Ballot Recommendations 2024 General Election, November 5, 2024
Dear Friends:
There follows my discussion of California statewide and San Francisco-specific ballot propositions and candidates for office (along with two State Legislature races). Before getting to the nitty gritty (and there is a *lot* of that), some context:
Who Is This Guy?
I’m a lawyer by profession, with an emphasis on civil litigation. I’ve lived in San Francisco for over 65 years. I’m a lifelong Democrat. On the political spectrum my views are closer to “Progressive” than “Moderate,” terms which I will discuss in greater detail below. I’m a bit more fiscally conservative than the labels suggest. I’ve been following elections since I was seven years old – politics is definitely one of my interests.
What is the H.L. Richardson Rule?
I named this after a former Republican State Senator with whom I pretty much always disagreed with. The rule is that you can assess your own position by looking at who is in favor and who is against a given ballot proposition. Whenever the late Senator Richardson was behind a ballot argument, I could pretty much count on me being on the opposite side. It’s a short form version of the old aphorism that “you are known by the company you keep.”
The Chronicle Editorial Board
On many occasions after I form a view regarding a proposition or a candidate, I turn to the San Francisco Chronicle’s Editorial Board endorsements to see what it has to say. The Editorial Board is separated from the newsroom and my experience over the years is that it is usually fair-minded in its assessments and quite informative. One great advantage the Editorial Board has over me is that they have the clout to get ballot proponents and candidates to come to them for interviews. Plus, of course, they may (and often do) see things that I miss. I don’t always agree with the Editorial Board’s endorsements but it’s a sufficiently useful resource that you will often see hyperlinks to particular endorsements if I think there is more you might want to look at (before exhaustion sets in).
Bond Issues
I used to be very suspicious of bond measures as they effectively kick the (fiscal) can down the road, avoid legislative accountability, and burden our descendants. I compared them to an open-ended credit card. But some members of my synagogue (the Mission Minyan), who are *very* sharp on statistics, talked me out of this position based on the sheer size of the State budget, coupled with my own assessment of the need for some of these measures. The current size of the General Fund budget is $211.5 billion. Paying for these and other projects out of the General Fund would severely limit the ability of the State to deal with its ongoing operational expenses. Accordingly, if the purpose of the bond issue is reasonable and if there is at least some urgency in addressing a given problem, I am now of the view that bond financing is appropriate, within reason. I have a slightly different approach when it comes to local bond issues (to be discussed at the appropriate time.)
My Mission – Empowerment and Sharing Knowledge
Some of my readers seem to think that I’ll somehow be offended if they disagree with my recommendations. Nothing of the sort. I see my mission here as distilling an incredibly long ballot and framing the issues for your consideration.
Cheat Sheet
Once you’ve gone through the blog, for your convenience you will find a cheat sheet reflecting my recommendations at the end of this post.
Mistakes
You can safely assume that I’ve made mistakes. There is a lot of material (that’s why you’re here, right?) and they can range from typos to getting things wrong. If you see something you think I should consider fixing, feel free to e-mail me at comments@rwhitesf.com.
And so we begin. I’m starting with State ballots and races, followed by the two State Legislature races, followed by San Francisco ballot propositions and offices.
State Ballot Propositions
Proposition 2. Authorizes Bonds for Public School and Community College Facilities.
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES
Proposition 3. Embeds the Right To Marriage For LGBTQ People Into The State Constitution. RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES
Actually, the amendment goes a bit further as it also protects the right to marriage based on race but the obvious objective here is the repeal of Proposition 8, which in 2008 defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman. While overturned by the federal courts on a legal technicality (if interested you can see my blog posts on the subject at the time starting here), the goal here is to protect LGBTQ marriage rights in the post Roe v. Wade era. Easy “yes” vote for me, and I suspect for most, if not all readers of this blog.
Proposition 4: $10 Billion In Bonds For Safe Drinking Water & Addressing Climate Risks, Including Wildfire Prevention. RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES
Another bond issue where (slightly less than) one half of one percent of the General Fund would go to debt service, costed out over 40 years. This bond issue also meets my test of a reasonable expenditure with some urgency. Usual players for and against (and the H.L. Richardson Rule also supports passage.) Hard to argue against clean water; downright foolhardy not to try to address climate risks.
Proposition 5. Reduce The Voter Majority Needed For (Ostensibly) Affordable Public Housing & Public Infrastructure Bond Issues To 55% (Instead of The Current Two-Thirds) RECOMMENDATION: VOTE NO
This is “zombie legislation.” The proponents have abandoned it in the belief that it cannot achieve the two-thirds majority required to pass it. The San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board has an extensive editorial (link here) explaining its “no” recommendation. Its main point is that the proposition was amended at the request of the California Association of Realtors to take single-family housing (96% of the residential housing land) out of the purview of the legislation, in addition to giving nonprofits the ability to convert 1-4 unit properties into affordable housing that could, no surprise, be marketed by realtors (on commission). The Chronicle Editorial Board argues, persuasively, that all that is left would be abandoned parking lots, commercial corridors and former industrial sites. I think they’re right and I therefore recommend voting “no.”
Proposition 6. Eliminates State Constitutional Provision Allowing Involuntary Servitude (Unpaid Work) For Prisoners. RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES
This proposition would eliminate in California one of the last vestiges of the English common law involving persons punished for crime. At one time in “Merrie Old England,” a person who was convicted of a felony was considered legally dead, even after they served their term of punishment. And, not surprisingly, dead people had no rights. They could not sign or enforce contracts, they could not vote, and while in prison, they could be forced to engage in slave labor (“involuntary servitude” is just a fancy name for slavery). When I worked as a law clerk for a federal judge, in the late 1970s, all of our office furniture, including desks and chairs, was marked as coming from “FCI Sandstone,” a federal prison complex in Minnesota, and was a product of prison labor.
Over time these marks of a felony conviction largely fell away but at different speeds depending on the state you lived in (and you can probably guess the states that are exceptions). Felons (as the term used to be – I find the term “incarcerated persons” not one that rolls easily off the tongue) in California, once they are released, can vote. They can sign and enforce contracts (despite my almost successfully arguing the contrary in a court case many years ago). But prisoners can still be forced to work for next to nothing and can be punished for refusing to work. That is what this Constitutional amendment is directed against. Interestingly, even the most rabid of political conservatives could not muster up the courage, or any logic, to oppose this proposition. A pretty easy “yes.”
[There are no Propositions 7 through 31]
Proposition 32. Raises the Minimum Wage By A Couple Of Bucks. RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES.
The current minimum wage in California is $16 per hour. This proposition would raise the minimum wage to $17 and, ultimately, to $18 per hour, the increase phasing in at a faster pace for employers with 26 or more employees and slower for employers with 25 or less. (Note that most fast-food employees are entitled to a minimum wage of $20 already.) The Legislative Analyst thinks that enactment might slightly raise prices and, of course, it would give employees additional buying power. Otherwise, the Legislative Analyst isn’t sure what the financial impact will be of this legislation.
There are valid arguments in favor and against minimum wage legislation. You can match basic considerations of fairness and economic stimulus against potential job losses and higher prices. But the $1-2 spread here is unlikely to have that large of an impact either way in most instances. Interestingly, a recent study of the much larger increase in the minimum wage for fast food workers came to the conclusion that the wage increase did not lead to massive price hikes. Here’s a link to the article in the Chronicle.
As someone who believes in a form of capitalism that is subject to reasonable regulation, this is one of those instances where I think government has to step in to ameliorate the harshest effects of a capitalist system. Workers at this level have little or no bargaining power as they are neither skilled nor unionized. In a very small way this proposition levels the playing field. The opposing ballot arguments claim that an otherwise “unidentified multimillionaire” is the originator/backer of this proposition. I don’t care – the issue is whether it’s a good idea or not. I think it is.
