Ballot Recommendations, California, San Francisco and Regional Ballot Propositions, Selected Races For Public Office -- Election Date: Tuesday, November 8, 2016

[For additional background regarding these posts, see Notes to Readers]

Dear Friends:

Rather to my surprise, I’m being asked for my recommendations for the Fall 2016 California and San Francisco Ballot Propositions somewhat earlier than usual.  I suspect the reason is the sheer mass of data that needs to be analyzed in order to make an intelligent decision as to what to vote for and what to vote against.  So here goes.  As usual, a quick heads up as to my potential biases and approach:

1.  I am somewhere on the Liberal to Progressive spectrum of the weirdly left-leaning political structure of San Francisco.  I don’t quite understand what “Progressive” politicians actually stand for beyond being upset about development (not to mention the Mayor) as no one has ever articulated a “Progressive” political agenda.  But I’m not clear what “Moderates” really are looking for either beyond not being “Progressives” -- and the “Moderates” are even less articulate in terms of any ideology or agenda. 

2.  I’m not a renter and I’m definitely not a Millennial – so I’m not living in fear of a Ellis Act eviction or some other end around rent control.  So I may be less sensitive to issues that might affect someone living from paycheck to paycheck in the Mission, for example.

3.  I am very suspicious of bond issues – this kind of borrowing reminds me too much of credit card debt.  It’s easy, seductive, and kicks the can down the road.  My younger readers, in particular, should be very, very wary of bond issues.  The interest payments go out of the General Fund, meaning there is less available to handle other state and local needs.  On top of that, you’re the ones who will be saddled with this debt, often for decades.

4.  I look for who benefits from any particular enactment (there is a fancy Latin term for this, “cui bono”) – since ballot propositions can be put on the ballot by special interests, this can sometimes tell me whether or not a particular proposition is desirable.

5.  Endorsers for and against a ballot proposition can also be a “tell.”  I’ve called this the “H.L. Richardson Rule,” named after a politically conservative Southern California state senator.  If Senator Richardson was against something, I pretty much knew I had to be for it.  There is a local version of Senator Richardson in prolific Dr. Terrance Faulkner, a perennial Republican gadfly who often writes ballot arguments.  In comparison, if retired Judge Quentin Kopp weighs in on a matter, and in particular if it’s an issue involving good government, I take his views pretty seriously, at least most of the time.

So there you have it, my perception of my biases, my predispositions and my methodology.  With that introduction, let’s get down to business. 

STATE BALLOT PROPOSITIONS

Proposition 51 – School Bonds.  $9 billion bond issue to construct new schools, modernize existing properties (including charter schools and vocational education facilities) and California Community Colleges.  Despite my hesitations about bonded indebtedness, I recommend a YES vote.  California has not raised money for this kind of support for schools since 2006 and existing funding has about dried out.  So while this is a *lot* of money, it does appear to be needed.  The opposition comes from something called the “California Taxpayers Action Network” – organizations with this type of name are usually thinly disguised conservative front groups that don’t like any taxation at all.  The opposition argument is the usual scaremongering that the funds will be abused.  I wasn’t impressed.  In comparison, if you go to yeson51.com/endorsements/, the list of supporters is pretty impressive, including both the state Democratic and Republican parties.

Proposition 52 – Continue Med-Cal Hospital Fees.  I recommend a YES vote.  This is a fee imposed on private hospitals that accept Medi-Cal patients.  The money is used to fund the state’s share of Medi-Cal and to generate money that goes into the General Fund.  The hospitals who pay the fee actually come out ahead as the Medi-Cal grants they get greatly exceed what they pay in fees.  The Legislature has extended this fee in the past; this amendment would make the extension permanent, subject to federal approval and reserving the right of the Legislature to terminate the fee, but only by a two thirds vote.  It also excludes the fee from being counted as part of the funding calculation for funding for schools.  The official ballot argument against Prop 52 is unimpressive – similar to the one opposing Prop 51.  There appears to be no organized opposition.  In comparison, the endorsements found on www.yesprop52.org are very impressive. 

