Theo Ellington

• Office: Supervisor, District 10
• Election Date: November 3, 2026
• Candidate: Theo Ellington
• Due Date: March 12, 2026
• Printable Version

Thank you for seeking GrowSF's endorsement for the November 3, 2026 election! GrowSF believes in a growing, beautiful, vibrant, healthy, safe, and prosperous city via common sense solutions and effective government. Our work includes running public opinion polls to understand what voters want, advocating for those changes, and ensuring that the SF government represents the people.

The GrowSF endorsement committee will review all completed questionnaires and seek consensus on which candidates best align with our vision for San Francisco.

Please complete this questionnaire by March 12, 2026 so we have enough time to adequately review and discuss your answers.

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

Your Policy Goals

We’d like to get some details about your high-level goals and how you intend to use your elected office to achieve them.

What policies do you hope to change or preserve by running for Supervisor, District 10? Please be specific, and list them in order of priority.

Housing, thriving small businesses, and economic vitality: I will lead the charge to create a Community & Economic Development Plan that builds on the Eastern Neighborhood Plan and updates the Bayview Area Plan from 1995, to provide a blueprint for housing development and new economic activity, specifically for the southeast neighborhoods. This plan will align housing, transit, and employment goals, explore elements of the family zoning plan to increase housing production along our main transit corridors, preserve our warehouse and PDR space to encourage a new economic job center, support retail, small and local businesses, and coordinate major construction and public works projects. District 10's commercial corridors (Third Street, Evans, and Cesar Chavez) are struggling. I support initiatives that will cut the red tape that costs small business owners months and thousands of dollars before they open. That means being smart about expanding by-right permissions, reducing permitting timelines, and creating a clear, linear checklist so the process is a clear map, not a confusing maze.

Increase housing production: Get shovels in the ground on District 10's 20,000 housing units in the pipeline on the waterfront at Pier 70, Power Station, India Basin, Hunters Point Shipyard, Candlestick, and Schlage Lock. Streamline permitting and eliminate the procedural barriers that stall projects for years. Legalize single-stair multifamily construction up to six stories. Set impact fees at levels that maximize production. Build without displacement, with local hiring and community benefits negotiated upfront rather than used as excuses to block projects.

Public safety, well-being, and violence prevention: District 10 has the highest gun violence rate in the city, no dedicated beat cops on our commercial corridors or public safety ambassadors, and a shortage of district police stations. I will advocate for full SFPD staffing (~2,100 officers), bring consistent foot patrols back to the district, expand proven violence prevention and interruption programs, and hold the Department accountable on outcomes, not just activity metrics.

Public safety is also about community wellness, not just police response. As Supervisor, I’ll address the funding cuts that have been made to public health workers, to affordable housing and housing supporting transitional-aged youth, and to much-needed mental health services in public schools.

Homelessness and behavioral health: Address the homeless crisis with moral urgency. That means more shelter beds, real sober-living programs, mental health respite care, and job training, with a clear expectation that we never release someone from treatment back onto the streets without a stable next step. This is something I laid the foundation for at the Salvation Army. We can replicate it at scale.

Affordability: Invest in housing, affordable childcare, and programs that tackle food insecurity and food deserts, and explore a universal basic income program for San Francisco.

Environmental justice: Bayview-Hunters Point has disproportionately high rates of cancer, asthma, and miscarriage as a direct result of proximity to power plants, freeways, contaminated shipyard land, and illegal dumping sites. I will pursue full accountability on the Hunters Point cleanup fraud and fight for real remediation.

Why those policies?

I am the only candidate in the race who was born and raised in the District (or born and raised in San Francisco). These issues are not new to me. They’re not distant or academic to me– I live them. My family has lived them in San Francisco for four generations now. Additionally, I’ve heard these same concerns expressed at every door in this campaign and at every community meeting for the past twenty years. We have a small window of opportunity to dramatically shift the way we build housing without displacement and improve the quality of life in the southeast neighborhoods. This requires someone who knows how to navigate City Hall and who will not accept excuses for inaction. I'm not running to study these problems. I'm running to solve them.

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

Our neighborhoods are primed for development, but Southeast San Francisco needs the same focus, energy, and investment as the rest of San Francisco. With an updated neighborhood plan, we will have a guide and blueprint to develop the housing we need. And housing is the foundation for everything else. You can't address homelessness without more housing. You can't keep working families from leaving without more housing. You can't attract the businesses and workers who support a healthy tax base without more housing. District 10 is uniquely positioned: we have 20,000 units in the pipeline on the waterfront, along with underutilized land scattered throughout the district. If I do nothing else as Supervisor, I want to be the person who actually gets those units built. Not approved. Not entitled. Built.

