Shawn Richard

• Office: Supervisor, District 10
• Election Date: November 3, 2026
• Candidate: Shawn M. Richard
• Due Date: July 1, 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 July 1, 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 10? Please be specific, and list them in order of priority.

1. Public Safety & Violence Prevention
2. Education and Youth Opportunities
3. Jobs, Workforce Development, and Economic Opportunity
4. Affordable Housing and Anti-Displacement
5. Small Business Development
6. Homelessness and Behavioral Health
7. Environmental Justice and the Hunters Point Shipyard
8. Transportation and Infrastructure

Why those policies?

Investment in commercial corridors throughout District 10. I support policies that address the root causes of homelessness by expanding supportive housing, behavioral health services. My top priority is making our neighborhoods safer through prevention, intervention, and accountability. I will advocate for increased investment in community-based violence prevention organizations, youth mentorship, mental health services, and reentry programs. Having founded Brothers Against Guns after losing two younger brothers to gun violence, I understand that lasting public safety requires both effective law enforcement and strong community partnerships. Having founded Brothers Against Guns after losing two younger brothers to gun violence, I understand that lasting public safety requires both effective law enforcement and strong community partnerships. Every child deserves access to quality education and opportunities to succeed. I will support expanded after-school programs, career and technical education, mentorship, internships, and partnerships that prepare young people for college, careers, and civic leadership. District 10 residents should have first access to jobs created by development projects in our community. I will support local hire policies, apprenticeship programs, small business growth, and workforce training that leads to family-sustaining careers. District 10 residents should have first access to jobs created by development projects in our community. I will support local hire policies, apprenticeship programs, small business growth, and workforce training that leads to family-sustaining careers. Small businesses are the backbone of our neighborhoods. I will work to reduce unnecessary barriers, improve access to grants and technical assistance, streamline permitting, and encourage tion treatment, and employment opportunities while maintaining clean and safe public spaces. I will fight for a complete, transparent, and science-based cleanup of the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard before any additional development moves forward. District 10 residents deserve clean air, clean soil, and safe neighborhoods. I support independent environmental oversight, public accountability, and protecting residents from toxic exposure. I will advocate for safer streets, more reliable public transit, improved road maintenance, and transportation options that better connect District 10 residents to jobs, schools, and essential services. Infrastructure investments should prioritize safety, accessibility, and equity.

Policies I Will Preserve:

I will continue to support policies that promote equity, protect civil rights, invest in public health, strengthen neighborhood services, and encourage meaningful community engagement. Government works best when residents have a voice in the decisions that affect their lives.

As District 10 Supervisor, I will focus on practical solutions, transparency, and accountability. My goal is to ensure every neighborhood is safer, healthier, and filled with opportunity while preserving the history, diversity, and resilience that make District 10 one of San Francisco’s strongest communities.

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

Public safety is my number one priority because nothing else matters if our families do not feel safe in their own neighborhoods. Children cannot thrive in school, small businesses cannot succeed, and communities cannot grow when people live in fear of violence.

This issue is deeply personal to me. I lost two younger brothers to gun violence, and those tragedies changed my life forever. Instead of allowing that pain to define me, I founded Brothers Against Guns in 1995 to help prevent other families from experiencing the same loss. For more than three decades, I have worked directly with young people, families, law enforcement, community organizations, and neighborhood leaders to reduce violence and create opportunities for those most at risk.

I believe public safety is about more than policing. It also means investing in prevention, intervention, mental health services, education, job training, and reentry programs that give people real alternatives to crime. We need law enforcement that is effective and accountable, while also supporting community-based organizations that have earned the trust of the people they serve.

As District 10 Supervisor, I will fight for policies that reduce violence before it happens, support victims and their families, and build safer neighborhoods where every resident has the opportunity to live, work, and raise a family without fear. That is why public safety is, and will remain, my number one priority.

2. Public Safety & Community Violence Prevention

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

My goal is to invest in youth, support families, create pathways to employment, and strengthen partnerships between residents, community organizations, law enforcement, schools, and city agencies. Building the coalition to achieve this goal starts with bringing people together. I will work closely with neighborhood leaders, faith-based organizations, nonprofits, violence prevention groups, small businesses, schools, labor unions, law enforcement, and my colleagues on the Board of Supervisors. Public safety is not a partisan issue—it is a community issue—and lasting solutions require broad collaboration. Monthly meetings with the Chief of Police & district Captain reestablish Police Accountability Board - Community involvement, stakeholders, etc.

What obstacles will you face, and how will you overcome them?

As Supervisor for San Francisco’s District 10, I know that creating safer neighborhoods and protecting the health of our residents will not happen overnight. I will face several obstacles, including limited city resources, competing priorities at City Hall, political disagreements, and the complexity of coordinating multiple city departments and outside agencies. In neighborhoods like Bayview-Hunters Point, there is also a long history of broken promises that has created understandable distrust in government.

I will overcome these obstacles by building broad coalitions using data to measure what works advocating for funding that will support proven violence prevention programs, and keeping residents actively involved and shaping public safety policies. My years of leading Brothers Against Guns have taught me that lasting change happens when community organizations, residents, faith leaders, small businesses, labor unions, educators, law enforcement, public health professionals, and government agencies work together toward a common goal. I will bring these voices together to build consensus, advocate for resources, and hold city departments accountable for delivering results.

The office of District 10 Supervisor provides significant influence, but no Supervisor can solve every challenge alone. A Supervisor can introduce legislation, shape the city budget, convene stakeholders, oversee city departments, and advocate aggressively for District 10. To achieve my top priorities, I will also work closely with my colleagues on the Board of Supervisors, the Mayor, state and federal representatives, community organizations, and residents.

My goal is not simply to pass policies—it is to produce measurable results. I will push for cleaner and safer neighborhoods, stronger violence prevention programs, greater economic investment, quality affordable housing, environmental justice, and full accountability for the cleanup and redevelopment of the Hunters Point Shipyard. I believe leadership is about bringing people together, earning trust, and never giving up until the job is done.

The power of the office alone is not enough. The real power comes from combining the authority of the office with the strength of the community. Trust and accountability are essential to achieving lasting change for District 10.

.

Will the power of the office of Supervisor, District 10 be enough to achieve this goal?

Yes—but not by the Supervisor acting alone.

The District 10 Supervisor has significant influence, but the office does not directly control the Police Department, District Attorney, Sheriff’s Office, schools, or state and federal agencies. What the Supervisor does have is the power to lead, build coalitions, pass legislation, shape the city budget, and hold agencies accountable. The office of District 10 Supervisor gives me the authority to make a real difference, but lasting change requires partnership. A Supervisor cannot solve gun violence, affordable housing, or environmental justice alone. What the office can do is bring people together, set priorities through the city budget, introduce legislation, demand accountability from city departments, and ensure District 10 receives the resources it deserves.

My experience leading Brothers Against Guns has taught me that real change happens when community organizations, law enforcement, schools, faith leaders, businesses, and residents work together. As Supervisor, I will use the power of the office to build those partnerships and fight for investments in violence prevention, youth programs, economic opportunity, environmental cleanup, and neighborhood safety.

The office provides the platform, but leadership is what turns that platform into results. I believe my lived experience, relationships in the community, and decades of service have prepared me to use the office effectively to deliver meaningful and lasting change for District 10.

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.

San Francisco’s government should work for the people, not bury them in unnecessary bureaucracy. As Supervisor for District 10, I would support reviewing and repealing outdated or duplicative laws that slow progress while maintaining strong protections for workers, residents, and the environment.

1. Repeal or consolidate duplicative permitting requirements for small businesses.

Many small businesses must navigate multiple city departments and overlapping approval processes before they can open or expand. I would support repealing redundant permitting requirements and replacing them with a streamlined “one-stop” approval process that reduces delays while maintaining public health and safety standards.

2. Repeal outdated zoning and approval requirements that unnecessarily delay affordable housing.

San Francisco faces a housing crisis, yet many projects spend years in review because of overlapping local procedures beyond what state law already requires. I would support repealing outdated procedural requirements that add delay without improving project quality, especially for affordable and workforce housing.

3. Repeal redundant administrative reporting and commission requirements.

City departments spend significant time producing reports or appearing before multiple commissions to discuss the same issues. Where reporting requirements no longer improve accountability, I would support repealing or consolidating them so city employees can focus more time on delivering services to residents.

These proposals reflect a broader principle: the government should be transparent and accountable, but it should also be efficient. By eliminating unnecessary bureaucracy, San Francisco can deliver housing faster, help small businesses succeed, and improve city services while maintaining strong public oversight.

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 10.

If I could make one bold, transformative change to state and local government policy, I would create a

California Community Reinvestment Guarantee

Under this policy, a fixed percentage of revenue generated within a community—through new development, major public projects, or increased tax revenue—would be reinvested directly back into that same community. Too often, neighborhoods like Bayview-Hunters Point and other historically underserved communities see investment happen around them without residents sharing in the benefits.

The funds would be dedicated to priorities identified by the community, including:

• Violence prevention and youth mentorship programs.
• Affordable housing and homeownership opportunities for working families.
• Small business grants and workforce development.
• Parks, streets, and neighborhood beautification.
• Environmental cleanup in communities impacted by pollution.

This policy would also require meaningful community participation in deciding how the money is spent, increasing transparency and accountability while giving residents a stronger voice in shaping their neighborhoods.

The idea is simple: when a community helps generate economic growth, the people who live there should share in its success. The government should not only invest in neighborhoods—it should ensure that longtime residents benefit from that investment.

