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: Michael Nguyen
Phone Number: 415.741.6480
Web site: https://www.michaelnguyen4sf.com/
E-mail: m.nguyen4SF@gmail.com
Name of Campaign Manager: Traci Mysliwiec
Are you receiving public financing: Yes
Signed voluntary spending limit: n/a (Although, since I accepted Public Financing, I've already agreed to an expenditure limit.)
2nd, 3rd endorsements in District: Harvey Milk Democratic Club is #2, AFT 2121 is a dual of myself & Gary McCoy, and Brownie Mary Dems endorsed all three of the males in the race (Darshini hadn't announced yet.)
Major Endorsements: I am honored to have earned the endorsements of former Supervisors Sandra Lee Fewer, Gordon Mar, Eric Mar, John Avalos, and Norman Yee - leaders who know the difference between someone who talks progressive values and someone who lives them.
Former Assemblymember Tom Ammiano and I share the same birthday and something more important: a readiness to speak truth to power and have fun while doing it. As he said at my kickoff, maybe it's time we had a drag queen in City Hall.
https://www.michaelnguyen4sf.com/endorsements
Incumbent Supervisor whose votes are most similar to the way you would vote: Chan, Fielder, Chen, Walton
Incumbent who votes least similarly to the way you would vote: Dorsey, Sauter, Sherill, Wong
If the election were held today, who would you support as Board President: Walton
Who would be your second and third choices: Chan
Who did you endorse for Mayor in 2024 (all 3 choices, if applicable): Peskin, Breed #2
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?
District elections have been essential to my campaign. A grassroots, field-focused effort like mine can compete without being drowned out by big money, and that 2000 shift made campaigns like this one possible. But even with district elections, special interest spending keeps climbing, and mailers and ads flood voters right before they decide, making races more volatile.
Ranked choice voting has strengths, but it's worth examining closely. Dean Preston won the first round outright and still lost, in part because his opponents' voters coordinated behind ranked choices against him. That's a legitimate part of how RCV works, coalition-building is the system functioning as designed, but it's also worth asking whether it can reward strategy over broad first-choice support.
I'm interested in exploring alternatives like approval voting, where voters simply indicate who they find acceptable. It's simpler to understand and may reduce some of RCV's strategic complexity.
+ - ?
[x ] [ ] [ ] Sub-government such as Neighborhood Assemblies, Networks or District Councils
[ x] [ ] [ ] Voters' right to recall elected officials
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Residency requirements for elected officials should be strictly enforced
B) What strategies would you employ to reduce corruption in San
Francisco government?
Accountability starts with oversight that has real teeth. As Supervisor I will use every hearing tool available to demand answers from department heads, require regular public reporting on program outcomes, and ensure that contracts are tied to measurable performance.
I will push for funded community engagement before budgets are finalized, not after. Too often residents learn about cuts when they are already done deals. I will introduce legislation requiring public hearings and community impact assessments before any significant program eliminations.
I will fight for a truly independent Ethics Commission and Controller's Public Integrity Unit with adequate staffing and authority to investigate whistleblower complaints. I will end the use of undated resignation letters and oppose commission appointments used as political favors.
Good governance is not just about catching bad actors. It is about building systems transparent enough that bad actors cannot hide in the first place.
+ - ?
[ ] [x ] [ ] Ethics Commission should be disbanded
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Ethics Commission meetings should be televised
[ ] [ ] [ x ] Ethics Commission should prioritize investigating violations from well-funded campaigns
[ ] [ X] [ ] My campaign is supported or promoted by a Super PAC
[ ] [ X ] [ ] My campaign has attended events sponsored by "Neighbors for a Better SF", "TogetherSF", "GrowSF" and/or "YIMBY"
[ X ] [ ] [ ] 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.
I am an environmentalist because I believe, as the Green Party does, that humans are part of nature, not separate from it, and that our current path of fossil fuel dependence and extraction is pushing us toward irreversible harm. We are already living the consequences: stronger storms, longer wildfire seasons, and water shortages that fall hardest on the communities least responsible for causing them. This is a climate emergency, and I will govern like it.