How will you build the coalition and political capital to enact your #1 goal? What obstacles will you face, and how will you overcome them? Will the power of the office of Supervisor, District 10 be enough to achieve this goal?

The coalition is already taking shape: pro-housing advocates, community-based organizations, small business owners, labor unions, local, state, and federal elected officials, and residents who are done watching projects stall and sit vacant.

The obstacles are familiar: CEQA litigation, Discretionary Review abuse, and neighbors who use procedural tools to block projects that have already been approved. I will work to expand by-right approvals, streamline DR, and build political consensus on the Board for reforms that have already passed in Sacramento and in other California cities.

I realize the Supervisor's office has real leverage: land use votes, budget authority, the ability to convene stakeholders, and the megaphone to build public pressure. I will use all of it to hold developers accountable to their timelines, push City agencies to process permits faster, and work with the community to set goals and establish shared community benefits that work for everyone.

Will the power of the office of Supervisor, District 10 be enough to achieve the other goals?

On public safety: The Board of Supervisors does not control SFPD, but controls the budget and appointments, including to the Police Commission. I will use both levers. On small business: A Supervisor can co-author legislation to expand by-right activity and reduce permit requirements citywide. On environmental justice: A Supervisor has a seat at the table with DPH and state and federal agencies on cleanup. These are longer fights that require coalition-building beyond the district, but they start with a Supervisor who will not let up.

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 doesn’t have a shortage of ideas, it has a system that too often makes it hard to deliver results. I would focus on repealing or reforming policies that block accountability and slow down execution.

First, mayoral authority over the Police Chief should be restored. The current structure insulates the Chief from accountability to the elected executive. The Mayor should have the ability to hire and fire the Police Chief directly, as is standard in most major American cities. This is the most direct lever for demanding results on public safety.

Second, we should revisit policies that make it harder for small businesses to operate. That includes providing relief on business equipment taxes for small and local businesses and eliminating unnecessary barriers that drive up costs and delay openings.

Third, we need to make it easier to develop neighborhood-serving projects. That means streamlining approvals, reducing unnecessary review, and creating a system where projects that meet clear standards can move forward without delay.

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.

Although the Board of Supervisors does not oversee public education, there needs to be better synergy between the two departments. We need to take a serious look at governance and accountability in our public education system. Families deserve high-quality schools in every neighborhood, but the current structure often lacks clear lines of responsibility and urgency around outcomes.

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?

By being explicit about what I'm doing and why. I've worked in government, in the nonprofit sector, and in the private sector, so I understand how influence flows in this city. I will not pretend I operate in a vacuum. What I can promise is that my votes and my policy positions will always be grounded in what I hear from constituents and what the data says, not in who wrote the biggest check. Where I anticipate the most tension: development decisions where community groups and developers both have strong interests. My approach will be to get everyone in the room early, negotiate community benefits up front, and then move decisively toward yes. Delay is not neutrality. I will also always keep an ‘open door policy’ and lead with collaboration, not fear or intimidation.

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?

These are less in conflict than people assume, particularly on housing and public safety, where District 10's needs are also the city's most urgent needs. Where real tension exists, it is usually in budget allocation. My pitch to colleagues will always be that District 10 has been underserved for decades, and fixing that is good for the entire city. A more prosperous, safer, better- connected southeast San Francisco means more tax revenue, fewer homeless residents cycling through the system, and a more functional transit network. Investing in District 10 is not charity. It is a good investment for San Francisco.

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?

I will start by building a culture of collaboration both inside City Hall and out in the community. City departments should feel like true partners in delivering results for the people of San Francisco, not siloed agencies. At the same time, our office will be deeply constituent-focused. Whether it’s advancing policy or responding to a phone call or email, everything we do will be grounded in serving residents with urgency and respect.

I will run a disciplined and accessible office, with a strong chief of staff and policy leads who are empowered to move quickly and solve problems. We’ll also assign each staff person a neighborhood, given the geographic size of the district. The staff will also be reflective of the communities that live in D10. But just as important, I will bring the office into the community. That means holding regular office hours across Potrero Hill, Dogpatch, Bayview, and Visitacion Valley, and making sure residents have direct, consistent access to their Supervisor. Good government is about policy as well as being present, responsive, and accountable every single day.

