Email sent with endorsements for the November 8, 2011 San Francisco city elections
Dear fellow SF voters,
To those of you who I just added to this list, let me explain: each year some friends and I sit down and grind through all the things being voted on and come up with our recommendations. We try to go in with open minds and research, debate, and make jokes about the various candidates and ballot measures. It takes quite a while - we go through it so that maybe you won't have to. Or have another opinion in case you were looking for one.
I'm also attaching a little candidate cheat sheet that I put together. I can tell you that this research was pretty mind-numbing as they all say they will create jobs, fix Muni, improve the schools, blah blah blah. So what I did is try to list each candidate's top 3-5 issues in the order that they talk about them most, plus list anything that was atypical. For Sheriff I thought it best to just give a résumé. There's also endorsement lists and links to their websites if you want to learn more.
Anyway, here's our results, with explanations following:
A: No
B: No
C: Yes
D: Yes
E: Yes
F: No
G: Yes
H: No
Mayor
1: Jeff Adachi
2: John Avalos
3: Dennis Herrera
District Attorney
1: David Onek
2: Sharmin Bock
3: Vu Trinh or Bill Fazio
Sheriff
1: Ross Mirkarimi
2: Paul Miyamoto
3: David Wong
Prop A: $531 million school bond - No
We were torn on this one. On one hand, of course we want schools to be in good shape. But on the other hand, we really don't think a bond is the way to do it. Let me explain:
Government should take out a bond when it's doing a big one-time thing like building a highway. Something where it makes sense to spread the payment out over years because you will be getting years of benefit from it. Something that is so beneficial that every year you delay having it is benefit lost.
What bonds should definitely NOT be used for is the type of thing that needs to be maintained every year like, say, roads (see Prop B). Building maintenance is in that vein. We know politicians would much rather float these bonds than raise taxes or cut something else, but that's really what they have to do.
Oh, and remember that by the time you pay off a bond, you've spent about twice as much on it than it you paid for it up front. And you've paid that money to people who are bond investors, i.e. more wealthy than not. (That's right, we're a bunch of progressive hipsters.) No, we much prefer that taxes are raised so that more money comes from rich people instead of going to them.
Anyway, that's why we voted No on this. Although it gave us no pleasure to deny the kids anything.
Prop B: $248 million road bond - No
Read the discussion for Prop B. We think roads are a great example of the kind of thing that should never be paid for with a bond. Politicians, grow a pair and make us pay for the services we demand.
Prop C and D: Pension reform - Yes and Yes
We've done this before: taken two opposing propositions and voted for both of them, even though their supporters say we should say yes to one and no to the other.
First of all, we give props to Jeff Adachi for bringing pension reform to the forefront. Even if Prop C beats Prop D, he still wins in our book.
Both Prop C and D are steps toward relieving the city of an unsustainable pension burden. There is still more deficit to make up, but these are steps in the right direction. Prop D goes a little further than Prop C ($1.7 billion vs $1.3 billion over 10 years), which is not surprising considering that Prop C was made in cooperation with police and fire unions. It's also not surprising that Prop C somewhat protects police and fire from the pension reforms, while throwing every other city worker under the bus (even bus drivers, ironically). We like that Prop D protests the lowest paid city workers (under $50k) from pension changes.
Then again, some claim that Prop D will get brought down in court if it wins, but we've heard that scare tactic before. We're going to vote for both and see what happens.
Prop E: Amending voter-approved legislation - Yes
Initially, this seemed like it was giving the Board of Supervisors too much power, letting them take away laws that the public had voted on. We agreed that after a long time (especially after the board had completely turned over) it didn't seem so bad.
But then we found out that Prop E will not apply to any laws that have been passed previously and will only apply to measures that the board themselves placed on the ballot. Sounds pretty reasonable to us.
But what REALLY makes us like voting for this is that our old election-pamphlet nemesis, Terence Faulkner, is against it. We love voting opposite him.
