Manny Yekutiel

• Office: Supervisor, District 8
• Election Date: November 3, 2026
• Candidate: Emanuel (Manny) Yekutiel
• Due Date: March 12, 2026
• Printable Version

Thank you for seeking GrowSF's endorsement for the November 3, 2026 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 March 12, 2026 so we have enough time to adequately review and discuss your answers.

• Your Policy Goals
• Your Leadership
• The Issues
• Public Safety
• Substance abuse
• Mental Health
• Small Business
• Housing
• Transit Infrastructure
• Budget
• Personal
• Thank you

Your Policy 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.

What policies do you hope to change or preserve by running for Supervisor, District 8? Please be specific, and list them in order of priority.

I want to make the City affordable, safe, and joyous.

We’ll make it more affordable by building 10,000 more homes in eight years in the district, making public school an easier choice for parents, and making childcare free for all.

We’ll make it safer by fully staffing our police department and getting everyone who is suffering on the streets of the district off the streets and into care.

We’ll make it more joyous by filling every vacant storefront in the district, investing in our public spaces, and creating more opportunities for people to build community.

Why those policies?

Because they are what are holding San Francisco back from reaching its full potential and its full economic recovery. Also because if San Francisco continues to be this expensive we will lose our promise of being a City that people can choose to make their home, which, given our history, is an essential part of the role we play in society.

Explain why your #1 goal is your #1 goal.

Housing is upstream of nearly every other challenge in San Francisco: when there are not enough homes, rents rise, families leave, workers face longer commutes, small businesses struggle to hire, and neighborhoods become less stable and less inclusive. Those same pressures ripple outward, worsening homelessness and displacement, hollowing out neighborhood vitality, reducing school enrollment, and making it harder for the city to retain the people who make San Francisco work. That is why housing is not just one issue among many; it is the foundation for whether the city can be affordable, functional, and welcoming to a broad range of people.

How will you build the coalition and political capital to enact your #1 goal? What obstacles will you face, and how will you overcome them? Will the power of the office of Supervisor, District 8 be enough to achieve this goal?

I would build that coalition by bringing more regular people into the political process, including renters, families, and small business owners who are too often underrepresented in City Hall. Too often, the loudest voices in local politics are not the only voices, and part of the job is organizing broader public support so that the people who want a more affordable and functional city are actually heard.

There is a lot a District 8 Supervisor can do directly, but no Supervisor achieves a major goal alone. I would use the office to build a real governing coalition — working with colleagues, residents, advocates, labor unions, and community leaders to create momentum and move policy forward together.

The biggest obstacle is that support for housing is often broad but passive, while opposition is concentrated and organized. Overcoming that means making the case clearly and consistently, standing firm when the politics get difficult, and using the office to turn broad agreement into real political action. A District 8 Supervisor cannot solve the housing crisis alone, but the office is absolutely strong enough to help build the coalition, public pressure, and legislative momentum needed to make real progress.

Will the power of the office of Supervisor, District 8 be enough to achieve the other goals?

Yes. I would use the office to shape legislation, influence the budget, convene stakeholders, and build the coalition and momentum needed to get real results. The office is not all-powerful, but it is absolutely powerful enough to lead, persuade, and help move major citywide priorities forward.

San Francisco has areas of procedural and legislative bloat, making it hard for the city to serve its residents effectively. Give three examples of legislation that should be repealed.

First, discretionary review for code-compliant projects should be repealed or sharply limited. If a housing or business project already follows the rules on the books, it should not be subjected to another round of discretionary delay and uncertainty. That kind of process drives up costs, slows down needed projects, and makes it harder for the city to solve problems it already says it wants to address.

Second, San Francisco should remove the unified license fees for small businesses. It is hard enough to make a small business work in the City - charging them an arm and a leg just to stay open only makes it harder.

Third, the City should repeal redundant permit requirements for routine, low-risk work, such as basic storefront improvements or minor tenant improvements that do not create meaningful health or safety risks. The government should absolutely protect health and safety, but it should not force residents and small businesses through repetitive approvals that add cost and delay without adding real value. When the permitting process is cluttered with unnecessary steps, it wastes time, frustrates applicants, and makes government less effective

What is an "out there" change that you would make to state/local government policy, if you could? For the purpose of this question, you are not constrained to the office of Supervisor, District 8.