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

If I had to measure success by one thing, it would be resident satisfaction. Can people feel the difference in their daily lives? Do people feel safer walking down their street? Is it easier to get a response from City Hall? Are they getting clear, timely information? Do they feel connected to their community and their government? Success isn’t just about policies passed, it’s about whether people experience a city that is more responsive, more stable, and more hopeful than it was before.

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?

Gun violence in Bayview–Hunters Point remains one of the most urgent challenges we face. While citywide crime trends may be improving, the reality on the ground in our neighborhood tells a different story. This is not an abstract issue for me—I lived it. As a kid, I walked to school past balloon shrines on Third Street, memorials for friends and neighbors lost too soon. My 13-year-old cousin was shot and killed in Bayview. That stays with you. Gun violence is a life-or-death issue in the district I’m running to represent, and for too long, much of City Hall has been too comfortable looking the other way.

At the same time, anti-Asian hate remains top of mind for many residents across District 10. Public safety must mean safety for everyone. That requires a balanced approach—fully supporting effective policing, investing in violence prevention, and building trust across communities—so every family, in every neighborhood, can feel safe and protected.

What power would you have to solve this issue?

I will use every tool available to the Board of Supervisors to address gun violence in District 10. First, the budget is one of the most powerful levers—we control funding for SFPD deployment and violence interruption programs, and I will invest in both. Second, I will work across departments like DPH, MOHCD, and DCYF to ensure we are advancing public safety through a broader lens of well-being—not just enforcement, but prevention, mental health, housing stability, and youth opportunity. Finally, in many parts of our district, public safety also requires smart planning and urban design—better lighting, safer street layouts, activated public spaces, and infrastructure improvements that deter crime and support community presence. Public safety isn’t one strategy; it’s a coordinated approach that meets people where they are and delivers real results.

What three things would you change about how SFPD operates?

Here are a few things: bring back consistent foot and bicycle patrols on commercial corridors and residential blocks. Officers in cars do not build community trust. Officers on foot do.

Reduce the administrative burden on officers so more time is spent in neighborhoods and less behind a screen. Our commercial corridors need visible community policing, better lighting, and real investment in violence prevention so residents and merchants feel safe. Streamlining basic reporting tasks would make the force more effective without adding staff or cost.

I would strengthen accountability and transparency by tracking and publicly reporting key performance metrics like response times, case closure rates, and community trust, so residents can see where progress is being made and where it’s not.

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

A small change that would have a big impact is consistent, assigned foot patrols. The most common thing I hear from residents is simple: they want to see officers on the street–not after something happens, but before. When officers are regularly present and know the neighborhood, it builds trust, deters crime, and strengthens relationships with residents and small businesses. This is the foundation of real community policing. It’s not complicated or expensive, we’ve just failed to prioritize it on the southeast side of San Francisco.

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

When considering appointments to the Police Commission, I’m looking for individuals who understand both accountability and operational reality. We need commissioners with real experience in community safety. We want candidates who bring diverse perspectives across law, public health, community organizing, and law enforcement. The Commission plays a critical role in setting use-of-force policy and overseeing the department, so members must be able to thoughtfully evaluate tradeoffs, not respond reflexively.

On key issues, I want commissioners who take a balanced, results-driven approach. That means supporting both enforcement and intervention when it comes to public drug use, recognizing that true compassion requires getting people into treatment, not leaving them on the street. It means embracing responsible use of technology, like drones and camera systems, with strong civilian oversight, clear data protections, and public transparency. And it means treating repeat shoplifting as a serious issue that impacts small businesses and neighborhood stability, while ensuring fairness and accountability in enforcement.

Substance abuse

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

The City should respond with urgency and a clear pathway off the street. The current approach of tolerating open drug use in public spaces has failed users, bystanders, and the surrounding community alike. We need a model built on active outreach and real options such as shelter beds, treatment access, and sober-living programs, paired with clear expectations. There cannot be a default option to remain on the street indefinitely. That means issuing citations for misdemeanor drug use, offering treatment at every point of contact, and ensuring the treatment infrastructure exists to support that pathway.

I have seen what real recovery systems look like from my time as Director of Homelessness Initiatives and Community Development at the Salvation Army in San Francisco. People can and do recover when there is a genuine path forward. The City’s failure has not been the policy of treatment itself, it has been the lack of capacity and coordination to deliver it at scale.

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

The City should respond with immediate emergency medical care, followed by intervention that connects the person to a real treatment pathway rather than cycling them through the ER and back to the streets. First responders should be able to stabilize someone and then directly connect them to detox, treatment, and sober-living options. That requires the City to build enough capacity so those placements are actually available in the moment. We have been falling short on treatment capacity for years, and that has to change if we want different outcomes. During my time at the Salvation Army, we opened mental health respite centers that allowed individuals struggling with substance use and mental health challenges to access services immediately.

