311 closes 97.7% of cases, but 45% of those generate another complaint at the same location within thirty days. At Church and Duboce, the median gap between closure and a new report is three days. Residents should be able to report a problem once and see it fixed, with the work followed through across departments.

If 311 closes the case on Tuesday, the same complaint is back by Friday.

I'll push for 311 measures that track whether the problem comes back, publish the results by district, and make clear who owns the next step when a case changes departments. The case history should follow the handoff, with access protections for information that should not be broadly shared. My office will publish a quarterly scorecard of commitments, results, and corrections. For the 39% of District 8 seniors who live alone, a repaired sidewalk can make the difference between taking a daily walk and staying home.

The problems that take longest to fix in San Francisco sit between two departments. A permit stalls between Building Inspection and Public Works, and each office can honestly say it did its part. Treatment beds get promised and don't appear. Housing is the first bill, and once you have a home you still have to buy groceries, get across the city, and keep a job, and every one of those runs through departments that don't talk to each other. When a case changes hands, it belongs to no one.

Nobody at City Hall owns the handoff, so nobody fixes it.

From day one, one person on my staff will have a single job: the cases that die between departments. That staffer takes a stuck case to the person who can move it, writes down where the process broke, and brings the pattern back to me so the fix becomes a rule instead of a favor. When City Hall, with all its resources, can't finish what it starts, the question is which process failed, and someone has to be assigned to answer it. The quarterly scorecard my office publishes will show whether it's working.

There are only 71 licensed infant-care slots in all of District 8. The Castro and Noe Valley lost 205 center-based childcare spaces between 2016 and 2022, a roughly 35% decline. A generous subsidy cannot help a family find care if the right space does not exist.

There are only 71 licensed infant-care slots in all of District 8.

I'll require new residential and mixed-use developments above 50 units on transit corridors to include ground-floor space built to childcare licensing specifications: enough room, proper ventilation, sinks, outdoor access, and safe exits. A provider should be able to move in without six figures in construction work. I'll work to open suitable unused recreation-center rooms to licensed providers, after assessing the space and its existing uses, and support new providers with startup grants, licensing assistance, and ongoing business support.

Only about 500 of San Francisco's roughly 1,120 licensed providers participate in the Early Learning For All (ELFA) network. About 700 families are on waitlists while roughly 1,000 slots sit unfilled because age, schedule, location, or language does not match what families need. Expanding eligibility has to be matched by expanding usable care.

My target is to process complete provider applications to join ELFA within ninety days, so providers who want to accept the city's subsidy can get an answer and families have more places to use it. Housing near transit also helps teachers, aides, and childcare workers live closer to the neighborhoods they serve. Making room for families means making room for the people who care for them.

Muni needs more money and better accountability. A $307 million fiscal cliff threatens routes across the city, and ballot measures this November will determine whether service survives. I'll campaign for that funding, because losing service is not an option.

The system's train controls still boot from floppy disks every morning. Three of them, to be precise.

My long-term goal is five-minute Muni frequency and fast, reliable transit that is faster and cheaper than driving a car. Frequency is freedom: getting to work, picking up a child, or seeing a friend should not require planning your day around a long wait. I would work toward that goal route by route, with staffing, vehicles, street improvements, operating hours, and funding identified for each stage. Riders should be able to see what is funded and scheduled and what remains a goal.

The J-Church's most recent twelve-month on-time performance was 37.8%, against a city Charter standard of 85%. SFMTA stopped publishing route-level on-time data in December 2018. Systemwide, measuring the spacing between vehicles produces a figure around 90%; measuring whether they arrive on schedule produces roughly 57%. Riders deserve to see both measures and what each one means for their trip.

I'll press for accurate arrival predictions and monthly public reporting on actual waits, missed trips, and both measures of reliability. In District 8, that includes the J-Church, the Castro–Divisadero and 24th Street connections, and the hillside routes 35, 36, and 37, which carry roughly 2,300 riders a day. I'll require a District 8 impact analysis before votes on service cuts, including what they would mean for seniors and riders with disabilities.