Prop F: Redefine campaign consultant - No
This law would re-define what constitutes a campaign consultant and have them report their activities more often. OK.
But then if this law passes, apparently the board of supervisors will be free to change the definition in the future without voter approval. So I guess that's bad.
We were on the fence, but then noticed that for some reason nobody had bothered to file any paid arguments in favor of this proposition. I guess they just don't care.
Prop G: Maintain current sales tax - Yes
If California sales tax drops because some law expires, this would bump the total tax back up and the money would go to the city. The money is earmarked for police, fire, nurses - you know, the usual suspects. We don't like earmarking, but are convinced that sending this money to them would let the city give them a little less from the rest of the budget.
Yes, sales tax isn't just a tax on the wealthy, it also taxes the rest of us poor iPhone-toting schlubs. But last I checked a new Maserati cost even more, so the rich will still be paying more. Yes.
Prop H: Local school assignment - No
We were somewhat split on this one. The progressives in us are all for giving opportunity to people living in disadvantaged neighborhoods, and Prop H would be a step against that.
But we also noted the plight of an average San Francisco resident that wanted to put their kid into a school and found out they had to go to one of the "bad" schools. Yes, they are paying an expensive mortgage to live in a good neighborhood, but under the current system they might not get to send their kid to their local "good" school. That would probably be pretty frustrating.
Really, instead of sending their kid to the "bad" school, they would probably opt out, sending him/her to private school if possible or maybe deciding not to live here in the first place. Is that going to help the school system - losing those students from a more, shall we say, stable background?
Finally, it really bothered me personally that we just accept that we run some schools that suck and will always suck. Someone needs to get all Jeff Adachi on this issue.
Anyway, the group voted, and the group voted No.
Mayor
1: Jeff Adachi
2: John Avalos
3: Dennis Herrera
One thing you have to understand about us is that we tend to be progressive. The other thing is that we really don't like the Willie Brown/Gavin Newsom lineage. And since Ed Lee is part of that lineage, we aren't voting for him.
Here's another thing about Ed Lee: he has admitted that the reason he decided to run after promising he wouldn't is that he "couldn't resist Willie Brown and Rose Pak." Well, if he couldn't resist their influence to go through the election process, what do you think are the chances that he could resist doing them any number of political favors while in office? He'd be a puppet. We like him because he seems like a nice guy, but maybe he's too nice....to them.
What sets Jeff Adachi apart from the other candidates is this pension reform thing. He saw a problem and he took action. He doesn't seem full of ambition to us. If you read all the candidate statements, they all make the same age-old promises: fix Muni, create jobs, yadda yadda. But only Adachi has taken an issue and really made it happen. And yes, he wants to fix Muni too.
District Attorney
1: David Onek
2: Sharmin Bock
3: Vu Trinh or Bill Fazio
We simply liked David Onek's positions slightly more than the other candidates, but the other names listed here would also do well for us.
We did not want George Gascon because he's part of the Brown/Newsom political machine. Also, we dont' think he has any business being DA, given his previous career in law enforcement and relative lack of experience in the courtroom.
Sheriff
1: Ross Mirkarimi
2: Paul Miyamoto
3: David Wong
What do Sheriffs do around here, anyway? Oh, they run the jail. And a list of other things.
In this race, Paul Miyamoto and David Wong are Sheriff deputies who are working their way up the system. We respect that. On the other hand, Ross Mirkarimi is more of a civilian, although he does have experience with law enforcement.
So do you want an insider our an outsider for Sheriff? Well, retiring Sheriff Mike Hennessey apparently did a good enough job that he was there for decades, and he was an outsider. He also hand-picked Ross to replace him for that reason. We're convinced.
Email sent with endorsements for the November 2, 2010 state of California and city of San Francisco elections
Dear Friends,
For the past few years, a few of us have gotten together before an upcoming election to go through all the various items on the ballot, research them, discuss them, make jokes about them in hopes of being better informed on election day. Then we email our results to you in case you don't have the time or inclination to go through the same process on your own (it took us over 2 hours).