While this would require changes beyond the authority of a District 10 Supervisor, I would use the office to build coalitions with city leaders, state legislators, community organizations, labor, and business partners to advocate for this type of long-term policy reform.

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?

Ultimately, I would measure every decision against a simple question: Does this create lasting value for the people who call District 10 home—not just today, but for future generations?

Challenge

I also expect balancing limited City resources to be challenging. Every budget cycle requires difficult choices among public safety, housing, transportation, parks, and social services. It's impossible to fund every worthwhile initiative, so I would rely on data, community input, and transparency to make decisions that have the greatest long-term benefit for the district.

My responsibility as Supervisor is to represent the people of District 10—not special interests. Every decision I make will be guided by what delivers the greatest benefit to residents, small businesses, workers, and our neighborhoods. I believe in listening to everyone, including labor, business leaders, community organizations, and advocacy groups, but my vote will always be based on what is best for the community as a whole.

Transparency and accountability are essential. I will hold regular town halls, maintain an open-door policy, and ensure residents have meaningful opportunities to participate in decisions before major legislation is considered. The voices of everyday people should carry as much weight as those of well-funded organizations.

I expect the biggest challenge will be balancing competing interests around housing development, public safety, economic growth, and the redevelopment of the Hunters Point Shipyard. These issues involve developers, environmental advocates, labor organizations, businesses, and longtime residents, who often have different priorities. My approach will be to bring all stakeholders to the table, rely on facts and community input, and seek solutions that create jobs, protect public health, preserve affordability, and improve quality of life without leaving residents behind.

At the end of the day, I was not shaped by lobbyists—I was shaped by the communities of San Francisco. My life experience, my work with Brothers Against Guns, and my years of community advocacy have taught me that good government starts by listening to the people and following through on promises. That is the standard I will bring to the Board of Supervisors.

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?

As Supervisor for District 10, my first responsibility is to be a strong advocate for the people who elected me, while recognizing that every decision made at City Hall affects all of San Francisco. My approach will be to ensure that District 10 has a seat at the table without losing sight of the city’s overall success. When every neighborhood thrives, San Francisco is stronger.

District 10 has carried more than its fair share of the city’s burdens for decades—from environmental hazards and industrial impacts to inequitable investment. I will work to make sure our community receives the resources, infrastructure improvements, public safety investments, affordable housing, and economic opportunities it deserves. At the same time, I will collaborate with my fellow supervisors on citywide solutions that are fiscally responsible, equitable, and effective.

The biggest challenge will be balancing the need for new housing, economic development, and citywide growth with protecting the quality of life for District 10 residents. Communities like Bayview-Hunters Point should not be asked to shoulder a disproportionate share of projects without receiving the promised benefits, including environmental cleanup, local hiring, improved transportation, and investments in parks, schools, and public safety.

I believe the best way to meet this challenge is through transparency, collaboration, and accountability. I will listen to residents, businesses, labor, and community organizations before making decisions, and I will work to build coalitions that produce solutions benefiting both District 10 and the entire city. My goal is simple: ensure that District 10 is no longer overlooked while helping build a safer, more affordable, and more prosperous San Francisco for everyone.

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 works best when it’s run less like a personality-driven operation and more like a small, disciplined public service agency with clear systems, accountability, and steady communication. A lot of inefficiency in city offices comes from reactive decision-making, unclear roles, and weak follow-through—not lack of ideas.

Day-to-day management can be improved by tightening a few core areas.

First, clear structure and roles. Every staff member should know exactly what they own—whether it’s constituent services, legislative tracking, community engagement, or budget oversight. When responsibilities overlap without clarity, issues slip through the cracks or get handled twice, slowly or not at all.

Second, a consistent intake and tracking system for constituent concerns. Every call, email, and meeting request should be logged, categorized, and tracked to resolution. Not just “responded to,” but actually resolved or escalated with follow-up. A weekly dashboard keeps the office honest about response times and recurring issues in the district.

Third, disciplined weekly workflow. The office should run on a predictable cycle: early-week internal coordination, midweek constituent and community engagement, and end-of-week review of legislation, casework, and progress. Without rhythm, everything becomes urgent and nothing gets finished properly.

Fourth, strong community feedback loops. Regular town halls, listening sessions, and partnerships with neighborhood groups, but also structured reporting back so people see what changed because of their input. If residents only speak and never see outcomes, trust breaks down quickly.

Fifth, interdepartmental coordination inside City Hall. A Supervisor’s office is often only as effective as its relationships with agencies like SFPD, DPW, Housing, and Planning. Assigning a staff member specifically to agency liaison work helps prevent delays and excuses from becoming the norm.

Finally, a culture of accountability inside the office itself. Monthly internal reviews of what was promised versus what was delivered keeps the team focused on execution, not just activity. Small offices can drift into “busy work” without that discipline.

The overall approach is simple: treat the office like a results-driven service operation, not just a political office. If the systems are tight, the office becomes responsive, predictable, and able to actually move issues instead of just talking about them.

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

If it had to be one metric only, I would choose:

A sustained year-over-year reduction in unsheltered homelessness in District 10 (measured by the official point-in-time street count).

That metric forces accountability on multiple fronts at once—housing production, shelter capacity, behavioral health services, outreach effectiveness, and public space management. If that number consistently goes down over time, it means the system is actually working, not just shifting the problem from block to block or program to program.

It also keeps the focus where residents feel it most directly: fewer people living on the streets, and more stability and safety in the neighborhoods.

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 gun violence concentrated among a small number of places, people, and situations—especially where illegal firearms are present and disputes escalate quickly.

It’s not the only public safety problem, but it sits at the top because of what makes it different from most others: it is immediate, irreversible, and contagious in its impact. A single shooting doesn’t stay contained to the individuals involved. It ripples outward—families lose stability, neighborhoods feel less safe, businesses close earlier or leave, young people change how they move through their own community, and law enforcement and emergency systems get stretched further.

There’s also a structural reality behind it. In many cities, including places like San Francisco, a relatively small number of individuals and locations account for a large share of violent incidents. When illegal guns are easily accessible within that environment, conflicts that might otherwise be resolved non-violently turn fatal in seconds.

This rises above other issues because it undermines everything else the government tries to do. You can build housing, improve transit, invest in schools, or fund job programs—but if people don’t feel physically safe getting to work, sending their kids to school, or even standing on a corner, those investments don’t fully take hold.

That’s why it consistently ends up as the “first problem to solve”: it blocks progress across every other policy area and has the highest human cost when it fails. Brother Against Guns “Stop the violence” campaign message is:

“Buying a gun on the street a human life is priceless”

What power would you have to solve this issue? School Resource Officers

As a San Francisco Supervisor (including District 10), you wouldn’t directly “control” School Resource Officers (SROs) the way a school district or police chief does—but you would still have real, indirect levers that can significantly shape whether they exist, how they operate, or what replaces them.

The key limitation is structural: SRO programs in San Francisco schools are governed primarily through agreements between the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) and the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD). So the Supervisor’s authority is mostly

budgetary, legislative, and political—not operational.

Here’s what that power actually looks like in practice:

You can influence

funding and budget priorities

The Board of Supervisors controls the city budget, including funding for SFPD. While you can’t unilaterally remove SROs from schools, you can push to reduce or redirect funding tied to school policing programs and instead invest in alternatives like counselors, mental health clinicians, restorative justice coordinators, and violence prevention programs.

You can shape policy through

legislation and oversight hearings

Supervisors can hold hearings on SRO effectiveness, school safety outcomes, and disparities in discipline or arrests involving students. That public scrutiny often drives policy change, even without direct authority.

You can push for or support

Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs)

Between SFUSD and SFPD. These agreements define whether SROs exist, what their role is, and what boundaries they have. Supervisors can’t sign them, but they can apply political pressure, request revisions, or condition city support on changes.

You also have influence through

Coalition-building with the School Board, Mayor, and community organizations

In practice, SRO policy changes in San Francisco have historically happened when multiple bodies align—not from one office acting alone.

Where your power is limited is important too: you cannot directly remove officers from schools, and you cannot override SFUSD policy on your own. If SFUSD leadership and the Mayor support maintaining SROs, the Supervisor alone cannot eliminate the program.

So the realistic answer is: you don’t have direct control, but you do have meaningful leverage over

money, accountability, and policy pressure which is often what determines whether SRO programs stay, shrink, or get replaced.

What three things would you change about how SFPD operates? There are three core operational changes that would make the department more effective, accountable, and better aligned with community needs in District 10 and across the city:

First, I would restructure how resources are deployed by shifting from a primarily reactive model to a prevention-first model. Right now, too much time and budget goes into responding after something has already gone wrong. I’d push for stronger neighborhood-based teams that are consistently assigned to the same areas, especially in high-need corridors. That consistency builds relationships, improves intelligence, and reduces repeat calls.

Second, I would tighten accountability and transparency through real-time data and independent oversight. That means clearer public reporting on stops, arrests, use-of-force incidents, and response times—broken down by district. It also means strengthening civilian oversight so it has real authority, not just advisory input. The goal is to rebuild trust by making department behavior measurable and visible, not just reported after the fact.

Third, I would focus on recruitment, training, and retention with a stronger emphasis on de-escalation and community engagement. The department is stretched thin, and turnover or burnout makes things worse. You’d want officers trained not just in enforcement, but in mental health response, conflict resolution, and cultural competency—paired with better support so experienced officers actually stay on the job.

Those three shifts—prevention-first deployment, real accountability through data and oversight, and stronger training plus retention—are where the biggest operational change would actually show up in outcomes on the street.