SFMTA's projected $307 million structural deficit makes protecting transit funding essential. I'll campaign for the funding and use public performance reporting to show riders what it delivers. Stable funding and honest measurement are both necessary to make the five-minute goal achievable.

Two SFMTA Board positions expire fourteen months into the next supervisor's term. I'll use those confirmation hearings to push for specific commitments: D8 route performance published monthly, headway and schedule-based data reported together, and a timeline for the J Church corridor engineering study.

Fund the system. Demand the receipts.

I oppose renewing the city's $3.9 million Flock automated license-plate-reader contract when it expires in February 2027. My support for traffic-safety cameras and carefully regulated drone use is a separate judgment about what each tool does and the safeguards it needs.

A searchable record of where people drive can reveal visits to LGBTQ+ spaces, health clinics, places of worship, or immigrant-serving organizations. In six months, outside agencies ran more than 1.6 million searches of San Francisco's plate data, including 19 for ICE, and improper outside searches continued after SFPD cut off that access. The evidence hasn't shown that Flock reduces crime, either. A Los Angeles audit found plate-reader alerts that were stale or flagged cars that were never stolen. A system that offers neither security nor results isn't working for us.

Traffic-safety cameras: I support cameras to enforce speeding, red-light, and stop-sign rules where legally authorized. The purpose is to prevent dangerous driving and injuries, with results measured at the locations where cameras operate.

Drones: I support using drones to help locate suspects after a crime, with stronger guardrails. I support an independent annual bias audit of the drone program and a ban on federal data-sharing without a warrant and Board notification. I also want a published use policy, a firm limit on how long data can be kept, civilian oversight, and records of who accessed the data and why. Personal use by officers should be prohibited and enforceable through those records and independent review.

Automated license-plate readers: Outside agencies ran more than 1.6 million searches of San Francisco's plate data in six months, including 19 for ICE. Improper searches continued after the city tried to cut off access. That experience is central to my opposition to renewing the Flock contract: a safeguard has to work in practice, and the city must be able to control who uses residents' data.

Flock acquired Aerodome, the drone company, but the city's drone program and license-plate-reader program serve different purposes and operate under separate contracts. Each program needs its own scrutiny. My support for regulated drone use does not extend to renewing the license-plate-reader contract.

In this district, 48% of anti-LGBTQ+ violence survivors who interacted with police reported misconduct. Surveillance infrastructure without oversight doesn't just fail in the abstract. It fails specific people.

The safety I'd invest in instead is the kind people can feel: well-lit streets, open storefronts, after-dark programming, and street crisis response teams.

Eighteen California jurisdictions have opted into the Microenterprise Home Kitchen Operations law:

• Up to $100,000 in annual revenue per operator
• Zero cost to the city
• No proof of citizenship required
• Zero foodborne illness outbreaks to date

Eighteen jurisdictions have opted in. Zero foodborne illness outbreaks have been reported.

San Francisco, the food city, hasn't opted in. I spent years at DoorDash watching people build food businesses from nothing. The entrepreneurs are already here. They just need permission to operate.

A home kitchen can become a catering operation, then a pop-up at an activated storefront, then a permanent restaurant lease. I'll pair adoption with data protections so joining the permitted economy doesn't create an immigration enforcement risk.

This should be the easiest yes on the page.

I support the Family Zoning Plan and more homes of all types, including market-rate, affordable, and social housing. San Francisco needs to allow more housing and make it possible to finance, permit, and complete it. Families also need homes with enough room to stay, and tenants need protections when redevelopment affects the homes they already occupy.

San Francisco rezoned 60% of the city. The state says we must plan for 82,069 homes by 2031; the Family Zoning Plan creates theoretical capacity for 36,200. The city's chief economist estimates that 8,500–14,600 homes will actually be built over twenty years. Those are different measures over different periods, but together they show why changing the zoning cannot be the end of the work.

