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: J.R. Eppler.
Phone Number: 831-566-0643
Web site: https://www.jreppler.com/
E-mail: campaign@jreppler.com
Name of Campaign Manager: Cole Rothman
Are you receiving public financing: Yes
Signed voluntary spending limit: Yes
2nd, 3rd endorsements in District:
Major Endorsements: Sierra Club, Neighborhood leaders throughout the district.
Incumbent Supervisor whose votes are most similar to the way you would vote: Chyanne Chen
Incumbent who votes least similarly to the way you would vote: Matt Dorsey
If the election were held today, who would you support as Board President: Rafael Mandelman
Who would be your second and third choices: Chyanne Chen, Myrna Melgar
Who did you endorse for Mayor in 2024 (all 3 choices, if applicable): Aaron Peskin, Daniel Lurie London Breed
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?
I support district elections. They give each Supervisor a direct, personal stake in the neighborhoods they represent, rather than an incentive to chase citywide name recognition at the expense of any one community. District 10 in particular has suffered when City Hall treats it as an afterthought, and district elections are part of what makes it possible for a district like ours to elect someone who is actually accountable to Bayview, Potrero Hill, Dogpatch, Visitacion Valley, and Hunters Point specifically.
Ranked choice voting has worked well as we've expanded it. San Francisco now allows voters to rank up to 10 candidates, and in my own District 10 race this cycle, the field has grown to roughly match that number, meaning voters can genuinely express a full range of preference rather than being forced into a strategic first choice. That is RCV doing what it is supposed to do: letting voters be honest about their preferences without fear of "wasting" a vote, and avoiding the cost and low turnout of a separate December runoff election.
Proportional representation is a different animal, and I am not convinced it fits San Francisco. It is generally designed for systems where voters are choosing among distinct political parties competing for representation. San Francisco's local elections are formally nonpartisan, and our district-based system is built around neighborhood representation rather than party representation. In that context, proportional representation would not necessarily solve the core problem our system is meant to address, which is making sure every part of the city has a Supervisor directly accountable to it.
In practice, it could make representation feel more diffuse, with members elected from broader constituencies rather than rooted in particular neighborhoods and their day-to-day concerns. I would rather focus on making district elections and ranked-choice voting work better (such as through additional education on the process) than on restructuring the system around a model that is better suited to a different kind of electoral framework.
+ - ?
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Sub-government such as Neighborhood Assemblies, Networks or District Councils
[ ] [ ] [ ? ] Voters' right to recall elected officials .(Only in cases of gross malfeasance)
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Residency requirements for elected officials should be strictly enforced
B) What strategies would you employ to reduce corruption in San
Francisco government?
Reducing corruption starts with transparency. Public decisions should be easier to track, easier to understand, and less dependent on who knows whom at City Hall. When government operates in the dark, favoritism and insider influence thrive. I would push for a public dashboards for permitting, contracting and departmental spending, so irregularities are visible before they become scandals.
But corruption is not just a criminal issue; it is also a management issue. When departments are opaque, slow, and inconsistent, people begin to believe that the only way to get something done is through connections or special treatment. A government that communicates clearly, applies rules consistently, and delivers services predictably and without unnecessary delay leaves less room for corruption to take hold.
I would also support strong ethics enforcement and real whistleblower protections. City employees and residents need to know that if they report misconduct, it will be taken seriously and they will be protected for speaking up.
At bottom, the goal is simple: San Franciscans should be able to trust that public decisions are being made in the public interest, not for insiders or the well-connected.
+ - ?
[ ] [ - ] [ ] Ethics Commission should be disbanded
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Ethics Commission meetings should be televised
[ ] [ ] [ ? ] Ethics Commission should prioritize investigating violations from well-funded campaigns
[ ] [ - ] [ ] My campaign is supported or promoted by a Super PAC
[ + ] [ ] [ ] My campaign has attended events sponsored by "Neighbors for a Better SF", "TogetherSF", "GrowSF" and/or "YIMBY"
(I attended a GrowSF watch party, among others, recently)
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Remote public comment at board and committee meetings
2) Ecological Wisdom: Please outline your view of the major
environmental and ecological issues facing San Francisco and your
proposed policies to address them.
