SV@Home Action Fund Candidate Questionnaires, June 7, 2022 Primary
About Our Questionnaires
Housing is a top priority for voters. That’s why, in advance of the June 7, 2022 Primary Election, the SV@Home Action Fund circulated questionnaires to every candidate in several local races, and also hosted a series of candidate forums. Our aim is to educate voters about where candidates stand on housing issues. We appreciate each candidate who returned a questionnaire, participated in a forum, or both.
Each questionnaire began with a series of yes/no questions. We have arranged responses to these in tables to help you compare candidates from each race side by side. Following the yes/no questions, each questionnaire had a series of in-depth questions. Click on a question to read how candidates responded.
We hope you find this information helpful as a voter and member of the community.
Click on the links below to jump directly to a section or race
SV@Home Action Fund’s Housing Positions
- The SV@Home Action Fund believes a variety of policy tools are necessary to respond to the complexity and severity of the housing crisis. We start with “The 3-Ps”:
- Production of abundant housing at a range of income levels from permanent supportive housing to market rate apartments and duplexes
- Preservation of existing affordable and rent-controlled homes
- Protection of renters from displacement or exploitation
- We believe cities have a critical role to play in identifying available land and resources for affordable housing development, including raising funds through commercial linkage fees, housing impact fees, and inclusionary housing requirements.
- The state also has an important role to play in identifying and funding additional affordable housing resources.
- We support housing opportunities, at all income levels, distributed throughout each city.
- We support integrating affordable homes into mixed-use growth areas like Specific Area Plans and Urban Villages.
- We support policies and programs to preserve existing affordable housing and protect vulnerable residents from displacement, such as Community Opportunity to Purchase Act (COPA) ordinances.
- Decades of inadequate development of housing has driven up costs; exacerbated rent-burden, displacement, and homelessness; and contributed to urban sprawl.
- Housing policy has been rooted in systemic racism at every level of government. We expect our leaders to commit to dismantling exclusionary zoning and equitably investing in our communities.
- Local control created our housing crisis by allowing cities to delay, downsize, discourage and deny new homes. We support legislation holding cities to a higher standard.
- We appreciate local elected officials who work within the framework of state standards, rather than try to overturn those regulations or misrepresent them as “one size fits all.”
- We think duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes are great. Examples can be found here.
- We reject the myth that homelesness is primarily caused by mental illness or addiction.
- The solution to homelessness is permanent housing.
- Interim shelter is a valuable pathway to permanent housing for those experiencing homelessness, but not an alternative to permanent homes.
- The SV@Home Action Fund is a strong supporter of the Community Plan to End Homelessness, which lays out a comprehensive approach to helping our unhoused neighbors find permanent housing solutions.
CA Senate District 10
CA Senate District 10 Short Answer Questions
Click each question below to see candidates’ responses.
California Assembly District 24
*Kansen Chu: I realize that loosing up the zoning policies is necessary in many cities. The State should provide more incentives to reward cities that allow more affordable housing to be built and tax breaks to loosening up lending policies. However, I don’t believe a one size fit all approach.
Assembly District 24 Short Answer Questions
Click each question below to see candidates’ responses.
California Assembly District 28
Assembly District 28 Short Answer Questions
Click each question below to see candidates’ responses.
Santa Clara County Supervisorial District 1
*Denelle Fedor: #1: I will not commit to supporting higher taxes via a Bond at this time. #2: I support Measure A – will need to eval if it should be extended. #3: Q is presumptuous. #5: Mental Health is the main contributor of homelessness. I support Gov. Newsom CARE Court to help chronic mentally ill homeless receive the mental health care they deserve. Permanent housing is important and should be built.
**Johnny Khamis explicitly refused to complete the questionnaire. Though he had committed to participating in our forum over a month earlier, Khamis withdrew from the forum the day before the event.
Supervisorial District 1 Short Answer Questions
Click each question below to see candidates’ responses.
San José Mayor
*Cindy Chavez: #4: While I am not opposed to an increase in the City’s current Commercial Linkage Fee and supported the adoption of one of the highest such fees in Santa Clara County, much more study and analysis would be needed before considering an increase to this very new assessment in San Jose. #5: I did not support SB 9, the state-mandated density increase for single family neighborhoods, and will advocate for legislation to modify it. However, I support adoption of local rules that prioritize feasibility, accessibility and affordability in implementing this legislation.
**Matt Mahan: #3: Unsure about the specific policies applicable here. I support building out our urban villages but I don’t believe in one-size-fits-all, state-mandated up-zoning for a city like San Jose. #4: It would have to be based on a study that the market can bear it. We have not seen evidence for this in San Jose yet and we face a significant jobs deficit which impairs our ability to deliver basic services our residents expect and deserve. #5: Would like to learn more about the specific policies being proposed here and consider the Tradeoffs. #6: It’s not sufficient on its own, though. At a cost of $850,000/door and 5 years to build, it’s not scalable nor timely enough. We’ll also need to be investing in many other solutions like quick-build apartments, in-patient facilities for addiction and mental illness, job training, family reunification, etc. #7: Likely yes, but it would depend on the details and the level of public support. Regional and statewide mechanisms for funding affordable housing are critical, of course. It’s best when we have comprehensive strategies as a state and pool our resources, fully including wealthier communities in the solutions we need.
***Jim Spence: I don’t believe in agreeing to blanket statements with regard to social issues which need plenty of study. Many of your statements are good ideas and are challenges for the future.
San José Mayor Short Answer Questions
Click each question below to see candidates’ responses.
San José City Council District 1
* Rosemary Kamei: #4: Commercial Linkage Fee was just adopted in the fall of 2020 and time is needed to assess its effects first. #5: Local control can best determine what is needed through the general plan. #7: I would be supportive of a bond measure if it was targeted for affordable housing.
City Council District 1 Short Answer Questions
Click each question below to see candidates’ responses.
San José City Council District 3
*Joanna Rauh: #4: Measure E is more impactful than commercial linkage fees. #5 & #7: I would need to know the details regarding the referenced laws and bond measures
City Council District 3 Short Answer Questions
Click each question below to see candidates’ responses.
San José City Council District 5
*Rolando Bonilla did not complete the questionnaire. Though he had committed to participating in our forum over a month earlier, Rolando Bonilla withdrew from the forum the day before the event. The evening of the event, he posted a video to Twitter mocking his fellow candidates for participating in the forum.
City Council District 5 Short Answer Questions
Click each question below to see candidates’ responses.
At SV@Home Action Fund, we believe that civic engagement is vital to a healthy democracy! We work to help register everyone eligible to vote, and host events and education to help voters understand some of the most critical issues in the South Bay. This includes candidate forums, where we help you learn which candidates value safe, stable, affordable homes for everyone in Santa Clara County. We also lead and support important ballot measure campaigns, such as Measure A (2016) and Measure E (2020), which provide vital funding for affordable housing.
