Category: politics & philosophy

Governor: Gavin Newsom
I continue to be pleased with his work as Governor over a very turbulent period. With the challenges of climate change growing ever more intrusive, I want to see as self-sufficient a California as possible. Our economy is the 5th largest in the world and we need as effective a leader as Newsom.

Lieutenant Governor: Eleni Kounalakis
Seems to be doing a very good job judging by the state of the state.

Secretary of State: Shirley N. Weber
I like the job she’s been doing.

Controller: Malia M. Cohen
I’ve been pleased with her work in San Francisco and she handled the task of Board of Equalization well.

Treasurer: Fiona Ma
Another great, solid, long-term performer in the state’s best interests.

Attorney General: Rob Bonta
Done a good job since appointment, and doing an especially nice job at keeping the public informed; let’s keep him at it.

Insurance Commissioner: Ricardo Lara
Seems to be doing a good job; no compelling reason to disrupt things with a change.

Board of Equalization Member, District 2: Sally J. Lieber
Whether California’s Board of Equalization, the only elected tax board in the country, should exist at all is definitely a question. Certainly we need more protections against money flowing as campaign contributions to someone who may make a judicial decision for the donor. But while it exists we need good people elected to it. Lieber has good endorsements.

United States Senator (both term ending Jan 3, 2029 and remainder of current term): Alex Padilla
Easy choice. He was great as Secretary of State for California and it’s good to have him in the Senate.

United States Representative, District 11: Nancy Pelosi
In the primaries I was still in the same place I was two years prior on this. Pelosi served us very well in getting through four years of Trump/Pence/GOP policies without losing more ground than we did. Do I agree with her on everything? No. Is she as effective as anyone could be as Speaker of the House right now could be? Yes. Is there an obvious experienced next choice for Speaker of the House if she doesn’t remain in office? No. We need her insider savvy holding the line and taking the heat as we weather the next two years. (Also, it gives the progressives we’ve elected time to build a little more seniority and have a little bit better chance of important committee positions in any upward shuffle.) When the choice is Pelosi or a Republican, then I’m even more strongly in favor of Pelosi.

State Assembly Member, District 17: Matt Haney
I was impressed by Haney through the primary campaign, and am not a Campos fan.

Judicial positions: Yes
Judicial elections are bad. Judges should not be in the business of campaigning, raising money, and so forth; they should be appointed to life terms by the political branches, removable for cause. But here we are nonetheless. In California, justices of the Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal are appointed by the Governor, with periodic referenda on whether to “retain” them. Justices are almost always retained.  Between 1934 and 1986, no justice ever failed his or her retention vote. In 1986, three justices of the Supreme Court were voted out (arguably) because of their principled opposition to the death penalty. No Justice has failed a retention vote since then. So, vote yes on retaining appellate judges! The fact that there’s a vote at all is bad, but the least we can do is vote “yes.” Especially for Goodwin Liu who will be excellent.

Superintendent of Public Instruction: Tony K. Thurmond
I’m glad I voted for Thurmond before and will do so again. Great endorsements. I first was drawn to him by his commitment to quality public school education and teaching critical thinking rather than a “teach the test” approach.

Member, Board of Education:
Member, Community College Board:
I’m neither a student nor a parent. Based on the candidate statements for BoE, I’m leaning Ann Hsu, Lainie Motamedi, and Lisa Weissman-Ward mainly because of the Scott Weiner endorsement.
Likewise for CCB, I’m voting for Thea Selby, whom I’ve supported in the past, and leaning John Rizzo because of the Scott Weiner endorsement and Murrell Green because of the Eleni Kounalakis endorsement and a strong candidate statement.
(I live in Dean Preston’s district and consider his endorsements a negative point for a candidate; he has not been a great advocate for the neighborhood and did some cruddy campaign stuff in the past when he first ran.)

Assessor-Recorder: Joaquín Torres
Seems to be doing fine.

District Attorney: Brooke Jenkins
Doing fine and good endorsements.

Public Defender: Mano Raju
Doing fine and hard to argue with that list of endorsements.

State Propositions
1 CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM: YES
Enshrine the right to abortion as a personal decision in the state constitution.
Planned Parenthood, NARAL, ACLU, California Medical Association, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, League of Women Voters, and CA Democratic Party are in favor. Opponents (Republicans, California Conference of Catholic Bishops, Knights of Columbus, other abortion foes) say it’ll cost a bunch of money but current analysis is it will have no direct fiscal effects to the state.

26 ALLOWS IN-PERSON ROULETTE, DICE GAMES, SPORTS WAGERING ON TRIBAL LANDS: NO
Would legalize a bunch of sports betting at California American Indian casinos and racetracks. and tax it at 10%. Opposed by Republicans, existing casinos and racetracks, but also by SF Chronicle, LA Times, and Mercury News and East Bay Times Editorial Boards. There’s apparently been a bunch of lawsuit issues around sports betting and online gambling (see prop 27), and the funds this generates can fluctuate in ways that are risky for local government.
I’m not a big fan of gambling as a government revenue source—it’s exploitative in a way that other recreation isn’t. The immediate negative impact of this is probably going to be on existing card clubs. The long-term impact is probably going to be more money flowing into gambling as business and encouraging more gambling generally, which I don’t think is great for society.