San Francisco's biggest environmental challenges fall into three broad categories: climate resilience, environmental justice, and the day-to-day quality of the urban environment.
First, climate resilience. Sea-level rise is no longer a distant problem; it is a present planning obligation. We need to accelerate shoreline adaptation, flood protection, and resilient infrastructure, especially along the southeastern waterfront, and tie that work to transportation, open space, and neighborhood improvement.
Second, environmental justice. District 10 has carried more than its fair share of the City's environmental burdens, from freeway infrastructure and industrial impacts to dumping, contaminated land, and the legacy of the shipyard. A serious environmental agenda has to start by correcting those inequities through stronger dumping enforcement, better air-quality monitoring, safer truck routing, real cleanup accountability, and more greening and health-protective investment in the neighborhoods that have borne the most.
Third, we need to reduce emissions while making the city work better. That means faster transit, cleaner buildings and vehicles, more walking and biking infrastructure, and support for cleaner modern industrial and maritime uses rather than assuming jobs and sustainability are at odds.
I also think environmental policy has to be felt locally. Cleaner streets, maintained parks, shade, less dumping, and reliable transit are environmental issues too. Residents should experience environmental policy not as an abstract climate plan, but as healthier, cleaner, and more resilient neighborhoods.
My approach is to connect the large and the local: climate resilience, environmental justice, and better stewardship of the places where people live.
+ - ?
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Phasing out all diesel and biodiesel transit (e.g., Muni, tour, shuttles).(Would prefer to do this at the state-level)
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Public Power with 100% local/regional clean energy mandate and elected utility board
[ ] [ ] [ ? ] Install local/regional clean energy, efficiency, and battery storage and microgrids to supply 100% of our electricity by 2035.(Interested to learn more about feasibility)
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Reducing or eliminating parking minimums in new housing and commercial developments
[ ] [ ] [ ? ] 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.(I support Prop P, but development of sites may be safe prior to all sites being remdiated)
[ ] [ ] [ ? ] Non-native Tree Removals.(While I support native plantings, certain non-natives can thrive in SF; others cause issues and should be replaced when becoming hazardous)
[ ] [ - ] [ ] Use of herbicides in public parks
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Artificial turf on City-owned athletic fields
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Managed retreat, Coastal Zone protection, and restoring wetlands in response to Global Warming
3) Social Justice:
A) What is your assessment of homelessness in San Francisco, and what
solutions do you propose?
Homelessness in San Francisco is not one problem, and it will not yield to one solution. It is a housing crisis, a mental health crisis, a substance use crisis, and, too often, a failure of government to move people from instability into care. The central problem is churn: people cycling between the street, emergency response, short-term shelter, and back again without reaching lasting stability.
Housing First remains the right foundation, and I would continue building supportive housing across the city. But housing alone is not enough. We need a real continuum of care: prevention, outreach, shelter, treatment, supportive housing, and long-term case management, with clear pathways between each stage so people do not fall into the gap between short-term intervention and permanent stability.
For people experiencing repeated psychiatric crisis or severe behavioral health needs, I support stronger use of assisted outpatient treatment, conservatorship, and, where necessary, involuntary holds, but only with clear guardrails, due process, and regular review. These tools should be used as part of a treatment system, not as a substitute for one. Likewise, harm reduction programs should not operate in isolation. They should be tied directly to treatment referrals, case management, and measurable outcomes. If supervised consumption sites are ever piloted, they should exist only as tightly managed bridges to rehabilitation, with strict public accountability and clear standards for success.
District 10 should not continue to bear a disproportionate share of the visible impacts of this crisis without the services, staffing, and infrastructure needed to make those sites work. My approach is outreach and treatment first, but not endlessly. When help is repeatedly refused and public space is repeatedly harmed, the city must be prepared to act. Compassion and accountability are not opposites. If we are serious about reducing homelessness, we need both.
+ - ?