As President of Livable City I learned through immersion what it means to build a city around people rather than cars: prioritizing walking, biking, and public transit as the foundation of a sustainable, equitable city. That experience directly informs my Better Safer 17th Street initiative and my commitment to streets that prioritize people over cars, not incrementally, but as core climate infrastructure.
If elected I will fight to fully fund Muni and treat transit as essential climate infrastructure, expand protected bike lanes throughout D8, invest in green open space and urban tree canopy, and ensure environmental burdens do not fall disproportionately on low income communities and communities of color. I will oppose development that sacrifices environmental justice for profit and support community benefits agreements with binding environmental commitments. And I will push San Francisco to lead by example: phasing out fossil fuel infrastructure in city operations, expanding public and community-owned renewable power, and viewing every land use and budget decision through a climate emergency lens.
Climate justice and economic justice are inseparable. The same extractive systems that pollute frontline communities also hollow out the working and middle class San Franciscans I'm running to represent. I will fight for both, because they are the same fight.
+ - ?
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Phasing out all diesel and biodiesel transit (e.g., Muni, tour, shuttles)
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Public Power with 100% local/regional clean energy mandate and elected utility board
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Install local/regional clean energy, efficiency, and battery storage and microgrids to supply 100% of our electricity by 2035
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Reducing or eliminating parking minimums in new housing and commercial developments
[ 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
[ ] [ ] [ x ] Non-native Tree Removals
[ ] [ x ] [ ] Use of herbicides in public parks
[ ] [ x ] [ ] Artificial turf on City-owned athletic fields
[ ] [ ] [ x] Managed retreat, Coastal Zone protection, and restoring wetlands in response to Global Warming
I support strong coastal zone protection and wetland restoration without hesitation. Restoring our natural wetlands, particularly along the Bay margin, is one of the smartest investments we can make: they buffer flooding, sequester carbon, and restore habitat, all while protecting the low income communities and communities of color who are too often on the frontlines of climate risk.
Managed retreat is a harder question, and I won't pretend otherwise. It can mean telling homeowners and small businesses that their property has a shrinking future, and that's not a decision to make from City Hall without the people affected at the table. I see it as a tool of last resort, not a first response, and one that must come paired with real relocation support and genuine community input, not something imposed top-down by planners or politicians. District 8 has limited coastline, but as a citywide climate issue I will bring the same values I bring to every environmental fight: honesty about the tradeoffs, and a commitment that the people most affected have real power in the decision, not just a seat at a hearing.
3) Social Justice:
A) What is your assessment of homelessness in San Francisco, and what
solutions do you propose?
I want to be honest: no Supervisor can end homelessness alone, and anyone who tells you otherwise is not being direct with you. But here is what I will do.
In the short term, I will fight to pair every outreach effort with a real pathway to shelter and treatment. I will expand the Street Crisis Response Team so we are sending the right responders to the right situations. I will oppose sweeps without services because moving people around is not solving anything. Care and dignity are non-negotiable.
In the long term, the most important thing I can do is work to introduce policies that will stop people from becoming unhoused in the first place. My signature housing policy is social housing: permanently affordable, mixed-income, city-owned housing that takes units off the speculative market for good. When people have stable housing, everything else becomes possible.
Compassion is not enough. We need short term relief and long term solutions that actually work. Vienna and Montgomery County in Maryland have proven social housing works. I will fight to make San Francisco the next proof of concept.
To preserve existing affordable housing, I will protect rent control, oppose Ellis Act evictions, and create incentives and legal protections for small landlords of rent-stabilized units so they can keep renting instead of being pushed to sell or leave units vacant. San Francisco's own data shows tens of thousands of vacant units being held off the market; getting those units back online is one of the fastest ways to add supply without building a single new unit.
On funding, I will protect Prop I revenue for affordable housing and oppose any effort to repeal it. I will also push to reform the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development so it is genuinely accountable to the communities it serves, not just a pass-through for developers.
+ - ?
