November 2018 Statewide & San Francisco Ballot Recommendations

I was again flattered to learn that there was some interest in my ballot recommendations, which follow below.  Having lost the greater part of a full working day in figuring out this year’s crop of propositions and personalities, I at least have the consolation that I may have engaged in a public service and, at a minimum, figured out how I want to vote.  So here goes.

CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE BALLOT

PROPOSITION 1:  Purpose:  $4 billion bond issue to fund existing affordable housing programs for low-income residents, veterans, farmworkers, manufactured and mobile homes, infill, and transit-oriented housing. Estimated cost:  $170 million annually over the next 35 years = $5.950 billion, i.e. almost $2 billion in interest.

RECOMMENDATION:  VOTE NO. 

Short reason for recommendation:  Hugely expensive bond issue.

Detailed reasons for recommendation:  There is no question that California is in crisis

as a result of the shortage of housing and the huge run-up of housing costs, particularly in highly urbanized areas like San Francisco.  But what bothers me about this proposition is the burden that bond issues like this place on succeeding generations.  The ballot argument in favor of Proposition 1 is disingenuous in the extreme when it trumpets that it will provide housing relief “WITHOUT RAISING TAXES” (all caps in the original of the ballot argument).  Assuming that public funding is in fact effective in this situation (not clear to me that it is or how much impact this program will actually have), if public money is going to be used for housing relief, it should come out of current revenues.  If that means that cuts have to be made in other programs, or higher taxes, so be it.  That is an honest test of priorities.  Burdening succeeding generations with debt and concealing the cost through debt service is not, not to mention the reduction of general revenue that constrains what the Legislature can do by way of other funding priorities.

It is a shame that the opposition ballot arguments are so off topic.  Read them for entertainment.

PROPOSITION 2:  Purpose:  Seeks to ratify prior Legislative redirection of “Millionaires Tax” monies to fund the No Place Like Home housing program for mentally ill homeless and to redirect $140 million per year of existing Millionaires Tax money to pay for $2 billion in bonds authorized but (apparently) not yet issued for that program.

RECOMMENDATION:  VOTE NO.

Short reason for recommendation:  Takes mental health funding away from counties.

Detailed reasons for recommendation:  The main thrust of this ballot proposition is to ratify prior legislative actions involving the use of funds already approved by the voters in the form of the Mental Health Services Act to fund the “No Place Like Home Program,” which finances the construction/rehabilitation of permanent housing for mentally ill homeless people.  The Mental Health Services Act is funded by the so-called “Millionaires Tax,” a special income tax levy paid by persons with incomes over $1 million.  Apparently there is a court fight over whether the Legislature exceeded its authority in so doing.  This proposition would ratify what the Legislature did and make the dispute moot.  But in addition this proposition would redirect $140 million per year in Millionaires Tax money away from county health funds to service some $2 billion in bonds previously authorized to fund the No Place Like Home Program.  The latter seems to be the real point of contention – should his program be funded out of the General Fund (yearly tax revenues) or by taking away Millionaires Tax money directed to the counties for mental health services? 

Once again the proponents disingenuously emphasize that the bond issue would not raise taxes.  Informed readers of this blog know better although in this instance the issue seems more who is going to get a chunk of Millionaires Tax money, the counties or the No Place Like Home program.  The latter is the reason for my recommendation – counties are on the front line when it comes to dealing with the mentally ill homeless and while the goal of Proposition 2 is laudable, I do not believe it should come at the expense of the counties. 

In fairness, I should note that the organizations supporting Proposition 2 are pretty mainstream (you can check them out at https://www.cayesonprop2.org/).  Regular readers of this blog (or at least the election posts) know all about the “H.L. Richardson Rule,” named after a retired Republican State Senator whose ballot recommendations almost automatically persuaded me to vote the other way – you can often judge the merits of a ballot proposition by the company it keeps.  So this suggests a “yes” vote, but I just do not feel comfortable taking away money from the counties to treat mental illness.  Perhaps a do-over here is in order – better crafted legislation the next time around.

PROPOSITION 3:  Purpose:  $8.877 billion in bonds for infrastructure projects involving safe drinking water, watershed and fisheries improvements and habitat protection. 

RECOMMENDATION:  VOTE NO.