Proposition 53 – Requires Voter Approval For Revenue Bond Measures Involving More Than $2 Billion.  I recommend a NO vote.  “Revenue bonds” are bonds where repayment is contemplated through fees or other charges associated with the project that is being financed.  The measure is retroactive and that is the “tell” here.  Essentially this is an attack on the California High-Speed Rail Project and the California “WaterFix” project (would move water through the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta).  These are the only two revenue bond projects that currently exceed the $2 billion cap.  I happen to believe, passionately, in the California High-Speed Rail Project and I don’t care for the sneaky way this measure is being employed to try to derail (if you will) projects that have already been approved by the voters and/or the Legislature.  The opposition suggests that wealthy Stockton area farmer Dean Cortopassi is behind this legislation, putting up all the $4 million to get it on the ballot to torpedo the water project.  The opposition is broad-based and makes the further point that this legislation could cause local measures to require statewide approval if they were above the $2 billion cap.

Proposition 54 – Advance Publication of Proposed Legislation Before Being Voted On and Memorializing Proceedings.  This legislation would require that proposed legislation be in print and published on the Internet for 72 hours before it can be enacted and also provides for recordation and publication (including the Internet) of all proceedings other than closed sessions.  It’s hard to see why this is a bad idea even if it is sponsored by conservative billionaire Charles Munger.  The opposition suggests that the 72-hour waiting period is to give lobbyists a chance to kill measures after they pass one house of the Legislature.  Maybe so, but rushing legislation through to avoid lobbyists also means that others don’t get to react either.  So I don’t find that particular argument persuasive.  What I do find persuasive is that the League of Women Voters and Common Cause support it, as that suggests that this really is clean government legislation.  So while I don’t entirely like the company I’m keeping here, I recommend a YES vote. 

Proposition 55 – Tax Extension To Fund Education & Healthcare.  This proposition would extend the “temporary” income tax increase on earnings over $250,000 ($500,000 for joint filers) approved by the voters in 2012 to support higher education and healthcare.  I recommend a YES vote, aided by the fact that it is opposed by conservative groups like the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (remember the “H.L. Richardson Rule”).  But I do note that Judge Kopp also opposed it – sadly I part company with him on this one – I don’t see a promise broken as the opposition argument says – it’s up to the voters whether or not to keep this increase in effect.  California has seriously short changed its schools for years – making that up should be a priority.

Proposition 56 – Cigarette Tax.  This proposition would increase the tax on cigarettes (and e-cigarettes) by $2 a pack and treat the latter as tobacco products.  I recommend a YES vote.  As I discuss below regarding the San Francisco ballot propositions (referring to the so-called “sugar tax” (Proposition V)), I don’t really care where the money goes here, which is the focus of the opposition (which has been widely condemned as deceitful).  To me the issue is social policy – do we as voters want to use the tax laws to impact conduct that has long-term consequences to all of us in terms of health and long-term medical care.  In this case I do.

Proposition 57 – Permit Parole Upon Completion Of Term For Primary (Non Violent) Felonies & Other Tweaks To The Criminal Justice System.  This proposition would also permit the Department of Corrections to award sentence credits for rehabilitation, good behavior or educational achievements so long as public safety was not impacted.  It would also require juvenile court approval before juveniles could be charged as adults and have their cases transferred to adult court.  I recommend a YES vote.  This is basically a cost benefit decision.  Prison is horribly expensive and not particularly productive in terms of changing or improving conduct.  So incarceration has to be used sparingly.  The measure doesn’t automatically parole anyone; it just makes the exercise of discretion in that regard happen at an earlier stage.  I’m satisfied that violent criminals are not covered by the proposal and that the argument to the contrary is a scare tactic.  I also like the idea of having a court pass on a decision whether or not to try a juvenile as an adult.  However, my recommendation is not made without doubt.  While the Governor supports this proposition I see that significant police and prosecutorial groups oppose it.  But on balance I think this makes sense.

Proposition 58 --  Brings Back Bilingual Education But Acknowledging The Primacy of English.  This proposition would right a wrong that California voters previously bought into by restricting the ability of school districts to use bilingual education programming where doing so is appropriate.  The Legislative Analyst states that “[m]ore than 80 percent of English learners in California are native Spanish speakers.”  Wow.  There are plenty of protections built in to protect the interest of families that want English-only or intensive English instruction.  I therefore recommend a YES vote. 

Proposition 59 -- Silly Proposal To Have California Whine About the Citizens United Case.  Not surprisingly, I recommend a NO vote.  What a waste of time, ink and electrons.  This proposition wants California’s elected officials to do what they can to go forward with a constitutional amendment overturning the Supreme Court’s now notorious decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.  Ain’t gonna happen.  Readers who actually are interested in the underpinnings of Citizens United are cordially invited to consult my blog posts on the subject: Understanding Citizens United and A Little Bit More About Citizens United.  They are among the most read pieces I’ve ever published.  If you care about Citizens United, you should join me in Nevada next week when I’m doing “Voter Protection” (poll watching).  If there is relief to be had here, it will be from the Supreme Court and you know who confirms Supreme Court justices (not to mention who nominates them).

