Tag Archives: ballot measure

Alix’s Voter Guide – California – March 2024

Hello! I’ve missed you, it’s been too long.

This is the shortest voter guide I’ve ever written. It’s a primary election, so there are lots of questions on the ballot for you: candidates for US President, US Senator, members of Congress, members of the State Legislature, a few judgeships. The most exciting races, IMO, are for US Senate to replace the late Senator Dianne Feinstein, and the East Bay Congressional seat replacing Barbara Lee, who is running for Feinstein’s seat.

Lateefah Simon, Rockstar

For Lee’s Congressional seat, I’m voting for the incredibly talented Lateefah Simon. With a compelling personal story and a plan of action, she is truly electrifying. For Feinstein’s seat, I haven’t yet decided among Barbara Lee, Katie Porter and Adam Schiff. Honestly, all three would be terrific advocates for our state – you can’t go wrong with any of them.

San Francisco and Oakland have several contentious measures and races, but – you’re on your own there. To maintain my sanity (and focus), I’m only analyzing statewide ballot measures these days, and there’s only one proposition on the March ballot in California (phew!). If you need help with other races and local measures, I highly recommend using Ballotpedia to study each race.

If you haven’t read my voter guide before, you should know that I research the hell out of ballot measures so that you don’t have to! My aim is to provide you with way more information than you ever thought you would need to make an informed decision. 

Before we begin, I should clarify that the opinions I express in this voter guide are my own and should not be attributed to any of my clients. Please send all hate mail to me at info (at) votealix.com.

In the interest of full disclosure, I’m a single mom, a liberal Democrat, a startup attorney and a government nerd, whose passions include arts and culture, getting more women elected to public office, and reversing global climate change. I’ve worked on more political campaigns than I can count, including my own, and I also like long walks on the beach.

Without further ado, I offer my thoughts on the March 2024 ballot measure.

Proposition 1 – Behavioral Health Services Program and Bond Measure – YES

Photo by Kerem Yücel for MPR News

I’ll sum this one up by saying: the homeless situation in California is horrific. Local governments have tried a lot of different tactics to get unhoused folks off the streets and into treatment if they need it. Prop 1 would enable the state to step in and throw money at the problem without any new taxes – by raising $6.38 billion in bonds to build mental health treatment facilities, and – for the first time – allow for substance use as an eligibility for these services. It would change the way counties spend their homelessness funds, and hold them accountable to the state’s goals.

Background:

Let’s go back in time to the 1950’s and 1960s, when California had numerous publicly funded mental health institutions where the seriously ill could reside and be treated indefinitely. Many of these patients had schizophrenia, or other forms of brain dysfunction that prevented them from leading normal lives. These patients weren’t always treated well – the hospitals were under-funded, patients were often neglected and physicians over-relied on medication, lobotomies and electroconvulsive therapy (yikes!). We’ve come a long way since then.

In light of these abuses, the 1960’s saw the rise of a “deinstitutionalization” movement, which, when paired with a conservative antipathy toward big government (thanks, Governor Ronald Reagan!), led to the closing of these institutions and the dumping of tens of thousands of these patients out into the streets. Since then, cities and counties have worked to fill the gap in services, but the problem continued to grow as California’s income disparity worsened. The counties with fewer resources struggled the most to keep folks off the streets and in supportive housing.

Photo by Beyondchron.org

Enter Prop 63 in 2004, titled the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA), which enacted a 1% tax on personal income above $1 million and dedicated the revenue to fund mental health services and programs at the county level. The MHSA helped local governments address mental health challenges of the unhoused, but it failed to address two big factors in homelessness: substance use disorders and lack of available housing for those being treated.

What Prop 1 Will Do:

Prop 1 would amend the MHSA to rename it to the Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA) and expand its support to substance use treatment for those without other mental health issues. It would change how county mental health plans are required to spend the revenue from the 1% so-called “millionaire’s tax” – requiring 30% to be allocated to housing intervention programs. Most important, it authorizes the state to borrow $6.38 billion to build housing and mental health treatment facilities for the unhoused, and those with mental health and substance use challenges. Up to $4.4 billion of those bond revenues would go toward mental health care and drug or alcohol treatment facilities and $2.0 billion would go to housing for the homeless.