Only 1,453 homes were completed citywide in 2024. Fast-track permitting still takes 280 days, with 1,300 applications in the backlog, some dating to 2017. Market-rate construction costs run $425,000 or more per unit. Only about 4% of the city's 74,121-unit pipeline is under construction, while more than 20,000 approved units remain stalled. A home can be allowed on paper and still be out of reach for the family waiting for it.

We are in a housing crisis that reaches well into middle-income households and beyond. We should be willing to change rules that are not delivering the homes people need, assess what happens, and keep improving the approach. I would have voted for the July package that cut impact fees by two-thirds and lowered the on-site affordability requirement to 5%, paired with Prop C. The Controller found that not one project could carry the old requirement. An affordability requirement on a building that never gets built produces no affordable homes.

I support lower inclusionary requirements paired with public investment in affordable housing, including Prop C and Prop I. Prop I would direct roughly $120 million a year to the House SF Fund, with half the construction money reserved for social housing. Prop C would grow the Housing Trust Fund to $125 million a year and allow it to fund social housing and co-ops. Those are concrete ways to keep building homes for people the market has priced out.

I support streamlining approvals and exemptions from CEQA, discretionary review, and conditional-use requirements for shelters and affordable and market-rate housing. Where a project demolishes rent-controlled homes, tenant protections must remain. I would also require visitability features—zero-step entries, wider doorways, and an accessible bathroom—in new construction. They add $100–$600 per unit when a home is built; retrofitting later can cost $10,000 or more. Homes should work for people as their mobility changes.

I'll pursue enforceable permitting deadlines with automatic escalation when they are missed, a public pipeline tracker, and local financing that does not depend on Washington. I'll also begin the process of identifying a second affordable-housing site in District 8. The 187 homes planned at 1939 Market represent 74% of the district's dedicated affordable pipeline; one delay should not put nearly all of our affordable production on hold. I'll measure progress through completed homes, a greater share of family-sized homes, and affordable housing that people can actually move into.

Every affordable home San Francisco builds comes with a clock on it. The subsidy expires, the covenant runs out, or the building changes hands, and the home goes back to the market at whatever the market will bear. Social housing takes the clock off. The city, a community land trust, or the residents themselves own the building, rents are set to cover costs instead of to maximize them, and the home stays affordable to the next family and the one after that.

It's hard to define what "affordable" even means anymore. San Francisco's official median income is $113,450 for one person, and a first-year SFUSD teacher makes about $73,000. Meanwhile it takes about $152,000 a year to afford the average Castro apartment. The people the market has priced out now include most of the people who make the city run.

I believe in building. I also know that building enough to bring rents down will take too long. Let builders build, and take some land off the market for good, because the people already priced out can't wait a generation for supply to catch up.

Voters asked for this in 2020, authorizing 10,000 units of city-owned, mixed-income housing. Six years later, the city has delivered none. The closest thing we have is the Small Sites program, which buys buildings where tenants face eviction and keeps them permanently affordable, one building at a time.

District 8 has a faster source than new construction. Across the district, including Noe Valley, multi-unit buildings sit empty with a for-sale sign up for six months, a year, eighteen months. A building nobody will buy at the asking price is a building the city, a land trust, or a co-op can buy at a fair one and convert to homes priced at cost. It takes no demolition, no rezoning fight, and no decade of waiting.

I'll put District 8 land into that pipeline. The inventory of public and faith-owned parcels I'm proposing for a second affordable site is the same inventory for social housing, and I'll use the supervisor's land-use authority and budget vote to move D8 parcels into community land trusts, limited-equity co-ops, and city-owned buildings, and to expand Small Sites acquisitions in the district to the empty buildings that have sat unsold on the market.

The money is on this ballot. Yes on Prop I: it sends half the transfer tax on $10 million-plus sales, roughly $120 million a year, to a House SF Fund, with half the construction money reserved for social housing. I endorsed it in July, because when residents vote on where their money goes, it should go there. Yes on Prop C: it grows the Housing Trust Fund to $125 million a year and lets it pay for social housing and co-ops.

