Ballot Recommendations, November 8, 2022, Consolidated General Election

Ballot Recommendations, November 8, 2022, Consolidated General Election

Dear Friends:

I hope you find my discussion of pending California and San Francisco ballot measures, along with local races, useful.

Before getting into the nitty gritty, I need to add to my usual discussion of where I am coming from as they have an impact on my thinking, and, perhaps, will also have an impact on yours.

Historically I have been suspicious of ballot measures that involve bonds – I tended to view them like credit card debt – all too easy to run up major indebtedness without thinking.  Some extremely bright colleagues at my synagogue (the Mission Minyan) tried hard to persuade me that the amount of state and local bonded indebtedness was really a tiny part of the budget and that the expenditures are sustainable.  But with the pandemic and aftereffects I’m not so sure about that anymore, certainly as regards the City.

I also look at who is supporting and who is opposing a ballot initiative or a candidate.  There are some supporters who are like red flags to me – if they support someone or something, I am almost certainly on the opposite side.  I call this the H. L. Richardson Rule, named against a long retired Republican legislator whose views were just the polar opposite of mine.

But now the new point of view.  I have lost confidence in the ability of the Mayor, in particular, the Board of Supervisors in general (with a couple of exceptions) and City government as a whole, to effectively govern.  I don’t trust city agencies to use money responsibly and many (but not all) members of the Board of Supervisors strike me as poseurs – they talk a good game but they don’t get things done, particularly regarding the issues, like housing, that really matter.  There is also a structural problem here.  The City as a whole tends to elect relatively moderate mayors.  But the district supervisor system often elects people who are to the left of the Mayor (many so-called “Progressives,” with a vague anti-corporate ideology).  So there is a built-in tendency for gridlock that is likely a factor in the inability of City government to attack huge problems like homelessness and rampant drug abuse, which may just be beyond the power of local government to deal with effectively anyway.  The problem is made worse, far worse, by an entrenched bureaucracy that seems immovable when it comes to making necessary changes.  I have a fairly radical idea as to how to deal with this but I’ll reserve it for the end of my comments as I know what you’re here for (😊).  You are also cordially invited to follow me on Twitter (@rwhitesf) for periodic comments on, among other things, San Francisco politics.

And so to business.

California Statewide Propositions

Proposition 1:  Enshrine the right to abortion and the right to use contraceptives into the State Constitution.

RECOMMENDATION:  VOTE YES.  The idea here is to make the right to abortion and the right to contraceptives an express state constitutional right, not something that courts need to “imply” from other constitutional rights or which can be changed by the State Legislature.  It won’t guarantee the right to abortion against a federal law to the contrary, but it’s the best that can be done to protect abortion rights as a matter of state law.

[No propositions 2-25; for some reason next up is Proposition 26]

Propositions 26 & 27:  Each of these dueling measures expands the types of permissible gambling in California in conjunction with Indian-controlled casinos.  The one that commands a majority wins (or they both lose).

RECOMMENDATION:  VOTE NO on both of them.

WHY:  I don’t care for Indian “gaming” (the buzzword for “gambling”).  But it’s a big, big business, which is why these propositions are on the ballot.  Each would greatly increase the amount of gambling in California.  In the case is Prop 26 it would involve expanded “in-person” gambling at Indian casinos as well as racetracks.  In the case of Prop 27, it involves Internet gambling including mobile phones.  Both propositions tempt the voters with the prospect of enhanced tax revenue and in at least the case of Prop 27, directing that revenue to worthy causes such as the reduction of homelessness.

What neither proposition discusses is that they would favor out-of-state interests over existing ones, including “card rooms” that are currently permitted under California law. 

I don’t care for legalized gambling.  Legalized gambling impoverishes people, the money does not trickle down to give casino workers anything like a good life, and experience teaches that it is not a boon to the communities where it is found.  In the case of Prop 27 the result would be a huge expansion of Internet gambling, which is known to be addictive. 

