• Office: Board of Supervisors, District 5
• Election Date: November 5, 2024
• Candidate: Scotty Jacobs
• 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 5?

I believe that San Francisco is currently on the wrong path. As a fourth-generation resident of San Francisco, a renter, a member of the LGBTQ+ community, and one of the youngest people running across all districts up for election, it’s time to get the next generation of political leaders into City Hall. Dean Preston’s misguided ideology has inhibited our ability to make progress in addressing our most pressing issues; these include:

• making meaningful progress on increasing our housing stock, and significantly accelerating the construction of affordable housing units

• fully funding the police department and empowering law enforcement to actually enforce the law

• addressing the twin mental health and addiction crises gripping our streets

• closing the $800M budget shortfall so that we can save critical urban infrastructure like MUNI

I have already taken bold stances on policies, and won’t be afraid of doing the hard - but necessary - things in order to usher in San Francisco’s brightest days, which I still believe are ahead of us.

What is your #1 policy goal?

Our current Board of Supervisors has largely failed to make meaningful progress on the construction of new affordable housing units. It’s imperative that we rapidly increase the rate of construction so that San Francisco continues to be a city for all San Franciscans. I have published my plans on how I’ll make sure we get more units online, and faster.

I’ll establish a city-wide definition for form-based zoning corridors (density corridors) - parts of the City that already have the necessary infrastructure (like access to public transit and grocery stores) to support denser populations. I’ll create an expedited submission and approval process for these areas, and work to relax zoning regulations (these would include revised height restrictions and relaxed guidelines around the required mix of affordable and market-rate units). In order to get units built, we need to rely on private developers to partner with the City and ensure we are achieving desired outcomes (more units built efficiently) while also ensuring the economics of projects make sense for private-sector partners. creating a clear framework for where density corridors can (and should) exist, we can move past the NIMBYism while also building developers’ confidence in getting their projects approved to breaking ground.

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

I fully recognize that compromise and cooperation are fundamental and necessary elements of a high-functioning city government.

I’m running to be a rational voice for rational San Franciscans; one of my biggest qualms with our current leaders is that they put their own ideology before progress on the issues that matter most to constituents.

Will the power of the office of Board of Supervisors, District 5 be enough to achieve this goal?

No - but I will build the coalition to achieve my agenda. I’m committed to working across the aisle, and am confident that I can achieve my policy goals with the help of other moderate Supervisors - because I’ve already met with them and discussed how we’d go about implementing these policies. Current common-sense leaders are frustrated by the obstructionist behavior of folks like Dean Preston - and if we can get the right ideological composition onto the Board of Supervisors this November, we will begin to make progress on affordable housing. I also look forward to partnering with leaders at the State level to ensure we are coordinating efforts.

What are your #2 and #3 policy goals?

Public Safety

Our leaders have failed to make the streets of San Francisco a safe environment - for our families, for our businesses, and even for the people living on our streets. We need to take meaningful steps and action in order to make the streets of San Francisco safer. This includes:

• Fully funding the Police Department in order to ensure that we have adequate Force levels while also ensuring that we are investing in the training and resources necessary to ensure that our police operate with the highest degree of integrity. I believe that a fully funded Police Department plays a critical and necessary role in keeping our society safe. I will also work to pass legislation that allows law enforcement to actually pursue criminal behavior, and will do all I can to ensure that those who break the law are referred to the DA.

• Getting people living on the streets into shelters and transitional housing. I am in favor of implementing a Shelter or Sweep policy; this is in accordance with the current legal framework provided by the Ninth Circuit, which clarified that a rejection of an available shelter bed by someone living on the streets makes them no longer involuntarily homeless. If someone rejects the offer of a shelter bed, the City should be fully empowered to clear the encampment for the benefit of all who rely on being able to walk on our sidewalks safely.

• Fully addressing the breadth and severity of the addiction crisis on our streets.