A subsidy has an expiration date. A land trust doesn't.

Every new home in D8 should work for someone who's 35 or 75. The math is simple:

• A visitability standard (zero-step entries, wider doorways, one accessible bathroom) adds $100–$600 per unit during construction
• Retrofitting later costs $10,000+
• That's a 20:1 cost penalty for doing it in the wrong order

30% of San Francisco residents will be over 60 or living with a disability by 2030. 77% of the city's housing stock was built before 1950: stairs, narrow doorways, no elevators. LGBTQ+ seniors face a sharper version: twice as likely to live alone, four times less likely to have adult children who can provide care.

We know what happens when you don't design for aging. We're watching it.

77% of the city's housing stock was built before 1950. We know what happens when you don't design for aging. We're watching it.

I'll push for a visitability standard in all new residential construction in D8. The cost of getting this right is measured in hundreds per unit. The cost of getting it wrong is measured in thousands, and we'll pay it for decades.

1939 Market Street matters enormously: 187 units of LGBTQ+ senior housing, expected to complete in 2029. It also represents 74% of D8's dedicated affordable pipeline. One delay, one funding gap, one federal cut could stall nearly all of D8's affordable production.

That's too much riding on one project.

I'll track 1939 Market quarterly because it matters too much to set and forget, and I'll push for a second affordable site by inventorying publicly and institutionally owned land in D8, starting with faith community parking lots and underused public parcels. A district that holds 10% of the population needs more than one project carrying its future.

I support fully staffing SFPD, but I don't believe overtime is the path to get there. I oppose relying on persistent overtime to cover ordinary staffing needs. It wears officers down and commits money we could use more effectively while leaving the underlying workforce problem unresolved. SFPD needs to organize its staffing and regular budget around the work it actually has to do.

In FY 2024–25, SFPD spent $97.7 million from the city's General Fund on overtime. In April 2026, the city moved another $34.4 million from other police pay accounts into overtime for FY 2025–26. Repeatedly approving more overtime money does not resolve the staffing problem. I want a public plan showing how deployment, recruitment, retention, and appropriate civilian staffing can reduce that reliance, with the costs and tradeoffs made explicit.

Recruitment will continue to prove challenging until officers can afford to build a life here. Housing, childcare, working conditions, and time spent commuting all also affect retention. The same housing policies that help teachers, nurses, and other workers live near their jobs belong in a sustainable police-staffing plan.

The December 2024 overtime audit made 30 recommendations and found that 13% of the overtime cards it reviewed lacked a supervisor's signature. I'll require a public update showing which recommendations have been implemented and what remains unfinished. My priorities include supervisor sign-off, limits on individual overtime, and quarterly public reporting. The purpose is to change the staffing model and how we spend the money. I will not cut critical health services, including HIV prevention, to fund police overtime.

San Francisco gets thousands of 911 calls a year that aren't crimes in progress, including behavioral health crises, wellness checks, welfare concerns, and non-injury incidents. The Street Crisis Response Team (SCRT) already exists and was designed for exactly this purpose. The team, which usually includes a clinician, paramedic, and peer counselor, is trained in effective and harmless de-escalation. Between 2022 and 2023, it handled over 12,000 calls, needed police backup in fewer than 2% of cases, and resolved more than 50% on scene without a transport to jail or an ER.

Before SCRT existed, SFPD was dispatched to roughly 14,000 of these calls each year. Every one SCRT takes now is a shift SFPD doesn't have to spend and a person far likelier to walk away connected to care.

I'll push to expand SCRT's hours and coverage, fund its connection-to-services follow-through, and keep building out the alternative-response roster: the Street Overdose Response Team (SORT) for overdoses, the Compassionate Alternative Response Team (CART) for wellness checks, and neighborhood ambassadors where a uniform isn't what's needed.

The safest blocks are not the most policed. They're the best cared for.

The safest blocks are not the most policed. They're the best cared for.