27 ALLOWS ONLINE AND MOBILE SPORTS WAGERING OUTSIDE TRIBAL LANDS: NO
As above, but online which reaches even more people, even more easily, and even more likely to reach those to vulnerable to the harms of gambling. Seems to be an out-of-state gambling corporations power grab. The veneer on this one is funds for relieving homelessness, but best case likely would be less than $500 million per year with regulatory costs in the tens of millions. Opposed by the Democratic, Republican, and Peace and Freedom parties, which tells ya something.

28 PROVIDES ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ARTS AND MUSIC EDUCATION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS: Yes
Sets a minimum source of annual funding for K-12 arts and music education funding. Nobody is opposing this. Gotta love seeing “If you are aware of any opponents or opposing arguments, please send an email with a link to editor@ballotpedia.org”!
Edited to add: One argument I’ve since heard is that this set-aside is fine while the state has lots of money but could lead to tough choices if finances get tight. I personally don’t think that risk is high enough to offset the benefits of the continuity of funding, the employment that comes with that funding, and the creative and inspiring education which kids really need. I’m still a Yes.

29 REQUIRES ON-SITE LICENSED MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL AT KIDNEY DIALYSIS CLINICS AND ESTABLISHES OTHER STATE REQUIREMENTS: NO, for the third time, NO
Back every other year with a crappy proposition, apparently, here’s SEIU-UHW spending about $8 million to try through government mandate to get the big dialysis clinic companies to change their processes and staffing. No other state requires a doctor on site, the patients who come to clinics already have a physician they work with, and this isn’t a matter for the ballot, particularly when there isn’t evidence the current arrangement has harmed patients.

30 PROVIDES FUNDING FOR PROGRAMS TO REDUCE AIR POLLUTION AND PREVENT WILDFIRES BY INCREASING TAX ON PERSONAL INCOME OVER $2 MILLION: YES
Great list of endorsements from firefighters, medical professionals, clean air advocates and other environmentalists. This impacts 0.2% of California taxpayers—that’s 1 in 500, because we’re a rich state. The rich here, as elsewhere, have benefitted from the same economy that helped create climate change and they’re rich enough to pay 1.75% more on the extra money they earn beyond the first $2 million (which should be enough for anyone). Note that Lyft has spent $35 million in support of this, leading Gov. Newsom to oppose it; but even though the state is doing a lot, we need to do more to decarbonize the state and it’s worth it even if Lyft benefits in the short term. LA Times Editorial Board opposes saying “Proposition 30 would push the top-earner rate to 15.05%, which is much higher than other states, most of which have income tax rates in the single digits” as if the other states have it right. I don’t think so, I don’t think we tax the rich enough and climate change is the most pressing problem we have, so let’s get that money to do something about it fast. The clock is running out on being able to make these changes.

31 REFERENDUM ON 2020 LAW THAT WOULD PROHIBIT THE RETAIL SALE OF CERTAIN FLAVORED TOBACCO PRODUCTS: YES
We do not need candy tobacco any more than we need candy asbestos. Will it cost Phillip Morris, ITG, R.J. Reynolds, Swedish Match, and American Snuff money? You know it must because they’ve shelled out nearly $21 million trying to get people to vote no. Big doners in support are Michael Bloomberg, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, American Cancer and Heart and Lung Associations. Fuck the cancer profiteers; vote YES.

City and County Propositions
A Retirement Funding: YES
Tidy up retirement security for people who retired before late 1996. Rubberstamp by electorate on unanimous Board of Supervisors action. No opposition.

B Adjustments to Sanitation and Streets Department Affiliation: YES
Move Department of Sanitation and Streets back under DPW after vote to move it out to a separate department in Nov 2020. (That vote also created a separate oversight commission, which yes on B does not eliminate.) This streamlines government staffing and therefore costs to the tune of around $2.5 million a year ongoing, possibly more. Supported by the mayor, city administrator and lots of the board of supes, but opposed by sanitation workers’ union and related workers. I gotta say, I haven’t seen an improvement in the state of our streets in the past year, so having additional bureaucracy doesn’t appear to be an approach that’s actually creating results. Better to save the money and lean into not having corruption in that department. The opposition arguments are basically all the same argument with a different “we are the [workers] who [do dirty job]” phrasing. There isn’t a nuanced opposition to this which suggests the diverse support is more valid.

C Homelessness Oversight Commission: YES
Creates an oversight committee for the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing. Minimal fiscal impact. Rubberstamp by electorate on unanimous Board of Supervisors action. Opposed by Republicans and, in an odd combo, SF YIMBY. The latter is concerned it will slow down action and diffuse accountability, but if there were real worries there I don’t think we’d see an unanimous Board of Supes vote, so I stay Yes on this.