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Project Homeless Connect
[ ] [ x ] [ ] Care Not Cash *see below
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Healthy SF
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Housing As A Right
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Housing First for Homeless, Addiction, Mental Health
[ ] [ x ] [ ] Law against sitting or camping on SF sidewalks
[ x ] [ ] [ ] I support more homeless navigation centers in my district *with neighborhood input and buy-in
Care Not Cash was framed as an either/or choice, and I think that framing was wrong from the start. Cutting a person's General Assistance grant from $395 a month to $59 doesn't create housing, it just makes people poorer while they wait for services that aren't always there. I don't believe we build a compassionate city by stripping away the tiny amount of cash that lets someone buy food, pay for a phone, or have the bus fare they need to get to a job interview.
At the same time, I understand the instinct behind it. Cash alone isn't enough either when what people actually need is a path off the street: shelter, mental health care, substance use treatment, and permanent supportive housing. The real failure of Care Not Cash wasn't that it invested in services, it's that it was used to count shelter beds as “housing” and justify cutting people's cash before real housing existed, and that too often the services promised didn't materialize at the scale needed.
We need both, and neither can be an excuse to shortchange the other. I support meaningful direct cash assistance alongside robust investment in shelter, treatment, and permanent housing, not one traded off against the other to balance a budget or win a headline. Dignity means someone doesn't have to choose between having a few dollars in their pocket and having a case worker who can actually get them housed.
B) What are your views on housing affordability, what public sector
strategies have worked, which have failed, and what are your proposals?
San Francisco's housing crisis will not be solved by the market alone. It requires bold public action, and that starts with my signature policy: social housing. This means permanently affordable, mixed-income, city-owned housing that takes units off the speculative market for good. It is a proven model in cities around the world, and it is time San Francisco built it here.
We also have to preserve the affordable housing we already have. That means protecting rent control, opposing Ellis Act evictions, and creating real incentives and legal protections for small landlords of rent-stabilized units so they can keep renting instead of being pushed to sell or leave units vacant.
And we have to use what we already have. The city's own data shows tens of thousands of vacant units sitting off the market. Getting those units back online is one of the fastest ways to add supply without building a single new building, and it should be a top priority.
I will protect Prop I revenue for affordable housing and oppose any effort to repeal it. I will also push to reform the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development so it is genuinely accountable to the communities it is supposed to serve, not just a pass-through for developers.
+ - ?
[ ] [ x ] [ ] Building more market rate housing will lower housing costs for current SF residents
[ ] [ ] [ x ] Impacts of all new development should be paid for in advance by fees on developers
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Community Land Trusts, Housing Co-ops
[ ] [ x ] [ ] Rent Control is too strong
[ ] [ x] [ ] Waive Environmental Review to build Moderate and Low Income Housing
[ xxx ] [ ] [ ] Social Housing (similar to https://www.sfcommunityhousingact.com/)
[ ] [ ] [ x ] Ban on Airbnb and other short term rentals
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Vacancy tax on residential property and "pied-a-terre" homes
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Flipping taxes on housing speculation
[ ] [ ] [ x] 10-year waiting period before corporate and nonresident owners can sell purchased housing properties
[ ] [ x ] [ ] Condo conversion is currently too difficult
4) Nonviolence: What are your solutions for SFPD accountability while
making the streets safer?
Public safety and police accountability aren't in tension, they depend on each other. I support a strong, independent Police Commission with real investigative authority, expanded co-responder teams for mental health calls, and community policing rooted in the neighborhoods officers serve.
Right now, accountability means one thing above all: SFPD cannot become an arm of federal immigration enforcement. I will fight to strengthen the firewall between local police and ICE, and demand full public disclosure of any agreement between the Mayor's office and federal authorities that could compromise our sanctuary policies. I will introduce legislation barring city resources, personnel, and surveillance infrastructure from supporting federal immigration enforcement, full stop.
But policy alone doesn't build trust, relationships do. I will partner with immigrant rights groups, LGBTQ organizations, and community-based organizations to create real, ongoing engagement between SFPD and the residents they serve, not one-off events, but sustained relationships that make clear the police are there to protect people, not hunt them.
+ - ?
