I have spent this campaign asking people to trust that my values will shape the policies I fight for. When I told Mission Local I was voting for Scott Wiener, some of the people who had placed that trust in me found my answer hard to reconcile with what they believed this campaign stood for. Several who had told me how much they appreciated my candor now say they wished I had kept this particular opinion to myself. Frankly, I have wondered more than once in the last few days whether they were right.
This was a hard choice. I shared it because leading an office that’s open to feedback is central to my governing ethos, and people need to know where I stand if I expect them to challenge me, tell me what I’ve missed, or influence my decisions. The politically sound answer – “No position” – is just that, political; we all have to vote, and I’d obviously thought about it. So I stand by my decision to share who I’m supporting, but I regret how it unfolded. I had thought through the candidates more carefully than I had thought through what my answer would mean to my team, my day-one supporters, and the volunteers who had given their time and energy to this campaign. I hurt people without understanding the hurt I was about to cause. The conversation I owe them is about the choice itself; I don’t expect this writing to change hearts and minds, but I hope it can be the first step in regaining their trust.
What persuaded me was the connection between Scott’s commitments and the changes he has helped make. I want a representative whose convictions survive the work of finding votes, securing funding, and coming back after a defeat. My own reasons for running are tied to what happens when those efforts succeed or fail. I want all of us to be able to build a life in San Francisco without gradually surrendering the things that made us want to be here in the first place: our neighborhood, time with our family, friends who can no longer afford to stay. Housing, transit, and healthcare determine how much of that life a person gets to keep, and how much of our life together the city can sustain.
That doesn’t mean I don’t have substantial disagreements with Scott’s positions. I support Proposition 40’s billionaire tax, which Connie Chan supports and Scott opposes. I oppose AB 715 as written, which Scott helped champion, because protecting Jewish students must coexist with protecting the teaching of Palestinian history and criticism of government policy. I called for Nancy Tung to resign as local Democratic Party chair over the party’s handling of a sexual assault allegation. Scott opposed her resignation, while Connie supported it. None of those positions have changed. I am choosing between two people with whom I disagree, for an office whose responsibilities I take seriously.
The hardest part of the disagreement is Palestine. For the last three years, Palestinian families have endured death, displacement, and the destruction of their communities. People asking what our government will continue to enable deserve more than an assurance that I considered the question. I have kept foreign policy out of my supervisor platform because I want it to describe outcomes I can actually influence through that office. Congress, however, does have authority over military aid and arms transfers, so my choice here has to be examined on those terms.
Scott adopted the genocide designation in January and opposed military funding and offensive weapons sales at the October debate, while continuing to support Israeli purchases of defensive systems. In January, Connie supported defensive aid only if it came with food and medical aid for Gaza and a requirement that Israel honor the ceasefire. She later backed a full arms embargo, explaining at the October debate that her stated conditions had not been met. Those differences matter. So does the fact that both candidates’ positions changed amid sustained public pressure.
I see reason for hope in the people’s ability to move elected officials, and I’ve placed significant weight on the pressure either candidate would face in a House seat that comes up for election every two years. I understand why that expectation is insufficient for people who believe Scott’s record already disqualifies him; I still hope scrutiny will keep him from retreating from his commitments, just as I hope it will keep Connie fighting for more.
The broader record that persuaded me begins right here in District 8. In 2012, Scott pressed the health department to provide medically necessary transition-related care through a resolution the Board adopted. The department established a program the following year giving uninsured residents access to surgery and help navigating care. His trans-refuge law restricted California’s cooperation with states seeking to punish families for lawful gender-affirming care, including by barring compliance here with out-of-state subpoenas seeking medical records for those prosecutions. To truly belong here, a family seeking care needs access to providers and rules governing who can demand their records. It matters whether the government professing to protect them has made itself available to a government trying to punish them.
On housing, Scott’s 2014 Castro ordinance made room for new in-law apartments within existing buildings and extended rent control to qualifying additions. His later SB 35 gave qualifying projects faster approval in cities behind on their housing goals. Mercy Housing told the Terner Center that the law helped it reach an earlier funding round for the Kelsey Civic Center, saving two years. The building opened in 2025 with 112 affordable homes next to City Hall. On a project schedule, two years is a measure of administrative progress. For someone trying to stay in San Francisco, it can mean an untenable lease renewal or another move farther from their community. My own platform combines construction with public financing, social housing, and tenant protections because permission to build is meaningless without a home a working family can live in.