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Project Homeless Connect
[ ] [ ] [ ? ] Care Not Cash.(I want to ensure adequate care is provided)
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Healthy SF
[ ] [ ] [ ? ] Housing As A Right
(Effective funding for housing requires state and federal action)
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Housing First for Homeless, Addiction, Mental Health
[ ] [ ] [ ? ] Law against sitting or camping on SF sidewalks.(Public spaces need to be safe and usable, but enforcement should follow real offers of shelter, treatment, and services)
[ ] [ ] [ ? ] I support more homeless navigation centers in my district
(This requires a case-by-case evaluation)
B) What are your views on housing affordability, what public sector
strategies have worked, which have failed, and what are your proposals?
San Francisco does not just have a housing shortage. We have a shortage of homes people can actually afford. The predictable result of decades in which demand outran production while City Hall layered on delay, uncertainty, and cost. The market alone was never going to solve that problem, and our permitting system has made it even harder to build the kinds of homes we say we want.
We do know some things work. The Small Sites Program has preserved real affordability, and MEDA's work in the Mission shows that acquisition at scale can stabilize communities before speculation displaces them. Inclusionary requirements and impact fees have also mattered; they are not perfect, but they have helped fund the infrastructure and affordability that make growth more legitimate. Community land trusts have a strong track record as a long-term anti-displacement tool, and San Francisco has not used them nearly enough in District 10.
My approach is straightforward: pair zoning for mixed-use residential along our key transit corridors with real permitting reform, including consolidated review and predictable timelines; expand the Small Sites Program and community land trusts into District 10; provide incentives for workforce housing; and use tools like infrastructure finance districts and a public bank to make below-market and workforce housing pencil out on major stalled sites like Hunters Point Shipyard, Candlestick, and the Baylands. If we are serious about housing affordability, we need to stop confusing plans with production and start using every tool we have to build our housing pipeline while protecting the existing housing that works for the people who live here.
+ - ?
[ ] [ ] [ ? ] Building more market rate housing will lower housing costs for current SF residents
(The market is unlikely to meaningfully reduce housing costs, but is a part of the portfolio of housing solutions)
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Impacts of all new development should be paid for in advance by fees on developers
(Unless we fund impacts through another means)
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Community Land Trusts, Housing Co-ops
[ ] [ - ] [ ] Rent Control is too strong
[ ] [ ] [ ? ] Waive Environmental Review to build Moderate and Low Income Housing
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Social Housing (similar to https://www.sfcommunityhousingact.com/)
[ ] [ - ] [ ] Ban on Airbnb and other short term rentals
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Vacancy tax on residential property and "pied-a-terre" homes
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Flipping taxes on housing speculation
[ ] [ ] [ ? ] 10-year waiting period before corporate and nonresident owners can sell purchased housing properties.(I am open to discussing anti-speculation policies)
[ ] [ - ] [ ] Condo conversion is currently too difficult
4) Nonviolence: What are your solutions for SFPD accountability while
making the streets safer?
Accountability and public safety are not in tension. They depend on each other. If residents do not trust the system, they are less likely to report crime, cooperate with investigations, or view enforcement as legitimate. That makes everyone less safe.
On accountability, I support maintaining the independence of the Police Commission and appointing commissioners who are guided by data, judgment, and community trust rather than ideology. I would also use the Board's oversight and budget powers to make sure SFPD is held to its own commitments. If the department says it is investing in community policing, foot patrols, or violence prevention, the public should be able to see whether those strategies are actually being deployed and whether they are working. Deployment and outcome data should be published regularly and in a form residents can understand.
On safety, I want to expand the kinds of policing and response that have been shown to work and are proven to build trust with the community. That means more foot and bike patrols, particularly in the parts of District 10 where visible presence can deter crime and build relationships. It means prioritizing culturally competent, language-capable officers in neighborhood assignments. And it means continuing to build out non-police response teams for mental health and quality-of-life calls, so armed response is not the default in situations where it is not the best fit.
I also want to protect and strengthen programs that are already showing results, including the Violence Reduction Initiative and other community-based violence prevention efforts. When something is working, we should build on it, not quietly let it wither.
The goal is straightforward: a department residents trust enough to call, and accountable enough to earn that trust.
+ - ?
