Instructions:
1. There are 10 sections to this questionnaire. Each section
corresponds to the 10 Key Values of the Green Party.
2. Each section contains one or more written questions and ends with
several multiple-choice questions. Please don't skip the written
questions.
3. The multiple-choice questions are answered by checking the box in the
appropriate column to indicate which is closest to your position:
+ = Support / Agree / Yes
- = Oppose / Disagree / No
: = Undecided / Don't know / No opinion
4. The world is too complex to always break down neatly into
yes/no/maybe choices, so feel free to clarify any answers to multiple
choice questions with a few words.
Candidate Name: Dylan Hirsch-Shell
Phone Number: 818-321-0498
Web site: votedylan.com
E-mail: dylan@votedylan.com
Name of Campaign Manager: Marc Schreiber
Are you receiving public financing: Undecided (I am trying to run my campaign with as little money as possible. Ideally, I would not even need the public financing. I also am not thrilled that millions of dollars in the City's budget is allocated for campaigns who qualify for the funding and then funnel it into a professional campaign industry. It seems like yet another example of public subsidization of private interests.)
Signed voluntary spending limit: Yes.
Major Endorsements: I only have one endorsement so far: Gisele Huff, Founder and President of the Gerald Huff Fund for Humanity (a UBI advocacy group). I'm actively seeking the endorsement of the Forward Party of California, given their alignment on policy priorities, and 314 Action, given my background as a scientist and engineer.
Your 2nd, 3rd choices for Mayor: Undecided at this time. (If I had a strong belief in the ability of another person to perform the duties of the office effectively and with integrity, I would have dropped out already and endorsed them.)
Who did you endorse for Mayor in 2019 (all 3 choices, if applicable): In 2019, I ranked London Breed first because I felt she was the most qualified, and I really wanted to give her a fair chance at accomplishing some of the good things she claimed to stand for. I ranked Joel Ventresca second because I respected his education in public administration and his experience as an administrator and an analyst. I was also None of the other candidates were compelling enough for me to rank.
1) Grassroots Democracy:
A) What are your thoughts on Instant Runoff Voting, and District
Elections? How have they worked to date? What would you change in
the future? What about Proportional Representation?
Instant Runoff Voting:
I'm a longtime voting methods nerd, so I've thought a lot about this subject. I'm also an independent voter who hates the fact that in state and federal elections I'm often presented with the dilemma of whether to vote my conscience and risk having my favorite independent/third-party (usually Green) candidate act as a "spoiler" who allows the Republican candidate (who is usually terrible) to win, or do the "safe" thing and just vote for the Democratic candidate (who is usually not as terrible, but still not my favorite). So, I wholeheartedly agree that the claimed benefits of Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)--namely, that it eliminates the spoiler effect, thereby allowing people to safely vote their conscience without fear of it backfiring and handing the election to their least-favorite of the two major parties; and that by eliminating the spoiler effect, it gives independent and third-party candidates a real shot at winning--are very worthy and desirable goals to aim for! However, IRV sadly falls short of actually delivering on those promised benefits. IRV still suffers from vote-splitting between similar candidates in each round. So, in an IRV election with three candidates--one Green, one Dem, one Rep--it's possible that my voting for the Green Party candidate could cause the Democratic candidate to get knocked out in the first round, and then if even a relatively small number of the 1st rankings for the Democratic candidate also ranked the Republican 2nd over the Green (maybe not very common, but also not unheard of), then the Republican candidate wins. Because this vulnerability still exists, and voters can intuitively feel it's not completely safe to rank their favorite first without any potential negative consequences, the 1st place rankings for Green Party candidates will still be suppressed in an IRV election! IRV also suffers from the problem of sometimes failing to elect the Condorcet Winner (a technical term that just means "the candidate who was preferred over all other candidates by the majority of voters")--this happened in the 2009 mayoral IRV election in Burlington, VT; and in the 2023 Alaskan Senate IRV election, in which Sarah Palin acted as a spoiler (had she stayed out of the race, the other Republican, Nick Begich III, would have won, instead of the Democratic candidate, Mary Peltola). Don't get me wrong--IRV is definitely better than the traditional plurality system we had before, but there are much better alternative voting methods out there that are less complicated and are more likely to actually deliver victories to independent and third-party candidates who might have less money backing them but are more closely aligned with the sentiments of the electorate. Again, the stated goals of IRV are noble, but the simple reality is it falls short of actually delivering on what it promises. Additionally, a recent study by Lindsey Cormack on the 2021 NYC mayoral election that used IRV for the first time there, found that IRV disenfranchised lower-income and less-educated voters, due to the complexity of the ballot resulting in more confusion and higher ballot rejection rates among those populations of voters. I definitely would not advocate for going back to what we had before with a plurality system that suffers from horrendous vote-splitting problems that is almost guaranteed to hand over the election to the candidate that spends the most money. Instead, I hope that at some point in the near future we can upgrade from IRV to something like Approval Voting (simple yes/no on each candidate and the candidate with the highest approval rating wins, which offers a super simple voting experience, is quick and simple to tally, and offers better results than IRV in many circumstances) or STAR Voting ("Score, Then Automatic Runoff", which offers a familiar voting experience for anyone who has ever rated anything on Amazon or Yelp, is a much simpler and more "instant" runoff than IRV, and also offers better results than IRV in many circumstances). Both Approval Voting and STAR Voting are more likely to elect the Condorcet Winner in many more election scenarios, their ballot designs and voting experiences are much simpler, and they are precinct-summable (meaning that election results can be reported much more quickly as they come in incrementally, and any recounting and validation can be done much more easily and with higher confidence). Advanced voting methods like Approval Voting and STAR Voting also make our elected leaders more accountable to the will of the people, as their re-election more directly depends on appealing to a broad consensus of voters, rather than catering to a vocal or politically-powerful minority. This would fulfill the Green Party's objectives of supporting Grassroots Democracy more effectively than IRV.
District Elections and Proportional Representation:
I recognize the utility of district-based Supervisors for people who want to feel like they know exactly who to go to when they need to provide feedback about how the government is performing, and as a way to ensure that each district receives adequate attention in the deliberations of the Board of Supervisors. However, I think having *only* district-based Supervisors has been detrimental to the City, since no one is advocating for the needs of the City as a whole. Therefore, I would be in favor of adding new at-large Supervisors to counterbalance the district-based Supervisors, and of course Proportional Representation would be the perfect way to select these at-large Supervisors without concentrating all of the power in a majority bloc, which was a big part of the problem with how our at-large Supervisors used to be selected and why it was rejected in favor of district-based Supervisors twice. The exact number of new Supervisors to add, whether to consolidate some districts and replace those Supervisors with at-large Supervisors, and which exact Proportional Representation method to use for the election, are all details worthy of some healthy debate. Personally, I would propose the following: Add an even number (between 10 and 22) of new at-large Supervisors, elected half (between 5 and 11) at a time every 2 years using Sequential Proportional Approval Voting, which, combined with the existing 11 district-based Supervisors, would bring the new total number of Supervisors to between 21 and 33. I would love to see a Proportional version of Approval Voting used to select the at-large Supervisors, since it is a much simpler ballot, voting experience, and tallying process than the Proportional version of IRV (also known as Single Transferrable Vote, or STV).