Short reason for recommendation:  Gigantic bond issue requiring $8.4 BILLION in debt service over 40 years.

Detailed reasons for recommendation:  While the goals are again laudable, this is a huge amount of money and the dent in the General Fund to service ($430 million annually) will severely circumscribe the Legislature’s ability to fund other programs.  I do note that the Legislative Analyst suggests that passage will likely save local governments an average of “a couple of hundred million dollars” annually “over the next few decades” (most of the money will be spent through grants to local governments that already have responsibility for water quality and sustainability issues) so the hurt is not quite as severe.  But still a lot of money.

Some of the money is earmarked for “disadvantaged communities,” an interesting (and potentially troubling, to me at least) concept that really bears more discussion than it is getting.  Not sure how I feel about that – unfortunately the Legislative Analyst does not indicate how much of the money would go to this purpose so it is not determinative of my recommendation.

I took a look at the ballot arguments – the proponents are not particularly impressive, which is surprising – I would have expected some seriously big-name organizations to be front and center supporting this proposition – they’re not listed.  The opponents are the usual “anti-tax” types, who create a straw argument by emphasizing that there is no funding for dams and that is how you collect water (simplistic does not even come close to describing this kind of advocacy).  So you will not get much help on that front.

Maybe I’m just feeling cheap this year (one of my sons justly criticized my recommendations last cycle as inconsistent with my general philosophy regarding bond issues) but I am suffering serious sticker shock when I see numbers like this.

PROPOSITION 4:  Purpose:  $1.5 billion bond issue to fund construction, expansion, renovation and equipping of children’s hospitals.

RECOMMENDATION:  VOTE NO.

Short reason for recommendation:  If this is worth doing, it should come out of current funding and force the Legislature to make some decisions regarding priorities.

Detailed reasons for recommendation:  At least the numbers are not ridiculous.  A $1.5 billion bond issue stretched out over 35 years will take $80 million out of the General Fund annually, which is peanuts.  But even “peanuts” will cost $1.4 billion in debt service, which is almost the same as the amount borrowed ($1.5 billion)

But I do wonder why one particular segment of the health care space is being preferred over the needs of the rest of us.  Maybe I’m just getting crotchety in my old age but don’t all ages need working hospitals?  It’s not like the general public as a whole is getting great health care.   But this policy issue will never get weighed when there is an “easy out” like bond issues.

Sadly, the opposition arguments are again off topic and make me want to contact the Secretary of State to see just how people qualify to put their (goofy) points of view on the official ballot. 

Am I a terrible person for not automatically preferring children’s hospitals over all others? 

PROPOSITION 5.  Purpose:  Loosen up requirements for transferring tax basis in real property for persons over 55 years, who are disabled or who have been impacted by a natural disaster or contamination.

RECOMMENDATION:  VOTE NO.

Short reason for recommendation:  Loss of tax revenue outweighs small addition to available housing stock created by loosening the rules – this is special interest legislation that favors the real estate industry.

Detailed reasons for recommendation.  The backstory here is the effect of Proposition 13 on the housing market.  Prop 13, also known as the Jarvis-Gann Initiative, severely restricted the power of cities and counties to raise revenue through the annual property tax paid by all owners of real property in California.  It effectively caps the tax rate subject to a modest inflation adjustment by imposing a two-thirds requirement on property tax increases (state and local).  It also prevents reassessment of the taxable value of real property other than the limited inflation adjustment noted above.  The net result is to make it far more desirable for people to stay in their homes rather than move and trigger a reassessment based on the purchase price of a new home. 

Current law does permit some limited flexibility.  Eligible homeowners can transfer their tax basis within their county of residence.  Counties can opt in to accepting a transfer of the tax basis of real property for out-of-county seniors and other protected classes rather than having a move trigger a reassessment.  But only 10 counties in California have opted in.  These are all one-time options under current law. 

Prop 5 would allow eligible homeowners to transfer their property tax basis anywhere in the state and to do so as many times as they wish.  It would also eliminate the “penalty” for purchasing a more expensive home and would actually reduce the tax that would be assessed on the purchase of a less expensive one.