  • I am in favor of referring convicted, undocumented drug dealers to ICE, and vehemently disagree with the rhetoric suggesting that doing so is a violation of our status as a sanctuary city. I am in favor of San Francisco continuing to be a sanctuary city, and am proud of our status as one; however, it’s deplorable to use sanctuary cities as a cover for illegal behavior that is ultimately poisoning our most vulnerable citizens on the backs of honest taxpayers.

  • If we are to deem addiction a medical condition, then we must treat it as such. Fortunately, we have known medicines with an extremely high success rate: methadone and buprenorphine. There are 196,000 doses of Narcan in the City budget as proposed by Mayor Breed, more than one for every four citizens of San Francisco, and significantly more on a per-capita basis when we consider the true population of drug users who may need these life-saving doses. I am in favor of temporary 5150 holds for those who receive City-provided Narcan; these holds will be intended to facilitate a warm handoff to services that can transition those experiencing addiction onto methadone and buprenorphine while they are at the beginning of the Narcan-induced withdrawal process.

Revitalize Downtown

Rebuilding our downtown into a bustling, vibrant, economic corridor is just one part of my plan to reinvigorate our urban center; I'll do that through creating a business-friendly environment that incentivizes companies to once again set up shop along Market Street. We created a litany of incentive structures that transformed our mid-Market corridor in the 2010s, and I believe we can take similar steps to kick-start the next period of economic growth in downtown San Francisco.

In order to fully get downtown back to its' former glory, though, we need to do more than simply lure companies back; we need to completely re-envision downtown as not just a work environment, but rather a live-work environment. I have several key strategies I'd put into action to make this vision become reality:

• Create an expedited rezoning and approval process for low-density Class B and Class C office spaces to be converted to residential units to increase housing density

• Increase the presence of law enforcement to reduce the quality-of-life crime that prevents small businesses from thriving

• Utilize by-right approvals where possible to expedite the bureaucracy we currently force entrepreneurs to navigate at City Hall

• Create financial incentives for people to move downtown

• Create entertainment zones (with a 4AM last call) that become urban cores for nightlife and events

• Leverage city resources to partner with events like First Thursdays, Drag Me Downtown, and more to create an even more vibrant arts and music scene

I do not subscribe to the Doom Loop narrative. Downtown's woes are fixable, and I am deeply committed to ensuring that it not only returns to its former vibrancy, but ultimately becomes the cultural heartbeat of the entire West Coast.

Will the power of the office of Board of Supervisors, District 5 be enough to achieve these goals?

No, of course not. Coalitions create change, and I can build one. The challenges facing the City of San Francisco are bigger than any single district. In order to address these highly complex issues, it will require leaders who are willing to compromise, collaborate, and ultimately agree to do what is right for the most San Franciscans, versus letting ideology prevent progress. For too long, we have let Dean Preston use highly ideological and equally impractical policy positions to obstruct the strategies that will lead to outcomes. I will change that when I’m elected in November.

What is an existing policy you would like to reform?

San Francisco does not have a revenue problem - but we do have a spending problem. Our current leaders have taken a tax-and-spend approach to governing, which has had a detrimental impact on the business community in San Francisco. I do not believe that we should be levying further taxes on the businesses of San Francisco - rather, we need to find ways to make our existing budget dollars stretch further by establishing a performance culture in City Hall. The gross mismanagement of our City budget in such a way that has created a non-profit industrial complex in City Hall is financial malfeasance.

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.)

We desperately need budget reform and a higher degree of accountability for the City’s outside vendors, who received $5.8B of taxpayer funds in 2023 - with zero meetrics related to their performance or use of these funds. On Day 1, I will audit all City vendors, and create a first-of-its-kind framework of performance metrics for these organizations - to ensure funds are being spent well and on the highest-impact programs and initiatives. As a private-sector business leader with experience leading nine-figure lines of business, I am uniquely positioned amongst the candidates in District 5 to lead this effort, and will be committed to responsibly stewarding our resources while not asking for San Franciscans to foot the bill for ineffective governance.

The Board of Supervisors are elected by districts but govern the entire city. This fractured electoral approach creates deep ideological divides that ultimately inhibit our ability to make progress on the most important issues facing San Francisco. With that, I would be in favor of moving to City-wide elections for the Board of Supervisors while also eliminating rank-choice voting. We currently have an electoral system that can prevent the truest will of San Franciscans from becoming reality in City Hall - and we must ensure that the most direct will of the voters is reflected in our government.