+ - ?
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Sub-government such as Neighborhood Assemblies, Networks or District Councils -- I'm a fan of ways to add granularity and locality to governance. We just need to think carefully about how to effectively incorporate them into the larger framework of the City's overall governance.
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Voters' right to recall elected officials -- I think voters should have the right to recall elected officials, but I think the bar should probably be higher than "I don't think they're doing a good job". There should be some clear indication of betrayal of the public's trust. It should probably also require a larger number of votes to recall a person than it took to get them elected in the first place.
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Residency requirements for elected officials should be strictly enforced -- Yes, absolutely. If you don't live in the place you're supposedly representing, then you have no business representing that place.
B) What strategies would you employ to reduce corruption in San
Francisco government?
I have a friend who works as an auditor for the City. One idea he had was to reorganize the reporting structure so that the City Services Auditor is no longer reporting to the Controller's Office and is instead its own independent office. This should enable more proactive investigations and addressing of known issues without the shadow of political influence. This is similar to Aaron Peskin's idea of having an Inspector General. I would also encourage and welcome additional federal investigations of any officials or city employees that potentially violated federal laws and would do what I could to facilitate the successful completion of those investigations. I would also like to explore the idea of requiring that all communications, both digital and in-person, with City officials be recorded and available for public review without requiring a FOIA request to be filed. Sunlight is truly the best disinfectant.
+ - ?
[ ] [ ] [ x ] Ethics Commission should be disbanded -- I would have to hear more about why some people would think this is a good idea. I know they've been very slow in getting around to auditing campaigns in past elections, so there definitely need to be some improvements there.
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Ethics Commission meetings should be televised -- On its face, this sounds like a good idea to me. I think transparency and sunshine in government is generally a good thing. I'd want to hear more from anyone arguing that they meetings should be closed to remote public viewing.
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Ethics Commission should prioritize investigating violations from well-funded campaigns -- Yes, the more money a campaign has, the more influence it has on the outcome of the election. It makes sense to prioritize those investigations to best protect the integrity of the election outcome.
[ ] [ x ] [ ] My campaign is supported or promoted by a Super PAC -- I'm purely grass roots. No big money interests backing me. I am neither seeking, nor would I be happy about, support or promotion by a Super PAC.
[ ] [ ] [ x ] My campaign has attended events sponsored by "Neighbors for a Better SF", "TogetherSF", "GrowSF" and/or "YIMBY" -- My campaign has not done anything officially with any of these groups. I personally have attended a couple of the "SF Politics 101" sessions that Joel Engardio ran through the non-profit arm of TogetherSF, as well as a ballot review session a couple of years ago where a couple of people from TogetherSF summarized all of the measures and gave their recommendations on how to vote. However, I was not impressed with their level of analysis and came away from the session disappointed and feeling like it was misrepresented as an "unbiased" discussion when in reality they gave alternative viewpoints short shrift and just pushed their own agenda. I did think they had some interesting results come out of the study they commissioned on how to improve the City's government infrastructure, including reducing the number of commissions and allowing for Deputy Mayors, but I also found their "Fentalife" ads to be distasteful and misguided, at best. As for the other groups, prior to starting my campaign, I attended a couple of GrowSF and YIMBY happy hours as a way of learning more about what their aims are, what their values are, and what their main arguments are. I don't think there's anything wrong with attending any legitimate event organized by any legitimate organization, even if I don't necessarily agree with most or all of what they stand for. In fact, I believe it's important for the Mayor to understand all perspectives from everyone living in the City, so that they can effectively steer the government in a direction that incorporates the best ideas, no matter who they come from, while providing the best outcomes for the most number of people.
2) Ecological Wisdom: Please outline your view of the major
environmental and ecological issues facing San Francisco and your
proposed policies to address them.
I think the contamination at the former Naval bases at Hunters Point and Treasure Island is probably the biggest environmental/ecological issue that exists solely within the borders of the City. And a 2022 civil grand jury report found the contamination issues could get even worse as sea levels rise due to global warming and buried contaminants begin to rise to the surface again. I honestly don't have a good handle on what the exact current state of the cleanup at both sites is (does anybody really know, outside of the Navy?), so I would want to do a thorough review of that first to understand as much as possible what progress has been made so far, and what might be impeding further progress. The first priority should be to decontaminate the areas, so they can be safe for humans and wildlife alike. I would start with a good faith effort to help speed up the decontamination process by eliminating as many barriers to progress as possible, if any legitimately exist and are within the power of the Mayor's Office to help with. I'd probably also follow some of the recommendations of the 2022 civil grand jury report to hire experts to understand the ongoing risks and to hold people accountable. If progress is being impeded by bad actors, such as the Navy itself, or any contractors or subcontractors, willfully stalling or continuing to cover up issues, then I would talk with the City Attorney to explore what possible new legal actions the City could/should take on behalf of its citizens, and I . Additionally, I've proposed implementing pollution taxes as part of my plan to fund a Universal Basic Income that provides $1k/month for every San Franciscan. If we passed these pollution taxes into law, it's possible we could retroactively levy taxes on private contractors that were responsible for any contamination, if they are still in business, which could provide some needed motivation to hasten the cleanup.
More broadly, the City of San Francisco represents a large concentration of people who still consume lots of fossil fuels and emit greenhouse gases as they drive their vehicles within the City and around to the other communities in the Bay Area. I want to address this head on by implementing the aforementioned pollution taxes, which would create an economic incentive to reduce activities that produce greenhouse gases (either driving less, or switching to electric vehicles). Using the revenue from such taxes to fund a dividend that is distributed evenly to all residents in the form of a Universal Basic Income would help to offset the increased tax burden on the working poor who drive personal vehicles, so that only the most egregious polluters (typically the wealthy and large corporations) will see a net increase in taxes paid while most people will see a net income.
Urban sprawl is another major contributor to increased greenhouse gas emissions and destruction of natural habitats. This is why it's important to implement policies that promote higher density within cities, rather than continuing the relentless expansion of human occupation of nature. To promote higher density, I am proposing that we replace property taxes with a Land Value Tax (LVT), where only the value of the underlying land itself is taxed, not the improvements on the land. An LVT has been implemented in various cities in Pennsylvania and has successfully increased the density of those cities while contributing to the revitalization of their downtowns, which is obviously another major issue that SF needs to address. I'm also proposing other density-promoting policies, like re-zoning the entire city to allow for up to 4-story mixed-use buildings (which would also increase the walkability of the City, thereby encouraging and enabling more people to forego driving to get around), and further streamlining the permitting process for new developments to make it cheaper and more predictable for private developers to build infill housing and revitalization projects within downtown.