Proposition 33. Expands The Power Of Local Governments To Enact Rent Control On Residential Property. RECOMMENDATION: VOTE “NO”
The fight here is over repeal of existing state legislation, the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act) (“Costa-Hawkins”). Costa-Hawkins prohibits rent control as to single family homes. It also prohibits rent control as to any housing built on or after February 1, 1995. It also prohibits local rent control legislation from telling landlords the amount of rent they can charge for new tenants after a vacancy occurs (“vacancy decontrol”).
There are a number of issues here.
(Disclaimer – our family owns some rental units in San Francisco.)
One is the desirability of rent control generally. In the broadest terms, rent control is a bad idea. It distorts the market by giving renters, in effect, almost a property right in their rental residences without being responsible for much of the capital outlay and only some of the costs of operation. It can be arbitrary as it is not means tested – from personal experience I’m aware of a tenant in San Francisco who benefited from rent control while being himself a landlord in Nevada. In addition, landlords are discouraged from improving their properties, even in jurisdictions where some “pass-through” of costs is permitted, because the bureaucratic process involved is daunting and they may not get the full amount of the pass-through expense anyway. On top of that, the tight caps on rental increases are often unfair to landlords (and not all landlords are big corporations or speculators). Existing state law already limits most rent increases by five percent plus inflation (up to a total of 10%) per year for residential units 15 years or older.
But then there is the specific effect of rent control. Millions of low-income Californians would be at risk of eviction and homelessness if they are not protected by rent control. Rent control also stabilizes housing costs and prevents what many would consider price gouging by landlords taking advantage of California’s chronic shortage of housing. We all know that the production of sufficient housing stock to bring the market price of housing down is years, many years, away. Viewed as a short-term fix for a gigantic social problem, there is a strong case in favor of rent control, certainly for now.
But then there is the specific impact of Proposition 33, particularly as it applies to new housing. Opponents argue, and I think with some force, that expanding rent control to new construction would discourage investment in new housing.
The San Francisco Chronicle editorial board’s “no” recommendation (link here) also suggests that this proposition would enable local jurisdictions to effectively block new development. I can’t say they’re wrong.
I can see reasonable people disagreeing on rent control generally. But Proposition 33 doesn’t strike me as solving the core problem and could actually make things worse. I’m therefore going to vote “no,” principally because this is not the time to discourage the construction of new housing.
Proposition 34. The Revenge Of The Realtors RECOMMENDATION: VOTE NO
The principal backer of Proposition 33 (see discussion above) is an organization called the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (“AHF”). Proposition 34, without mentioning AHF by name, seeks to prevent AHF from using its funds in the future to support legislation intended to roll back local restrictions on rent control. It does so by requiring organizations like AHF to spend 98% of the money they get from federal prescription drug discount programs on direct patient care.
The Chronicle editorial board (link here) points out that the way AHF makes money is by reselling drugs purchased at a discount from manufacturers and then reselling them to insurers at full price. It also points out that, and why am I not surprised, that AHF has itself been accused of being a slumlord. But the really interesting point here is that the Governor, by executive order, is ensuring that Medi-Cal will pay the discounted rate in the future. It also points out that this is really a federal problem (and a federal loophole).
My bottom line: I am extremely uncomfortable with the idea of one special interest group (realtors) going after another special interest group and trying to stifle advocacy by restricting the other group’s (currently) lawful use of its income. Where will this stop? Better to nip this bad idea in the bud, which is why I’m going to vote “no.”
Proposition 35. Permanently Fund Medi-Cal RECOMMENDATION: VOTE NO
This proposition would make the current tax on managed health care insurance plans (set to expire in 2026), permanent. It is also subject to federal approval. Judging from the Legislative Analyst’s chart comparing the current law with Proposition 35, some additional services/facilities would be funded under this proposition. The Legislative Analyst believes that the cost of Proposition 35 would be between $1 billion and $2 billion in 2025 and 2026, i.e. between one-half to one percent of the General Fund budget.
Medi-Cal serves the most vulnerable of Californians. The demands on the health care system only increase by the year. I noted with considerable interest that no ballot argument opposing Prop 35 was submitted. So initially this struck me as a pretty easy “yes” vote.
But then I went to the Chronicle Editorial Board endorsements (link here) and was surprised to see a “no” recommendation. According to the Chronicle, Prop 35 would disrupt a carefully worked out spending plan recently negotiated between Governor Newsom and the Legislature regarding how this kind of money is spent. It also inhibits the use of tax revenue to replace existing Medi-Cal funding and to take the State’s financial outlook into consideration. Not surprisingly, the Governor opposes the proposition. If that is not enough for you, click the link and read the Chronicle endorsement.
Proposition 36. Rolling Back Prop 47 & Increasing Sentences For Selected Drug & Theft Crimes RECOMMENDATION: VOTE NO OR HOLD YOUR NOSE AND VOTE YES (but it won’t matter – this is going to win big)
This is likely the most visible (and contentious) state ballot initiative of the cycle other than Proposition 33. It will roll back aspects of Prop 47 (enacted in 2014), which reduced a number of theft and drug crimes from felonies to misdemeanors. The most prominent change made back in 2014 was that stealing items worth $950 or less from a store and drug possession became, for the most part, misdemeanors. (A misdemeanor limits punishment to imprisonment in the county jail, not state prison, and for no more than a year.)
Proposition 36 makes theft of $950 or less a felony (again) if the perpetrator has two or more past convictions for certain categories of crime (shoplifting, burglary, or carjacking are prominent examples). Punishment would go up to three years in county jail or state prison. A three-year sentence would also be available if three or more people committed the crime together.
Drug crimes involving sale would require sentencing to state prison – no more county jail (where conditions are considered less severe and where the perpetrator is generally closer to family members). The proposition would also use the threat of longer imprisonment to coerce participation in drug treatment programs. Just to make sure you get the message if you’re a voter frightened about crime, the proposition will also require courts to warn defendants about possible murder charges if they sell or provide illegal drugs that kill someone.
The Legislative Analyst explains that (no surprise), the proposed changes will increase fiscal costs by imprisoning more people (and imprisoning them for longer times) and adding more contested cases to the court system. The estimated increase is between “several tens of millions of dollars to the low hundreds of millions of dollars each year . . . ” for the prison system and “tens of millions of dollars annually” for local criminal justice costs. An odd countervailing consideration is a reduction of the amount the state must spend on mental health, drug treatment, school truancy, dropout prevention, and victim services. So that’s a “gain” “in the low tens of millions of dollars annually.” But the net result is that if this initiative passes, the State will be spending significantly more now than it has done for prison population and the court system and (somewhat) significantly less for rehabilitation.
People are scared of crime in California, stoked in very large part by a 24/7 news cycle that very much believes in the adage that “if it bleeds, it leads.” Add to that the endless drumbeat of social media and Internet influencers stoking fear, abetted by local politicians who seek to exploit those fears.
But what’s so ironic here is that property crime generally, statewide, is down (see this link – take a look at the Executive Summary at page one from 2023 Crime in California – published by the State Attorney General’s Office). It is also highly doubtful that increasing criminal penalties (and withdrawing support for social services that are more likely to address the sources of crime) is actually going to do anything, much less anything good.
While it’s tempting to think that criminals actually conform their conduct to tweaks in the criminal law, that is, unfortunately, wishful thinking. Maybe, just maybe, the optics will deter crime, but there is no reliable scientific support for that proposition of which I am aware. So as far as I’m concerned, this is another case of “performative legislation,” designed to pander to our fears without accomplishing anything positive. I agree with opponents that this is a return to a failed “war on drugs” approach to crime. While I think many of us feel, intuitively, that criminalizing conduct and incarceration are the way to deter crime, that approach has failed miserably for drugs and, I believe, for most crime. It’s worth a few minutes to look at the opposition ballot arguments (link here – go to page 63-64)
But right now, polls suggest that pro Prop 36 will win in a landslide (71% in favor). So I’m not sure it really matters what you (or I) do. I’ll vote no, if only to help keep the margin of victory down and so as not to encourage this kind of “performative legislation.”