The theory behind Prop 5 is that the loosening of restrictions would cause more seniors and other qualified homeowners to sell their homes and free up underutilized housing stock.  The downside is the loss of property tax revenue.  There are other limited effects and some legitimate argument as to who gains and who loses but the bottom line is that this would affect “a few tens of thousands” of homeowners according to the Legislative Analyst.  Accidentally on purpose it would also be very good for real estate interests and three guesses who funded Prop 5 – the California Association of Realtors.  The opposition to Prop 5, in contrast, is mainstream and bipartisan.  See the listing in http://noprop5.com/coalition. 

PROPOSITION 6:  Purpose:  Roll back the recent gas tax and vehicle tax increases that were enacted for repairs and improvements to local roads, state highways, and public transportation and require future increases to go before the voters.

RECOMMENDATION:  VOTE NO.

Short reason for recommendation:  The money is desperately needed and taxing those who use the road system is a fair means of raising the money – this is a Republican pseudo-populist (anti-government) ploy to get voters to the polls.

Detailed reasons for recommendation.  There seems to be a visceral opposition, at least among many drivers, to taxes that target the price of gasoline or which are imposed in connection with automobile ownership.  Perhaps the reason is that they are so up close and personal – you see the effect every time you go to the pump as well as annually when it is time to renew your registration.  That certainly seemed to help drive the recall of then Governor Gray Davis after he reinstituted a tripling of the vehicle licensing fee back in 2003.

But the fact of the matter is that this money is desperately needed – you have only to go out on the roads to see how true that is. 

But that has not stopped the proponents, principally Republicans, from going back to the playbook and look for a wedge issue, one that has the further benefit of helping bring otherwise apathetic Republican voters to the polls to help preserve the Republican majority in Congress.  That is their privilege, but this is a mean-spirited measure that deserves to be voted down.

On the endorsement front, the League of Women Voters is among the opponents and I have long respected the League’s views on matters of public concern.  Even the California Chamber of Commerce, which tends to be pro-business, is opposed.  (You can view a more complete listing of opponents at https://noprop6.com/coalition-list/).  I am considerably less impressed with the affiliations of the proposition’s proponents.

Proposition 7.  Purpose:  Permit the Legislature by a two-thirds vote to change Daylight Savings Time, including establishing it year-round (i.e. abolishing Standard Time in California).

RECOMMENDATION:  VOTE YES.

Short reason for recommendation:  It is not at all clear that twice-a-year time changes are a good idea and this legislation would permit the Legislature, by a two-thirds vote, to do something about it, including instituting Daylight Savings Time year-round.  Note that Congressional approval is also required for this to go into effect.

Detailed reasons for recommendation:  There is a growing consensus that time changes twice a year are not desirable.  Auto accidents, depression and even medical emergencies are a common side effect of the switch between Daylight Savings Time and Standard Time.  This legislation would, if Congress agrees, allow the State Legislature to address the issue.  If permitted to do so, in all likelihood the Legislature would institute Daylight Savings Time year-round.  While there are differing schools of thought as to the desirability of doing so, giving the Legislature the flexibility to act here (subject to a two-thirds supermajority) strikes me as desirable.

Proposition 8.  Purpose.  Caps the charges that providers of outpatient kidney dialysis clinics can charge to 115% of costs.

RECOMMENDATION:  VOTE NO.

Short reason for recommendation:  Price controls typically are inefficient and have unanticipated effects including reducing availability of the regulated service in areas where profitability is marginal.

Detailed reasons for recommendation:  Proponents claim that many dialysis clinics are in it only for the money, are controlled by big business, provide substandard services and overcharge.  They argue that a cap on dialysis charges will lower health costs, including health insurance costs by lowering the amount needed to reimburse covered dialysis use.  The signers to the ballot argument in favor represent what strike me as fairly obscure organizations.  Opponents argue that regulating dialysis clinics in this manner will make them less available by driving the more marginal ones (in terms of profitability) out of business.  They contend that dialysis services are highly regulated and that California has rated quite well in terms of service and quality.  They also note that nothing requires insurance companies to lower costs based on lower dialysis reimbursement costs.  The organizations backing the opposition are impressive, including the American Nurses Association\California, the California Medical Association and the American College of Emergency Physicians, California chapter.

I tend to agree with the opponents, wholly aside from my general suspicion regarding the effectiveness of price controls. 