Finally, it is unacceptable that we don't have more rooftop solar in the City. I would convene a study group with experts from the solar industry, the Fire Department, and the Department of Building Inspection, to revise and simplify our codes to be more supportive of modern installations of solar panels and battery storage solutions that have proper safety controls in place. Increasing the total allowable battery capacity and modifying the code to allow for denser solar cell placements would increase the amount of rooftop solar in the City by allowing for more panels to be installed on a roof of a given size and increasing the number of locations where rooftop solar makes economic sense. Having more homes and apartment buildings with localized rooftop solar and battery storage would also increase the City's resilience to regional natural disasters and terrorist attacks on the grid (and ongoing negligence/ineptitude on the part of PG&E in their management of the grid). All City properties should also include solar+battery to make them self-sustainable and decrease the City's carbon footprint. Eventually, with enough rooftop solar+battery installations on City and private properties in and around Civic Center, we could replace the costly and outdated steam-based power plant that currently supplies power to City Hall and many of the surrounding buildings, so we could finally eliminate the frequent occurrence of steam escaping up onto the street level.
+ - ?
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Phasing out all diesel and biodiesel transit (e.g., Muni, tour, shuttles) -- YES! We need an all-electric fleet YESTERDAY!
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Public Power with 100% local/regional clean energy mandate and elected utility board -- YES!
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Install local/regional clean energy, efficiency, and battery storage and microgrids to supply 100% of our electricity by 2035 -- YES!
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Reducing or eliminating parking minimums in new housing and commercial developments -- YES! But we need to simultaneously improve public transportation and walkability/bike-ability within the City, while also being supportive of some business's needs for accepting truck/van deliveries
[ x ] [ ] [ ] In the Bayview and on Treasure Island, halt all US Navy land transfers to the city or developers, and halt all development, until all sites are retested and cleaned to Residential Standards -- Ha, I wrote my paragraphs above before I even saw this. Good to see it's on the Green Party's radar.
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Non-native Tree Removals -- Sure, but not necessarily a super high priority. I'd advocate for doing it as old trees need replacing for other reasons, rather than spending a ton of money to pro-actively and aggressively replace all non-native trees in the City.
[ ] [ x ] [ ] Use of herbicides in public parks -- By me marking (-) that means I'm saying that I DON'T want herbicides to be used in public parks :)
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Artificial turf on City-owned athletic fields -- On its face, this seems fine (requires less water, for one thing), unless there's some issue with this that I'm not aware of?
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Managed retreat, Coastal Zone protection, and restoring wetlands in response to Global Warming -- Yes, I'm definitely in favor of protecting and restoring natural habitats, though I think these are things that the State or Federal governments would be more capable of handling, due to the cost and complexity.
3) Social Justice:
A) What is your assessment of homelessness in San Francisco, and what
solutions do you propose?
Homelessness in San Francisco is a great moral failing on the part of our City's leaders for more than 40 decades. There is a public health emergency unfolding on our City's streets every single day and night. Many of the City's homeless population are people in desperate need of help with taking their lives back from the drugs that have consumed them and isolated them from any friends or family they might have had before. As a neuroscientist, I am acutely aware of the impact that chronic drug use can have on the brain, and this awareness makes me feel deep compassion and sympathy for these people while also leading me to support policies that take away a certain amount of agency from them. Once you have gotten to the point where you are regularly passing out on the sidewalk after injecting or smoking a drug in public, then you have demonstrated that you are no longer in full control of your own actions and the drugs have taken control instead. At that point, the best thing we can do to help such people is to compel them to get treatment. Let me be clear: I believe in bodily autonomy, and I am in favor of making it legal for anyone to put any substance into their own body within the privacy of their own home. It is the *public* consumption and intoxication that crosses the line for me, and I believe this is a clear line that we should use to justify interventions. I am proposing that San Francisco fully adopt and emulate the Four Pillars approach to drug addiction prevention and treatment that Switzerland has had since the mid-1990s and which successfully reduced their drug overdose deaths, HIV/Hep-C infections, and drug-related home burglaries. The Four Pillars are a comprehensive and balanced approach: Prevention, Harm Reduction, Treatment, and Repression (Law Enforcement). None of the Four Pillars can be neglected, or the solution falls apart. Importantly, we do a pretty good job of Harm Reduction by passing out clean needles, foil, etc., but in the absence of effective treatment, this is simply keeping people trapped in their drug addiction. Like Switzerland, we need to create clean consumption rooms that are indoors, are staffed by trained clinical personnel who prescribe and administer precise doses of pure drugs or suitable replacement therapies, and provide wraparound services (trauma/grief counseling, life coaching, financial literacy, job training, etc.), so that people are simultaneously supported in getting control of their drug addiction and re-integrating into society. Just as importantly as providing these clean consumption rooms, we must enforce a zero tolerance policy against using or selling these hard drugs in public. When a new clean consumption room opens in a neighborhood, all street users should be told of its existence and encouraged to use it. It should be an easy sell to get people to use these rooms, since it would be a more reliable, private, and safe way to stave off the withdrawals they're constantly trying to avoid. Anyone caught using out in public from that point on would first be issued a citation and referral to the clean consumption room. If they continue to use in public, despite the availability of the clean consumption room, then they should be compelled to enter a live-in rehabilitation facility, again with wraparound services, until they are stable enough to go back out on their own.
In addition to the drug addiction, there are clearly many people suffering from untreated mental illness. In many cases, the mental illness has actually been triggered or exacerbated by becoming homeless, and many people are suffering from both addiction and mental illness. There needs to be an individualized approach for each person, depending on what issues they are facing, and what interventions will be most effective in addressing their needs. Currently, we have no visibility on who is living on our streets on any given day or night. We have a Point-In-Time count that is completed on one night every two years, which tells us a rough number of nameless and faceless homeless people. We need to learn from the success of Houston and the 14 communities who have participated in the Built For Zero program that have reduced homelessness in target communities down to "Functional Zero", by implementing a central database where we can track the names and histories of every individual on our streets. Only by knowing each individual by name, knowing why they're homeless, and knowing how we've already tried to help them in the past, can we begin to determine what aspects of our Continuum of Care are working or not working for different types of individuals facing different challenges. This data would also help us to assess the effectiveness of different service providers, which is another component of what helped Houston to reduce its homeless population by over 60%. Any organization receiving funding from the City to provide services to the homeless should have a clear set of procedures, guidelines, and expectations that they must adhere to, and they should be regularly assessed and graded on their ability to conform to these rules while effectively delivering on what they are being paid to do. Any organizations that are found to be lacking should be put on a performance improvement plan or have their contracts terminated, depending on the circumstances.