[ ] [ ] [ ? ] Prioritize SFPD enforcement of moving violations
(Focus on enforcement of driving safety issues, and not pretextual, non-safety stops)
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Support expansion of foot patrols
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Demand stricter accountability in future MOUs with the SFPD
[ ] [ ] [ ? ] The Board of Supervisors should be able to set policies and priorities for the SFPD through legislation.(I am uncertain of the need so long as the police commission remains independent)
[ ] [ - ] [ ] Support a public safety program modeled after NYC's "Stop and Frisk"
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Prosecution of SFPD officers involved in violent attacks on, and fatal shooting deaths of, SF residents and visitors.(When the facts merit prosecution)
[ ] [ - ] [ ] End cash bail for nonviolent crimes.(Not all nonviolent crimes)
[ ] [ ] [ ? ] Cut police funding and increase social program spending, and establish community control of neighborhood policing
(Both are necessary, and I don't know of an effective model of Ã'community controlÃ")
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?
The Kaufman Charter was a response to a real problem. In the 1990s, San Francisco's government was often criticized as too fragmented, too slow, and too unclear about who was responsible when things went wrong. The Charter's shift toward a Strong Mayor model was meant to create clearer executive accountability and a government that could act with more coherence.
I think that basic goal still has value. There is something to be said for residents knowing who is responsible for running the executive branch. But nearly thirty years later, it is fair to ask whether the City has overcorrected. In too many areas, power is centralized while accountability remains diffuse. Departments can become insulated, commissions can be weakened or politicized, and the Board can end up reacting to executive decisions rather than shaping policy early enough to matter.
So yes, I do think the Charter is worth revisiting. But I would approach that as targeted reform, not a wholesale return to the pre-1996 system. I am not persuaded that simply replacing the Strong Mayor system with commissions dominated by Board appointments, or directly elected commissions across the board, would solve the problem. That risks recreating a more fragmented city government where responsibility is spread so widely that no one can be held clearly accountable.
My preference would be a better balance: preserve executive accountability, but strengthen legislative oversight, restore real independence where commissions serve an important watchdog function, and require more transparency from departments so the public can see whether City Hall is actually delivering. In some specific areas, stronger and more independent commissions may make sense. But as a general governing model, I would rather improve the system we have than replace it with one that may create a new set of coordination and accountability problems.
The question for me is not whether power sits with the Mayor or a commission. The question is whether government is responsive, transparent, and capable of producing results for the people it serves. That is the standard I would apply.
+ - ?
[ ] [ - ] [ ] Elected Rent Board
[ ] [ - ] [ ] Elected Public Utility Board
[ ] [ - ] [ ] Bring the Housing Authority under the Board of Supervisors.(The Board is not an executive branch; this may not be possible under federal law and regulations)
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Will you create formal district councils to advise you?.(I will regularly meet with neighborhood groups in an advisory role)
B) The city currently uses non-profits to provide social services. Do
you think this is an appropriate model? Why or why not?
Yes, in most cases. Nonprofits can be the right delivery model because many of them know a specific problem and a specific community better than the City ever will. Community based organizations already have the staff, relationships, and trust to act quickly, while City Hall often has to build that capacity from scratch inside a bureaucracy that moves slowly by design. That speed matters when the goal is to reach people before a crisis gets worse.
But the model only works if the City remains accountable for the results. That means multi-year funding so providers are not reapplying for survival every budget cycle, clear outcome metrics, timely payments, and public reporting on whether programs are actually working.
Where I would push back is when contracting with nonprofits becomes a way to outsource accountability along with the service. The City can contract out delivery, but it cannot contract out responsibility. The real test is not whether a nonprofit or a department provides the service. It is whether someone at City Hall is making sure the service is effective.
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Expand Participatory Budgeting to at least 5% of the District Budget
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Charter amendment allowing voters to choose the replacement of an elected official being recalled on the same ballot as the recall vote
[ ] [ ] [ ? ] Immediately implement open-source voting system for SF elections
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?
The goal is not simply to attract more capital into District 10. It is to make sure that capital strengthens the communities already here instead of becoming another force of displacement. In neighborhoods like Bayview, Hunters Point, and Visitacion Valley, that means policies that help residents build and keep wealth, not just watch new investment arrive around them.
