Trevor L. Chandler
- Office: Board of Supervisors, District 9
- Election Date: November 5, 2024
- Candidate: Trevor L. Chandler
- 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 9?
I am running for D9 Supervisor to ensure District 9 voters have safe and clean streets and a City Hall that works for them, not against them. For decades we have had leaders more focused on sound bites than sound policy, resulting in historically large budgets delivering worse results. It is time for some common sense and it is time to get back to basics so we can have a well run city.
What is your #1 policy goal?
My #1 policy goal is an accountable, responsive, and fully staffed police department.
Police are not and should not be the answer to every problem San Francisco faces, but our SFPD staffing crisis impacts every aspect of our city's quality of life from unacceptable response times to crime, taking on vandalism and graffiti, and responding effectively to human trafficking.
How will you build the coalition and political capital to enact your #1 goal?
My career has been one of bridging complex political divides and getting results. Given the overwhelming majority of voters across the city who want this to happen, the main obstacle is getting Supervisors elected who also share this goal. I'm hopeful to have colleagues on the Board who will think the same way I do.
Will the power of the office of Board of Supervisors, District 9 be enough to achieve this goal?
No. While an individual Supervisor can have an impact in their district, it takes a working majority to get big-ticket items that affect the entire city across the finish line.
What are your #2 and #3 policy goals?
Refocusing our response to the opioid, mental health, and homelessness crisis to one focus on getting people into recovery instead of simply maintaining the failed status quo.
Streamlining the housing and permitting process to ensure abundant housing that ensures those who were born here can stay here.
Will the power of the office of Board of Supervisors, District 9 be enough to achieve these goals?
No. While an individual Supervisor can have an impact in their district, it takes a working majority to get big-ticket items that affect the entire city across the finish line.
What is an existing policy you would like to reform?
I would like to completely reform the permitting policy by recombining the Departments of Building Inspection and Planning, streamlining the entire process and ensuring actual accountability for output and outcomes
What is an "out there" change that you would make to state/local government policy, if you could? (For example: adding at-large supervisors, changing how elections work, creating a Bay Area regional government, etc.)
I have put out a bold "moonshot plan" for reimagining how we address our addiction, mental health, and homelessness crisis. It requires federal, state, and local states of emergency as well as a complete rethinking of recovery services that would establish San Francisco as an international leader in fighting back against the opioid epidemic.
Tell us one thing you think needs to change in SF that the average voter wouldn't know about.
None of our numerous homeless outreach teams or street crisis teams talk to each other, they all have separate communication systems, separate metrics for success, if any, and no cohesive plan of action. They need to be put under one roof so we can comprehensively address the crises on our streets.
On a less serious note, most San Franciscans probably don't know that there is a pool table tax. Any establishment that has a pool table you need to pay to use has to pay hundreds of dollars a year if not thousands for a permit. It is one example of an absurdity that adds to the never ending list of costs affecting San Francisco small businesses. If elected I plan to "Free the Felt!".
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 #1 public safety issue today is our police officer staffing crisis, with a responsive, accountable, and fully staffed police department we will not be able to make tangible progress on the immediate quality of life issues facing D9 residents every day.
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?
Studies I have read have shown our police staffing levels anywhere between 500-700 officers below what is needed, my first priority is addressing that shortage. After we have reached those levels I would be open to reassessing if additional officers are necessary based on the evidence we are seeing on the ground.
I supported Supervisor Dorsey's original ballot proposal to have additional money for recruitment of officers and would look to similar efforts to incentivize hiring.
What solutions might exist to improve public safety that don't involve expanding the size of SFPD?
D9 needs a Community Safety Liaison like D8 has successfully piloted, a non-officer staff member who can serve to interface with community members and improve community safety.
Community ambassadors have shown great results when done correctly. I also support the common sense and accountable use of technology such as red light cameras, speed cameras, and automated license plate readers that allow police to focus on more urgent matters affecting quality of life without diminishing public safety.
What three things would you change about how SFPD operates?
- A better online portal to file police reports and submit evidence, especially video evidence, with a mandated response time of no more than 12 hours.
