Moe Jamil
- Office: Board of Supervisors, District 3
- Election Date: November 5, 2024
- Candidate: Moe Jamil
- Due Date: February 28, 2024
- Printable Version
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 running for Supervisor because San Francisco needs common sense solutions to get our city to get Back to Basics.
We know what’s important: keeping our streets safe and clean, helping small businesses and protecting the character of our neighborhoods. Supervisor Aaron Peskin has done a great job, but terms limits mean we need experienced leadership to step up. A Deputy City Attorney for 10 years, I know City Hall inside and out.
My wife, Annie Yang, and I are proudly raising our children in District 3. For the past decade, I’ve served this district on the boards of Russian Hill Neighbors, Union Square Foundation, San Francisco Heritage, and Middle Polk Neighborhood Association. As Supervisor, I’ll stand with our neighbors and local businesses to fight for San Francisco.
Our best days are yet to come for us and our children, but we must get Back to Basics. This neighborhood is my home, and as Supervisor, I will fight every day for the betterment of our city and for accountability in local government. That is why I am running for San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors. I will put San Franciscans first.
What is your #1 policy goal?
The most important issue in District 3 – and across the city – is holding the city government accountable to serve the needs of San Francisco residents. These needs include keeping our streets clean and safe and ensuring that our government, city department heads, the Mayor and members of the Board of Supervisors are responsive to the concerns of citizens. Many District 3 residents, and San Francisco residents at large, are unhappy and feel that city departments have written them off because their disapproval of the status quo is inconvenient. I want to change that and ensure City Hall is responsive to our needs.
How will you build the coalition and political capital to enact your #1 goal?
I will never forget that my role as Supervisor is to be a voice for my community in City Hall. I’m running for this seat because after years of community advocacy on multiple neighborhood boards and service as a deputy city attorney engaging in city operations from within, I want to be the voice for our neighbors' concerns. As a Supervisor, I will bring City Hall to the people and build coalitions of neighborhood associations, CBOs, nonprofits and more. I will work with my colleagues on the board and whomever the Mayor is to make the changes that San Franciscans are demanding.
Will the power of the office of Board of Supervisors, District 3 be enough to achieve this goal?
Because 6 out of 11 votes are required to pass legislation, it’s necessary for Supervisors to work together to pass legislation that represents the interests of residents across the city. I look forward to being one out of 11 members of the Board of Supervisors and collaborating with my colleagues to craft policy that will set the direction of the city. I will also work with whomever the Mayor is.
What are your #2 and #3 policy goals?
Supporting preservation of our neighborhoods and affordable housing, especially our rent controlled housing stock.
Supporting public safety (including business safety) and cleaning up our neighborhoods.
Will the power of the office of Board of Supervisors, District 3 be enough to achieve these goals?
Again, it’s necessary to work together with Supervisorial colleagues and whomever the Mayor is to create changes. I look forward to being one out of 11 members of the Board of Supervisors who craft policy and collaborate to get the city back on track. I will view my fellow members of the Board as allies, but my pledge is to the residents and businesses of this city.
What is an existing policy you would like to reform?
I believe the city should do more to hold contractors accountable when they’ve received taxpayer dollars to execute a contract. Billions of dollars are at stake and the Mayor and Board must mind the store.
What is an "out there" change that you would make to state/local government policy, if you could? (For example: adding at-large supervisors, changing how elections work, creating a Bay Area regional government, etc.)
I think exploring what the Central and Southern Waterfront neighborhoods would look like by bringing down 280 north of Cesar Chavez as well as exploring the Vision Blvd Project for bringing down the Central Freeway. New tree lined blvds with timed lights for vehicle circulation could open up room for lots of new housing without disturbing established neighborhoods. Bringing down the Embarcadero Freeway was controversial at the time but has been a huge positive - same could be said about the Market Octavia plan when we brought down part of the Central Freeways. These freeways divide neighborhoods and removing them with the right community engagement could be a big win for the City and our neighborhoods.
Tell us one thing you think needs to change in SF that the average voter wouldn't know about.
When we hit a budget deficit, the City necessarily has to make cuts to the budget and to services. Rather than asking fundamental questions to audit our spending priorities, City leadership asks department heads to cut a percentage off of their operating budget without regard to effectiveness and priority. This method is inefficient and does not take a holistic look at where cuts can be made while maintaining the highest level of service to the taxpayer. We need new leadership from whomever the Mayor is in 2025 to partner with the board to move off this approach of across-the-board-cuts without giving serious thought to the effectiveness of those cuts.