This time we had 6 participants: Gabrielle, Jenny, Jon Tracy, Eric (OE), Jeff (Evil) and Brendan (Big Guy, Mr. B).
Results (non-unanimous decisions marked with *):
California State:
Prop 19: Yes
Prop 20: Yes
Prop 21: No*
Prop 22: No
Prop 23: No
Prop 24: Yes*
Prop 25: Yes
Prop 26: No
Prop 27: No
San Francisco:
Prop AA: Yes
Prop A: No
Prop B: Yes
Prop C: Yes
Prop D: Yes
Prop E: Yes
Prop F: Abstain*
Prop G: Yes
Prop H: No
Prop I: Yes
Prop J: No
Prop K: Yes
Prop L: Yes*
Prop M: Yes*
Prop N: No*
Prop 19 - Legalize Marijuana - Yes
It probably comes as no surprise that a bunch of San Francisco residents between 25 and 35 years old are in favor of legalizing marijuana (not that we've ever smoked it before because that would be illegal (except when Jeff was in Amsterdam)).
We were interested in hearing some arguments against it, but have yet to find a single one that holds up. Here's an example: in the voter guide Dianne Feinstein claims, "If Proposition 19 passes, the worker with marijuana in his or her system may not be removed from the job until after an accident occurs." But the actual text of Prop 19 (Sec. 11304(c)) says "the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance shall not be effected." Nice try, Senator.
I'm not sure if the opponents of Prop 19 have actually read it, but we have. And we find any ambiguous claims of it being "poorly written" to be without merit. Search and replace pot with booze, and you land right at the our current, accepted, functioning alcohol law.
We, like many people, think marijuana and alcohol should be treated identically. Likewise, the similarities between alcohol prohibition in the 1920s and marijuana prohibition today are striking. We don't know what will happen as Prop 19 is in direct contention with federal law, but think it's time to take it to court.
Prop 20 - Redistricting - Yes
We were big fans of Prop 11 back in 2008, which tries to kill the practice of gerrymandering by creating a commission to draw district lines, consisting of one third Democrat, one third Republican, and one third independent. We think that sounds incredibly fair, and would like to apply it to Congressional elections with Prop 20.
The only arguments against are from incumbent Democrats and their supporters who enjoy their majority in the state legislature and the power to gerrymander that comes with it. We haven't heard any principled arguments against it, so easy for us to vote yes.
Prop 21 - Vehicle license fee to fund State Parks - No*
We were pretty evenly split on this one: 2 for, 3 against, 1 abstain. And nobody was very strongly for, strongly against, or...um...strongly not voting.
One one hand, $18 per year is pretty modest, and it funds state parks which were in danger of closing down this year as the budget tightened. We love state parks (especially Mt. Tam).
On the other hand, part of the reason California is in such a mess is that we have all these stupid Propositions that bind the hands of our elected officials. We don't want to add another.
What killed it for some of us was that Prop 21 would take away the ability for state parks to charge entry fees to people who had paid the surcharges, but entry fees seem to be to most fair way to collect money.
Prop 22 - Protect local funds from legislators - No
Another proposition to prevent state legislators from directing money where it's needed, tying their hands. It's already bad enough.
Also, this seems to simply be a battle between various public sector unions, voting based on whether they will be the beneficiaries of the protected money. Leave us out of it.
Prop 23 - Suspension greenhouse gas law AB 32 - No
We were proud when California fought the Bush administration for the right to have higher environmental standards. No way do we want to undo them, even temporarily.
Prop 24 - Close business loopholes - Yes*
4 of 6 of this in favor of this one, but could have gone either way. Prop 24 takes away some accounting tricks that businesses can use to pay less taxes. They didn't seem to be anything totally outlandish though, and California already has a reputation of being unfriendly to business.
OE didn't like it because once again it represents the electorate meddling with policies that are generally set by the legislature.