Do you support the creation of safe consumption sites in San Francisco? If so, please detail how they should be run. If not, please explain a viable alternative.

No. The fentanyl crisis is out of control, and San Francisco should focus resources on what we know works: abstinence-based recovery programs, sober living facilities, and expanded access to medication-assisted treatment. We need more beds, and we need to be able to place people in them at the moment they are ready, not days later.

I’ve built this kind of infrastructure. At the Salvation Army, I developed a 50-bed mental health respite center and a recovery-based transitional housing program. I understand what it takes to fund, operate, and scale real recovery systems, and that is where our investment should be focused.

Do you support sober housing? Why or why not?

Yes, strongly. Sober housing is one of the most evidence-backed interventions in recovery services and one of the most underfunded in San Francisco. Releasing someone from drug treatment back into the same environment is not treatment. I initiated a recovery-based transitional housing initiative at the Salvation Army specifically because the absence of sober next-step housing was the single biggest factor in relapse among the people we served. San Francisco needs more sober living beds, more transitional housing, and more workforce development tied to recovery.

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 support clean needle distribution: the evidence on reducing disease transmission is clear and compelling. For other paraphernalia like pipes and foil, I support ending distribution. Providing tools that make it easier to remain in addiction, without a serious simultaneous push toward treatment and recovery, is not harm reduction in any meaningful sense. It normalizes ongoing use. All of our outreach efforts should be oriented toward connecting people to treatment, not making it easier to stay on the street.

Mental Health

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

Yes. The current system is failing people in crisis and the communities around them. Too often, individuals experiencing severe mental health challenges cycle between the emergency room, jails, and the streets without meaningful or lasting intervention. We need clearer statutory pathways that allow for earlier and more effective action, including the ability to place individuals in holds and begin assessment when they are clearly unable to care for themselves, even if they are not in an immediate acute episode.

At the same time, any changes must be paired with real capacity. Expanding intervention without expanding treatment, stabilization beds, and long-term care will not solve the problem. The goal should be a system that intervenes earlier, connects people to care, and supports recovery in a way that is both compassionate and effective.

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

San Francisco’s conservatorship system needs to be improved to address what many people experience today as a “washing machine” effect, where individuals cycle between the emergency room, the street, and jail without meaningful or lasting intervention. We are intervening too late, and when we do, the City often lacks the treatment beds and long-term care options needed to support real recovery.

We need earlier intervention, so we are not waiting until someone reaches the most acute stage of crisis before acting. We should also expand the use of court-mandated treatment for individuals who are clearly unable to care for themselves–with appropriate safeguards. We also need much better coordination between City departments so people are not falling through the cracks between health services, housing, and public safety systems. Done right, conservatorship should interrupt the cycle, connect people to care, and create a real pathway to stability.

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.

Involuntary holds should only be considered in extreme cases for individuals who are in crisis and unable to care for themselves after all other resources are exhausted.

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.

San Francisco needs to make the process of opening a small business faster, easier, and more predictable. Right now, the process is too slow, too fragmented, and too expensive, especially for neighborhood entrepreneurs. I would streamline permitting by creating a true one-stop shop where business owners can navigate all approvals in one place, with clear timelines and accountability across departments. If the City cannot act within a set timeframe, approvals should move forward by default.

We also need to reduce upfront costs and barriers, especially for small, local, and legacy businesses. That means simplifying fees, expanding technical assistance, and providing targeted support in neighborhoods like Bayview, where we want to see more investment along corridors like Third Street. The City should also actively explore increasing the exemption on business equipment taxes, to reduce costs and make it easier for small businesses to grow and invest, especially our small and local neighborhood-serving businesses.

At the same time, we should prioritize activating vacant storefronts by making it easier to bring in temporary and pop-up uses while permanent tenants are secured. We should also make it easier for multiple small businesses to share and co-occupy storefronts, creating flexible, lower-cost entry points for entrepreneurs and helping activate vacant spaces more quickly.

Opening a business should not feel harder than running one. If we are serious about economic recovery and vibrant neighborhoods, we need a system that supports entrepreneurs from day one.

A note on formula retail: I support community review for large national chains in neighborhood commercial districts to preserve the character of District 10 corridors. That review should be streamlined and time-limited: a voice for the community, not a veto.