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 dealers selling poison to our neighbors in open air drug markets and fencing operations existing with impunity. Allowing people to die by the hundreds on our streets should never be tolerated. There has been a complete lack of accountability from the top on this issue. Nobody has been fired or held to account. I will work with whomever the Mayor is to right this wrong.
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 am the #1 proponent in this race for supporting our public safety departments and the officers who protect our city. These offices have been experiencing a staffing crisis for years – affecting their ability to protect our communities. Public safety jobs have become increasingly more demanding, leading to even higher turnover. I support Supervisor Dorsey’s efforts to re-establish a minimum police staffing requirement with the goal of becoming fully staffed (2,182 officers) by 2028. This should be done through the legislative process. I would also do the same for all our healthcare providers, 911 operators, our firefighters and City positions that are part of the San Francisco Building Trades. I will support investing in all of our first responders, skilled trades and healthcare professionals while demanding accountability from all city departments.
What solutions might exist to improve public safety that don’t involve expanding the size of SFPD?
I support Proposition E because it will give the Police Department tools to protect our communities. In my years of experience working with community organizations, I’ve heard the frustrations of my neighbors and local businesses as our police department struggles to recruit and retain officers to protect our communities. Prop E as another pathway to strengthening our public safety departments and put San Francisco back on track.
What three things would you change about how SFPD operates?
-
Our rules for police conduct should match our neighboring and peer jurisdictions.
-
Fund retention programs like housing and child care assistance.
-
Build trust between residents and police officers.
Do you support policies commonly referred to as “defund the police”? Why or why not?
No, I don’t support defunding the police and never have. I believe that there are calls for service that should be responded to by departments outside law enforcement. We should also be appropriately funding our police department and ensuring transparency, accountability and oversight of law enforcement departments.
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 did support the recall of Chesa Boudin because the responsibilities of the District Attorney’s office were simply not getting done.
| 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:
Drugs
In general, how should the City handle people who are abusing drugs on City sidewalks?
Rampant drug addiction is a mental health crisis that is killing our neighbors. The city should go after individuals who are selling drugs and perpetuating this crisis. The city should also explore a conservatorship program to help individuals who cannot help themselves until they are able to reintegrate into society.
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 consumption sites have been proven to be effective in other countries, currently there's no legally permissible pathway to creating safe consumption sites in San Francisco. If the law at the state and federal level were to change, then I would support equitable distribution of safe consumption sites throughout the city. I’ve heard residents' concerns around safe consumption sites being concentrated in parts of the city that are disproportionately affected by open air drug markets like Lower Nob Hill or the Tenderloin.
Some have argued that safe consumption sites (or sobering centers) are only viable if they are paired with implementing zero-tolerance for public consumption of illegal drugs like fentanyl and heroin. Do you agree or disagree with this view?
I agree with this view. I believe that drug-addicted individuals don’t want to be consuming drugs on the street and would likely prefer to be indoors and out of the elements. We don’t need to scapegoat drug users because of city departments’ failed ability to shut down the open-air drug markets happening daily on our streets.
Should fentanyl dealing be penalized differently from dealing other drugs?
Yes, it should. Penalties for drug dealing should be proportional to the level of harm the drug has inflicted on our community. The use of fentanyl and methamphetamine on our streets in rampant and individuals with substance abusive disorders are often unable to help themselves get clean and on the path to a more stable life. City leadership should address the availability of these drugs in our city by cracking down on the daily open-air drug markets. Rather than arresting users, who are victims themselves, I will empower our public safety departments to arrest and prosecute dealers and investigate the sources of drugs entering our city.
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?
We need to hold city departments and city agencies accountable for enforcing the laws we have. It's inexcusable that in a city with a budget of $14 billion dollars we have not figured out how to supply enough mental health beds, get folks who desperately need treatment into treatment and hold accountable the agencies and individuals who are responsible for performing these functions.
What is the role of government in providing care for those who cannot care for themselves?
The City should explore a better conservatorship process. Patients in the throes of substance use lack the capacity to make rational decisions due to the coercion of their disease and therefore lack the autonomy to be able to refuse help. Individuals who consistently decline to participate in their recovery process, whether due to substance use or mental health issues, should not be permitted to leave the hospital against medical advice without a legal release. It’s often said that addicts must be an active participant in their recovery or it won’t work. However, the ability to rationally exercise their rights and self-interest often prohibits them from understanding the scale of the issue and keeps them from getting the help they need. Conservatorship until these individuals regain capacity is essential to their well-being and public health and safety.
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. Someone who enters into conservatorship should be given services to help them get stabilized. They will be able to exit the conservatorship once they can show they will no longer be a danger to themselves or other San Francisco residents.