- We need to orient our officers and departments around a customer service mindset, public support for their work and budget is greatly affected by citizens who feel they are not being responded to in a timely manner. Even in a staffing shortage we must find ways to make sure residents experiencing crime know they are seen and heard.
- I would support greater use of technology that ensures both the officers' and the public's safety.
Do you support policies commonly referred to as "defund the police"? Why or why not?
No. We can have an accountable, responsive, and fully funded police department, we don't have to choose. Law enforcement is an essential part of any society and to believe that getting rid of police will make us safer is nonsense.
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 supported recalling Chesa Boudin because during a once in a generation crisis (COVID) he refused to put ideology in the back seat and focus on the best outcomes for our City's safety. In any other year this might have been an issue that could have waited until the next election, however in this extraordinary moment in time it necessitated immediate action which is why I supported the recall.
| 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:
While the quality of street food should certainly be inspected to ensure quality and safety, I do not believe it should be the City and County's top priority for arrest and prosecution at this time.
Drugs
In general, how should the City handle people who are abusing drugs on City sidewalks?
Open air drug use is unacceptable. I believe in a balanced, treatment first approach for those abusing drugs on City sidewalks that includes confiscation and enforcement as options. A tiered enforcement approach of sobering centers, mandated treatment, and the arrest or conservatorship of repeat offenders is a reasonable approach to ensuring we are keeping our streets safe and clean while also maintaining a recovery-focused strategy.
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.
I believe in an all-of-the-above approach for addressing our addiction crisis, this includes safe consumption sites under the appropriate circumstances. These centers should be recovery-focused, not enablement focused, and should be treated as the first step into getting someone into recovery. I also want to ensure they are not in residential areas, and not solely placed in the same neighborhoods where people are most likely to relapse and fall into old habits. Every Supervisorial District must commit to having these facilities. Ideally, I would prefer these facilities to be directly attached to an existing medical facility or hospital.
Some have argued that safe consumption sites (or sobering centers) are only viable if they are paired with implementing zero-tolerance for public consumption of illegal drugs like fentanyl and heroin. Do you agree or disagree with this view?
I agree.
Should fentanyl dealing be penalized differently from dealing other drugs?
I am wary of treating a specific drug differently from others given our country's history with the failed War on Drugs that allowed crack cocaine to be treated differently than powder cocaine, resulting in the disproportionate imprisonment of the Black and Brown community.
I believe opioids in general should be treated with the same seriousness.
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. Even with the recent updates to conservatorship laws at the state level, red tape has continued to prevent the City from effectively taking people who are a danger to themselves and others off the street. While well-intended, these regulations have had the effect of perpetuating harm on the individuals in crisis rather than protecting them.
What is the role of government in providing care for those who cannot care for themselves?
Taxpayers expect their government to keep them safe and ensure their quality of life, allowing someone in active addiction or suffering from a mental health crisis to roam the streets puts both the individual and society at risk. Ensuring care for those who cannot care for themselves also ensures care for the community at large.
Some have argued that San Francisco should place people who are experiencing mental health crises on the streets into involuntary mental health holds at psychiatric facilities. Do you agree or disagree with this view? Please explain why or why not.
Yes. Taxpayers expect their government to keep them safe and ensure their quality of life, allowing someone suffering from a mental health crisis to roam the streets puts both the individual and society at risk. Ensuring care for those who cannot care for themselves also ensures care for the community at large.
If you agree with this view, please outline some guardrails and oversight the City must provide to prevent abuse.
Mandated check-ins with CARE Courts, public advocates, and family can help prevent abuse of this system.
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?
Yes. The Board, over the course of decades, has demonstrated an inability to properly manage its finances and focus on student achievement. For too long the Board of Education has been used as a stepping stone to higher office, resulting in members prioritizing short term political trade-offs over a focus on long term student achievement.
I believe we need to seriously look at bringing SFUSD more directly under the purview of the City and County of San Francisco with some Board of Supervisors appointed members or develop a hybrid model that allows for both elected and appointed school board members.
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?
I believe we can make SFUSD a world class public school system that allows every student in them to thrive and develop their abilities including magnet schools like Ruth Asawa and merit based schools like Lowell. While charter, private, and religious schools may be desirable for some, I do not believe our tax dollars should go towards them and should instead be focused on improving our public schools.