Streetlights reduce nighttime crime 36%. After-dark programming in Los Angeles parks cost $3.3 million and prevented an estimated $11.4 million in crime-related costs. A lit block with an active storefront and evening programming in the adjacent park is a fundamentally different environment than a dark block with a vacant storefront and an inaccessible park.

I'll push for coordinated block-level investment on D8's highest-need corridors that combines lighting, greening, and programming into a single initiative rather than running them through three separate departments that don't talk to each other. One intervention strategy, three budget justifications.

I support funding and siting additional psychiatric, stabilization, and recovery capacity, together with the staff and continuing care that make a placement useful. An outreach team needs somewhere appropriate to take a person who accepts help, and discharge must lead to continuing care.

The city added roughly 600 treatment-focused beds in a year, and 822 Geary connected a quarter of its admissions to residential treatment in its first five months. That is progress to build on. The next question is whether people can get appropriate care when they need it and remain connected after they leave.

I support CARE Court. I also support expanded conservatorship as a last resort when actual treatment capacity is available and with legal representation, judicial oversight, and regular reassessment; these are all conditions of my support. CARE Court and conservatorship are distinct processes, and neither replaces the need to fund care.

While I support sober housing as an additional choice for people who want an abstinence-based environment, I will fight to protect Housing First and permanent supportive housing without making access to that housing conditional on sobriety. Permanent housing retains more than 90% of clients at one year. Moving $63.2 million from permanent housing programs into interim shelter risks weakening the stability we are trying to create. We need more paths into care while protecting the housing that helps people stay housed.

The results I'll track are staffed capacity brought online, the wait from referral to appropriate treatment, continuity after discharge, and repeat crises and detentions. If people keep cycling through holds without becoming more stable, we need to identify where their care is breaking down.

Three people become newly homeless for every one person San Francisco moves off the street, driven primarily by rising rent burden.

Three people become newly homeless for every one person San Francisco moves off the street.

Two numbers make the case:

• $6,524: cost of a prevention program per case
• $46,081: cost of a shelter bed per year

The math points in one direction.

I've talked to D8 residents who were one rent increase away from losing their housing and couldn't point to accessible short-term assistance. The programs that keep people housed are cheap, effective, and drastically underfunded. I'll expand the city's problem-solving and rapid re-housing programs and fund targeted rental assistance for the 3,570 severely cost-burdened D8 households who are one emergency away from homelessness.

D8 has zero emergency shelter beds, and 85.5% of people experiencing homelessness in the district are unsheltered.

I won't name a site in a campaign mailer and call it leadership, but I will convene a community process within my first six months to identify a D8 shelter site and bring a recommendation to the Board.

Breaking the Cycle has delivered mixed results and is funded with $37.5 million in private philanthropy with no operational public funding, in a city facing an $800 million budget deficit. What happens when the donors move on?

Prop C generates $300 million a year through a dedicated tax and survived a change in administration. Private generosity is welcome, but it shouldn't be the load-bearing wall. I'll require a sustainability plan for every BtC facility, plus outcome tracking and a public funding transition plan.

Private generosity is welcome, but it shouldn't be the load-bearing wall.

When someone is cleared from a Tenderloin sidewalk without getting connected to shelter, housing, or treatment, they don't disappear. They walk to the Castro, to Church Street, to the corridors where D8 residents live and work.

Enforcement without available services doesn't reduce homelessness. It relocates it.

Enforcement without available services doesn't reduce homelessness. It relocates it.

RESET is a $14 million, 26-month pilot. I would pause it in its current form and move the care function to a clinician-led model under the Department of Public Health, with rights protections built in. While it operates, the city should publish quarterly results showing whether people enter care and remain connected to it.

There is evidence for investing in diversion: a Seattle evaluation found participants in LEAD-style diversion were 58% less likely to be arrested again. I support expanding diversion and treatment capacity here, measuring our own results, and restoring the trans-led employment and health programs that were cut.