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 makes it easier for all non-vice businesses to open without special hearings, we also have to be intentional about leveling the playing field for local small businesses. I would focus on reducing costs and barriers for neighborhood entrepreneurs by expanding fee waivers, increasing access to capital, and providing technical assistance so local businesses can open and scale successfully. This means partnering with City agencies like OEWD and the Office of Small Business, and even state and federal programs.

We should also make it easier for multiple small businesses to share storefronts and activate vacant spaces, creating lower-cost entry points along corridors like Third Street with special zoning districts or designations.

At the same time, we need to protect and promote our local economy. That means strengthening legacy business programs, prioritizing local tenants in key commercial corridors, and using City tools to support small businesses in leasing and procurement opportunities. Streamlining should not mean losing what makes San Francisco unique. It should mean creating an environment where local businesses can compete, grow, and thrive alongside larger chains. Either way, I would propose a District 10 Small Business Investment Fund for retailers and other local non-retail businesses that contribute to the city’s economy. We should also explore opportunities to expand home-based businesses.

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

Housing

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

Yes, without question. San Francisco has a housing shortage, and we need to build at all levels. We can do that in District 10 without displacement. The shortage is the root cause of our affordability crisis, our homelessness crisis, and the outmigration of working families.

We have not built a single new unit of housing along Bayview’s Third Street transit corridor in over a decade. That is a policy failure. Supply and demand is real. When housing is scarce, prices rise at every level, from market-rate to moderate-income to deeply affordable housing. Increasing supply is essential if we want to stabilize costs and make San Francisco a place where families can afford to stay.

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

Yes. San Francisco's extreme housing prices are the direct result of constrained supply. It's also too expensive to build. I’m willing to work with all stakeholders to explore ways to bring down the cost of building housing.

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

Mayor Lurie’s Family Zoning plan is directionally right, but is just the first step in addressing the scale of the housing crisis we’re facing. San Francisco needs to build more housing at every level, especially family-sized units and housing near transit, jobs, and neighborhood amenities. That said, zoning changes alone are not enough. If we don’t pair them with real investments in infrastructure, faster permitting, and clear pathways to actually get projects built, we will continue to fall short. Additionally, we desperately need to find creative ways to cut the cost of construction.

In District 10, we have an opportunity to lead along corridors like Third Street, 16th Street, Evans, and Innes. We can add meaningful housing supply without displacement, while also creating the conditions for thriving, mixed-use neighborhoods, as we have 20,000 new units of housing in the pipeline along our waterfront. The goal should not just be to rezone on paper, but to deliver real units, at scale, in a way that supports families staying and growing in San Francisco.

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

Building more housing is the essential first step, but it’s not the only solution. San Francisco’s cost of living is driven not just by housing supply, but by a growing gap between incomes and the cost of everyday life. If we’re serious about affordability, we have to address both.

In the short term, that means easing the burden on families through investments in quality schools that serve as community hubs, expanding access to affordable childcare, and increasing transit subsidies for Muni riders. We should also be willing to explore bold solutions like universal basic income. Lastly, we need to treat food insecurity and hunger like a public health crisis. No one should go hungry in our city. Too many families in San Francisco are living on the margins, and affordability has to be about making the city work for them now, while we build the housing needed for long-term stability.

Note: That means streamlining approvals for projects that meet clear standards, especially housing near transit, while preserving strong environmental protections where they are truly needed. I am very careful about suggesting or supporting CEQA reforms, given the importance of identifying and mitigating hazardous materials.

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

Every category above is harder than it needs to be, and District 10 has paid the price for that more than any other part of the city. Again, we have 20,000 housing units in the pipeline and have gone a decade without a single new home constructed on our main transit corridor. San Francisco's regulatory environment adds time and cost at every step. The city that needs new housing the most has become one of the most difficult and expensive places to build it in the world. That has to change.

Transit Infrastructure

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

No. Solving the MUNI funding crisis by taxes alone would be both politically unsustainable and fiscally irresponsible given the city's existing deficit. The solution has to include efficiency gains within SFMTA. The agency has real operational inefficiencies and budget overruns that need to be addressed before asking taxpayers for more. That said, sustainable transit funding does require a revenue component: we should seriously evaluate congestion pricing, development impact fees tied to transit improvements, and federal and state funding opportunities. New taxes without demonstrated operational accountability at SFMTA will be tough to pass by voters.

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

Protected bike infrastructure is worth building where it genuinely improves safety and connects people to where they need to go. I do think we can get to the point of a full network, but I’m not prepared to commit to a citywide network as a blanket policy mandate without being honest about the realities of inconsistent transit options, particularly in District 10.