Indian “nations” in California are also often anything but – some tribes can have all of 40 members.  Moreover, Indian “gaming” is actually worse than gambling generally.  This is because it tries to take advantage of the status of Indian tribes and nations as separate legal sovereign entities for certain purposes.  That enables the proprietors of Indian casinos to hide behind tribal law and reject much federal and state regulation in the name of “sovereign immunity.”  Prohibition is not the answer here (any more than it was for alcohol) but expanding “gaming” does not strike me as good policy.  I also agree with the Chronicle Editorial Board that these issues should go through the legislative process rather than being the brainchild of very wealthy out-of-state interests intent on making money (think Draft Kings and Fan Duel).

Speaking of duels, note that Propositions 26 and 27 are dueling propositions – the one with the highest vote wins.  But “no” should do the job nicely as to both. 

Proposition 28:  Additional Funding For Arts and Music Education in Public Schools

RECOMMENDATION:  Vote YES.

One of the many casualties resulting from Prop 13 and the withering of property tax revenue were elective programs in the public schools.  This proposition would mandate the allocation of an amount equal to one percent of required state and local funding for public schools for the purpose of arts and music education with controls over what the money is used for.  The annual cost, $1 billion, is, frankly, trivial, amounting to one half of one percent of the state’s total General Fund budget according to the non-partisan Legislative Analyst.  Amazingly, *no* argument was submitted in opposition.

Proposition 29:  Requires On-Site Licensed Medical Professionals At Kidney Dialysis Clinics & Other State Requirements.

RECOMMENDATION:  VOTE NO.

Here we go again – this is round three of unions versus large corporate proprietors of kidney dialysis clinics.  Every time the unions propose all sorts of new requirements for kidney dialysis clinics, the two large corporations that run the majority of them spend tens of millions of dollars to oppose the proposition.  The idea that enhanced staffing will protect the users of dialysis equipment is countered by the argument that the additional costs will result in closures by making the operations of the clinics uneconomic.  But the real game here is that the unions will continue to batter the corporations with costly-to-defend initiative measures as a negotiating tactic.  This does not belong on the ballot and while I wish I could enact something to keep this off the ballot for the next five years, we’ll have to settle for just voting no.

Proposition 30:  This Election Cycle’s Soak-The-Rich Proposition – this time it’s all about reducing air pollution and preventing wildfires.

RECOMMENDATION:  VOTE NO.

WHY:  I haven’t researched where this began but someone got the bright idea to tax the rich through income tax surcharges for the benefit of selected worthy causes.  This time the target are taxpayers with personal income over $2 million.  The tax surcharge is 1.75%.  But the back story here is that Lyft is pouring millions of dollars into this campaign as a way to get out of its own mandated obligations to pay for Zero Emission Vehicle infrastructure.  Sneaky.  I also think there will come a time when a soak-the-rich initiative too many will actually drive wealthier taxpayers away from California.  Whether this is the one or not, as the San Jose Mercury News points out, this initiative would create a top-tier bracket for Californians of 15.05% when the next highest, Hawaii, is only 11%.  That cannot be a good idea.

Proposition 31:  Referendum Regarding State Law Prohibiting The Retail Sale of Certain Flavored Tobacco Products

RECOMMENDATION:  VOTE YES (this is counterintuitive – see below)

WHY.  California is one of the few states in the Union where the voters can vote on an act of the Legislature.  That is what a “referendum” is.  But the process can be misused and is being misused in this case.  First, the Legislature was right to crack down on e-cigarettes and the like.  They are horribly addictive and are particularly attractive to younger, vulnerable users.  Second, if a referendum qualifies for the ballot, the law under challenge is suspended until there is a vote.  The e-cigarette manufacturers and their affiliates have already gotten themselves a very nice, and lucrative, extension of time to peddle their wares just by getting this on the ballot.  But now is the time to endorse the Legislature’s obviously correct decision.  To avoid confusion – vote YES to uphold the law cracking down on e-cigarettes, etc. 

San Francisco Ballot Propositions

Proposition A.  Would provide a supplemental cost of living adjustment to a very small group of City employees who retired prior to November 6, 1996, and would permit doing so even if the retirement system is not fully funded.  Would also allow the Retirement Board to have a contract with its executive director. 

