Myrna Melgar
- Office: Board of Supervisors, District 7
- Election Date: November 5, 2024
- Candidate: Myrna Melgar
- Due Date: February 28, 2024
- Printable Version
Thank you for seeking GrowSF's endorsement for the November 5, 2024 election! GrowSF believes in a growing, beautiful, vibrant, healthy, safe, and prosperous city via common sense solutions and effective government. Our work includes running public opinion polls to understand what voters want, advocating for those changes, and ensuring that the SF government represents the people.
The GrowSF endorsement committee will review all completed questionnaires and seek consensus on which candidates best align with our vision for San Francisco.
Please complete this questionnaire by February 28, 2024 so we have enough time to adequately review and discuss your answers.
Table of Contents
Your Goals
We'd like to get some details about your high-level goals and how you intend to use your elected office to achieve them.
Why are you running for Board of Supervisors, District 7?
I am running again because I want to continue serving my community. I think that my particular set of skills, knowledge and relationships have been useful for District 7 as we have navigated this period in the life of our city. Over the past four years, I have put people over politics and prioritized the very diverse needs of D7 through the pandemic and the recovery - and delivered on safety, support for small businesses, housing, transportation, support for families with children and seniors. We are not out of the woods just yet, but I am proud of my legislative record, and the constituent services my office has provided. I am also proud that despite the escalating toxicity in our public discourse, I have represented District 7 by maintaining civil and collaborative relationships with my colleagues and the mayor. If re-elected, the voters can be assured that I will continue to represent them in the same way, while continuing to deliver tangible results.
What is your #1 policy goal?
My top policy goals are decreasing homelessness and increasing housing supply that is affordable for everyone.
How will you build the coalition and political capital to enact your #1 goal?
Our current housing crisis has developed over decades of economic success that has added jobs while consistently underproducing housing. A combination of exclusionary zoning and banking/ financing policies from our federal government, produced much of the built housing landscape we see in San Francisco today. After the courts struck down this framework, a new political alliance in San Francisco was formed between wealthier homeowners, and racial/environmental justice activists who saw the redevelopment of the Fillmore, the proposed redevelopment of the Mission District (and the building of the BART stations) and the encroachment of the Financial District into Chinatown as a threat. Calls against the "Manhattanization" of San Francisco were seen as in the interests of both groups. By restricting development, the interests of those who wanted to keep low density, good views and property values in wealthier neighborhoods and folks who wanted to protect low-income and cultural enclaves from gentrification and displacement were aligned.
A new coalition has formed in the past few years, making me uniquely well-positioned to be an effective legislator in addressing our housing shortages. The climate crisis, an acute shortage of housing and changing expectations among younger residents, coupled with a racial reckoning prompted by the work of people like Richard Rothstein (the Color of Law), have begun to make inroads in how we make land use decisions. This coalition, which I know will work with me to decrease homelessness and increase affordable housing supply, includes younger racial justice activists who recognize that previous generations struck a bargain that did not really work in the best interest of the community, along with the developers, community leaders and younger residents, including my daughters and their generation, who would like to have a chance to live and set roots in San Francisco.
Will the power of the office of Board of Supervisors, District 7 be enough to achieve this goal?
No. All legislation needs a minimum of 6 votes, and implementation of any legislation needs the Executive branch's cooperation. We are most successful when we work together, which is why I have made it my mission as a member of the board over the past three years to maintain civil and collaborative relationships with my colleagues and the Mayor in service to the City and its residents.
What are your #2 and #3 policy goals?
My #2 policy goal is to improve public safety for all communities. We can do this by ensuring our first responders are fully staffed and well trained, with adequate facilities and equipment to do the job, while also ensuring they are held accountable by the current oversight structures.
My #3 policy goal is to build a child friendly city that provides universal childcare and excellent, equitable and accessible public schools.
Will the power of the office of Board of Supervisors, District 7 be enough to achieve these goals?
No. Please see my answer to this question under goal #1.
What is an existing policy you would like to reform?