Whether we like it or not, Bayview-Hunters Point and Visitacion Valley are car-dependent communities. Residents travel by car to reach grocery stores, medical appointments, and jobs that are not accessible by transit or bike. Merchants depend on customers who arrive by car. A one-size-fits-all approach to bike infrastructure that treats every corridor the same way would hurt the businesses and residents I’m running to represent.

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

Yes. Zero traffic fatalities is the right goal because anything less suggests that some level of preventable death is acceptable, and I don’t believe that. We haven’t come close to achieving Vision Zero in San Francisco, but the answer isn’t to lower the bar. It’s to be more serious about how we deliver on it.

That means focusing on what actually works: better street design, consistent enforcement, and targeted investments in the areas where crashes are most likely to happen. Things like protected intersections, pedestrian islands, safer signal timing, and reducing speeds save lives. Vision Zero should not just be a goal we talk about, it should be a standard we hold ourselves accountable to every day.

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?

It’s about smart street design that balances modes of transportation so everyone can move through the city safely and efficiently. I support using tools like automated camera enforcement and directing traffic control officers to high-impact corridors to make sure these systems actually work.

We also need to invest in infrastructure that supports true multimodal transportation, including bus service, light rail, dedicated bike lanes, water transit, and regional connections like Caltrain. Given our geographic position and expected growth, we have to build a system that meets today’s needs while preparing for a future where our neighborhoods are more connected to the region and each other.

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?

Downtown will not fully recover until we address public safety, street conditions, and homelessness. While perceptions of downtown have shifted, the fundamentals still matter. We need more conventions, stronger tourism, and more workers returning to the office. The connection between clean, safe streets and economic activity is direct.

My approach is straightforward: protect core services, eliminate waste and duplication, grow the neighborhoods that are ready for investment, and build a more resilient tax base so San Francisco is not this vulnerable every time downtown struggles. That means investing in our commercial corridors to drive sales and gross receipts tax, building more housing to grow property tax and local spending, and creating new job centers in our industrial areas through life sciences, PDR, clean tech, and creative industries.

We should also expand our economic strategy beyond downtown by activating waterfronts, supporting arts and nightlife, and hosting events across the city. Our neighborhoods are an untapped engine for economic growth, and if we invest in them, they can help power San Francisco’s recovery and long-term stability.

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

I’m not a fan of mass layoffs. But I do believe the City needs stronger metrics and accountability around results across departments. Residents deserve to know that their tax dollars are actually delivering outcomes.

We can get there by consolidating departments where it makes sense, eliminating duplicative services, and leveraging technology to improve how the City operates. This is about making government work better, not just smaller.

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.

I will convene the necessary City departments, community stakeholders, labor, and business leaders to jump-start a Community and Economic Development Plan that aligns housing, jobs, transit, business growth, and corridor activation.

I will also stand up a Public Safety, Violence Prevention, and Well-Being working group that brings together SFPD, Public Health, homeless services, violence prevention organizations, and community leaders. Public safety requires coordination, and this effort will focus on aligning strategies across enforcement, prevention, and other services.

Finally, I will bring District 10 constituent services directly to the community by holding regular office hours in Bayview, Potrero Hill, Dogpatch, and Visitacion Valley. Residents deserve to be connected to basic City services in a way that has been lacking in our district. My office will be present, accessible, and responsive in every neighborhood.

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?

I served as a City Commissioner at the Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure, where we oversaw development plans for Hunters Point Shipyard, Mission Bay, and the Transbay Terminal. I know these sites and agreements intimately.

As Supervisor, I will demand a realistic, public timeline from every master developer, with clear milestones and consequences for delay. We also need a full update on long-promised community benefits. Projects that have been entitled but sit stalled year after year are not acceptable. The community fought hard for these developments, and too many promises have gone unfulfilled.

When it comes to Candlestick Point, there is no excuse for continued delays. If progress does not move forward, we should explore all available options, including enforcing penalties and pursuing strategies to recapture or reassign land to developers who are ready to build.

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?

I am looking forward to round 2 of the discussion around Family Zoning. Unfortunately, our district was not included in the changes. The goal is simple: we need to turn zoning into housing that actually gets built. In District 10, that means delivering real units at scale along our transit corridors and on long-entitled sites across the district. Between 2026 and 2030, I want to see meaningful production at every level, including family-sized units, workforce housing, and deeply affordable homes, all built in a way that allows existing residents to stay and benefit from that growth.