D Streamline Approval of Some Affordable Housing (from 80K+ signatures, pushed by YIMBY groups): YES
Fast-tracks multifamily affordable housing and still requires compliance with Planning and Building codes. Also requires certain projects to provide health care benefits to workers and apprenticeship opportunities. Minimal impacts on cost of government. Great endorsements including Habitat for Humanity, Scott Weiner, NorCal Carpenters Union, and SF YIMBY. Concerning opposition from SF Tenants Union, SF Labor Council, and Council of Community Housing Organizations who don’t like its definition of “affordable” and are opposed to building more market rate housing before below market rate. Personally I don’t think it is realistic to expect a ton of new below market rate housing to be build, but that an influx of any housing creates more affordable housing at the bottom of the total housing pool. San Francisco needs 82,000 more units by 2031 to preserve state and federal grants; we need to build and this will increase building.
If D passes with more votes than E, then E has no legal effect.

E Streamline Approval of Some Even More Affordable Housing (Poison pill for measure D; from certain generally anti-building members of Board of Supes in a 7 to 4 vote): NO
Fast-tracks 10+ unit, even more affordable than measure D housing and still requires compliance with Planning and Building codes. Has more requirements than D on compensation, workforce composition, and apprenticeship. Retains veto power of Board of Supervisors which measure D does not. Supported by many very very liberal organizations and individuals. Opposed by YIMBY groups. This promotes a lovely vision of more affordable, targeted to specific worthy groups housing, but suffers from the reality check of what building projects it will actually result in. It’s yet another case where the vision of nearly perfect won’t result in as much good actually resulting in the real world as the compromise with a good chunk of positive requirements. SF extreme liberals—and I chart pretty far left, so these are waaaaay left folks—have a real problem with holding out for ‘perfect or nothing’ and we end up with a lot more nothing.
If E passes with more votes than D, then D has no legal effect.

F Renew Library Preservation Fund For 25 Years: YES
Minimal impact on cost of government, as it just renews existing uses of property tax funds and other city revenues. Rubberstamp by electorate on unanimous Board of Supervisors action. No opposition. Libraries perform an absolutely vital service, even more so in an area like ours with profound income inequality.

G Grants to SF Unified School District: YES
Additional school district money for academic achievement and social/emotional wellness. Programs could include academic tutoring, math and literacy specialists, additional social workers, arts and science programming, or afterschool and summer enrichment. Nice requirements around school/parent/community involvement; it’s not a blank check for the school that gets the grant. Pretty significant fiscal impact, pulling money from General Fund to this allocation to the tune of $11 million next school year, growing to 35 and 45 the following two years, and 60 each year after that through fiscal year 2037-38. Rubberstamp by electorate on unanimous Board of Supervisors action. Widely supported by educators. Opposed by Republicans and anti-tax folks (the Howard Jarvis crowd). School kids got royally screwed by the pandemic; this is the chance to recover from it. We’re a rich city, it’s a solid investment, and it will pay off.

H Streamline Local Election Timing To Even Years, Change Minimum Number Of Signatures To Put Things On Ballot: YES
The election timing thing is a no-brainer; normal things around local office and measures elections don’t move so fast that we can’t do this every other year. Streamlines costs. This would extend the current terms of mayor, sheriff, district attorney, city attorney and treasurer by one year, and I’m fine with that. Currently to qualify for the ballot, a petition must include signatures from San Francisco voters equaling at least 5% of the votes cast for all candidates in the preceding election for mayor. As of July 2022, these petitions require a minimum of 8,979 signatures. That’s a really small percentage of the population to require all of us to research and vote on it. This only changes it to 2% of registered voters in San Francisco, which was 9,948 as of July 2022. Still pretty small, but better, and more tied to potential election participation rather than turnout. (Though it should be noted this will likely increase turnout.) Opposed by Ritchie Greenberg because it “undermines our democratic norms” and by other Republicans because the ballot in those years would be too long and voters would have to think too hard. Six ballot cards! Instead of the 5 we have this election. Oh the pearl clutching! Supported by pretty much everybody else.

I Cars On JFK Drive and Great Highway: NO
Got on ballot by signature drive. There are legitimate disability access concerns yes, but the new dedicated ADA space parking lot and the coming additional accessible shuttles (adding to the current every-15-minutes shuttle) are solving those issues, as well as the reduced traffic making things much more accessible for all. Measure I will also block the Ocean Beach Climate Change Adaptation Plan, which is just not okay. And it will mess up the lovely alternate weekend use of the Great Highway for non-cars. This is an end run around a two year public process that resulted in a workable compromise plan. Also probably will cost as much as $80 million in increased project costs to change the existing compromise plan. Some disability groups but by no means all, some museum groups, and some neighborhood groups, as well as driving advocates are in favor. SF YIMBY is opposed as are lots of of environmental groups, walking and biking groups, and SF Democratic party.

J People On JFK Drive: YES
This preserves the open spaces added during the pandemic on portions of JFK Drive and certain connector streets in Golden Gate Park, keeping them free from private cars seven days a week. The Mayor, Board of Supes, parks and green space fans, SF Democratic Party, waling and biking advocates, Scott Weiner, health care professionals, Honey Mahogany, nearby small businessfolk, SPUR, Church of 8 Wheels, YIMBY folks, etc. etc.are in favor. The folks who support I are opposed.