It’s clever in that it does not include any new taxes; it merely redirects some of the existing tax revenues toward housing and treatment of substance use disorders. It signifies a major shift in the state’s role in how homeless programs are administered, and in doing so, is ruffling a lot of feathers.

They tried to make her go to rehab, but she said no, no, no. Photo by Matt Dunham/AP

It’s important to note that when it passed in 2004, no one thought the millionaire’s tax would generate $3.5 to $4 billion per year. There are hundreds of county departments and local nonprofits that are now dependent on this revenue… that’s about to change for them if Prop 1 passes.   

Let’s talk about the bond – more than $4 billion of its proceeds will go toward building treatment facilities like crisis care centers, rehabs, outpatient services. The rest – about $2 billion – will go to supportive housing, about half of which will go toward housing veterans, who are disproportionately affected by these issues. As a reminder, a bond measure is a way for the state to borrow money. The state will pay interest on those bonds using general fund money, which is why the voters need to approve them.

Supporters of Prop 1:

Look at Newsom! He’s wearing jeans and personally cleaning up a homeless encampment. But his hair is still perfect. (Office of the Governor)

This is Governor Newsom’s baby. He’s been passionate about solving homelessness since he was Mayor of San Francisco, and he is (understandably) sensitive to the criticism that it has gotten worse on his watch. Newsom has raised more than $14m in favor of Prop 1, and he has gathered an impressive amount of allies and endorsers, including first responders, teachers, health care organizations, business groups, labor unions and Native American tribes, and the League of California Cities. When Newsom proposed Prop 1 this year, the state legislature voted nearly unanimously to place it on the ballot.

Newsom argues that the mental health system is broken, the COVID pandemic only made things worse, and the government hasn’t done enough to build housing for the poor. On KQED’s Forum, he pointed out that since the deinstitutionalization of mental health patients in the 70s and 80s, the state hasn’t been involved in solving the problem. Cities and counties have been bearing the burden of homeless and mental health crises on the streets, and they are not keeping pace with the growing population. It’s time for the state – with its ability to dedicate vastly more resources behind the effort – to step in and get more Californians into supportive housing. The state can also do better in holding counties accountable to meet performance goals.

The Prop 1 campaign argues that the new law will:

13newsnow.com
  • Provide treatment over incarceration. One in three California prisoners has a diagnosed mental illness. Prop. 1 will prioritize treatment not punishment for the mentally ill.
  • Help homeless veterans. They argue that it is shameful that over 10,000 California veterans, many suffering from PTSD, are homeless and on the streets.
  • Require strict accountability without raising taxes. These measures include mandatory audits of county departments.  
  • Improve access to care. Prop 1 is expected to fund additional professionals, reducing long wait times for mental health services.

Opponents of Prop 1:

The opposition has raised exactly $1000 and they claim to be an all-volunteer effort. This doesn’t mean their campaign is going to lose, but it will certainly be an uphill battle for them.

Their coalition includes an interesting hodgepodge of groups: folks who hate all taxes generally, some mental health and disability rights groups, County officials, and good government organizations like the League of Women Voters of California.

The mental health and disability rights groups are worried about funding being redirected from mental health treatment into building housing. Carl DeMaio, a leader of the NO on Prop 1 campaign said “At a time when we face a growing mental health crisis with homelessness, Prop 1 actually diverts existing funds from mental health treatment programs so the money can be diverted to government-financed housing projects. In doing so, Prop 1 raids and diverts funding from the very mental health treatment programs that currently serve homeless people!” These groups are also concerned that Prop 1’s focus on institutionalization could lead to worse health outcomes and infringe on individual liberties.