Statewide Races
President & Vice President
You don’t really need my recommendation here, do you?
United States Senate (vote twice (yes, you can, and should, do that))
For me this is an easy choice, referring to Adam Schiff. I admire Congressman Schiff and appreciated his tenacity as an impeachment manager and as a member of the January 6 Committee. His Republican opponent, Steve Garvey, when he isn’t dodging tough questions, borders on the incoherent. Note that you need to vote twice, one for the unexpired term of the late Senator Diane Feinstein and then for a full six-year term.
U.S. House of Representatives (12th Congressional District)
Nancy Pelosi
California Legislative Races
State Senator, District 11
I admire Scott Weiner. He’s a true “policy wonk,” who crafts significant legislation and is clearly very conscientious. If you’re a renter or a classic NIMBY (“Not In My Back Yard”) kind of person, perhaps he is not for you. This is because he is the darling of the YIMBYs (“Yes In My Back Yard”), having been responsible for significant legislation pushing localities into increasing (often from flat zero) new housing starts. I don’t think he has much to worry about relative to his Republican opponent. He’s a shoo-in for reelection.
State Assembly Member, District 19
As a result of the California “jungle primary” system, both candidates are Democrats. Of the two, current San Francisco Board of Supervisors Member Catherine Stefani is the odds-on favorite. I have some reservations about her as some of what she has done on the Board struck me as more performative than substantive. (Remember that ridiculous declaration by the Board of Supervisors that the NRA was a “domestic terrorist organization?”) I’m also not happy about her support for Proposition H, which would help bring back unfunded pension liability (discussed further below). But what I write won’t really matter – she is going to win easily. I just hope she will be a worthy replacement to termed-out State Assembly Member Phil Ting, another model legislator and policy wonk. The Chronicle Editorial Board shares my reservations (link here). They view her opponent, David Lee, as “lack[ing] fluency in many key policy areas despite having run for office multiple times.” They do note that he received the endorsement of Assembly Member Ting, which matters to me. But, again, Stefani is going to win this race regardless.
San Francisco Ballot Propositions
Proposition A. School Improvement & Safety Bond. This bond issue would authorize $790 million in bonds to improve earthquake safety and accessibility in the San Francisco public schools. The money would be used to refurbish worn out school facilities as well as provide reliable Internet. The measure would be funded by assessing $12.95 per $100,000 of assessed property value. It requires a 55% majority to pass.
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES.
I am singularly unimpressed by the official ballot argument against Proposition A, coming from the Libertarian Party. (I’ve been meaning to qualify myself for doing some ballot arguments but I never remember to do this in sufficient time to do so.) I’m also reluctant to trust the current Board of Education and school district bureaucracy as well as the unfairness of imposing this tax, initially, on property owners only (there is some prospect of a partial pass-through to tenants). But, regarding the latter, the Board has no power to impose any other kind of tax, and the State is not going to step in to help here.
What persuaded me to reconsider an initial “no” recommendation was a statement by the Chronicle’s Editorial Board (link here):
Despite the district’s recent troubles, history shows its school bonds have been managed well, with money doled out to construction projects in a timely manner and within budget. There are strong accountability measures in place, in the form of quarterly reports and a citizens’ bond oversight committee. And despite its hefty price tag, the bond will not increase taxes beyond what city residents are already paying due to the expiration of previous school bonds.
I hope the Editorial Board is right.
Proposition B: $390 Million In Bonds To Fund A Grab Bag Of Projects
This proposition will use bond money to (1) refurbish/renovate community health centers, San Francisco General Hospital and Laguna Honda; (2) street and sidewalk safety projects; (3) improve/modernize public spaces in downtown San Francisco; (4) parks and recreation centers; and (5) up to $50 million for shelter/interim housing sites to reduce family homelessness.
Note that this proposition needs a 66 2/3% majority to pass unless State Prop 5 passes, in which case the majority would go down to 55%.
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES.
The political establishment of San Francisco is solidly in favor of this bond. The Chronicle Editorial Board endorses it (here’s the link). So maybe I’m just being your proverbial grumpy old man when I thought about recommending a “no” vote. My reluctance is that I’m not at all sure that all the money is going to be put to good use. For example, fixing up public spaces to make them more attractive is, in my view, less important than revitalization that is more organic. I also could not help but notice the prominent place in the ballot proposition given to fixing up the Chinatown Public Health Center (which struck me as pandering). But then there is the money clearly needed to modernize and expand the City’s psychiatric emergency services and build out shelter and interim housing, where I see a definite need, I can’t pick and choose among these uses so I’m voting yes.
Proposition C – Create The Post Of Inspector General
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES
This proposition would create the post of Inspector General in the office of the City Controller. The Controller would hire (and fire) the Inspector General. Under existing law the Controller, who is appointed and non-political, has broad investigatory responsibilities already but not subpoena power. There are also other departments in City government that have investigatory responsibilities. This Charter Amendment would give the Inspector General subpoena power and a role in coordinating oversight with other city governmental departments.
The argument in favor of this proposition is that existing oversight up to this point has been abysmal in curbing widespread abuse both by City employees, and even more prominently, non-profits under contract with the City. The argument against is that this legislation creates one more relatively high-paid City official who would be doing work that should, largely, already be done by existing departments and staff.
I am going to vote “yes” because City government, as currently constituted, doesn’t seem able to do the job when it comes to oversight. For the $725,000 to $775,000 per year that this new position will cost (per the City Controller), it’s worth a try. If you’re interested, here’s a link to the Chronicle Editorial Board’s endorsement of Proposition C.
Proposition D – Limiting City Commissions, Giving Mayor Sole Authority To Appoint/Remove City Department Heads And Give The Police Chief Sole Authority To Adopt Rules Of Conduct For Police Officers
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE NO
This is legislation by meat-cleaver. It would lop off City commissions by imposing an arbitrary number on them and would centralize appointment power in the Mayor (and the Police Chief) at the expense of the Board of Supervisors and the Police Commission, respectively. That is the not-so-hidden agenda of this proposition. In comparison, Proposition E permits a much more systematic and reasonable analysis of existing City commissions and an opportunity for thoughtful reform (see below). If you agree, make sure you vote “no” on this proposition and “yes” on Proposition E as the one with the higher number of votes in favor prevails if both win. Looking at the ballot arguments, it’s striking how many are paid for by TogetherSF Action, which is bankrolled by VC billionaire Michael Moritz and which I view as an extreme version of the “moderate” approach to local government. Take a look at Mission Local’s expose of the organization (link here).
Proposition E – Commission Reform Done Better – Creating A Task Force To Propose Changes To The Commission Structure & Then Take It To The Voters To Decide (Mainly)
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES.
This is legislation by scalpel. Proposition E would create a task force to make recommendations on how commissions can change, be eliminated and/or consolidated. It also requires a financial report by the Board of Supervisors’ Budget & Legislative Analyst on the cost of supporting existing commissions and potential savings if certain commissions are eliminated or consolidated. It would give the task force authority to introduce ordinances to implement its recommendations unless rejected by a supermajority of the Board of Supervisors and also go before the voters if a commission had been established by the voters. If a commission was established through an amendment to the City Charter, it would be up to the Board of Supervisors to consider placing such an amendment on the ballot to implement the task force’s recommendations. I don’t care for this last reservation of power in the Board of Supervisors but if you are looking for a way to deal with the issue of proliferating commissions, this approach is far better than Proposition D.
Looking at the scores of paid arguments, I also noticed that Assemblymember Phil Ting supports Prop E, which matters to me.