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

There are two things that voters need to know about - and that must change: zoning-based height restrictions and the lack of KPIs and measurement around how taxpayer dollars are used by outside City vendors.

The vast majority of San Francisco is zoned to 40 foot height restrictions, which creates real challenges for upzoning and increasing housing density. In order to meet our State-mandated housing commitments and also ensure that San Francisco does all it can to be socioeconomically inclusive for all San Franciscans, I am in favor of easing height restrictions in the parts of the City that are most primed (with transit infrastructure, access to grocery stores, and more) to support denser housing populations. By using form-based zoning to create density corridors (outlined in my housing plan here) to expedite approvals and ease restrictions, we can actually build the housing units that we desperately need.

We also must create clear performance benchmarks for the outside vendors who receive more than $5B of taxpayer dollars every year; to think that such a significant portion of our annual budget leaves City coffers with nothing more than crossed fingers is financially malfeasant. On Day 1, I will audit all City vendors, and create a first-of-its-kind framework of performance metrics for these organizations to ensure funds are being spent well and on the highest-impact programs and initiatives.

The Issues

Next, we will cover the issues that voters tell us they care about. We hope to gain a better understanding of your policy positions, and we hope that you use this opportunity to communicate with voters.

Public Safety

What is the #1 public safety issue today?

The addiction crisis gripping our streets is a product of our own leaders’ failed policies - and is the greatest public safety issue facing San Francisco. We’ve normalized the behavior of those experiencing addiction at the expense of our citizens. When families are zig-zagging across sidewalks to walk their children to school to avoid needles on streets; when the elderly don’t feel safe walking outside of their homes; and when small business owners are expected to merely accept the fact that those on our streets can steal from stores free from repercussions, we’ve put the needs of the neediest over the needs of the people. This failure to prioritize everyday San Franciscans started in City Hall, and will stop when I’m elected to City Hall.

I stand with law enforcement, and am going to take a tougher stance on making sure that we don’t simply enable those who are deep in the grips of addiction to merely exist on our streets in perpetuity in the name of compassion. Inaction is not compassion, and while compassion must continue to be a part of the conversation, so, too, must accountability. I will bring a more measured and balanced approach to policy-making to ensure that we maintain a compassionate stance toward those who most need our help while also ensuring that we restore safety to the streets and sidewalks of San Francisco.

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?

The currently-mandated staffing levels are not adequate - police staffing should be indexed to population on a per-capita basis, and we need to do more as a City to ensure we achieve our staffing goals. We’ve invested in strategies like increasing officer pay to help with recruitment, but we need to do more than just recruit officers; we must empower our officers with tactics like the increased technological investments included in Prop E, increase the punitive severity associated with quality-of-life crime (like retail theft and bipping), and invest in non-police alternatives (for example, community ambassadors) to ensure the police are pursuing the crime that necessitates a police response.

As I’ve stated, I don’t believe San Francisco has a revenue problem - we have a spending problem. I believe that we can have a fully funded police department without levying more taxes and without using the General Fund; on Day 1, I will audit our outside organizations for effectiveness and streamline the roster of entities receiving City funds. By removing duplicative services and recouping wasted taxpayer dollars from the nonprofit industrial complex in San Francisco, we can invest in vital services like the police department, which will restore faith in San Francisco’s ability to keep its’ streets and citizens safe.

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

State laws related to petty theft have essentially put an “open for business” sign on San Francisco, and I will work with our state-level representatives to get new laws (and reform existing ones like Prop 47) on the books that put an end to the organized criminal behavior that has been so detrimental to our business community and in our neighborhoods.

Prop E was a massive step in the right direction toward investing in the technological infrastructure that will make it easier to pursue, arrest, and charge criminals. I would be in support of the continued investment in technologies that aid law enforcement.