Finally, we know that poverty and a lack of affordable housing go hand-in-hand in causing people to slip into homelessness every day. For tackling poverty head-on, I am proposing that we implement a Universal Basic Income of $1k/month for every resident, which would serve as a buffer to help people handle unexpected emergency expenses and avoid losing their jobs or getting evicted. For affordable housing, I'm proposing a three-pronged approach of: 1) increase utilization of existing housing stock by taxing people whose properties in San Francisco are their second or third property; 2) increase private development by implementing a Land Value Tax, streamlining permitting, and re-zoning to allow for 4-story mixed-use buildings throughout the City; and 3) borrow the successful approach of Vienna and Singapore in building largescale Universal Social Housing. Universal Social Housing could be funded through a revolving construction loan fund, like the Housing Production Fund in Montgomery County, Maryland, which would provide low-rate loans to private developers to build housing developments that end up offering significantly lower rents. This housing would be built in high volume and would be available to residents of all income levels. Having abundant, desirable social housing available to all residents would provide an opportunity for more middle-class people to move back to the City, while also allowing Section 8 housing vouchers to stretch further because they are not going to landlords charging high market-rate rents, and it would create a downward pressure on private rents so even people not living in social housing would benefit.
+ - ?
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Project Homeless Connect -- I honestly am not super familiar with them, but a quick Google search seems to indicate they're doing good work. If we implemented the standards and regular auditing that I mentioned above, then we could know for sure whether they are cost-effective.
[ ] [ x ] [ ] Care Not Cash -- I think this was a bad idea. It should be Care *AND* Cash. The evidence is clear that Universal Basic Income helps people avoid or escape homelessness.
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Healthy SF -- Again, not super familiar with them. On its face, sounds like they're doing good work, but I'd want to ensure that any organizations getting public funding are audited for their effectiveness and the proper use of funds.
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Housing As A Right -- Yes! I would commit the City to guaranteeing housing for everyone who lives here.
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Housing First for Homeless, Addiction, Mental Health -- Yes! But we actually need to implement it in reality, not just claim we do Housing First and then not do it. We also need to ensure that it's the appropriate type of housing. Someone suffering from severe drug addiction or mental illness can't just be thrown into housing without any additional onsite wraparound supportive services to ensure they're making progress towards achieving stability, and also to ensure they're not disturbing and traumatizing those around them.
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Law against sitting or camping on SF sidewalks -- Yes, *BUT ONLY IF* we have actually provided real housing options for people. If everyone has the opportunity to live in a home, then we should be able to make it illegal for someone to occupy a public space, because it's not fair to everyone else in the City at that point.
[ ] [ ] [ x ] I support more homeless navigation centers in my neighborhood -- I'm not sold on whether Navigation Centers are the best use of funds or are the most effective approach to helping the homeless. I'd have to further evaluate them before supporting Navigation Centers, specifically, but in general I am in support of having resources for the homeless be available throughout the City.
B) What are your views on housing affordability, what public sector
strategies have worked, which have failed, and what are your proposals?
See my answer in part A) above. I support policies that increase the utilization of existing housing stocks, make it easier for private development, and emulate successful programs from Vienna and Singapore to create abundant social housing that is universally available to, and affordable by, all residents. These locales house the majority of their residents in beautifully designed, desirable social housing. Eliminating income restrictions actually makes it easier for deserving recipients to get the housing they need. We're currently seeing an issue with medium-income housing in San Francisco remaining vacant in part because people don't have the time or mental bandwidth to fill out the onerous paperwork to prove they qualify. Universal Social Housing solves this problem, while also creating downward pressure on the private rental market by offering desirable and accessible housing at rock-bottom prices.
+ - ?
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Building more market rate housing will lower housing costs for current SF residents -- I believe this is true, based on basic supply and demand, but *how much* it lowers the costs is an empirical question that depends on lots of other factors. This is why I support Universal Social Housing as a way to ensure equitable access to housing.
[ ] [ ] [ x ] Impacts of all new development should be paid for in advance by fees on developers -- I think we need to be careful not to suppress new developments with excessive impact fees. Ideally, we should fund infrastructure for all of our residents in a sustainable way that doesn't require upfront payments from developers.
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Community Land Trusts -- I'm a big fan of creative ways of supporting thriving communities
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Rent Control is too strong -- Ideally, with enough Universal Social Housing available, we should be able to abolish rent control, which is a distortion of the rental market that can incentivize bad behavior among renters (I know people who have passed their rent-controlled lease around to multiple other people, some of whom could afford much higher rent) and landlords (they are less likely to keep up an apartment, hoping that someone will leave so that they can reset the rent back to market prices again). At the very least, we should probably modify rent control to account for inflation and other costs associated with owning a property and renting it out to people. A Universal Land Dividend (Universal Basic Income funded through a Land Value Tax) would help renters to pay for their rent by clawing it back from landlords.
[ ] [ ] [ x ] Waive Environmental Review to build Moderate and Low Income Housing -- Most environmental reviews these days seem to be cynical strategies to block new developments by someone with a selfish motive. Most infill developments have no real environmental impacts in the traditional sense of the word "environmental". This system is being abused, and it's ripe for reform, though we need to ensure we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Social Housing (similar to https://www.sfcommunityhousingact.com/) -- YES!! See my longform answers above! One of my key platform planks! Rather than funding it through a transfer tax like Prop I implemented, we should create a revolving construction loan fund and set rents at a rate that is self-sustaining while still being accessible to most income levels (with other mechanisms to help those for whom the rent is still too high).
[ ] [ x ] [ ] Ban on Airbnb and other short term rentals -- I think an outright ban is too ham-handed and reduces tourism. Some people prefer to stay in an AirBnB vs a hotel, and sometimes AirBnB offers a better rate in a better location. Rather than banning AirBnB and other short-term rentals, we should just tax them at the amount we think is sufficient to offset the impact on the housing market, so that we can use the money to increase the supply of Universal Social Housing.
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Vacancy tax on residential property and "pied-a-terre" homes -- Yes! 100%! There should be an extra cost associated with occupying housing that could be filled by actual fulltime residents of the City. It's having a detrimental impact on our City in so many ways to have these properties vacant for most of the year.
[ ] [ ] [ x ] Flipping taxes on housing speculation -- I'd have to see the specifics of the proposal. I'd worry about it being too difficult to enforce this tax, and I'm also not sure it's even desirable to impede a market that can contribute to renewal in a distributed way that doesn't require significant funding from the City. I'd rather combat land speculation (i.e., squatting on land for years without developing it or selling it to someone for productive use) through implementing a Land Value Tax (LVT), which penalizes people for not maximizing productive use of land. Housing speculation would be another form of potentially unproductive land use that would be combatted with an LVT.
[ ] [ ] [ x ] 10-year waiting period before corporate and nonresident owners can sell purchased housing properties -- I'm wary of arbitrary waiting periods and fixed numbers that create distortive effects in markets. I'd rather see a tax on nonresident owners and vacancies, as well as a Land Value Tax, as a way to balance the negative effects of speculation by corporate or nonresident buyers.