Prop 25 - 50% to pass a budget - Yes
The current two-thirds requirement is one of the biggest hurdles to us having a functional legislature. We are stoked to get rid of it.
Prop 26 - 2/3 majority to increase fees - No
Didn't you read what we just said for Prop 25? Two-thirds means fees will never be raised, even when it's necessary. Let the legislature do its job.
Prop 27 - Un-Redistricting - No
As we said before in Prop 20, we're anti-gerrymandering, so we're anti-this.
Prop AA - Vehicle registration fee to pay for roads - Yes
This fee is just $10 a year, and it goes to pay for roads and transit, which sounds good to us.
What really tipped the scales is that the opponent in the voter guy is none other than Terence Faulkner, a crazy guy from the last election pamphlet. If he's the only one against it, then it sounds pretty good.
Prop A - Earthquake Bond - No
We primarily don't like Prop A because we don't like bonds. This one is looking for $46 million, but the SF budget is $6.5 billion and is running an annual deficit of $450 million. If they want to set aside $46 million, they should be able to do it with the money they've got.
Also, this bond is to help the owners of private buildings. Can't they go to the bank?
We vote no. The one thing that kills us is that we're actually voting with Terence Faulkner on this one. Arrrgh!
Prop B - Pension reform - Yes
A very controversial issue here in SF, but we're all for it. The few level heads around City Hall can see that our current pension deal is just not sustainable and has to be changed. It's not about politics so much as accounting.
And we couldn't help notice that some of the city workers are ridiculously over-paid. This basically amounts to a pay cut, and we think it's well-deserved. A lot of people are out of work right now, so the city workers might want to count their blessings.
Prop C - Mayoral Question Time - Yes
Why wouldn't the mayor want to talk to the board of supervisors once a month? Maybe because it distracts him from campaigning for Lieutenant Governor.
It's really too bad it's come to this, but if we really have to force our Mayor to act civilly every once in a while, so be it.
Prop D - Non-citizens vote for school board - Yes
There are many non-citizens that are here legally and pay taxes and have kids in our schools, so they deserve some representation to go along with that taxation. Such voting policy was apparently common in the US (and other countries) until some anti-immigrant hysteria in the 1920s had us circle the wagons.
Oh, and Terence Faulkner is his ALL-CAPS glory is against it. Put us down for yes.
Prop E - Same-day voter registration - Yes
Initially some of us were against this one until we talked it out. For one thing, we actually had someone in our midst (Jon Tracy) who would benefit from same-day voter registration.
Registering to vote seems so fundamental to democracy, it's hard to believe it could be politicized. But it is. Most of us register when a someone is paid by one of the two big parties to register people at a targeted location. But if it happens to be a non-presidential year (like this one) and you just moved here (like Jon Tracy) you could easily miss the chance.
Registering at the polls is the most un-partisan way to do it, and the way they're proposing to do it makes sense. Too bad it will only count at the city level.
Prop F - Health Service Board - Abstain*
This makes a small change to the way the Health Service Board (who???) gets elected. Total savings could be a whopping $30k.
Most of us (4 out of 6) were annoyed at even being bothered with such a lame administrative detail, so we will be abstaining to show our contempt.
Prop G - Transit operator wages - Yes
We don't know how transit operators got their insanely generous wage provision into the city charter (by law they have the 2nd highest pay of any American city), but we want it out. How can the city negotiate with a union that has their salary guaranteed?
Prop H - Elected officials on political party committees - No
Gavin Newsom thinks that people involved in other areas of politics could be influenced in their city jobs. Well, what would you know about that, Mr. Mayor-Campaigning-For-State-Office? I just laughed out loud: in his arguments, Newsom writes, "Serving as an elected official is a serious commitment." This from the guy is hoping to quit his job Sarah Palin style.
Why wouldn't elected officials be involved with their parties? Especially third parties where there aren't that many officials to go around. Apparently this is aimed at some specific people Newsom doesn't like.
