Question 1

Public Safety

Accepted Answer

PUBLIC SAFETY
Improving San Francisco’s public safety is my highest priority. We need to address property crime, the illegal drug trade, substance abuse-related encampments, homelessness, people dying of overdose on our streets, public transportation services and traffic safety.

Here is my litmus test for public safety:

I supported the District Attorney recall to enhance accountability 
I voted against Proposition B (the “cop-tax”) 
I voted for Proposition E to support our understaffed police force 
I voted for Proposition F to tie general assistance to treatment 
I never supported dismantling or defunding the police 
I collected signatures and signed the Prop 47 reform petition to regain escalating property-theft penalties 
I signed the petition to alter Police Commission powers to allow the mayor to appoint and hold the commissioners accountable
 
Actions 
Create additional incentives to accelerate recruitment of police officers, including signing bonuses, housing and school voucher support. 
Deploy force multiplying tools to fill-in the officer staffing gap, including renewed support for neighborhood watch groups, merchant watch groups, and rapid deployment of technologies enabled by Prop E. 
Reform Police Commission powers to return full accountability for policing strategy to the Mayor and Chief of Police. 
Battle the fentanyl crisis by aggressive intervention into open use (arrest, treatment or bus ticket), and continuous, aggressive disruption of open drug markets to dramatically raise the consequences of dealing drugs on our streets. 
Reform, replace and eliminate all policies and processes that attract voluntary, substance abusing homeless to San Francisco (the “Drug Tourism Magnet Effect”), including encouraging Prop 47 reform, disrupting fencing operations, tying benefits to obligations (such as treatment, sobriety and work), etc.
Support more transparency regarding Judicial case dispositions, to better inform voters when seats come up for election. 
Reprioritize SFMTA capital and operational spending priorities away from ideological, anti-car experiments and back toward public transportation service and rider safety.  Refocus SFMTA traffic and pedestrian safety initiatives to address the most problematic locations first, and incentivize best safety solutions without unnecessarily disrupting customer traffic for merchants. See Public Transportation and Traffic Safety Priority below.

San Francisco is making forward progress on public safety since the appointment and election of District Attorney Brooke Jenkins and the repair of DA Office relations with SFPD. But our public safety issues are far from solved. We have much more to do to reduce property and drug crime, and to ensure safer, cleaner streets and public transportation.

Without our children, elders and tourists being able to walk the streets and use public transportation with confidence again, we will suffer as a civil society and our economy will not be able to recover.

Question 2

Financial Transparency, Accountability and Good Governance

Accepted Answer

San Francisco’s $14.6 billion annual budget has been growing faster than inflation for many years – in spite of almost no population growth. Even stripping out the break-even “enterprise departments” of the Airport and Water/Sewer, our city government still spends almost $11 billion per year, a level per capita among the highest in the nation.

Ask yourself: Are we better off today than we were 10 years ago, by almost any metric?

I am a businessman who must make payroll, hire and fire, and continuously seek ways to deliver more value to my customers. I cannot kick the can down the road or persist with unproductive or counterproductive activities for the sake of political considerations.

I want to address how our budget has almost doubled in the past 10 years while our most basic city services and quality of life have deteriorated. This means intense scrutiny of the “non-profit industrial complex” and SF government departmental spending. In addition, I will pursue policies and processes for improving government management practices and oversight. This includes support for currently proposed charter reforms to rationalize the excessive number of commissions and give more authority to the Mayor to appoint and dismiss appointed commissioners. The time for deflection of responsibility away from elected officials must end.
 
Proposed Actions 
Incorporate measurable objectives into third-party contracts, where possible. 
Conduct performance audits of all major contractors and underlying contracts, 
Consolidate small contracts to simplify management and reduce leakage. 
Establish streamlined rules and processes for contract course-corrections or terminations. 
Require retroactive review reports as a condition to extensions and renewals. 
Increase transparency of the $1.6 billion annual Community Grant Program by creating a publicly available, annually updated spreadsheet of third party vendors, sorted by size of SF government spending per vendor per fiscal year, for the past five years and known, remaining future contract obligations. Identify tools to motivate all government departments to seek constant improvement and cost savings opportunities, including new incentives, rewards, cut-off dates and public promotion of material improvements.