RECOMMENDATION:  VOTE NO.  (ALERT:  I’m spitting in the wind here as there are no opposing arguments, Official or paid – but hear me out, please) 

WHY:  While I am sure that this group of people needs the money, unfunded pension plan debt is already huge ($5.8 billion in 2017 according to the San Francisco Civil Grand Jury – who knows what it is currently).  Allowing the Supervisors (who put this on the ballot) to reverse part of a 2011 ballot initiative (Proposition “C”) not to permit unfunded cost of living increases is just wrong.  I would feel differently if the Supervisors (or the Mayor) actually tackled the problem but they aren’t.  The voters were right in 2011 when they said that this practice has to stop.

Proposition B.  This proposition transfers the duties of the recently established (2020) Department of Sanitation & Streets back to the Department of Public Works while retaining the Sanitation and Streets Commission (which provides oversight) as well as the Public Works Commission. 

RECOMMENDATION:  VOTE NO.

WHY:  In theory this is a good idea.  In 2020 the voters decided to split off from the Department of Public Works a separate Department of Sanitation & Streets and to create a Sanitation and Streets Commission to oversee it.  This proposition would recombine the two departments while keeping the existing Public Works Commission and the Sanitation & Streets Commission.  The City Controller says that Proposition “B,” in his opinion “would significantly reduce the cost of government.”  Ordinarily that would be good enough for me.  But this is the same Department of Public Works that has been a scandal magnet with multiple federal indictments and which proved itself incapable of managing the sanitation problems plaguing San Francisco’s downtown and adjacent Tenderloin district.  I agree with Assemblymember Matt Haney (a former Supervisor for this part of town) that the savings are small and this is a step backwards.  Turning back the clock here is also inconsistent with my concerns about the dysfunction of City Government. 

Proposition C.  Would create a Homelessness Oversight Commission to oversee the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Services created back in 2016. 

RECOMMENDATION:  VOTE NO.  (ALERT:  I’m spitting in the wind here as there are no opposing Official arguments and only one paid one, from the local San Francisco Republican Party, usually a “tell” that I should be voting yes, but not this time.)

WHY:  This new commission would cut back on the Mayor’s power (currently the Mayor can appoint/remove the Director of this department).  There would be power sharing between the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors with the Mayor appointing four members of the new Commission and the Board of Supervisors three, but with approval authority over the Mayor’s appointees.  The members of this Commission would have to meet various qualification requirements, including one member who has experienced homelessness, a homelessness advocate, a small businessperson, etc.

The 4-3 Commission split is almost a guarantee of contention between the Mayoral and the Supervisorial appointees.  While I’m deeply disappointed in the Mayor, I’d rather have someone directly in charge and responsible for this terribly important job than to diffuse responsibility through a commission. 

Proposition D.  Initiative measure which would amend the City Charter to speed up approval of various categories of low-income housing.  One of two dueling measures (the other, Proposition E, was put on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors).  If both gain a majority, the one with the highest number of votes wins.

RECOMMENDATION:  VOTE YES

WHY:  San Francisco is notorious for placing roadblocks in front of almost any significant housing project.  This initiative measure would help reduce those roadblocks.  I’m impressed that one of the proponents is Habitat for Humanity, a nonprofit with no particular hidden agenda of which I’m aware.  The opponents argue that the definition of “low-income housing” actually is so high as to make this a backdoor attempt to make it easier to build market rate housing and claim that this is really a stealth measure by developers to build such housing.  The opposition seems to me to be what might be called the “make it expensive to build coalition except on our terms” so I’m not particularly impressed.  But the proponents are a mixed bag.  One is State Senator Scott Weiner, a policy wonk par excellence who I respect.  But then I see the Mayor and her Supervisor-appointee Matt Dorsey also supporting the measure.  So it’s a tough call but I think my vote is “yes.”  I also like the fact that SPUR (San Francisco Bay Area Planning & Urban Research Organization) supports the measure as this policy group does not have an ax to grind here either. 

Proposition E.  Board of Supervisors’ Rival Affordable Housing Ballot Proposition.

RECOMMENDATION:  VOTE NO.