Currently our Department of Public Health does not have the authority to treat people who are in the midst of a mental health crisis or breakdown unless they have a court order or if they are 5150ed.

They should have the ability to treat people on site and to bring people in for longer stays.

Your Leadership

We’d like to learn more about your leadership style and plan to execute effectively once you assume office.

When in office, how would you balance the needs of the electorate with the demands of special interests? Where do you foresee this being the biggest challenge?

I would approach that balance by staying grounded in the people of my district and in the City writ large and by making sure that the people of my district receive most of my time, attention, and focus.

Interest groups, advocates, labor, business, and community organizations can offer useful expertise and perspective, and I will listen carefully to that input. But first and foremost, my job is to represent the people in my District and make decisions based on their needs and the broader public interest first.

When in office, how would you balance the needs of your district with the needs of the city? Where do you anticipate this being the biggest challenge?

Framing district needs and city needs as opposites is often a false dichotomy. Everyone in San Francisco — in District 8 and beyond — wants and needs the same basics: to be and feel safe in the city, to afford to live here, to get around reliably, to live on clean and welcoming streets, to have responsive and effective government, and to know that our public schools and neighborhood institutions are strong.

The biggest challenges come when the benefits of a policy are citywide but the impacts are felt most immediately at the neighborhood level — whether that is housing, street redesigns, siting services, or difficult budget decisions — and in those moments the job is to be honest about the tradeoffs, listen closely, and make sure citywide solutions are implemented in a way that truly works for the community.

How do you think the day-to-day management of a Supervisor’s office can be improved? How do you plan to run your office?

A Supervisor’s office should be run professionally, with clear priorities, strong constituent service, thoughtful policy work, and a culture of competence and accountability. That is the standard I would set for my own office: low drama, intelligent, courageous, and competent. I would hire a committed team with subject matter expertise, listen carefully, and stay focused on delivering for the district.

If you could measure the success of your term by 1 metric, and 1 metric only, what would that metric be?

If I had to choose just one metric, it would be the number of new homes actually built. I would like my team to be responsible for setting the conditions to build 10,000 new homes in D8 within 8 years. This is the clearest measure because affordability and accessibility in San Francisco ultimately depend on whether we are creating enough places for people to live.

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? Why do you believe this is the #1 issue?

The #1 public safety issue today is SFPD understaffing. San Francisco cannot make people safe and make them feel safe if the city does not have enough officers and professional staff to respond quickly, investigate crimes thoroughly, maintain neighborhood presence, and do all of that consistently across the city. Both the department’s own staffing analysis and comparisons to peer cities point to the same basic problem: we do not have the staffing levels we need.

I believe this is the #1 issue because staffing is foundational. If the department is stretched too thin, every other public safety priority becomes harder to deliver well. That affects both actual safety and public confidence. San Franciscans should be able to trust that when they need help, someone will show up quickly, follow through, and help keep their neighborhood safe.

What power would you have to solve this issue?

As a Supervisor, I would use the office's budget and oversight powers to make SFPD staffing a real priority. That means properly funding the department, continuing to streamline recruiting, and improving pay, benefits, and hiring incentives to attract and retain more talent. It also means reducing excess overtime where possible and using those savings more efficiently to support long-term staffing and retention. The city has made some progress recently, but we need to keep going until staffing levels are where they need to be.

What three things would you change about how SFPD operates?

First, I would fully staff the street patrol and neighborhood presence. Second, I would civilianize more administrative roles so that more sworn officers can spend their time doing the work only sworn officers can do. Third, I would continue improving coordination between SFPD and other public services, including models like the stabilization center at 822 Geary, so officers are not asked to handle too many situations on their own that would be better addressed through coordinated support.

What small change do you think would have the biggest impact?

One small change that could have a big impact is using better processes and technology to make the officers and deputies we already have more effective. That includes things like faster digital reporting, better mobile tools in the field, and reducing unnecessary paperwork so officers can spend more time on patrol, investigations, and other frontline work.

No one signs up for this job because they want to do paperwork. They sign up to keep the public safe, and the city should do everything it can to let them spend more of their time doing exactly that.