The Board of Supervisors is a legislative body, so its ability to directly impact city management is limited; however, analysis, inquiry, expanded Budget and Legislative Analyst audits, concentrating and amplifying public opinion, and crafting effective policies are still powerful tools for helping fix San Francisco.

First, we follow the money...

Question 3

Housing Affordability, Zoning & Protecting Neighborhoods

Accepted Answer

I believe we can legally enable enough real estate parcels in San Francisco (“upzoning”) to meet the 82,000 housing unit RHNA State mandate, grow housing supply to the extent possible (given macro-economic challenges for market-rate housing and SFGov’s limited subsidization capacity for low income and below-market-rate median income housing), and still protect our neighborhoods. How?

The current upzoning project is at root a probability analysis, so planners must err on the side of more legal enablement than less, knowing that most enabled properties will never get developed. That is good planning practice, but a political landmine, creating great angst among District 7 and other residents.  I believe the methodology is too conservative and therefore the scope of upzoning can be reduced materially to eliminate the most contentious problems in the debate—and still enable the ability to deliver the remaining 36,000-units (of the 82,000 mandate) not already in the pipeline.
  
To compensate for reduced upzoning totals (taking more development probability risk), we can put a “thumb on the scale” (incentives) to increase the likelihood and maximize the potential units from non-contentious property development, including reducing SFGov delays and soft-costs that repel developers.   I will, therefore, focus my attention on the real economic impediments to housing development, rather than on an unnecessarily divisive upzoning exercise that angers more than it builds.

In short, I reject the YIMBY/NIMBY framing of the housing-growth challenge by suggesting a pro-housing, pro-neighborhood, middle way, meaning housing unit-growth on the West Side that protects the character of District 7 neighborhoods.  Citywide, we simply do not need to upzone 200,000 units, encroaching into our coveted neighborhoods, to achieve the remaining, 36,000-unit. RHNAtarget.  And then we can focus on getting housing actually built.

Proposed Actions 
I support the introduction of incentives to maximize the development potential, speed and probabilities for the least contentious, largest parcels already in the pipeline, including in District 7 ParkMerced, Stonestown and Balboa Reservoir. This will lessen the upzoning need for single-family home neighborhoods yet deliver in District 7 alone almost 10,000 units toward the remaining RHNA target.  
I support upzoning of commercial corridors to allow for greater densities and higher average heights, accompanied by site-specific accommodations to minimize negative impacts on surrounding residential neighborhoods.  By recognizing likely sensitivities of surrounding stakeholders, I believe we can find more agreement on smart upzoning and thereby accelerate development.
I support streamlining approvals and reducing or eliminating  SFGov fees and taxes, especially for the highest density-potential, low-contention parcels, including reducing impact fee burdens on developers, wherever possible, as assessed by the Planning department.  Reduction of fees and other SFGov soft-costs will contribute materially to improving development economics and thereby raise the probability and speed of housing development.  
I support a plan to circumscribe Discretionary Review (“DR”) powers to improve housing unit growth economics and speed development.  DR’s cost valuable time and are too easily demanded by too many parties.  I believe we need a wholesale review of the scope of allowable DRs, who can demand them, and whether common, reasonable DR demand powers can be eliminated by codifying some within the planning and permitting process. 
I support the Planning Department taking more upzoning-to-development probability risk (for achieving Housing Element targets) by reducing the number of residential street parcels identified on the March, 2024 upzoning map, including, for example. the Lakeside neighborhood in District 7. I also support protecting certain, historically significant areas from major upzoning as a trade-off for protecting San Francisco’s tourism revenue base. This will dampen YIMBY/NIMBY political tensions regarding residential areas and thereby enable faster approvals for development of high-capacity and low-contention sites.  This will also force greater legislative focus on increasing the probabilities for development of those high-capacity, low-contention parcels that are upzoned.

In short, I believe we can increase density without threatening the livability of the city or harming neighborhoods. Both YIMBY and NIMBY views express valid concerns, but a middle way is both feasible and more likely to deliver actual housing growth.  My primary focus will therefore be  on reducing economic impediments to housing development, rather than the battle over unnecessary upzoning of thousands of contentious parcels.

Question 4

Small Business Vibrancy

Accepted Answer

Small businesses are the nexus of San Francisco’s vitality and economic health. They employ, liven our streets and neighborhoods, create gathering spaces and generate neighborhood social capital from which we look after each other.