Good government advocates and fiscal watchdogs worry that the $6.4 billion bond would exacerbate the state’s financial issues, given California’s $68 billion deficit. They claim (and I haven’t fact-checked it) that repayment of this bond could cost taxpayers up to $12.45 billion. They are also skeptical about the state’s ability to manage the funds effectively, citing past failures with bonds for high-speed rail, water, housing, and infrastructure projects.

County officials don’t like Prop 1 because it’s going to change the way they do business, shift their budgets, and force them to be accountable to the state. The League of Women Voters is similarly concerned about the loss of local control.

Then there are the Newsom-haters, who say that Prop 1 is a craven political maneuver to address criticisms of Newsom’s handling of California’s homelessness crisis. They say it provides him with political cover without properly addressing the root causes of the issues it hopes to solve. 

And finally, some advocates claim that Prop 1 isn’t ambitious enough. Given the scale of the state’s homelessness problem, the plan to build 4,350 housing units and accommodate 6,800 people for mental health care or drug or alcohol treatment is a drop in the bucket.  

My Analysis:

On balance, I’ll support Prop 1. Here are my thoughts:

  1. Prop 1 is probably going to help the state make progress on homelessness. Given the situation on our streets, *anything* is better than what we are doing now.
  2. It is shameful that so many veterans are on the street with untreated PTSD. Prop 1 will dedicate $1 billion to get these folks into housing.  
  3. I am not the biggest fan of Governor Newsom, but he is a subject matter expert after all these years. Let’s give him one last chance to try to make a dent in this massive problem.
  4. I’m not worried about the civil liberties of profoundly disabled folks who are posing threats to themselves and others. Let’s try getting them into institutions so they can start living healthier (and safer) lives. This is not the 1960s – institutions no longer have the cloak of secrecy to shield their treatment of mental patients. I hope that the state will oversee the administration of these institutions in addition to making sure the money is well spent.
  5. Counties need to suck it up. What they have been doing ISN’T WORKING. It’s time to try something else and hold them accountable to metrics.
  6. I agree Prop 1 won’t completely solve homelessness, but it is likely to make a difference. At the very least, we’ll learn more about what works and what doesn’t.
  7. I agree with good government groups on one thing: major policy changes and budgetary shifts shouldn’t be decided by the ballot box. As you’ve heard me say before, it is absolutely ridiculous that you need a graduate degree and loads of free time to fully understand most measures on the California ballot these days. However, since this proposition amends a previous ballot measure, there is no other way to do it. Until we hold a constitutional convention and completely scrap the way California legislates, we are stuck with this method of governance. Blah.

But don’t take my word for it. Here’s what the state’s major newspapers say:

“California is short thousands of mental health beds at all levels of care, according to a 2021 study from the nonprofit think tank Rand Corp. Furthermore, even when beds are available, many facilities are unwilling or unable to accept patients with complex co-occurring conditions, criminal records and a history of violence. Other times, beds sit empty because there aren’t enough workers to staff them. As of late last year, some behavioral health nonprofits that contract with San Francisco had vacancy rates reaching 40%. Enter Proposition 1, a state ballot measure that Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration describes as the ‘linchpin’ of its strategy to overhaul California’s behavioral health system. The status quo is not an option — and that means voting ‘yes’ for Prop. 1 on March 5.”   

“When compared with the cost of doing nothing, Proposition 1 is an important step forward in meeting California’s responsibility to the most vulnerable homeless people and those housed Californians with behavioral health problems most at risk of ending up on the street. It is a worthy addition to other state, local and private investments, and it warrants support. The Times urges voters to approve Proposition 1.”

“The state has limited resources, the current distribution of money is not getting the job done and the problem requires a statewide approach. To provide a clearer picture of federal, state and county efforts in California to address mental health issues, Prop. 1 would also require counties to report how they spend all the money from those sources. Newsom wants to try something new. Voters should give him that chance. But they should also hold him accountable to ensure that Proposition 1 delivers promised improvements.” 

* * *

Thanks for reading! If you like what you read here, and found it to be helpful, please throw a few pennies in the jar to help cover my costs, forward this blog post to your friends and frenemies, subscribe your roommates to my blog without telling them (kidding!). This blog is a labor of love for me. I don’t accept donations or advertisements from campaigns, so I rely on my readers to support this weird little passion project of mine.