If you agree with this view, please outline some guardrails and oversight the City must provide to prevent abuse.
Regular updates should be reported to the Homeless Oversight Committee by the City’s Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing. The Committee should review the status and progress of policies and use reports to create policy, select service providers and refine the city’s programs. We also need to hold our Mayor and department heads accountable.
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?
As students and teachers recover and try to make up for the learning time that was lost during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Board of Education has a responsibility to support the needs of our schools. The Board of Education should prove their commitment to accountability and transparency by showing taxpayers how their dollars are being spent to support the education and well-being of our students. The Board should foster a culture of engagement with the community, faculty, community organizations and other stakeholders to ensure our investments are being used effectively to close gaps in education, recruit and retain quality teachers and increase opportunities for historically underserved students.
Some parents prefer their children attend religious schools, others prefer magnet schools for specific skills (like the Ruth Asawa School for the Arts or Lowell), and others prefer charter schools with nontraditional curricula. Do you think all of these educational options should be available to students in San Francisco?
Yes.
Did you support the recall of Board of Education members Collins, López, and Moliga? Please explain why you did or did not support the recall of each member.
Yes. At the time, many parents were frustrated with the policies being taken up by the Board of Education while students had been out of school for over a year and the effects of virtual learning were causing a decline in childrens’ mental health. We were all dealing with one of the biggest crises of our time and the Board simply wasn’t focused on helping getting schools and students back on track. Ultimately, public opinion turned against the Board and voters were ready to take action to create change.
| 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 | |
I would also note that I don’t believe that standardized tests are the sole or accurate measure of student success and I would not use those scores as a basis of employment decisions.
Small Business
What would you change about the process of new retail business formation in San Francisco?
When a retail business applies for permitting, there should be a single point of contact they’re assigned to at the City. That representative would be tasked with shepherding the applicant through every step of the process and help answer any questions.
Should all businesses be permitted by-right? If not, which business categories do you think should require special government approval?
No, not all businesses should be permitted by-right. For example, our neighborhoods would be terrible if we just let chain stores open everywhere. We wouldn’t want adult entertainment everywhere either. Business permitting should be streamlined and made easier for business owners wherever possible, but it’s the government’s responsibility to ensure a business does not harm public welfare, cause a nuisance and is consistent with the city’s General Plan and zoning standards.
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 support an increase in available ABC permits. We need to get our nightlife districts back like SOMA and Lower Polk.
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?
No, I do not believe that the city should reduce the number of permits available for cannabis businesses. While I agree there are currently too many cannabis businesses operating in the city and companies are suffering from oversaturation of the market, eventually, the market will regulate itself without the city’s involvement.
| 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:
Our current controls were just revisited and are up to date. I supported this effort after a months-long process engaging with stakeholders.
Housing
Do you believe that San Francisco has a shortage of homes? Why or why not?
I am the only candidate in this race that has worked on the ground with the community and developers to get housing built that was supported by residents and merchants along the Polk and Van Ness corridor. We are paying the consequences of decades-long free money that caused inflation which in turn caused the Fed to raise interest rates to current levels. In October, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that there are 52,600 units – or 12.7% of the city’s total homes – sitting vacant. We need to get those units occupied. We have thousands of units of stuck entitlement inventory. I will work to put our skilled and trained San Francisco workforce back to work at prevailing wages and get those approved projects built. I support reopening the Central Soma plan for housing instead of office space now that COVID has changed the market dynamics. These plans will produce more than enough housing to meet our needs without destroying our neighborhoods with this administration's failed one-size-fits-all housing policies.
Do you believe that housing prices are set by supply and demand constraints?
Why or why not?
Yes, and price controls. Market rate housing is determined by supply and demand. Affordable housing units and rent-stabilized apartments are offered at lower-than market rates to help support the overwhelming majority of District 3 residents. Preservation of this precious stock of affordable housing is vital to so many residents’ livelihood. Furthermore, our city should look into doubling down on our efforts to acquire rent controlled buildings when available to further provide housing options for those priced out of market rate housing; firefighters, police officers, teachers, students, etc. This is the most cost effective way to produce, protect and preserve affordable housing.
San Francisco will almost certainly fail its Housing Element certification, which will cause the State to take over local land use regulation. What should we do now?
We don’t need state intervention in housing because ultimately it will backfire. The goals outlined in the City’s approved Housing Element are simply not realistic and have set us up to fail. With a $19 billion dollar funding gap, it is nearly impossible to financially meet our goal unless the state or federal government provides a massive increase of available dollars. As Supervisor, I will work with the state and federal government to secure as much funding as possible to fill the funding gap and meet our housing goals.