I want to bring focus, attention and policy ideas to City Hall regarding this critical component of any vibrant city. As a result, I support an array of initiatives to help make it easier to begin, operate and grow businesses throughout the city and especially in District 7. 
 
Proposed Actions 
Address public safety first to help small businesses start and thrive (see my first priority — Public Safety — above). 
Reduce government regulatory impediments to start and grow small businesses, including consolidation and streamlining of all government regulatory processes and reduction of start-up and ongoing fees and taxes. For example, I support a major curtailment of Conditional Use Authorization powers of the Planning Department to make it easier to locate and open new businesses in San Francisco (with exception for proposed cannabis store locations in relation to schools and daycare services).  I believe the market is generally a better arbiter than government of neighborhood compatibility for serving local consumers.
Revamp the Health Care Security Ordnance’s City Option for businesses with fewer than 50 employees, thereby lowering hourly labor costs and cumbersome tracking and regulatory compliance paperwork.  
Encourage and regulatorily enable (through tax relief, fee relief and permitting flexibility, etc.) experiential retail businesses for more durability in the new age of online retail competition (“You can’t listen to live music with friends from an Amazon delivery box”).
Reward small businesses with recognition, awards, and publicity to focus attention on their contributions to city vibrancy, economic health, and neighborhood social-capital building.

San Francisco has developed a reputation as an unsafe, anti-business, regulatory-crushing city for small business. We must not only address the impediments head-on, but also promote a change of tone to prospective investors and entrepreneurs. There should be no more attractive place to do business than in San Francisco.

Question 5

Homelessness and Mental Health

Accepted Answer

Related in part to Public Safety, but of broader scope is San Francisco’s large population of unsheltered people, many in the throes of addiction and mental health challenges. San Francisco is in an unsustainable loop currently, where for whatever progress we think we make housing the homeless and/or enabling safer drug usage, overdose deaths continue unabated, operational costs soar and the city attracts more, new homeless every year.

We must change the policies and services attracting an endless supply of voluntary, substance abusing homelessness to San Francisco and focus our resources, compassion and pragmatism on helping the involuntarily addicted, mentally ill and poor.

This means, in part, more active intervention into illegal encampments, including illegal RV parking, and involuntary homelessness, making a resource-shift to build capacity for drug addiction and mental illness treatment, with more shelter solutions matching underlying challenges, including poverty.

Proposed Actions 
For the voluntary homeless: 
Increase the pace of encampment disruption, offering shelter or removal of property upon rejection of shelter. 
Face a choice of arrest, treatment or a bus ticket for open drug use. 
Solve the bottlenecks, whether legislative or policy-based, that condone long-term, illegal RV parking. These RVs use city resources rent-free, cause blight and reduce public safety. 
For the involuntary homeless (those suffering from addiction, mental illness and/or poverty):
Create 24/7 intake services to triage and immediately direct those who seek or are compelled to care. 
Develop at least one thousand more shelter beds, related treatment services and staffing, in groups and configurations directly relevant to the necessary monitoring, care or safe shelter needs. 
Revise, by ballot measure, Housing First spending prescriptions of Prop C’s Gross Receipts Tax to allow for more flexible spending as San Francisco’s homelessness needs evolve, allowing for a new source of funding for the foregoing actions. SF is underspending on shelter/treatment, while over-emphasizing permanent supportive housing — evidenced by 70% of overdose deaths happening inside. 
Change how SF government contracts for and monitors non-profit service providers to prioritize the results we need as they change over time, rather than incentivizing problem preservation. As discussed above, this means performance audits, measurable contract objectives and incentives for problem reduction. 
Increase the supply of sober-housing environments for those who are in need but not requiring drug or mental illness treatment.

One solution does not fit all for addressing San Francisco’s homelessness problems, so we need to stratify needs, craft policy solutions and service contracts that best address those strata and change the policies and processes that are attracting more than San Francisco’s fair share of non-resident homelessness (the “Drug Tourism Magnet Effect”).

Question 6

Public Education

Accepted Answer

I believe the single most important, long-term investment we can make to ensure a healthy, happy and productive city is the education of our children.