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

A small change that tends to produce outsized impact in a city like San Francisco is tightening accountability around how quickly the city responds to basic, repeatable service requests—especially through 311 and interdepartmental work orders.

Right now, a lot of problems don’t come from lack of policy, but from delay and fragmentation: a report gets filed, it moves between departments, and there’s no clear clock on when it must be resolved. A simple shift—requiring every 311 request tied to safety, sanitation, or habitability to have a publicly visible deadline and a single accountable department—would force coordination that already should be happening.

That one change does a few things at once:

• It reduces “falling through the cracks” between departments
• It builds trust because residents can see progress, not just report problems
• It creates internal pressure to fix upstream inefficiencies instead of repeatedly reacting to the same issues

It’s not flashy, but cities often change more from tightening execution than from adding new programs.

Should San Francisco…	Yes	No
Try to achieve “full staffing” for SFPD? (Defined as about 2,100 officers, according to the City)	Yes
Arrest and prosecute street-level fentanyl dealers?	Yes
Investigate, arrest, and prosecute fentanyl distribution ringleaders (like organized crime and cartel members)?	Yes
Arrest and prosecute street-level vendors of suspected stolen goods?	Yes
Investigate, arrest, and prosecute the leaders of theft rings and fencing operations?	Yes

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.

For a Police Commission seat in San Francisco—especially one that helps set SFPD use-of-force policy—the most important qualities are usually a mix of public safety judgment, constitutional awareness, and the ability to weigh tradeoffs between enforcement, civil liberties, and city services.

A strong candidate typically has:

They should understand how use-of-force policies actually operate in practice, not just in theory—meaning familiarity with policing constraints, legal standards (like constitutional policing and due process), and how policy translates into street-level behavior. Equally important is independence: the ability to evaluate police department proposals critically without being reflexively for or against law enforcement.

They should also demonstrate consistent decision-making around accountability and public safety outcomes. That includes being data-informed (crime trends, clearance rates, overdose data, etc.), and being willing to adjust policy when results don’t match intentions.

On the specific issue areas that are listed, an “ideal” or well-balanced commissioner is usually expected to hold views that look something like this:

Public drug use: A grounded approach typically treats this as both a public health and public safety issue. That means supporting enforcement of laws against dangerous public consumption or dealing in hard drugs in public spaces, while also prioritizing diversion options—like treatment, shelter access, and outreach—so enforcement doesn’t become the only response. The key balance is reducing open-air drug scenes while not relying solely on arrest as the solution.

Sidewalk vending (legal and illegal, including stolen goods): A strong candidate generally supports clear distinctions between legal street vending and illegal resale of stolen goods. For permitted vendors, the focus tends to be on regulation that is fair, streamlined, and enforceable without over-policing. For suspected stolen goods or organized fencing, the expectation is more targeted enforcement, but with guardrails so that enforcement is based on evidence and not broad sweeps that harm legitimate small vendors.

Police technology (drones, AI, surveillance tools): Most thoughtful frameworks emphasize “proportional and accountable use.” That usually means supporting technology that improves emergency response, investigation efficiency, or officer safety—but only with strict oversight: clear policy limits, transparency about deployment, audit trails, and protections against biased or unchecked surveillance. A key dividing line is whether tools are used for targeted policing versus generalized monitoring of communities.

Shoplifting: A balanced stance tends to separate low-level, non-violent theft from organized retail crime. For repeated or coordinated theft, there is typically support for stronger enforcement and coordination with retailers and prosecutors. For low-level incidents, many policy approaches emphasize diversion, citation-based enforcement where appropriate, and addressing underlying drivers (substance use, poverty, mental health) rather than defaulting to jail.

Overall, the most important trait across all of these issues is consistency: a commissioner should be able to explain how each position fits into a coherent philosophy of public safety—one that protects residents, preserves civil liberties, and produces measurable improvements (less street disorder, fewer overdoses, reduced violent and property crime).

Substance abuse

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

Cities can’t treat drug use on sidewalks as only a criminal issue or only a health issue—it’s both, and the response has to match that reality in layers.

First priority is getting people into care, not just moving them around. On-the-ground outreach teams (behavioral health clinicians paired with peers who’ve recovered from addiction) have to be at the front door. If someone is actively using it in public, that’s often a sign they’re already deep in dependency and disconnected from services. The goal in that moment isn’t a lecture—it’s stabilization: wound care, overdose prevention (like naloxone), and immediate connection to shelter or a low-barrier treatment bed.

Second is access that actually exists in real time. A lot of systems fail because “treatment is available” is technically true but practically false—waitlists, paperwork, and strict requirements shut people out. Cities that make progress create low-barrier options: same-day entry, medication-assisted treatment (like buprenorphine/methadone), and safe, supervised environments where someone can start recovery without being turned away for still using.

Third is consistent street standards. Public sidewalks can’t become unmanaged drug use zones—not because punishment is the first answer, but because public space rules matter for safety, families, small businesses, and residents. The key is what enforcement leads to. If enforcement just displaces people block to block, nothing changes. If it is tied directly to outreach and placement (“you can’t stay here, but here is where you can go today”), it becomes part of a functioning system rather than a cycle.

Fourth is targeted enforcement against trafficking and dealing. A lot of what shows up on sidewalks is driven by organized supply chains. Focusing enforcement upstream—open-air markets, repeat dealers, fentanyl distribution—has more impact than repeatedly citing or arresting users who are often victims of that same system.

Finally, the long game: housing. Without stable housing, recovery is fragile. Permanent supportive housing for high-need individuals reduces public drug use more than almost any other intervention because it removes the need to survive entirely in public space.

The hard truth is there’s no single move that fixes it. Cities that do best combine compassion with boundaries: immediate care access, clear street rules, real consequences for trafficking, and a steady pipeline into housing and treatment. If any one of those is missing, the system starts to fail in public view—usually on the sidewalks you’re talking about.

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

If someone is passed out on the sidewalk from drugs, the City’s response has to balance three things at once: immediate life safety, medical care, and a pathway to recovery—without pretending this is only a “law enforcement” problem.

The first priority is always medical safety. If a person is unconscious or not responding, the immediate response should be a 911 medical dispatch. Paramedics—not police—should be the lead responders when there’s no active violence. They can assess for overdose, breathing issues, or other medical emergencies and administer naloxone if needed.

Second, the City should use trained crisis outreach teams as standard follow-up. That means street medicine teams, behavioral health clinicians, and peer outreach workers engaging the person once they’re stable or awake. The goal is not a quick interaction and dismissal—it’s connection to shelter, detox, or treatment options that are actually available that same day.

Third, the City needs a consistent “no abandonment” standard. If someone wakes up and refuses services, the response can’t be to simply cycle away and wait for the next overdose. Outreach teams should continue engagement over time, track high-frequency incidents, and coordinate with shelter and treatment beds so people are not constantly falling through gaps.

Police should be involved only when necessary—such as if there’s violence, criminal activity unrelated to drug use, or a scene that’s unsafe for medical staff. But the default posture should be health-first, not enforcement-first.

Finally, none of this works without capacity. If there are no detox beds, no psychiatric stabilization options, and no low-barrier shelter spaces, then the system is just documenting crises instead of resolving them. A real strategy requires expanding those resources alongside street response.

In short: treat it as an overdose or medical emergency first, stabilize the person, connect them to care through outreach teams, and build enough treatment and shelter capacity so the response is more than just repeated rescue

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.

Yes—supported, with a clear caveat: safe consumption sites (often called overdose prevention centers) only work if they are tightly regulated, medically grounded, and integrated into a broader treatment and public order strategy. On their own, they don’t solve addiction or street disorder; but done right, they reduce deaths and connect people to care who are otherwise unreachable.

In San Francisco, I would support a

pilot network of small, strategically placed sites

rather than a large, open-ended rollout. The goal is to reduce overdose deaths immediately while creating a consistent “bridge” into treatment, housing, and stabilization services.

These sites should be run under a

public health—not law enforcement—framework

, with clear coordination with the City.

How they should be run

1. Clinical and supervised environment

Each site should be staffed with licensed medical professionals (nurses, clinicians) and trained harm-reduction workers capable of responding to overdoses in real time. Every site must have:

• On-site overdose reversal (naloxone) and oxygen support
• Fentanyl test strip access and drug contamination alerts
• Immediate EMS escalation protocols when needed

The core function is simple: prevent people from dying while using and create a pathway to care.

2. Mandatory connection to services (not forced treatment)

Entry should come with consistent, repeated engagement:

• On-site counseling and case management
• Direct linkage to detox, MAT (buprenorphine/methadone), and mental health care
• Housing navigation and benefits enrollment

The expectation is engagement, not coercion. But the system should actively “pull” people toward stability every time they come in.

3. Location strategy tied to data

Sites should be placed based on overdose density and street use patterns—not political boundaries. They should:

• Be near, but not directly embedded in, residential corridors or schools
• Be co-located with existing health or social service hubs where possible
• Include clear exterior management to prevent spillover impacts (litter, loitering)

4. Strong operating rules and accountability

To maintain public trust, the sites need structure:

• No drug redistribution or sales on or near premises
• No weapons
• Time-limited stays per visit
• Real-time incident reporting and public dashboards
• Regular audits by the Department of Public Health and an independent oversight body

5. Coordination with—but not reliance on—policing

These sites should not function as enforcement tools, but SFPD must be aligned on:

• Non-interference policies around the immediate site perimeter
• Rapid response when violence, trafficking, or weapons issues arise nearby
• Focused enforcement against dealers exploiting vulnerable populations outside the facility

6. Community accountability

Each site should have a neighborhood advisory council with real input on:

• Operating hours
• Site impacts (trash, safety, noise)
• Performance metrics (overdose reversals, referrals to treatment, exits into housing)

Transparency is what makes these sites politically and socially sustainable.

