Part 1 of a two-part series
Mayor London Breed appointed Stephen Sherrill as District 2 Supervisor on Dec. 18. He replaces Catherine Stefani, elected to the state assembly last November. Sherrill most recently served as the director of the Mayor’s Office of Innovation, which integrates new technologies and human-centered design into city programs. That office has recently been working on improving San Francisco’s response to homelessness and small business services.
We caught up with Sherrill in his new digs on the second floor of City Hall, across from the rotunda. There, we talked about his new job, working with a new mayor and a new board, and the city’s road to recovery.
Sherrill will likely stand for election in his own right in June 2026.
So, how does it feel to be a legislator rather than working for the mayor?
The most exciting part is having far more direct conversations with residents.
In my recent position in the Mayor’s Office of Innovation, a core part of our work was working with stakeholders, including residents and individuals living on the streets. This included many city employees, and all levels of stakeholders are significant.
But what’s really cool now is to be in the neighborhoods and walk into a coffee shop. People are always talking about something, and when I sit down, all of a sudden, they want to chat. That’s the most significant difference and the most fun part. Many people in District 2 have been very involved for a long time, and those who’ve only been involved in the last five or so years on a more active basis. People are excited to talk about the city; I think it’s because they love it and see the opportunity ahead of us.
On Tuesday, I saw that you’re one of four cosponsors of Mayor Lurie’s new legislation targeting fentanyl use. This legislation will fast-track contracts and fundraising. Some people are already criticizing it for taking power away from the board. So why are you supporting it? Do you think it will pass the board unscathed?
The first thing is that nothing will pass through the board without deep scrutiny. Working with my colleagues, we’ll use what we have to determine the best solution.
At the same time, this addresses what San Franciscans have been demanding — action to attack this fentanyl crisis. Whether we’re looking at open-air drug use, open-air drug dealing, it’s about getting people on the path to recovery. This city needs to celebrate recovery. That part is the most essential part to me. I don’t want it to get lost in any of the rhetoric.
‘Whether we’re looking at open-air drug use, open-air drug dealing, it’s about getting people on the path to recovery. This city needs to celebrate recovery. That part is the most essential part to me.’
This legislation will expand the city’s solutions and options for addressing the crisis. Making DMACC [the Drug Market Agency Coordination Center] permanent, this interagency local-state federal coordination, is a great move. Leveraging private money — I mean, I think we all know we’re in a budget crisis; that doesn’t mean the fentanyl crisis is going away, so making it a little bit easier for private philanthropy to help is really, really important. We also need to give departments the flexibility to attack the crisis in real-time, especially in hiring.
But, going back to your first point, this will not pass without ongoing scrutiny and responsible oversight; I think all 10 of my colleagues would emphasize that as well.
Earlier today, the board’s Government Audit and Oversight Committee, of which you’re a member, voted to forward to the board for approval a $49 million settlement in a dispute with Stripe over the city’s business taxes. It’s the latest in a series of fights with companies over issues with our business tax structure that contributed to the city’s deficit and inspired a ballot measure to reform business taxes that passed in November. Is that enough, or do you think more needs to be done to fix business taxes?
If a $49 million settlement isn’t a sign that things are too complicated, then I don’t know what is. I think we all wish Stripe were still a San Francisco company. It’s not necessarily this tax or that tax that is overcomplicated, but the structure as a whole, which is overburdening companies.
I’m optimistic about Prop. M making it easier for businesses, but at the same time, it is clear that the damage has been done. We desperately need to keep the Walgreens and the Safeways here in San Francisco. If you look at the Safeway in the Fillmore, that is a desperately needed community resource.
It’s unrealistic to think we can force companies to operate at a loss. We must not only try to push Safeway to come to the table but also examine everything else and ask, “How do we avoid this situation in the future? “How do we ensure that it doesn’t happen again? “
Let’s talk about Walgreens, for instance. We spoke with them on the phone, and they were very forthright. They said there’s nothing to do; this decision has been made, and these stores are set for closing. And I asked them directly where retail theft comes into this. And they said, no, like, it’s down the list. They said that the number one issue is competition from e-commerce, which I think we all understand. And then near the top of the list, they said it was the city’s gross receipts tax … when people are clearly saying these are problems, we need to look at it as a whole and say, how do we keep people here, how do we avoid this situation in the future?
This brings us to the hearing you’ve called for on First Year Free, the current tax, and fee breaks for new small businesses. Do we need more incentive programs, or do you want to develop the ones that we have?
If we have something that’s working, we should do what we can to keep it. First Year Free is not funded beyond July 1. It’s incumbent on us as a city to highlight and celebrate the successes that have happened and figure out how to keep those going.
First Year Free is a starting point for me. It’s crucial to highlight what has been successful because there are many things we’ve been doing that may not have been so successful. Figuring that out in this tough budget cycle is essential.
Business vacancies along commercial corridors detract from vibrancy and activity; they create a sense of loss. And to me, having these vibrant corridors is incredibly important. Still, going back to what we just talked about, the next step is not only about filling vacancies — It’s also about supporting existing businesses. Things as simple as signage or reducing fees for additional cash registers and looking at the city’s technological systems, so the Office of Small Business and the Planning Department have to coordinate on things like First Year Free. Looking at those and working with the merchants themselves is incredibly important. So I’m really excited for the hearing.
Read Part 2 of The Voice’s interview with Supervisor Sherrill on Thursday, Jan. 23 at thevoicesf.org.