As Supervisor, my focus will be on execution. That starts with streamlining permitting and holding departments accountable to clear timelines so projects don’t get stuck in the system. It means working closely with developers, labor, and the community to resolve issues early and keep projects moving. It also means using the budget and policy tools we have to support infrastructure, financing, and workforce development so projects can actually break ground.

We’ve spent too much time approving plans on paper without delivering results. My job will be to make sure new zoning translates into permits, construction starts, and completed housing that people can see and feel in their neighborhoods.

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.

This is the central challenge of District 10’s growth, and I take it seriously as a third-generation Bayview resident. We have room in District 10 to build and grow without displacement. However, we have to focus on preservation, affordability, and pathways to homeownership so that longtime residents can stay and benefit from the neighborhood’s growth.

For renters, that starts with enforcing existing tenant protections and funding legal aid organizations that help low-income tenants fight unlawful evictions. We should also expand programs like the Small Sites Acquisition Program, to preserve affordable rental and homeownership buildings before they are lost to speculation.

For homeowners, we need to provide real support to help them stay in place. That means expanding the property tax deferral program and creating targeted mortgage assistance for longtime District 10 homeowners whose property values have risen faster than their incomes. We should also partner with community land trusts and explore the creation of a Community Development Corporation to support permanent affordability. There are proven models, and we should be using them to ensure that growth does not come at the expense of the people who built this community.

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.)?

District 10’s commercial corridors each play a different role, so we need a strategy that is tailored to the character and opportunity of each one. On Third Street, I want to pursue a neighborhood zoning designation that hyper-focuses on neighborhood-scale development, modernizes infrastructure, adds much-needed housing, and supports both new and existing businesses. Along Evans, we should create zoning that incentivizes new uses for our PDR spaces and helps turn underutilized industrial areas into centers of jobs, innovation, and economic activity. On 16th Street, we should maximize smart growth and development to better connect transit, housing, and commercial activity. At the same time, corridors like Leland Avenue, 18th Street, and 24th Street should be protected and strengthened for the neighborhood-serving businesses and community character that make them special.

By 2030, success should be measured by real, visible change. I want to see significantly lower storefront vacancy, more locally owned businesses opening and staying open, increased sales activity along key corridors, and stronger links between housing, transit, and retail that drive consistent foot traffic. The goal is to create corridors that are vibrant, stable, and rooted in the needs of the people who already live here, while also positioning District 10 for the growth that is coming.

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

Our gun violence crisis requires a both-and approach: real policing and real prevention. We need consistent, assigned foot patrols so officers are visible in the neighborhood before something happens, not just after. Residents want to know the officers serving their blocks, and officers should know the people, families, and businesses they are there to protect. At the same time, we have to fully fund violence interruption, youth opportunity, and trauma-informed services so we are not only responding to violence, but preventing it. I also want stronger coordination between SFPD, public health, schools, community-based organizations, and violence prevention teams so we are treating safety as more than just an enforcement issue.

Rebuilding trust starts with accountability and presence. That means tracking response times, clearance rates, and community trust metrics in District 10 specifically–and making that information public. It also means supporting officers who are committed to community policing while demanding professionalism, transparency, and respect in every interaction. I know this issue personally. I grew up walking past balloon shrines to fallen peers on Third Street, and my own cousin was shot and killed in Bayview. That is why I believe our community deserves a public safety strategy that is serious, visible, and rooted in dignity.

Do you support expanding foot patrols in District 10?

Yes, unequivocally. This is one of the most consistent requests I hear from District 10 residents, and it is one of the most impactful things we can do to improve both safety outcomes and community-police trust.

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?

Environmental justice in District 10 is not a slogan. It is a matter of life and death. Bayview-Hunters Point has disproportionately high rates of cancer, asthma, heart disease, and premature births. The causes are documented: legacy power plants, contaminated Shipyard land, crowded freeways, and illegal dumping.

Hunters Point Shipyard cleanup: Demand full re-testing of all previously fraudulently certified remediation areas, with independent oversight, including bringing back the restoration advisory board. No housing construction on inadequately remediated land.

Air quality monitoring: Install permanent, public-facing air quality monitors in Bayview-Hunters Point and Visitacion Valley. Publish data in real-time.

Illegal dumping: Increase enforcement and shorten cleanup response times. Illegal dumping is a public health hazard and a statement about whose neighborhoods matter.

Green infrastructure: Prioritize District 10 for urban tree canopy, green stormwater infrastructure, and parks investment. Also, mitigate for sea level rise and pilot programs like the Yosemite Slough projects.