L Continue Half-Cent Sales Tax; Transportation Funding: YES
Continue the existing sales tax to pay for transportation projects another 30 years. Rubberstamp by electorate on unanimous Board of Supervisors action. No opposition other than anti-Muni gadfly David Pilpel and local anti-taxation/anti-government folks including of course Quentin L. Kopp.

M Tax Mostly-Vacant Residential Units In Three+ Unit Buildings: YES
Note that this isn’t an empty home tax as it exempts single family homes and duplexes, but it does incentivize getting people into existing housing or at least making some money from it to build new housing. This got to the ballot by petition. SF YIMBY is in favor, not because it will make a huge difference (brings in about $20 million annually since it probably affects about 8,000 not 40,000 units), but because it does something anti-development policymakers spend a lot of energy on and lets the focus move ahead to the real challenge of housing affordability not vacancy. Supported by SF Democratic Party, some housing access advocates, lots of local elected officials, diverse community groups, SF Tenants Union and related organizations, some labor unions, and the Coalition on Homelessness. Opposed by the SF Apartment Association and other landlords, and of course the anti-tax Howard Jarvis folks.

N Public Parking Under Music Concourse In Golden Gate Park Managed By Rec And Park Commission: YES
Placed on the ballot by Mayor Breed because the existing parking is expensive and sits vacant much of the year. Even with some subsidizing of parking for visitors, the City Controller says this may reduce government costs as it could allow refinancing existing debt. Walking advocates, neighborhood groups, SF Democratic Party, and SF YIMBY are in favor. No opposition.

O Additional Parcel Tax To Help Fund City College: Yes
This would not apply to those that don’t have to pay standard property taxes (e.g. certain non-profits) or to those in which one or more owners is 65 that fiscal year. Cheapest increase (one residential unit or for a duplex; or non-residential under 5,000 square feet) is $150 for 2023. Highest is non-residential over 100,000 square feet at $4,000.
This is opposed by Mayor Breed, Supervisors Peskin and Stefani, and (strange bedfellows) public conservative and anti-taxxer Quentin Kopp, on the grounds that a lot of money has already gone to City College, the school has had lots of problems, and there isn’t even a plan for spending the funds. Lots of large apartment landlords and realtors are also opposed (the latter apparently most incensed by the idea that commercial real estate will be “taxed like a taxpayer’s home!” I don’t think they workshopped that to see how it sounds from the outside.)
It’s supported by Board of Supes President Shamann Walton, the City College Faculty and Staff unions, Firefighters Local union 798 (because City College has fire training programs), and many diverse other individuals and groups including lots of educators.
I do see the reasons for a No, but I think there are stronger arguments for continuing to invest in City College as a vital tool in helping address income inequality in San Francisco. City College is a much needed ladder to help people have greater ability to earn a living.

Reduce your front-door distractions!
Once you’ve filled out and mailed or dropped off your ballot, put your “I voted!” sticker on a piece of paper and tuck it under the edge of your doorbell. Saves you from folks pointlessly coming to the door trying to swing your vote.

Governor: Gavin Newsom
I’m pretty pleased with his work as Governor over a very turbulent period. With the challenges of climate change growing ever more intrusive, I want to see as self-sufficient a California as possible. Our economy is the 5th largest in the world and we need as effective a leader as Newsom.

Lt. Governor: Eleni Kounalakis
Seems to be doing a very good job judging by the state of the state.

Secretary of State: Shirley N. Weber
I like the job she’s been doing.

Controller: Malia Cohen
I’ve been pleased with her work in San Francisco and she handled the task of Board of Equalization well. There are some question marks around Galperin that tilt me to Cohen.

Treasurer: Fiona Ma
Another great, solid, long-term performer in the state’s best interests.

Attorney General: Rob Bonta
Done a good job since appointment, let’s keep him at it.

Insurance Commissioner: Ricardo Lara
Seems to be doing a good job; no compelling reason to disrupt things with a change.

Board of Equalization Member, District 2: Sally J. Lieber
Whether California’s Board of Equalization, the only elected tax board in the country, should exist at all is definitely a question. Certainly we need more protections against money flowing as campaign contributions to someone who may make a judicial decision for the donor. But while it exists we need good people elected to it. Lieber has good endorsements and I’m not a big Alioto-Pier fan.

U.S. Senator (rest of term and next term): Alex Padilla
Easy choice. He was great as Secretary of State for California and it’s good to have him in the Senate.

United States Representative, District 12: Nancy Pelosi
Still in the same place I was two years ago on this. Pelosi served us very well in getting through four years of Trump/Pence/GOP policies without losing more ground than we did. Do I agree with her on everything? No. Is she as effective as anyone could be as Speaker of the House right now could be? Yes. Is there an obvious experienced next choice for Speaker of the House if she doesn’t remain in office? No. We need her insider savvy holding the line and taking the heat as we weather the next two years. (Also, it gives the progressives we’ve elected time to build a little more seniority and have a little bit better chance of important committee positions in any upward shuffle.)

State Assembly Member District 17: Matt Haney
I’ve been impressed by Haney through this campaign, and am not a Campos fan.