WHY:  This proposition places tons of restrictions on housing development and uses a lower number for determining what constitutes “affordable housing.”  Also unlike Proposition D, the Board of Supervisors would continue to have a role when the City is involved (in leasing or financing property).  I am impressed, a little, that Supervisor Dean Preston, who I respect, was one of the supervisors who put this proposition on the ballot.  But Dean also strikes me as one of the supervisors who tends to put too many roadblocks in the way of new housing and who just doesn’t want to see market rate housing built except at an excessive cost of also requiring developers to build a disproportionate amount of low-income housing as part of an entitlement deal.  I see why he wants to do that but I don’t think it works.  It also looks like this proposition would require union labor for the construction work.  I’m a descendant of union members and boast a union organizer among my grandparents.  But requiring union wages again adds to the cost of new housing and baking this into the legislation strikes me as a sweetheart deal for the construction trade unions.  I’m again impressed that SPUR is opposing the measure. 

Proposition F:  Renew the Library Preservation Fund for 25 years with provisions for a freeze when the City faces a budget deficit over $300 million and increase minimum hours Main and branch libraries are required to be open.

RECOMMENDATION:  VOTE YES (this ballot measure is unopposed).

WHY:  I’m not a fan of set asides from the City’s budget as they limit the ability of the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors to be nimble in terms of meeting day-to-day needs.  But the voters of San Francisco clearly value their public libraries (I’m a huge patron myself).  No reason to spend more time on this.

Proposition G:  Increase Grants To The San Francisco Unified School District.

RECOMMENDATION:  VOTE NO.

WHY:  This proposition would redirect surplus property tax revenue from the property tax already benefiting San Francisco City College and the San Francisco Unified School District back to the School District to create a “Student Success Fund.”  The money would be used for grants “to individual schools for programs that improve student academic achievement and social/economic wellness.  Programs could include academic tutoring, math and literacy specialists, additional social workers, arts, and science programming.”  But I don’t yet have sufficient confidence in the Board of Education to believe that the money will be well spent.  I am also concerned because the spending criteria are so vague, to the point of almost inviting abuse.  I’m a bit sad to be on the same side as the local Republican Party and the so-called “San Francisco Taxpayers Association,” but my approach to the issue is different from theirs.

Proposition H:  Move City Elections To Even-Numbered Years.

RECOMMENDATION:  VOTE YES.

WHY:  There is greater turnout for elections when the races for President, Governor, and the like are on the ballot, which is the case in even-numbered years.  Proposition H would move elections for Mayor, Sheriff, District Attorney, City Attorney and Treasurer from odd-numbered to even-numbered years.  This is Supervisor Dean Preston at his best – what a good idea.  The opposition, ironically, comes from a proponent of the successful attempt to recall former District Attorney Chiesa Boudin, which definitely benefited from a low turnout/off-year election.  The real irony is that one beneficiary of Proposition H will be Mayor Breed, Preston’s main political enemy, who will get an extra year on her term (yet she reportedly is opposed to the proposition, which is something of an interesting “tell” in and of itself). 

Proposition I:  Roll Back Pedestrian Zones In Golden Gate Park & The Great Highway.

RECOMMENDATION:  VOTE NO (emphatically).

Right now portions of John F. Kennedy Drive in Golden Gate Park are off limits to automobiles as a result of actions of the Board of Supervisors and Mayor Breed.  The portion affected is from 6th Avenue through 25th Avenue.  The Great Highway is off limits to cars on weekends and legal holidays.  This proposition would roll back those restrictions.  I’m a regular user of both areas and it has been a wonderful improvement to the quality of life in the Richmond and Sunset Districts.  There was a great piece in the Manchester Guardian discussing how communities come together when there are low traffic zones (what we call slow streets).  That has certainly been my experience.  The argument that these restrictions impact unfairly on the elderly, persons with disabilities, or even (in the most extreme version) minorities is vastly overblown.  Worse yet, it would cost $80 million to keep using the Great Highway for autos – current policy is ultimately to close it down due to erosion.  I can say a lot more about this but why bother? 

Proposition J:  Affirm The Board of Supervisors’ Actions Regarding Recreational Use of JFK Drive.

RECOMMENDATION:  VOTE YES

WHY.  See discussion regarding Proposition I.

Proposition K:  This proposition was intended to tax Amazon but wound up targeting a lot of small local businesses.  The proponents got a court order removing it from the ballot.

RECOMMENDATION:  Nothing to see here – you’re not voting on Proposition K.

