Stephen Martin-Pinto
- Office: Board of Supervisors, District 7
- Election Date: November 5, 2024
- Candidate: Stephen Martin-Pinto
- 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.
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’m running for office because as someone who was proudly born and raised in San Francisco, it was offensive to me how our city leaders did absolutely nothing while the quality of life in our city declined. This was unacceptable to me, and I decided to enter in the race to try and fix it myself. I’ve seen too many politicians who have no interest in San Francisco, use their elected position as a springboard to higher office and then leave us with a legacy of broken policy and legislation. I’m running because we need a common sense, pragmatic approach to politics that is severely lacking in the San Francisco government today.
What is your #1 policy goal?
It is to shut down the open air drug markets. This is objectively the most urgent crisis today in terms of body count. The drug crisis reaches into almost every major issue in San Francisco today - homelessness, public safety, small business, and quality of life. As a firefighter/EMT, I have personally dealt with the drug crisis at street level, having administered Narcan to overdose victims numerous times. When it works to revive overdose victims, they can regain consciousness suddenly and become very violent and attack first responders. I’ve personally experienced this and have the scars to prove it. When Narcan doesn’t work, victims die. Witnessing the death of an overdose victim always stays with you.
How will you build the coalition and political capital to enact your #1 goal?
I don’t believe it’s as complicated as one might think. Let’s not under-estimate the power of social media to inform and mobilize people, and the power of citizen groups to lobby city hall and pressure city leaders to change course. Never has this been more evident than in the last few years. Since 2016 when I first began in local politics, I have slowly been building relationships, serving as president of the Sunnyside Neighborhood Association, West of Twin Peaks Central Council, and Vice President of the Veteran Affairs Commission. If you mobilize people behind an issue that they are passionate about, then politicians will start to listen. I am always very truthful when I speak, and voters have responded very enthusiastically . Furthermore, as a firefighter/EMT, when I speak about the drug crisis, I have credibility because I see this everyday I go to work. I’ve spoken publicly in front of City Hall with those who have lost or are losing loved ones to addiction, and are demanding action by the city, state, and federal government.
Will the power of the office of Board of Supervisors, District 7 be enough to achieve this goal?
No, it’s never enough and this should be obvious. Fortunately, we are not alone in the drug crisis. In addition to reaching out to like minded San Francisco politicians, I will reach out to like minded politicians from other municipalities, such as State Senator Tom Umberg from Santa Ana, and mayor Todd Gloria from San Diego, and together we can build a coalition and lobby Sacramento for stronger legislation against drug dealers and better options for recovery for addicts.
What are your #2 and #3 policy goals?
#2 Public Safety - One could argue that open air drug markets are also a public safety issue, but in my opinion, itis such a significant issue that it deserves special mention. That being said, public safety is absolutely still a major concern. Not only are our police and sheriff departments severely understaffed, but our police commission severely and unnecessarily limits the power of the police. Furthermore, as we’ve seen by the very many bold acts of crime, criminals feel safe operating here with impunity, or at least that is their perception. That perception must change.
#3 Homelessness- very closely tied to drugs and public safety. I’ll flat out say it - those who believe that homelessness is simply a “housing affordability issue” are wrong, at least here in San Francisco. We are a target destination for many individuals because of our cheap drugs and lax enforcement of laws. I know this because I’ve had homeless individuals tell me this directly. I’ve worked at some of the busiest fire stations in SF, at which I had 10-20 contacts with homeless individuals everyday. I always made it a point to ask them where they were from. Out of the hundreds, only 2 as far as I can ascertain were legitimately born and raised in San Francisco. If one starts enforcing quality of life laws and ends open-air drug markets, one will see the number of homeless individuals dramatically decline.
#4 Corruption - I know you asked for only 2 and 3, but I’m giving you a fourth because I go back and forth with myself if corruption is in the top 3 issues or not. I won’t spend much time explaining this here because it’s obvious to anyone with even a cursory understanding of San Francisco politics that corruption is a major issue.
Will the power of the office of Board of Supervisors, District 7 be enough to achieve these goals?