[ ] [ ] [ x ] Condo conversion is currently too difficult -- I don't know enough about this to comment, but I will say that I'm generally in favor of reducing friction for people to be more creative with land use.
4) Nonviolence: What are your solutions for SFPD accountability while
making the streets safer?
I think police accountability starts with recruiting and training. Ideally, our officers should be members of the community they are policing, so that they have an intimate knowledge of the needs of that community and treat individuals with the dignity and respect they deserve. Towards that end, I am proposing that we create an ROTC-style program that recruits from local high schools and community colleges within the city. With respect to training, each new cadet should be instilled with a deep respect for the duty they are being entrusted with, as the only members of our society who are legally allowed to coerce people, under threat or use of violence, to do things they might not otherwise want to do, in the service of protecting the general peace and maintaining order. Cadets should be taught to think of this as an almost sacred honor they are being given, and officers should be required to attend Continuing Education courses (similar to what medical doctors are required to do), in which they are remind of their duties and provided updates on the latest best practices in policing. Likewise, members of our community should respect and honor members of the police force who are putting their lives on the line to fulfill that sacred duty. Of course, there will always be people who abuse their position of power, and we need to ensure there are adequate measures in place to deter officers from doing that. I think the advent of body cameras was a great step forward in providing a way to verify what happened in encounters between the police and members of the public. I'm not a fan of the recent passage of Proposition E, which loosened up the requirements around police officers filing reports after certain types of incidents. Rather than reducing requirements around reporting, there should be more of an emphasis on utilizing modern technologies, such as voice-to-text and AI agents, to reduce the administrative burdens on officers. To further improve accountability, we should increase the budget for the Department of Police Accountability, which investigates complaints from members of the public. Any findings of police conduct must be treated very seriously, and there should be swift and severe consequences for gross violations of the public trust on the part of officers. While enforcing these consequences for bad behavior, we should also be rewarding positive behavior for officers who stand out. More broadly, we can also improve the relationship between the police and the community by expanding and deepening the program of public outreach that the department already engages in. Members of the community should feel heard and understood by the police department, and the police should likewise feel heard and understood by the community.
Three other specific proposals I have for improving police performance are: 1) require regular de-escalation and conflict resolution training for all officers on an ongoing basis; 2) require extensive ongoing training in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu (BJJ) for all officers, which provides effective ways to physically control individuals without resorting to lethal uses of force; and 3) expand the Street Crisis Response Team (SCRT) program, which acts as an alternative to the police for responding to mental health crises by dispatching a small team consisting of a mental health professional, a paramedic or EMT, and a member of the community to act as a liaison. The BJJ training would improve the confidence of officers in engaging with members of the public without feeling as afraid, which helps to improve morale and reduces the chances of escalations leading to injuries or deaths. The expansion of the SCRT program would be an overall cost saver, since it's cheaper to dispatch the SCRT vs. the police, it would reduce the escalation of incidents that can be adequately handled by the professionals instead of police, and it would free up the police to deter crime through their increased visibility in high-crime areas and to apprehend perpetrators of crimes in the immediate aftermath of incoming reports.
Finally, I would challenge the police department to dramatically improve their response times and set ambitious goals of achieving a 100% clearance rate on all crimes in the city, with regular status checks to review progress towards those goals and identify roadblocks to achieving them. Every citizen should feel reasonably certain that if they report a crime it will be treated with seriousness and urgency by the police, and every potential criminal should feel reasonably certain that if they were to commit a crime they would be swiftly apprehended and face consequences.
+ - ?
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Prioritize SFPD enforcement of moving violations -- Yes! Too many people are running stop signs and speeding through our streets because there are no consequences.
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Support expansion of foot patrols -- Yes! More foot patrols would deter more crime by making police more visible, while also improving the relationships between the police and the community they are policing.
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Demand stricter accountability in future MOUs with the SFPD -- Yes! For the protection of the public, there need to be real consequences for abuse of power on the part of problem officers.
[ ] [ ] [ x ] The Board of Supervisors should be able to set policies and priorities for the SFPD through legislation -- To a degree, I agree with this, although I think legislation should be used sparingly and in the most broad terms; whereas, more detailed specifics are best left to the more nimble processes in the executive branch
[ ] [ x ] [ ] Support a public safety program modeled after NYC's "Stop and Frisk." -- I think we all know "Stop and Frisk" was an infringement on the rights of NYC's citizens that provided an excuse for officers to target and harass minorities. I would never advocate to model any SFPD programs after "Stop and Frisk."
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Prosecution of SFPD officers involved in violet attacks on, and fatal shooting deaths of, SF residents and visitors -- Yes! If officers abuse their power, they must be held accountable. Of course, care must be taken to ensure the investigation is fair and just before any punishment is administered.
[ x ] [ ] [ ] End cash bail for nonviolent crimes -- Yes! Stop discriminating against people for being poor. Justice should be blind to a person's wealth.
[ ] [ ] [ x ] Cut police funding and increase social program spending, and establish community control of neighborhood policing -- I think the funding of the police department should be set according to what they can reasonably be expected to need in order to meet our goals for them. They must be held accountable for using their funding wisely, and we should regularly review whether using funds on the police is the most cost effective way to achieve the public safety goals we desire. I see a potential place for increasing some forms of community control of neighborhood policing, but I would want to see some pilots of such programs and evaluate how effective they are before cutting funding for the police.
5) Decentralization:
A) What are your thoughts on the Kaufman Charter of 1996? Does it
need revisiting? Would you support replacing the Strong Mayor system
with commissions where the majority of members are appointed by the
Board of Supervisors, or directly elected?
Generally, I think we already suffer from too much election fatigue as voters. We have so many measures and propositions on the ballot, plus judges, and school board members, and BART directors. There are so many questions that we as voters are expected to do research on, and there are positions within government that we are expected to fill through elections that we have no real insight into the qualities and qualifications that would make someone suitable for filling that role effectively. Rather than increasing the number of decisions that already overburdened voters have to make, I am a proponent of concentrating more power into the mayor's office, so that it is abundantly clear who needs to be held accountable in the next election if things are not going well. I think diffusing power among too many people results in a lack of ultimate accountability and is like having "too many cooks in the kitchen". If we must have commissions, rather than having them be elected, I'd rather see them appointed through a mechanism like a Citizens' Assembly, where a group of average citizens is selected at random and given the responsibility of researching and deliberating to determine who is most qualified to sit on the various commissions. This way, we would still have democratic input from a representative sample of the City, but the decisions would be made by much more informed people than the average voter in an election that includes dozens of complex issues and positions for which even the most motivated and politically tuned-in person struggles to be adequately informed.
+ - ?
