Election Recommendations - November 2019 San Francisco Municipal Ballot

Once again an election approaches and I am happy to offer my views regarding state and local ballot propositions in addition to various races for elective office.  [For some background on my preconceptions and biases, you can look at Notes to Readers]

STATE BALLOT PROPOSITIONS:

None this election cycle.  

LOCAL (SAN FRANCISCO) BALLOT PROPOSITIONS:

Proposition A.  $600 million affordable housing bond.  

RECOMMENDATION:  Vote Yes.

While I am dubious about the City’s ability to administer such a program, and worry about what will happen when the next (inevitable) economic downturn hits, the desperate need for affordable housing is a paramount value here.  I also note that the measure permits the City to borrow up to the $600 million amount; it does not obligate it to do so – so there’s something of a safety valve here if things go south economically.  I don’t care for the the means by which the bonds will be paid – it relies on an increase to the property tax, which in my view is discriminatory (but in fairness California cities are not able to impose municipal income taxes, which strikes me as the equitable way to fund this bond).  Not all landlords are created equal (and not all landlords are evil).  I do note that 50% of the increased tax can be passed through to renters so the pain is being shared, but disproportionately.  But, again, the paramount value here is trying to do something about the desperate shortage of affordable housing.

Proposition B.  Amend the City Charter to change the name of the Department of Aging & Adult Services to the Department of Disability & Aging Services.  The proposition would also establish special qualifications for three of the members of the commission that oversees this department.  

RECOMMENDATION:  Vote Yes.

It is appalling that the City Charter has to be amended for such a picayune reason as a name change.  But the change in qualifications for three members of the Department’s governing commission probably has a little merit.  If this proposition passes, one commission seat would be held by someone who is over 60; another would be held by a person with a disability; and one seat would be held by an ex serviceperson.  I’m frankly ambivalent about the whole thing and earth shattering this definitely is not.

Proposition C.  Juul’s Now Abandoned Attempt To Override The Board of Supervisors On Vaping.  

RECOMMENDATION:  Vote No.

Even Juul has backed away from this brazen attempt to subvert the legislative process and mislead the voters.  What is really fascinating is to see all the paid arguments in favor (before Juul backed off).  A little scary what money can buy and I bet that a lot of those who put their names to these arguments are a bit nervous these days.  There has already been an instance of major retribution here – one of the City’s premier political consulting firms was apparently frozen out of leading the charge for Prop A because it worked for Juul.

Proposition D.  Traffic Congestion Mitigation Tax.

RECOMMENDATION:  Vote Yes.  Passage of this proposition will result in a 1.5% business tax on shared rides and a 3.25% business tax on private rides charged by companies like Uber and Lyft (and future driverless vehicles).  The money will be used to fund improvements to Muni service in addition to bicycle and pedestrian safety.  Uber and Lyft are supporting the proposition, which strongly suggests to me that they are trying to head off something more severe.  It may be the case that Uber and Lyft are getting off easy as the congestion created by rideshare services has significantly, and negatively, impacted the quality of life in San Francisco.

Proposition E.  Expand Affordable Housing & Subsidized Housing For Educators to “public zoning districts.”

RECOMMENDATION:  Vote yes.

This is a technical amendment to the City Planning Code that would permit affordable housing projects and “educator housing” to be built in so-called “public zoning districts,” areas which contain public structures, City plazas, public parks and similar uses.  Presently residential housing is not permitted in “public zoning districts.”  This legislation would also expedite approval of such projects.  This is clearly another piecemeal attempt to deal with the housing shortage and historically I have not cared for this kind of approach.  But better than nothing and these are desperate times.

Proposition F:  Expand City Campaign Disclosure Law To Force Additional Entities To Identify Who Is Behind Political Contributions & Prevent Developers From Making Political Contributions While Approval Of The Developer’s Project Is Pending Before Selected City Boards/Agencies.

RECOMMENDATION:  Vote yes.

Exiting City disclosure law requires that corporate campaign contributions be disclosed so that they cannot hide behind otherwise anonymous political action committees; this legislation would extend the disclosure rules to other entities like limited liability companies in addition to limited liability partnerships.  That’s fine.  Somewhat more troubling, to me, is the restriction imposed on certain types of developers – who will be prevented from making campaign contributions while projects are pending before public agencies/boards.  My concern is First Amendment-based but let’s see what the courts say about this.

LOCAL (SAN FRANCISCO) ELECTIVE OFFICES

Mayor of San Francisco.  RECOMMENDATION:  Vote for London Breed.