Again, it’s never enough. More local, state, and federal politicians you can get on your side means more force behind your efforts. Let us not forget the citizen groups as well.
What is an existing policy you would like to reform?
Our Sanctuary City policy is in need of drastic reform. It should not protect felons. My grandparents were immigrants from Ecuador, having arrived here legally in 1952, and never once did they commit even a misdemeanor. It is not hard to follow the law. If you cannot meet the very basic expectation of following our very permissive laws, then your right to be here should rightly be questioned.
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.)
-
Abolish ranked choice voting.
-
Zero-based budget for all non-profits funded by the city, to be re-assessed at least every 2 years.
-
Break up SFMTA into its component organizations (MUNI and Department of Parking and Traffic).
-
End sanctuary protections for felons who are here without documentation.
-
Underground all utility wires.
-
Remove Central Freeway stub (US 101 between I-80 and Market Street) and replace with wide boulevard while daylighting Mission Creek and Laguna Dolores as much as possible.
Tell us one thing you think needs to change in SF that the average voter wouldn't know about.
Voters need to have a better understanding of the role of the police commission, the judges, the district attorney, and public defenders and how the chain of justice actually works (or doesn’t work).
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?
I’ve already mentioned the open air drug markets which is primary; however, I’m torn between saying that the secondary public safety issue is the lack of enforcement of traffic laws, which objectively is the second most urgent in terms of body count, or theft, which is more devastating to small businesses and our economy.
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?
At this point I’d support it. We are in crisis mode and I’ll support almost any reasonable idea that will make our city safer. However, the caveat is that it is not enough to simply hire more police; they need to be empowered and entrusted to do their job as well, and this requires police commission reform. Furthermore, we need to ensure SFPD has the best training available.
However, it is also important to consider how the missions of firefighters, emergency medical technicians, and law enforcement are increasingly merging. For example, in June 2017, I responded to the UPS shooting as part of Truck 7 (Mission District) in an active shooter situation. Our truck crew along with SFPD SWAT entered the UPS building, cleared passage, and immediately started emergency medical care for victims. In the back of an ambulance en route to SF General, a police officer, paramedic, and I started an Intravenous Saline Drip (IV) and administered CPR to an individual who we later learned was the shooter. The lesson learned from this event was that the missions of both fire, EMS, and police have overlap, and we need to have a wider view of public safety. As part of the Tactical EMS committee for SFFD/SFPD, we helped develop standard operating procedures and create training scenarios to ensure clearer roles and responsibilities, and safer response tactics for both departments. I was proud to be a part of that, even in my small role.
Recruitment funding should be a priority in order to attract the best local talent. The hiring process needs to be simplified and shortened.
What solutions might exist to improve public safety that don’t involve expanding the size of SFPD?
Reform the role of the Police Commission. The powers of the police commission should be identical to those of the Fire Commission - advisory, but disciplinary only when necessary. As a firefighter, the fire commission does not dictate the tactics of how I do my job; neither should the police commission for SFPD. All new general orders should come from the office of the police chief, be vetted through the city attorney, and signed into effect upon approval without the involvement of the police commission. The police commission has become too political and obstructionary. I would also attempt to reverse some of the new policies just passed by the police commission that restrain the ability of police to do their job, such as the latest traffic violation limitations.
What three things would you change about how SFPD operates?
-Reduce paperwork requirements for police officers.
-Allow use of tazers and other non-lethal measures commensurate with the policies of other police departments.
-Reduce requirements necessary for foot or vehicular pursuits.
Do you support policies commonly referred to as “defund the police”? Why or why not?
Unlike my incumbent opponent, I never supported such policies, not even in 2020 when it was popular. I was quite firm in this belief, even when I was heavily criticized by opponents and certain activist organizations for my stance. I knew it was wrong then as I know it is wrong now. The politics has changed however my opinion has not. It is never the wrong time to believe in the right thing.