I would expand tools like Certificates of Preference and zip-code-based priority policies so longtime and displaced District 10 residents have a real opportunity to access the housing created in their own neighborhoods. I would also push to expand the footprint of the San Francisco Community Land Trust in District 10, or create a district-focused version, so that a meaningful share of housing is held permanently outside the speculative market.
On the commercial side, I support stronger corridor-based investment tools, including Community Benefit Districts and cultural districts, particularly along Third Street and Leland Avenue, so merchants have stable, locally governed funding for cleanliness, safety, and activation instead of relying on one-off grants and sporadic City attention. I would also support land use policies that create more neighborhood-serving mixed-use development and more opportunities for local ownership, small business growth, and modern industrial jobs.
The through line is simple: capital should help existing residents stay, thrive, and build something lasting. If new investment only changes who can afford to be here, then we have not solved the problem.
+ - ?
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Legislation limiting formula retail outlets/chain stores
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Conditional Use permit required for big box stores
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Municipal broadband as a public utility
[ ] [ ] [ ? ] Neighborhood cooperatives prioritized as a local supply chain for legalized marijuana
[ ] [ ] [ ? ] I support recreational marijuana stores opening in my district
[ ] [ ] [ ? ] Local hiring requirements should be enforced and expanded to include private projects
(We can work with unions on ensuring local hire for private unionized development projects)
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Strong preference for union jobs
[ ] [ ] [ ? ] Conversion of some golf courses into soccer fields
[ ] [ ] [ ? ] Conversion of some golf courses into wild open space
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Prop 13 limits on tax increases should apply only to residential properties
[ ] [ - ] [ ] Commercial Rent Control
[ ] [ - ] [ ] Transition all residential and small business rental
properties into not-for-profit trusts and co-ops
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Vacancy and flipping taxes on local small business property
[ ] [ ] [ ? ] Transaction/Flipping taxes on all asset speculation to increase city budget.(All asset speculation is very broad).
[ ] [ ] [ ? ] San Francisco Public Bank by 2027
(As soon as practicable)
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?
Yes, I do think women remain underrepresented in city government, though the picture is more mixed than a simple headcount sometimes suggests. San Francisco has made real progress, and women have held some of the city's most important offices. But progress does not mean the work is finished, and I do not think we should treat underrepresentation as self-correcting.
I also do not think the issue is simply that women are not interested in serving. More often, the barriers are practical and cultural: the demands of fundraising, the time commitment of public office, the continued uneven burden of caregiving, and a political environment that can still be harsher, more personal, and more dismissive toward women than it is toward men. Those barriers can narrow the pipeline long before voters ever cast a ballot.
I do think that matters. Representative government works better when the people making decisions reflect a broader range of lived experience, leadership styles, and priorities. That is not just symbolic. It affects what issues get elevated, how institutions behave, and who feels that government is open to them.
My focus would be on strengthening the pipeline and removing avoidable barriers. That means supporting the appointment, promotion, and recruitment of more women into leadership roles across city government; backing policies that make public service more compatible with family life; and being intentional about creating pathways for women from different neighborhoods, professions, and communities to move into decision-making roles. It also means being honest about sexism when it appears and not normalizing conduct that pushes women away from public life.
+ - ?
[ + ] [ ] [ ] The City should help SFUSD provide child care for children of working parents
[ ] [ ] [ ? ] The DPH should provide reproductive health services to both residents and visitors.(I am curious about the inclusion of visitors)
[ ] [ - ] [ ] Require parental consent for minors seeking an abortion
[ ] [ - ] [ ] Require parental notification for minors seeking an abortion
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?
The best aspect of San Francisco's diversity is that it makes the city richer in every meaningful sense, whether culturally, intellectually, and civically. We are a city shaped by people with different histories, languages, faiths, traditions, and lived experiences, and that diversity makes our neighborhoods stronger and our public life better. When government reflects that range of experience, it tends to make better decisions and serve people more effectively.
I do not think the Ã'worstÃ" aspect is diversity itself. The problem is when the city fails to meet the obligations that diversity creates. Too often, we celebrate diversity rhetorically while falling short in practice, through inadequate language access, city processes that assume one style of participation fits everyone, and uneven delivery of culturally competent services. That is not a flaw in diversity. It is a failure of government to follow through.