[ ] [ ] [ x ] Prioritize SFPD enforcement of moving violations
[ X ] [ ] [ ] Support expansion of foot patrols
[ X ] [ ] [ ] Demand stricter accountability in future MOUs with the SFPD
[ X ] [ ] [ ] The Board of Supervisors should be able to set policies and priorities for the SFPD through legislation
[ ] [ X ] [ ] Support a public safety program modeled after NYC's "Stop and Frisk"
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Prosecution of SFPD officers involved in violent attacks on, and fatal shooting deaths of, SF residents and visitors
[ x ] [ ] [ ] End cash bail for nonviolent crimes
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Cut police funding and increase social program spending, and establish community control of neighborhood policing *The caveat here being that we should have a fully-staffed police force, but we need to hold SFPD accountable to excess overtime pay and a ballooning budget. We don't need a more militarized police force. It doesn't make us safer.
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?
Systems can always be improved, but the direction of reform matters more than the word “reform” itself. I would support moving San Francisco away from the strong mayor model. Concentrating power in a single executive is the opposite of the grassroots democracy I believe in.
Commissions exist to give communities real power over the departments that shape their lives. That's not bureaucratic friction, it's decentralized, participatory governance working as intended. The question I ask of any reform proposal is simple: does this give communities more decision-making power, or less? Consolidation aimed at improving accountability is worth exploring. Consolidation aimed at concentrating power in the Mayor's office, at the expense of the Board and the public, is not something I will support, regardless of how it's packaged.
I'm skeptical of the current charter reform process moving quickly without real community input, particularly when its practical effect is fewer independent bodies able to check the Mayor. San Francisco already leans too far toward executive power, and I won't support changes that accelerate that.
+ - ?
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Elected Rent Board
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Elected Public Utility Board
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Bring the Housing Authority under the Board of Supervisors
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Will you create formal district councils to advise you?
B) The city currently uses non-profits to provide social services. Do
you think this is an appropriate model? Why or why not?
In an ideal world, City Hall would directly employ the workers who deliver social services, ensuring public accountability and stable, dignified jobs. But San Francisco's hiring process has become a bureaucratic nightmare, with critical positions going unfilled for years while people wait for care. Nonprofits have stepped into that gap, and many do excellent, values-driven work. But over-reliance on this model has real costs: administrative overhead, fragmented accountability, and budgets that bloat as agencies duplicate functions city government should be doing itself.
What troubles me most is what I've watched happens at budget time. Nonprofits providing essential frontline services get their funding slashed, and community members are forced to mobilize, testify, and fight just to restore cuts to services that should never have been on the chopping block in the first place. That's energy and organizing power that should go toward building something better, not defending what already works. I don't think balancing the budget on the backs of the nonprofits doing this hard work is a sustainable or fair model.
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Expand Participatory Budgeting to at least 5% of the District Budget
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Charter amendment allowing voters to choose the replacement of an elected official being recalled on the same ballot as the recall vote
[ x ] [ ] [ ] 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?
I would expand revenue before cutting services. Taxing the wealthiest corporations would be a great start. Any corporation that has a CEO making 100x what their median worker is making needs to be paying more taxes.
That means fully supporting policies like the Overpaid CEO Act, which would have generated more than $300 million annually for the City to better serve residents. It means opposing the repeal of Prop I transfer tax funds. It means deploying our rainy day reserves, which exist precisely for moments like this.
Empty storefronts on 24th Street and Church Street are one of the most visible signs that something is broken in our neighborhood economy. I would invest in a pop-up arts and small business activation program, bringing local artists, makers, and emerging small businesses into vacant spaces at low or no cost. Upper Noe Neighbors has called for a jazz club on 24th Street, and I love that idea. Live music, a neighborhood gathering place, an anchor for foot traffic - that is exactly the kind of cultural investment that makes a corridor feel alive again.
If we had additional funds, I would try to acquire the blighted old Pottery Barn at Castro and Market to transform it into something, anything, that would benefit the neighborhood. A parking garage would be preferable to 10 years of empty, unused space in our most vibrant neighborhood in the city!
Add-back funds should reach the people and places the main budget forgot.
I support a public banking option to keep local dollars in San Francisco. And I will oppose any budget that balances the city's books on the backs of the working class and most vulnerable residents.