I also will support Supervisor Dorsey’s resolution to deport convicted, undocumented drug dealers. To suggest that doing so is a violation of our Sanctuary City status is, in my opinion, an offensive affront to not just those using our status as a Sanctuary City for legitimate reasons, but also to those experiencing addiction, in part, due to the profiteering behavior of undocumented criminals.

What three things would you change about how SFPD operates?

1. I will conduct a process audit and look to streamline the administrative bureaucracy that makes it difficult for us to get cadets through to their first beat. This includes outsourcing background checks.

2. I will restore and reform the DROP program to ensure we are able to have multiple options at our disposal - outside of purely recruiting and training new officers - to fully staff our police department at all times.

3. I would add more dispatchers to higher-volume call periods. Currently, there is reduced staffing during the overnight hours, which is when citizens most want to ensure they can quickly and efficiently reach the police.

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

Absolutely not. While I fully recognize that there is a troubling history and well-documented instances of police abuses of power (particularly as it relates to marginalized communities), I believe that the police are a vital part of a well-functioning society. We should absolutely invest in ongoing training for our police and refer bad actors to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law; we should also unequivocally support the police as a necessary part of how we rebuild confidence in San Francisco as a safe place to live, work, and conduct business.

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 and here’s why: Chesa Boudin was one of the worst things that happened to the City of San Francisco - and was reflective of a broader ultra-progressive ideology that has created many of the challenges that new leaders in City Hall will have to undo. While I was not eligible to vote in that election due to extenuating personal circumstances, I would have unequivocally voted to recall Chesa Boudin.

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?

San Francisco’s leaders have co-opted words like compassion and harm-reduction to justify why those using drugs on our streets should be permitted to do so; I fundamentally think that this is the wrong approach. Allowing individuals to use drugs on our streets - regardless of whether they are experiencing addiction - is unacceptable. We need to balance compassion with accountability, and we must do all we can to compel individuals to ultimately get treatment when it comes to ending their reliance on drugs. This includes tactics like arresting those who refuse to go to safe consumption sites and using 5150 holds for those who overdose and are revived using City-provided Narcan.

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.

Safe consumption sites are a part of the total strategy toward ending the addiction crisis on our streets. With or without their existence, we continue to see the number of overdoses occurring on our streets increase year-over-year. We must acknowledge that the mere presence of safe consumption sites isn’t enough to end the addiction epidemic - we must help those who are unable to help themselves begin the path toward recovery. Safe consumption sites should serve as an entry point on this path toward recovery, and on Day 1, I’ll audit the non-profits operating safe consumption sites to ensure they’re responsibly using taxpayer funds; I’ll also create a set of performance standards for these organizations to ensure they are actually setting people down a path toward recovery, and will work to redistribute City funding to organizations that ultimately are driving the most successful outcomes.

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?

To allow people to consume drugs anywhere they wish - but especially on the streets of San Francisco, is not the right outcome for anyone in San Francisco, including those experiencing addiction. We must compel those experiencing addiction to seek and ultimately utilize the billions of dollars of resources we are investing in ending the addiction epidemic. Safe consumption sites are a logical and essential place to co-locate resource access points. I agree with this view - there needs to be zero tolerance for the consumption of illegal drugs on the streets of San Francisco.

Should fentanyl dealing be penalized differently from dealing other drugs?

Yes. Fentanyl is unlike any drug to ever hit the streets of San Francisco: it is highly addictive and highly lethal. Thus, we must create harsher penalties for those profiteering off of the addiction crisis unfolding on our streets to ultimately end the addiction epidemic. I am in favor of harsher sentencing guidelines for those distributing fentanyl in San Francisco, and also believe we should be referring undocumented, convicted distributors fentanyl distributors to ICE.

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, we should. There are folks on our streets who are beyond their own ability to help themselves, and I do believe that there are circumstances that require intervention, including utilizing 5150 holds to ultimately get people the medicines, treatment, and resources that they need.

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

Proposition 1 was a major win for how we think about unleashing the financial resourcing necessary to provide care for folks - it will take local, state, and federal financial resources to create adequate shelter capacity, and also partnership with effective, accountable nonprofits to administer these resources.