Protecting the best of San Francisco's diversity means being clear and unapologetic in defending it. When communities are targeted, demeaned, or scapegoated, city leaders should respond directly and without hedging. Improving the worst means investing in the basics: real language access, culturally competent services, inclusive public engagement, and a government that actually reaches every community it claims to represent.
San Francisco's diversity is one of its greatest strengths. Our job is to make sure City Hall is worthy of it.
+ - ?
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Multilingual government and public education
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Undocumented immigrants should have equal access to education and health care
[ ] [ - ] [ ] Non-citizen residents should be able to vote in all local elections
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Full rights for transgender and non-gender-binary persons
[ ] [ - ] [ ] Boards and commissions now reflect the ethnic diversity of San Francisco
[ ] [ - ] [ ] Boards and commissions now reflect the political diversity of San Francisco
[ + ] [ ] [ ] My campaign reflects the diversity of San Francisco
[ ] [ - ] [ ] End Drag Queen Story Hour and K-12 School Education on Gender Spectrum Differences
9) Global and Personal Responsibility:
A) What should San Francisco government do in response to past ICE
activity in San Francisco, as well as proactive action to prepare for
future ICE activity?
San Francisco should strengthen, not weaken, its sanctuary city protections. That means no cooperation between municipal agencies and ICE through detainers, information sharing, or 287(g) agreements, and continued opposition to participation in Joint Terrorism Task Forces, which the city correctly withdrew from in 2017. When local government blurs the line with federal immigration enforcement, it doesn't make anyone safer, it just makes residents afraid to access schools, healthcare, or public safety services, which undermines the very trust public safety depends on.
Proactively, that means refreshing the training for City staff now, before the next enforcement action, on what information they can and cannot share, ensuring know-your-rights resources are available in every language our residents speak, and making sure city departments have clear, tested protocols so confusion in the moment doesn't become de facto cooperation. Residents should be able to live, work, and access city services without fear regardless of immigration status.
+ - ?
[ ] [ - ] [ ] City government cooperating with the PATRIOT Act
[ ] [ - ] [ ] City government cooperating with ICE/Secure Communities
[ ] [ _ ] [ ] City government should boycott Israel until it complies with UN resolutions and international law
[ + ] [ ] [ ] SF supervisors should take a position on offshore oil drilling outside CA
[ ] [ - ] [ ] SF should refuse to purchase PG&E's nuclear power
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)?
My decisions start with constituents, not consultants, donors, or gut instinct. That is not a slogan; it is a practice. I believe in listening first and proposing second. Before I take a position, I want to understand how an issue is actually affecting the people who live with it, including our residents, merchants, workers, and neighborhood organizations, and not just how it is being framed at a hearing or in a memo.
That said, listening is only the first step. Good decision-making also requires judgment. I look closely at the facts, the tradeoffs, the likely costs, and whether a proposal has actually worked elsewhere. I try to distinguish between what is politically fashionable, what sounds good in the abstract, and what is likely to produce a real improvement in people's lives.
I will absolutely consult with colleagues, unions, businesses, service providers, and community groups. They all have perspectives worth hearing, and often they bring practical knowledge that helps improve a policy. But those conversations are part of the process, not the source of my values. The question I keep coming back to is whether a proposal serves the people of District 10 and moves us toward more complete, vibrant, and connected neighborhoods.
Donors and consultants do not set my positions. Their role is to support a campaign, not define what I believe. At the end of the day, my responsibility is to the residents of District 10, and my decisions will be grounded in constituent input, evidence, and a practical sense of what will actually work.
+ - ?
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Fleet Week and the Blue Angels flyover
[ + ] [ ] [ ] JROTC in the public schools
[ ] [ - ] [ ] In a severe recession, environmental regulations should be suspended to create jobs
[ ] [ - ] [ ] Business taxes are too high
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?