The Chronicle Editorial Board has made a “no” recommendation on Proposition D. Here’s a link. They characterize it as a “sloppy first draft” and note many of the issues I raise (and more). The Editorial Board also does not care for Proposition E (link here), which it treats as a kind of “Progressive”-based performative legislation that just kicks the can down the road as it will take years to implement, if it is implemented at all. I’d rather see something happen here than nothing and I’m concerned about Proposition D passing. So I’m not persuaded by the Editorial Board and still recommend a “yes” vote on Proposition E and a “no” vote on Proposition D.
Proposition F. Allow Senior Police Officers To Postpone Retirement & “Double Dip.”
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE NO.
This is a very costly way to entice a small percentage of police officers to postpone retirement in order to address police understaffing. This was attempted some years ago and was considered an expensive failure. I can’t see the point in doing this again. The Chronicle Editorial Board agrees (see this link) but makes the further point that SFPD officers just got a 20% pay raise so filling the ranks of peace officers should be far easier going forward.
Proposition G. Budget Set Aside Requiring The City To Appropriate At Least $8.25 million per year for rental subsidies for affordable housing developments that serve extremely low-income households and persons with disabilities. Some upward and downward adjustments depending on the state of the City’s revenues.
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE NO
State law requires the City to address housing needs at all income levels in the community. While the City has loan programs to develop low-income housing, the rent required to make these projects viable can still be too high for low-income renters. This Charter Amendment is intended to address that shortfall. Proposition G was placed on the ballot by all 11 of the Board of Supervisors. This is a body that splits into factions over the time of day, so that definitely tells you something. The self-promoting official ballot argument in opposition is singularly unimpressive and there are no paid arguments against the proposition. So this seemed like a pretty easy “yes.”
But then I read the Chronicle Editorial Board’s recommendation to vote “no” (link here). Basically, this funding is already happening through the legislative process on a regular basis and the Editorial Board questioned why there had to be a set aside (in effect a mandatory appropriation) to do something that the City already does. They’re right and they reminded me how much I dislike the idea of “set asides,” which rob City government of flexibility to address budget issues on an as needed basis.
On that basis I recommend a “no” vote even though my gut tells me that this proposition is going to win, big.
Proposition H. Lower Retirement Age For Firefighters Hired After January 7, 2012, From 58 to 55 Years Of Age. Cost Is Likely Over $60 million. RECOMMENDATION: VOTE NO
The rationale here is that firefighters are particularly susceptible to cancer due to their exposure to toxins and that most diagnoses occur after age 50. The argument follows that allowing an earlier retirement reduces the cancer risk. Proposition H was put on the ballot by 10 of the 11 Supervisors (one “excused”) so it was basically unanimous. Another seemingly easy “yes.”
But then I read the Chronicle Editorial Board’s argument against this proposition (link here). I was reminded how the City was at the brink of a gigantic unfunded pension plan shortfall and that one of the elements of reform legislation passed by the voters in 2011 was to increase the retirement age for firefighters from 55 to 58. I think this is a closer case than some of the other efforts on the ballot to tinker with pension benefits for City workers but on balance this is a “no” vote for me. This is not the time, if there is ever a time, to commit to unfunded pension benefits.
Proposition I. Retirement Benefits For Certain Categories Of Nurses & 911 Operators
RECOMMENDATION: NO
This proposition would permit a category of “per diem” nurses to buy into the City’s pension plan and move 911 employees to a higher benefit category within the City pension plan system provided that they pay the difference in salary contributions from January 4, 2025, forward. The City Controller estimates increased costs of $3.8 million to $6.7 million, going up over time. The proponents also argue that this will incentivize hiring in these two critical categories. Another unanimous vote of the Board of Supervisors got this measure on to the ballot. Another seemingly easy “yes.”
But you know what I’m going to write next. The Chronicle Editorial Board (link here) turned me around. In addition to reminding us of the dangers of unfunded pension obligations, the Editorial Board points out that nurses recently received a 17.5% raise and that nursing vacancy rates have dropped drastically. They also note that there is no time limit for the buy-in – theoretically a nurse could wait for years before buying into the pension plan, meaning no asset appreciation to help fund the higher pension payments. The Editorial Board is sympathetic to the 911 workers but thinks that this is not the time for a desperately cash-strapped City to incur these kinds of obligations. They’re right and they talked me out of my initial recommendation.
Proposition J. Putting The Mayor and the School District Superintendent In Charge of Ensuring that City funding for children, youth, and families is used effectively. Also increases the amount of the set-aside from the City budget for this purpose.
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE NO
I like the idea of coordinating between City government and the School Board to make sure that otherwise overlapping funds to support children, youth and families are well spent. But the City Controller notes some very significant fiscal costs of this Charter Amendment, starting at up to $35 million in the current fiscal year and increasing up to $83 million in fiscal year 2037-38, plus additional staffing charges.
Since I don’t like the idea of spending more money when the City is desperately short of funds, I recommend a “no” vote. This time I disagree with the Chronicle Editorial Board link here). The reason is that Editorial Board does not address the issue of increased fiscal costs and this is yet another piece of “set aside” legislation. But I should also mention that this proposition got on the ballot by another unanimous vote of the Board of Supervisors and there is no official opposition argument. So I’m likely spitting into the wind here.
Proposition K. Turning The Great Highway Into A Public Park. RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES
In this instance I have a personal perspective as I’ve been a user of The Great Highway for decades.
The San Francisco portion of The Great Highway runs along from Lincoln Way to Sloat Boulevard. It currently connects up with State Highway 1 and, as such, is a kind of back door way to get in and out of San Francisco (instead of 19th Avenue/Interstate 280). It is especially convenient for residents of the Sunset District but I have enjoyed using it after a long day in court down the Peninsula even though I don’t live in the Sunset. Part of the fun is driving next to the ocean and avoiding the occasional gridlock on 280 and 19th Avenue. (No point in sharing my selection of places to stop on Highway 1, including my “secret” donut shop. Those days are about to end – you’ll soon learn why.)
During the height of the Covid public emergency, Mayor Breed declared that this part of the Great Highway would be closed to cars on weekends. On weekends it became a pedestrian space with no cars permitted. I regularly bike along this part of the Great Highway and I thought that the Mayor struck the right balance between the various interest groups. That balance was confirmed when the Board of Supervisors approved the partial closure as a pilot program, scheduled to end after 2025.
But something happened to change the equation. The southern part of the Great Highway is going to be permanently closed due to erosion (it is falling into the ocean). As a result, the utility of the Great Highway in San Francisco as an alternate route to and from the Peninsula is going to end.
Proposition K therefore wants to convert Upper Great Highway into a public park. While I appreciate that some Sunset District residents are unhappy about this decision, I think it’s a good idea. There is an alternate route within San Francisco that is available to Sunset District residents, Sunset Boulevard. While some Sunset District residents claim that this will add significantly to their cross-town commute, it’s not clear whether ongoing construction on Sunset is part of the problem. I also note that Speaker Emerita Pelosi’s rebuttal argument states that traffic studies indicate that traffic impacts will be minimal. I believe her.
But the biggest point of all is that the Great Highway is never going to be the alternate route it has been up to now no matter what happens with Proposition K.
One other thing. The Great Highway is often blocked by sand, blocking the roadway in part and on occasion in full, costing a *lot* of money to remove. In addition, the stoplights are timed for 30 m.p.h. so it’s not like you can really zoom through it. Fulton Street has recently been capped at 30 m.p.h. as well so the advantages of taking the Great Highway as an alternate auto route to and through the Richmond District has also diminished. (Told you I had a personal perspective – this is my turf.)
In comparison, park conversions of this type have been extraordinarily successful. One example is Presidio Tunnel Tops park at Crissy Field. Comparisons to the Highline in New York also seem appropriate (and I agree - I’ve been there). I agree with the proponents that this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to do something really great. So does the Chronicle Editorial Board (link here).