Proposition L:  Extends the one-half cent sales tax for transportation projects from 2033 to 2053.

RECOMMENDATION:  VOTE YES

WHY:  This strikes me as basically harmless.  Maybe we could wait until 2032 but why? [Ed. There is another reason -- go to my Twitter feed at @rwhitesf for an explanation]

Proposition M:  Creates a tax on vacant residential units.

RECOMMENDATION:  VOTE YES.

WHY.  It seems weird but some number of residential units are kept off the market.  It’s not clear how many of these units there really are.  The proponents’ argument that there are 40,000 such units seems pretty wild and a seemingly well researched article in The Frisc suggests that the number is really more like 4,500 (here’s a link).  So let’s assume a lower number, perhaps a much lower number.  The tax would be imposed on multi-family housing with more than two units.  It exempts single-family residences and there are other carve outs.  Since residential properties are more marketable if sold without tenants (the result of rent control) I’m not entirely surprised that there might well some vacant units.  But if there are some residential units that are being held off the market and this tax, which is not excessive, will help push them back into the market, it doesn’t seem like a terrible idea.  Looking at the supporters and opponents, I can’t help but notice that the so-called “San Francisco Taxpayers Association” opposes the measure.  That “Association,” or at least its financial supporters, seems to be comprised of at least one rich person with more money than sense and the San Francisco Board of Realtors.  That leads me to invoke the H.L. Richardson Rule and fortifies my conclusion that people should vote yes.

Proposition N:  Use City funds to acquire the Golden Gate Park Underground Parking Facility from its existing governing board.

RECOMMENDATION:  VOTE YES.

WHY.  This garage has been underutilized, apparently because it is too expensive.  One way to address the problem is to acquire the garage so that the City can run it and adjust the pricing.  While I’m not, as you know, a fan of the City running anything at the moment, the authority that currently runs the garage isn’t doing a good job if it is charging too much and the garage is underutilized as a result.  Surprisingly there are no official or paid arguments opposing this proposition.

Proposition O:  Another Parcel Tax To Fund City College.

RECOMMENDATION:  VOTE NO.

Here we go again.  It’s not even clear what this money will be used for.  Worse yet, financing City College through a parcel tax unfairly singles out landlords (and, indirectly, renters) as opposed to the public as a whole.  It’s surprising to see Mayor Breed, Supervisor Peskin, Supervisor Stefani and Judge Kopp (ret.) join together opposing a ballot measure but there you are.  San Franciscans have spent scads of money in the form of bond issues and parcel taxes to keep City College afloat and apparently this is never going to end.  But it’s irresponsible and has to end.  Vote no.

Candidate Recommendations

Incumbents have generally done good jobs so I won’t spend time on their opponents, who are either extremists or unimpressive.  Accordingly I’m not going to spend time on most of the Republican candidates as they generally fall within this definition. 

Governor:  Gavin Newsom

Lieutenant-Governor:  Eleni Kounalakis

Secretary of State:  Shirley Weber.

State Controller.  Malia Cohen.  I agree with the San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board that Ms. Cohen is not the perfect candidate (which is why we both recommended other candidates in the primary).  In particular I don’t care for her supporting the continued existence of the perfectly useless state Board of Equalization.  But while her Republican opponent has his good points, I’m not comfortable putting any Republican into statewide office.  So hold your nose and vote for Cohen.

Treasurer.  Fiona Ma.  Ms. Ma, the Democrat, despite her seeming competence, has a ton of baggage in the form of a harassment lawsuit and some other questionable actions.  Again, you can get the laundry list (and, sadly, it’s that bad) from the San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board.  But unlike the Chronicle, which offers no endorsement, better Fiona Ma than her opponent, who the Chronicle Editorial Board describes as a “school voucher and antiabortion advocate who has threatened to challenge legislators when they make policy decisions he disagrees with.”

Attorney General.  Rob Bonta

Insurance Commissioner.   Ricardo Lara.  I don’t know why we have so many duds in statewide office but here’s another one.   More ethics problems and if you want the details, again the San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board has the laundry list for you.  The Chronicle won’t endorse anyone for this office.  But perhaps I’m being more pragmatic here – better him than the alternative.  California could benefit from a comprehensive federal investigation of a bunch of its current incumbents and it cannot happen soon enough.