+ - ?
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Legislation limiting formula retail outlets/chain stores
[ ] [ ] [ x ] Conditional Use permit required for big box stores *I support Conditional Use review for large-format, big-box retail that can reshape a corridor's character. But I'd support a carve-out for daily-needs businesses like grocery stores and pharmacies, especially in underserved neighborhoods, so we're not treating a neighborhood grocery chain the same as a big-box store.
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Municipal broadband as a public utility
[ x] [ ] [ ] Neighborhood cooperatives prioritized as a local supply chain for legalized marijuana *I care less about mandating a specific ownership structure and more about outcomes: making sure cannabis dollars actually reach the Black and Latino communities that bore the brunt of the war on drugs. San Francisco already has a cannabis equity program, and I'd want to strengthen and rigorously evaluate it, prioritizing licensing, capital access, and technical support for equity applicants, rather than assume any one business model automatically delivers that.
I'm open to giving cooperative and locally-rooted businesses a real advantage in the process, since keeping ownership and profits local often does align with equity goals. But I'd rather build policy around measurable outcomes, who actually gets licenses, who builds wealth, who gets hired, than lock in a single structure that might not fit every community's needs. If cooperatives are the most effective vehicle for getting there, I'll champion them. If other models get BIPOC entrepreneurs into ownership faster, I want the flexibility to support those too.
[ x] [ ] [ ] I support recreational marijuana stores opening in my district *Cannabis is legal, and the market reality is that these businesses should be able to operate and be regulated like any other legal enterprise, not treated as exceptional or stigmatized. At the same time, I believe neighbors deserve a real voice in decisions about where new stores locate, the same kind of community input I'd want for any land use decision that affects a block or corridor. Support for cannabis retail and respect for neighborhood input aren't in conflict, they go hand in hand.
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Local hiring requirements should be enforced and expanded to include private projects
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Strong preference for union jobs
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Conversion of some golf courses into soccer fields
[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
[ ] [ ] [ x] Transition all residential and small business rental
properties into not-for-profit trusts and co-ops *I strongly support expanding social housing, community land trusts, and co-ops as the primary model for new development and for stabilizing existing tenants at risk of displacement. I'm not committing to a blanket transition of all rental property, including small property owners, out of private ownership, but I see nonprofit and cooperative ownership as the direction San Francisco housing policy should move, and I'll fight to accelerate that shift as far and as fast as we responsibly can.
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Vacancy and flipping taxes on local small business property
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Transaction/Flipping taxes on all asset speculation to increase city budget
[ x ] [ ] [ ] San Francisco Public Bank by 2027
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, and it's not close. Systemic barriers keep women, especially progressive women, from ever getting to the starting line: underfunded campaigns, a fundraising system that rewards proximity to wealth and power, and a city that has become so unaffordable that many women simply can't afford to stay and build the community roots a campaign requires. This isn't a pipeline problem, it's a structural one, and it's a real loss. More diversity at the table means better decisions, period.
As a community organizer, I've spent my career building pathways for people to move from volunteer to decision-maker, not just adding seats but redistributing real power. That's what I'll bring to this seat: participatory budgeting, so residents help decide how city dollars get spent; genuine co-governance, where women and community leaders hold actual authority, not token appointments; and real investment in mentorship and paid leadership pipelines so we're building the next generation of progressive women leaders in San Francisco, not just talking about it.
But representation isn't only about who holds office, it's about whether policy actually meets women where they live. Universal childcare is central to that. Mothers and caregivers can't organize, run for office, or even attend a community meeting if there's nowhere for their kids to be. Making childcare truly universal isn't just an economic policy, it's a civic one: it frees women to show up, get involved, and build the experience that leads to public service in the first place.
That's alongside free Muni for everyone under 26, both a climate priority and a safety and equity one, so getting around the city isn't dependent on owning a car; raising the minimum wage to a living wage; and making housing affordable enough that women who want to build a life, raise a family, or run for office here can actually afford to stay. Representation and material conditions are the same fight.
+ - ?