There is No Proposition 9 on the ballot.  (If you’re curious, this was the proposition that would split California into three separate states, the brainchild of venture capitalist Tim Draper.  It was removed from the ballot by the California Supreme Court for a host of technical reasons.  Personally I’d rather see a proposition that imposed $1 billion in taxes on vanity propositions advanced by venture capitalists with more money than sense, but I digress.)

Proposition 10.  Purpose:  Abolish the Costa-Hawkins Act and give localities broad authority to implement rent control, including capping rents on vacant rental property.

RECOMMENDATION:  VOTE NO.

Short reason for recommendation:  Rent control doesn’t actually work all that well and expansion of its coverage to new construction might actually reduce the amount of new housing stock. 

Detailed reasons for recommendation:  One notable aspect of California’s current statewide rent control legislation is the so-called Costa-Hawkins Act, which limits rent control to properties constructed prior to certain trigger dates, does not cover new construction, and does not cap rents after a tenant has moved out.  This proposition would permit localities to implement rent control on all housing including the power to limit rents on vacant rental housing.  It would also confirm the position of the California courts that landlords are entitled to a fair rate of return (i.e. throwing a bone to landlords).

I can appreciate why voters would want to permit localities to expand rent control.  In the now immortal words of perennial New York candidate for office Jimmy McMillan – “The Rent Is Too Damn High.”  The problem is that rent control does not work particularly well – it can actually inhibit investment in housing and even withdrawal of properties from the rental market.  From personal experience in San Francisco I can also state that so-called “small landlords” really struggle to navigate a bewilderingly complex bureaucracy, including the risk of significant liability for even innocent mistakes.  It also creates virtual estates in land by giving tenants potentially lifetime tenure and does so without means testing.  Suffice it to say that I’m not exactly a fan of the concept.

Consistent with my broader concern with price controls generally, expanding rent control as proposed will likely have unintended (and bad) consequences in terms of the availability of housing and the future creation of housing.  Putting the entire burden of the exploding real estate market on landlords is not going to solve the housing shortage.

I don’t necessarily care for the company I’m keeping here as there are plenty of bad landlords and greedy developers.  But expanding rent control does not strike me as the answer to the housing shortage.

Proposition 11.  Purpose:  Remove current labor law protections regarding work breaks for meals and rest for private-sector emergency ambulance employees and eliminate employer liability for past violations that are still in litigation.

RECOMMENDATION:  VOTE YES.

Short reason for recommendation:  Emergency ambulance employees are in an unusual situation due to the way emergency ambulance services are staffed and the profitability of their industry.  This proposition is, amazingly, unopposed.

Detailed reasons for recommendation:  Emergency ambulance employees are spread pretty thin in an industry running very close to the margins of profitability (many users are low income and are either uninsured or underinsured).  The nature of the business is such that emergency ambulance employees can’t be given the same kind of work breaks as employees in more conventional industries – they get down time but not the way an office worker would, with fixed breaks for meals and rest breaks.  Instead, they are “on call” at all times they are working a shift.  There is pending class action litigation that tries to treat these employees as more conventional workers – this proposition would change the law to make those lawsuits moot.  I fully expected someone to denounce this proposition as special interest legislation.  Very much to my surprise, no opposition argument appears on the ballot.

Proposition 12.  Purpose:  Specifies minimum space requirements for certain confined farm animals (veal calves, breeding pigs, egg-laying hens).  Expansion of prior voter-approved legislation that defined space requirements conceptually (by description).

RECOMMENDATION:  VOTE – YES

Short reason for recommendation:  This proposition would enact basically put some teeth into the general (and somewhat vague) requirements of voter-approved Proposition 2 regarding the confinement of certain categories of farm animals. 

Detailed reasons for recommendation:  There are legitimate public policy questions regarding the advisability of this type of regulation, but those issues were settled back in 2008 when Prop 2 was passed overwhelmingly (63% of voters voted in favor).  I note that the San Francisco SPCA is strongly in favor.  Here’s a link to the SPCA’s op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle:  Interestingly, the Chronicle’s Editorial Board opposes Prop 12 (you can find the link here)  but I’m satisfied that this is the right, and the ethical thing to do, pocketbook issues notwithstanding.  For those of you interested in an ethical perspective, you might look at Rabbi Shmuly Yanklowitz’s op-ed piece in the Jewish News of Northern California, found at this link. 