When considering appointments to the Police Commission, which sets SFPD's use of force guidelines, what do you consider to be important in the candidate? Please include what you believe the ideal candidate’s views are on the following: public drug use, sidewalk vending (including food and stolen goods), use of police technology (drones, AI), and shoplifting.

When considering appointments to the Police Commission, I would look for candidates with real public safety experience, a willingness to be accountable to the public, and a background or perspective that adds to the rest of the Commission so the body reflects a broader range of experiences and viewpoints. A strong commissioner should understand that effective policing is essential to making a city safe and allowing it to thrive, while also recognizing the real harms that overcriminalization and mass incarceration have caused in America.

At a high level, I would want commissioners who support enforcement of existing laws on issues like public drug use, sidewalk vending, and shoplifting. On tools like drones and AI, they should be open to their potential to improve effectiveness, but also clear-eyed about the risks and the need for guardrails.

More broadly, I do not think the goal should be to appoint commissioners based only on a checklist of preexisting positions. We should appoint people with the character, judgment, and temperament to work through difficult questions seriously, use all the information available to them, weigh the evidence, and make decisions that serve both public safety and the broader public interest.

Substance abuse

In general, how should the City handle people who are abusing drugs on City sidewalks?

The City should make clear that open-air drug use on public sidewalks is not acceptable. People should be held accountable for breaking the law, especially when they are using deadly drugs in public and making shared spaces unsafe and unusable for everyone else.

At the same time, enforcement alone is not enough. The goal should be to get people off the street and into treatment, recovery, and other forms of real support, and that means the City has to build enough treatment and recovery capacity for that approach to actually work. The status quo is failing both the people caught in addiction and the broader public. For that reason, San Francisco needs a response that combines clear enforcement with a serious commitment to long-term recovery and stability.

If someone is passed out from drugs on the sidewalk, how should the City respond?

The City should respond first as a medical and public safety emergency. If someone is passed out from drugs on the sidewalk, the immediate priority is to get trained responders there quickly, make sure the person is okay, address any overdose risk, and transport them to appropriate care if needed.

But the response should not end there, especially if the same person is repeatedly ending up in that condition. In those cases, the City should use every available tool — outreach, treatment, stabilization, sober housing, and rehabilitation facilities — to try to break that cycle. Leaving people to collapse in public over and over again is not compassionate, and it is not acceptable.

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 do not support creating safe consumption sites in San Francisco. I believe the City’s drug policy should be focused on moving people toward treatment and recovery rather than creating spaces for the continued use of deadly drugs.

Instead, San Francisco should expand treatment capacity, sobering and stabilization options, sober housing, short- and medium-term residential care, and other recovery-focused services that give people a real path toward stability and recovery. San Francisco should respond to addiction with both accountability and support, but the goal should be helping people move toward healthier and safer lives, not accommodating long-term public drug use.

Do you support sober housing? Why or why not?

Yes — I support sober housing because it is one of the most practical and humane tools we have to help people break out of addiction and build stability. Recovery is incredibly difficult, and it is much harder when someone does not have a safe place to live.

Sober housing gives people more than a bed. It gives them stability, independence, and access to services and support while they navigate a very difficult chapter of their lives.

Most importantly, it is a real solution, not just a temporary fix that moves people out of sight without helping them recover. If we are serious about improving public health and supporting long-term recovery, sober housing needs to be part of the city’s strategy.

Would you continue or change the city’s harm reduction policies that distribute drug use paraphernalia beyond clean needles, such as pipes, foil, etc.?

I would end the distribution of paraphernalia like pipes and foil. The City should continue strategies that have a strong evidence base for saving lives and reducing disease transmission, such as naloxone and overdose prevention education, but it should not be using public resources to facilitate continued drug use.

Mental Health

Should San Francisco amend our current laws around mental health crisis intervention to better help people suffering on the streets? If yes, why and how? If not, why not?

Yes - we should empower the Department of Public Health to bring people into short and medium term care even without their express consent if they are in the midst of a mental health crisis.

What aspects of San Francisco’s conservatorship policies would you change?

Conservatorship should be a last-resort tool, but it is still essential for people who are truly unable to keep themselves safe or meet basic needs. The bar to conserve someone should be lower but the bar to exit conservatorship should be lower as well.