Superintendent of Public Instruction: Tony K. Thurmond
I’m glad I voted for Thurmond before and will do so again. Great endorsements. I first was drawn to him by his commitment to quality public school education and teaching critical thinking rather than a “teach the test” approach.

City Attorney: David Chiu
One of the elected officials I trust most. He is motivated to work for the common good, and has passed up other opportunities in order to devote himself to public service. I’m glad every time I can vote to keep him working for us.

CITY AND COUNTY PROPOSITIONS:

A YES
Muni Reliability and Street Safety Bond
I’m very excited about the transit and street feature changes in San Francisco. The improvements definitely impact my quality of life and are well worth continuing to fund. Also, in this expensive city, keeping transit working well is the least we can do for ordinary working folks.
(Opposed by anti-Chesa Boudin folks and anti-tax codger Quentin Kopp.)

B YES
Building Inspection Commission
This is a voter rubberstamp on a unanimous Board of Supes proposition with no submitted arguments against.

C YES
Recall Timelines and Vacancy Appointments
Special elections due to recalls are expensive and shouldn’t be held in the same year as a general election for that seat. That makes total sense. It makes even more sense when big money (plenty of it non-San Franciscan) can be funneled into promoting a disruptive recall. (This seems to be primarily opposed by an odd mix of angry parents who want to be able to very quickly throw out the school board if they don’t like them and the anti-Chesa Boudin crowd, Republicans, and Quentin Kopp.)

D YES
Office of Victim and Witness Rights, Legal Services for Domestic Violence Victims
Widespread support. (Opposed by anti-government gadfly David Pilpil, who seems to be often siding with anti-tax folks.)

E NO
Behested Payments (donations solicited by public officials to benefit either a gov’t agency or private organization)
Folks I respect (like Scott Weiner) are opposed to this well-intentioned anti-corruption proposal because of the probable chilling effect on city partnerships with non-profit partners. This proposal needs to be re-written and brought back in a better form before we should endorse it.

F YES
Refuse Collection and Disposal
This is a voter rubberstamp on a unanimous Board of Supes proposition with broad support and only David Pilpil submitting arguments against.

G YES
Public Health Emergency Leave
This is a voter rubberstamp on a partial Board of Supes proposition with no submitted arguments against. This would really help out working individuals and only impacts companies with more than 100 employees worldwide.

H NO
Recall Measure Regarding Chesa Boudin
This is the conservative side of SF using eager Republican dollars to try to remove a progressive from office. The usual suspects are in favor—Republican Richie Greenberg, the anti-tax crowd, and some business organizations—while the opposition includes the ACLU, Sierra Club, SF Democratic Party, a bunch of labor unions, a bunch of Democratic and progressive political clubs, a big list of retired judges, some police commissioners, and some different business organizations. If you have good, solid arguments for a recall, you shouldn’t need to send piles of fear-mongering, glossy mailers, but the backers of this recall piled our mailboxes full of a Boudin smear campaign. NO.

Huge thanks to my pal Fred for his extensive work poring over all these details and good notes. That’s an above and beyond and huge lifesaver move in 2020. 🏆

President and Vice President: Joseph R. Biden & Kamala D. Harris
This is all hands on deck. We need every vote behind this team with the most progressive platform in Democratic Party history. Vote for democracy, vote for science-based policy that saves our lives and livelihood, vote for basic human decency. And—oh can you even remember what it’s like?—vote for the possibility of a dull news day.

United States Representative, District 12: Nancy Pelosi
Pelosi has served us very well in getting through four years of Trump/Pence/GOP policies without losing more ground than we have. Do I agree with her on everything? No. Is she as effective as anyone could be as Speaker of the House right now could be? Yes. Is there an obvious experienced next choice for Speaker of the House if she doesn’t remain in office? No. We need her insider savvy holding the line and taking the heat as we weather the next two years; they’ll be hard work no matter who is President. (Also, it gives the progressives we’ve elected time to build a little more seniority and have a little bit better chance of important committee positions in any upward shuffle.)

State Senator District 11: Scott Weiner
He’s committed to the hard, iterative work of good governance.

State Assembly Member District 17: David Chiu
Ever since his work for us here in San Francisco I’ve been impressed by Chiu. He is motivated to work for the common good, and has passed up other opportunities in order to devote himself to public service. I’m glad every time I can vote to keep him working for us.

Member Board of Education: Michelle Parker. (only vote one)
This is a complex system and it needs good administrators. Parker has experience with huge budgets and lots of experience in this area. The existing team has made some very questionable, non-data-driven, ideological decisions.

Member Community College Board: Shanell Williams, Alan Wong, (both endorsed by David Chiu whom I trust)
(Friend of friend says consider Aliya Chisti, Anita Martinez, Victor Olivieri, but I have no particular insight on them.)

BART Director District 9: (I’m skipping this one.)

STATE PROPOSITIONS:

14 NO
Authorize Bonds Continuing Stem Cell Research Initiative Statute
The federal funding ban was lifted in 2009, so the feds now spend over a billion dollars annually on this research, alongside billions annually in private sector funding; California does not need to be saddled with the interest debt on this.