Proposition L. Tax Uber, Lyft and Waymo To Fund Public Transportation. This proposition, if enacted, would impose a gross receipts tax on rideshare companies, projected to raise $25 million. The money will be used to support MUNI and fare discount programs. This tax would be in addition to existing taxes on such businesses.
RECOMMENDATION: YES
Simply put, we need money to support MUNI and there is some logic to getting at least some of that money out of rideshare companies. While there are many reasons why MUNI is in financial trouble, rideshare companies definitely played their part in getting people out of buses pre-Covid. I note with some interest that the rideshare companies are not opposing Proposition L, certainly not publicly. I also recall reading that one of the reasons is that the tax proposed is one they think they can live with.
And something in me just enjoys the idea of soaking the rich (at least so long as it doesn’t drive the golden geese out of California).
Note that this proposition and Proposition M (Changes to Business Taxes) compete with one another to an extent. If Proposition L gets more votes than Proposition M, both go into effect. If Proposition M gets more votes than Proposition L, only Proposition M is effective. So let’s turn to Proposition M.
Proposition M. Increases Annual Gross Receipts Tax Rates, Business Registration Fees, Administrative Office Tax Rates; Increases Gross Receipts Tax Exemption For Small Business; Changes How These Taxes Are Calculated. Anticipated annual revenue is $50 million once the measure is fully implemented. RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES
You can read the Ballot Simplification Committee’s [sic.] discussion of the technical changes that are proposed to these various taxes at pages 188-189 of the 300-page Voter Information Pamphlet. (But you won’t.) The most prominent, to me, are increases in taxes for “overpaid executives” and “administrative office” taxpayers, a shift away from calculating taxes based on payroll in favor of sales, and a slew of exemptions/incentives for small businesses. I had to go to the paid ballot arguments to try to understand why this proposition matters. Apparently small business taxes would go up without it and that would be terrible public policy with so many small businesses struggling to stay alive. I also see that the Mayor, Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin, and five other supervisors support the measure, suggesting a pretty broad-based consensus of people who I don’t typically find on the same side of a ballot proposition. I’m also finding paid ads supporting the proposition from all the other major mayoral candidates, Asha Safai, Mark Farrell and Daniel Lurie. No paid opposition arguments were submitted.
Proposition N – Create A “First Responder Student Loan and Training Reimbursement Fund.” This proposition would create a (for now empty) fiscal “pot” into which the City can appropriate funds to reimburse eligible employees for student loans and job-related educational and training expenses up to $25,000. Donations could also be directed to this fund. RECOMMENDATION: VOTE NO
While I think I like the concept, I don’t see why there has to be a voter-created “pot” to make this all work. I would have hoped for some guidance from the official ballot arguments but what I’m reading just reminds me to calendar trying to do some of the official ballot arguments myself. Interestingly, no paid arguments were submitted in opposition.
But the Chronicle Editorial Board agrees with me. Here’s the link. The ballot is long enough without this kind of unnecessary measure. I like to think a “no” vote might send that message.
Proposition O: Should it be City policy and law to support, protect, and expand reproductive rights and services? RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES
I’m not a fan of ballot measures that are “declarations of policy.” So if this was all that Proposition O was about, I wouldn’t care for it. But it is more than that. It also provides a range of protections and services to protect the right to abortion, in addition to non-cooperation with anti-abortion state governments. On that basis I plan to vote “yes.”
And with that, we’re done with the City ballot propositions. Time to move on to City elections for public office.
Mayor (vote up to 10 – ranked choice voting)
RECOMMENDATION: EITHER AARON PESKIN OR DANIEL LURIE SHOULD BE YOUR FIRST CHOICE. EITHER ASHA SAFAI OR MARK FARREL ARE POSSIBLE SECOND CHOICES – DON’T EVEN RANK THE MAYOR – SHE DOES NOT DESERVE REELECTION.
First off, note that San Francisco employs a system of “ranked choice” voting for Mayor. You get to vote for up to 10 candidates. The weakest candidates get eliminated and there are successive revotes based on second, third, etc. rankings until someone achieves over 50%. As a result, your second, third, etc. choices matter and it’s my strong hunch that Daniel Lurie will likely win in the end as he is the least disliked of the major candidates for Mayor. But I’m getting ahead of myself.
San Francisco politics are characterized by a polarization between people who identify as “Progressives” and people who identify as “Moderates.” There are no party platforms to refer to but the general points of distinction are these:
“Progressives” do not trust Big Business, Big Real Estate or Big Tech (the “Big 3”) and are highly sympathetic to the needs of minorities and poor people. They view crime as an economic/social problem that is best addressed by social services and economic measures as distinguished from arrests/incarceration. They also distrust the police and the current District Attorney.
“Moderates” do not regard the Big 3 as evil and see a much greater role for business in the economic revitalization of San Francisco. They believe that more stringent law enforcement deters crime. They support the current District Attorney. The needs of minorities and poor people, in their view, are best served by improving the economy and not through social engineering through government.
If “Progressive” ideals motivate you, Aaron Peskin is the obvious first choice for you. He is wickedly smart, possibly the smartest candidate in the race, and his encyclopedic knowledge of City government cannot be matched. He truly knows how City government works and how to work the system. He has proven to be a very clever dealmaker in the interests of his supervisorial district and in more recent years seems to have become a bit less doctrinaire in terms of Progressive ideology. He seems to have risen above his past reputation as a bully and I haven’t heard any stories about his relapsing into alcoholism (glad AA helped him.) I’m not trying to be catty here – but historically Peskin had a serious problem being thought of as likeable.
Supervisor Asha Safai is the other “Progressive” candidate. He is less experienced than Peskin and is less well known. If you’re a diehard Progressive, he’s your obvious second choice.
If “Moderate” ideals motivate you, then Daniel Lurie is your obvious first choice. I had the chance to meet Lurie at a parlor meeting a while ago. He’s well-spoken and handles himself really well interacting with voters. He’s intelligent and comes across both as a nice guy and competent. While he does not have hands-on experience in government, some people would contend that this is not necessarily a bad thing. He does have significant experience running a non-profit and a successful private/public partnership to develop low-income housing. Of course he’s as rich as Croesus, which makes some people jealous and others confident that at least he can’t be bought. If I see a possible weakness in Lurie, it is that he strikes me as a bit naïve when it comes to working with business interests. I expect businesspeople to act in their best interests and that can include overreaching in the absence of strong checks and balances. But I think he’s the obvious “Moderate” choice
Mark Farrell strikes me as a “back to the past” kind of Moderate. The “good old days” in San Francisco are not coming back and if they did, they served the white and the well off far more than anyone else. I don’t think he understands the current needs of the City and he panders to the public’s fear of crime. The criticism of his logrolling his campaign with ostensibly independent committees supporting ballot measures is also concerning. When a candidate for public office says that he would have cleared homeless encampments notwithstanding a court order and would dare people to sue him, I want no part of him (see this link). But if you’re looking for a next choice “Moderate” vote and you’re not sold on Daniel Lurie, maybe you consider him.
But then there is the Mayor. Mayor Breed started out with a huge reservoir of goodwill as far as I am concerned. Her leadership in protecting people from Covid was admirable (as a vulnerable senior I was particularly grateful). But then she seemed to fall asleep at the switch. The City got worse and worse economically, particularly the downtown, and the police seemed to be helpless to address the more visible (but generally lower order) crime that appeared since the start of the pandemic. Drug use and homelessness only seemed to get worse on her watch.
The imminence of the election and abysmal polling numbers seem to have acted like the equivalent of a cattle prod. Suddenly the Mayor’s Office has all sorts of proposals. But a distressingly large number of them are either useless or pander to the “law and order” crowd, including measures that are both ineffective and cruel to the poor and helpless. And even if there are some good ideas mixed in with the bad, where on earth has she been over the last four-plus years?