Some have argued that San Francisco should place people who are experiencing mental health crises on the streets into involuntary mental health holds at psychiatric facilities. Do you agree or disagree with this view? Please explain why or why not.

I agree with this view - and believe we need to establish a clear framework for deciding when to utilize involuntary holds to ensure we are doing so in a consistent and humane manner. When someone is beyond their own ability to recognize the severity of their mental illness, they are also beyond their own ability to treat it. I believe that the City of San Francisco has a responsibility to all citizens - including those experiencing mental health crises - to ensure people who need treatment ultimately receive medical care.

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

I’ll create an independent, jointly appointed (between the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor’s Office) Board of medical professionals to develop clear definitions that will ultimately determine whether or not someone should be conserved. I will be a passionate advocate for investing in the necessary training for those on the ground to ensure that these frameworks are followed to the letter and that we eliminate any potential for abuse. I will also empower this independent Board to routinely audit cases.

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?

The entire SFUSD needs continued improvement; despite having some of the highest per-pupil funding, we still deliver some of the worst learning outcomes in the nation. This is unacceptable - and we must invest in the resources necessary to improve learning outcomes. However, I’m most interested in figuring out how we streamline the bureaucracy within SFUSD; there is an abundance of waste, and we need to nail the fundamentals - like functional buildings and actually paying teachers what they’re owed, when they’re owed.

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. Supervisors should not be tasked with second-guessing parents’ decisions about their children’s 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. Like our Board of Supervisors, these members of the Board of Education put their own ideology ahead of actually doing what was right for students, which was an offensive disservice to the students and families they were entrusted to serve.

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

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

Small Business

What would you change about the process of new retail business formation in San Francisco?

San Francisco’s bureaucratic overreach has created a hostile environment for entrepreneurs. I would audit our existing retail business formation process and streamline review periods, eliminate unnecessary fees, and expedite permit reviews to make the process of starting a new business straightforward. I would also look to consolidate the administrative bureaucracy at the department level to create a staged approach to approval - versus an ongoing series of steps.

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

Absolutely. There is far too much governmental overreach when it comes to the entrepreneurs looking to create businesses in San Francisco. By-right permitting is a major step toward making San Francisco a business-friendly environment once again.

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?

We need to make it easier for entrepreneurs to start businesses in San Francisco; ABC permits can be prohibitively expensive for new businesses, but I am not in favor of devaluing the existing licenses held by current businesses. While I do believe we need to increase the stock of available licenses, I also am committed to not doing so unless there are the appropriate financial instruments (including tax benefits) available to those already permitted to ensure an equitable business environment for all.

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 do not believe we should reduce the number of available permits. Competition is ultimately a good thing for the consumer.

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?

We certainly do. The housing shortage is well-documented and we have a state mandate to increase the housing stock in our City; fixing the housing shortage is one of the core tenets of my campaign.

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

Yes, although artificially so, due to rent control (and to be clear, I’m in favor of rent control). I believe we need to increase the housing supply to ultimately make progress on bringing down the cost of living in San Francisco.

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?

At least pretend like we’re trying, rather than electing ideologs like Dean Preston who put obstructionist policies in place that inhibit progress on critical civic initiatives.

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

I believe that homeless shelters should be exempt from CEQA, but that community involvement in placing a new homeless shelter is ultimately a necessary component to the shelter’s long-term viability and success.

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

Yes, so long as the development is in line with the relevant zoning guidelines and codes, we cannot afford to have things like CEQA, Discretionary Review, or Conditional Use permitting get in the way of building desperately needed housing supply.

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

Yes, so long as the development is in line with the relevant zoning guidelines and codes, we cannot afford to have things like CEQA, Discretionary Review, or Conditional Use permitting get in the way of building desperately needed housing supply..

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)

They should loosen but not abolish or abandon. YIMBYs largely have it right - the housing crisis won’t fix itself, and we need to build more, build denser, and build higher. But to abolish limits entirely would be going too far.

San Francisco Planning requires that new street-facing windows comply with City-imposed design requirements that both raise the price of windows while lowering their thermal and noise insulation. Should the City abolish these requirements?