If not safe consumption sites: the viable alternative

If the City chose not to implement them, the alternative cannot be “status quo enforcement.” It would need to be a

high-intensity mobile health and stabilization model

• 24/7 mobile overdose response teams stationed in hot spots
• Rapid-access “bridge clinics” that provide same-day buprenorphine
• Expanded street-based detox entry with guaranteed bed availability
• Permanent supportive housing units tied directly to treatment participation
• Aggressive outreach with consistent follow-up (not one-time contact)
• Clean-up and hotspot stabilization teams that work alongside outreach, not separately from it

This approach prioritizes getting people off the street faster, but it typically results in fewer immediate overdose reversals compared to supervised sites.

Bottom line: safe consumption sites are not a silver bullet, but in a city with persistent open-air drug use and overdose deaths, they are one of the few interventions that reliably prevent death in the short term while creating a structured entry point into recovery. The key is discipline in execution—without that, they lose public trust and effectiveness quickly.

Do you support sober housing? Why or why not?

**Yes/**but with a clear distinction between

sober housing that actually supports recovery and housing that is sober in name only

Sober housing can be a critical bridge for people coming out of treatment, jail, or street homelessness. When it works, it provides structure, accountability, peer support, and stability—things that significantly reduce relapse and overdose risk. In a district like D10, where the impacts of substance use disorder are visible and concentrated, that kind of stabilizing environment is not optional; it’s necessary.

But I don’t support simply labeling housing “sober” without real standards or enforcement. Too often, programs fail because they lack staffing, clear rules, or consequences for ongoing drug use. That leads to unsafe conditions for residents who are genuinely trying to recover, and it undermines public trust.

If I had a say as Supervisor, I’d support sober housing that meets a few core requirements:

• Clear entry criteria and pathways
• (people coming from detox, treatment, shelters, or referrals—not random placement without support)
• On-site or closely connected services
• (counseling, mental health care, job support, relapse prevention)
• Consistent accountability standards
• that are enforced fairly
• A real step-down model
• , so residents can transition into permanent housing rather than cycling indefinitely

I’d also pair sober housing with other options, because it’s not a one-size-fits-all solution. Some people need medically supported detox or treatment first. Others are not ready for abstinence-based settings and do better in harm-reduction or low-barrier housing.

So the short answer is: I support sober housing when it is structured, resourced, and accountable—and when it is part of a broader system of care, not a standalone fix.

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 not approach this as an all-or-nothing issue. The core of harm reduction—keeping people alive and reducing disease transmission—is something I would continue and protect, especially syringe access, naloxone distribution, and linkage to treatment. Those are proven, evidence-based interventions.

Where I would change course is around the broader expansion of paraphernalia distribution, such as pipes and foil, when it is done in a blanket or poorly monitored way.

Those items sit in a different category than clean needles. Needles directly address HIV and hepatitis transmission risks; other paraphernalia programs are more closely tied to ongoing use without the same clear, measurable public health benefit at scale. That means they need a higher level of scrutiny.

So my approach would be:

• Keep harm reduction services that are clearly tied to preventing death and disease.
• Audit and evaluate expanded paraphernalia distribution programs based on outcomes: overdose rates, public drug use, litter, and connection to treatment.
• Shift toward a more “treatment-linked harm reduction” model—meaning every contact point (outreach, distribution sites, safe consumption sites where legal) should actively connect people to detox, mental health care, and housing.
• Reduce unmanaged public distribution if it is contributing to sidewalk use or environmental impacts, and instead concentrate services in supervised or structured settings.

The goal isn’t to moralize the tools—it’s to ask whether each tool is actually reducing harm in practice, not just in theory.

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?

California’s mental health crisis laws emphasize shifting from police-only responses to clinical care and court-ordered treatment. Key legal frameworks include the expansion of the CARE Act (mandating court-ordered treatment plans for severe psychotic disorders), modernized involuntary holds (WIC 5150), and integrated civilian first responders San Francisco’s mental health crisis response laws are already in a period of active debate, and whether they should be amended depends on what problem you are trying to solve: street-level crisis stabilization, long-term treatment access, or public safety coordination.

Why some argue “yes, amend the laws” Supporters of reform generally point to gaps in the current system when people are visibly in psychiatric or substance-related crisis on the streets:

• Overreliance on law enforcement response:
• Many calls still route through police, even when the situation is primarily medical or psychiatric.
• Difficulty initiating care quickly:
• Existing standards for involuntary holds (like 5150 criteria) can be hard to apply in real time, especially when someone is fluctuating in and out of lucidity.
• Fragmented services:
• Outreach teams, EMS, behavioral health clinicians, and shelters often operate in parallel rather than as a single coordinated system.
• Frequent cycling back to the street:
• Even when intervention happens, lack of follow-up treatment capacity can lead to repeat crises.

From this perspective, amendments could aim to:

• Expand
• non-police crisis response teams
• (clinicians + EMTs + peers with lived experience)
• Clarify and streamline
• criteria and procedures for mobile psychiatric intervention
• Strengthen
• “care continuity” requirements
• after crisis stabilization (case management, placement, follow-up)
• Increase authority and funding for
• 24/7 crisis stabilization centers
• as alternatives to jail or ERs

Why some argue “no” or caution against major amendments Others argue the issue is less about legal structure and more about implementation:

• Existing laws already allow intervention
• , but capacity (beds, staffing, treatment slots) is the real bottleneck.
• Expanding involuntary intervention powers raises
• civil liberties concerns
• , especially around who decides when someone loses autonomy.
• Frequent legal changes can create
• confusion among responders
• and inconsistent application in the field.
• The system already struggles with coordination, so adding new layers without fixing infrastructure may not improve outcomes.

From this perspective, priorities would be:

• Fully funding and scaling existing
• behavioral health response programs
• Expanding
• treatment capacity and housing-linked care
• Improving coordination between existing agencies rather than rewriting legal thresholds

Middle-ground approaches often proposed

Many policy discussions in San Francisco land in the middle:

• speed and consistency of clinical evaluation
• Expand
• non-law-enforcement crisis response citywide
• Build more
• step-down facilities
• so hospitals and jails are not default endpoints
• Create clearer
• data sharing and case tracking systems
• so people don’t fall through gaps

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

San Francisco’s conservatorship system sits at the intersection of mental health care, civil liberties, and street-level crisis response—and right now it doesn’t consistently do any of those things well.

If I were looking at this as a District 10 Supervisor, I’d focus on changing three core areas: access, standards, and accountability.

First, access. Conservatorship in California is currently too hard to enter and too slow to act when someone is clearly unable to care for themselves. That leads to a cycle where people decompensate on the street, bounce through emergency rooms, and cycle in and out of jail instead of getting stabilized care. I would support expanding the use of early intervention pathways—like strengthened Assisted Outpatient Treatment (Laura’s Law-style programs)—so the system can step in earlier, with court oversight, before someone reaches a full crisis requiring long-term conservatorship.

Second, standards. The criteria for conservatorship should be applied more consistently and tied more clearly to functional ability, not just diagnosis or visible disorder. In practice, different agencies interpret “grave disability” differently, which creates uneven outcomes. I’d push for clearer city-level protocols so that outreach teams, clinicians, and courts are working from the same standard: can this person reliably obtain food, shelter, and medical care without supervision?

At the same time, safeguards matter. Conservatorship is a serious restriction of liberty, so any expansion has to include stronger due process protections, periodic independent reviews, and real pathways for restoration of rights when someone stabilizes. The goal is not permanence—it’s stabilization and recovery.

Third, accountability and coordination. Right now, responsibility is fragmented between the courts, DPH, HSH, SFPD, and nonprofit providers. That fragmentation leads to people falling through gaps. I would push for a single accountable case-management structure for individuals under conservatorship or at high risk of it, with measurable outcomes: housing stability, hospital utilization, engagement in treatment, and long-term transition out of conservatorship where possible.

Finally, conservatorship reform can’t be separated from housing and treatment capacity. Without enough psychiatric beds, step-down residential programs, and supportive housing, conservatorship becomes a bottleneck instead of a solution. Any policy change has to include expanding those “exit ramps” so people don’t get stuck in the system indefinitely.

In short: earlier intervention, clearer standards, stronger oversight, and a fully built-out care system so conservatorship is a temporary stabilization tool—not the end point of care.

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.

I support involuntary mental health held only as a last resort in true crisis situations—when someone is an immediate danger to themselves or others, or so impaired by mental illness that they cannot meet their basic survival needs. But I do not support expanding their use as a routine street response.

San Francisco’s real problem is not just what happens in the moment of crisis—it’s that we don’t have enough voluntary, accessible care before and after that point. Too often, people are stabilized and then released right back to the same street conditions that caused the crisis in the first place.

My approach is to build out 24/7 mobile crisis teams, short-term stabilization centers, and strong follow-up care that actually keeps people engaged in treatment and housing. That has to be the first line of response.

If involuntary holds are used, they must come with strict safeguards: independent clinical review, strong documentation, public transparency, and guaranteed follow-up care so people are not just cycled in and out of institutions.

The goal should be simple: use the least coercive option that actually leads to recovery—not just short-term removal from the street.

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.

I’d present this as a pro-small business, pro-neighborhood investment answer that also emphasizes accountability.

Small businesses are the backbone of District 10’s economy, but in San Francisco it can take months—or even years—to open a storefront because of overlapping regulations, unpredictable timelines, and high upfront costs. We need to make it easier to open a business without lowering health, safety, or labor standards.