Statewide Races

U.S.  Senator.  Recommendation:  Diane Feinstein.  I can appreciate the frustration more liberal and progressive voters have with a U.S. Senator who is avowedly moderate and pulls punches in the interest of trying to make deals to pass effective legislation.  (I contributed money to Bernie Sanders but ultimately held my nose and voted for Hilary Clinton.)  But now is not the time – in the era of Trump we need to be pragmatic and “Berniecrats” do not express the views of the majority of Democrats, much less independent voters.

Governor.  Recommendation:  Gavin Newsom.  Basically a no-brainer.  Whatever his flaws, Newsome is infinitely more preferable than his “baby Trump” Republican opponent.  Not worth saying much more about this race.

Lieutenant Governor.  Recommendation:  Eleni Kounalakis.  This is one of those odd California “jungle primary” situations where the two candidates in the general election are both Democrats.  Given the options, former Ambassador Kounalakis at least has the independence conferred by great wealth – while part of me is repulsed at seeing someone basically buy an election, at least she is not beholden to special interests the way a typical politician is.  But beyond my institutional concerns about career politicians, I see nothing in Senator Ed Hernandez’s record that would make voting for him a bad idea.

Secretary of State.  Recommendation:  Alex Padilla (incumbent).

Most of what the Secretary of State does is administrative.  We tend to notice this office in connection with elections but a great part of the business of the Secretary of State involves the establishment of corporations and other limited liability entities and maintaining the recording system for liens on commercial personal property.  The incumbent, Alex Padilla, seems to be doing a decent job and I have no reason, nor inclination, to vote for his Republican challenger, whose election statement is full of unsubstantiated innuendo and conspiracy theories.

Controller.  Recommendation:  Betty Yee (incumbent).

The Controller is the State’s chief fiscal officer.  Again, much of the job is administrative and under the radar.  Again, the incumbent has done a good job and there is no reason to prefer her somewhat crazed Republican opponent.

Treasurer.  Recommendation:  Fiona Ma.

Ms. Ma served quite effectively as a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, in addition to the State Assembly and the State Board of Equalization (the latter a somewhat mysterious body that administers, among other things, California’s sales and use taxes, fuel, alcohol, tobacco and other state taxes).  She is clearly qualified to serve as Treasurer, who is the official in charge of the state’s investments and finance.  Another irrelevant Republican opponent.

Attorney General.  Recommendation:  Xavier Becerra.

Mr. Becerra was appointed by Governor Brown to replace Kamala Harris when she was elected to the Senate.  He seems to be very much in Ms. Harris’s mold and has been quite visible in pursuing public interest causes, in addition to being very outspoken in defending undocumented persons and resisting the Trump Administration.  He seems to be what Californians want and need in an Attorney General.  His Republican opponent, a retired judge, is a law and order conservative who beats the usual fear-mongering drums.

Insurance Commissioner.  Recommendation:  Ricardo Lara.

In this instance, the focus should not be so much on Mr. Lara’s record, which is fine, but on his opponent, former Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner.  While Mr. Poizner did a competent job as Insurance Commissioner, he then ran, unsuccessfully, for the Republican nomination for Governor in 2010.  In so doing he ran on an overtly anti-immigrant platform whose racist overtones I am not about to forgive or forget.

Board of Equalization, District 2.  Recommendation:  Malia Cohen. 

As noted in connection with Fiona Ma’s run for Treasurer (see above), the Board of Equalization is a mysterious state-level board with obscure responsibilities involving taxation.  It’s not at all clear that it should even exist but it is often a stepping stone, if not resting place, for political personalities seeking a position after being termed out or waiting for a shot at a more significant statewide office.  Ms. Cohen is about to be termed-out as a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.  She was effective in that position.  I see no reason to support her Republican rival for the office.

Superintendent of Public Instruction.  Recommendation:  Marshall Tuck.

Tuck is a controversial self-styled education reformer who narrowly lost this race four years ago.  His opponent, Tony Thurmond, is a member of the State Assembly, who, while apparently competent as such, seems to be a bit thin when it comes to relevant experience in education.  I’m in the mood to shake things up and Tuck is clearly an object of some fear on the part of the major stakeholders in the education establishment.