If you want an example of a useless proposal, consider the Mayor’s successful ballot initiative last March to eliminate the real estate transfer tax for commercial-to-residential conversions. Then tell me how many successful commercial-to-residential conversions are in prospect (as in next to none, if that).
If you want an example of some performative cruelty, there is her successful Proposition “F”, which conditioned public assistance on requiring substance dependence screening for applicants. All this is likely to have done is to deter needy people from applying for public assistance.
I also question the Mayor’s constant bringing up of her origin story at this point. While it had some validity when she first ran for election, she now has a track record.
And then there is her disrespect for social science when it gets in the way of pandering to frightened voters. You can’t arrest your way out of crime. The latest irony is the effect of the sweeps of homeless tent encampments. The Mayor touts a reduction in tents; the news from the street is that people are now sleeping on the streets without even that flimsy a kind of shelter (see this link). This is progress?
And then there is the rampant corruption that seems to yield a new resignation or indictment every month or so. This is on her watch and has been going on for years.
The sharpest cut of all in a ranked-choice election is not to rank a candidate at all. That is what I recommend regarding the current Mayor.
San Francisco Board of Education (vote for up to four)
One of the reasons I look at the Chronicle Editorial Board’s recommendations is that they have the kind of clout to get candidates to sit for an interview and the resources to probe into their backgrounds. This is extremely important regarding the Board of Education as this is often an entry level job into higher electoral politics (the late Senator Feinstein got her start on the school board.) Often candidates have a very scant track record and can sneak into office with their real views unknown and their capabilities entirely untested. The result can be board members who run the School District like a runaway train. Thus it is not a surprise that three school board members were recalled – no one really knew, much less focused, on what their real views were, including me when I look back at my ballot recommendations in the past.
With the aid of the Chronicle Editorial Board (link here) and some independent checking, I recommend the following:
Supriya Ray. Ms. Ray is an attorney. My liking for lawyers is not just tribal – lawyers tend to understand process and rules so this is a plus for me. I like that she has school-age children in public school (she has skin in the game) and the Chronicle Editorial Board believes “she has a deep understanding of the district’s need and shortfalls.” Well, they interviewed her and I didn’t so I’ll take their word for it. I’m less impressed than the Editorial Board that “she believes one of the board’s primary goals should be sorting out the budget.” Any school board candidate who did not believe this should not be running. I’m not sure how I feel about her successful campaign to bring back 8th grade algebra and to support merit admission to Lowell High School. On the one hand, Lowell is, or at least was, a beacon of educational excellence in an otherwise lackluster school system. On the other hand, there are legitimate reasons to question the creation of an elite school in a public school system required to serve all students (and some serious legal questions). But at least she cares. I also see that Assemblymember Phil Ting is among her endorsers, which is a big deal to me. (But so is ethically challenged State Treasurer Fiona Ma.) Other “celebrity endorsers” seem to trend much more towards the “Moderate” camp than the “Progressives.” Right now, I think the Board can benefit from someone more “Moderate” than “Progressive,” so fine with me.
Jaime Huling. Ms. Huling is a Deputy City Attorney so she checks the lawyer box. The Editorial Board mentions her successful efforts to legalize marriage equality in California, protect trans kids and support LGBTQ rights. That’s great but not directly relevant to qualifications to serve on the school board. But not a reason to object to her candidacy either and smart lawyers are useful people. She also has a school-age child, allegedly the source of her “interest” in the school system. The Editorial Board is vague as to whether that child is actually enrolled in the school district, which is odd. But her candidate statement indicates that she does have a child in the second grade who is enrolled in the SFUSD. So she, too, has some skin in the game.
Parag Gupta. The third Chronicle Editorial Board recommendation is Parag Gupta. Not a lawyer, but someone with a pretty big job. According to the Editorial Board, he’s the Chief Program Officer at Mercy Housing, the largest nonprofit affordable housing organization in the country. That’s definitely a qualification. He, too, has a child in the school district. From his website I learn that he has put serious time into his daughter’s school as a parent. As a recently elected member of the San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee he pretty much has to be a “Moderate.” But he has also been endorsed by State Senator Mark Wiener, who I think of as a “practical Progressive.” The Editorial Board’s description of Mr. Gupta’s “clear-eyed take on what needs to be done to get the district back on track” is less obvious to me. But he’s probably right to support school closures although “improv[ing] communications with affected families” is not exactly rocket science. How he is going to implement his idea of boosting state support by addressing chronic absenteeism is not explained (the state pays the school district for each day a student attends school). I do like the idea that he “sees creative opportunities for using the district’s land holdings” to raise money and to house teachers. And at least he doesn’t want to rename schools and otherwise seems to have his priorities straight. Again, I think I’m okay with “Moderates” in control of the School Board, considering the alternative.
I’m not sure about recommending current Board President Matt Alexander. He started off as a solid vote for the old crazy majority on the Board but seems to have grown into a much more moderate and balanced school board member. So maybe he’s the fourth pick.
I was impressed by the candidate statement of Laurence Lee (link here – go to page 61 of the San Francisco Board of Elections Voter Information Pamphlet). He worked on the last recall campaign, went through the San Francisco school system and apparently has a career in biotech. He seems to have been very much of a hands-on person in terms of involvement in the school district. But the Chronicle Editorial Board thinks he has not gotten “community buy-in,” which I think means “support.”
John Jersin’s candidate statement (go to page 60 of the Voter Information Pamphlet) confirms the Chronicle Editorial Board’s view that he has a significant skillset (tech entrepreneur). But he lacks Mr. Lee’s deep hands-on involvement in the day-to-day operations of the School District. So he ends up at the bottom of my list.
Board of Trustees, San Francisco Community College District (vote for up to four)
This board is in charge of City College of San Francisco (“CCSF”). CCSF always seems to be on the brink of losing its accreditation and/or going broke (the two are related). The latter problem seems to arise from the many special interests, including the faculty union, who insist on pet programs and a stubborn refusal to accept fiscal guidance from its long-suffering and typically resigning-to-get-out-of-Dodge Chancellors. In making recommendations, therefore, I am not interested in putting CCSF faculty or students on the board and I want to break the “Progressive” majority that seems to be the source of the problem. I want responsible grown-ups, not ideologues.
The Chronicle Editorial Board recommendations are at this link.
They recommend reelecting Aliya Chisti, who they describe as “a voice of independence and reason on the board.” Her candidate statement (found at page 63 of the Voter Information Pamphlet, link here) is consistent with that conclusion. She has the right background (including a Master’s in Education Policy from Columbia). She has the right experience (teacher, education advisor, and (big stuff) Fulbright Scholar). She supported retaining the current, fiscally responsible, Chancellor and acknowledges that notwithstanding what she regards as “progress,” that “City College still faces many challenges.” I also like the broad range of her endorsements, including the Mayor, Assemblymember Phil Ting, and present and former San Francisco Supervisors who are identified as “Progressives.”
But then a new scandal just erupted regarding the Community College District. The Chronicle (link here) reports that the Community College District knowingly booked a prepaid 75 year lease (a non-cash, non-spendable, illiquid asset) as part of its cash reserves. The apparent purpose was to inflate CCSF’s cash reserves to get the District above the danger level in terms of its accreditation. Shamefully, the Board of Trustees, including Ms. Chisti, approved this action, and did so apparently notwithstanding prior financial shenanigans involving the same asset that were caught out.
If I had a better choice to offer you, I’d say so. But I don’t. Hopefully she stops participating in things like this or we see a much different Board of Trustees next time around.
Back to people you might consider voting for.
The Editorial Board also likes incumbent Luis Zamora, for reasons similar to Ms. Chisti (although he lacks her gold-plated background). But unlike Ms. Chisti, Mr. Zamora at least abstained from the vote to add the non-cash asset to the District’s cash reserves. He has the coveted endorsement of Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, political gold in San Francisco. His endorsements tend more toward the “Moderate” camp than Ms. Chisti, but, again, I’m okay with that for this particular Board.