As Supervisor, I would advocate for several specific reforms:

• Create a true one-stop permitting center where entrepreneurs can work with a single project manager instead of navigating multiple city departments independently.

• Set firm deadlines for permit approvals. If a department fails to act within a reasonable timeframe, permits should automatically move to the next stage unless there is a documented public safety concern.

• Expand by-right retail zoning In commercial corridors and neighborhood business districts common retail uses don’t require lengthy discretionary approvals.

• Reduce or defer startup fees for locally owned small businesses, especially first-time entrepreneurs, legacy businesses, and businesses opening in vacant storefronts.

• Offer renovation grants and low-interest loans to help property owners and small businesses improve vacant commercial spaces, meet ADA requirements, and complete health and safety upgrades.

• Streamline inspections by coordinating departments so businesses aren’t forced to schedule multiple separate inspections for the same project.

• Support flexible financing by expanding partnerships with community development financial institutions (CDFIs), credit unions, and local banks to provide affordable startup capital for neighborhood businesses.

• Activate vacant storefronts through temporary permits that allow pop-up businesses, artists, and local entrepreneurs to occupy empty spaces while permanent permits are being finalized.

• Increase transparency by creating an online permit tracking system where applicants can see exactly where their application is, who is reviewing it, and what remains to be completed.

District 10 deserves thriving commercial corridors that create jobs, provide neighborhood services, and build community wealth. My goal is simple: if you’re willing to invest in San Francisco, the City should be your partner—not your biggest obstacle. We can cut unnecessary bureaucracy while maintaining strong protections for workers, consumers, and public safety.

Which of these types of businesses should be permitted by-right vs require special government approval?	Allowed	Needs Permission
Bars that don’t serve food		x
Bars that serve food		x
Vice businesses (strip clubs, liquor stores, etc.)		x
Formula retail (Starbucks, Safeway, Whole Foods, etc)		x
Cafes & restaurants		x
Professional offices	x

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?

If San Francisco made it easier for all lawful, non-vice businesses to open without special hearings, that would be a major step toward supporting entrepreneurs. But streamlining approvals alone isn’t enough. We also have to make sure our local small businesses can compete and thrive alongside large national chains.

As Supervisor, I would focus on four priorities. First, I would expand access to capital by creating more neighborhood-based small business grants, low-interest loan programs, and partnerships with community banks and CDFIs so local entrepreneurs have the financing they need to start and grow.

Second, I would give local businesses a fair opportunity to compete for City contracts. Too often, small businesses are shut out by complicated procurement rules that favor larger companies. We should simplify the process and increase opportunities for San Francisco-based businesses.

Third, I would invest in commercial corridors like Third Street, Oakdale, and other District 10 business districts through cleaner streets, better lighting, improved public safety, façade improvement programs, and coordinated marketing that encourages residents to shop locally.

Finally, I would continue cutting unnecessary fees, permit delays, and regulatory burdens that hit small businesses much harder than large corporations. National chains have teams of lawyers and consultants; neighborhood businesses do not. City Hall should level the playing field, not make it harder for the people taking a chance on opening a business in our communities.

A strong local business community creates jobs, keeps wealth circulating in our neighborhoods, and gives every commercial corridor its unique character. My goal is to make San Francisco the easiest big city in California for local entrepreneurs to succeed while ensuring national chains compete on equal terms—not because they can better navigate City Hall.

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:

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, but it’s also an affordability shortage. We simply haven’t built enough housing over the years to keep up with demand, and too many working families, seniors, and young people have been priced out of the neighborhoods they helped build.

As District 10 Supervisor, I support increasing the housing supply, but it must be done responsibly. We need more affordable housing, workforce housing, and homeownership opportunities, especially in communities that have historically been overlooked or displaced. We also need to speed up permitting, reduce unnecessary delays, and convert underused commercial properties into housing where it makes sense.

At the same time, growth must come with investments in infrastructure, public safety, schools, parks, and transit so existing residents aren’t left behind. Housing policy should protect longtime residents from displacement while creating opportunities for the next generation to stay and thrive in San Francisco.

The goal isn’t just to build more housing—it’s to build the right housing, in the right places, so San Francisco remains a city where working people can afford to live, raise a family, and succeed.

**Do you believe that housing prices are set by supply and demand constraints? Why or why not?**Yes, supply and demand play a major role in housing prices, but they are not the only factors.

San Francisco has not built enough housing to keep up with demand, and that has driven up prices for renters and homebuyers alike. At the same time, high construction costs, lengthy permitting, speculative investment, and outdated zoning also make housing more expensive.

As District 10 Supervisor, I would support building more housing at all income levels, especially affordable and workforce housing, while streamlining the permitting process so projects don’t get tied up in bureaucracy for years. We also need to protect existing residents from displacement and ensure that longtime communities, including those in Bayview-Hunters Point and District 10, benefit from new development instead of being pushed out.

Housing should be treated as both an economic necessity and a community responsibility. My goal is to increase the housing supply, lower barriers to construction, and make San Francisco a city where working families, seniors, and young people can afford to live and build their future.

This answer acknowledges basic economic principles while emphasizing affordability, equity, and practical reforms that align with a District 10 campaign.

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

For a District 10 campaign, a balanced answer that aligns with your emphasis on affordability, neighborhood stability, and economic opportunity could be:

Mayor Lurie’s Family Zoning plan is a step in the right direction, but by itself it is not ambitious enough to solve San Francisco’s housing challenges. We need to build more housing for working families, teachers, nurses, first responders, and the people who keep our city running. That means increasing housing opportunities while making sure new development includes affordable homes, improves infrastructure, and protects residents from displacement.

District 10 has carried more than its fair share of new development over the years, so future housing growth must be equitable across every neighborhood in San Francisco. We also need to streamline permitting, reduce unnecessary delays, and encourage mixed-income housing near transit and commercial corridors.

My goal is simple: build more homes, build them faster, make them more affordable, and ensure every neighborhood shares the responsibility of meeting San Francisco’s housing needs.

This positions you as pro-housing, pro-affordability, and focused on fairness across the city rather than placing the burden on a few neighborhoods.

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

I believe building more housing is an essential part of reducing the cost of living in San Francisco, but it is not the only solution. We need to increase the supply of housing at every income level because decades of underbuilding have contributed to rising rents and home prices.

At the same time, the cost of living is about more than housing. Families are also struggling with the high costs of groceries, childcare, transportation, utilities, and healthcare. As Supervisor, I would support building more affordable, workforce, and market-rate housing while also cutting unnecessary permitting delays and fees that drive up construction costs.

My goal is to make San Francisco a city where working families, seniors, teachers, healthcare workers, and small business owners can afford to live and thrive. That requires a balanced approach: build more housing, strengthen our economy, create good-paying jobs, improve public safety, and reduce the everyday costs that make life unaffordable.

This version presents you as pragmatic rather than ideological and fits well in a candidate questionnaire or debate.

Should any of the following be exempt from CEQA, Discretionary Review, and Conditional Use permits?	Should be exempt	Should not be exempt
Homeless shelters	x
Affordable housing	x
Market rate housing		x

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:

N/A

Transit Infrastructure

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

No. Muni’s funding crisis cannot be solved by taxes alone. Public transit is essential to San Francisco’s economy, environment, and quality of life, but taxpayers deserve to know that existing resources are being used efficiently before asking them to contribute more.

We need a balanced approach: improve Muni’s operational efficiency, strengthen oversight and accountability, pursue state and federal funding, encourage economic growth that increases transit ridership and revenue, and explore sustainable long-term funding sources. If new revenue is necessary, it should be transparent, accountable, and tied to measurable improvements in reliability, safety, cleanliness, and service.

District 10 residents depend on Muni to get to work, school, and medical appointments. My priority is making sure every dollar invested delivers better service while keeping transit affordable and accessible for everyone.

If you’d like, I can also condense this into a 30-second debate answer or a one-minute forum response.

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

Yes—San Francisco should build a citywide protected bike lane network, but it has to be done in a way that is coordinated, safety-driven, and transparent with communities.

The core issue is safety and mobility. Right now, too many streets force people on bikes, scooters, and even pedestrians into conflict with fast-moving car traffic. That’s not just a transportation problem—it’s a public safety issue. A connected protected network reduces injuries and makes short trips easier without needing a car.

But the “citywide” part matters. It can’t be a patchwork of disconnected lanes or implemented block by block without thinking about the broader impacts. We need a master plan that ties neighborhoods together, prioritizes high-injury corridors first, and coordinates with Muni so transit doesn’t get slowed or squeezed out.

And in places like District 10, where residents already deal with limited parking and heavy freight traffic, implementation has to include real community input and mitigation—not after-the-fact adjustments.

Done right, it’s not anti-car or anti-business—it’s about a safer, more functional city for everyone.

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

Vision Zero is the right goal in principle, because it sets a clear moral standard: no loss of life on our streets is acceptable. That matters in a city like San Francisco, where traffic deaths are not just statistics—they’re preventable tragedies that affect families and neighborhoods, especially in places like District 10 where people are walking, biking, and crossing busy corridors every day.

But the real issue isn’t the goal—it’s execution. Vision Zero in San Francisco has too often become a slogan instead of a system. We’ve had delays in building safety projects, inconsistent enforcement, and street designs that still prioritize speed over safety.

So I support Vision Zero, but I’d change how we get there. That means building protected bike and pedestrian infrastructure faster, redesigning high-injury corridors with urgency, improving lighting and visibility, and holding city agencies accountable with real timelines—not just plans on paper. It also means focusing enforcement on dangerous driving behavior, not just low-level infractions.

