November 2015 City & County of San Francisco Election

It's time to think about the electoral and ballot propositions that will be voted on this coming Tuesday, November 3, 2015.  As usual, San Francisco does not disappoint in terms of rich political entertainment and social tinkering in the guise of good government.  In this blog post, I try to make sense of what I tend to view as the Kabuki style posing that often obscures what is really going on in an effort to help my "public" figure out, typically at the last minute, what they might think about before casting their relatively informed vote one way or the other.

But let's get real here, friends.  You're reading this, at least in part, because you figured that I actually did the hard work here so that you don't have to.  True enough.  But remember my biases.  I'm politically left of center but not classifiable as either a "Progressive" or a "Moderate," which are weird labels in San Francisco anyway.  I fear the "intolerance of the left" but also worry about bond issues as a form of irresponsible credit-card type debt.  I've lived here long enough to be one of the "haves."  But this electoral cycle, more than previously, I am also concerned about the direction of the City (yes, outside readers, there really is no other to true San Franciscans).  So I have subordinated other concerns to sending a message to our City's leaders, and particularly the Mayor, that he simply has to be more visibly and actively supportive in keeping this city from becoming hopelessly skewed by the flood of tech money that is changing virtually the entire economic and social landscape of San Francisco.  So with that brief introduction, here goes.

NOTE:  You can drop off an absentee ballot at any polling station (not just your own) on Election Day.  You can also drop it off at City Hall (Polk Street and Grove entrances) on Monday from 8-5 and on Election Day from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.  Or you can just show up at your polling place and vote.

Citywide Office Recommendations:

Mayor.  Abstain (don't vote for Mayor).  Mayor Lee is going to win and the various gadflies who are running against him don't have a snowball's chance in hell.  But I would like to see the Mayor's margin down so that he gets the message I've written about above.  I think he's a decent guy and what mayor would not be thrilled to bits about having the tax base swell like San Francisco's.  Plus he made the right call on the "Twitter tax break" -- the mid Market development that resulted could not have happened otherwise.  Unfortunately, I do not have the sense that the Mayor is really paying attention to the damage that is being caused to less wealthy residents of the City and he is just not visible enough if he is.  There is much more to say on this subject, but for another time (if I ever really reboot the blog)

Sheriff.  Vicky Hennessey.  The incumbent Sheriff, Ross Mirkirimi, has been an unmitigated disaster.  I wrote about him long ago, after he pled guilty to misdemeanor false imprisonment of his wife.  (See What To Do About Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, 3/25/2012).  Since then, he narrowly escaped removal from office by one vote, and the incompetence has piled on, ranging from a dead patient in a stairwell at San Francisco General Hospital (policed by the Sheriff's Department) to deputies accused of abusing inmates like these were the last days of the Roman Empire.  Google his name and it's all there (and more than just this brief summary).  In comparison, Vicki Hennessey served quite competently as interim Sheriff while Mirkirimi was suspended from office, is a career employee of the Sheriff's Department and enjoys the support of the deputies.  This is a no-brainer.  Since this is a ranked-choice ballot, I suggest listing Vicki Hennessey first, John Robinson second and no preference for third choice.  Robinson is a better choice than Mirkirimi but lacks the experience and support Hennessey has.  It is a shame Mirkirimi was not kicked out long ago and the only real support he has is from "Progressive" San Francisco politicians who put ideology over everything else, even common decency.  (My prior blog piece discusses "Progressive" politics in San Francisco if you want some context here.)

City Attorney, District Attorney and Treasurer.

It's fascinating that the incumbents for all three of these offices are running unopposed.  It likely reflects their careful cultivation of politically attractive positions, good public relations work, and the cost of running for citywide political office.  It also reflects the reward a politician reaps by being "Progressive"-enough to keep left-leaning opponents out of the fight while not offending big money interests who might otherwise bankroll a "moderate" opponent.  In the case of the Treasurer it may even reflect that the office really does not need an elected official -- the job borders on the mechanical.

Anyway, here are the incumbents -- all have done a decent job and deserve retention:

Dennis Herrera -- City Attorney
George Gascon -- District Attorney
José Cisneros -- Treasurer

Now for the really fun stuff, by which I refer to the ballot propositions.

Proposition "A" would authorize a bond issue of $310 million to finance affordable housing.  I recommend that you vote YES.  There is a possibility that the bonds would be financed from additional property taxes but that seems unlikely -- more likely the bonded indebtedness will be incurred as prior bonds are retired.  Under Prop 13 this proposition takes a 2/3+ vote to pass.  The official opposition is written by ex Republican County Committee Chairman Terence Faulkner, a perennial political gadfly, who, in my view, cannot be taken seriously.  That retired Superior Court Judge (former State Senator and former San Francisco Supervisor) Quentin Kopp opposes it is significant.  His point is that this money is a relative drop in the bucket and is not going to change anything.  I suspect he is right.  But I also think that a message has to be sent here (which is a recurring theme of this blog post).  Something has to be done to balance the crazy skewing of housing prices and anything that might help in that regard has to be considered.

