Ballot Recommendations, March 5, 2024, San Francisco Municipal Ballot (including State Propositions and Candidates)

 

 

As readers may have already seen, I did a special blog post regarding the two contested judgeship races that are on the San Francisco ballot on March 5.  If you have not, here is a link to that post.  There is a lot at stake in those elections as the bogus attacks on the two sitting judges represent a serious threat to judicial independence.  If you are a San Francisco voter, please give that post a look.  Thank you.

 

STATEWIDE BALLOT PROPOSITIONS & CANDIDATES

STATE PROPOSITIONS:

Proposition 1.  RECOMMENDATION – Vote Yes.  This proposition authorizes a lot of money for mental health treatment facilities and supportive housing for homeless veterans and individuals “with behavioral health challenges.”  It also tinkers with existing legislation to allow funding to treat substance abuse disorders in addition to mental health disorders.  While the $6.38 billion price tag is big, proponents note that the money will be raised through bonds (i.e. borrowing) and not through new taxes.  Readers of my prior posts know that I’m suspicious of bond issues as they are a way to fund existing programs while putting the cost of repayment on succeeding generations.  But as readers also know, I’ve been persuaded that the State’s borrowing power is so immense that this is actually feasible although I’m less confident when the State is going through a bad year as it is currently.

This proposition also takes away from counties some flexibility in how the so-called “Millionaire’s Tax” revenues are spent, requiring counties to use this tax money to pay for a broader spectrum of services than just mental health.

In my view, we need to expand services as advocated by this proposition.  This is one of the ways we can help lift people out of homelessness and address substance abuse, in addition to mental health issues, thereby addressing the root causes of the problems that currently plague California.

STATEWIDE AND CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATES

President.  RECOMMENDATION:  Joe Biden (no surprise there).  FWIW, I think Biden has been a remarkably effective President, age considerations notwithstanding.  (Speaking of which did you know that Trump just called his wife “Maureen?”) 

U.S. Senate.  RECOMMENDATION:  Adam Schiff.  I admire Representative Schiff and appreciated his tenacity as an impeachment manager and as a member of the January 6 Committee.  I respect Representatives Katie Porter and Barbara Lee, but I think Schiff will make the better Senator.  What tips the balance for me is that Schiff is a much more collegial member of the House while Porter tends to tick her colleagues off, which is not a quality one looks for in an effective legislator.  The Senate is, if anything, an even more collegial body and I see Schiff being more effective there than Porter.  Speaker Emerita Pelosi’s endorsement of Schiff also matters to me – Rep. Pelosi doesn’t hand out endorsements easily.  One could also see it as a reward for Schiff’s functioning as a team player – his selection as an impeachment manager and as a leading member of the January 6 committee made him a pin cushion for every raging conservative talking head in the nation. 

Representative Lee’s lone vote against the Iraq War was courageous and admirable.  But I don’t tend to think of her as a particularly effective legislator.  Perhaps ironically considering my own age (71), I also want someone who will be in the Senate a good long time.  Seniority matters in the Senate, a lot, and you can’t build up seniority when you enter the Senate at age 78 (Representative Lee’s age).  That, too, points me in the direction of Representative Schiff, who is 62.  (Of course, Representative Porter will just have turned 50 but age is a factor but not the only factor.)

Note that you vote twice for this office, once to cover the balance of the late Senator Feinstein’s term and then for the fresh six-year term of office that follows.

U.S. Representative.  RECOMMENDATION:  Nancy Pelosi.  I’d take Nancy Pelosi running at 50% power over any of her competitors, none of whom have more than nuisance impact as political personalities. (Not that I think the Speaker Emerita is running on less than all eight cylinders.)  

SAN FRANCISCO CANDIDATES

Member, Democratic Party County Central Committee (vote for no more than 10).  The main impact of the Central Committee is in its political endorsements (think the glossy mailers you almost immediately toss into the recycling).  Historically this has not been an organization that attracted much attention, much less voter recognition.  But it has become a battleground in more recent years between “Progressives,” who are on the more radical side of the Democratic Party and “Moderates,” who would be considered leftists pretty much anywhere else.  But the “Moderates” are funded by some of the local big money interests (particularly Big Tech and real estate) and the real fight is over local government regulation of big business/big money/big real estate.  With Covid 19’s devastation of downtown San Francisco, the fighting has become all the more intense.

I don’t care for the “Progressives” as a bloc because their political program has not been particularly successful.  But the “Moderates” don’t impress me either as their solutions don’t seem like they would work any better and might actually be worse.  Readers of my blog post on the contested judicial elections (again here) will see why I have come to this conclusion as to the Moderates’ highly misleading push for “law and order” judges.  Therefore my focus is on good people who I think should have some role in the political endorsement process no matter what their label.  Let’s see if I can find ten of them among the candidates.  I also see some people who I really don’t want on the Committee so I’ll flag those names as well.

People I’d consider voting for:

Mano Raju.  Mr. Raju is the current Public Defender.  While he identifies as “Progressive,” I actually like that in a Public Defender and I think he has done a good job in that position, so much so that I recommended him to succeed the late Jeff Adachi in my last blog post on the elections. 

Gordon Mar.  Mr. Mar formerly represented District 4 on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.  While a “Progressive” he was very much a policy wonk who did a good job representing his constituents.  I did not agree with everything he did, but I was sorry to see him lose a close race last election cycle, the victim of some pretty targeted redistricting.

Bilal Mahmood.  Mr. Mahmood is a “Moderate” who will likely be running against Supervisor Dean Preston in District Five.  He served as a policy advisor in the Obama Administration and I like what I see about him so far.