15 YES YES YES
Increases Funding Sources For Public Schools, Community Colleges, And Local Government Services By Changing Tax Assessment Of Commercial And Industrial Property
Prop 13 in 1978 also largely froze assessments on commercial properties at 1976 levels as well as residential. This proposition will gradually over time get rid of that and bring California back in line with other states. This will raise a huge amount of much needed money (particularly for schools) and undo a huge drag on California.

16 YES
Allows Diversity As A Factor In Public Employment, Education, And Contracting Decisions
Repeals Prop 209 from the late 1990s and allows state entities to use affirmative action. Because Prop 209 amended the state constitution, the only way to undo it is another ballot proposition. The state legislature, by more than 2/3rds majority, put this on the ballot. I’m strongly in favor of this one; we need affirmative action to overcome our legacy of systemic bias.

17 YES
Restores Right To Vote After Completion Of Prison Term
Keeping people from voting after serving their time doesn’t help them reintegrate into society and become productive citizens again. This got on the ballot by legislative referral after passing with more than 2/3rds majority of both houses (because it has to be voted on as a change to the state constitution).

18 YES
Amends California Constitution To Permit 17-Year-Olds To Vote In Primary And Special Elections If They Will Turn 18 By The Next General Election
This is a basic correction to a problem with only being able to vote in November on the remaining candidates without getting to vote in the primary in June on the full slate. There’s not going to be a big change in judgment between being 17 1/2 and 18. This is an easy yes.

19 YES
Changes Certain Property Tax Rules
This changes a lot about “Prop 13” the old California property tax break. Currently (simplifying things) if you’re over 55, when you sell your house if you buy within the same county or one of a few special counties, you can take your low tax rate from your house with you to a new home of equal or lesser value and you can do this once. Proposition 19 makes some changes.
Good: You don’t have to stay in the same county (which may have become waaay less affordable thus “trapping” you in your old house) and can go anywhere in the whole state. It also closes the “Lebowski loophole” which allows someone who inherited from their parents to both keep the low tax rate while not actually living in the house.
Mixed: Changes to allow you to do it 3 times isn’t as good as “can only do again if driven out by disaster”, but it’s better than “if you already used this once and your neighborhood gets ravaged by a wildfire you’re out of luck”.
Bad: This doesn’t include any means testing to prevent folks who don’t need the help from abusing it.

20 NO
Restricts Parole For Certain Offenses Currently Considered To Be Non-Violent, Authorizes Felony Sentences For Certain Offenses Currently Treated Only As Misdemeanors
Creates the ability for prosecutors to charge some property misdemeanors as felonies in a rather unpredictable way. No. Along with other harsher changes, this also alarmingly creates a mandatory DNA database for certain misdemeanors. Hell no! And this seems rife with risk for racial bias. Extra sprinkles of no on top.

21 NO
Expands Local Governments’ Authority To Enact Rent Control On Residential Property
I’m a soft no here. This broadens rent control ability, but we already have statewide rent control options, so communities that want it, have it, thus this will mostly impact places like San Francisco, where I’m doubtful it will have a positive impact.

22 NO
Exempts App-Based Transportation And Delivery Companies From Providing Employee Benefits To Certain Drivers
This is not something that should be decided as a ballot issue rather than in the legislature, particularly when the very interested corporate parties are able to throw $100m+ in advertising to get it to go the way they want. The 2019 legislation this is a reaction to, AB5, was bad, but this NOT the way to fix it.

23 NO
Establishes State Requirements For Kidney Dialysis Clinics. Requires On-Site Medical Professional
Creates a non-medically-based medical recommendation. This does not create good health outcomes. (This proposition is shameful; it’s a battle between the highly profitable kidney dialysis industry and labor. The ballot initiative process is not the way to make staffing decisions.)

24 NO
Amends Consumer Privacy Laws
This is not a “are you pro-privacy or not” proposition, it’s about “do you want to do this in one difficult-to-adjust ballot proposition with some possibly iffy details (a yes vote) or do you want to handle this through the legislature in a more careful and adjustable way (a no vote)?” Vote NO.

25 YES
Referendum On Law That Replaced Money Bail With System Based On Public Safety And Flight Risk
Cash bail as a system generally results in ‘if you have money you won’t have to stay in jail, and if you don’t have money you do’. This is a challenge (funded by the bail bonds industry) to SB10, the abolition of cash bail, which was passed by the legislature. The problem with SB10 is that at the last minute a lot of power was given to judges in the form of ‘risk assessment’ which made the NAACP and other anti-cash-bail organizations pull their support of SB10. The good thing about SB10 is that it has built in things like requiring a re-evaluation of whether this is resulting in more people being kept in jail than before (e.g. from overharsh risk assessment). A yes vote on 25 approves SB10 and abolishes cash bail in California! (A no would throw it out and returns us to cash bail status quo. I think the problems with SB10 are greatly outweighed by the benefits of getting rid of cash bail and I don’t think industries should be able to buy their way out of legislation they don’t like.