Oh and I’m warning you now – the November ballot is going to break records. 10 measures have already qualified for the ballot, with another 28 (!!!) cleared to collect signatures. In addition to those, there could be any number of measures referred by the legislature. Pray for me.

Yes on Prop 30

Tax on Income Above $2 Million for Zero-Emissions Vehicles and Wildfire Prevention Initiative

Here is my voter guide for the 2022 California ballot measures.

Let me start by saying that in my day job, I work for Lyft, which is one of the sponsors of Prop 30. I also drive an electric vehicle and my house is powered by solar, which will tell you even more about my tree-hugging, renewable-energy-loving perspective. That said, I believe every word that I’ve written here, and my goal is to help you decide how to vote, either way. The views I express here are my own, and not that of my employer. 

First, the basics: Prop 30 would increase the tax from 13.3% to 15% on income above $2 million for individuals in California, and would dedicate the revenue to zero-emission vehicle subsidies and zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, such as electric vehicle charging stations, as well as wildfire suppression and prevention programs. The new tax would take effect on January 1, 2023, and extend for 20 years, or it would end after three consecutive years of low statewide carbon emissions (80% of 1990 levels), whichever is sooner. 

The new tax revenue would be deposited into the Clean Cars and Clean Air Trust Fund, and would then be allocated to the following three sub-funds: 

  • Zero-Emission Vehicle and Clean Mobility Sub-Fund (45% of revenue) – estimated at $2.1 billion to $3 billion every year. This fund would make EVs cheaper with point-of-sale rebates, which will make it easier for Californians who can’t afford a Tesla to buy a new EV.
  • Zero-Emission Vehicle Infrastructure Investment Plan Sub-Fund (35% of revenue) – estimated at $1.6 billion to $2.3 billion every year. This fund would support a statewide electric vehicle charging network that will include low- and middle-income communities.
  • Wildfire Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Sub-Fund (20% of revenue) – estimated at $930 million to $1.3 billion every year. This fund will significantly increase resources to help prevent and fight wildfires, with money for early detection, firefighter training and staffing, and forest management. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office has said the wildfire investment could save the state money, as more resources for firefighters and prescribed burns could prevent mega-fires in the future.

I probably don’t need to tell you that gas-powered vehicles are primarily responsible for roughly 50% of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions.  And tailpipe exhaust is the main reason why California’s Black and Latinx communities disproportionately suffer from lung diseases and have been more vulnerable to serious illness or death from COVID. Switching the state’s transportation system over to electric will significantly improve the air quality, but it will also start the reversal of global climate change that has led to wildfires and drought conditions.  

I grew up in California and I remember a time when wildfires were rare. But we now live in a world where huge portions of the state burn down every year, and Californians are getting used to smoky air and drought conditions that may never end. Words can’t express how sad this makes me.

As a mom, I want to help make the planet a better place for my 5 year old daughter and her future here. I’m not sure if Prop 30 will give us better air quality than I had in my youth, but it will certainly help make a dent in the two biggest sources of carbon emissions in California: transportation and wildfires. 

I drive an electric vehicle because: (1) I want to stop contributing to the state’s air quality problems, (2) gasoline prices are way too high; (3) I could get an HOV-lane sticker and skip right past rush hour traffic (whee!); and (4) most importantly, the burning of fossil fuels is a leading contributor to global climate change, and I want to do my part. I am fortunate enough to be able to afford an EV, and I own my home, so I could install my own charger at my house. I realize that I am in the minority. 

California needs Prop 30 to make EV technology viable and to enable more folks to make the switch… because let’s be real: millions of lower income drivers are often struggling to make their own car payments, and they certainly don’t have the money to buy a new electric vehicle or a charging system.  Likewise, trucking and bus companies won’t be motivated to trade in diesel-fueled vehicles for new EV rigs without government subsidies.