Connie has seen her successes too. Her tenant-organizing ordinance became law, giving renters the right to bring an association representative into meetings with their landlord. She co-sponsored financing for 98 affordable senior homes in the Richmond that are now operating. Having someone beside you when you meet your landlord, or a place to grow older near the people you know, is part of what it means to have a city that has your back. I weighed those achievements alongside Scott’s, accounting for the different levers each office provides. We differ on the Family Zoning Plan, which I support and she voted against, but I share her concern about the demolition of rent-controlled homes. I want those tenants protected while we make room for more people to live here.
Transit is where I found some clarity. In 2023, Connie asked to delay Geary’s quick-build improvements for two years over merchants’ concerns. Staff had already revised the parking plan and proposed merchant assistance. Those businesses deserved help through the disruption, and the people whose work and family schedules depended on the bus deserved consideration. A delay would give the city more time by taking time away from those who need reliable transit to get to work, pick up their kids, or see a doctor. I wanted to see Connie explain why the long-term benefits justified the work and help businesses thrive through the immediate pain.
The project went ahead in fall 2023. SFMTA’s 2025 evaluation found 6–11% shorter transit travel times, an estimated 235 hours saved collectively by riders each day. Those hours are spread across people getting to work, crossing town, and picking up children; people that are easy to lose sight of in a debate about a particular stretch of curb. An affordable city needs transit that can compete with driving on speed and cost. The time we give people back is part of what will make this city affordable to live in.
Scott’s record gives me more confidence here. He authored the 2014 measure tying transportation funding to population growth and took it to the ballot over Mayor Ed Lee’s opposition; voters approved it. When a regional funding effort stalled in 2024, he returned with Jesse Arreguín and a revised bill that became law in 2025, enabling the RTM measure on the November 3 ballot. Connie supports RTM too, and voters will decide whether the systems receive the funding. I give Scott credit for helping get the authorizing legislation through even after the earlier effort failed. The second attempt matters to me because it shows a level of persistence I want to see from my representatives.
Throughout my campaign, constituents have also described how consistently Scott showed up as a District 8 supervisor, from neighborhood meetings to seemingly every block party. As a candidate whose platform is rooted in community engagement, I value that presence alongside his legislative work.
With Trump’s final two years ahead, I want a representative who is embedded in the community and prepared to defend public funding, investigate abuses, and keep pursuing difficult policies through loud opposition and repeated setbacks. I’m sure Connie would resist Trump; Scott’s record gives me greater confidence in what he will bring to that fight. Democracies are fragile, and I worry about what can happen while we reassure ourselves that our institutions will hold. I cannot know what the next two years will demand, or even what the next 24 hours will tell us, which is part of why that experience matters to me.
The money around Scott does complicate my support. I take pride in running a community-funded campaign, and I know how wealth can determine whose concerns receive a hearing. His disclosed tech-industry donors deserve scrutiny, as does the $3.5 million Public First Action gave to Abundant Future, an independent committee backing him. Anthropic has funded Public First Action but says its donations cannot be used for elections, and the group has not disclosed who funds its political spending. Voters should not have to solve a riddle to find out who is spending to elect their representative.
Despite the opacity around Anthropic, Scott’s AI record gives me something concrete to weigh alongside that concern. After Newsom vetoed SB 1047, Scott returned with SB 53, which is now law and requires safety disclosures, incident reporting, and whistleblower protections. The bill was narrowed during negotiations, given opposition by major business groups despite Anthropic’s support. Though I am still less certain of his independence than I would like, I do believe that industry support can coexist with real obligations on industry. My own experience with unsolicited support makes me distinguish outside spending from contributions a candidate chooses to accept, though both deserve scrutiny, and I find his legislative record strong enough to support him with those reservations. And candidly, having made this choice, I have more reason to watch his financial ties closely; how nice would it be for my judgement to be vindicated?
I still believe transparency is necessary if people are going to challenge me, tell me what I have missed, or influence my decisions, but I understand more clearly now that maybe not everything needs radical candor – at least not without owed conversation. The people who helped build this campaign invested in something they hoped we could create together. Now that I’ve shared why I’m supporting Scott, I know earning back trust will require me to keep listening regardless of what happens today.