San Francisco Measures

A YES
Health And Homelessness, Parks, And Streets Bond
Easy yes. This is just a grouping of municipal bond measures—which in SF replace old bonds that are being retired, so they don’t raise anyone’s property taxes—planned for several upcoming years to provide economic stimulus now and help address the homelessness crisis. Put on ballot by Mayor Breed and a unanimous vote of Board of Supervisors, so it’s the same channels as a normal municipal bond measure. YES.

B YES
Department of Sanitation And Streets, Sanitation And Streets Commission, And Public Works Commission
Weirdly SF doesn’t have a separate department that manages street cleaning and this would create it. This splits that out from the Dept. of Public Works and adds oversight commissions (needed after a corruption scandal with prior head of DPW). It increases costs and makes our big city government bigger, but maybe it will help. Less direct influence of the mayor, more of the Board of Supes, so that’s mostly good? The Board of Supes wants it. A weak yes.

C YES
Removing Citizenship Requirements For Members Of City Bodies
San Francisco has over 100 commissions, policy boards, and other advisory groups. This changes membership requirement from “registered to vote in SF” to “of legal voting age and a resident”, allowing non-citizens to serve. SF is a huge immigrant city and always has been; this permits our approximately 13% non-citizen population to serve. Representing over 10% of San Franciscan opinion in city bodies makes complete sense and this measure is not opposed by anyone credible.

D YES
Sheriff Oversight
Placed on ballot by unanimous vote of Board of Supes and has to be on ballot because it’s a charter amendment. No one credible is opposing it.

E YES
Police Staffing
Placed on ballot by unanimous vote of Board of Supes and has to be on ballot because it’s a charter amendment. Main opposition is unsurprisingly the SF Police Officers Association. If you think probably the Police Commission and elected officials are better at determining good staffing levels than a fixed minimum number picked in 1994, you should vote Yes.

F YES YES YES
Business Tax Overhaul
SPUR has a big explainer on this, but tl;dr Repeal of the Payroll Tax and an Increase in Gross Receipts Tax Rates, Targeted Relief for Certain Industries and Small Businesses. Imperfect but better than how it is now, bringing good changes at a critical time. Also if it doesn’t pass, the city is going to have lay off hundreds of workers and reduce services. Placed on ballot by unanimous vote of Board of Supes and has to be on ballot because it’s a tax measure.

G YES
Youth Voting In Local Elections
This is an expansion of suffrage to 16 and 17 year olds (approx 3% of registered voters if ALL of them registered). I am supporting it because greater engagement in municipal issues is a good thing, and because we are a heavily climate-change-impacted city, I think younger people need a bigger voice. Yay for practical civics lessons, yay for representation. Placed on ballot by unanimous vote of Board of Supes and has to be on ballot because it amends the city charter.

H YES
Neighborhood Commercial Districts And City Permitting
Permitting for small businesses in SF is pretty bad and the Board of Supes hasn’t agreed on a plan to solve it, so Mayor Breed brought this to the ballot. Opposition is led by those opposed to the mayor and to business interests generally, along with some residents near commercial zones worried about noise and traffic. Change is definitely needed and this is better than the nothing offered as an alternative.

I No
Real Estate Tax Transfer
Increases property transfer tax rate on commercial and residential property valued over $10 million (basically apartment buildings and office buildings). Property owners who sell to the city are exempt and those who sell to nonprofits would pay less. Most other California cities have a flat rate rather than graduated like SF and this would increase SF’s already much higher rate than most surrounding Bay Area cities. SF voted to increase this tax rate in 2008, 2010, and 2016. This measure was brought to the ballot by my district supervisor, Dean Preston, (with whom I am deeply underwhelmed overall), but it sure seems likely to reduce new apartment construction. Preston has introduced a non-enforceable resolution to use money from this for rent abatements and city-owned affordable housing, but Measure I seems likely to reduce high-density housing overall—and SF desperately needs high-density housing. If this measure was targeted only at commercial real estate, maybe, but as it has a strong risk of disincentivizing high-density housing development, I say NO.

J YES
Parcel Tax For San Francisco Unified School District
This is a do-over for a June 2018 measure that passed but got challenged. The 2018 measure seems likely to eventually come out in favor of the city, but this will both slightly lower parcel taxes and clear up the legal wrangle. Entirely reasonable.

K YES
Affordable Housing Authorization
Holy crap yes. This is just an authorization for SF to create up to 10,000 units of subsidized affordable housing, something required be on the ballot because of Article 34 of the California Constitution. This measure is not the funding, that might be the dubious Measure I, but if we get this authorization on the books, we won’t have to wait when the city has the budget for it. Unanimously supported by the Board of Supes.

L YES
Business Tax Based On Comparison Of Top Executive’s Pay To Employees’ Pay
Imposes an additional gross receipts tax (starting in 2022) on companies in which the compensation of the highest-paid managerial employee—ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD—is more than $2.7 million and at least 100 times more than the median compensation of its employees based in San Francisco. It’s the anywhere in the world part that’s key. Would likely apply to huge retailers, grocers, and hotel chains. The surcharge is so small it’s not likely to change corporate location choices, falls on large multinational corporations, and is estimated to generate between $60-140 million annually for the city’s general fund. (And it’s revenue generation that’s not a sales tax mostly impacting those with fewer resources.) Yes.