Judicial Retention Elections – Vote to retain all the Justices on the Ballot.

California has a somewhat unusual system whereby justices of the State Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal come before the voters every eight years to enable the voters to decide whether to retain them in office or not.  In effect, they run against themselves.  The idea here is to try to insulate the justices from direct political contests with opponents while giving the voters some say in the process.  It is highly unusual for sitting justices to lose retention elections – the last time that happened was back in the 1980s.  You have to really tick off the voters royally to lose a retention election.  My own personal rule is that unless someone has committed a felony on the 11:00 news or I know them to be a bad judge, I’m going to vote to retain.

On that basis, I recommend “yes” votes on retaining all the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal justices who are on the ballot this year.

[Ed.  In response to a reader's comment about judicial retention elections, I've posted a further blog piece discussing the subject.  You can find it here.]

SAN FRANCISCO BALLOT PROPOSITIONS

Prop A – Purpose:  Fix the Embarcadero Seawall through the issuance of $425 million in bonds, the debt service to come from an increase in the property tax (1.3 cents per hundred dollars of assessed value).

RECOMMENDATION:  VOTE – NO (spitting in the wind here – this is going to pass)

Short reason for recommendation:  Worthy cause but unfair way of financing – bond issue serviced by an increase in the property tax and no justification for letting all this deferred maintenance come to a head. 

Detailed reasons for recommendation:

This proposition is going to pass in a landslide so it really doesn’t matter what I think.  The Mayor and something like 10 of the 11 members of the Board of Supervisors and a legion of public officials are supporting it.  The arguments in opposition by the Libertarian Party are laughable except that they do ask one fair question – why wasn’t the erosion addressed incrementally rather than waiting for a situation requiring triage?  Of course the answer is pretty clear – politicians kick the can down the road when it comes to infrastructure maintenance but there is not much that can be done about that right now. 

Prop B.  Purpose:  Force the City to create citywide privacy guidelines.

RECOMMENDATION:  VOTE – NO.

Short reason for recommendation:  Why does this have to be in the City Charter? 

Detailed reasons for recommendation:  It’s enough for me that a declaration of, basically, platitudes is unnecessary.  It may be the case that the opponents have an additional point – that this proposition could undermine the voter-approved Sunshine Ordinance, which mandates transparency in public dealings.  The proponents deny that it would have this effect and point out language that prevents the proposition from being used for that purpose.  I wish the local Republican Party had not weighed in as their opposition suggests far worse outcomes but I don’t trust them.  But I still think a “no” vote is warranted.  If there is a need to amend the Sunshine Ordinance, that should be done directly and if there is no such need, then I don’t see the point of this proposition.

Prop C.  Purpose.  Impose additional business taxes to fund homeless services.

RECOMMENDATION:  VOTE – NO.

Short reason for recommendation:  Worthy cause but throwing money at a problem is not the way to solve it.

Detailed reasons for recommendation:  This proposition would impose additional business taxes on businesses with gross receipts over $50 million in addition to a payroll tax on certain businesses whose administrative offices are based in San Francisco (i.e. this is “soak the rich” legislation – it is deliberately not targeted at ordinary San Franciscans).  The money would be set aside in a dedicated fund to address homelessness and ancillary issues such as mental health services.  The Controller estimates that annual additional revenue would amount to $250-$300 million per year.  That is a lot of money and it is not clear to me (or to Mayor Breed, among others) just how this money is going to be used effectively.  The City already spends $382 million annually on homelessness.  Almost doubling that amount needs to be justified in terms of just what this money will actually be used for and how it will be administered.   I am also concerned about the massive set aside that this proposition represents – this is not only a huge tax increase but it’s one that is untouchable in terms of the ability of the Mayor and Board of Supervisors to set priorities – readers of this blog are well aware of my concern that so much of the City’s budget is already set into stone in the form of set asides.  This is doing so with a vengeance. 

Prop D.  Purpose:  Extend the gross receipts tax to non-medical for-profit cannabis-based businesses to the extent that their gross receipts exceed $500,000.  Also extends the tax to some cannabis businesses not physically located in the City.

RECOMMENDATION:  VOTE – YES.

