for SFPD? (Defined as about 2,100 officers, according to the City)	Yes
Change the cite-and-release policy so officers can arrest suspects of misdemeanors like shoplifting and car break-ins?	Yes
Arrest and prosecute street-level fentanyl dealers?	Yes
Prioritize diversion instead of incarceration for street-level fentanyl dealers?	No
Investigate, arrest, and prosecute fentanyl distribution ringleaders (like organized crime and cartel members)?	Yes
Arrest and prosecute street-level vendors of suspected stolen goods?	Yes
Investigate, arrest, and prosecute the leaders of theft rings and fencing operations?	Yes
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:

I support Senator Wiener's recent Senate Bill 925 to prevent the sale of stolen goods on the streets of SF. Food vendors are a bit more complicated, and I would need to learn more about the issue.

Drugs

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

It is incredibly tragic to see people suffering from drug addiction and our overdose deaths, and illicit public use has a resulting negative impact on our kids, our elders, our businesses, and more. San Francisco must be evidence-based from both a public health & public safety perspective, and both save lives now and create pathways out of addiction.

Specifically, this looks like providing immediate access to outreach workers and addiction treatment services, implementing evidence-based harm reduction strategies like naloxone distribution to save lives, and enforcing public health and safety laws when necessary.

We also need to dramatically expand evidence based treatment options and explore more abstinence based solutions in San Francisco, such as sober housing. We should also look at innovative evidence based approaches to disrupt drug markets, such as drug-market intervention that worked in High Point, North Carolina.

Finally, if the evidence shows there is drug tourism, we need to end it.

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.

I need to talk to a lot more experts & do a literature review to form my view on this. From what I have read so far, there are several strong meta-analysis and randomized control trials showing evidence for safe consumption sites, and their role in overdose prevention.

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?

Again, I need to talk to a lot more experts & do a literature review to form my view on this. From what I have read so far, I would agree that if we had sobering centers we should also implement zero-tolerance for public consumption of illegal drugs like fentanyl & heroin.

Should fentanyl dealing be penalized differently from dealing other drugs?

Yes, fentanyl is extremely potent, and responsible for the vast majority of our spiking overdose deaths in SF. We should arrest those who are dealing, and work with the state & federal government to disrupt the entire fentanyl supply chain, while supporting those who experience addiction, expanding access to life saving narcan / methadone / buprenorphine and creating pathways out of addiction.

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, people are suffering, and it is not compassionate that it takes 8 5150 holds per year to conserve someone in a longer term way who is at harm to themselves or others.

Reforms should focus on clarifying legal criteria & procedures for involuntary mental health holds so that they are used with respect for patient rights.

We need improved coordination between law enforcement and mental health professionals, as they work to provide timely support and crisis de escalation for people who are suffering in the streets. In addition, we need to expand the number of mental health beds available at SF General Hospital, and work in tandem with substance abuse experts, for substance abuse based co-morbidity, such as meth-induced psychosis.

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

Government should ensure that everyone can access essential services, like treatment and support. It is a delicate balance of providing immediate support, as well as tools & capacity to gain independence.

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.

It depends on the case, but I generally think that it is not compassionate to allow those on the street going through acute psychiatric problems to stay on the streets without help — currently, it takes 8 5150s per year to conserve someone for longer; that is too many. I understand there is a history of inhumane conditions in mental health asylums that led to a deinstitutionalization movement, and we need to learn from and be mindful of these concerns while constructing and operating new facilities, but not be completely hamstrung by these concerns.

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

To prevent abuse, San Francisco must establish clear legal criteria and procedures for initiating and maintaining holds. Medically, comprehensive assessments by qualified professionals should determine the necessity of treatment, with individualized plans focusing on stabilization and rehabilitation. In tandem, we need an independent oversight body to monitor patient care and safeguard rights.

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, we should reform the board to prioritize & implement evidence-based approaches that give all kids the opportunity to achieve their fullest potential. In addressing student achievement gaps, the board should look towards successful policies such as implementing the science of reading, individualized tutoring, specialized ELL programs for recent Hispanic immigrants, and incentivizing experienced teachers to teach in our most challenging schools. We should look towards the most similar & highest performing districts to SFUSD based on data (e.g. Long Beach and more), analyze their governance, and consider solutions.

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'm a public school kid personally, and a strong advocate for finding ways to raise the ceiling (excellence), while also raising the floor (opportunity) in education.

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, and I was the only of SF Examiner's "3 Frontrunners in the D11 race" to support the recall of these three School Board members.

The three now recalled School Board Commissioners were focused more on renaming schools than reopening them, and their policies were harmful for all children, especially the most marginalized students of color they were purporting to help.