There are many, but the most impactful would be to centralize IT and invest in it as we do in our buildings - having the expense of IT maintenance and upgrade built into the larger capital plan instead of leaving it up to departments who consistently consider it admin, rather that basic infrastructure, and therefore shortchange it. Some of our departments are running 20 year old databases and clunky, outdated systems. This leads to inefficiency, lack of transparency and shortchanges the public. Implementation of all policy goals would be easier.
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.)
In my fantasy world, I would consolidate all Bay Area transit agencies into one and link the production of office space to funding for transit and affordable housing on a regional level.
Tell us one thing you think needs to change in SF that the average voter wouldn't know about.
SF should have a City Manager, or a Deputy Mayor. This would improve operations and make the city government more effective, and less prone to corruption.
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?
There are too many guns. San Francisco's rate of firearm-related homicides has almost doubled since 2015, with rates increasing each year since 2019.
San Francisco currently has about 1,500 sworn police officers. Some have argued that the City should try to match the per-capita staffing levels that other large cities have. If we matched cities like New York or Paris, we would need to have about 3,400 sworn officers. What do you think of this idea? If you support it, how would the City fund recruitment at SFPD to achieve this staffing level? If you don't support it, what would you propose to do instead?
I support the staffing levels that 71.26% of the voters of San Francisco approved when they passed Prop E in 2020, which ties the number of officers to a report of need that the SF Police Department produces. The report should include overall staffing levels, overtime use, workload, public service objectives and other relevant information. As of the SFPD's last report, that number was 2,182 police officers.
Rather than focusing on a substantial increase in funding for police staffing, we need to address the recruitment and retention issues the department is experiencing. As of late January, the SFPD has over 250 funded vacant full-time positions, and even with recent increases in officer pay and retention bonuses, three of the police academy's most recent classes had less than 50 percent of the students the department had set as goals. We need to do more to incentivize people to become police officers before we consider increasing funding allocated to the department.
What solutions might exist to improve public safety that don't involve expanding the size of SFPD?
For starters, better use of technology, and shared technology between departments to foster greater collaboration (The DA's Office, the Sheriff, the Superior Court, and the Probation Department would go a long way in creating safer communities. We also need to properly invest in the equipment, technology and tools, such as drones, cameras, and safety vests that will allow the SFPD to do their jobs better. We need to train staff and implement community policing to build trust in high crime communities. The SFPD should also farm out C and some B calls to other agencies, such as Public Health, or the Homeless Outreach team. There is also an opportunity to hire civilian support for adequate activities that support the efficiency of the sworn officers, reducing the reliance on overtime for 24/7 staffing so that officers can get rest and have adequate work/life balance.
What three things would you change about how SFPD operates?
#1. Hire more women
#2. Hire officers who have language and cultural capacity, particularly Chinese and Spanish
#3. Decrease racial disparity in use of force incidents
Do you support policies commonly referred to as "defund the police"? Why or why not?
I think our police force is responsible for addressing too many social issues that are not necessarily appropriate for law enforcement, such as responding to crises for those dealing with mental illness or homelessness. Shifting these activities to other departments will allow police to deal with crime.
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 not take a position on the recall of the DA. I have concerns about recalls as a tool and wanted to leave it up to the voters to decide.
| 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:
Diversion programs should be focused on misdemeanors and first offenders. Street food vendors should be assisted, with language and cultural capacity, to come into compliance with health and safety codes before punitive measures.
Drugs
In general, how should the City handle people who are abusing drugs on City sidewalks?
Drug use should not be allowed openly on City sidewalks.
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.
Yes. I support the New York model of safe consumption sites coupled with services, but to also include the option of treatment when someone is ready.
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.
Should fentanyl dealing be penalized differently from dealing other drugs?
No- it should not be penalized differently, but selling it should be penalized accordingly.
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?
San Francisco does not make its own laws about conservatorship and institutionalization -we follow California State legislation.
What is the role of government in providing care for those who cannot care for themselves?
One of the most basic roles of government is to provide care for and protect those who cannot care for themselves, and help them succeed.
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.