Board of Equalization.  Sally Lieber.  As I explained in my blog post for the June 2022 primary, this post is vestigial – it does not have enough to do to merit its continued existence.  But since it is still here, Lieber is the best candidate – she is politically progressive and has private sector financial experience.

Superintendent of Public Instruction.  Tony Thurmond. 

BART Director, District 8.  I’m surprised to see that only the incumbent, Janice Li, is running. 

U.S. Senator.  Alex Padilla (vote twice but not often (😊)).  I thought we were done here as of June but apparently we are not.  Senator Padilla, who was appointed by Governor Newsom to fill the unexpired term of now Vice President Kamala Harris, is running both to complete the existing term, which runs until January 3, 2023, and for a full six-year term thereafter.  This is an easy vote for me.  Senator Padilla has done an excellent job representing California and I rather like his quiet spoken style – no showboating here.  The Republic candidate is not worth wasting keystrokes on.

U.S. Representative, District 11.  Nancy Pelosi.

State Assembly, District 19.  Phil Ting.  I had an interesting experience with Assemblymember Ting.  I read a canned argument opposing some legislation that I got from a local business association to which I belong.  I was lazy and did not carefully read it and then wrote Assemblymember Ting parroting what the association put into my (figurative) mouth.  What I got back from Assemblymember Ting was a detailed and thoughtful explanation as to why the legislation was merited and why I was wrong.  It was respectful but to the point.  I actually wrote back apologizing for jumping to over hasty conclusions.  You have to appreciate a legislator like this.

Board of Education. (Vote for three -- Lanie Motamedi, Lisa Weissman-Ward and Alida Fisher)

In a prior election post I noted how hard it is to really get to know the candidates for what is essentially an entry level elective position.  I even went back to see if we could have really anticipated some of the antics that resulted in the recall of three members of the Board of Education in June.  I don’t think you could.  So all I can do is read the biographies in the Voter Information Pamphlet, see if I recognize anyone, and do what I can with that kind of information, plus some useful insights from the Chronicle Editorial Board.

On that basis, and because this election is so obscure, I’m also going to suggest who not to vote for, specifically Gabriela Lopez, one of the three recalled board members from the last time around.  The Board’s direction under her leadership was disastrous and I don’t want to see her back in office.  But who do I want to see elected?

Two of the three Mayoral appointees strike me as worthy of election, specifically Lanie Motamedi and Lisa Weissman-Ward.  Their conduct on the board since their appointment has been fine and they have helped bring the Board back to something approaching a normal, responsible institution.

I can’t say the same for the third appointee, Ann Hsu, who has been subject to a maelstrom of criticism for what are clearly racist views she holds about African American families (for which she has apologized).  But this is not something you can wash away with an apology.  She clearly believed this stuff.  So all things being equal I would not recommend voting for her.

But that leaves only two remaining candidates.  I tend to steer away from single-issue activists so I’m a little wary of both Alida Fisher (who describes herself as a Special Education Advocate) or Karen Fleshman (Diversity Inclusion Educator).  The Chronicle Editorial Board, who interviewed all the candidates, is endorsing Fisher (“[W]e recommend Fisher, who was impressive in our endorsement interview and who we picked in her previous runs for school board. Fisher would bring a unique and compassionate perspective to the board as a special needs educator, and a foster and adoptive parent. Her background on the school district’s Community Advisory Committee for Special Education only further solidifies her credentials.”  That is pretty impressive, all the more as the alternative, Ms. Hsu, is damaged goods.

Community College Board. (Vote for three -- John Rizzo, Brigitte Davila and Thea Selby)

What I am looking for in terms of board members for this very dysfunctional institution are candidates who are fiscally responsible.  Once again I’m indebted to the Chronicle Editorial Board for doing the heavy lifting here.  They recommend incumbent trustees John Rizzo, Brigitte Davila and Thea Selby on the basis that they work well together and are doing a good job. 