Moreover, by putting so much attention on performative progressivism, these three school board members distracted from real fiscal & operational issues in the district, including the payroll system crisis, enrollment shortfall, and budget crises that need to be addressed for SFUSD to be on a long term footing to continue to serve its mission for the most marginalized students who can't afford to opt out into private schools.

Should San Francisco…	Yes	No
Offer Algebra in 8th grade to students who want it?	Yes
Offer Algebra in 7th grade to students who want it?	Yes
Offer AP courses to high school students who want them?	Yes
Require schools to improve student performance, and fire teachers who consistently underperform?	Yes

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?

Right now, it takes too many permits & too long to start a new business in San Francisco. I would dramatically cut the number of permits, the time, and cost to start a new business, and also work with the Office of Economic & Workforce Development to actively recruit and try to provide grants to incentivize new small businesses & help them succeed.

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

I support permitting most businesses by-right, since it reduces barriers for small businesses and revitalizes Mission, Ocean, Geneva, and Randolph in D11 and our downtown areas.

Certain categories should require special approval due to potential community impacts (e.g., businesses with significant environmental risks, adult entertainment, and those selling controlled substances), but I think SF has historically erred far too much on the side of rules.

Any approval processes should be clear, consistent, and time-limited to avoid becoming de facto bans, prevent corruption, and ensure that we are incentivizing local business.

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 agree we should increase the number of permits. San Francisco has tended towards protectionist policies that stymy more vibrant commercial corridors. This is especially true at a time that the city is economically rebounding from COVID, and needs more vibrancy.

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 need to learn more about this issue from evidence. What I do know is that there is strong opposition from the D11 community to more cannabis dispensaries in D11 because there is a disproportionate number down there relative to other parts of the city.

Should San Francisco…	Yes	No
Reduce the time to obtain all permits to open a new business to no more than 3 months	Yes
Reduce the cost of obtaining permits to open a new business	Yes
Reduce the number of activities which must obtain permits, and expand the number of by-right activities	Yes
Try to attract businesses of all sizes to the City?	Yes

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, we have a housing affordability crisis, that stems from a supply shortage. Many San Franciscans are being pushed out of their homes, and many, as a result of paying rent, are left struggling to meet other basic needs.

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

Yes, housing prices are set by supply and demand. Fundamentally, a shortage of housing relative to the demand from prospective buyers or renters increases prices, and there is ample research showing that when housing supply increases, prices drop (e.g. recently in Austin, and closer to home, Sacramento). In SF our housing market has rent control, Prop 13, and other areas that change the way the market operates.

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?

San Francisco's likely failure to achieve certification presents an opportunity for much-needed change. With the state poised to take over local land use regulation, we must use this intervention as a chance to overcome long standing obstacles to housing development. We should push for upzoning, streamlined approval processes, increased funding for affordable housing, and reduced regulatory barriers that have historically hindered housing production — and consequently, we can finally break the gridlock that has exacerbated the city's housing crisis, allowing for increased density, more affordable options, and a more inclusive urban environment.

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

Yes.

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

Yes.

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

Yes.

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)

Yes.

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.

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)	Yes
Renovate your home (update bathroom, kitchen, etc)	Yes
Demolish your home and redevelop it into multifamily housing	Yes
Redevelop things like parking lots and single-story commercial into multifamily housing	Yes
Build subsidized housing	Yes
Build market-rate housing	Yes
Build homeless shelters (including navigation centers and "tiny homes")	Yes

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. Free MUNI is not fiscally prudent, especially at a time when MUNI is facing a ~$272M funding gap per year. I personally take MUNI every day — the 14/R, 29, 49. We should listen to rider surveys & increase safety, reliability, speed, and frequency of new lines to increase revenue for MUNI & make sure costs are efficient.

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?

Fare evasion is a huge problem for both SFMTA and BART leading to an estimated $15-25M of lost revenues for BART every year at a time when its budget is in freefall. I support fare enforcement & accountability, but I also want to make sure that the policies to prevent fare enforcement are effective ROI wise, so I would need to do more research to understand the most high ROI policies (e.g. I'm not sure prosecution is the best method).

In general, part of people's decline of trust in SF government is that they feel that their tax money isn't being spent wisely, and holding SFMTA, BART, and all public institutions accountable is important.

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

I agree with this requirement but again, want to be careful about execution. I want to ensure that the way we conduct enforcement does not exceed the revenue that the Muni & Bart acquire.

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

Yes, if done correctly. Biking is an excellent way of getting around and is sometimes faster than other methods such as the bus or even cars. The problem is it is often too unsafe to be fully utilized. In D11, currently only 3% of residents bike to work, as compared to 7% citywide, and road quality is poor, so need to be thoughtful about the placement of these bike lanes and make sure roads are also re-paved.