Proposition 60 – Condoms In Adult Film Production.  It’s a little weird even to be typing these words but that’s what Prop 60 is all about.  It seems a good idea but is the porn film industry simply going to relocate to make this all irrelevant?  I also find it very interesting that State Senator Mark Leno, who I respect, is among the opponents of Prop 60.  The opposition characterizes the legislation as a license to steal by so-called “trial lawyers” by creating new “private attorney general” litigation opportunities and notes that the porn industry workers themselves are opposed.  Civil liberties groups and the California Democratic and Republican Parties are opposed, too.  So, despite its superficial appeal, I recommend a NO vote.

Proposition 61 – State Prescription Drug Purchases.  Sets a cap on the price of drugs purchased by state agencies so that the price is no higher than the lowest price paid by the U.S. Veterans Administration with certain exceptions (including the managed care side of Medi-Cal, which, presumably, has its own rules).  According to the New York Times, the pharmaceutical industry has contributed $109 million to defeat Prop 61.  That pretty much tells me what I need to know.  I recommend a YES vote.  It’s not entirely clear whether Prop 61 will work because we’re on uncharted ground here in terms of how the market will respond.  But it seems to me that almost anything is worth a try to bring down unreasonably high drug prices.

Proposition 62 – Abolition of the Death Penalty.  Has the time come?  Maybe.  I don’t think any of my readers really needs me to opine here – you know your own minds and hearts.  But, as for me, I’ll be voting YES.  (But if you really want to know why I came to this conclusion, you can look at my analysis of Proposition 34 in my 2012 General Election Ballot Recommendations).

Proposition 63 – Restrict Sales of Ammunition & Other Restrictions On Firearms.  Here, too, the divisions in the electorate are basically philosophical, not practical.  I’ll be voting YES.  But, again, if you want some of my thinking on the subject, take a look at my blog post entitled Gun Control, The Second Amendment & Some Ideas.

Proposition 64 – Marijuana Legalization.  I recommend a YES vote.  Prohibition-type legislation has generally been ineffective, fostered disrespect for the law and provided opportunities for criminal enterprises to flourish.  May as well get real here.  Not to mention taxing the living daylights out of it.

Proposition 65 – Redirects Carryout Bag Revenue Away From Stores.  This is a play by the plastic bag industry to hobble state and local measures that prohibit use of plastic carryout bags and permit stores to charge 10 cents per paper bag.  I recommend a NO vote.  This is deceptive in the extreme and benefits only the plastic bag industry.   While I was less than thrilled when San Francisco’s prohibition on plastic carryout bags went into effect, I have to say that my own behavior was impacted and to the good.  It actually made me think about when I needed a bag and how I could avoid buying one. 

Proposition 66 – Expedites Death Penalty Cases.  If California voters don’t vote to abolish the death penalty (see Proposition 62, above), this proposition tries to trim down the time within which death penalty cases are decided and to streamline the process.  The provisions are pretty technical but the net result will likely be to do a worse job handling these cases than under the current system and enhance the chance that an innocent person will be executed.  I therefore recommend a NO vote.  If anything, Prop 66 makes the case for abolishing the death penalty by showing how necessarily cumbersome such a process has to be.  I’m not alone in taking this position – to my surprise, even a conservative newspaper like the Orange County Register has come out against Prop 66.

Proposition 67 – Referendum On Statewide Ban On Single-Use Plastic Bags.  I recommend a YES vote.  Essentially this measure, challenged by the plastic bag industry, would extend the San Francisco-type ban on the use of single-use plastic bags statewide, including the 10 cent per bag charge.  The industry had enough votes (and money) to force the issue to a referendum, suspending the effectiveness of the legislation until it could be approved or rejected by the voters.  As I discuss in connection with Prop 65, the San Francisco experiment worked.  The opposition arguments are bogus in the extreme.

Obviously there is more I can do here but you haven’t even gotten to the San Francisco propositions yet.  So get yourself some coffee or tea (or other stimulant) and read on.