[ x ] [ ] [ ] The City should help SFUSD provide child care for children of working parents
[ ] [ ] [ x ] The DPH should provide reproductive health services to both residents and visitors *I am unequivocally committed to protecting abortion access and reproductive health care in San Francisco, and DPH should absolutely continue serving anyone in the city who needs care, including visitors, especially in emergency or time-sensitive situations. But I'm cautious about DPH formally committing to be a nationwide safe haven for reproductive care without also committing the funding and capacity to back that up. San Franciscans need to know their own public health system can serve them first. Before I'd support that as official policy, I'd want to understand the capacity and budget implications, so we're not making a promise the city can't actually keep, to residents or to the people traveling here for care.
[ ] [ x ] [ ] Require parental consent for minors seeking an abortion
[ ] [ x ] [ ] 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?
San Francisco's greatest diversity isn't just who lives here, it's the sheer range of lives one person can build here. I came to San Francisco for law school at UC Law SF and, like so many young people before me, fell in love with the City and never left. Here, I became a patent attorney and a drag performer and a community organizer, all at once, without ever having to choose one self over another. I've watched drag performers arrive with nothing and build entire careers and chosen families from scratch, the same way I did. That's the Green Party value of respect for diversity made real: not just tolerance, but a city that actively makes room for people to become fully themselves, in all their overlapping identities.
The worst part is that this promise is being tested to its breaking point. The story of a young person falling in love with San Francisco and staying to build a life, my story, is becoming close to impossible. How does anyone put down roots when rent is $4,000 a month? Respect for diversity isn't just about identity, it's about whether people from every background and income level can actually afford to exist here long enough to contribute their piece of what makes this city extraordinary. When we let the market price out low-income residents, communities of color, and young dreamers alike, we're not just failing on affordability, we're hollowing out the very diversity we claim to cherish.
+ - ?
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Multilingual government and public education
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Undocumented immigrants should have equal access to education and health care
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Non-citizen residents should be able to vote in all local elections
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Full rights for transgender and non-gender-binary persons
[ ] [ x ] [ ] Boards and commissions now reflect the ethnic diversity of San Francisco
[ ] [ ] [ x ] Boards and commissions now reflect the political diversity of San Francisco
[ x ] [ ] [ ] My campaign reflects the diversity of San Francisco
[ ] [ xxx ] [ ] 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 government should do whatever we can to stop it. Immigration enforcement is largely a federal power, so a supervisor cannot directly stop ICE actions through legislation. We already have strong state and local sanctuary policies in San Francisco, but those laws alone do not guarantee that immigrant residents feel safe enough to access healthcare, housing assistance, legal aid, and public benefits. What a supervisor can do is act with moral courage and political leadership:
Show up and speak out against ICE enforcement in our district. I will publicly stand with immigrant communities when ICE operations occur, advocate for limits on local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, and make clear that our neighborhoods are not zones of fear.
Strengthen and fund mutual aid networks. I want to learn how Minneapolis came together to support their immigrant neighbors after crises and replicate that model locally: building and sustaining mutual aid networks that can provide immediate assistance, information, and support so immigrant residents know they will not be left alone.
Facilitate direct access to services. I will help create and publicize district-level hotlines, virtual clinics, and one-stop information sessions that connect residents to:
City and county health services and programs that do not require immigration status.
Housing assistance, including emergency rental help, eviction prevention, and language-accessible tenant counseling.
Legal aid providers who can offer immigration consultations, know-your-rights workshops, and representation.
Public benefits programs where eligibility is not based on immigration status.
Support the organizations already doing this work. As an attorney, I have deep connections to community-based organizations and non-governmental groups that are already building safety nets for immigrant residetns. I will strongly support these groups through advocacy, co-funding, and structural partnerships that allow them to expand their capacity and reach. This includes:
Working with CBOs to host regular “know your rights” and “access services” events.
Encouraging and protecting confidential, non-discriminatory access to City services.
Using my position to remove bureaucratic barriers and ensure that staff and service providers are trained to serve immigrant residents without fear or hesitation.
My approach is not just about policy; it is about presence and moral leadership. I will be the supervisor who shows up when ICE is in the neighborhood, who speaks out when immigrant families are threatened, and who works relentlessly to ensure that every resident - regardless of status - can access the healthcare, housing, legal aid, and benefits they need without fear.