Yes. We have much bigger problems than the types of windows private homeowners want to use in their construction projects.

In general, is it too hard, just right, or too easy to…	Too hard	Just right	Too easy
Expand your home (adding new stories, rooms, decks, etc)	X
Renovate your home (update bathroom, kitchen, etc)	X
Demolish your home and redevelop it into multifamily housing	X
Redevelop things like parking lots and single-story commercial into multifamily housing	X
Build subsidized housing	X
Build market-rate housing	X
Build homeless shelters (including navigation centers and “tiny homes”)	X

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

Transit Infrastructure

Should Muni be free for everyone? If so, what other programs would you take money from in order to fund this change, or what new tax would you propose to fund it?

No - MUNI should not be free, and I was hugely disappointed that our current Board of Supervisors (including “everyday MUNI rider” Dean Preston) didn’t approve the necessary rate hike. We need to increase MUNI revenues, improve fare enforcement, and also create programs that enable the least socioeconomically-advantaged San Franciscans to use pre-tax dollars for transit. I’m committed to creating a public transit system that’s financially inclusive for all San Franciscans. I’ll look to the audit of outside vendors and the funds we will recover to help pay for MUNI; service reductions are not an option, and we shouldn’t simply look to tax businesses more to pay for our public transit infrastructure. I look forward to working alongside the SFMTA leadership to aid in their path towards better days.

Some have argued that the cost of fare enforcement exceeds the benefit. Others have argued that not enforcing fare payment starves the Muni and BART systems of revenue, lowers quality of service, and makes the systems less safe. What is your position?

We need to continue to invest in fare enforcement. Our public transit system should be a source of civic pride for every San Franciscan who rides, and I believe that fares - regardless of how much they are - ultimately build this sense of pride by creating “skin in the game.” We cannot afford fare evasion in a challenging budgetary environment, and there are altruistic benefits beyond increased revenues to justify increased fare enforcement.

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

No. People are going to cheat the system and we shouldn’t impose these obligations on our critical infrastructure that’s already struggling to stay afloat. We should seek further state and federal assistance until we can right the ship.

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

We need to continue to envision our City beyond cars as a singular primary mode of transportation, particularly as we look to add tens of thousands of housing units. Urban biking is a critical piece of the mobility puzzle, and we should continue to create protected bike lanes across the City, while being sure to partner with local business communities to avoid adverse impacts during their construction.

	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:

Regarding the first question, there are certain instances where I have been hugely enthusiastic about removing cars (for example, JFK Drive and the Great Highway). However, because of the general nature of the question, I responded “no.”

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:

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’m a fourth-generation resident of San Francisco. I moved back shortly after finishing college at Washington University in St. Louis, and the Bay Area has been home ever since. Ultimately, when I realized as a teenager that I was gay, I knew I wanted to live somewhere that I could be my most authentic self, and where I could look around and see other people like me. I am proud to be a resident of San Francisco, a city that has always been on the leading edge of social progress in the United States and globally.

What do you love most about San Francisco?

My favorite thing about San Francisco is San Franciscans. We are an eclectic group - and our eccentricity is a source of strength for our city and inspiration for me personally. One of my favorite things about campaigning is meeting folks from all corners of District 5 - it’s been a hugely refreshing reminder of what makes this City special, more than anything, is the people. Despite our challenges, we are all choosing to live here - and the folks living here now are the ones who will build San Francisco’s next great act.

What do you dislike the most about San Francisco?

Outside of weather microclimates, what I currently dislike most about San Francisco today is that the lived experience and the national narrative around San Francisco couldn’t be more different. When I walk around in the neighborhoods of District 5, I see vibrant businesses, community spaces, families, and beauty. We need to revitalize downtown, we need to get serious about tackling our most pressing issues, and ultimately, ensure that the lived experience of being a San Franciscan is aligned with the national reputation of San Francisco.

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

My involvement in giving back to San Francisco has been through the world of electronic music, where I’ve worked and continue to work with various organizations working to bring more live music to San Francisco.

Thank you

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