Supporters of Prop 30 include environmentalists, progressive politicians, public health advocates, and people who like science: the California Democratic Party, the American Lung Association, Public Health Institute, California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, California State Firefighters, California Environmental Voters, Union of Concerned Scientists, National Resources Defense Council, Save the Bay, The Climate Center, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, and Lyft.

The main opponents of Prop 30 are the people who generally oppose taxes, including the California Republican Party, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and dozens of chambers of commerce.  But there are also a few heavy hitters whom you’ve undoubtedly already heard from: the California Teachers Association and Governor Gavin Newsom.  

The teachers’ union argues that Prop 30 undermines funding for public education because it bypasses the state’s normal taxation process (which includes a minimum funding guarantee for public schools) by placing Prop 30 revenues directly into a trust fund, rather than the General Fund. The teachers agree that improving California’s air quality is an important cause, but they are worried about the precedent Prop 30 will set for big corporations or special interests in setting up their own taxpayer-funded carveout.

Newsom calls Prop 30 “a cynical scheme devised by a single corporation to funnel state income tax revenue to their company.” Yep, he’s referring to Lyft. But the statement is both factually incorrect and confounding, because Lyft is only one member of a broad coalition backing the measure. And while it’s true that Prop 30 will make it easier for Lyft to reach its goal of 100% zero-emission vehicles by 2030, it will also help many other companies and individuals make the switch to electric.  

Contrary to Governor Newsom’s statement, not a single dollar of Prop 30 revenue is earmarked for Lyft or any other “special interest.”  The infrastructure investments are designed to specifically benefit drivers to make a faster transition to cleaner cars. Remember: the vast majority of vehicles on rideshare platforms are owned by the drivers – not by Lyft and Uber – and these drivers need help making the switch to EVs. Rideshare drivers will be eligible for Prop 30 funds just like any Californian who is considering making the switch. 

Promoting zero emission vehicles has been a stated policy goal of the Governor himself for many years, so his opposition to the measure is confusing to environmentalists and many of his own supporters. Just this year, Newsom himself put forward a $10 billion budget package that supports the move to electric vehicles to combat climate change. 

But a one-time $10 billion budget allocation isn’t nearly enough to support the massive, long-term transformation that Newsom is hoping for. (By contrast, Prop 30 promises $4 billion to $6.4 billion every year for 20 years.)  

For one, only a fraction of the $10 billion is going toward charging infrastructure, which is in my opinion the biggest hurdle to widespread adoption.  CalMatters estimates that about 1.2 million chargers will be needed for the 8 million zero-emission cars expected by 2030. I invite you to nerd out with me on this state government website, which shows that currently there are only about 80,000 existing chargers in California with another 123,000 on the way – and you can see that this is nowhere near enough, because you are good at numbers. Moreover, most public charging stations are found in urban and coastal areas, and the lack of available charging stations is particularly tough for renters and people in rural parts of the state. 

But here’s an even more vexing problem: the state recently decided to ban the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035. If California doesn’t start building the infrastructure to support EVs, this unfunded mandate is going to fail. Instead of buying EVs in California, residents are simply going to go out of state to find gas-powered vehicles. And THAT would be a disaster beyond the policy failure – think of the massive loss of sales tax revenue to Nevada and other bordering states.  

That is why we’re in this pickle, and it is why Lyft got involved in the first place. Two years ago, Lyft made a commitment to have 100% of vehicles operating on its platform be electrified by 2030, and it has also supported other electrification proposals considered in state houses across the country. Lyft has also said that it is committed to achieving 100% vehicle electrification regardless of Proposition 30’s outcome. 

For those of you who make more than $2 million a year (and you haven’t already moved to Austin??), I understand if you don’t want to support the measure. California is always looking for ways to make it harder for you to live here comfortably, and it feels like you are constantly footing the bill for the state’s basic needs. Don’t get me started on California’s structural budget deficit and our fucked up ballot measure system. But without solving those very hairy problems, we are stuck taxing the rich – again – because there is nowhere else to turn, and our very survival as a species is at stake. 