Before an encampment clearance, outreach teams should offer real, available shelter or services. I would pair that protocol with dedicated outreach and coordinated case management so moving someone from one corridor does not become the city's entire response.

San Francisco repaves 100+ miles of streets every year. Right now, every mile goes back exactly as dangerous as it was before.

A Safety Trigger ordinance would change that. Any time we repave, replace a signal, or restore a utility cut on a high-injury street, the project would also include safety improvements before the street reopens: cleared sightlines at intersections, pedestrian head-start signals, curb extensions, and protected infrastructure.

Hoboken adopted this approach and hasn't had a pedestrian fatality since 2016.

This isn't a new capital project but a policy that turns routine maintenance into systematic safety improvement, 100 miles at a time.

Market Street receives 60% of District 8's traffic citations, while Guerrero receives almost none despite having the district's highest injury rate—a 65:1 citation gap. Over five years, 119 people were hit in District 8 crosswalks. I want enforcement and street design to follow the places where people are getting hurt.

Market Street receives 60% of District 8's traffic citations, while Guerrero receives almost none despite having the district's highest injury rate.

I support a citywide protected bike-lane network with barriers that can stop a car, including concrete protection where the injury data justifies it. Injury data should guide the sequence of work on Church, Guerrero, and the high-injury stretches of Market. I also support all-walk pedestrian phases at Church and Market, 16th and Market, and Noe and Market, alongside expanded speed and red-light enforcement where it improves safety. Speed cameras cut speeding 72%.

We also have affordable interventions we can deploy now. Pedestrian head-start signals cost $200–$1,200 per intersection and reduce crashes by 13%. I'll push to use them where the injury data shows the need and report whether the changes reduce harm.

On high-injury streets, repaving, signal replacement, and utility work should trigger safety improvements before the street reopens. I'll publish corridor-level results so residents can see whether the changes are reducing harm.

Over six years, 49 hate crimes were reported in the Castro. Every single one was classified with "Unknown" bias motivation. All 49. And that's only what was reported. Hate crimes are among the most underreported categories of crime.

49 hate crimes reported. Every single one classified 'Unknown.' All 49.

The data doesn't tell us whether these were anti-LGBTQ+ attacks, or something else, or a mix, because the system never bothered to find out.

California's anti-LGBTQ+ bias events rose 86% between 2022 and 2023, and another 14% in 2024. Without accurate classification, we can't target prevention, track trends, or show whether interventions work.

My first public safety hearing will ask one question: why can't the city tell us who is being targeted? I'll formally request SFPD present a corrective plan within 90 days. I'll fund dedicated hate crime investigation capacity and build community reporting tools that capture harassment and intimidation below the criminal threshold.

This community has done its own safety work for decades, and now our systems need to do theirs.

212 of D8's 441 commercial property owners have never filed their vacancy tax returns. Not late, never filed. No audits. No penalties. Apparently no consequences.

We don't need to raise the tax. We need to collect the one voters already approved.

I'll push the Treasurer's office to conduct compliance audits, assess penalties for non-filers, and publish enforcement data by district. For chronic vacancies, I support an escalating tax rate: a 50% increase at year three, doubling at year four and beyond.

An arts activation that lasts six months saves a landlord $6,250–$25,000 a year by qualifying as an "occupied" storefront under the vacancy tax. That's a built-in financial incentive, not a subsidy request.

The Vacant to Vibrant program has activated 21 storefronts citywide. Half converted to permanent businesses. That conversion rate makes this not just a band-aid but a pipeline from temporary activation to permanent tenancy.

I'll expand the program to D8 and pair it with the vacancy tax enforcement above. Empty storefronts are simultaneously a commercial problem, a cultural problem, and a safety problem. Filling them addresses all three.

When you rent an apartment, you can see every listing and what the going rate is. When you open a new storefront, you can't. There is no easy way for a small business owner to know what space is actually on the market or what a fair rent looks like, so viable spaces sit invisible and owners negotiate blind. The city counts 45 vacant storefronts in all of District 8. Castro Merchants count 68 in the Castro alone.