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 absolutely supported the recall of Chesa Boudin. I attended many signature gathering events and did many bilingual video spots, explaining why I supported the recall of Chesa Boudin in both Spanish and English. I did this along with friends who did Russian and Cantonese speaking video spots and protests.
| Should San Francisco… | Yes | No |
|---|---|---|
| Try to achieve “full staffing” for SFPD? (Defined as about 2,100 officers, according to the City) | ✅ | |
| Change the cite-and-release policy so officers can arrest suspects of misdemeanors like shoplifting and car break-ins? | ✅ | |
| Arrest and prosecute street-level fentanyl dealers? | ✅ | |
| Prioritize diversion instead of incarceration for street-level fentanyl dealers? NO, UNLESS THEY THEMSELVES ARE ADDICTS, then maybe | ✅ | |
| Investigate, arrest, and prosecute fentanyl distribution ringleaders (like organized crime and cartel members)? | ✅ | |
| Arrest and prosecute street-level vendors of suspected stolen goods? | ✅ | |
| Investigate, arrest, and prosecute the leaders of theft rings and fencing operations? | ✅ | |
| Arrest and prosecute street food vendors operating without a permit? | ✅ | |
| Fine street food vendors operating without a permit? | ✅ |
If you want to explain any positions above, please feel free:
As little as 2mg of Fentanyl is lethal. Our dealers are bold. One of the last few times I walked in Tenderloin (400 block of Eddy Street), dealers nearly forced drugs into my hand in a handshake drug transaction. My patience for dealing is at an end. It’s an embarrassment for our city and the fact that these drug markets happen in full view of room 200 at City Hall is a testament to how disinterested our politicians are in solving this crisis.
Drugs
In general, how should the City handle people who are abusing drugs on City sidewalks?
Zero tolerance. Drug use on the sidewalk is a health and environmental hazard. If someone thinks that this is inhumane, I recommend that they try using drugs on city sidewalks in other countries and see where that gets them.
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.
No, our city has demonstrated time and time again that it is incapable of managing even the most basic of city services, such as building a public bathroom or running a public transit agency, let alone managing a high-liability project as complicated as a safe-injection site. We need diversion into abstinence-based and medication-assisted based treatment programs.
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?
In theory this might work. However, we need to be realistic about the competency of our city government. We’re not even close to that level of proficiency. So let’s be realistic about what we can do. My answer is no at this time.
Should fentanyl dealing be penalized differently from dealing other drugs?
Yes, absolutely. Like I said, as little as 2mg (maybe even less) can be fatal to users. These are not your parent’s boomer drugs, these drugs are quite different and definitely more dangerous.
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, but it needs to be supported by the state of California as well. We need to amend the current policies to allow firefighters, EMTs, paramedics, health care workers, doctors, nurses, and therapists to have 5150 detainment authority. Drug addicts with life-threatening health concerns such as Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus infections (MRSA) that refuse treatment or who have been revived by Narcan repeatedly in a short period of time need to be recommended for conservatorship.
What is the role of government in providing care for those who cannot care for themselves?
The government needs to have a role and contain what I believe is a growing mental health crisis in our country. We have a growing class of working age adults who are increasingly becoming incapacitated by drugs and mental illness. The ramifications of this are far beyond what I think most people realize. If we have a nation full of people who are never able to live independently and be productive, creative, and entrepreneurial, then this will mean the downfall of the United States. I am not being hyperbolic. This crisis must be contained immediately.
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.
Absolutely yes. As a firefighter/EMT for example, I operate under “implied consent” when dealing with patients in a medical emergency. For example, if a patient is not able to verbalize to me the 4 Ws; who are you, where are you, what happened, and what year it is, then that patient can be compelled into treatment. This is because the 4Ws are an assessment of mental status, and failure to answer the 4Ws means a patient is not mentally competent and able to make informed decisions for himself. Similarly, if a person is experiencing a mental health crisis, he should be considered unable to make informed decisions for himself as well, and placed in a facility until either next of kin is contacted or his mental condition improves.
If you agree with this view, please outline some guardrails and oversight the City must provide to prevent abuse.
I am not a mental health expert, but my lay opinion on involuntary mental health holds should be extended and possibly limited to: people with an urgent medical condition that if left untreated will result in death or loss of limb (i.e. severe MRSA infections), people with an opioid addiction who have been administered Narcan multiple times in a short period, people who are violent or are threatening to be violent to either themselves or others, and other conditions as agreed to by doctors and mental health experts.