To use it effectively, San Francisco needs a system that can process cases efficiently and enough placement capacity to follow through once someone qualifies. If we want conservatorship to be a real part of the City’s toolkit, we need a process that works and places for people to go.

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

Yes — involuntary mental health holds should be available for people in acute crisis who, because of serious mental illness, cannot keep themselves safe or meet basic needs. For some people, it’s the only realistic path to stabilization and treatment. But this tool should be used narrowly, as a last resort when voluntary options aren’t workable. The City must build in strict clinical criteria, time limits, patients’ rights protections, and independent oversight with transparent public reporting to prevent abuse.

Additionally, the City needs strong front-end alternatives — like mobile crisis teams, street-based behavioral health outreach, and 24/7 crisis stabilization beds — to prevent unnecessary holds, as well as real follow-through after a hold — treatment capacity, appropriate next-step placements, and ongoing supportive services — so a hold becomes a true bridge to recovery.

I also believe that a lion’s share of the responsibility for long-term mental health care should rest with the state, not a City government.

Small Business

What would you change about the process of new retail business formation in San Francisco, across zoning, permitting, renovations, fees, and financing? Please be as specific as possible.

It should be free and easy to start and run a small business in the City.

We should eliminate most of the current ground-floor commercial zoning restrictions. For most business types, finding a willing landlord should be the approval they need to open a business.

We should eliminate annual unified license fees that often cost small businesses thousands of dollars a year.

And we should simplify permitting so fewer permits are required to do basic work to open a business.

If San Francisco adopted policies that allowed all non-vice businesses to open without special hearings, what would you do to help local small businesses compete with large national chains?

I would make it easier for small businesses to open and stay open by reducing red tape, simplifying permits and fees, and cutting unnecessary regulations that fall especially hard on smaller operators. Large chains should also play a role in helping reactivate struggling commercial corridors, but they should not get a blank check, and the City should still be thoughtful about limits and neighborhood fit.

I would also look for targeted ways to help local small businesses compete, including grants or other support for opening, expanding, and staying rooted in the neighborhood. If San Francisco wants vibrant commercial corridors, we need a city government that is easier for independent businesses to navigate, not one that only the biggest players can handle.

Also, San Francisco has a strong small business culture. We like our local shops. We support our dive bars, our hardware and bookstores, and we have our favorite local restaurants. I would use the Supervisor's office to nurture this existing culture, promote local businesses, and remind people to shop local.

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

N/A

Housing

Do you believe that San Francisco has a shortage of homes? Why or why not?

Yes — San Francisco has a housing shortage. It’s an amazing city that has experienced massive job and population growth over the past few decades, but we haven’t built enough homes to meet that demand. From 2014-2024, District 8 built an average of 122 new homes a year. From 2005-2015 that average was 63 new homes a year. When more people compete for too few units, prices and rents rise, and it becomes harder for families, workers, and longtime residents to stay in the city. The solution is to build significantly more housing — at every level of affordability — including market-rate housing, deed-restricted affordable housing, and social housing — so San Francisco can remain a place where people from a wide range of incomes can live and thrive.

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

Yes — peer-reviewed research consistently shows a well-established supply-and-demand relationship in housing: when demand rises faster than the housing stock expands, rents and home prices increase.

Do you think Mayor Lurie’s Family zoning plan is too ambitious or not ambitious enough? Why?

Mayor Lurie’s Family Zoning plan is a great first step. It moves San Francisco in the right direction, but zoning alone will not solve our housing crisis. To actually make housing more abundant and affordable, we also need to reduce the red tape, delays, and uncertainty that drive up construction costs and make it unnecessarily hard to build.

Importantly, that includes by-right approvals for code-compliant housing. If a project follows the rules, it should be approved without endless discretionary delays. That kind of predictability is essential if we want more homes to get built in practice, not just allowed in theory.

Do you believe that building more housing is the #1 way to reduce the cost of living in San Francisco? Why or why not?

Yes — building more housing is the most important thing San Francisco can do to reduce the cost of living, because housing is the foundation for affordability. For many families, it is the single biggest monthly expense, so when housing costs are too high, everything else becomes harder.

