Sharon Lai
-
Office: Board of Supervisors, District 3
-
Election Date: November 5, 2024
-
Candidate: Sharon Lai
-
Due Date: February 28, 2024
Your Goals
Why are you running for Board of Supervisors, District 3?
I'm running for District 3 Supervisor because I believe I have the ability to deliver change on the issues that matter most: public safety, homelessness, economic recovery and housing.
What is your #1 policy goal?
Public safety.
How will you build the coalition and political capital to enact your #1 goal?
I have a demonstrated ability to build coalitions and get results. One example of this is tripling the public safety budget for Muni when I served on the SFMTA. My passion for this priority was the key to building the coalitions necessary to bring it across the finish line.
Will the power of the office of Board of Supervisors, District 3 be enough to achieve this goal?
I am running for Supervisor because I believe I can make a difference helping to deliver the change San Francisco needs.
What are your #2 and #3 policy goals?
#2: Homelessness and affordable housing.
#3: Economic Recovery
Will the power of the office of Board of Supervisors, District 3 be enough to achieve these goals?
I am running for Supervisor because I believe I can make a difference helping to deliver the change San Francisco needs.
What is an existing policy you would like to reform?
Reform contracting practices to provide more transparency, efficiency, streamlining and accountability and to better protect against corruption. Better oversight and develop good governance practices that prevents wasteful practices on outsourcing to contractors that underdeliver. We need to have better policies to weed out bad actors and empower the good actors.
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.)
Make election day a public holiday to increase voter turnout!
Tell us one thing you think needs to change in SF that the average voter wouldn't know about.
One specific issue that needs addressing is the inefficiencies in matching and placing occupants into housing that already exists, including Permanent Supportive Housing and Affordable Housing units. There's a very long wait time, averaging 100 days to be placed while some units sit vacant for years. This gap in supply and demand exacerbates the housing affordability tensions in the city and is a waste of public resources.
The Issues
What is the #1 public safety issue today?
District 3 has many public safety challenges including car break-ins, theft and vandalism at small businesses, and on-street drug dealing. As the historic home of the Chinese community, however, I believe that the next District 3 Supervisor must play a lead role in combating Anti-Asian violence.
Public Safety
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 recruitment of more police officers for San Francisco. Our primary issue is that we are unable to hire, train and retain existing funded positions. The level of adequate police staffing and how they do their job should be assessed based on San Francisco's needs, not by comparing with other cities, which have a different context and resources. We can help pay for this by restructuring current police staffing to use civilians for work currently being done by sworn officers, expanding community policing, and identifying new sources of usable funding. Additional officers will also help reduce overtime costs.
What solutions might exist to improve public safety that don't involve expanding the size of SFPD?
- Investing in community based initiatives focused on violence prevention, mental health services and social services.
- Reform law enforcement practices to improve accountability, transparency, and community trust - this includes training on implicit bias, de-escalation techniques, and cultural competency.
- Enable safe use of technology.
- Sufficiently staff other public safety functions like dispatchers, fire and EMT
What three things would you change about how SFPD operates?
- We need to enhance training programs for SFPD officers to focus on de-escalation techniques, cultural competency, implicit bias awareness, and mental health intervention.
- Movements such as "defund the police" and the protests spurred by the death of George Floyd show a lack of trust between legal enforcement and the community. To address this, we need to increase community policing presence in neighborhoods to promote positive interactions with residents and engage officers in community events and youth mentorship programs.
- We also need to allocate resources to address mental health crises, response programs, and invest in alternatives to policing that enables SFPD to focus on public safety issues, rather than a broad range of issues including substance abuse, mental health, homelessness.
Do you support policies commonly referred to as "defund the police"? Why or why not?
Unlike some candidates for this position, I have never advocated for defunding the police.
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 voted to recall the District Attorney.
| 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:
Street food vendors are individuals who might be first-generation immigrants who are struggling to make a living - these street food vendors should be fined, but arrests and prosecutions should be reserved to those who commit a felony. As supervisor, I will create more legal pathways for street vendors.
Drugs
In general, how should the City handle people who are abusing drugs on City sidewalks?
As a mother of two children, I don't believe that drug abuse should be normalized on our streets. We need a mindset shift that recognizes substance abuse as a serious issue requiring both firmness and treatment options.
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.
Like Mayor Breed, I see a role for overdose prevention sites, privately funded.
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 disagree and have not seen evidence of that. These sites can be effective and should be implemented today.
Should fentanyl dealing be penalized differently from dealing other drugs?
The penalization of fentanyl dealing should be informed by evidence-based approaches that prioritize public health and safety while also addressing the underlying factors contributing to drug trafficking and substance abuse. Generally, drugs that cause more harm should be regarded with more severity.
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?
Amending laws regarding mental health crisis intervention will only be effective if we invest in treatment beds to enable those suffering the crisis to receive the care they need. I will focus on both sides of this solution.
What is the role of government in providing care for those who cannot care for themselves?
I believe that the government needs to provide care directly for people in need. It must also coordinate the vast resources of our non-profit and private sectors to ensure the most efficient use of 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 that people who are a danger to themselves or others should be given the care they need. However, one major obstacle is the shortage of mental health professionals available to initiate the process and the limited availability of mental health beds for those in need.