RR YES
Caltrain Sales Tax
Not the ideal way to fund this—given that sales taxes impact the poor more than the rich and a lot of Caltrain riders are doin’ fine—but better than raising fares and pushing people away from mass transit.

Member, Board of Supervisors, District 5: Vallie Brown (1), Daniel L. Landry (2)
There are plenty of us in District 5 who are both progressives AND would prefer someone other than Dean Preston as our supervisor. We remember how well London Breed served us as district supervisor, how she was twice elected to lead the Board of Supes which had previously been divisive to the point of impairing its ability to serve, and we remember how Dean Preston, a white man and self-described progressive, decided that he should try to remove a highly competent and effective female woman of color representative from her position. Fortunately he failed and we’re able to have Breed’s practical talents as mayor to help keep San Francisco one of the safest places in the US to be during this pandemic. Now we’ve had a chance to see these supposedly better skills Preston was trying to replace her (and then Vallie Brown) with, and he ain’t all that. Let’s get someone in this role who has more focus on positive results for our neighborhood than on the next step in their political career.

It’s been a busy February/March, so my notes are a bit more terse than usual. Thanks for reading!

President: Warren
Best person for the job. We need someone who can effectively restore our government to full functioning after these devastating years of the Trump administration. Whip smart, experienced, rational, inspiring, effective.
There are other candidates I like too—if it’s not Warren, I’m voting The Democrat 2020—but I hope it’s her. I’ll particularly call out Bernie Sanders; he deserves credit for keeping the center from sliding even further to the right than it did.

County Central Committee
I’m going with my pal Fred’s advice here: “if you also think that the housing crisis is our #1 issue and you believe the best way to solve it is to build all the things,” take a look at the DCCC endorsements from YIMBY Action.

US Rep: Pelosi
She’s doing as well as could be done under the present circumstances. I’d rather see her continue to take the heat than move a new Speaker of the House into the front lines to be smeared by Trump/GOP while their partisans are as rabid as they are now. If there was a chance of any liberal bill passing, her individual positions might matter, but that’s not our current reality.

State Senator: Wiener
Committed to the hard, iterative work of good governance.

State Assembly: Chiu
Ever since his work for us here in San Francisco I’ve been impressed by Chiu. He is motivated to work for the common good, and has passed up other opportunities in order to devote himself to public service. I’m glad every time I can vote to keep him working for us.

Judge seat 1 – Ly
Judge seat 18 – Proudfoot
Judge seat 21 – Singh
Endorsements by other good SF judges are the deciding factor here.

Prop 13 – Schools & Colleges Repair, Construction, and Modernization Bonds
YES

Measure A – City College Job Training, Repair, and Earthquake Safety Bond
YES
We need to maintain our investment in public buildings, particularly those which grant us other benefits of a better educated populace, and this is a good way to fund that. (Opposed by Republicans and other anti-tax groups.)

Measure B – Earthquake Safety and Emergency Response Bond, 2020
YES
We’ve been lucky not to have another major quake since 1989. This continues our work from previous bonds to improve our resilience to disasters of all kinds. (No opposing arguments submitted.)

Measure C – Retiree Health Care Benefits for Former Employees of SF Housing Authority
YES
Some federally funded HA employees have been moved to be city employees and this transitions their retiree health coverage. (No opposing arguments submitted.)

Measure D – Vacancy Tax
YES
Establishes a set of fairly detailed rules to discourage landlords leaving ground floor retail and commercial untenanted. Tax is per linear feet facing the street and how long it has been vacant. Owners are only taxed when space empty over 6 months (182 days). There are exceptions, e.g., to protect non-profits, buildings where certain permits have been applied for or issued, after a fire or natural disaster, only applies to certain districts. The revenue is earmarked for a new small business assistance fund. The list of supporting neighborhood and beloved SF businesses is impressive. I think this is very likely to fix the mismatch between landlords expectations of the market and those of local businesses. (One of the opposing arguments weirdly asserts this will deter pop-ups, when it seems very probable to encourage them. Two 3 month pop-ups would protect the building from the tax. Opposed by Republican Party, a real estate broker, and those who feel that there is insufficient data supporting the “common wisdom” 1. that we have a vacancy crisis and 2. that this would help even if we did.)

Measure E – Limits on Office Development
NO
Ties the city’s annual allotment for Large Office Projects (50,000 square feet and over) to whether the city is meeting its Affordable Housing Goals and sets a minimum goal of 2,042 very low-, low-, and moderate-income units per year for this purpose. If goal not met, the next year’s allotment declines by same percentage as shortfall. Very complex thing that did not reach the ballot through process with sufficient adjustment based on different stakeholders. Does not provide any additional funding for the affordable housing it mandates, and thus seems to just guarantee reduced tax revenue and reduction in money for affordable housing which comes from new office development. Also seems very likely to put displacement pressure on other spaces when new office space isn’t available. We’re already limiting office development and we’re not seeing the same kind of “all office, no residential” problems we did during the boom 20 years ago. We do need more affordable housing, but the proponents of this measure’s blind optimism that it’ll all work out and get built despite reducing funding for it is misplaced.