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.
Just as a note, our mental health crisis, in my opinion, is a nation-wide cultural problem that stems ultimately from lack of value for human life, breakdown of the family unit, and a lack of purpose. The reasons for this are rather philosophical, and are a discussion that goes far beyond this questionnaire.
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, the school board should be more focused on progress toward student learning goals such as proficiency in English language arts and mathematics. As supervisor, I will use the power of my office to put pressure on the school board to constantly measure progress toward these goals and support programs that serve these goals. I supported the SFBoE recall in 2022 and currently support Proposition G, and any other measure which would coerce the school board to increase the quality of education. As supervisor, I would publicly challenge any school board member who fails to put students over politics. I would also not take silly taxpayer funded trips to Japan to learn how to teach kids math.
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. When it comes to education for our students, I do not have time for politics. I will support whatever opportunity means the best education for kids, whether it’s vocational school, merit based academic school, vouchers, or nearest neighborhood school.
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, absolutely. I was quite clear on this. I even volunteered to gather signatures for this recall on a few occasions, although the majority of my time at the time was focused on the Chesa Boudin Recall Campaign. I supported this because as a Lowell High School graduate, I realized the value of a merit-based education. To deprive future students of the opportunity that I had, simply to appeal to some false woke equity ideal, would have been criminal. That is just some of what the school board tried to take from SFUSD students. My only regret was that I could not recall more, such as Matt Alexander.
| Should San Francisco… | Yes | No |
|---|---|---|
| Offer Algebra in 8th grade to students who want it? | ✅ | |
| Offer Algebra in 7th grade to students who want it? | ✅ | |
| Offer AP courses to high school students who want them? | ✅ | |
| Require schools to improve student performance, and fire teachers who consistently underperform? | ✅ |
If you want to explain any positions above, please feel free:
It’s cliche to say that kids are our future, but it’s absolutely true. Our students are already behind many other nations. I see our students’ lack of knowledge and education as a national security issue; how will we compete with and defend ourselves from near-peer adversaries such as Russia and China if we have a generation of uneducated adults? I do not take this issue lightly. Having spent 21 years in the US Marine Corps, having deployed to several countries, I am quite aware of national security policy and what it entails.
Small Business
What would you change about the process of new retail business formation in San Francisco?
I would strongly consider a ban on discretionary review for new businesses, so no individual not concerned with the business can challenge its right to exist and delay its opening. I would suspend any permit whose fee is less than the cost to implement. I would eliminate permits required for certain minor items (i.e A-frame outdoor signs). I would eliminate and consolidate permits that have overlap (i.e. ADA and fire safety permits). I would deconflict permits and requirements that are contradictory and unclear. In November 2023, I met with two small women business owners: Naz Khorram (owner of Arcana on Mission Street) and Danielle Rabkin (owner of Golden Gate Crossfit on Van Ness Avenue) and learned of their experiences starting and operating a small business in San Francisco. It was very enlightening and frankly, extremely upsetting to hear.
Other ideas for new business reform include:
-
Tighten requirements for historic preservation review
-
Limit arbitrary project denials
-
Cap government permitting and construction fees
Should all businesses be permitted by-right? If not, which business categories do you think should require special government approval?
The only businesses that I believe should require special government approval are cannabis businesses. These should not be located within 1000 feet of schools or day care centers OR have hours (if they are a mixed business such as the Gold Mirror on Taraval Street) that do not overlap with school or day care hours. Bars that are directly adjacent to residential homes (i.e. Ocean Avenue and Westwood Park) should have to gain approval from residents if they want to remain open after 2:00AM. Otherwise, I have no reason to not support by-right permitting for new businesses.
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 say we should go full throttle and approve nearly any reasonable ABC license request. Not only that, we should allow smoking in restaurants and bars IF they can keep the air quality below a certain threshold through exhaust and ventilation and post notices online and at the entrance to the restaurant or bar.
