In one of the most contested races in San Francisco this year, a District 3 supervisor candidate who had also filed to run for the Board of Education made her public debut at a debate last night.
“‘I have been a 15-year resident of the Lower Nob, aka Tenderloin, in District 3,” said Wendy Ha Chau in her opening statement. “I’m also an attorney that represents the people.”
Chau’s unexpected appearance in the race a week before the filing deadline stirred up an already tense election, with some people reckoning that she might divert votes from two of the three frontrunners: The other Asian candidate, Sharon Lai, and moderate-leaning Danny Sauter. The other frontrunner is Moe Jamil, a deputy city attorney.
Earlier, Chau also filed papers for the Board of Education but, after the forum, she made her intentions clear.
“I’m just gonna stick with District 3,” and will withdraw from the school board race, Chau said in an interview after last night’s debate, which was moderated by KQED reporter Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez and San Francisco Standard reporter Han Li. The forum was held in front of 200 people at Chinatown’s Victory Hall.
With Supervisor Aaron Peskin termed out and running for mayor, this is the first District 3 race without an elected incumbent in 16 years.
As the six candidates attempted to distinguish themselves, they offered a few noteworthy moments Tuesday night concerning police policies and housing.
While all candidates are pro-police — the theme running through every candidate race — Jamil went a step further and underscored what could be seen as a more conservative take on policing. “We need to put people on the police commission that are going to support the police department and cut out the ideological-based solutions for public safety,” he said.
Earlier this month, reappointed police commissioner Debra Walker faced pushback because of doubts regarding her commitment to the commission’s oversight mandate.
Then Jamil again pointed to Sauter’s statement during the height of the Black Lives Matter movement in 2020, in which Sauter said he would not support more police. Sauter swung back.
“Things were very different in 2020. In 2020, we did not have a police-staffing crisis. We did not have a public-safety crisis,” said Sauter, an executive director of Neighborhood Centers Together. “You deserve a supervisor who is not fixed in ideology, but who is responsive to the moment.”
Candidate Matthew Susk, a long-time small business owner, jumped into the fray. “Ideology in 2020 created the mess we have right now,” Susk said.
“What’s the number-one reason why people fail out of the police academy? You guys are all going to laugh. Just wait. They failed the driving test,” he said. The audience burst into laughter.
The remedy? Free driving classes, he said. While it might only affect two or three people, he acknowledged. “That’s a few more, that’s vital.”
Chau, the newest candidate, went after Lai’s brief residency of 13 months in District 3. She moved into District 3 after 10 months at Harvard University and years of living in District 8, which runs up the middle of the city. She adeptly turned the attack into an opportunity to underscore her background. District 3, she said, “is the place where I have deep roots. I have served and been coming to Chinatown for over a decade.”
The loudest applause of the night came when Sauter and Jamil attacked their respective backers’ stances on housing. Every District 3 candidate — save Chau, who has not yet stated her stance — has been cautious on new housing in a district uninclined to support it. Jamil and Lai each said during a May 8 debate that the 82,000-unit goal required by the state “was set up to fail,” or “should be pushed back on.”
Sauter asked Jamil who, along with Lai, has been endorsed by Peskin, “if you might be able to share a little bit about where your housing policy is the same as Supervisor Peskin, and where it differs?”
Sauter added: “Of course, it’s given that Supervisor Peskin has become notorious for blocking housing in our city and in our district.”
“I believe in working with the community to get housing built. That is sensible,” Jamil said.
Then Jamil turned the tables on Sauter, saying that his chief backer, Scott Wiener, “passed the very laws that allow these 25-story waterfront towers.”
And, Jamil added, no one has heard Sauter tell Wiener that he’s lost his “freaking mind because you’re taking away local control and it’s an assault on democracy.’”
The entire room, filled with supporters of all six candidates, erupted in applause.
The debate was co-hosted by the San Francisco Eastern Neighborhoods Democratic Club, the Chinese American Democratic Club, the Fisherman’s Wharf Merchant Association, and the Barbary Coast Neighborhood Association. A large group of monolingual Chinese speakers also showed up for the night, enjoying the skirmishes through simultaneous interpretation.
Wendy Chau is the most qualified candidate as a civil rights lawyer and mom. She is a professional advocate who will safeguard her constituents’ confidences while zealously and tirelessly fighting for them within the bounds of the law to secure the best results for the community.
Wendy Chau is the most qualified candidate as a civil rights lawyer and mom. She is a professional advocate who will safeguard her constituents’ confidences while zealously and tirelessly fighting for them within the bounds of the law to secure the best results for the community.
During a recent public forum, Sharon Lai’s response to a straightforward question revealed significant doubts about her authenticity and commitment to District 3. When asked by Wendy Ha Chau about the duration of her residence in District 3, Lai’s inability to provide a clear answer was striking. Instead of offering a direct response, she veered off-topic, discussing her college transfer and other unrelated details.
This evasion raised serious concerns among the attendees. It became evident that Lai was caught off guard and unprepared for a basic question about her ties to the district she aims to represent. This incident suggests a lack of genuine connection and understanding of the community she claims to advocate for.
Sharon Lai’s struggle to address a fundamental aspect of her candidacy—her residency—exposed her as an opportunist rather than a dedicated community leader. Her attempt to deflect and distract from the question only underscored her superficial engagement with the district’s issues.
For voters in District 3, this moment served as a critical revelation. It highlighted the importance of scrutinizing candidates’ backgrounds and ensuring that those running for office have a deep, authentic commitment to the communities they seek to serve. Sharon Lai’s performance suggests that her motivations may be more about political ambition than genuine public service.
In contrast, candidates like Wendy Ha Chau, who have long-standing ties and a clear, unwavering commitment to the district, offer a starkly different and much-needed dedication to true community representation.
I have been a District 3 resident for 17 years, a resident of San Francisco’s many districts for another 11 years, and was born in San Francisco. I just donated to Sauter specifically because he is committed to building more housing. And because Scott Wiener endorsed Sauter. Folks, I don’t want to lose my view more than anyone else, but I also have a young child who will not be able to live long term in San Francisco as an adult unless we build the state-mandated housing that our city and our state has long needed. We are dealing with 50 years of restricted housing development, and the results on working class and middle class people, particularly the young, is disastrous. We will not get that housing done by following local control and bowing to neighbors’ perceived self interests, things we have done the past fifty years. Time to change is now. Vote for Sauter, please.
Sauter seems fine with having “outsiders” dictate district policies. I’ve heard he is on community boards where that is the case. The other frontrunners believe in local control.
Danny Sauter, Moe Jamil, and Sharon Lai seemed the most competent of the six. Jamil actually got a strong response from the crowd over and over.
Wendy Ha Chau seems like a nice person, but she came across as totally out of her depth. She seemed to barely understand the issues and had a hard time articulating her points.