Bottom line: the goal is right. The commitment has to be real, measurable, and faster.

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—San Francisco should prioritize buses over general car traffic, especially on high-ridership corridors. In a dense city like ours, the fastest way to move the most people is not more car lanes—it’s more reliable public transit.

Bus-only lanes are one of the most effective tools we have. When buses aren’t stuck in the same traffic as everyone else, they run faster, more predictably, and attract more riders. That helps commuters, seniors, and working families who rely on Muni every day, including in District 10.

But implementation matters. These lanes need to be designed carefully so we don’t unintentionally block emergency access or create confusion for small business loading and deliveries. And enforcement should be consistent, but not purely punitive or chaotic. I’d support a mix of clear signage, camera-based enforcement where appropriate, and targeted traffic officer presence during peak violation times.

The goal isn’t to punish drivers—it’s to move people efficiently, fairly, and safely. If we get transit right, everyone benefits, including drivers who still need to use the road.

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?

A budget deficit tied to a struggling downtown is really a signal problem, not just a math problem. If the tax base shrinks, you either grow it back or you end up cutting your way into a weaker city.

My approach would be a mix of stabilization, recovery, and reform.

First, stabilize core services so the city still functions reliably—clean streets, public safety, and transit. If people don’t feel basic order improving, businesses and workers won’t come back, and revenue won’t either.

Second, focus on downtown recovery as an economic strategy, not just a real estate issue. That means fast-tracking office-to-housing conversions, simplifying permitting for small businesses, and aggressively reducing vacancy through incentives for active ground-floor use. Empty buildings are a tax problem sitting in plain sight.

Third, broaden the revenue base instead of over-relying on a few sectors. That includes supporting small business growth, hospitality recovery, and new uses for downtown spaces like education, healthcare, and residential life—things that generate steadier, more diversified tax revenue than office-only demand.

Finally, you do look at spending—but surgically, not across-the-board. Cut inefficiencies, duplicate contracts, and delays that cost money, while protecting services that directly drive recovery.

The goal isn’t just closing a deficit. It’s rebuilding the conditions where the city can grow its way out of it.

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

Yes- but only if “right-sizing” is defined as improving performance and reducing inefficiency, not just cutting headcount across the board.

San Francisco has a real structural budget problem. When staffing grows faster than population and service outcomes don’t improve at the same rate, that’s a signal to examine whether we’re organizing government in the most effective way. But we also have to be honest: SF is not just a city, it functions like a city-county hybrid with responsibilities most cities don’t carry—public health, homelessness services, behavioral health, and a large social safety net. That means simple comparisons to other cities can be misleading unless we adjust for scope.

Compared to places like San Jose, Seattle, or Austin, San Francisco does have higher per-capita administrative costs and more layered departments and approval processes. But it also delivers more direct services in-house rather than contracting them out, which increases staffing on paper but isn’t automatically wasted. By contrast, some counties like Orange County or cities like Phoenix outsource more services, which lowers staffing counts but shifts costs to vendors.

So the real question isn’t “Do we cut 27%?” It’s “Are we getting 27% more value?” Right-sizing should focus on:

• Reducing duplication between departments
• Consolidating permitting and administrative functions
• Expanding digital/self-service systems where appropriate
• Auditing contractor vs. in-house delivery for cost efficiency
• Protecting frontline workers—shelter staff, 911, sanitation, and public safety roles that directly impact residents

If we do this right, we can rebalance the budget without hollowing out services. But across-the-board cuts or hiring freezes tend to backfire in SF because they slow permitting, increase contracting costs, and push problems into more expensive emergency responses later. So yes to right-sizing—but with a focus on outcomes, not just headcount.

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.

Yes. The first 100 days would be about stabilizing crisis conditions, speeding up delivery of services, and fixing the systems that are currently too slow to respond.

1) Street Homelessness & Behavioral Health Response Coordination (D10 pilot)

Launch a district-focused “street-to-care” coordination hub with DPW, HSH, SFPD, and street medicine teams to reduce duplication and increase real placement into shelter and treatment—not just outreach cycles.

Metrics by Day 100:

• Increase in unique individuals moved from street into shelter or treatment (baseline vs. 100-day gain)
• Average response time to encampment complaints in D10
• Reduction in repeat encampment locations (“return rate” hotspots)
• Shelter utilization rate for beds assigned to D10 referrals

2) Permitting & Small Housing Acceleration Pilot

Create a D10 fast-track lane for small housing projects (ADUs, small multifamily, and adaptive reuse), while identifying the top permitting bottlenecks and publishing a “time-to-permit” dashboard.

Metrics by Day 100:

• Reduction in median permit processing time for eligible projects
• Number of ADUs or small housing units approved or cleared into pipeline
• Number of permits moved from “stalled” to “active review”
• Time from application to first departmental response

3) City Services Audit & Right-Sizing Plan for District 10

Conduct a department-by-department audit of staffing alignment, vacancy rates, and service outcomes in D10—especially where spending has increased without performance improvement.

Metrics by Day 100:

• Completion of public-facing D10 service audit report
• Identification of measurable savings or reallocation opportunities (with dollar ranges)
• Vacancy-to-fill ratio improvement in frontline roles (DPW, HSH, MTA-related services)
• Service performance indicators (response times, cleanup frequency, transit reliability on key D10 corridors)

By Day 100, the goal isn’t that every problem is solved—it’s that the city is moving faster, measuring results transparently, and shifting resources toward what actually works.

District 10 includes some of the City’s largest entitled redevelopment sites, including Hunters Point Shipyard and Candlestick Point. What actions would you take to accelerate safe, accountable delivery of housing, parks and infrastructure on these sites?

District 10 has some of the largest redevelopment opportunities in the city, but also some of the longest delays. My approach would be to move these projects forward faster without repeating the mistakes of the past—especially around environmental safety, transparency, and community trust.

First, I would push for a hard accountability framework with the City, the developer, and state regulators for Hunters Point Shipyard and Candlestick Point. That means clear, enforceable milestones tied to public reporting: how much remediation is complete, what parcels are truly safe, what infrastructure is funded, and what housing phases are actually ready to break ground. If timelines slip, there need to be consequences—whether that’s financial penalties, rephasing authority, or revisiting development agreements.

Second, I would prioritize independent environmental verification before any acceleration of housing. The history at Hunters Point has already damaged public trust, so I would support expanded third-party testing with full public disclosure of results in plain language. No building shortcuts where there are contamination concerns—because delays driven by safety failures are more costly than doing it right the first time.

Third, I would unlock infrastructure delivery early, not after housing phases. Streets, utilities, shoreline access, transit connections, and parks should be sequenced upfront through infrastructure-first financing tools, including infrastructure districts or public financing mechanisms where appropriate. That reduces the “ghost neighborhood” problem where housing is promised but livability lags years behind.

Finally, I would create a standing District 10 redevelopment oversight table that includes residents, tenant advocates, labor, environmental experts, and city agencies. It should meet regularly, publish progress dashboards, and keep pressure on both City Hall and developers so these sites don’t drift into another decade of delay.

The goal is simple: move faster where it’s safe, slower where it’s not, and never again let promises outrun accountability.

Given the Mayor’s Family Zoning Plan was passed, what changes do you want to see in D10’s housing production between 2026-2030 (at all income levels)? What can you do as Supervisor to ensure the new zoning actually turns into permits, construction starts, and completed projects?

With the Family Zoning Plan now in place, the real test for District 10 isn’t rezoning—it’s execution. Between 2026 and 2030, I’d focus on three housing priorities: speed, accountability, and balanced production across income levels.

First, on housing production itself, D10 should be delivering at scale across the full income spectrum: deeply affordable homes for formerly unhoused residents and very-low-income families; workforce housing for teachers, nurses, and service workers; and market-rate housing that helps relieve overall price pressure. But the key shift is that approvals alone are not success. We should set a clear expectation that rezoned parcels in places like Hunters Point Shipyard, Candlestick, and Bayview corridors move from “paper entitlement” to active construction within predictable timelines.

Second, as Supervisor, I would focus on removing the friction that slows projects after rezoning. That means pushing for a streamlined, one-stop permitting process for projects that comply with the new zoning—cutting redundant reviews, enforcing hard internal deadlines at planning and building departments, and requiring quarterly public reporting on permit timelines so delays are visible and accountable.

Third, I’d tie public land and infrastructure commitments directly to housing delivery. Too often, housing stalls because streets, utilities, parks, and transit improvements lag behind. I would work to coordinate a “concurrency model” where infrastructure schedules are locked in alongside development approvals, so developers aren’t waiting years for basic site readiness. Finally, accountability matters. I would push for a District 10 Housing Delivery Dashboard tracking three metrics in real time: units entitled, units permitted, and units under construction—broken down by affordability level and site. If a project sits too long in any stage, it should trigger a review with clear escalation steps.

The bottom line is this: zoning change is only the first step. The job after that is making sure San Francisco actually builds—predictably, transparently, and at the scale the housing crisis demands.

Many longtime residents fear being priced out as the Bayview becomes more desirable. What policies would you support to help existing homeowners, while still welcoming new housing and investment? Please be specific and name funding sources, responsible agencies, and metrics you will track.

With the Family Zoning Plan now in place, the real test for District 10 isn’t rezoning—it’s execution. Between 2026 and 2030, I’d focus on three housing priorities: speed, accountability, and balanced production across income levels.