SAN FRANCISCO BALLOT PROPOSITIONS

Proposition “A” – Approximately $750 million bond issue to rehabilitate and refurbish the San Francisco public schools.  I recommend a YES vote.  I’m not thrilled but the schools likely need this money and state law provides for an independent citizens’ oversight committee and annual audits.  The money can’t (at least on paper) be diverted to salaries.  The $5 million allocated for below market construction of homes for teachers is a gimmick – it’s a drop in the bucket but the main purpose of the bond issue strikes me as appropriate.  Note also that the only opposition is from the San Francisco Libertarian Party – no one cared to put any money into any paid opposition and that, too, is a “tell.”

Proposition “B” – Increase and Extend The Parcel Tax To Help City College.  I recommend a NO vote.  First, I have no confidence in City College’s ability to govern itself.  I don’t believe that sufficient lessons were learned from the recent period of state trusteeship and there is just something highly dysfunctional in the way City College is run.  Second, I don’t see why property owners are singled out to support City College.  In candor, this proposition will likely win.  But whether it can exceed the 66 2/3% threshold required for a property tax may make this a little interesting.

Proposition “C” – Repurpose some $261 million in bonded indebtedness capacity and expand the use of the money to include loans to acquire and improve dilapidated multi-unit housing, rehabilitate such properties and turn them into permanent affordable housing.  I recommend a YES vote.  I am indebted to a colleague for pointing out that it’s strange that this $261 million has been sitting out there since 1992 and not used for the purpose the voters authorized – to pay for seismic upgrades for unreinforced brick masonry buildings.  But in light of the current housing crisis in the City, this is as good as use for the money as the original purpose.  It’s also interesting that there is no opposing ballot argument, official or paid.

Proposition “D” – Change The Way Vacancies In Local Elective Office Are Filled.  I recommend a NO vote.  Here we go again, referring to the sniping between the “Progressives” and the Mayor.  Right now the Mayor fills vacancies of this type, including those on the Board of Supervisors, until the next general election.  This legislation would permit the Mayor to fill vacancies only temporarily, prohibit the appointee from running for the position during the term that was being filled, and provide for an accelerated vote to fill the vacancy unless there was an impending general election within 180 days or the Board of Supervisors agreed to any postponement.  There are some echoes of revenge here as the Mayor, you may recall, famously reneged on his pledge not to run after he was appointed Mayor by the Board.  But the real issue here is that the City Charter provides what is commonly known as a “strong Mayor” form of local government.  If the Supervisors want to change that, they should be clear about their intentions and put those intentions before the voters.  But if they did, I think I would still be reluctant to trade the judgment of the Mayor for that of the Board on this issue.  I also don’t care for the prospect of spending money on more special elections.

Proposition “E” – Transfer Tree Maintenance And Related Sidewalk Maintenance (and responsibility for the same) To The City.  I recommend a YES vote.  Sidewalks and trees benefit all of us so it has struck me as unfair that this responsibility was shoved onto homeowners and fixing problems piecemeal also struck me as inefficient (and unduly expensive).  For years the City shouldered this responsibility, at least as to trees.  This proposition was put onto the ballot by unanimous vote of the Board of Supervisors.  There is no paid or official opposition to it. 

Proposition “F” – Lower the Voting Age to 16 Years for Local Elections.  I recommend a NO vote.  It’s bad enough for legal adults to wade their way through this year’s ballot arguments – I can’t see most 16 year-olds coming close to understanding these issues and they have less of an immediate stake in the outcomes, certainly with respect to bonded indebtedness.  This may also be the case for many 18 year-olds but at least we’re being consistent – 18 is the legal age for adulthood in California.  So I may be bucking the trend here (and finding myself, most unusually, in the company of Dr. Faulkner), but I just don’t see the point.

Proposition “G” – Police Oversight.  This proposition would create an Office of  Police Accountability out of the current Office of Citizen Complaints.  It greatly expands its role in reviewing and formulating use-of-force policies by the police, creates other broad rights of audit, including access to records, dilutes the Mayor’s power to appoint the Director, and separates its budget from the SFPD budget that is subject to the Police Commission (appointed by the Mayor).  Basically this body will be turned into a kind of general police review board.  The proposition was put on the ballot by unanimous vote of the Board of Supervisors.  There is no opposition, paid or official.  So it doesn’t really matter what I think – this is going to pass so you may as well vote YES.

Proposition “H” – Create a “Public Advocate.”  I recommend a NO vote.  Here we go yet again.  The “Progressives” on the Board of Supervisors are again sticking it to the Mayor, this time by creating a new citywide public official with the ability to take positions without being responsible for them.  In concept the idea seems interesting – have an independent public official, something like an ombudsperson, who can investigate problems with the city bureaucracy, investigate complaints, review and recommend improvements.  The proposed Office of the Public Advocate would also get a staff of 25 people to assist in carrying out the duties of the position.  I am very suspicious that this job is being created to permit soon-to-be-termed-out Supervisor David Campos to have a platform from which to run for Mayor (a la New York Mayor Bill deBlasio, a former Public Advocate).  I’m not convinced that this position is all that useful and I really don’t care for the political undertones.