[ ] [ x ] [ ] Elected Rent Board
[ ] [ x ] [ ] Elected Public Utility Board
[ ] [ ] [ x ] Bring the Housing Authority under the Board of Supervisors -- I would have to research this more to have a definite opinion, but I'm leaning towards "No", on the theory that a legislative body with 11 members can't effectively manage a Housing Authority. I would want to look at which modern Housing Authorities have been most effective and try to emulate the conditions and qualities that have contributed to their successes.
B) The city currently uses non-profits to provide social services. Do
you think this is an appropriate model? Why or why not?
No, in the long run I think the City needs to bring many social services in-house. We shouldn't be outsourcing our responsibilities to non-profits. If we know we will need to provide these services on an ongoing basis in perpetuity, then we should build the capacity to provide them within the City's government infrastructure, so we can directly maximize their quality of service and cost effectiveness. By outsourcing to non-profits, we've added an extra layer of obfuscation and a middleman that requires additional skimming of funds off the top. Rather than building accountability into the processes and procedures of an in-house system of social services, we now have to spend additional funds on performing after-the-fact auditing and accountability. We can achieve better outcomes, at lower costs, by bringing everything in-house.
+ - ?
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Expand Participatory Budgeting to at least 5% of the SF Budget -- Yes! I'm definitely in favor of exploring more creative ways to improve the democratic process!
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Charter amendment allowing voters to choose the replacement of an elected official being recalled on the same ballot as the recall vote -- This is interesting. If it's true that this is somehow prohibited by the Charter currently, then I definitely support amending the Charter to allow it. I think it was immensely helpful to have the potential replacements for Gavin Newsom on the same ballot as the question of whether to recall him. It would also save money.
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Immediately implement open-source voting system for SF elections -- This is a no-brainer. All government functions that involve software should use open-source software. In fact, I provided public commentary before the Elections Commission all the way back on October 21, 2015, stating this exact position. I was also one of the main supporters of the Open Voting Consortium, which was a non-profit organization that formed after the 2000 Presidential election to push for open-source voting machines with hand-countable/auditable paper ballots.
6) Community Based Economics: What economic policies, including
taxation and land use, would you propose that would drive capital into
our communities and keep that capital here for residents?
I think we should seriously explore the idea of using a local currency in San Francisco. If we had "SF Bucks" that were issued to residents as part of my Universal Basic Income proposal, then we could ensure that the UBI would be recycled into the local economy. Local businesses and landlords could accept SF Bucks and redeem them for tax credits with the City. A local/community currency is not a crazy idea. It's been tried in many communities throughout the United States at various points in history with success.
Additionally, I am a proponent of the Public Bank of San Francisco. We can look to North Dakota as a model for how a public bank can help to bolster a local/regional economy and serve the interests of residents, by providing low-rate loans for mortgages and small businesses, while simultaneously supporting longer term environmental and economic sustainability goals.
+ - ?
[ ] [ ] [ x ] Legislation limiting formula retail outlets/chain stores -- I'm sympathetic to this idea but hesitant to advocate for it because it seems like it's difficult to define properly and feels like a bit of government overreach. I'm a proponent of a Universal Basic Income, which would help to support people in being more entrepreneurial, if they choose to be. As businesses scale, they can potentially reduce costs for consumers through economies of scale, or they can increase costs to consumers by engaging in anti-competitive behaviors. I'd rather focus on penalizing the anti-competitive behaviors than doing a wholesale ban on a certain business. But I'm open to having my mind changed.
[ ] [ ] [ x ] Conditional Use permit required for big box stores -- Same answer as above.
[ ] [ ] [ x ] Municipal broadband as a public utility -- Yes, but we should be careful how we invest in technologies like this. If it's rapidly evolving/iterating, then we could unnecessarily sink a ton of costs into obsolete equipment/infrastructure. For example, SpaceX's satellite internet service, Starlink, is now cheaper than installing fiber.
[ ] [ ] [ x ] Neighborhood cooperatives prioritized as a local supply chain for legalized marijuana -- Similar to my other answers. I'm sympathetic, but wary of overreaching with ham-handed governmental interventions in the market. I want to promote community benefits without sacrificing market efficiencies. I'd have to hear more about what "prioritized" means exactly. In general, I love cooperatives though!
[ x ] [ ] [ ] I support recreational marijuana stores opening in my neighborhood -- I support bodily autonomy.
[ ] [ ] [ x ] Local hiring requirements should be enforced and expanded to include private projects -- I don't really know what this means.
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Conversion of some golf courses into soccer fields -- Sure, sounds good. Golf courses are pretty wasteful, so I'd love to see some of them converted to just about anything else.
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Conversion of some golf courses into wild open space
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Prop 13 limits on tax increases should apply only to residential properties
[ ] [ ] [ x ] Commercial Rent Control -- I have reservations with rent control. I'd rather explore ways of promoting a more competitive commercial rent market. I'd also like to implement a program that helps small businesses in the City to buy their properties, so that they are no longer subject to the whims of their landlord.
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Transition all residential and small business rental
properties into not-for-profit trusts and co-ops -- This is a cool idea that I'd be very interested to explore! Maybe not *all* to begin with, but at least some to start with, to see what it looks like.
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Vacancy and flipping taxes on local small business property -- Yes! Our commercial vacancy tax is clearly too low, because may landlords are still evicting commercial tenants and keeping storefronts empty in the hopes of attracting new tenants willing to pay higher rents. The fact they can afford to keep these spaces empty without lowering rent again means they have too much money. At the same time, we should use a good faith "carrot" approach to link aspiring small businesses with interested landlords.
[ ] [ ] [ x ] Transaction/Flipping taxes on all asset speculation to increase city budget -- similar answer as I've provided above. I'm sympathetic to the goal of addressing speculation, but I'd prefer using a Land Value Tax to solve the problem.
[ x ] [ ] [ ] San Francisco Public Bank by 2027 -- Heck YEAH!!
7) Feminism: Do you believe women are underrepresented in city
government? If so, why do you believe this is the case? Is this a
bad thing, and if so, what would you do to remedy the situation?
I don't have exact numbers for the city government as a whole, but given that our current Mayor is a woman, and 4 out of the 11 Supervisors are currently women, it doesn't seem like there's an *extreme* underrepresentation in of women in city government at the moment. If there were an underrepresentation, I would consider it a bad thing, since I think it's important for the government to reflect the underlying demographics of the people, to a reasonable approximation, since different groups of people have different perspectives and needs that it can be difficult for a government to be sensitive to if it doesn't include people from those groups. Going back to my discussion about voting methods at the beginning of this questionnaire, I would contend that upgrading from IRV to Approval Voting or STAR Voting would increase the likelihood of maintaining reasonable representation of various groups in single-winner elections, and adding at-large Supervisors elected through a Proportional Representation method would increase the likelihood of maintaining representation in the Board of Supervisors as a whole.
+ - ?
[ x ] [ ] [ ] The City should help SFUSD provide child care for children of working parents -- Yes, child care is a good investment in the future of the city.