If you agree with this view, please outline some guardrails and oversight the City must provide to prevent abuse.
- We need to address the shortage of mental health professionals to ensure that individuals in crisis receive appropriate care and intervention.
- There needs to be an increase in investment from state, local, and federal governments in mental health resources and infrastructure to address the shortage of mental health beds and ensure timely access to appropriate care for individuals in crisis.
- Collaborate with mental health providers such as HealthRight 360 to ensure seamless referral and access to care for individuals in crisis.
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?
I am a strong supporter of public schools, and believe we need improvement for our students at every level: additional funding; reform of Prop 13; greater accountability for administration; recruitment of teachers; and improved oversight by the School Board.
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?
It is essential to recognize that students have diverse needs, and in a well-resourced city like San Francisco, it is crucial to offer a variety of educational options to meet those needs effectively.
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.
| 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?
We need to continue to make it easier to do business in San Francisco. I would work to consolidate and streamline the various referral processes that's required to open a retail business. Improving the process of new retail business formation in San Francisco requires a multifaceted approach that encourages entrepreneurship and supports existing small businesses. While incentives and programs to promote new entrepreneurship are valuable, it's equally important to provide support to struggling existing businesses to help them stay open. Streamlining the permit process is a positive step in this direction. In addition, having a one-stop shop for the permit process versus going through various departments within City agencies can make things simpler. Ultimately creating an environment that fosters both the establishment of new businesses and the sustainability of existing ones is essential for a thriving retail sector in San Francisco.
Should all businesses be permitted by-right? If not, which business categories do you think should require special government approval?
One of the things unique about San Francisco is the diverse character of each neighborhood. When we consider whether all businesses should be permitted by-right, we also need to think about neighborhoods that are historical or unique that need to be treated intact. Some neighborhoods like the financial district should have relaxed regulations and have more permitted-by-right uses. While a mix of uses is integral to preserving the city's unique character, it's important to recognize that a one-size-fits-all approach may not be suitable for every neighborhood. Depending on the neighborhood, business categories that could impact public safety and compactability should have a differentiated approach such as industrial uses. Legacy businesses also play a huge important role in each neighborhood and should be supported. We also need dynamic management strategies to adapt to evolving market conditions efficiently, so I'm inclined to not over engineer legislation to empower discretion of staff and commissions.
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?
Any changes to the availability of ABC permits must be approached with consideration for all stakeholders. This includes finding a balance between increasing accessibility to permits and implementing measures to mitigate potential negative impacts on existing license holders. For example, providing support for those who have invested in license under the existing system, such as offering opportunities for buyouts or financial assistance, could help alleviate concerns about fairness and equity in the licensing process.
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 need to prioritize measures that support the viability of legal cannabis businesses while ensuring fair competition in the market. Currently, there is an existing moratorium on new cannabis applications in San Francisco, and there's a significant backlog of application requests. I don't support reducing the current number 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, I believe we have a shortage of homes at all levels of income.
Do you believe that housing prices are set by supply and demand constraints? Why or why not?
Yes; housing prices are influenced by supply and demand constraints.
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 need to work closely and cooperatively with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to address the deficiencies in San Francisco's Housing Element. I believe local government is the right authority to control land use regulations.
-
Regardless of what happens with the Housing Element, builders' remedy will not lead us to meeting our affordable housing needs. As a city, we have to continue to make the financing of affordable housing feasible. The passage of Proposition A, which provides funds for building housing, is a positive step towards addressing the city's housing needs. It is essential to ensure that these funds are effectively utilized and allocated towards housing development projects in alignment with the city's goals and priorities.
Should homeless shelters be exempt from CEQA, Discretionary Review, and Conditional Use permits?
Exemptions from certain regulatory requirements such as CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act), Discretionary Review, and Conditional Use permits can expedite the process of establishing shelters. For example, the Mayor's Homelessness Emergency Order has facilitated the expedited construction of shelters, demonstrating the effectiveness of streamlining approvals in addressing urgent needs. Projects like DigniVillows, a nonprofit where I was the founding Executive Director, have successfully operated without the need for Conditional Use and CEQA.
While exemptions from certain regulatory requirements can be beneficial, we need to have community engagement throughout the process. Robust outreach efforts should be conducted to ensure that community members have a seat at the table and their concerns are addressed.
Should subsidized Affordable housing be exempt from CEQA, Discretionary Review, and Conditional Use permits?
I believe in streamlining and accelerating the delivery of housing but that necessitates reviews to ensure the safety and interests of our community. Projects like the newly proposed New Asia affordable housing project in Chinatown that have clear benefits to the community are exactly the projects we need to support. And we need to make sure our system allows for projects like that to move forward, including providing subsidies.
Should market rate housing be exempt from CEQA, Discretionary Review, and Conditional Use permits?
Streamlining the approval process for market-rate housing can help expedite construction and increase housing supply. Government should get out of the way of the market on projects that are compliant, do not impact the safety of the community and do not remove protected resources in historic districts. I would not support blanket exemptions.