Prop I - Saturday voting - Yes
This is a one-time experiment, and we like experiments (typical science nerds). Here's a fictional conversation we had with the people involved:
Alex Tourk: "Why do we vote on Tuesday at all? It's a relic from the farming days."
US: "Good point!"
Terence Faulkner: "I'M AGIN IT!"
US: "Sweet, then we're definitely for it."
Alex Tourk: "Gavin Newsom was my pal, then he slept with my wife."
US: "Mother F#@$%^ Newsom!"
Prop J - Increase hotel taxes, close resident loophole - No
Prop K - Close loophole only - Yes
We like the idea of closing this tax loophole, but think hotels already have enough taxes associated with them. No need to bleed our visitors further.
Prop L - Sit/Lie ordinance - Yes*
Prop M - Police beat patrol - Yes*
We were somewhat split, but the majority of us chose to vote in an unconventional way for these. The sponsors of the measures want you to vote for just their Prop and against the other one, but they're not the boss of us.
Sit/Lie lets the police charge someone for sitting or lying on any San Francisco sidewalk from 7am to 11pm. Its aim is to give the police an extra tool to make life unpleasant for the various panhandlers and troublemakers on Haight street. Sounds good to those of us that live there.
On the other hand, the simple act of sitting on a sidewalk (if you're not blocking the foot traffic) really isn't the problem. Non-panhandlers could sit on most of the streets in the city and not even be noticed, and the street thugs can be just annoying while they stand. There are already laws on the books that prohibit the behavior we're really bothered by - aggressive panhandling, threats, etc.
So to be OK with Prop L, we really have to trust that the police will enforce it the way we want it, not arrest us if we ever touched butt to pavement. Well, the SF police have earned our trust over the years, so we're willing to give them this tool. For whatever reason the current law isn't working and we're ready to give this a try.
Most of us also like Prop M, which would mandate more cops walking the streets instead of driving around in cars. OE prefers to let the police (which we trust) figure out the best way to organize themselves and not meddle in it, but those of us living in the Haight see very few cops on foot and plenty in cars, despite the fact that there is a station just a couple blocks away. We would like to see more cops on foot, which seems like a great way to deal with the problem, in many ways better than Prop L. If Prop M gets more votes than L, it will kill L.
So the majority of us are actually voting for both, hoping that at least one will pass.
Prop N - Higher property transfer tax - No*
This would raise a tax paid when very expensive properties were sold, mostly be commercial buildings, plus a very small number of SF houses that exceed the $5 million dollar limit.
We weren't strongly for or against this. The amount it hopes to raise is small compared to the city's deficit. As the tax is only applied when a property is sold, we don't think it will have any impact on rents or office leases.
In the end 5 of our 6 decided against it, based on the fact that we have doubled this tax just recently, exceeding most major American cities. Also, why are they making us vote on it?
[Wow, I can't believe you read all the way down here. One more thing:]
Nancy Pelosi - You Decide
Three of the six of us wanted to say something about Nancy Pelosi, even though we usually don't comment about candidates.
What we wanted to say is that we don't think Pelosi really represents us, and has no connection to her constituents. She takes her re-election for granted, even though her policies aren't quite in sync with ultra-liberal San Francisco voters. Even if you are a fan of hers, you will not be getting any opportunity to hear her speak, or listen to her debate the moderate Republican that's challenging her, John Dennis. Even though she is facing re-election, she has no campaign website up and no campaign materials printed. She actually has a smaller jurisdiction than our absentee Mayor, but even he has been spotted at San Francisco events from time to time.
Given that the polls indicate she is indeed a shoo-in, three of us wanted to encourage people to make a statement by voting for someone other than Pelosi, sending the message that she needs to stop taking her constituents for granted.
Matt Gonzalez says it better than us:
http://www.fogcityjournal.com/wordpress/2409/gonzalez-pens-open-letter-to-pelosi/