Proposition “I” – Create A Special “Dignity Fund” To Pay For Programs & Services To Assist Seniors & Adults With Disabilities.  If passed by the voters, this proposition would create a mandatory set aside to fund such programs, starting at $38 million annually and then going up pursuant to a formula.  Despite my own parochial interests, I recommend a NO vote.  I don’t like set asides – they tie the hands of elected City officials in making budget determinations.  Every dollar that is protected by a set aside is money not available for other priorities.  If the problem is with our elected officials’ priorities, maybe we need to replace them.  But the proliferation of set asides (this is far from the first) is disturbing.  But I’m almost certainly spitting in the wind here.  This is going to pass and as set asides go, I’ve seen worse.

Proposition “J”  Create Set Asides For Funding Programs Relating To Homelessness & Transportation.  This time the Board of Supervisors are proposing a fixed $50 million fund (for 24 years) to prevent homelessness and assistance in transitioning out of homelessness; in addition, a $101.6 million fund (for 24 years) would be created to improve the City’s transportation network.  Weirdly, according to the official Digest of the measure, “[u]ntil January 1, 2017, the Mayor would have the authority to terminate one or both funds, based on his review of the City’s financial condition.”  The measure also permits funding of the transportation network side of the proposition through bonds and “lease financing arrangements.”  I recommend a NO vote.  This is set aside legislation with a vengeance.  I’m also concerned with the high degree of specificity in the proposed set asides – this is really going to the outer limits of taking control away from the people we elect to make these decisions.  Again, I suspect some Supervisor vs. Mayor sniping here, but on an issue where it would be politically hazardous for the Mayor to take a contrary position.  Happily, I am not so constrained.  The goals are laudable, but this is not good government.

Proposition “K” – Increase The Sales Tax By 0.75%.  The current sales tax in San Francisco is 8.75%, some 1.25% of which goes to the City’s General Fund.  The tax rate is going to go down to 8.5% at the end of this year.  This increase of 0.75%, bringing the total sales tax up to 9.25% would also go to the General Fund.  Annualized, the City Controller estimates this could bring in upwards of approximately $150 million into the City’s General Fund.  I recommend a NO vote.  I’m just not all that confident in our local government making good use of the money.  On top of that, Supervisor Peskin (an opponent) is right -- a sales tax is regressive – it disproportionately affects people with lower incomes.

Proposition “L” – Give The Supervisors More Power Over The MTA & Its Budget.  The MTA is the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, ruler of the MUNI and with wide general authority over the City’s transportation system, including parking garages in addition to streets and sidewalks.  This proposition would give the Supervisors power to nominate three of the seven MTA directors with authority to confirm (or reject) the Mayor’s (four) appointees.  It would reduce the number of votes required to reject a proposed MTA budget from seven to six and would scrap the take-it-or-leave-it aspect of such budget proposals and require the MTA to respond to any findings by the Board regarding the proposed budget.  I recommend a NO vote.  This is, again, a power play seeking to reduce the power of the Mayor without actually rewriting the City Charter to scrap the “strong Mayor” form of city government.  If we are to be governed by the Board of Supervisors, let them say so and make their case to the voters.

Proposition “M” --  Create A Housing & Development Commission & Scrap The Mayor’s Office of Housing & Community Development.  I recommend a NO vote.  There’s a bit more to this legislation but it’s another Board of Supervisors power grab at the expense of the Mayor’s authority.  ‘nuff said.

Proposition “N” – Permit Non-Citizens To Vote In School Board Elections.  I guess I’m a bit of a fuddyduddy on this issue but I’m just not comfortable with the idea.  I therefore recommend a NO vote.  The real problem here is that our country has not addressed the issue of its 12 million residents who are not legal immigrants.  This is a Band Aid on a much larger problem and that problem has to be solved.  We need a path to citizenship for these residents of our country and we need it now.  Keep that in mind in case you’re considering not voting for national offices.