[ x ] [ ] [ ] The DPH should provide reproductive health services -- Yes, it's wise to invest in the health of our future generations.
[ ] [ x ] [ ] Require parental consent for minors seeking an abortion -- No, I don't think this should be a hard requirement, given some family dynamics. I am okay with requiring counseling and a certain amount of time for someone to make the final decision on getting an abortion. It's not something that should be taken lightly, but it should always be an option to have safely and discreetly.
[ ] [ x ] [ ] Require parental notification for minors seeking an abortion -- Same as the previous answer.
8) Respect for Diversity: Tell us what you believe are the best and the
worst aspects of San Francisco's diversity. How would you try to
protect the best while trying to change the worst?
I believe diversity is a beautiful thing that should be embraced and encouraged whenever possible. I don't know that I can think of any negative aspects of San Francisco's diversity. I think we could do a better job of cultivating more understanding and respect among diverse groups of people within the City, and creating a more cohesive, shared vision of what it means to be a San Franciscan and what our hopes are for the City. I believe we are stronger together.
+ - ?
[ ] [ ] [ x ] Multilingual government and public education -- I have no strong negative feelings about multilingualism, as I respect and admire the different sounds, ideas, and traditions represented by different languages. However, having a multilingual government does add a lot of costs, and it could be argued that multilingual public education does children a disservice by prolonging the time it takes for them to learn English, which they will ultimately need to know if they want to keep all available options open to them in their future.
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Undocumented immigrants should have equal access to education and health care -- I'm aware of the arguments about creating incentives that encourage illegal immigration, but I believe we can providing education and healthcare to undocumented immigrants is a wise investment in the future of our city, in addition to being the humane thing to do.
[ ] [ x ] [ ] Non-citizen residents should be able to vote in all local elections -- This one is tricky, but I think it makes sense to require someone to go the extra mile to get their citizenship before earning their right to vote.
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Full rights for transgender persons -- Duh! Every person deserves full rights, no matter what!!
[ ] [ ] [ x ] Boards and commissions now reflect the ethnic diversity of San Francisco -- I don't know the demographics well enough to say, but I would guess probably.
[ ] [ ] [ x ] Boards and commissions now reflect the political diversity of San Francisco -- I don't know the demographics well enough to say, but I would guess probably not.
[ x ] [ ] [ ] My campaign reflects the diversity of San Francisco -- Yes, I have volunteers who reflect a broad cross-section of San Francisco!
[ ] [ ] [ x ] End Drag Queen Story Hour and K-12 School Education on Gender Spectrum Differences -- I don't know enough about the details of these programs. I might be inclined to say they should be ended if they represent significant costs to a school system that is currently struggling financially. I support the rights of any person to express their sexuality and gender in whatever way they wish to, but I don't think it's necessarily something that has to be incorporated into our education system in a significant way. I'm open to learning more and having my mind changed!
9) Global and Personal Responsibility:
A) What are your thoughts on the Board of Supervisors taking positions
on state, national and international issues?
I think our city has too many problems that aren't being adequately addressed by the City's leadership, so they really shouldn't spend any time on any state, national, or international issues, unless those issues directly impact the City's ability to create a just and verdant society for every resident.
+ - ?
[ ] [ ] [ x ] City government cooperating with the PATRIOT Act -- Depends on the provision. Encroachments on civil liberties could be a good reason for non-cooperation.
[ ] [ ] [ x ] City government cooperating with ICE/Secure Communities -- Depends on the situation. A mass deportation effort could create terror and turmoil in the city. Deporting convicted criminals could be a reasonable way to save jail costs while appeasing ICE.
[ ] [ x ] [ ] City government should boycott Israel until it complies with UN resolutions -- I don't think the City should take a stand on international issues. Let the federal government handle that. We have more pressing issues to worry about right here at home that we've elected our government to handle.
[ ] [ ] [ x ] SF supervisors should take a position on offshore oil drilling outside CA -- SF supervisors are free to take whatever position they want to on any issue as individuals. The Board of Supervisors as a legislative body should not take any official positions on international issues. There are too many issues for them to deal with right here at home. We can still do our part to address environmental issues with policies that influence economic activity within the city.
[ ] [ x ] [ ] SF should refuse to purchase PG&E's nuclear power -- Even leading environmentalists like James Hansen and Stewart Brand have come around to the idea that nuclear power is not the purely evil boogeyman that it once was painted out to be. If we are serious about averting catastrophic climate change, we must be willing to accept nuclear as a part of the energy mixture for the time being. That said, I think it's important to pursue ongoing improvements in the safety of fission reactors, such as modern Molten Salt Reactor designs, as well as research into fusion reactors, so that we will not forever be generating a stream of nuclear waste. And in reality we could fully support global energy demands solely through distributed solar, wind, geothermal, and hydroelectric, paired with battery storage.
B) Please describe how you make your political decisions. What is the
main basis for your decision making (e.g., consultation with your
constituents, political consultants, colleagues, unions, businesses,
donors, or your gut feelings)?
I don't have any political consultants, and I'm not actively courting donors. My political decisions are driven firstly by my initial research into a topic and the opinions I form based on my reasoning about it, followed by discussions with people who have some expertise in the issues and stakeholders who are affected by the issues, ideally from across the political spectrum and a diversity of backgrounds.
+ - ?
[ ] [ ] [ x ] Fleet Week and the Blue Angels flyover -- I can see both sides. It's kind of cool. It's also loud and polluting.
[ ] [ ] [ x ] JROTC in the public schools -- I can see both sides. Patriotism is important for the future of a nation. Blind patriotism is bad. Unnecessary, wasteful, and deceitful wars are bad and tragically have ruined the lives of far too many members of the military and their families, who are often part of economically disadvantaged minority groups that have been attracted to military service because of limited alternative options for economic advancement.
[ ] [ ] [ x ] In a severe recession, environmental regulations should be suspended to create jobs -- Not across the board, but perhaps certain specific regulations that might have seemed like a good idea in good economic times and need to be revisited under more difficult conditions
[ ] [ ] [ x ] Business taxes are too high -- Depends on the business and the tax. In some cases, yes, I think this is true. In general, I support taxes that are correcting for negative externalities, and I oppose taxes that introduce deadweight loss and unnecessary friction in the economy by disincentivizing productivity.
10) Sustainability: What does the Transit First City Charter provision
mean to you? How has Transit First fared in recent years, and how would
you enforce that Charter Provision if elected?
I think that Transit First was originally envisioned as a way to achieve Sustainability goals, but I'm not sure this fits nicely into the "Sustainability" category anymore now that we have autonomously-driven electric vehicles as viable options for individual automobile transportation. I regularly ride the bus to get around the city and value it as a great alternative to having to drive. I'm lucky enough to have the means to own an automobile, so it's a choice for me, but I know many people in the city rely solely on public transportation to get around, and I think it is important to continue providing this service to people. I think we need to be creative and inclusive in our understanding of what Public Transit can be and embrace autonomous electric vehicles as another alternative that can be particular well-suited for transporting the elderly and disabled in a more efficient and cost-effective way.