Did you support the recall of Board of Education members Collins, López, and Moliga? Please explain why you did or did not support the recall of each member.
I supported recalling each member of the School Board because during a once in a generation crisis (COVID) they refused to put ideology in the back seat and focus on the best outcomes for the School District's students and staff. In any other year this might have been an issue that could have waited until the next election, however in this extraordinary moment in time it necessitated immediate action which is why I supported the recall.
| 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? |
If you want to explain any positions above, please feel free:
I left the question on firing teachers who consistently underperform blank because there are too many variables as to what that would look like. Having been a teacher for the last year I have seen firsthand the adverse classroom conditions so many of us are under, to solely hold the teacher accountable, and not also the school, administration, and overall system accountable as well would not comprehensively address the problem.
That being said, I do support requiring schools to improve student performance and having them focus on outcomes. I am open to conversations on what this comprehensive accountability metric would look like.
Small Business
What would you change about the process of new retail business formation in San Francisco?
I believe most small businesses in San Francisco should be permitted by-right. Most small businesses will fail based on a number of factors; an opaque, bureaucratic, and unnecessary process imposed on them by City Hall should not be one of those factors.
Should all businesses be permitted by-right? If not, which business categories do you think should require special government approval?
I believe most small businesses should be permitted by-right. Businesses such as strip clubs should continue to require special government approval and community input.
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 believe increasing the number of available ABC permits is appropriate.
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?
At the request of both the recreational cannabis industry and the Brownie Mary Democratic Club, as well as leaders in the Asian American community, I support a moratorium on new cannabis permits. Given the nascent state of the industry, oversaturated market, and uncertain regulatory and financing environment I believe we are best served stabilizing the market for existing permit holders and small businesses to ensure they are able to survive and thrive.
| 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. San Francisco has consistently underbuilt housing for decades and we are nowhere near close to where we need to build to ensure that those who were born here can stay here and that those who want to live here can afford to.
Do you believe that housing prices are set by supply and demand constraints? Why or why not?
Overall, yes. I believe it is inarguable that San Francisco's housing and homelessness crisis is caused by consistently and deliberately suppressing supply in the face of consistently rising demand. That being said, we must also ensure cost controls like subsidized, affordable housing and rent control remain to ensure we protect those at all levels of income.
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?
While there is little we can do in the face of this self-imposed crisis, I do want to ensure San Francisco fully enforces neighborhood preference so that affordable housing offsets are built in the same areas as market rate housing to prevent gentrification and ensure equal distribution of affordable housing across the city.
Should homeless shelters be exempt from CEQA, Discretionary Review, and Conditional Use permits?
Neighborhoods deserve input and genuine collaboration from the City when a homeless shelter is proposed in their area. Limited discretionary review would allow this to happen and while it may not resolve all issues or concerns it will ensure that the neighborhood has a voice. I support CEQA reform as the process has been weaponized to prevent housing rather than address genuine environmental concerns.
Should subsidized Affordable housing be exempt from CEQA, Discretionary Review, and Conditional Use permits?
Neighborhoods deserve input and genuine collaboration from the City when affordable housing is proposed in their area. Limited discretionary review would allow this to happen and while it may not resolve all issues or concerns it will ensure that the neighborhood has a voice. I support CEQA reform as the process has been weaponized to prevent housing rather than address genuine environmental concerns.
Should market rate housing be exempt from CEQA, Discretionary Review, and Conditional Use permits?
Neighborhoods deserve input and genuine collaboration from the City when housing is proposed in their area. Limited discretionary review would allow this to happen and while it may not resolve all issues or concerns it will ensure that the neighborhood has a voice. I support CEQA reform as the process has been weaponized to prevent housing rather than address genuine environmental concerns.
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)
Fulfilling the Housing Element necessitates reasonable loosening of existing limits on height, density, and bulk for residential buildings. We need officials who are able to navigate this process in good faith to ensure new housing is built, without out of line developments like skyscrapers in Bernal Heights. Too often officials have used this process in bad faith to prevent any housing from being built. I am committed to ensuring community voices are heard and respected while also being an advocate to alleviate our housing crises.