Mayor Breed is going to win by a landslide.  She has no significant opposition.  My (and your) vote will likely not matter but if you are going to vote for anyone for this office, it may as well be her.  I oscillate between frustration regarding her effectiveness and recognition that San Francisco’s problems may be too big for city government to deal with.  But it’s perhaps more telling than anything else that the so-called “Progressives” in this town do not have the guts to run someone against her.  What vision do they have other than being vaguely left and anti-establishment?  

San Francisco City Attorney.  RECOMMENDATION:  Vote for Dennis Herrera

Incumbent Dennis Herrera is running unopposed.  He has done an effective job as City Attorney although I can’t help but notice that he also has quite the skill in shining media attention on himself by the causes he takes on – the latest example is his effort, in effect, to run Juul, out of business.  But he’s likely right about Juul (certainly to the extent that Juul, until caught in the act, was cheerfully selling (or at least acquiescing in the selling of) its product to children.  It’s also quite interesting that every incumbent and virtual incumbent from this point forward is running unopposed.  Are they that well entrenched?  Are they that skilled at trimming their views to the prevailing political winds?  Is the City’s tilt to the left so pronounced that there is no basis for a principled opposition with a chance of electoral success?  Apparently so.

San Francisco District Attorney.  RECOMMENDATION:  Vote for Suzy Loftus

The short story is that I want a mainstream District Attorney who cares about victim’s rights and carrying out the traditional functions of the office with some sense of fairness.  I am not interested in a DA whose principal focus is social engineering at the expense of public safety.  Loftus is the best candidate for that purpose both in terms of electability and program.  

San Francisco Public Defender.  RECOMMENDATION:  Vote for Manohar (“Mano”) Raju

(Appointed) incumbent Manohar (“Mano”) Raju is the political heir to the late Jeff Adachi, the long-serving incumbent.  Mr. Adachi, while nominally affiliated with the “progressive” wing of the Board of Supervisors, was something of a wild card when it came to political stances outside those involving his office.  He earned my respect when he took a stand advocating higher city employee contributions to the City’s pension plan.  He then forfeited that respect when he supported intimidating the City’s trial judges by running extreme left-wing and woefully inexperienced members of his office against a number of very well thought of incumbents.  So Mr. Raju’s inheritance, to me, is a little checkered.  But he’s running unopposed and there is no indication that he is not doing his job, which has outsized importance compared to other public defender positions in the state.  Here, unlike the District Attorney position, I actually want a progressive.

San Francisco Sheriff.  RECOMMENDATION:  Vote for Paul Miyamoto

The incumbent, Sheriff Vicki Hennessey, chose not to run for reelection.  Mr. Miyamoto, the number two in the office, is now running for the top job and, once again, the (virtual) incumbent is unopposed.  Sheriff Hennessey was a life-saver in terms of enabling the Sheriff’s Office to recover from the disastrous reign of former Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi (here is a blog post on the subject of the former (and quite unlamented) former sheriff).  Mr. Miyamoto, another career Sheriff’s Department employee, will likely continue in her tradition.  

San Francisco Treasurer.  RECOMMENDATION:  Vote for Jose Cisneros

Another unopposed incumbent.  The job of Treasurer is generally non-political and is even a bit dull – no flash to this office.  The incumbent, Jose Cisneros, has done a competent job and is deserving of reelection.

San Francisco Board of Education.  RECOMMENDATION:  Vote for Jenny Lam

I have no familiarity with the three candidates contending for this seat on the Board of Education beyond reviewing their candidate statements in the Voters Handbook.  Of the three, Ms. Lam seems the most experienced and her endorsements span the range of the San Francisco political scene.  

San Francisco Community College Board.  RECOMMENDATION:  None

Ivy Lee, the appointed incumbent, is running unopposed.  I have long been concerned about chronic mismanagement of City College and Ms. Lee’s advocacy of a tuition-free City College while “[e]nd[ing] deficit spending” strikes me as self-contradictory absent a further (discriminatory) property tax increase as that is how City College gets its funding.  I cannot recommend voting for any incumbent board member in light of this history of mismanagement.  I am suspicious of Ms. Lee’s advocacy, now, of an independent controller position as I do not see why she could not have pushed for this previously (she was appointed over a year ago by Mayor Breed).  In fairness, Ms. Lee’s endorsements again span the range of political thought in the City and it is evident she will win easily.