The other two candidates endorsed by the Chronicle Editorial Board are Heather McCarty and Ruth Ferguson. They do not have the same kind of hands-on experience with CCSF but do have experience suggesting that they will bring relevant skills and competence to the Board. Interestingly, Ms. Ferguson is a community college professor at Ohlone College in Fremont. But the Editorial Board, based on interviewing her, thinks “she won’t be unduly influenced” by her deep involvement in the teacher’s union at Ohlone. I hope they’re right. You will find their candidate statements at pages 63 and 65 of the Voter Information Pamphlet (again, link here).
The candidate the Editorial Board really does not like is incumbent Alan Wong (page 66 of the Voter Information Pamphlet). He’s a card-carrying Progressive (if there was such a thing) although with an interesting cross-spectrum mix of endorsements. But the Editorial Board is positively scathing about him, including interfering with the Chancellor’s ability to do his job, an allegedly dubious late-night meeting in which the Chancellor’s contract was not renewed, and their belief that he and three other “Progressive” board members are why CCSF is again at risk of losing his accreditation. Kicking him off the Board would therefore change the balance of power away from the “Progressives.” So stay away from him. And how did Mr. Wong vote regarding booking a non-cash asset as part of the District’s reserves? In favor (of course).
BART Board Districts 7 and 9. NO RECOMMENDATION. I have no hands-on knowledge to share and I’m not in either of these Districts. For what it is worth, the Chronicle Editorial Board endorsements are found here and here. Basically, they like all the contenders and seem to think there is little daylight between them. If you want to go along with their recommendations, they recommend Victor Flores for District 7 and Joe Sangirardi for District 9.
San Francisco Sheriff. MICHAEL JUAN (this is a protest vote – read on)
For those of you who are curious about what the Sheriff’s Department actually does, here’s a link to a blog piece I did some years ago addressing that subject.
The incumbent, Paul Miyamoto, would, ordinarily be a shoo-in for reelection. Former Sheriff Michael Hennessey served in this position for a remarkable 32 years. But, more recently, Sheriffs have been toppled by scandals and, unfortunately, Sheriff Miyamoto has had his share of them. First among them is jail overcrowding and violence, including the hospitalization of several Sheriff’s deputies following attacks by inmates (link here). Then there was an incident where tear gas from the San Bruno jail leaked into the surrounding neighborhood and sent schoolkids to the hospital (link here). And then there was the Sheriff’s decision to suspend the GPS ankle monitoring program after a federal court found that the Sheriff’s Office had violated the constitutional rights of participants by requiring warrantless searches as a condition of the program (link here).
Ordinarily a strong candidate with at least some hands-on experience in the Sheriff’s Office would be a formidable challenger (think former Sheriff Vickie Hennessey). Unfortunately, the only other candidate in the race, Michael Juan, is relatively obscure, with limited experience and support. (While the Sheriff’s Deputy’s Union refused to endorse Miyamoto, they have not endorsed Juan either.) So maybe you vote for Juan as a protest vote or just sit this one out.
The Chronicle Editorial Board has yet to weigh in on this race.
City Attorney. RECOMMENDATION: DAVID CHIU.
The City Attorney handles the civil aspects of the legal representation of the City. This includes appearances in court, various types of lawsuits, advising the Mayor, Board of Supervisors and various City Departments and Boards, as well as the drafting of legislation. Incumbent City Attorneys tend to get reelected until they feel like quitting. It’s a powerful job but not one that voters tend to think about.
Incumbent David Chiu is running for reelection. He is scandal free and I haven’t heard a bad word about him, something of a rarity in this City. He has done a good job (you can see a list of his accomplishments in his candidate statement (Voter Information Pamphlet page 53 (link here)). His endorsements include the Mayor and the entire Board of Supervisors, plus the Governor and the Attorney General. So vote for him (or don’t and it won’t matter – he’s another shoo-in for reelection). His opponent is a self-described “Attorney/Football Coach” who says that he’s “[a]t heart . . . an old school hippie and 49er fan.” No thanks.
District Attorney. RECOMMENDATION: RYAN KHOJASTEH (but he’s going to lose).
Unlike the City Attorney, the District Attorney (“DA”) is a highly visible public official. That can shape the way a District Attorney carries out her job as DAs are acutely aware of how their reactions resonate with the voting public. The public is scared of crime even though crime statistics have been trending downward. This is also true notwithstanding the strong scientific evidence that attacking the socio-economic sources of crime is far more effective than spending huge sums of public money to lock people up.
A few DAs achieved office with a different orientation, likely the result of the brief change in public opinion resulting from the Black Lives Matter movement. One of them was Ms. Jenkins’ predecessor and former boss, Chiesa Boudin. Mr. Boudin was recalled by the voters with Ms. Jenkins prominently featured in the recall effort, ostensibly as a volunteer, while not revealing some very hefty consulting fees she got in the process. (If you’re interested in more detail, here’s a link to the Chronicle expose.) She plays to the public’s worst fears while not actually achieving better results than her predecessor.
I could say more but, frankly, what’s the point. Ms. Jenkins is going to win, big. My vote for Mr. Khojasteh is to try to keep down the margin of victory.
Treasurer РJos̩ Cisneros. RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES.
I’ve written before on the subject of whether we really need this office, which is the opposite of the DA in terms of flashiness. I’ve also noted that once elected Treasurers seem to serve forever unless they accept bribes (which has happened). Mr. Cisneros has done a competent job, is an upstanding public citizen as far as I know, and deserves reelection. He’s also running unopposed.
Board of Supervisors
I am not going to comment on every supervisorial race as I don’t have hands-on knowledge regarding most of them. I do live in District 1, though, and I have some things to say about District 5.
Member of the Board of Supervisors, District 1. RECOMMENDATION: Connie Chan
The two principal contenders for this seat are Ms. Chan, the “Progressive” incumbent and Marjan Philhour, the “Moderate.” The race is likely to be extremely close.
I don’t like everything Supervisor Chan has done. She was downright puzzling when it came to the ultimately successful campaign to limit cars in Golden Gate Park. She also strikes me as a bit doctrinaire as “Progressive” supervisors go.
But I still think she’s a better choice than Ms. Philhour, a perennial candidate who, like the District Attorney, panders to the worst instincts of the voters when it comes to crime. She has also been backed, directly or indirectly, by an anti-union PAC by and GrowSF, which I view as an extreme version of the “Moderates.” Seriously big money has been poured into her campaign, more than any other supervisorial race.
Member of the Board of Supervisors, District 5. RECOMMENDATION: Bilal Mahmood (I no longer support Dean Preston).
I know Dean Preston personally.
We worked together as lawyers on a case in the late 1990s and I’ve
followed his career with interest. As a
“Democratic Socialist” I had my differences of opinion with him but the way I
sold him to my friends politically was that he had real integrity and such
people should be supported in office even if you did not always agree with them. I will also agree that he has done good work as a supervisor.
But then came the Gaza resolution that Preston sponsored in the
Board of Supervisors. Obviously people
have very different ways of viewing what is going on in Gaza. But my problem with Preston is the lack of
leadership he showed and his pandering to the element of the “Progressive”
movement that falsely characterizes Israel as neo-Colonialist and Hamas as some
kind of noble freedom fighters.
Initially Preston failed to condemn the Hamas attack at all and did not even mention the hostages (see link to SFiST here). After he walked that back, somewhat, he introduced a resolution condemning Israel’s actions in Gaza that struck me as extremely one-sided (link here). When I learned that Preston was going to introduce a resolution on this subject I wrote him voicing my concerns. Apparently I was unable to persuade him.