As Supervisor I will fight to fully fund and expand legal defense for immigrants facing federal enforcement actions, including undocumented residents, asylum seekers, and long-term community members with pending cases. I will introduce legislation prohibiting city resources from supporting federal immigration enforcement and demand full public disclosure of any agreements between the Mayor's office and federal authorities.
San Francisco's sanctuary commitment has to mean something in practice. That means funded lawyers, not just symbolic resolutions. Every person facing deportation deserves due process, and this city has both the resources and the moral obligation to make sure they get it.
+ - ?
[ ] [ x ] [ ] City government cooperating with the PATRIOT Act
[ ] [ x ] [ ] City government cooperating with ICE/Secure Communities
[ x ] [ ] [ ] City government should boycott Israel until it complies with UN resolutions and international law *I support San Francisco taking a values-based stand for international law and human rights, and that includes calling out violations by any government, including Israel's. Being critical of a government's actions and complying with international law is not antisemitism, and I reject the conflation of the two. My commitment to justice and human rights is consistent, whether the government in question is Israel, Russia, Saudi Arabia, or our own.
That said, I want to be honest about what this kind of resolution can and can't do. A city boycott is symbolic, San Francisco's economic relationship with Israel isn't going to move a national government's policy. But symbolic votes still matter: they signal our values, they give our residents, including our Jewish and Palestinian communities, a sense that City Hall is listening, and they add San Francisco's voice to a broader international call for accountability. I'll support this as a statement of values and solidarity, not because I believe it will single-handedly change facts on the ground, but because staying silent isn't neutral either.
[ ] [ ] [ x ] SF supervisors should take a position on offshore oil drilling outside CA
[ x ] [ ] [ ] 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)?
I'm a grassroots candidate. I'm running on small-dollar donations and San Francisco's public financing program, not checks from corporations or the wealthy few, so I'm not beholden to donor interests when I make decisions. My main basis for decision-making is my constituents and the community I'm part of: neighbors I meet at the farmers market, union members I stand with on the picket line, small business owners, and community organizations doing the work every day. Affordability comes up constantly, because we all know people who can't afford to live here anymore. Every one of those conversations shapes how I think, because the best decisions come from listening to the people they affect, not from a consultant's memo or a boardroom.
That's why co-governance isn't a talking point for me, it's how I intend to run my office. I'll hold regular, accessible office hours throughout D8, publish multilingual communications as standard practice, and build real feedback loops so constituents see their input shape actual decisions. I'll partner with community-based organizations as civic engagement partners and govern for all of San Francisco, not just the people who already know how to navigate City Hall. I will leave no San Franciscan behind.
+ - ?
[ ] [ x ] [ ] Fleet Week and the Blue Angels flyover
[ ] [ x ] [ ] JROTC in the public schools
[ ] [x ] [ ] In a severe recession, environmental regulations should be suspended to create jobs
[ ] [ x ] [ ] 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 isn't a slogan, it's a mandate. Since San Francisco voters embedded it in the Charter, it has required the city to prioritize public transit, walking, and biking over private vehicles in planning and budget decisions. As a daily Muni rider and past President of Livable City, that's exactly the city I believe in: one where the best way to get around is transit, walking, or biking, not a car.
In practice, Transit First has fared poorly in recent years. It's routinely treated as aspirational rather than binding, especially when it collides with parking and curb space politics. Muni service and reliability have struggled, capital investment hasn't kept pace with the mandate, and transit-only lanes and protected bike infrastructure get watered down or delayed the moment there's pushback. The Charter says transit comes first; our budget and planning decisions too often say otherwise.