	Yes	No
Do you support banning cars from central downtown areas and certain retail or residential corridors?
Do you support congestion pricing?	Yes
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?	Yes
Should Uber, Lyft, Waymo, and other ride-share services be permitted to operate in San Francisco?	Yes
Should San Francisco allow more bike share and scooter share companies?	Yes
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)?	Yes

If you want to explain any positions above, please feel free:

Though I don't personally own a car and take MUNI and bike, in D11 54% of residents drive cars to work, so on the first question, I would say it depends. I'm extremely supportive of more vibrancy, love the downtown First Fridays and am organizing streets festivals this summer as well. It would depend on the case!

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?

As someone who ran a school network with >70 employees with a 7 figure budget, and now serve on the board of a $40m early childhood non-profit, I would apply my business experience to balancing revenues and costs.

On the revenue side, our single largest tax area is property taxes, then our business tax, which has 14 parts and is based on payroll rather than sales which makes it vulnerable to remote work; we need to restructure it. The consensus business tax measure on the ballot this fall is a start, but a lot more more reform needs to happen.

Fundamentally, we need to restructure downtown to make it more resilient — including a university extension, hospital extension, or whatever it takes. For example, biotech is currently headquartered in either Dogpatch / Potrero or South San Francisco — how might we convert parts of downtown to biotech space?

On the cost side - of the 14.6B of mayor's budget, most of that is spoken for and there's only $2.3B of non-mandated, non-addback funding. Here's what I would not cut

• public safety - SFPD, deputy sheriffs, DA; anything that makes kids go hungry.

Here's what I would cut:

• Corrupt nonprofit contracts

• Department of Building Inspections

• Unnecessary commissions

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	Yes		Yes
Street cleanliness			Yes
Homeless services			Yes	Yes
Affordable housing	Yes
Parks		Yes
Roads	Yes
Bus, bike, train, and other public transit infrastructure			Yes
Schools	Yes		Yes
Medical facilities
Drug prevention and treatment	Yes
Arts

If you want to explain any positions above, please feel free:

Budgets should drive outcomes, and a lot of SF's outcomes are poor. In the last ten years SF's budget has doubled, but services have definitely not improved by 2x, and in the last few years the population has declined. That's why I included "but badly" in many areas.

There is a real opportunity to audit, & cut fraud, waste, and corruption from different departments, and also pass ordinances that streamline certain areas so that departments function more efficiently.

For some areas, such as Medical facilities & Arts, I would need to learn more and go through the P&Ls and specific contracts with a fine toothed comb.

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've been in SF ten years. I went to public schools, and was lucky to get financial aid at Harvard, where I was a volunteer 4th / 5th / 8th grade civics teacher shocked & saddened by the achievement / opportunity gap. I moved to San Francisco 10 years ago to improve education, spending three years in higher education, and the last five improving early childhood education. I love San Francisco— there's no place like it in the world with the beauty, diversity, history, and people. I hope to raise my future kids here.

What do you love most about San Francisco?

SF is the room where it happens — for innovation, for politics. I love the diversity & history — last week I gardened with an elderly black woman who was on the front lines of the AIDS epidemic; that same day I talked to an older 3rd generation Irish immigrant who drives a street cleaner for DPW; the next day I talked to an older Japanese woman whose parents were sent to the internment camps. And many of my favorite people in the world live here.

What do you dislike the most about San Francisco?

Poor governance, affordability, and tribalism — the fact that we are one of worst governed cities in America. The fact that people can't afford to live here, and it's not family friendly. I also always feel sad about the transit system and how it doesn't have the accessibility of NYC or Shanghai or Taipei, unlike NYC where all classes of society intermix. I really dislike the tribalism — I personally care most about being evidence based and outcomes driven to make people's lives better.

It is incredible how much better things could be. That's why I'm running for the SF Board of Supervisors!

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

I currently serve as a Board Member for the largest Head Start network in SF, Wu Yee Children's Services, with centers in Excelsior & OMI, as an Advisor to Higher Ground Education (the largest Montessori school network in the US) that now oversees Tinycare, and as Finance Director for the SF Democratic County Central Committee.

As a citizen, I have volunteered at Glide Memorial Church and co-organized events uplifting the AAPI community, such as a Lunar New Year Lantern Festival in District 11, Chow Fun Asian Restaurant Tour in Excelsior & OMI, and more.

In District 11 I'm also a member of New Mission Terrace Neighborhood Association, helped Excelsior Action Group raise $30,000 for their new Excelsior Neon sign, and more.

Thank you

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