I have also noticed that the final version of the resolution that was approved by the Board of Supervisors differed significantly from Preston’s draft. While I was far from thrilled with it, I’ve recently learned that my hunch that the rewrite was Aaron Peskin’s doing was correct (link here). As I said previously, Aaron Peskin is one smart person.
My disappointment with Preston also caused me to rethink my
tolerance of some of his positions. I
now question how someone can actually be a “Democratic Socialist,” at least if
“Democratic” means adherence to what the mainstream of the Democratic Party
stands for. Socialism advocates public
ownership; the Democratic Party stands for private enterprise, albeit subject
to reasonable governmental regulation.
Viewing Preston through the lens of a true Socialist explains a lot of
his positions, including his antagonism towards developers and big business
generally. While some of that is
warranted, characterizing Preston as doctrinaire seems fair and that is just
what the Chronicle Editorial Board did when it recently endorsed one of
his two principal opponents, Bilal Mahmood (link here). You should look at the endorsement – it has
really nice things to say about Mahmood, in particular what the Editorial Board characterizes as his practical and
hands-on focus to solving many of the City’s problems. The endorsement is downright enthusiastic and
I’ve not seen too many of those lately. The other "Moderate" running in District 5 is Autumn Looijen. She was one of the organizers of the successful recall involving the Board of Education. She would be a suitable second choice. As was true of the mayoral election, I would not rank Preston.
And with that, friends, my work is done. You can find a “cheat sheet” with a summary of my recommendations below.
Bob White’s Cheat Sheet
State Ballot Propositions
Proposition 2. Authorizes Bonds for Public School and Community College Facilities.
RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES
Proposition 3. Embeds the Right To Marriage For LGBTQ People Into The State Constitution. RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES
Proposition 4: $10 Billion In Bonds For Safe Drinking Water & Addressing Climate Risks, Including Wildfire Prevention. RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES
Proposition 5. Reduce The Voter Majority Needed For (Ostensibly) Affordable Public Housing & Public Infrastructure Bond Issues To 55% (Instead of The Current Two-Thirds) RECOMMENDATION: VOTE NO
Proposition 6. Eliminates State Constitutional Provision Allowing Involuntary Servitude (Unpaid Work) For Prisoners. RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES
[There are no Propositions 7 through 31]
Proposition 32. Raises the Minimum Wage By A Couple Of Bucks. RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES.
Proposition 33. Expands The Power Of Local Governments To Enact Rent Control On Residential Property. RECOMMENDATION: VOTE “NO”
Proposition 34. The Revenge Of The Realtors. RECOMMENDATION: VOTE NO
Proposition 35. Permanently Fund Medi-Cal RECOMMENDATION: VOTE NO
Proposition 36. Rolling Back Prop 47 & Increasing Sentences For Selected Drug & Theft Crimes RECOMMENDATION: VOTE NO
Statewide Races
President & Vice President: (You don’t really need my recommendation here, do you?)
United States Senate RECOMMENDATION: VOTE FOR Adam Schiff (vote twice)
U.S. House of Representatives: RECOMMENDATION: VOTE FOR Nancy Pelosi
State Senator, District 11: RECOMMENDATION: VOTE FOR Scott Weiner
State Assembly Member, District 19 RECOMMENDATION: VOTE FOR Catherine Stefani
San Francisco Ballot Propositions
Proposition A. School Improvement & Safety Bond. $790 million in bonds to improve earthquake safety and accessibility in the San Francisco public schools. RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES.
Proposition B: $390 Million In Bonds To Fund A Grab Bag Of Projects. RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES.
Proposition C – Create The Post Of Inspector General RECOMMENDATION:
VOTE YES
Proposition D – Limiting City Commissions, Giving Mayor Sole Authority To Appoint/Remove City Department Heads And Give The Police Chief Sole Authority To Adopt Rules Of Conduct For Police Officers RECOMMENDATION: VOTE NO
Proposition E – Commission Reform Done Better – Creating A Task Force To Propose Changes To The Commission Structure & Then Take It To The Voters To Decide (Mainly) RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES.
Proposition F. Allow Senior Police Officers To Postpone Retirement & “Double Dip.” RECOMMENDATION: VOTE NO.
Proposition G. Budget Set Aside Requiring The City To Appropriate At Least $8.25 million per year for rental subsidies for affordable housing developments that serve extremely low-income households and persons with disabilities. Some upward and downward adjustments depending on the state of the City’s revenues. RECOMMENDATION: VOTE NO
Proposition H. Lower Retirement Age For Firefighters Hired After January 7, 2012, From 58 to 55 Years Of Age. Cost Is Likely Over $60 million. RECOMMENDATION: VOTE NO
Proposition I. Retirement Benefits For Certain Categories Of Nurses & 911 Operators RECOMMENDATION: NO
Proposition J. Putting The Mayor and the School District Superintendent In Charge of Ensuring that City funding for children, youth, and families is used effectively. Also increases the amount of the set-aside from the City budget for this purpose. RECOMMENDATION: VOTE NO
Proposition K. Turning The
Great Highway Into A Public Park. RECOMMENDATION:
VOTE YES
Proposition L. Tax Uber,
Lyft and Waymo To Fund Public Transportation.
This proposition, if enacted, would impose a gross receipts tax on
rideshare companies, projected to raise $25 million. The money will be used to support MUNI and
fare discount programs. This tax would
be in addition to existing taxes on such businesses. RECOMMENDATION: YES
Proposition M. Increases
Annual Gross Receipts Tax Rates, Business Registration Fees, Administrative
Office Tax Rates; Increases Gross Receipts Tax Exemption For Small Business;
Changes How These Taxes Are Calculated.
Anticipated annual revenue is $50 million once the measure is fully
implemented. RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES
Proposition N – Create A “First Responder Student Loan and Training Reimbursement Fund.” This proposition would create a (for now empty) fiscal “pot” into which the City can appropriate funds to reimburse eligible employees for student loans and job-related educational and training expenses up to $25,000. Donations could also be directed to this fund. RECOMMENDATION: VOTE NO
Proposition O: Should it be
City policy and law to support, protect, and expand reproductive rights and
services? RECOMMENDATION: VOTE YES
San Francisco City Offices
Mayor (vote up to 10 – ranked choice voting) RECOMMENDATION: VOTE FOR EITHER AARON PESKIN AS YOUR FIRST CHOICE IF YOU LIKE “PROGRESSIVE” POLITICS OR DANIEL LURIE IF YOU SEE YOURSELF AS MORE OF A “MODERATE” – MARK FARRELL IS A POSSIBLE SECOND CHOICE IF YOU ARE A “MODERATE” OR ASHA SAFAI IF YOU LEAN “PROGRESSIVE” – DON’T EVEN RANK THE MAYOR – SHE DOES NOT DESERVE REELECTION.
San Francisco Board of Education (vote for up to four): VOTE FOR Supriya Ray, Jaime Huling, Parag Gupta, and Matt Alexander.
Board of Trustees, San Francisco Community College District (vote for up to four) RECOMMENDATIONS: VOTE FOR Aliya Chisti, Luis Zamora, Heather McCarty and Ruth Ferguson.
BART Board Districts 7 and 9. NO RECOMMENDATION.
San Francisco Sheriff. RECOMMENDATION: VOTE FOR Michael Juan
City Attorney. RECOMMENDATION: VOTE FOR David Chiu
District Attorney. RECOMMENDATION: VOTE FOR Ryan Khojasteh
Treasurer. RECOMMENDATION: VOTE FOR José Cisneros
Board of Supervisors
Member of the Board of Supervisors, District 1. RECOMMENDATION: VOTE FOR Connie Chan
Member of the Board of Supervisors, District 5. RECOMMENDATION: VOTE FOR Bilal Mahmood, followed by Autumn Looijen; Do not rank Dean Preston.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your comments are always welcome. You can comment via this page or you can send comments by e-mail to comments@rwhitesf.com