I believe in merit, opportunity, and curricula that can enable each student to travel their maximum, possible, educational distance — and that means resources, clarity of objective, and execution focused on results.

Unfortunately, our public school system is failing by many measures, including long-term, enrollment decline. We need to start with a seismic shift in priorities: San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) must make an explicit pivot to prioritizing student educational outcomes from past, social engineering objectives. From this simple change, a multitude of policy and operational changes can be employed.

Proposed Actions 
SF government should demand a seat at the SFUSD budgetary table to influence how SFUSD allocates resources, emphasizing educational outcomes in exchange for General Fund contributions. 
SF government should exert as much public pressure as possible on SFUSD to develop incentives and penalties to motivate better attendance, the single most important correlating variable for poor educational outcomes. 
Implement the new zoning school assignment protocol as soon as possible to encourage neighborhood schooling, more parental engagement and neighborhood social-capital building.

We must do better or our young families will continue to leave San Francisco, opt-out of SFUSD, or suffer the long-term consequences of poor preparation for adult life.

SFGov has no direct managerial or strategic control over SFUSD, an institution governed by its own board of elected officials and $1 billion+ annual budget. However, the Mayor and Supervisors have the power of influence, both by marshalling public opinion (as demonstrated with the recent Proposition G ballot pressure-measure to bring Algebra back to 8th grade) and as a significant, discretionary contributor to SFUSD’s budget.

Question 7

Public Transportation and Traffic Safety

Accepted Answer

SFMTA: Transit
Effective public transit “EPT” is a high priority for a vibrant, densely populated city like San Francisco.  It draws people into and around the city to encourage small business vibrancy, meeting spaces and community activity.  And regional public transportation supports San Francisco housing affordability by increasing the city’s virtual housing footprint.

As a result, I support effective public transit and would like to see it develop and grow; however, SFMTA has lost credibility with voters as poorly managed, and over-focused on ideological, anti-car initiatives, many poorly conceived and badly executed.  I believe we must, therefore, return to the basics of transit service and management to rebuild public trust, and allocate resources accordingly.

SFMTA: Traffic and Pedestrian Safety
SFMTA also has purview over traffic and pedestrian safety, an area used in recent years as an ideological weapon for goals I believe are not shared by the majority of San Franciscans, creating small business havoc and impediments to the maximum mobility that any vibrant city should seek. Again, I believe SFMTA must return to the basics of its safety charge to regain voter trust, focusing scarce resources on direct and cost-effective safety initiatives rather than using safety as a tool to justify broader, more expensive, agendas.

If SFMTA can return to and improve upon the basics of transit and safety, regaining credibility and trust from residents, I believe we can then look to expansion of services.

SFBART Efficiency and Development
SFBART is outside the purview of the SF Board of Supervisors and is funded largely by a combination of federal, state and regional sources.  However, it is a critical part of city infrastructure for commuter and tourist transport, and is an important relief valve for San Francisco’s housing challenges—enabling workers to live and work inside or outside of San Francisco.  SFGov, therefore, must use the leverage it has through participation in regional planning and coordination efforts to demand better management and spending reprioritization toward ridership safety and efficiency. Like SFMTA, SFBART needs to rebuild trust with Bay Area residents that it is being managed responsibly, so it can credibly request more resources over time.  And like SFMTA, it must abandon costly, ideological priorities and focus on the basics of safe, reliable transportation.

Proposed Transportation and Safety Actions
Reprioritize SFMTA capital and operational spending priorities away from ideological, anti-car traffic and parking experiments to two primary objectives:
Transit: Improve public transportation service and rider safety, and 
Traffic and Pedestrian Safety: Reprioritize capital spending from traffic diversion experiments to addressing specific, known. traffic and pedestrian safety problems with cost-effective solutions.
Develop measurable objectives for SFMTA management efficiency, including measures referencing ridership to employee ratios, per capita safety data, reduction of spending on low-priority projects, and better contract management and development processes to avoid extended delays and disruptions.

Once SFMTA shows better transportation service for users on existing lines, and more targeted, well-executed traffic safety improvements in the most problematic locations, and ability to manage its budget, SFMTA can come back to the public for additional financing to grow its transportation services materially.

Endorsements

Priorities

District 7

Meet Matt

Donate

Get Involved

“A Voice for the West Side”