Well, that’s three.  Wish there were more. 

Who I don’t plan to vote for:

Michela Alioto-Pier.  I really don’t like political dynasties (think Donald Trump, Jr.) and I was not a big fan of the late Mayor Alioto (and this is not because he dodged one of my questions at a press conference when I was in high school).  Ms. Alioto-Pier was not a particularly effective Supervisor when she held the position.  I also don’t like perineal office seekers.

Marjan Philhour.  Another perineal also-ran for public office, backed by “Moderate” big money. 

Sandra Lee Fewer.  Former District One Supervisor.  Too much a “Progressive” for my taste.  Same for her successor, Connie Chan. 

State Senator, District 11.  Recommendation:  Vote for the incumbent, Scott Wiener.  Senator Weiner is a thoughtful legislator, a true “policy wonk” (a compliment in my world), who has accomplished a lot. 

State Assembly District 19.  Recommendation:  Vote for Catherine Stefani.  I’m not always thrilled with what Supervisor Stefani has done representing District 2 on the Board of Supervisors.  The reason is that she seems to play too much to the crowd.  One example was her spearheading the effort of the Board of Supervisors to brand the National Rifle Association as a “terrorist organization.”  I really don’t care for the Board of Supervisors offering gratuitous statements regarding matters beyond their function.  But she has no opposition worth mentioning and will win in a walk.  If she can do half the job retiring Assembly Member Phil Ting has done as a constructive legislator, I will be quite satisfied and happy to revise my opinion.

SAN FRANCISCO BALLOT PROPOSITIONS

Proposition “A.”  Recommendation:  Vote yes.  This proposition seeks to issue $300 million in bonds to create affordable housing.  This is one of the rare propositions that attracts support from all sides of the City’s fractious political scene (endorsers include both Mayor Breed, Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin and the entire Board of Supervisors).  Another endorser, one I respect, is SPUR, a long-time good government organization.  Going to the SPUR website, I was really impressed by their 2024 Voter Guide, which includes a very useful analysis of the San Francisco ballot propositions. 

Note that this proposition requires a 66 2/3 yes vote to be enacted.  News accounts suggest that proponents are worried about meeting this threshold.

Proposition “B.”  Recommendation:  Vote yes.  Proposition “B” would enact higher police staffing minimums but conditions them on raising the taxes necessary to fund them.  It makes other structural changes in the way the police budget is determined.  The so-called “Moderates” oppose the legislation, characterizing the tax funding requirement as a “cop tax.” Maybe it is.  But it’s refreshing for me to see a ballot initiative that actually thinks about paying as you go instead of borrowing the money to saddle the debt on future generations.  Sadly, Proposition “B” has become yet another battleground pitting “Progressives” against “Moderates,” all the more as its chief proponent, Supervisor Ahsha Safaí, is the only “Progressive” currently running for Mayor. 

Proposition “C.”  Recommendation:  Vote No.  There is a transfer tax imposed by the City & County of San Francisco on real estate transactions.  Proposition “C” would exempt commercial-to-residential conversions from the transfer tax as a way to incentivize this kind of construction.  It would also permit office building owners who want to demolish or redevelop their properties to avoid dealing with San Francisco’s allocation of office space process under Proposition “M.”  Finally, it permits the Board of Supervisors, rather than the voters, to amend the transfer tax scheme, but not to increase the tax. 

There is a kind of legislation that is cynically intended to be performative without actually doing much.  This is one of them and is a hallmark of Mayor Breed’s desperate effort to remain in office through misdirection.  Commercial-to-residential conversions are few and far between because they are incredibly expensive and difficult to achieve.  Free market economics (including the dropping of value of office buildings) are either going to make these conversions feasible or they will not.  What’s really funny here is that a recent report from the City Controller’s office states that Prop C could well backfire by reducing the taxbase because the office-to-residential conversions would result in fewer jobs.  Here’s a link to the Chronicle’s story on the subject.

Proposition “D.”  Recommendation:  Vote yes.  This is yet another effort to tighten the City’s ethics laws.  Considering the seemingly unending stream of federal corruption cases launched against City officials at almost every level, it’s worth a try.

Proposition “E.”  Recommendation:  Vote no.  This is another piece of “performance legislation” intended to bolster Mayor Breed’s sagging reelection prospects.  This time the target is the independence of the Police Commission.  It also gives the Police Department powers that it has not even sought, for example to expand the use of drones and surveillance cameras, and relieves officers of necessary oversight of their conduct in the guise of reducing the “paperwork” they must do.   The ACLU opposes Proposition “E” and it is right to do so.

Proposition “F.”  Recommendation:  Vote no.  Proposition “F” would condition public assistance by requiring substance dependence screening for applicants.  This is another piece of “performance legislation” sponsored by the Mayor to show that she is tough on crime.  The science in this area says that all this proposition will do is deter needy people from applying for public assistance.  The Mayor has expressed her contempt for the science in this area.  I don’t like that when Republicans do it; I like it even less when Democrats do.  The Chronicle Editorial Board has come out against Prop F as poorly thought out and creating an additional layer of bureaucracy in an already overly bureaucratized process.  Here’s a link.

Proposition “G.”  Purely advisory measure recommending that the San Francisco Board of Education have schools offer Algebra 1 to Eighth Graders.  Recommendation:  Vote no.  I really don’t like this kind of useless “advisory” legislation.  If voters don’t care for what the School District is doing, the remedy is to vote out the members of the Board of Education who won’t listen to the will of the people. 

That’s another election cycle.  I hope you have found this blog post helpful.