I'll fight for a public marketplace for every storefront available for lease: asking rent, lease terms, permitted uses, previous use, and major buildout requirements, in one place. Someone who wants to open a business should be able to compare the options and understand the costs before committing their savings. That transparency gives small businesses more negotiating power, and it gives City Hall a real count of commercial vacancies instead of two numbers that don't match.

Opening a storefront in San Francisco means learning the city's process from scratch, alone, while the rent clock runs. Nobody at City Hall owns your file from the day you sign a lease to the day you open.

I'll push for every new business to have a single point of contact at City Hall and a new-business kit: a clear checklist, community-sourced best practices, and predictable steps from lease signing to opening day. Fee relief, shared back-office support, and a corridor plan for each District 8 neighborhood belong alongside that work, so the Castro, 24th Street, Glen Park, and Church Street each get a strategy built for their own blocks.

Opening a restaurant in San Francisco shouldn't require a yearlong obstacle course. Here's what it looks like today:

• Six government agencies
• Up to 61 procedural steps
• $22,648 in fees
• 332-day average wait if conditional use is required

That's a filter, and it selects for restaurateurs with deep capital reserves and professional connections. It works against immigrants, first-time owners, and anyone without wealth to absorb months of rent on a space they can't use.

I'll convert our default posture from "no, unless" to "yes, if." Health and safety standards stay. The procedural obstacle course goes. I'll push for pre-cleared commercial kitchen permits that stay with the space. A restaurant replacing a restaurant in the same kitchen should not face the full permitting process again. Expand over-the-counter permits for low-risk business types. Set a 48-hour occupancy confirmation target for pre-cleared spaces.

I'll convert our default posture from "no, unless" to "yes, if."

Michigan runs a civic crowdfunding match program: residents raise half, the state matches the rest. The program has funded 421 projects with a 97% completion rate. Every $1 of public match generated $10.47 in combined project value. No California city has tried it.

I'd launch a D8 pilot offering up to $150,000 in city match funds for projects led by residents: murals, pop-ups, community gardens, a performance series that rotates through D8 neighborhoods. Projects are chosen by the people who live there, not by a grants panel downtown.

Equity provisions (lower thresholds, fee coverage, capacity-building support) ensure smaller groups aren't drowned out by those with bigger fundraising networks.

The Castro already has the investment. What it doesn't have is the coordination.

The Castro Theatre renovation and 2280 Market Street represent $52.6 million in combined cultural investment within blocks of each other. The foot traffic one generates could fill the other, and a shared programming calendar could make the Castro a destination seven nights a week. None of that is happening. No shared strategy, no joint impact analysis, no plan to connect two anchor investments on the same corridor.

A supervisor can convene, and I will. The money is committed. It's time to commit the coordination.

The money is committed. It's time to commit the coordination.

San Francisco requires private developers to spend 1% of construction costs on public art. Since 1985, the program has produced 53 works. Roughly one per year. The city's own auditors found the Planning Department had no database to track which projects were subject to the requirement. Across all project files since 2005, only one contained receipts documenting actual art expenditure.

Compare that to the public 2% for Art program: 506 works and $32.5 million since 2005. Same city, same concept, vastly different administration.

I'll introduce legislation to:

• Create a mandatory public registry with annual reporting
• Adopt a discount model that incentivizes pooled Trust Fund contributions over token on-site installations
• Direct Trust Fund spending to align with Cultural District priorities

The program exists. The money should exist. As far as anyone can tell, nobody's been keeping track.

Every D8 resident lives within a ten-minute walk of a park. That's a 100% access score and a genuine achievement.

The equity score, which measures whether those parks are well-maintained, well-programmed, and actually enjoyable to use, spans 33–63%.

I'll push for equity metrics that measure what residents actually experience: programming frequency, facility condition, amenity availability, maintenance response times. I'll push for dedicated D8 recreation programming using the same rec center rooms that host childcare during daytime hours, proving the shared-use model works across a full day.