Proposition "B" would enable couples who are both City employees to max out their parental leave benefits and to do so without first using up their sick leave.  I recommend that you vote NO.  The change, if enacted, would add something between $570,000 and $1.1 million to the City budget, which, frankly, is a drop in the bucket.  The justification for the proposition is that San Francisco was way out in front in granting parental leave benefits and that this is the next step.  The argument against is that City employees are rather well paid already and the rest of us schnooks don't get such a sweet deal.  The line up is predictable.  The local Democratic party and womens' groups are in favor; the local Libertarians (and Faulkner, of course) are opposed.  I can go either way on this proposition but the cheapskate taxpayer in me dominates.  Hence my vote NO recommendation.

Proposition "C" requires so-called "expenditure lobbyists" to register with the Ethics Commission.  I recommend a "YES" vote.  A better way to describe this class of people might be as "indirect lobbyists."  They don't actually do the lobbying; they furnish the money that enables others to do so.  There is a floor of $2,500 before the regulation would kick in but to make a long story short, both Judge Kopp and his ideological opponents are endorsing this measure.  'nuff said.

Proposition "D" would increase height limits as part of an ambitious development plan sponsored by the San Francisco Giants to develop a currently underutilized part of the waterfront in the Mission Bay area of San Francisco.  The City throws in the land; the Giants and their development partners build the project.  I recommend a "YES" vote.  As a result of a compromise, the Giants are agreeing that 40% of the residential units will be affordable housing and the project will create a new, attractive, and I think, necessary urban center for that part of town.  Not so highlighted is that a "YES" vote will likely enable the Warriors to build their proposed arena in that part of town as well, which seems agreeable to most people I know.  The opposition is shadowy -- no one will actually expose their name in opposition.  Even opponents of prior high rise projects like ex Mayor Art Agnos are in favor. 

Proposition "E" would require the City to broadcast all city meetings on the Internet and make provision for offline comment and testimony that would have to be included as part of the meeting.  I recommend a "YES" vote.  Right now meetings of this type are dominated by interest groups that can get people physically into the meeting room.   I've often wanted to participate in meetings of this type but have been deterred by their occurring during working hours or because I just did not want to sit around and then get my three minutes at the microphone.  I believe that this proposal will help dilute the ability of interest groups to create a false appearance of public support or disapproval.  I recognize that Judge Kopp is opposed and that matters to me.  But I just disagree with him on this one.

Proposition "F."  This is the ballot measure that would roll back, in part, recent legislation that enables people to rent out their properties on AirBNB and the like.  For example, it would reduce the number of days that a unit could be rented out by someone not actually in occupancy to 75 days (down from 100), imposes greater reporting obligations and gives regulation of such rentals more teeth than is currently the case.  I recommend a "YES" vote.  I can actually see legitimate arguments on both sides here.  In favor is that any landlords (or tenants) who are making a business out of renting their properties this way may be keeping rental property out of available housing stock and are, in a way, evading rent control.  In opposition is that some people need to make this kind of extra money to afford to live in San Francisco.  I recommend a YES vote consistent with my "sending a message" theme.  There is more to say but this post is already pretty long.

Propositions "G" and "H."  This is a pretty arcane issue involving how green energy is marketed in San Francisco.  Proposition "G's" supporters have withdrawn their support because a compromise has been reached that is Proposition "H."  So vote for Proposition "H" and do not worry about this one too much.

Proposition "I."  This is the other big ballot proposition.  It would impose a temporary moratorium on new market rate housing in the Mission.  I recommend a "YES" vote.  Again, there are arguments on both sides.  Proponents argue that the Mission is changing, radically, from a diverse, affordable part of San Francisco, into a gentrified playground for Millennials.  Opponents argue that this is a stupid way to regulate housing and that affordable housing that is often a component of any new market rate housing will also not be built, making the solution worse than the problem.  Again, from my standpoint, the issue is sending the message to Mayor Lee and the City's establishment at large that individual needs are just not being met.  It's all well and good to plan affordable housing but that is going to take time.  What can be done to protect low income residents in the Mission right now?  The answer, unfortunately, seems to be "not much."  So while Prop "I" is definitely in the shotgun/blunderbuss category of crude social engineering, it both sends an appropriate message of urgency and offers some hope of immediate relief for the low income and extremely vulnerable residents of the Mission.

Proposition "J" would create a fund to subsidize what are described as "legacy businesses" to help keep them operating.  I recommend a "YES" vote even though I again find myself in opposition to Judge Kopp, who quite rightly suggests that this is something of a political boondoggle and that businesses that are viable should not need this kind of subsidy.  But I think he misses the effect that radically rising rents have here and, again, I want to send a particular message about this, consistent with what I have written above.

For the same reason, I recommend a "YES" vote on Proposition "K," which would use surplus City property for affordable housing.

And now, for your cheat sheet, if you can't keep the above in your head.

Mayor -- No vote (abstain).  Send a message.
Sheriff -- Hennessey first, then Robinson.  No third ranking.  Throw the bum out.
City Attorney, District Attorney and Treasurer.  Herrera, Gascon and Cisneros.
Prop A -- YES
Prop B -- NO
Prop C -- YES
Prop D -- YES
Prop E -- YES
Prop F -- YES
Prop G -- No or ignore.
Prop H -- YES
Prop I -- YES
Prop J -- YES
Prop K -- YES

I know I've ignored the Community College Board election and the contested elections for Board of Supervisors (my district is not among them).  But time is short.  I'll try to deal with them later, time permitting.

VOTE EARLY (BUT NOT OFTEN)

Regards.

Bob White