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 am not quite on board with a significant expansion of cannabis business permits yet. We are still in the experimental phase, and let us see the long term effects before we allow a dramatic increase in the number of available cannabis permits.
| Should San Francisco… | Yes | No |
|---|---|---|
| Reduce the time to obtain all permits to open a new business to no more than 3 months | ✅ | |
| Reduce the cost of obtaining permits to open a new business | ✅ | |
| Reduce the number of activities which must obtain permits, and expand the number of by-right activities | ✅ | |
| Try to attract businesses of all sizes to the City? | ✅ |
If you want to explain any positions above, please feel free:
Small businesses are a cultural and economic nexus for San Francisco. We must do whatever is reasonable and necessary to protect them. I’d like to make particular note of how SFMTAs policies have been disastrous for businesses, such as those on Valencia Street. This is part of the reason why I believe SFMTA must be broken up or have their power curtailed.
Housing
Do you believe that San Francisco has a shortage of homes? Why or why not?
Yes, but it’s also important to note how bad policy such as rent control can create a shortage of available units, as well as onerous rental laws which disincentivize landlords from renting. In many cases, it's more feasible for landlords to keep units vacant and not assume the risk of renting out to bad tenants, especially when the legal system is biased to tenants. This is why I am in favor of loosening rent control laws and creating policies that are impartial and fair, rather than creating more policies which are highly biased to one party over another.
Do you believe that housing prices are set by supply and demand constraints? Why or why not?
Absolutely yes, but it’s also important to note how much poor housing policy and even poor social policy contributes to housing prices and distorts the effects of supply and demand. Specifically, policies such as rent control exacerbate shortages of available units, and sanctuary city policies exacerbate demand as illegal immigrants unfairly compete with Americans and legal immigrants for jobs and housing. Unless we address these issues and their impacts on housing affordability concurrent with building housing, we will perpetually be spinning our wheels and making little ground on housing affordability.
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?
It is unrealistic to expect San Francisco to build 82000 additional units by 2030, and not even London Breed has said so (according to the West of Twin Peaks Central Council meeting - September 18, 2023). There are many external factors that are affecting the speed of building construction - the convoluted permitting process, cost of construction loans, labor shortages, labor costs, and material costs to name a few. I will agree that our arduous process for construction needs revision and simplification, but that aside, the government cannot coerce developers to build in San Francisco if market conditions are not favorable. The state needs to take this into consideration and grant a time extension or a requirement reduction if necessary.
Should homeless shelters be exempt from CEQA, Discretionary Review, and Conditional Use permits?
No, UNLESS the city promises to ensure that drug sales, loitering, and other quality of life infractions will not be tolerated and strictly enforced around homeless shelters, which quite honestly, the city has failed to ensure on nearly every occasion.
Should subsidized Affordable housing be exempt from CEQA, Discretionary Review, and Conditional Use permits?
At nearly 1 million dollars per unit, one could hardly call it “affordable housing”. I am generally opposed to affordable housing on principle; it is one of the least efficient and costly ways to fund housing for middle and low income people, and creates an industry rife with opportunities for grifting and corruption. Instead, we should cut out the middleman (such as TODCO) and instead support a system of market rate housing vouchers for people who fall into the four categories of the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development (MOHCD) housing lottery system, with preference to Veterans (with former D4 aide Alan Wong, I helped author the legislation which gives veteran’s preference in each of the 4 MOHCD housing lottery categories in 2022).
Should market rate housing be exempt from CEQA, Discretionary Review, and Conditional Use permits?
No, however I would strongly consider an exception in downtown, because arguably, one could make the claim that the EIR was already done years ago when the area was developed, and any new residential development would only marginally affect any resident’s quality of life.
I do believe, however, that the permitting process for new housing construction should be simplified. We should examine each of the 87 permits required to build new housing, eliminate and consolidate contradictory or redundant permits, and employ a split-permitting process in which planning is discretionary and building permits are ministerial.