We already do that. Our problem is the step after the crisis. We have a relatively small number of folks who end up in crisis at General Hospital. Once they are stabilized, they go back out on the street, where their physical and mental health deteriorates and they fall into crisis repeatedly. I support working with our State partners to fund facilities for folks after they have been stabilized, but before they are ready for supportive housing.
If you agree with this view, please outline some guardrails and oversight the City must provide to prevent abuse.
Our regulatory infrastructure, although not perfect, has evolved during the past few decades. If Prop 1 passes, the State and local governments must have robust and transparent policies and procedures, as well as compliance plans and regular audits to ensure oversight and prevent abuse.
I believe San Francisco needs more treatment beds, more outpatient resources, and more variety in its offerings so that people can immediately get the help they need when they are ready, and also have a safety net for folks who need long-term care.
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.
N/A
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, but it is not just the Board of Education that needs better accountability and performance... the administration needs it as well. Right now, the Board of Education must work with, support and hold the new Superintendent accountable for the structural changes that must be made in the district. The achievement gap, particularly in math, is wider than ever, and we are under-enrolled in many schools, leading to a structural deficit. We need to address this now, as the District is seeking voter approval for a capital bond, which it desperately needs for the maintenance of its buildings.
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?
We already have all those choices in San Francisco. Lowell is a comprehensive high school, not a magnet school, and I am grateful for it as my daughter is very happy there. I think the best option for San Francisco is to have excellent, high-performing schools with high expectations for all students in all neighborhoods. We are a well-resourced city, and our schools should reflect that reality.
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 did not take a position on the recall of the School Board members, again due to my concerns over the use of recalls and my desire to allow the voters to express their opinions.
| 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 (YES), and fire teachers who consistently underperform (NO)? | See below | See below |
If you want to explain any positions above, please feel free:
On firing teachers: San Francisco already has a severe shortage of credentialed teachers. One of the things the SFUSD must do is provide consistent, standardized teacher training, development, and support. Earlier this year, I visited schools in Japan and observed lesson study, a methodology widely integrated into elementary schools in Japan that is essentially teacher training, development and support. The results are quantifiable and outstanding. We should do more to support our educators rather than focusing our attention on weeding out those who are not meeting expectations.
Small Business
What would you change about the process of new retail business formation in San Francisco?
It should be less complicated, faster, more integrated and cheaper. Our current system makes it difficult for entrepreneurs who are not well-capitalized or don't speak English well. We can do much more to streamline the process and make it more transparent for those seeking a permit. For example, instead of scheduling inspections with multiple departments (DPW, DBI, Public Health), the City should build one system for permitting and require all departments to use it. This system should be online and include an online payment option for all fees, permits and licenses. There should be a time limit that is transparent and given to businesses for when their permits or inspections will be given or conducted.
Should all businesses be permitted by-right? If not, which business categories do you think should require special government approval?
I am not a fan of the use of conditional use for opening brick-and-mortar businesses because I think it is abused to cut down competition, which is ultimately not good for the consumer. Exceptions could be for businesses that can create a nuisance for neighbors (for example, a bar with a patio where patrons smoke next to apartment windows). Retail has dramatically changed in the past 15 years after introducing services like Amazon and Uber Eats! If we want to preserve the vibrancy of our commercial corridors and value our small businesses, we need more flexibility and innovation.
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 would increase them. San Francisco needs more fun, not less. If increased alcohol permits will allow for and support more spaces that gather community and help local businesses, we should increase them.
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?
We are still figuring out the regulatory environment for legal cannabis and dealing with the presence of the illegal market. It took decades to figure out a regulatory infrastructure for alcohol and tobacco, including trying prohibition, so I think it's ok for us to proceed cautiously to give the equity entrepreneurs a chance to get this market established as we adapt to legal recreational cannabis. That being said, in the long run, it may be that the needs and demands of the consumers that dictate a better way to regulate expansion, and not the restriction of permits.
| 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. See the previous answer on housing versus job creation.
Do you believe that housing prices are set by supply and demand constraints? Why or why not?
To an extent - there is also quality, location, age, etc.
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?