Proposition “O” – Exempt Proposed Candlestick Point & Hunters Point Office Space Development From Current City Space Caps.  Back in 1986 the voters enacted a cap of 950,000 square feet on new office space construction in San Francisco.  This proposition would exempt some proposed office space developments in Candlestick Point & Hunters Point from that limitation.  I’m not entirely comfortable with my conclusion but on balance I recommend a YES vote.  Interestingly, both Mayor Lee and Supervisors Peskin, Kim, and Wiener are among the supporters.  Supervisor Avalos and the San Francisco Tenants Union are among the opponents.  There are pros and cons here.  The pro is that this could create a lot of job opportunities that might be particularly helpful for people living in Hunters Point.  The con is that mainly office space is being built and very little housing and much of that housing is market rate housing.  On balance I think that the additional development is warranted and the fact that it isn’t making the existing business districts more congested appeals to me.  (I also have a selfish interest here – I rent commercial office space for my law practice in the Financial District.)

Proposition “P” --  Create A Competitive Bidding Process Requiring At Least Three Competitive Bids For Housing Projects On City-Owned Property.   I recommend a NO vote.  My initial reaction here was favorable – what can be wrong with mandating competitive bidding and defined procedures?  But the measure appears to prevent a project from going forward unless there are three bids and I can easily envision situations where that might not be the case – affordable housing isn’t typically where the big money is to be found in real estate development.  I’m also bothered that virtually all the paid arguments in favor of Proposition “P” are underwritten by realtor organizations and the opposition seems to be broad-based and includes affordable housing advocates and the local Democratic Party.

Proposition “Q” – Prohibits Tents On Public Sidewalks.  This proposition makes explicit what I think existing law already provides for – you can’t obstruct the sidewalks.  But what it also does is provide some procedures for securing the removal of tent encampments, including notice, an opportunity to go into some kind of shelter, transportation underwriting back home and what to do with removed personal property.  I therefore recommend a YES vote.  What I’m focusing on is that at least this proposal provides something more than existing law in terms of a commitment to try to do what can be done for people who are living on the sidewalk while also acknowledging that tent encampments are not acceptable.  Not ideal legislation but not a problem that either side of the debate has seemed able to address effectively.  (And I have to wonder how the opponents would feel if a tent encampment sprung up next door to one of their homes or places of business.)

Proposition “R” – Establish An SFPD Neighborhood Crime Unit.  This proposition would require the SFPD to allocate 3% of its full-strength complement of officers to addressing neighborhood crime problems so long as the force is at full strength (1971 officers).  I recommend a YES vote.  Frankly, I think I’m swayed by my own interests and observations as to how low level crime has proliferated on my block and on my neighborhood (Richmond District).  Ordinarily I would be very reluctant to reduce the discretion of the SFPD as to how to deploy resources but there is a very serious problem here and this may be the exceptional situation meriting this kind of intervention by the voters.  It’s notable that the ballot arguments seem to follow the usual “Progressive”/”Moderate” split, including the lineup of supervisors in favor and against the measure.  Curiously, there is only one paid ballot argument (by the SF Chamber of Commerce – you can guess what side they’re on). 

Proposition “S” – Mandate Allocation Of Hotel Tax Funds.  I recommend a NO vote. The hotel tax generates a hefty $380 million annually to the City.  While it had been my impression that hotel tax revenues were earmarked for support of the arts, in fact that is not the case.  Instead, the money goes to the General Fund (i.e. the central kitty into which all tax revenue ordinarily goes for distribution as part of the budgetary process).  This measure would mandate that hotel tax money go to two different types of functions (a) the arts; and (b) family homeless services which are currently funded out of the General Fund.  The City Controller’s Statement notes that if this proposition is implemented “[b]udget allocations for public transit, youth services, libraries, and schools that have been previously adopted by the voters would be reduced . . . [specifying amounts].”  So this is another set aside.  That’s sufficient reason for me to vote no, however laudable the purposes of the set aside are (and notwithstanding my admiration for a brilliant political deal cut between High Society patrons of the arts and homeless advocates).  If you lack faith in City government to do the right thing, maybe you need to do something about City government.  But not this way.  (Readers should be aware that there is no opposition argument, paid or official, to Proposition “S.”  So it’s almost certainly going to pass no matter what I suggest.) 

Proposition “T” – Restricting Gift & Campaign Contributions From Lobbyists.  Hard to see anything wrong with this and I don’t.  I recommend a YES vote.