Should homeless shelters be exempt from CEQA, Discretionary Review, and Conditional Use permits?
No, the public should have the opportunity and the right to express their opinions or concerns on the viability or suitability of a potential site in their neighborhood. I believe that the review and permitting process should be timely, but there should always be a mechanism for public input to projects coming into their community.
Should subsidized Affordable housing be exempt from CEQA, Discretionary Review, and Conditional Use permits?
No, the public should have the opportunity and the right to express their opinions or concerns on the viability or suitability of a potential development in their neighborhood. I believe that the review and permitting process should be streamlined, but there should always be a mechanism for public input to projects coming into their community.
Should market rate housing be exempt from CEQA, Discretionary Review, and Conditional Use permits?
No. See above.
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 support density decontrol within existing height limits only. I do not support increasing height limits as current local and state laws already allow for height increases in many scenarios. It is important that we return to planning that values urban form and context and high architectural standards.
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?
No.
| 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:
Expansions should be reasonable and not unaffordable monster homes that don’t add units. We should not support demolition of existing housing. We did it once with the destruction of Fillmore and Japantown and it was a colossal failure. A lot of attention has been paid to pre-entitlement during the zoning process but not enough to the post-entitlement process of securing permits and other city approvals where the process is byzantine and unnecessarily complicated. This is due to decades long failures by Mayors to hold City departments accountable to get things done properly.
Transit Infrastructure
Should Muni be free for everyone? If so, what other programs would you take money from in order to fund this change, or what new tax would you propose to fund it?
I think the current fee structure for MUNI is sufficient. I do not support new taxes to fund MTA. MTA needs to be less top heavy and more financially accountable. They waste way too much money on public works contractors with cost overruns and lack of accountability.
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 theft, however it is incredibly common. There’s even a twitter account that sends alerts about the location of nearby fare enforcement officers and police officers to help riders avoid being fined. With the level and variety of crime San Franciscans experience day-to-day, I do not believe that we should be using our limited resources to go after riders who avoid paying the bus fare to get to work or school. However, there may be a better system for collecting fare to ensure payment is being received.
Recent State funding requires Muni and BART to enforce fare payments in order to receive that funding; do you agree with this requirement?
Yes and I don’t think this will change realistically.
Should it be the policy of San Francisco to build a citywide protected bike lane network? Why or why not?
Yes with proper community input and process to ensure that the needs of businesses, transit rides and drivers are taken into consideration.
| 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:
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?
Cities all across the state are facing upcoming budget deficits and difficult decisions running the gamut of city services will come before the Mayor and Board of Supervisors. I support the conversion of unused office space into housing units to help bring people back downtown, support struggling businesses and restore tax revenues.
| 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:
The problem is not with the amount we are spending - the problem is the complete lack of accountability from City Departments on how money is spent and results in production. As Supervisor, I will work with whoever the Mayor is to tackle this problem and get our funding priorities fixed.
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 lived in San Francisco for 22 years. My father immigrated to the City in 1966 from Jordan without much money or education – but with a dream for a better life. He joined a union, hung off skyscrapers downtown and ultimately built a small transportation business with my mother’s help long before rideshare apps were imaginable. My parents were life-long tenants and small business owners who taught me that with hard work you can create a better future for yourself and your family. Although much has changed in our city since the days when they paved their way, I want to make sure those same opportunities are available for future generations. My children were born in District 3, are being raised here and as a 10 year resident of the District and committed community leader, I am invested in these neighborhoods and committed to getting things done.
What do you love most about San Francisco?
The people and the neighborhoods. I love the amazing uniqueness of every neighborhood in San Francisco, but the people are what make San Francisco great. We are a dynamic, innovative city that is constantly reimagining itself while preserving the history, culture and institutions that make us special.
What do you dislike the most about San Francisco?
I don't believe in the negativity spread by Doom Loopers. We are a great city and I see the potential to make us even better. I will fight every day for San Francisco.
Tell us about your current involvement in the community (e.g., volunteer groups, neighborhood associations, civic and professional organizations, etc.)
I sit on the boards of several community organizations including Russian Hill Neighbors, San Francisco Heritage, and the Union Square Foundation. Additionally, I am the former Chair of the Middle Polk Neighborhood Association and Co-founder of the Van Ness Corridor Neighborhoods Council made up of ten neighborhood organizations along Van Ness Avenue focused on improving outcomes relating to planning, land use, public safety and transportation.
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.