I disagree with this statement. We need to figure out how to work together and legislate changes to our code that comply with our unanimously approved Housing Element. We have taken strong steps towards removing barriers that will allow us to comply with the Housing Element, such as passing the Housing Constraints Legislation and creating Prop A, which will hopefully move us closer to building 1,500 new affordable housing units. There's a long way to go, but we still have time to tackle this foundational issue together.
Should homeless shelters be exempt from CEQA, Discretionary Review, and Conditional Use permits?
Yes, if temporary.
Should subsidized Affordable housing be exempt from CEQA, Discretionary Review, and Conditional Use permits?
Not CEQA, but yes to everything else.
Should market rate housing be exempt from CEQA, Discretionary Review, and Conditional Use permits?
Not CEQA, but yes to everything else.
Should San Francisco retain, loosen, or even abolish the existing limits on height, density, and bulk for residential buildings? (ie taller, denser, and fewer/reduced setbacks)
San Francisco is currently reviewing all of these things, particularly in the West Side, as is consistent with our unanimously approved housing element. I support this process, and will ensure that it works for our community to the best of my abilities. I have consistently supported policies that will allow us to create more housing opportunities by allowing increased height and density in strategic locations.
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, particularly in single-family homes.
| 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:
But it is getting easier!
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, but it should be free for youth. I authored this legislation and am proud of its result. Most cities in the world with high quality, frequent, safe public transportation charge a fee but make it easy to pay for and provide a great product in return. San Francisco should do the same.
Some have argued that the cost of fare enforcement exceeds the benefit. Others have argued that not enforcing fare payment starves the Muni and BART systems of revenue, lowers quality of service, and makes the systems less safe. What is your position?
I am not a fan of punitive measures. It should be harder to skip paying the fare and easier to actually pay it.
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?
YES!! We should do everything we can to foster a city that allows for accessible, green transportation alternatives, and a protected bike lane network would do wonders to help foster more residents' use of emissions-free transit options.
| 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? | * | |
| Should San Francisco allow more bike share and scooter share companies? | * | |
| Should San Francisco allow bike and scooter share companies to operate with fewer restrictions on the number of vehicles they offer for rent, and in more places (including inside Golden Gate Park)? | x |
If you want to explain any positions above, please feel free:
We need better regulatory infrastructure for Uber, Lyft and Waymo because the State PUC does not do an adequate job, nor do they have our best interest at heart. The MTA needs to do a much, much better job of regulating and providing infrastructure for bike shares and scooters. Good potential regulation and infrastructure improvements could include creating designated parking and drop-off locations and developing a contract that includes a requirement for the implementation of technology to deter riding on the sidewalk.
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?
| 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:
Homeless services: We have not really implemented the funding from Prop C, so even though we have funding, it has not yet materialized into impactful programming.
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 have lived in San Francisco since 1980, except a few years when my family moved to Redwood City while my sister and I were in high school, and while I was in graduate school in New York. I love it here; it is my spiritual home, and it is where my family and friends are. My community and my people are here. My family came here during the Civil War in El Salvador. This City gave my family refuge from violence and an opportunity to thrive. I will always be grateful for that. We had family ties to San Francisco on both sides of my family for generations, which is why we came here, like so many other immigrants. This is the best city in the US. Our ability to reinvent ourselves and allow people to reinvent themselves, be entrepreneurial, and creative is what keeps me here and what motivated me to raise my family here.
What do you love most about San Francisco?
Our people and the dance scene.
What do you dislike the most about San Francisco?
The political infighting and finger pointing that has stalled our ability to make progress on the issues plaguing our community.
Tell us about your current involvement in the community (e.g., volunteer groups, neighborhood associations, civic and professional organizations, etc.)
Currently I am working as a Supervisor, so I am involved in everything, and my staff or I go to all the neighborhood association meetings and events for civic and professional organizations. I am a member of a dance group called Fogo Na Roupa (clothes on fire in Portuguese) and will dance in Carnaval in May with my daughters. Additionally, I volunteer with our neighborhood association for our annual picnic, and as a trainer for Emerge CA, an organization dedicated to electing more Democratic, pro-choice women to office.
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.