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)
It depends on the neighborhood. In general, the west side of the city where single family zoning is prevalent could benefit from upzoning. Much of this has been done through the Housing Element.
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?
I support energy-efficient designs in building construction, including windows. While I support some design requirements that may increase the cost of windows that also meet energy requirements to preserve character for known historic resources, in places where historic resources are not a concern, alternatives should be acceptable. For example, wood windows designed to meet historical period specifications can be energy efficient at a higher cost and should only be required where a resource exists. Vinyl windows, while more affordable, may have a higher carbon footprint and not necessarily be better for the environment, which should also be taken into account. Design standards for our neighborhoods are important so that we can capture the salient qualities of each individual neighborhood and provide clarity and predictability for renovations.
| 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?
MTA is scheduled to run into a fiscal cliff, and does not have a reliable funding stream for this. Based on these constraints, I am in favor of continuing free transit for youth and expanding discount fare programs for people who need it.
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?
Public transit should be a right that everyone has access to, especially for people who don't have alternatives. I'm in favor of providing transit access to low income communities for those who cannot afford to pay their fair share. Fare enforcement is necessary in order to keep the current system running.
Recent State funding requires Muni and BART to enforce fare payments in order to receive that funding; do you agree with this requirement?
The preference would be to have unrestricted funds so that it can be more flexibly spent at the local level. However, the state has been very generous with filling in crucial gaps in MTA and BART's budget from the pandemic's financial shock and finds up to ¼ of MTA's current budget. We are taking their money and they have the right to set requirements and expectations.
Should it be the policy of San Francisco to build a citywide protected bike lane network? Why or why not?
Yes, a safe and usable citywide protected bike network is necessary. However, bike lanes don't belong on every street as not all city streets would be appropriate. My family is multimodal, and I believe that we have to share public spaces and accommodate the transportation needs for all. A bike network should be planned and designed holistically and not piecemealed. Yes can accommodate all modes, just not all at once on every street. We all deserve safe, fast and reliable ways to get around and need a meaningful and robust citywide community planning process to advance this work.
| 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 | 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 | X |
If you want to explain any positions above, please feel free:
Downtown is currently not congested and in fact quite slow. There's no need to ban cars and levy congestion pricing.
I'm supportive of expanding bus-only lanes and making transit faster and more reliable. Parking control officers do not have the authority to ticket in bus lanes though.
I support more bike share, but that's controlled under MTC contracting, so San Francisco does not have the authority to alter that.
I support bike share access in GGP, but not more motorized scooter share.
Generally, I do not support the proliferation of motorized scooters because our infrastructure does not seem to safely accommodate them. They are too dangerous for the sidewalks and the roads seem too dangerous for them.
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?
- Diversify our economy to grow resilience in the long run, including growing jobs that will stay and cannot be outsourced
- Create a more welcoming business environment by streamlining hurdles such as permitting, and starting with making our city and streets safe and clean
- Support neighborhood small businesses, recovery is not just about the downtown
- Fix inefficient spending
| 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:
As supervisor, I will look for more efficiencies in our practices so that we can conserve resources to spend on things we need.
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 moved to San Francisco for the first time in 2005, right after college. San Francisco has been my chosen home for 19 years, where I've lived and served, and my family and I love this place. Over the years, I've worked to address public safety, housing, transportation, homelessness and economic recovery across the public, private and nonprofit sectors for district 3 and the city. San Francisco is an inspirational place with its natural beauty and culture, and the people that choose to be here inspire me. This is my chosen home and I'm invested to help address our challenges so that it can be a welcoming place for all.
What do you love most about San Francisco?
There's no other place like San Francisco. We have a unique blend of culture, communities and nature. What I love most about San Francisco is the people, their willingness to engage and desire to contribute to the community. I feel privileged to be part of this city.
What do you dislike the most about San Francisco?
While San Francisco is a city that I deeply love, I feel frustrated by the ongoing politicization and divisiveness on issues rather than focusing on building agreement around solutions that serve San Francisco's long term interests. This race isn't about who wants change the most, but about who has the ability to deliver the change we need.
Tell us about your current involvement in the community (e.g., volunteer groups, neighborhood associations, civic and professional organizations, etc.)
I'm a member of my neighborhood association and an advocate in the Chinatown community, participating in various working groups and committees including with the Chinese Hospital and the Portsmouth Square park redevelopment efforts.
I'm also part of a group working on the Yes SF efforts to revitalize downtown and San Francisco's economy.
I volunteer with my kids' school as well as with nonprofits like Chinatown CDC and TelHi.
I have also served on several government and nonprofit boards:
- Board Member - SFMTA: As a mayoral appointed Board Member of The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) is a department of the City and County of San Francisco, as part of a 7 member governing body responsible for the management of all ground transportation in the city.
- Board Member - Treasure Island Development Authority: As a mayoral appointed Board of Directors that makes policy decisions critical to the future of former Naval Station Treasure Island, approves large contracts, approves TIDA's annual budget, and acts as both the development agency and the trustee of the Tidelands Trust for Treasure and Yerba Buena Islands.
- Junior League of San Francisco
- Hep B Free Bay Area
- March of Dimes
- Partners for Public Good
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.