Proposition “U” – Increase Income Eligibility Limits For Affordable Housing.  I recommend a NO vote.  This proposition would increase the eligibility limit to 110% of area median income for the purpose of being eligible for affordable income housing.  It would abolish a distinction between “low income households” for which eligibility is capped at 55% of area median income and “middle-income households” for which eligibility is capped at 100%.  It also caps the rent of such housing at 30% of the household’s gross income.  Effectively this creates a larger pool of available housing for people who earn more than 55% of area median income and increases rental income proportionally.  On the pro side, it should help keep middle class (or lower middle class) San Franciscans in the City by broadening the pool of housing available to them.  On the opposition side, it makes it attractive for landlords not to rent to the working poor and to try to push such people out of existing affordable housing.  It also appears to roll back years of existing City housing policy.  I also a bit disturbed to see how many of the paid “Yes” ballot arguments were underwritten by real estate interests. 

Proposition “V” – The Sugar Tax.  This measure would impose a one cent per ounce sales tax on sugared beverages.  I recommend a YES vote.  I wouldn’t bother, if I were you, taking the anti Prop V arguments seriously.  The issue here isn’t whether grocers will spread the tax around instead of adding to the price of sugared beverages.  The issue is social policy, pure in simple.  The issue for voters is whether the tax laws should be employed to discourage conduct that is thought to be socially undesirable and which potentially imposes costs on society as a whole by through unhealthy consumption habits.  Think about tobacco taxes and liquor taxes, both of which serve this purpose whether or not that was the original intent of taxing such products.  As a parent, I thought that too much sugared soda was dreadful and I tried, not altogether successfully, to limit my kids’ access to it.  So I’ve showed my hand – I don’t think that the unfettered consumption of sugared beverages is a good idea.  And, personally, I don’t have a problem having government put its thumb on the scale in the interest of social policies of this type.  A limited government conservative would disagree.  I respect that.  But that’s not who is writing this blog post (or, in all likelihood, reading it).

Proposition “W” – Increases The Transfer Tax On Real Estate Sales Of $5 Million Or More.  The City imposes a transfer tax when real estate is sold.  The tax on sales between $5 million and under $10 million would go up from 2% to 2.25%; the tax on sales between $10 million and $25 million would go up from 2.5% to 2.75%; sales above $25 million would be taxed at 3%.  I recommend a YES vote.  I do so even though I think the proponents are being disingenuous when they emphasize that the money is needed to help fund free tuition for students at City College – the money is going to the General Fund and there are plenty of competing claims on such money.  But the opposition is also disingenuous, arguing that the tax will some treat people living in large multi-unit apartment buildings unfairly by taxing their landlords’ presumably self-interested sale of such properties.  That doesn’t follow logically either.  But as a matter of public policy, real estate values are increasing in San Francisco way out of proportion to the rest of the country and I cannot see why that windfall cannot be shared with city government.  Now we have to see what city government will actually do with the money (somewhere in the neighborhood of $45 million annually under current average projections).  If it is used to fund free tuition for City College, I can only hope that some fiscal responsibility will finally be imposed on that dysfunctional institution.

Proposition “X” – Neighborhood Preservation In the Mission and South of Market.  I think I’m going to vote YES.  This proposition would require developers to preserve certain kind of existing uses of property in the Mission and South of Market neighborhoods by building replacement space if certain kinds of protected uses are removed.  The protected spaces are those currently used for “production, distribution and repair” (“PDR”) of 5,000 square feet or more and “Institutional Community” (“IC”) space of 2,500 square feet or more, in addition to arts activities uses of any kind.  IC space is defined as child care and community facilities, job training, religious institutions and social services.  So instead of rent control, one could call this “use control.”  Certain kinds of uses that are considered particularly worthy and of use to the community could not be changed through development without creating their equivalent.  In favor of this proposition is its obviously laudable purpose of trying to preserve the character of existing neighborhoods.  But the opposition has a point regarding the ripple effect that such legislation will have on other property and uses in the City, quite possibly increasing real estate costs in other neighborhoods.  I’m also a little troubled by the vague inclusion of “arts activities.”  I can see a fair bit of courtroom brawling there and I foresee a ton of bureaucratic and implementation issues.  But on the whole I’m persuaded to vote yes because my own time in the Mission (fairly extensive these days) suggests to me that the existing neighborhoods are crumbling in the face of pretty relentless upscaling and gentrification.  So, for now, anything that will slow that process down is, on the whole, more desirable than not.  But a comprehensive housing and development policy would be even better (good luck to that).