+ - ?
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Muni should be funded sufficiently to replace most car use, and be free to the rider -- This might not feasible, but I think it's a goal worth striving for. I would like to include autonomous electric vehicles in the arsenal of public transit solutions that the city provides, to accommodate seniors and disabled individuals.
[ ] [ ] [ x ] Downtown Transit Assessment Tax to support Muni -- I need to do more research on the most appropriate ways to fund Muni.
[ ] [ ] [ x ] Citywide Transit Assessment Tax to support Muni -- I need to do more research on the most appropriate ways to fund Muni.
[ x ] [ ] [ ] More weekend closures of streets in/near my neighborhood to cars (e.g., Car-Free GGP) -- I'd love to see Market Street become a pedestrian-only promenade!
[ ] [ ] [ x ] State law change that lets bicycles treat stop signs as yield signs and red lights as stop signs -- Maybe? Seems like bicyclists can put pedestrians in danger when they don't adhere to stop signs
[ x ] [ ] [ ] I ride Muni, bicycle and/or walk instead of driving on a regular basis -- Whenever possible, I first try to walk, then ride a bike, then ride Muni, depending on where I need to go and how much time I have to get there!
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Bus Rapid Transit expanded to all major transit corridors in SF
[ ] [ ] [ x ] Car hailing services like Uber and Lyft should be regulated as taxis, or banned -- I think we should revisit taxi regulations, rather than automatically expanding taxi regulations to more businesses. I also think we should incorporate autonomous electric vehicles into the City's public transit fleet to fill an important niche.
[ ] [ ] [ x ] Allow residents to park on the sidewalk without getting a ticket, unless their neighbors complain -- Seems like a bad idea, but I need to hear more about it from proponents.
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Congestion pricing for parking -- Yes! I'm in favor of dynamic pricing of things like parking to improve the way people use parking spaces and impact their decisions to drive.
[ ] [ x ] [ ] Power more City vehicles using biofuels (e.g., corn-based ethanol) -- Biofuels are yesterday's technology, and corn-based ethanol uses up way too much land. We should replace the entire fleet with modern battery electric emissions-free vehicles instead!
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Residents should be allowed to park in the street in front of their own driveway for free -- Seems like a no-brainer (as long as there's no bike lane in the way), unless I'm missing something?
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Support expanding parking meter hours to include later evening hours and weekends -- Yes, but it must be part of a broader plan to ensure that it doesn't negatively impact small businesses
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Remove parking spots and car lanes to create dedicated bike and bus lanes or wider sidewalks -- Yes, but it must be part of a broader plan to ensure that it doesn't negatively impact small businesses and residents with special needs that are currently only being met through allowing cars to park in certain spots.
Your positions on selected current and past Propositions:
+ - ?
[ ] [ x ] [ ] March 2024 Prop E (More Police Chases) -- We need to ensure our laws are enforced, but we shouldn't be endangering citizens with high speed chases through the city to do it.
[ ] [ x ] [ ] March 2024 Prop F (Drug Test Poor People) -- The available evidence says people have worse outcomes when you place more conditions on them receiving cash aid.
[ x ] [ ] [ ] June 2022 Prop C (Recall Reform) -- It should be harder to recall someone from office, and it shouldn't be possible to appoint the next incumbent after organizing a recall election to oust an opponent.
[ ] [ x ] [ ] June 2022 Prop H (Boudin Recall) -- I think Boudin could have done a better job, but a recall was unnecessarily expensive and unfair; the bar should be higher for recalling someone.
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Nov 2020 Prop G (16-17 y.o. voting, local elections) -- Give the youth a vote!
[ ] [ x ] [ ] Nov 2020 Prop I (Real Estate Transfer Tax) -- I was worried about the impacts that the tax could have on liquidity in the real estate market, which could suppress development of new infill housing. I'd rather address the problem of speculation through a Land Value Tax instead.
[ x ] [ ] [ ] June 2018 Prop F (Eviction Defense) -- Yes, people facing eviction are among the most vulnerable members of our community. It's a good investment for the City to ensure people are not being evicted on illegal grounds.
[ ] [ x ] [ ] June 2018 Prop H (Tasers for SFPD) -- I'd rather see the City invest in conflict resolution training and other alternatives to lethal force, such as training in the grappling and submission techniques of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. It would be cheaper and result in fewer injuries/deaths than using tasers.
[ ] [ x ] [ ] Nov 2016 Prop D (Vacancy appointments) -- I think it should be up to the discretion of the Mayor as to who should be appointed, and when, following a vacancy, and the new appointee should be able to run in the next election (as long as it wasn't a politically-motivated recall election that created the vacancy in the first place)
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Nov 2016 Prop N (Non-citizen voting, school board) -- Yes, these are relatively low-stakes elections that impact non-citizens, so it makes sense to allow non-citizens to vote in them.
[ ] [ x ] [ ] Nov 2016 Prop Q (Prohibiting tents on public sidewalks) -- Yes, it's a public nuisance to have tents on public sidewalks, and the proposition required that people get offered temporary shelter before their tents are removed, but it didn't provide any way to increase the availability of temporary shelter beds or permanent housing, so it wasn't really addressing the root causes of the problem and was focused instead on punishing already vulnerable people.
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Nov 2016 Prop 62 (Ending Death Penalty) -- The death penalty gives too much power to the State. Ending someone's life is irreversible, and there are too many stories of people being wrongfully convicted for us to be comfortable with allowing the State to carry out such an extreme procedure. In general, our criminal justice system needs to be significantly reformed to put much more effort and expense into genuinely attempting to reform and rehabilitate people, but there will likely always be a minority of the incarcerated that cannot be reformed (at least until we have technology advanced enough to "reprogram" or repair someone's brain). It's worth the expense of permanently incarcerating those who cannot be rehabilitated, rather than risk executing an innocent person.
Due Date: Friday, June 21, 11:59 pm
Please submit by email to cc@sfgreens.org. For more information, call
Barry Hermanson at 415-255-9494. Please return your answers in plain
text (not HTML, PDF, or Word format), so that we can post all
candidates' answers in the same format.
The SF Green Party will invite selected candidates who return
completed questionnaires on time to speak and answer questions at our
candidate forum and endorsement meeting. To be given time on our
agenda, each candidate needs at least three active Green Party members
to request their invitation. This will be a hybrid meeting, so
invited candidates may also speak with us via Zoom.
Our endorsement meeting is scheduled for Wed, June 26 from 6:30-9:30
pm at our office, 2973 16th St, #300, SF - note that this is across
the street from our old office in the Redstone Building. The first
two hours will be for interviews of selected candidates, and the last
hour will be for decision making.
Completed questionnaires will be posted on our website,
https://sfgreenparty.org.