When San Francisco does not build enough homes, the effects spread far beyond rent. Families are pushed into longer, more expensive commutes. Businesses, schools, hospitals, and public agencies have a harder time attracting and retaining workers. Those pressures raise costs across the local economy and make the city less accessible to the people who keep it running.

There is also a deeper civic cost. When teachers, service workers, artists, young families, and other essential members of our communities cannot afford to live here, San Francisco loses some of the diversity, energy, and vibrancy that make it special in the first place. Housing scarcity does not just make the city more expensive — it makes the city less inclusive and less alive.

Housing is not the only factor that affects affordability — transit, childcare, and education matter too — but it is the biggest lever the city can pull. If we want San Francisco to be more affordable, more functional, and more welcoming, building more housing is the most important place to start.

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

I support faster and more predictable approvals for affordable, homeless, and market-rate housing because San Francisco will not become more affordable unless we make it much easier to build more homes of all kinds. This is not about giving developers a free pass — it is about reducing costs and delays so we can house more working families, reduce displacement, and create the kind of abundant housing that keeps the city accessible to people across income levels.

Transit Infrastructure

Do you believe the MUNI funding crisis should be solved by taxes alone? Why or why not?

No. Muni’s funding crisis should not be solved by taxes alone, but reliable transit is an essential public good for working-class San Franciscans, seniors, students, people with disabilities, and everyone who depends on the system to get to work, school, and daily life. Preserving and improving service has to be the top priority.

The solution should include a mix of dedicated revenue, stronger fare recovery, meaningful state and regional support, and long-term tools like joint development on transit-owned land that can generate revenue and increase ridership. At the same time, Muni has to use existing dollars well and be accountable for service, reliability, and the rider experience, because San Franciscans deserve a system that is both sustainable and dependable.

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

Yes — protected bike lanes are essential infrastructure, and San Francisco should move urgently to build out a citywide network. At the same time, our mobility options should complement each other, not compete with each other: our job is to design streets so pedestrians, cyclists, transit riders, drivers, and people using mobility devices can all move through the city safely, quickly, sustainably, and comfortably.

Is Vision Zero the right goal? Why or why not?

Yes — Vision Zero is the right goal. We should absolutely aim for zero traffic deaths, and the city should not treat serious injuries and fatalities as an inevitable cost of getting around. At the same time, Vision Zero is necessary but not sufficient. San Francisco should also be building a transportation system that is not just safe, but also fast, accessible, affordable, and joyful to use.

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?

Yes — bus-only lanes are an extremely effective way to move more people more quickly and efficiently, and San Francisco should enforce the restrictions it puts in place, including ticketing drivers who ignore them. If we are going to dedicate street space to faster, more reliable transit, enforcement is essential to making sure those lanes actually function as intended.

At the same time, San Francisco should be trying to make all modes of transportation — including cars, buses, bikes, scooters, and walking — safe and fast.

Budget

San Francisco is facing a large budget deficit due to declining tax revenues from our struggling downtown. What would your approach be to fix this?

We need to revitalize downtown by cleaning up street conditions, keeping and improving robust public transit, bringing more businesses in by fixing the vacant feeling on Market Street, supporting programs like vacant-to-vibrant, and hosting more attractive events and festivals downtown.

We also need to build more housing downtown to turn it into a real residential neighborhood. San Francisco government spending should be tied to outcomes within each department and focused on getting the basics done well.

City Hall staffing has grown 27% while the city’s population has stayed stagnant. Would you support right sizing city government to rebalance the budget? Why or why not? Compare SF to other cities & counties.

What matters is whether government is working. Are buses reliable? Are streets clean? Do people feel safe? People are right to expect that City Hall is spending their tax dollars wisely and actually delivering results. That’s where we need much stronger accountability.

San Francisco spends more per resident than most cities, but we’re not always seeing better outcomes. Other cities that perform well stay focused on results and are willing to change or cut programs that aren’t working.

We should be making targeted, data-driven decisions and focusing resources on the basics people count on every day. At the end of the day, this is about performance. If we focus on outcomes and accountability, the right size of government follows.

District-Specific Questions

Do you have a 100 day plan for when you take office? If yes, list your top three deliverables, and the metrics you will use to measure progress by Day 100.