Judicial Retention Elections (Vote For All Incumbents)

California has an unusual system where judges for the higher state courts (the state Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeal) run, in essence, against themselves.  The question to the voters is whether to retain them on a yes or no basis for 12-year terms.  The idea is to depoliticize the process.  My personal rule is to vote for retention short of the commission of a felony on the six o’clock news (😊) or unless my colleagues at the bar whisper that so-and-so is a “bad judge.”  Under that low bar, it’s easy to vote to retain all the justices on the ballot.  But beyond that, while it’s hard to evaluate the very newly minted Chief Justice (Patrica Guerrero), although I do like her background, I’m prepared to ride with the Governor’s selection of her.  The remaining supreme court justices on the ballot have done a solid job in office and continue the tradition of a state supreme court that is both progressive and stunningly smart (and I’ll forgive them for throwing me out in the no-longer celebrated case of White v. Block (Square)).  The appeals court justices on the ballot all pass my admittedly low test for retention.  So just vote yes and move on to more interesting aspects of the ballot.

Assessor-Recorder -- Vote for Joaquin Torres 

As I pointed out in my last election blog post, I’m not convinced that we really need an elected official to run either of these City departments.  But since the offices are baked into the City Charter, the incumbent, Joaquin Torres, has done a good job and is without any known political scandal (the Assessor’s Office has had its share of them over the years).  So he’s fine for a four-year term.

District Attorney  -- Vote for John Hamasaki

I do not recommend voting for Brooke Jenkins, the made-for-media creature of our Mayor.  She got into office as the result of a very dishonest recall election of Chiesa Boudin and I have seen nothing in what she has to offer that will meaningfully affect the crime rate or deal with the underlying problems that have plagued the City.  In part this is her own fault – she helped attack Boudin for not solving problems that are beyond the ability of a District Attorney to solve and her cosmetically-looking return to law-and-order prosecuting is going to go absolutely nowhere.  I am also outraged by the sleazy efforts of her characterizing herself as a “volunteer” to the recall campaign while being paid hefty sums of money from organizations that, while technically, were not part of the recall campaign, were clearly joined at the hip with it. 

Of the remaining candidates, John Hamasaki strikes me as the most qualified and the most sensitive to the futility of going back to a law-and-order prosecution approach.  Joe Alioto Veronese, in contrast, seems to have spent a lifetime trading on his family’s name in futile efforts to get elected to public office.  I need more than that in a candidate.  The remaining candidate, Maurice Chenier, is unknown, and describes himself as the most “pro-police” candidate. 

Public Defender -- Vote for Mano Raju 

This is an easy choice.  Mr. Raju took over the job after the unexpected death of Jeff Adachi.  I admired Jeff Adachi, who took some very courageous political stands, but he was pretty abrasive while Mr. Raju seems to be Adachi without the attitude.  He has done an excellent job as Public Defender and deserves retention.

FOLLOW ME ON @rwhitesf ON TWITTER TO GET UPDATES

If you have read this far, good for you.  I’m glad you were along for the ride.  You can access a cheat sheet of the above recommendations at this link.  I should also mention that this is a bit of a work in progress – you may want to follow @rwhitesf on Twitter for updates as I’ve had to hustle to get this out and I may have more to say (including reconsideration/corrections) regarding these recommendations.  I don’t know if I will stay on Twitter, but at least for now let’s give that a try.  I also plan to comment on, among other things, political topics from time to time.  If you follow my election blogging, you know that I have a somewhat different take than a lot of people.

AND NOW

 MY SOLUTION TO SAN FRANCISCO’S PROBLEMS

As to solving San Francisco’s problems, we need to borrow a concept that exists in the public education world, “Reconstitution.”  When there is a dysfunctional, failing school, sometimes a Superintendent (or board of education) will “reconstitute" it.  That means that some or all of the principal, vice principal, administrative staff and the teachers will be redistributed to other schools and the school will be staffed by new people drawn from other schools in the district.  The idea is to break the culture of the ineffective institution.  If I were king, this is what I would do regarding San Francisco.  I’d severely term limit the existing Board of Supervisors (sorry Drew), do the same for the citywide offices like the Mayor, and, perhaps at least as importantly, redistribute the staff of departments like the Department of Building Inspection and the Department of Public Works to break the toxic cultures there.  Now we all know this is not going to happen.  But that doesn’t make it any less of a good idea.  And, as I said, I can dream.

Hope to see you soon.

Bob White