First, on housing production itself, D10 should be delivering at scale across the full income spectrum: deeply affordable homes for formerly unhoused residents and very-low-income families; workforce housing for teachers, nurses, and service workers; and market-rate housing that helps relieve overall price pressure. But the key shift is that approvals alone are not success. We should set a clear expectation that rezoned parcels in places like Hunters Point Shipyard, Candlestick, and Bayview corridors move from “paper entitlement” to active construction within predictable timelines.

Second, as Supervisor, I would focus on removing the friction that slows projects after rezoning. That means pushing for a streamlined, one-stop permitting process for projects that comply with the new zoning—cutting redundant reviews, enforcing hard internal deadlines at planning and building departments, and requiring quarterly public reporting on permit timelines so delays are visible and accountable.

Third, I’d tie public land and infrastructure commitments directly to housing delivery. Too often, housing stalls because streets, utilities, parks, and transit improvements lag behind. I would work to coordinate a “concurrency model” where infrastructure schedules are locked in alongside development approvals, so developers aren’t waiting years for basic site readiness.

Finally, accountability matters. I would push for a District 10 Housing Delivery Dashboard tracking three metrics in real time: units entitled, units permitted, and units under construction—broken down by affordability level and site. If a project sits too long in any stage, it should trigger a review with clear escalation steps.

The bottom line is this: zoning change is only the first step. The job after that is making sure San Francisco actually builds—predictably, transparently, and at the scale the housing crisis demands.

What will you do to support D10’s commercial corridors? And what metrics would you target by 2030 (e.g., median time to open, # of new business openings, corridor vacancy rate, etc.)?

Commercial corridors in District 10—like Third Street in the Bayview, Bayview Plaza, Leland Ave in Visitacion Valley, and Potrero Hill’s 18th Street edge—don’t fail for one reason. They struggle because of a mix of long permitting timelines, inconsistent cleanliness and safety, high vacancy, and too few “starter spaces” for small businesses to survive their first 24 months.

A D10 strategy has to treat corridors as an integrated system: permitting + public realm + safety + foot traffic + financing.

What I would do

1. Cut the time it takes to open a business Right now, too many storefronts sit empty while approvals drag.

• Expand “permit-by-right” for most ground-floor retail, food, and personal services in corridor zones already zoned commercial.
• Create a
• D10 Small Business Fast-Track Desk
• staffed through OEWD + Planning + Fire + DBI to resolve all approvals in one workflow.
• Default to concurrent reviews (instead of sequential departments).
• Standardize tenant improvement plans for common uses (cafés, barbershops, retail) to reduce engineering rework.

Responsible agencies:

OEWD (lead), Planning Department, DBI, Fire Department

Funding:

City General Fund + reprogrammed OEWD small business support funds + potential state “Main Street Revitalization” grants

2. Reduce vacancies through active leasing—not passive waitingVacant storefronts are a policy failure, not just a market signal.

• Require quarterly vacancy reporting for corridors receiving city funds or CBD support.
• Expand a
• City-supported lease guarantee program
• for first-time small business owners (reduces landlord risk).
• Use short-term “pop-up leasing” (30–180 days) for empty ground floors.
• Prioritize legacy small businesses and local entrepreneurs in city-owned or city-assisted spaces.

Responsible agencies:

OEWD, Office of Economic & Workforce Development Real Estate team, Port of SF (where applicable)

Funding:

Vacancy tax revenues (if expanded), Community Benefit Districts (CBDs), philanthropic match programs, state small business stabilization funds

3. Improve safety, cleanliness, and reliability of the public realm

No corridor thrives if people don’t feel safe or if streets are inconsistent.

• Dedicated
• D10 Corridor Clean Teams
• (DPW + local hires) with daily routes.
• Lighting upgrades and sidewalk repairs prioritized by corridor heat maps.
• Focused public safety presence tied to peak business hours (not just reactive patrols).
• Coordinate with SFMTA to ensure bus stops, loading zones, and parking rules support—not disrupt—business activity.

Responsible agencies:

DPW, SFPD, SFMTA

Funding:

General Fund, street maintenance allocations, state homelessness and behavioral health grants

4. Create guaranteed foot traffic anchors

Small businesses don’t thrive in isolation.

• Incentivize grocery stores, childcare centers, health clinics, and cultural venues in corridor gaps.
• Activate publicly owned or underused spaces for markets, arts, and weekend programming.
• Expand outdoor vending and “night market” permits on designated corridors.

Responsible agencies:

OEWD, Planning, Department of Public Health (for clinics), Recreation & Parks

Funding: State infrastructure funds, cultural district grants, private sponsorships, public-private partnerships

5. Capital access for D10 entrepreneurs

• Expand microgrants ($5K–$50K) for tenant improvements.
• Low-interest revolving loan fund for first-time business owners.
• Prioritize D10 applicants in city-backed lending programs.

Funding sources: SF FinTech/community lending partners, federal CDFI funds, local general fund set-asides

Metrics I would track by 2030

To make this real, it has to be measurable and publicly reported quarterly:

Business formation & speed

• Median time from permit application to opening:
• target
• < 120 days
• % of permits processed through fast-track system:
• target
• 70%+ for eligible uses
• New business openings per year in D10 corridors:
• target
• +30–50% increase from 2026 baseline

Vacancy & activation

• Ground-floor vacancy rate on key corridors:
• target
• < 8% citywide average equivalent in D10 corridors
• % of vacant storefronts activated within 90 days (pop-up or permanent):
• target
• 60%+
• Average duration of vacancy:
• reduce by
• 50%

Economic vitality

• Sales tax revenue growth in D10 commercial corridors:
• target
• consistent annual growth above inflation
• Small business survival rate (3-year):
• target
• 70%+ survival
• Jobs created per corridor per year:
• tracked via OEWD reporting, target upward trend annually

Public realm performance

• 311 cleanliness response time in corridors:
• target
• < 24–48 hours for priority issues
• Streetlight outage repair time:
• target
• < 72 hours
• Business-reported “safety satisfaction score” (survey-based):
• target steady annual improvement

The core idea is simple: D10 corridors don’t just need “revitalization projects.” They need a system where opening a business is fast, staying open is viable, and the city actively treats empty storefronts as a solvable problem—not a permanent condition.

Bayview’s gun-violence rates remain persistently high. What is your plan to reduce violent crime while rebuilding trust between SFPD and the community?

Reducing gun violence in the Bayview while rebuilding trust with SFPD has to be treated as one strategy, not two separate goals. If enforcement increases without legitimacy, people won’t cooperate. If services increase without stopping shooters, residents stay unsafe. You need both, coordinated and measurable.

First, I would push for a focused “Gun Violence Reduction Partnership” in Bayview–Hunters Point that brings SFPD, the District Attorney, Public Health, and community-based violence interrupters into a single operating structure. The goal is simple: identify the small number of individuals driving most shootings and intervene early with a mix of accountability and off-ramps—jobs, counseling, relocation support, and credible enforcement when needed. That model works when it is consistent and data-driven, not reactive.

Second, I would expand community-led violence prevention as a core public safety function, not an afterthought. That means significantly scaling funding for credible messengers, street outreach teams, hospital-based intervention, and family support services after shootings. These programs should be funded through a dedicated public safety prevention allocation, not year-to-year grants, and tracked like any other city safety investment.

Third, rebuilding trust with SFPD requires changing day-to-day behavior, not just messaging. I would push for:

• Faster and more transparent release of use-of-force and shooting investigation information
• Stronger community policing assignments with officers who stay in the same beats long enough to build relationships
• Mandatory co-response protocols with behavioral health teams for non-violent and mental health-related calls
• Independent auditing of stop-and-search patterns to reduce unnecessary or biased enforcement

At the same time, accountability has to be real on both sides. When violent offenders are arrested, cases must be prosecuted effectively and swiftly. When officers violate policy, discipline must be consistent and transparent. Trust doesn’t come from lowering standards—it comes from applying them fairly.

Finally, I would track results in very concrete terms: non-fatal shooting rate, homicides, clearance rates, average response time for priority calls, and community trust surveys conducted quarterly in Bayview. If shootings are not going down year over year, and if trust is not improving, the strategy gets adjusted publicly—not behind closed doors.

The core idea is this: Bayview doesn’t need either just enforcement or just prevention. It needs a system where both are aligned, accountable, and measured against the same outcome—fewer shootings and safer streets.

Do you support expanding foot patrols in District 10?

Yes—but only if it’s done as

community-based foot patrols

, not just more enforcement presence.

In District 10, foot patrols can help in places like the Third Street corridor, Bayview, and Visitacion Valley where people want to see officers who are visible, known, and actually engaged. The goal shouldn’t be “more cops on the street” in the abstract—it should be rebuilding trust so residents feel safe reporting crime, cooperating with investigations, and using public spaces again.

That means a few key conditions: Foot patrol officers should be permanently assigned to specific beats, not rotated every few weeks. Familiarity matters—people trust officers they recognize, not strangers passing through.

We should pair foot patrols with community expectations: regular meetings with merchants, schools, and tenant groups so policing priorities are set locally, not just downtown.

And we need accountability metrics beyond arrests—things like response times, reductions in repeat violent incidents in specific corridors, and community trust surveys. Otherwise, you just measure activity instead of safety.

Finally, enforcement alone won’t fix District 10’s challenges. Foot patrols only work when they’re part of a broader strategy that includes lighting, cleaned-up corridors, youth intervention programs, and strong partnerships with violence interrupters.

So yes, I support expanding them—but as a trust-building, problem-solving presence, not a blanket enforcement surge.

District 10 has borne the brunt of the City’s environmental burdens — power plants, shipyards, freeways, contaminated groundwater, and illegal dumping. What specific environmental-justice policies would you pursue for residents of D10, and what measurable impact would you target by 2030?