Transit First, enshrined in the Charter in 1973, means buses, trains, walking, and biking come before private cars in how we design and prioritize our streets. More than fifty years later, the gap between that stated value and daily reality is still wide: cars double-park in bus lanes while Muni riders sit stuck behind them, and District 10 residents who depend almost entirely on surface buses feel that gap every day.
Recent years show the policy is right but enforcement has been the failure. Vision Zero, adopted in 2014 with a 10-year deadline for zero traffic deaths, missed badly, 2024 was our deadliest year since 2007, driven in part by SFPD traffic citations dropping 95% over the decade as leadership simply stopped prioritizing it. On the other hand, where we have enforced transit priority, red paint on bus lanes has cut violations up to 55%, and SFMTA's new automated bus-lane enforcement system, aiming for a 500% increase in citations, is a real step toward finally treating Transit First as more than a slogan.
As Supervisor, I'd enforce it by holding the city to the binding deadlines, dashboards, and accountability hearings in the 2025 Street Safety Act rather than letting them become just another report nobody reads. District 10 sits on the High Injury Network, 12% of the city's streets that account for 68% of severe and fatal crashes, so I'd push to make sure our corridors are prioritized, not last in line, as bus-lane enforcement, signal priority on the T Third, and the citywide bike network get built out. Transit First only means something if it's enforced like law, not aspiration.
+ - ?
[ ] [ ] [ ? ] Muni should be funded sufficiently to replace most car use, and be free to the rider
(I think the first part is more important than the second; we have robust free MUNI programs).
[ ] [ ] [ ? ] Downtown Transit Assessment Tax to support Muni
[ ] [ ] [ ? ] Citywide Transit Assessment Tax to support Muni
(I support diversifying our funding stream and assessment districts are a potential model)
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Connect Bay Area (https://connectbayarea.com).(Sales taxes are not my first choice)
[ + ] [ ] [ ] More weekend closures of streets in/near my district to cars (e.g., Car-Free GGP).(When coupled with activation and programming)
[ + ] [ ] [ ] State law change that lets bicycles treat stop signs as yield signs and red lights as stop signs
[ + ] [ ] [ ] I ride Muni, bicycle and/or walk instead of driving on a regular basis
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Bus Rapid Transit expanded to all major transit corridors in SF
[ ] [ ] [ ? ] Car hailing services like Uber and Lyft should be regulated as taxis, or banned
(Like taxis may be the wrong model, but I favor stronger regulation of rideshare)
[ ] [ - ] [ ] Scooter/similar vehicle rentals should be required to store vehicles on private property
[ ] [ - ] [ ] Allow residents to park on the sidewalk without getting a ticket, unless their neighbors complain
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Congestion pricing for parking
[ ] [ - ] [ ] Power more City vehicles using biofuels (e.g., corn-based ethanol)
[ ] [ - ] [ ] Residents should be allowed to park in the street in front of their own driveway for free
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Support expanding parking meter hours to include later evening hours and weekends
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Remove parking spots and car lanes to create dedicated bike and bus lanes or wider sidewalks
Your positions (at the time) on selected current and past Propositions
(skip any for which you didn't live or vote in SF, or didn't take
a position at the time):
+ - ?
[ + ] [ ] [ ] June 2026 Prop D (Overpaid CEO Tax)
[ ] [ - ] [ ] Nov 2024 Prop D (Stronger Mayor)
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Nov 2024 Prop K (Great Highway)
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Nov 2024 Prop L (Tax Uber and Waymo to fund Muni)
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Nov 2024 Prop M (Block Prop L)
[ ] [ - ] [ ] March 2024 Prop E (More Police Chases)
[ ] [ - ] [ ] March 2024 Prop F (Drug Test Poor People)
[ + ] [ ] [ ] June 2022 Prop C (Recall Reform)
[ ] [ - ] [ ] June 2022 Prop H (Boudin Recall)
[ ] [ - ] [ ] Nov 2020 Prop G (16-17 y.o. voting, local elections)
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Nov 2020 Prop I (Real Estate Transfer Tax)
Due Date: Sat, July 11, 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, July 22 from 7-9
pm at our office, 2973 16th St, #300, SF - note that this is across
the street from our old office in the Redstone Building.
Completed questionnaires will be posted on our website,
https://sfgreenparty.org.