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.
| 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?
Making Muni free for tourists and millionaires which only serves to bankrupt it makes no sense. I believe in a commonsense approach that builds on fare reduction and free transit for seniors, students, and those in need.
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 not just about securing fares but securing safety as those actually paying are less likely to be disruptive. Paying fares is also a part of our general social contract and incentivizes community investment of our public spaces.
Recent State funding requires Muni and BART to enforce fare payments in order to receive that funding; do you agree with this requirement?
Yes.
Should it be the policy of San Francisco to build a citywide protected bike lane network? Why or why not?
Yes, part of San Francisco's comeback will be making it a world-class urban destination for visitors and those who want to live here. A comprehensive bike network will establish us as a global leader in liveability and environmentalism.
| Yes | No | |
|---|---|---|
| Do you support banning cars from central downtown areas and certain retail or residential corridors? | X | |
| Do you support congestion pricing? | X | |
| Should San Francisco prioritize buses over car traffic by creating more bus-only lanes and directing traffic enforcement officers to ticket drivers who ignore the restrictions? | X | |
| Should Uber, Lyft, Waymo, and other ride-share services be permitted to operate in San Francisco? | X | |
| Should San Francisco allow more bike share and scooter share companies? | X | |
| Should San Francisco allow bike and scooter share companies to operate with fewer restrictions on the number of vehicles they offer for rent, and in more places (including inside Golden Gate Park)? | X |
If you want to explain any positions above, please feel free:
Budget
San Francisco is facing a large budget deficit due to declining tax revenues from our struggling downtown. What will your approach be to fix this?
| 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 | X | ||
| Arts | X |
If you want to explain any positions above, please feel free:
I selected 'Too little' and 'Enough but Badly' for Drug prevention and treatment because both are true. We need to both invest heavily in a metrics, outcome oriented approach to our crises while also accounting for the significant money that is already being spent with little to show for it.
Personal
Tell us a bit about yourself!
How long have you lived in San Francisco? What brought you here and what keeps you here?
I've lived in San Francisco a little less than a decade now, having moved here after working for the Human Rights Campaign on 7 marriage equality campaigns and numerous nondiscrimination campaigns. As a little gay boy growing up in small-town New Hampshire I never imagined living in a place like San Francisco was even a possibility. It was like a historic, glowing beacon of queer history while also being a symbol of the future that would always be beyond my reach. I still pinch myself knowing that I get to live here.
That amazing history and the continuing impact it plays in our state, country's, and world's future along with the incredible people that make it happen are what keep me here. I wanted to be in the middle of it all with the artists, innovators, creatives and entrepreneurs that were committed to improving their local community and their world.
What do you love most about San Francisco?
Our creativity and resilience in the face of overwhelming odds. San Francisco has been burned to the ground, suffered severe economic and political crises, and we have been counted down and out too many times to count, yet like the phoenix on our flag we rise again. We reinvent ourselves while staying close to our roots, we persevere and prove to our haters that you never bet against San Francisco.
What do you dislike the most about San Francisco?
Our toxic politics that prevent tough conversations on real solutions. I've been involved in some of the most high-stakes, complex, and high-emotion domestic and political issues of our time and I have still found a way to be civil while holding true to my values. Those who think of themselves as gatekeepers to getting involved in the city have resorted to obscene name calling, bullying, and toxic attacks rather than assuming those who disagree with them might also have the best interest of the City at heart. We need a reset with leaders who can have the tough conversations with respect, and reject the toxic history of politics in our city.
Tell us about your current involvement in the community (e.g., volunteer groups, neighborhood associations, civic and professional organizations, etc.)
Board of Advisors, Equality California
Public Member, Treasurer, California State Board of Pharmacy, Appointed by Governor Newsom
Former Member, Eastern Neighborhoods Citizens Advisory Committee, D9 Seat
LEAD Bay Area Fellow, CORO Northern California
Alice B Toklas LGBTQ Democratic Club
Chinese American Democratic Club
Brownie Mary Democratic Club
United Democratic Club
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.