I'd enforce it by treating Transit First as a real constraint, not a preference, on how the city allocates its capital budget and evaluates projects: prioritizing protected bike lanes with concrete barriers over soft-hit posts, and expanding transit-only corridors as essential infrastructure, not amenities to be traded away. In D8, that means building on what's already working: Church Street already has a transit-only lane pilot between Duboce and 16th Street, and the data shows what happens when we get out of the J-Church's way. I'd push to make that pilot permanent and extend the same protection further down the corridor through Noe Valley, where SFMTA's J-Church Safety and Accessibility Project is still working through design with the community. I support that project moving forward, and I support the ongoing study of Noe, Sanchez, and Castro Streets for better transit and turn management near Market Street
I'd push these through the data and community process SFMTA already runs, but I'd bring merchants along those corridors into that process from the start, not as an afterthought after a design is finalized. Transit-only lanes and thriving small businesses aren't in conflict if we plan loading zones, accessible parking, and curb access alongside them. Every minute a Muni line loses to mixed traffic pushes another rider back into a car, and that's the opposite of what our Charter demands.
+ - ?
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Muni should be funded sufficiently to replace most car use, and be free to the rider
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Downtown Transit Assessment Tax to support Muni
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Citywide Transit Assessment Tax to support Muni
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Connect Bay Area (https://connectbayarea.com)
[ x ] [ ] [ ] More weekend closures of streets in/near my district to cars (e.g., Car-Free GGP)
[ x] [ ] [ ] State law change that lets bicycles treat stop signs as yield signs and red lights as stop signs - *I support the Bicycle Safety Stop. Requiring cyclists to come to a full stop at every stop sign, the same rule designed for two-ton vehicles, doesn't reflect how bikes actually move or what actually keeps intersections safe. States that have adopted this law, including our neighbors Oregon, Washington, Colorado, and Utah, have seen fewer bike-vehicle crashes at stop-controlled intersections, not more, because cyclists clear intersections more quickly and predictably when they can maintain momentum.
This is also an equity issue. Enforcement of routine rolling-stop violations has too often been used as a pretext to stop and harass Black and Brown cyclists, the same dynamic we see with pretextual vehicle stops. Codifying the safety stop removes that pretext while keeping real protections in place: cyclists still have to yield to pedestrians and other traffic, and reckless riding is still enforceable.
As a Supervisor, I don't have a vote on state law, but I'll use my platform to support bills like AB 122 and push Sacramento to finally get this right, after years of vetoes driven more by politics than by the actual safety data.
[ x ] [ ] [ ] I ride Muni, bicycle and/or walk instead of driving on a regular basis
[ 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
[ ] [ x ] [ ] Scooter/similar vehicle rentals should be required to store vehicles on private property
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Allow residents to park on the sidewalk without getting a ticket, unless their neighbors complain
[ ] [ x ] [ ] Congestion pricing for parking
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Power more City vehicles using biofuels (e.g., corn-based ethanol)
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Residents should be allowed to park in the street in front of their own driveway for free
[ ] [ x ] [ ] Support expanding parking meter hours to include later evening hours and weekends
[ x ] [ ] [ ] 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):
+ - ?
[xxx ] [ ] [ ] June 2026 Prop D (Overpaid CEO Tax)
[ ] [ x ] [ ] Nov 2024 Prop D (Stronger Mayor)
[x ] [ ] [ ] Nov 2024 Prop K (Great Highway)
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Nov 2024 Prop L (Tax Uber and Waymo to fund Muni)
[ x] [ ] [ ] Nov 2024 Prop M (Block Prop L) *I supported Prop M because it delivered real relief for small businesses like the ones on our commercial corridors, more than doubling the exemption threshold and cutting costly licensing fees that disproportionately burdened small operators. I want to be upfront that I didn't support the poison pill provision that ended up superseding Prop L's transit funding tax on rideshare and autonomous vehicle companies. That outcome wasn't what I wanted; I would have preferred both measures stand on their own. But given the choice on the ballot as written, I believed getting meaningful small business tax relief passed was worth supporting, even with that unfortunate consequence attached.
[ ] [ x ] [ ] March 2024 Prop E (More Police Chases)
[ ] [ x ] [ ] March 2024 Prop F (Drug Test Poor People)
[ ] [ ] [ x ] June 2022 Prop C (Recall Reform)
[ ] [ x ] [ ] June 2022 Prop H (Boudin Recall)
[ x ] [ ] [ ] Nov 2020 Prop G (16-17 y.o. voting, local elections)
[ x ] [ ] [ ] 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.