My goals are to build 10,000 new homes in 8 years, fill every vacant storefront in the first 4 years, and have zero unsheltered homelessness in the district. My biggest priority in the first 100 days is to establish the housing priority district on Market Street, as discussed above.

The City has attempted to restrict public-space distribution of pipes, foils and other safe-smoking supplies. Do you support distribution of pipes, foil, or other supplies? Why or why not?

I’d refer you to my answer above regarding a similar question.

In 2025, the City used intensive deployments in some hotspots, including a 24/7 mobile command presence at 16th & Mission that was later removed. What public-safety deployment model do you support for D8’s busiest corridors (Castro, 24th Street, and key plazas) from 2026–2030? And what metrics do you hope to achieve by 2030?

Regular day and night time beat cops who can help address drug dealing and use, in particular on 16th and Market, Castro and 18th, Jane Warner Plaza, Hartford and Market, and Church and Market.

Our goal will be to eliminate homelessness and drug use within the district. We will need an all-in approach to make that happen.

San Francisco continues to clear encampments, and tent counts fell sharply in early 2025. However, encampments, sidewalk sleeping, and quality-of-life impacts remain a recurring issue in some corridors. What is your plan to reduce encampments and chronic sidewalk sleeping in D8 while ensuring access to shelter, behavioral health care, and long-term housing?

Our plan is to expand temporary options, including transitional housing, safe sleeping sites/tiny villages, shelters, and navigation centers and to pair that with greater accountability and enforcement in keeping our streets clean and safe. We also need to create more flow in the system so that people can move through it and back into stable permanent housing.

Should San Francisco expand its conservatorship authority for individuals repeatedly detained for drug-related crises? If yes, name one policy change you support (local or state), and the metrics you would target to ensure the updated policy is working.

Yes.

I believe it should be easier to ensure that people who desperately need mental health services receive them without necessarily being committed to full conservatorship. I’d like to explore a third way that allows more temporary conservation methods.

How would you improve collaboration between the City and local merchant groups (Castro Merchants, Noe Valley Association, etc.) to address safety and cleanliness? Please name 1-2 actions you would take, and the outcomes you hope to achieve.

I would organize regular quarterly meetings with all of the merchant and neighborhood groups together and potentially support additional community benefit districts, or at the very least ensure that existing CBDs have what they need. I would also be an extra set of eyes on the ground within the district to escalate hot spots.

District 8 housing is expensive and supply-constrained. What housing outcomes do you want in D8 by 2030 (e.g., units permitted, family-sized units, affordability mix), and what will you do as Supervisor to ensure zoning changes translate into permits and completion, not just plans?

We’d like to build 10,000 new homes in 8 years. To do this, we have three methodologies to employ: creating a housing priority district on Market Street, which will eliminate many, if not all, of the barriers to building housing, focusing on large sites within the district, and incentivizing garage and backyard units.

Building this many new units would also provide far more affordable housing in the district than has been built over the last 20 years.

Who do you view as your core coalition in D8, and how would you earn the trust of those who disagree with your approach?

The many everyday citizens of the district who are just trying to make a life in this incredible part of the City. Parents, families, small business owners, religious leaders, and community leaders. I would earn the trust of those who disagree with me by listening, finding common ground, and maintaining my authenticity and integrity.

Personal

Tell us a bit about yourself!

How long have you lived in San Francisco? What brought you here and what keeps you here?

Close to 14 years! I came here because I fell in love with San Francisco during the Summer of 2010. I was disowned by my father in 2011 and came back to the City in 2012 to start a new life. The community of amazing people in this City keeps me here.

What do you love most about San Francisco?

The people. Deep, caring, motivated, creative, and industrious.

What do you dislike the most about San Francisco?

How inaccessibly expensive it has become to live here.

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

I co-founded the Civic Joy Fund, which funds 17 trash pickups weekly, night markets around the city, public art, and volunteer activities (though I no longer work for the Civic Joy Fund). I still run Manny’s, my small business, which has hosted and continues to host many events to engage and involve the local community. I previously was the President of the Valencia Corridor Merchants Association.

Why do you want to run for public office?

To make the City more affordable, safe, and joyous.

Thank you

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