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)
In historic park neighborhoods and RH-1D zones, such as Saint Francis Woods and Westwood Park, these should be retained. The park neighborhoods are historic and unique for their architecture and street layout which is built with the contours of the terrain. In other neighborhoods, I would be open to loosening height limitations within reason, but would never support 50 story highrises in the Sunset District. Setbacks should be retained. Our city has one of the lowest tree canopy densities of any major city, and in other cities where there are front yards with greenery, we have concrete and houses crowding the street with zero lot lines (compare appearance of 000 block Karen Court versus 1200 block 29th Avenue). This is a planning error which I believe needs correction. I would also be willing to consider multi-family units on a 50 foot wide lot to replace two adjacent standard 25 foot wide attached single family homes if the unit is detached on both sides and has a reasonable setback.
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?
Absolutely yes. Those are absurd requirements. Large windows are not a “sign of class and privilege”, TODCO does not need to be consulted for any development that they are not involved in, and any politician who thinks otherwise is an unserious person.
| 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) | ✅ | ||
| Renovate your home (update bathroom, kitchen, etc) | ✅ | ||
| Demolish your home and redevelop it into multifamily housing | ✅ | ||
| Redevelop things like parking lots and single-story commercial into multifamily housing | ✅ | ||
| Build subsidized housing | ✅* | ||
| Build market-rate housing | ✅ | ||
| Build homeless shelters (including navigation centers and “tiny homes”) | ✅* |
If you want to explain any positions above, please feel free:
Some navigation centers have been built against the will of the neighbors, and having worked as a firefighter/EMT that responds to emergencies at these locations, I can certainly understand why they are upset. In talking with neighbors and witnessing for myself, navigation centers, in addition to having poor outcomes, have attracted crime, vandalism, drug use, and other quality of life concerns. The city has failed to keep its promise that such behavior would not be tolerated outside these locations on nearly every occasion. Subsidized housing seems to get built if enough middlemen and contractors profit from the grift.
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. Able-bodied adults should pay full fare. Fares should be strictly enforced. However, even though I was not in favor of free MUNI for youth, I wouldn’t make an effort to reverse 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?
Fare enforcement is absolutely worth it, even beyond the revenue it contributes and despite the cost to enforce it. Fare evasion and criminal activity on MUNI and BART are highly correlated, so fare enforcement would likely serve to make MUNI and BART safer, and more attractive to riders.
Recent State funding requires Muni and BART to enforce fare payments in order to receive that funding; do you agree with this requirement?
Yes, absolutely. We should not subsidize an organization that abdicates its responsibility to provide for its own funding source. I have zero interest in helping agencies and organizations that do not have an interest in helping themselves.
Should it be the policy of San Francisco to build a citywide protected bike lane network? Why or why not?
Yes, as much as possible, with the realistic expectation that because our city is nearly completely built out and very much space constrained, it will be difficult and less than ideal in many locations. What I would like to see is a network of grade separated bike superhighways not attached to the street grid, however, this would be extremely difficult to accomplish.
| Yes | No | |
|---|---|---|
| Do you support banning cars from central downtown areas and certain retail or residential corridors? | ✅ | |
| Do you support congestion pricing? | ✅ | |
| 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? | ✅ but* | |
| 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)? | ✅ |
If you want to explain any positions above, please feel free:
We need to balance the needs of businesses and their parking needs and the effects of bus lanes that only marginally improve bus service.
I am a big proponent of major but thoughtful and intelligent transportation projects. For example, I would love to see the undergrounding of the N Judah through the Inner Sunset District from the Market Street Subway to west of 19th Avenue. I think we need to bring back the B Geary streetcar, but this time as a subway from Market Street to somewhere west of 25th Avenue, and a grade separated light rail to Ocean Beach. We need to resurrect the 2015 proposition of the undergrounding of the M Ocean View from West Portal to a new terminus at Daly City BART. We need to extend the T Third Street line north from Chinatown station to Fisherman's Wharf and west along Lombard Street to the Presidio on a subway alignment. We need to re-align the J Church as a new line that starts at SFSU, continues along San Jose Avenue and Church Street, but continues north on a new subway under Fillmore Street to the Marina. We built an entire streetcar system from scratch in 1912 with limited technology, we should be more than capable of creating this now.
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?