District 10’s environmental burden is real because it was historically treated as the “industrial backyard” of the city. An environmental-justice agenda has to do two things at once: reduce ongoing exposure and repair legacy damage in a measurable way. First, I would prioritize

Cumulative impact enforcement in permitting

That means strengthening how the City evaluates new industrial or high-emission projects in places like Bayview-Hunters Point—requiring a neighborhood-level emissions cap, not just project-by-project review. Working with SFDPH and Planning, I’d push for an Environmental Justice Overlay that triggers stricter review, air monitoring requirements, and community benefit agreements for any polluting use. Second, I would expand

Real-time environmental monitoring

D10 should have dense, publicly available air and soil sensors near freeways, the shipyard, and former industrial parcels. This data would be managed with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and SF Environment so residents can actually verify conditions, not just hear reports. Third, I would aggressively pursue

Clean-up acceleration at Hunters Point Shipyard and legacy toxic sites, including independent third-party audits of remediation work and tighter enforcement timelines through the Navy, EPA, and City oversight. No occupancy should proceed without verified clearance. Fourth, I would launch a

Freeway and diesel exposure reduction plan

focused on EV freight transitions, anti-idling enforcement near schools, and expanded urban greening buffers along the 101 and 280 corridors. Fifth, I would address illegal dumping through

Hot-spot enforcement + prevention infrastructure faster response times, cameras where legal, and better waste access services for residents and small contractors.

By 2030, the measurable targets would be:

• 40% reduction in neighborhood NO₂ and black carbon levels in high-exposure corridors
• 100% real-time air quality monitoring coverage in D10 environmental hot spots
• Full cleanup certification (or verified containment) of all priority contaminated parcels in Bayview/Hunters Point
• 50% reduction in illegal dumping incidents citywide in D10
• Measurable decline in asthma-related ER visits among children in the district

The core shift is accountability: environmental data, enforcement power, and cleanup timelines all tied to outcomes residents can track—not promises

Despite the addition of the Central Subway, and D10-specific transit upgrades in motion, many improvements are not fully delivered, and residents still experience D10 as “transit-poor” in terms of speed, reliability, and easy connections. What would you do to improve transit in D10? What metrics would you target by 2030?

District 10 has seen real investments—Central Subway extension, Muni Forward projects, bus lanes—but residents are still right to feel the system doesn’t work like a fast, reliable network. The core issue isn’t just infrastructure; it’s that service speed, reliability, and connections haven’t improved enough to change daily experience.

As Supervisor, I’d focus on three things: speed, reliability, and integration.

First, speed. I would push to expand protected bus lanes on the highest-delay corridors in D10—especially 3rd Street, Bayshore, and key connectors into downtown—and make them truly continuous, not “block-by-block.” That includes automated enforcement (camera enforcement, not just police) so bus lanes actually stay clear. I’d also support transit signal priority upgrades so buses don’t get stuck at lights while carrying dozens of riders.

Second, reliability. Headways matter more than routes on paper. I would work with SFMTA to redesign service in D10 around “turn-up-and-go” frequency on core lines—meaning buses every 8–10 minutes during peak hours on major corridors. That requires reallocating resources from underperforming or duplicative routes into high-demand lines, plus better operator staffing and maintenance reliability so service interruptions drop.

Third, integration. D10 still feels disconnected internally and from the rest of the city. I would push for a “D10 frequent network map” that clearly connects Bayview, Potrero Hill, Visitacion Valley, and transit hubs like the T-line, Caltrain, and BART. Right now transfers are too slow and confusing. We should redesign timed transfers at key nodes so riders aren’t waiting 15–25 minutes just to connect.

On the governance side, I would require quarterly public transit performance reports specific to D10 so residents can track whether improvements are real—not just planned.

By 2030, I would set clear, measurable targets:

• At least 85% on-time performance on core D10 bus lines
• 20–25% reduction in average travel time from Bayview/Visitacion Valley to downtown during peak hours
• 10+ miles of fully enforced, continuous bus lanes in D10 corridors
• 90% of residents within a 5-minute walk of a “frequent service” line (10-minute headways or better)
• Bus bunching reduced by at least 50% on major routes
• A minimum 15% increase in overall transit ridership originating in D10

The bottom line is this: transit in D10 shouldn’t feel like you’re “making it work.” It should feel like a system that reliably gets you where you need to go faster than driving—especially during peak hours when congestion is worst.

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 my entire life. I never “came” here—I’m from here. What keeps me here is simple: this is home. My roots are here, my family history is here, and the same communities I grew up in are still here dealing with many of the same pressures—housing costs, violence, and unequal access to opportunity.

I was born in 1968 and raised in a two parent household in the San Francisco public housing development, coming up in a neighborhood shaped by both strong community ties and serious challenges. I spent time at the Boys Club on Page Street, and like a lot of kids from my generation,those experiences are part of my story, but they’re not where it ends. What changed my direction was community intervention, family influence, and programs like the Omega Boys Club, which helped me see a different path forward. Over time, I moved from being part of the problem to working on solutions—especially around violence prevention, youth opportunity, and second chances. After losing two younger brothers to gun violence in the 1990s, I started Brothers Against Guns to help interrupt that cycle for other families. Along the way, I’ve built businesses in the city, including a clothing and music store on San Bruno Avenue, a barbershop, and a record label (Power Pack Records). I’ve also been involved in cannabis business ownership during its early legal era in San Francisco. Today, my focus is on public service in District 10—where I believe my lived experience, combined with years of community work, can help push for safer streets, stronger youth pathways, and real economic opportunity for long-time residents.

What do you love most about San Francisco?

What I love most about San Francisco is that it’s a city that can hold every part of your story at the same time. I grew up here, and I’ve seen the beauty and the struggle side by side—neighborhoods with deep culture, resilience, and pride, even when they’ve been overlooked. What stands out to me is how people keep showing up for each other, whether it’s in the Fillmore, Bayview, or any corner of the city where families are trying to build a life. San Francisco is also a place where people can reinvent themselves. I’ve lived enough life to understand what that means. This city gives second chances, and it also challenges you to do better with them. At its best, San Francisco is not just about skyline views or global reputation—it’s about community, creativity, and the belief that where you start doesn’t have to define where you finish.

What do you dislike the most about San Francisco?

What I struggle with most about San Francisco is how disconnected the city can feel from the people who’ve lived here the longest.

You’ve got deep-rooted neighborhoods that built this city’s culture—places like Bayview, the Fillmore, Visitacion Valley—but too often residents feel like decisions get made about them instead of with them. That shows up in housing policy, transit planning, and even basic city services. When people feel ignored, trust breaks down, and it becomes harder to solve the real problems. The other big challenge is how uneven the city feels: you can have world-class wealth and innovation sitting a few miles away from families struggling with rising costs, safety concerns, and displacement pressure. San Francisco doesn’t lack resources—it struggles with alignment, execution, and making sure progress shows up in every neighborhood, not just a few corridors.

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

Right now, my community involvement is centered on violence prevention, youth support, and neighborhood-level advocacy in District 10, especially in Bayview–Hunters Point and surrounding areas.

A major focus has been continuing the work through

Brothers Against Guns, which I started in the mid-1990s after losing my brothers to gun violence. The goal has always been the same: interrupt cycles of retaliation, mentor young people at risk, and connect families to resources before crises escalate. That work has included informal mediation, outreach on the ground, and working alongside other local violence prevention efforts over the years. I also stay connected to

Community-based youth development spaces, especially programs that focus on sports, mentorship, and job pathways. Given my background in basketball and youth athletics, I’ve always believed the gym and the field can be entry points to discipline, structure, and opportunity. On the civic side, I stay engaged with

District 10 neighborhood meetings, local merchants, and housing and public safety discussions, especially around redevelopment sites like Hunters Point Shipyard and Candlestick Point. A lot of my involvement is about making sure residents are actually heard when decisions are being made—not just informed after the fact.More informally, I’ve continued to serve as a

Mentor and advisor to younger men coming out of difficult circumstances, especially those trying to transition away from street life into work, training programs, or entrepreneurship.

I’m not tied to a single formal organization today as much as I am to a consistent pattern of community work—showing up where there’s conflict, need, or opportunity, and helping connect people to solutions.

Why do you want to run for public office?

I want to run for District 10 Supervisor because I’ve lived the reality of the district, not just studied it or visited it. I know what it feels like to grow up in communities that are often talked about in policy meetings but left out of the actual decisions. That experience gives me a different starting point: I’m not guessing what D10 needs—I’ve seen it firsthand over time. District 10 has been carrying a lot of the city’s weight for a long time—industrial land use, environmental burdens, uneven investment, and neighborhoods where basic services don’t always match the promise of the city. At the same time, it’s a place with strong families, deep roots, small businesses, and people who’ve stayed through every cycle of neglect and reinvestment. I want to be part of shifting the balance so the district is not just “included” in progress, but centered in it. My focus is practical: safer streets without losing trust between residents and law enforcement, real housing stability for longtime residents while still building new housing, better transit that actually connects neighborhoods to jobs and schools, and environmental cleanup that turns impacted land into usable community assets. Those aren’t abstract goals—they’re measurable responsibilities that the next supervisor has to be accountable for. I’m also running because too many decisions about District 10 get made without consistent follow-through. Plans get announced, but delivery is uneven. I want to push for clearer timelines, public progress tracking, and accountability so residents can see what’s working and what isn’t. At the core, this is about representation that stays connected to the day-to-day reality of the district and is willing to be held accountable for results—not just promises.

Thank you

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