Six of seven candidates running to represent San Francisco’s supervisorial District 9 came together Tuesday at a forum hosted by an Internet service provider to discuss tech industry issues and what they saw as implications for constituents. The candidates tackled subjects ranging from artificial intelligence and robotaxis to consumer choice in service providers and wiring standards for apartment buildings, often couched in broader economic issues facing residents.
It’s the week before Labor Day, and after the Democratic National Convention, so one might assume that San Francisco’s political community would take the opportunity to break from this year’s relentless schedule before diving into the last nine weeks of tireless campaigning. But there’s no rest for the wicked or ambitious this year; instead of jaunting off to Tahoe for the early snow or trekking to Burning Man, it’s time for another supervisorial campaign event, this time in District 9, which after 2022’s redistricting includes the Mission, Portola, and Bernal Heights.
Fielder Absent
Monkeybrains, an ISP based in the Mission, hosted the forum at its Treat Avenue headquarters on Aug. 27. Candidates who attended included Trevor Chandler, a public school teacher and local Democratic Party official who is also a former tech executive and leads in fundraising; Roberto Hernandez, CEO of Cultura y Arte Nativa de las Americas (CANA) and longtime organizer of Carnaval; Stephen Torres, a former Entertainment Commissioner and LGBTQ community activist; Jaime Gutierrez, a Muni transit supervisor, former teacher and Army veteran; Harold Brown, a retired special education teacher and progressive political blogger; and Julian Bermudez, manager of local family-owned business Rancho Grande Appliances and Army veteran. Monkeybrains partners Alex Menendez and Rudy Rucker served as moderator and timekeeper, respectively.
Progressive standard bearer and presumed frontrunner Jackie Fielder was absent from the proceedings. During the forum, fellow progressive Brown repeatedly took potshots at Fielder, alleging she didn’t bother attending the event because she felt the race was already “in the bag” for her.
“I’m so bummed I couldn’t make it; I could only make one of three dates they offered,” Fielder told The Voice when reached Wednesday morning, but added that she was looking forward “to talking more with D9 residents at the next five debates that are on the calendar.”
The number of already planned debates Fielder alluded to indicates how intensively “wired” the district is, at least politically. While it could’ve been considered a niche event, the Monkeybrains forum attracted a full house of around 75 attendees, including several current and former commissioners and other activists, ranging from Josh Arce, a former head of the Mayor’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development, to Kevin Ortiz, a former development manager at the Instituto Familiar de la Raza and former copresident of the Latino Democratic Club.
Meanwhile, Monkeybrains has also become a player citywide and in the district. The firm is a leader in installing wireless connectivity infrastructure at affordable housing sites to provide free internet service. They’ve also come under fire over their role in trying to settle ownership and use of Parcel 36, a disused plot of land near their headquarters. Towards the end of Tuesday’s event, Menendez, asked about progress on the latter, which had pitted the provider against greenspace advocates, told the audience that they were working with San Francisco Recreation and Parks and the San Francisco Parks Alliance to get a permit for reopening the site.
A.I. ‘has to have guardrails’
Candidates were asked two questions about San Francisco’s growing A.I. development industry.
First, what was their take on SB 1047, the new A.I. regulation bill authored by state Senator. Scott Wiener? The bill, which requires documented safety testing for artificial intelligence models, is opposed by Mayor London Breed, Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, and most industry representatives but is perhaps surprisingly supported by tech mogul Elon Musk.
“It is never a good idea to let an industry regulate itself. We’ve seen it with the social media companies,” Chandler told attendees. “I’m a fan of technology, and I think A.I. has the potential to bring every part of San Francisco, without leaving people behind, into an incredible future, but it has to have guardrails. We already have PTSD, especially in the Mission, from the gentrification that came with tech; we have to learn from that […] even with all the issues that San Francisco has, we have people moving here because this is the place to be, this is the place to be in A.I., but we need to balance.”
“We’re trying to develop an industry that will hopefully create jobs and bring back the city, so we can’t do it fast, and we can’t, we can’t just let industry self-regulate,” Gutierrez said. ‘Let’s wrap our brain around it, and let’s get to it slowly like the turtle, not the hare.”
There’s no rest for the wicked or ambitious this year; instead of jaunting off to Tahoe or trekking to Burning Man, it’s time for another supervisorial campaign event, this time in District 9.
Candidates also answered a second question involving dealing with the A.I. industry and local impacts, such as higher commercial property rents and gentrification.
“They like to make it so complicated, but it’s just gentrification,” Bermudez told the audience. “Why do they want this side of the city and not the other side of the city? Because they have more money, more time, and more lawyers to put up a fight on this side of the city […], that’s why we have high rises here. That’s why we have all the affordable housing here.
“I’ve lived here now for 25 years; I’ve seen several cycles of one extractive industry after another coming in and out,” Stephen Torres answered. “In good conscience, I could not possibly incentivize or make things easier for any industry that overrode the community’s best interests. I’m not against innovation or any industry developing here. As I said, this has been a center of innovation for decades, but it should come with a price as we pay so much to live in the city we love; they too should pay into this city and support it.”
‘We need to bridge that digital divide’
Candidates also answered questions about expanding connectivity, such as mandating more choice in providers and infrastructure and possible ways to subsidize affordable internet access. One question specifically suggested a local replacement for the Affordable Connectivity Program, an expired federal program that provided subsidies for internet service to qualifying families.
Roberto Hernandez mentions relief efforts taken during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic as a demonstration that broader subsidy efforts were possible.
“Earlier, I talked about the mission food hub, where we fed 9000 families,” he told the audience.
“We started a rental assistance program. We provided computers, provided internet; we provided clothing. I mean, what did we not provide during the pandemic? When people come together, we can do anything […] we need to bridge that digital divide.”
Chandler told attendees that he was “definitely interested” in getting San Francisco to lead on restoring the subsidy.
“I fully support treating internet access as a public utility. It is just as essential nowadays as water, electric, gas, everything else and it should be treated as such with a public option, so we do not have a monopoly,” he said.
“Studies have continually shown that you can estimate where a person will be economically based on their based on their zip code. And we’re seeing that especially in these brownout areas where the internet is not accessible. So, I would support figuring out how we can do a local version and how we can work with state partners to actually get state money,” he added.