Short reason for recommendation:  Sure, why not?

Detailed reasons for recommendation:  Now that cannabis can be sold legally, at least at the state and local level, why not tax such businesses?  Provision has been made not to tax smaller businesses (ones with gross receipts below $500,000) and the legislation does not touch medical cannabis or certain non-profits.  Unlike Prop C, the tax revenue raised would go to the General Fund – no set aside.

I have no idea who the author of the official opponent’s arguments (Ritchie Greenberg) is.  I’m not persuaded by his dire prediction that taxing marijuana businesses will drive them back underground.  The paid arguments by the Republican and Libertarian Parties don’t persuade me either.

Prop E.  Purpose:  Earmark up to 1.5% of the current hotel tax for specific arts and cultural purposes. 

RECOMMENDATION:  VOTE – NO.

Short reason for recommendation:  I really don’t care for set asides.

Detailed reasons for recommendation:  I’m already unhappy that so much of the City’s budget is untouchable through set asides that favor special interests – that is true even if I happen to like the special interests (including the arts).  Currently hotel tax money is paid into the General Fund and that is how it should remain.

CITYWIDE RACES

Assessor-Recorder:  RECOMMENDATION:  Carmen Chu.

Every election cycle I get to point out that this particular job may not be needed – the Assessor-Recorder function is purely bureaucratic.  The only time discretion gets involved typically results in the incumbent getting jailed for fraud (really – that happened back in the late 60s).  But accepting that the job is not going to be abolished any time soon, Carmen Chu has done a perfectly competent job and should be retained.

BART Board of Directors, District 8.  Recommendation:  Brian Larkin or Melanie Nutter.

Sadly, I don’t know any of the candidates personally or by reputation.  Looking at their candidate statements, Larkin and Nutter strike me as the most qualified in terms of background.  Larkin endears himself to me by indicating he will push to extend BART to the western side of the City.  Nutter seems to be a rising star in the SF political establishment with some understanding of transit issues.  Take your pick.

SF Board of Education (vote for up to three)  Recommendation:  Chinchilla, Kim, Lopez and/or Tansvina.

A source I respect urges votes for Monica Chinchilla, Phil Kim, Gabriela Lopez and John Tansvina.  I don’t know them, unfortunately, but a review of their candidate statements suggest that they are all reasonable picks (but you only get to vote for three, remember).  The one that really stands out, for me, is Tansvina (really high level qualifications).

SF Board of Supervisors.  District Two.  Recommendation:  Stefani

My preference is a relative moderate (which outside San Francisco would likely mean “flaming liberal”).  Supervisor Stefani meets that qualification as I’m looking for some balance on the Board of Supervisors.  Nick Josefowitz is my second choice but he is a little too wedded to the lock-step “progressive” wing of SF politics and such people tend to let ideology get in their way. There are, of course, races in other supervisorial districts but I really haven't the time or energy to get into the weeds regarding them.

SF Community College Board (vote for up to three)  Recommendation:  Olivieri.

This is the body that administers San Francisco City College.  Or, perhaps better put, “maladministers” – there is a reason why City College was forced into trusteeship – it was grossly mismanaged.  As a result, I recommend not voting for any incumbent who were there at the time – so John Rizzo is off the table as far as I’m concerned.  When I look at the candidate statements for Davlia and Selby (and their websites) I don’t see an acknowledgment that more has to be done to make City College run responsibly.  So I can’t recommend them either.

Public Defender.  Recommendation:  Vote for me (seriously)

I used to be a huge fan of Jeff Adachi, who struck me as not only an excellent Public Defender but someone with real political guts.  I admired the stand he took supporting a very controversial ballot measure that would have reformed the San Francisco pension system, a stand which infuriated significant elements of his traditional base of supporters.

But then he got involved in the outrageous campaign of four Assistant Public Defenders to oust four sitting San Francisco Superior Court judges on the spurious ground that they, all lifetime Democrats, were nominated by Republican governors.  Some in the legal community viewed this contest as a means of intimidating the current bench in its dealings with the Public Defender’s Office.  That, frankly, reeks. 

So no more Jeff Adachi for me.   Since he’s running unopposed, he is going to get reelected.  So you may as well vote for me as a protest vote (although the perennial Donald Duck is another possibility).