We absolutely need to force strict accountability on the litany of non-profits that receive funds and increase oversight on how grants are distributed. For example, the United Council of Human Services (UCHS) located on 2111 Jennings Street, defrauded the city government of millions of dollars. The Dream Keeper Initiative, meant to improve the lives of the minority community, instead created an ecosystem of dubious non-profits and city jobs that have no measurable positive impact on the community they were created to serve. Corruption is a huge issue that drains the city coffers by funding useless programs and starving useful programs. By eliminating corruption, we can reduce our budget deficit.
The other approach will be to restore downtown as a destination. In talking with SFPD in 2021 when their mobile command vehicle was parked at Union Square, they informed me that 70% of all sales tax revenue comes from Union Square and vicinity, and that if Mayor London Breed did not address the crime concerns, that the local merchants would “find a new mayor”. It seemed that not too long after this, the mission statement from city hall room 200 radically changed. Restoring visitors’ sense of security, offering free or reduced parking fees, bringing cars back to Market Street, and continuous cleaning and maintenance of the downtown area may all be necessary to bring customers and businesses back to downtown San Francisco.
| 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 | ✅ | |||
| Street cleanliness | ✅ | |||
| Homeless services | ✅ | |||
| Affordable housing | ✅ | |||
| Parks | ✅ | |||
| Roads | ✅ | |||
| Bus, bike, train, and other public transit infrastructure | ✅ | |||
| Schools | ✅ | |||
| Medical facilities | ✅ | |||
| Drug prevention and treatment | ✅ | |||
| Arts | ✅ |
If you want to explain any positions above, please feel free:
The city doesn’t have a problem with lack of money, but rather how they spend it. With no qualms whatsoever, we will spend millions of dollars on unaccountable non-profits and create new useless bureaucratic positions in SFGov, but not spend money on items of urgent concern, such as public safety or infrastructure. Not enough politicians are paying attention to how our money is being spent, and what the results are for our programs.
Personal
Tell us a bit about yourself!
How long have you lived in San Francisco? What brought you here and what keeps you here?
From birth (1978) to sophomore year of college (1998), and then from 2014 to present. It was inevitable that I came back here. I suppose I didn’t choose to come back to San Francisco, but rather it chose me. I’ve been to nearly every major city in the United States. I’ve travelled to 46 out of the 50 states. I’ve lived in several different cities, such as Oceanside CA, San Angelo TX, Stafford VA, Fraser MI, Fairbanks AK, as well as time overseas in places like Tbilisi, Georgia (the country). In no other place do I feel as in my element or as comfortable as I do in San Francisco. I can’t explain exactly why. In my time in the US Marine Corps, I’ve been all over the world from North Korea to Portugal, Ecuador, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Jordan, and the Phillipines and done so many things and have met so many people from vastly different parts of the world, and I’m glad I did that. All of it I truly believe, however, was preparing me to come back here and try to make San Francisco the best city it can possibly be.
What do you love most about San Francisco?
It’s fiercely independent. We pioneered our own way of living and we’ve never looked to the outside world for verification to see if what we’re doing is alright.
What do you dislike the most about San Francisco?
We need more greenery. We destroyed many of our natural creeks and waterways. It would be tremendously transformative to restore some of them, to include Islais Creek and Mission Creek.
Tell us about your current involvement in the community (e.g., volunteer groups, neighborhood associations, civic and professional organizations, etc.)
-
SFFD Neighborhood Emergency Response Team (NERT) instructor (2016-present)
-
SFFD Listos Instructor (Spanish-speaking neighborhood readiness program)
-
SFFD BART, MUNI, and CalTrain Committee (2022-present)
-
SFFD Tactical EMS Committee (2017-2023)
-
Heavy Equipment Rigging Specialist and Hazardous Materials Specialist CA Task Force 3 Urban Search and Rescue
-
Volunteer Cliff Rescue and Public Safety Diver San Mateo County Sheriff Department (2021-present)
-
Sunnyside Neighborhood Association President (2016-2020)
-
West of Twin Peaks Central Council (Secretary, Vice President, President) 2019-2023
-
Veteran Affairs Commissioner 2019-2024 (Vice President 2022)
-
District 7 Participatory Budget Committee (2017)
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.