Regional Measures

Proposition – “RR” --  This is a bond measure seeking authority for BART to issue $3.5 billion in revenue bonds to improve and rehabilitate/refurbish existing BART infrastructure.  I recommend a YES vote.  Basically, the money is needed.  The system is old and badly needs updating and refurbishing.  The opposition focuses on BART’s management (and board) as acting irresponsibly by making sweetheart contracts with its labor force.  But so what.  Let’s assume the opponents are right.  The money is still needed and it isn’t going into anything other than infrastructure.  If the opponents don’t like or trust the BART leadership/board, their remedy is at the ballot box, not letting the system fall even further into decay.

And now let me propose a ballot proposition – Proposition “REW.”  My proposition would limit the number of ballot propositions in any given election cycle to ten.  If more than ten are offered, then the ones to go before the voters would be picked by me.  (Just kidding.  It’s been a long day.)

CANDIDATE RECOMMENDATIONS

Presidency, Senate & House Races

I am not making any recommendations regarding the Presidency nor Senate and Congressional races.  If you haven’t figured out who you’re voting for in the Presidential contest, you need much more help than I can possibly provide.  Kamala Harris is going to win for U.S. Senate in a walk and Nancy Pelosi will do the same in the House. 

State Senate & Assembly

There’s not actually a lot of difference between Scott Wiener and Jane Kim in the race for District 11.  If I were voting in that race, I’d narrowly favor Wiener as I think he is more of a policy wonk and I don’t care for Kim’s campaigning style.  But both sides have been pretty negative.  Phil Ting will easily win the Assembly race in District 19.

Superior Court

The choice is between Paul Henderson (professional prosecutor) and Victor Hwang (self-styled “civil rights attorney) in the race for Superior Court judge.  It’s hard for me to assess this race as I do not practice criminal law nor do a lot of work in the civil rights field.  Neither candidate is particularly well known in legal circles and I wouldn’t expect them to be.  So about the best you can do here is vote your predispositions.  Professional prosecutors tend to be “law and order” types; “civil rights attorneys” (this isn’t actually a thing in most instances) tend to be “bleeding heart liberals” (or even further to the left).  Prosecutors tend to be narrowly focused on the criminal law and have more trouble getting up to speed handling civil litigation; “civil rights attorneys” don’t quickly grasp criminal law or the finer points of commercial litigation.  So take your pick and vote your predispositions; that’s about all I can do for you.

SF Board of Supervisors

Supervisors from even numbered districts are not up for reelection this cycle.  Of the contested races in the odd numbered districts, let me highlight District 5 where incumbent London Breed is being challenged by tenants’ rights activist and attorney Dean Preston, who is pushing very hard on getting out the message that he’s the choice of the “Progressives” and that his election could preserve the “Progressive” majority on the Board of Supervisors.

While I’m ambivalent about the “Progressive” vs. “Moderate” sparring on the Board of Supervisors, I happen to know Dean personally, having worked with him when he was, in fact, a “civil rights attorney.”  He’s an exceptionally decent, intelligent, hard working guy and his work as Executive Director of Tenants Together has been exemplary.  His heart is definitely in the right place.  I don’t know Supervisor Breed and I’m not knocking her – I just happen to know Dean.  I haven’t raised the issue with him but if he’s elected I hope he can rise above this “Progressive” vs. “Moderates” nonsense.  I think he can.

SF Board of Education

(Vote for up to four candidates)

I think my greatest concern about the Board of Education is to stay away from candidates with an overt agenda (again, referring to “Progressives” vs. “Moderates”).  I’ve also stayed away from teacher candidates – a little too much like the chickens taking over the henhouse – I think the perspective is unduly skewed.  Looking at the candidate statements, therefore, and with no great investment in my conclusions (and a little bit of inside information), I recommend the following:  (1) Matt Haney (incumbent); (2) Ian Kalin; and (3) Rachel Norton (incumbent).  (You don’t have to vote for four.)

SF Community College Board

(Vote for up to four candidates)

If you’ve gotten this far, you’re (well) aware of my great concerns about the governance of City College.  It won’t surprise you, therefore, to learn that my recommendation is to (a) stay away from incumbents who have been a part of the problem; (b) stay away from faculty candidates because the faculty, too, seems to have been an element in City College’s dysfunction; (c) stay from City College students/alumni who are overinvested in the institution.  What City College needs are trustees who can balance the needs and demands of all stakeholders.  But that includes the taxpayers and the people of San Francisco at large and I don’t see any of the candidates meeting that specification.  Otherwise put, you may as well sit this one out.

So I’ve done my part here; now you do yours.  VOTE!

[For your convenience, I've created a cheat sheet of the ballot proposition recommendations that you can download and use as you see fit.  You will find it here.]