This issue is personal to me. After I purchased my first home at the Shipyard, it was revealed that the corporation tasked with testing the soil to ensure it was safe actually lied and that the land was toxic. I organized my neighbors into a class action lawsuit and won a $6.3 million settlement for dozens of families impacted.

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 residents have been promised transit improvements for years, but connections to Bayview and Visitacion Valley still fall short. We need to focus on reliability, access, and equity.

For the T-Third, that means improving headways to 10 minutes or better during peak hours, implementing signal prioritization, and finding a real solution to the Islais Creek Bridge closure. We also need to restore reliable late-night service for workers and strengthen the bus network by improving frequency and reliability on key lines serving neighborhoods not connected to rail.

At the same time, we have to invest in the basics. Many stops in District 10 lack adequate lighting, shelters, and maintenance, which impacts safety and usability.

By 2030, success should be measured by real improvements people can feel, including more reliable service, shorter wait times, and higher rider satisfaction.

We also need to plan for the future by exploring an additional Caltrain station and expanding water transit, ensuring District 10 is fully connected to the region as it continues to grow.

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’m a third-generation San Franciscan, born and raised in Bayview–Hunters Point. My grandfather came here from Mississippi during the Great Migration and found work as a laborer helping build and maintain the roads, freeways, and bridges that keep this city moving, including the Golden Gate Bridge. My mother raised me in this neighborhood on $18,000 a year, and everything I’ve done is rooted in that foundation. What keeps me here is what has always kept my family here: the belief that San Francisco, at its best, is the most opportunity-rich, diverse, and creative city in the world. Today, my wife Seray, a neonatal nurse at UCSF, and I are raising our three boys, Lennox, Maxwell, and Hendrix, as fourth-generation San Franciscans, less than a mile from where I grew up.

What do you love most about San Francisco?

The people. San Francisco has always attracted people who refused to accept the world as it was: builders, artists, advocates, entrepreneurs. And in neighborhoods like Bayview, there is a multigenerational resilience and creativity that I find genuinely inspiring. The Bayview Opera House, where I serve as Executive Director, is a living example of that. A hundred-year-old institution that has launched generation after generation of local artists of color and is still doing it. That is San Francisco at its best.

What do you dislike the most about San Francisco?

The gap between our values and our results. San Francisco talks constantly about equity, affordability, and compassion, and then produces policies that make housing impossibly expensive, leave people to suffer on the streets, and make it harder to open a small business than almost anywhere else in the country. The problem is not a lack of good intentions. It is a failure of effective governance and a tolerance for process that has become an end in itself rather than a means to helping people. I am running because I believe we can close that gap.

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

Executive Director, Ruth Williams Bayview Opera House: San Francisco's most historic theater. We are leading a cultural renaissance and restoring the venue to be a cornerstone cultural institution for the community.

Former City Commissioner, Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure (OCII): Led affordable housing and community investment for Hunters Point Shipyard, Mission Bay, and Transbay Terminal. Helped lead the creation of more than 3,000 new housing units.

Former Director of Public Affairs, Golden State Warriors: Managed the community partnership that delivered 3,000 jobs, millions in city investment, and workforce training programs with the Chase Center development.

Former Director, Homeless Initiatives and Community Development, The Salvation Army: Built a 50-bed mental health respite center, launched recovery-based transitional housing, and led the organization’s COVID-19 response, delivering 500,000 meals to underserved families.

Policy Director, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck: Advocacy work spanning small business, housing, and workforce policy.

Why do you want to run for public office?

I’m running for public office because I’ve lived the challenges facing San Francisco, and I’ve spent my career working to solve them. Growing up in Bayview–Hunters Point, I saw firsthand the impacts of gun violence, disinvestment, and inequality. I walked past balloon shrines to fallen peers on my way to school, and after losing my 13-year-old cousin, I made a commitment to be part of making things better.

This isn’t theoretical to me. I’ve helped deliver affordable housing, brought jobs and investment to the Southeast sector, expanded homeless services, and fought for environmental justice in my own neighborhood. But I also know we’re not moving fast enough, and too many communities are still waiting for the same level of urgency and investment seen in other parts of the city.

I’m running because I’ve got skin in the game. My wife and I are raising our three boys here, less than a mile from where I grew up. I want them, and every family in District 10, to grow up in a neighborhood that is safe, stable, and full of opportunity. This is about making sure the next generation doesn’t inherit the same challenges we’ve been talking about for decades, but a city that finally delivers on its promise.

Thank you

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