The Paris Agreement stated that the planet has until 2030 to reduce emissions by 45% to have a chance at avoiding catastrophic climate change. We are very, VERY far from reaching this goal, and we are less than 8 years away.  Prop 30 is California’s best bet at getting closer to a future with cleaner air and fewer wildfires. I hope you’ll join me in voting for the measure. 

Yes on Prop 22

Here are my thoughts on Prop 22, the measure that will clarify the employment status of app-based transportation drivers. If you are looking for a deeper analysis of all the measures on the November 2020 California ballot, you can find them here.

Let me start by saying that in my day job, I work for Lyft, which is one of the sponsors of Prop 22. That said, I believe every word that I’ve written here, and since I have worked in app-based transportation platforms for more than 6 years, I see how it improves people’s lives every day – for both the drivers and the consumers. The views I express here are my own, and NOT that of my employer. Without further ado….

Proposition 22 – Employment status of gig economy drivers – YES!

This is the big momma of all the measures on the California ballot. It’s the one everyone is talking about, because the election result will have major consequences for millions of Californians, including every single person who uses Uber, Lyft and the delivery services. This probably includes you.

Let’s go back eight or nine years when Uber and Lyft were founded in San Francisco. Taxi services were a joke; you called a dispatch number and the cab never came, or it was 30 minutes late, and this made it impossible to plan your evening. People drove intoxicated more often than they do now; getting to and from the airport was a pain; people went out to bars and restaurants less often; and life was just a lot less convenient.

Enter the rideshare platform companies, who enabled you to call a car at the touch of a button. A neighbor with a car and some free time would pick you up and take you where you wanted to go within minutes. You didn’t need to fumble for cash; the apps made payment seamless. It was life changing, for both the drivers and the riders. City dwellers starting getting rid of their cars; streets became safer from drunk drivers; and bars and restaurants thrived.

And – this is just as important – the average Joe or Jill was given the ability to make some money on the side by driving whenever it was convenient for them. Stay-at-home moms, full time students, free spirits and retirees could drive as much or as little as they wanted, with total flexibility to work for multiple gig companies, often simultaneously.

These companies completely upended both the taxi industry and the traditional employment model. Consumers gained the convenience of a ride whenever they wanted, and drivers gained the flexibility that a traditional job would never allow.

As the gig economy has matured, the companies have each wrestled with how to afford the drivers maximum freedom while also giving them traditional employment benefits like a guaranteed wage, health care and worker’s comp insurance. It’s not as easy as it sounds. Giving drivers employment benefits would risk their independent contractor status under state law. It also doesn’t make sense to give full benefits to a driver who doesn’t want to commit to driving a minimum number of hours per week.

Keep in mind that neither Lyft nor Uber is profitable yet, and the companies are locked in a death grip of competition. A majority of drivers work for both companies, and most consumers use both apps. This means that if Lyft raised its prices in order to pay drivers more, consumers would flock to Uber, and more drivers would switch over to Lyft, leading to an imbalance of supply and demand. Neither company can increase driver pay without losing market share, and the companies can’t collude to raise prices without breaking the law. A legislative solution is the only way to make sure that drivers get paid the same wage at both companies. 

Over the last decade, the gig economy has flourished. Hundreds of gig companies have sprung up to provide consumers with countless different services (I’ll assemble your IKEA furniture! I’ll help you buy groceries! I’ll give your dog a bath!), some with great success, and some have failed (see: Sidecar, my former employer, R.I.P.). But the workers haven’t been able to share in the bounty of the gig economy because their wages have been primarily market driven. 

Taxi companies are also failing because they have been unable or unwilling to catch up to the technology. And unfortunately, the rise of the gig economy has also meant the decline of union membership. Unions haven’t been able to figure out how to organize the drivers, in part because traditional membership requires an “employer” who will collect union dues through a regular paycheck. The unions are also fighting among themselves as to which one gets to (has to?) bring gig workers into the fold.

Let’s talk about unions for a second. In my voter guides, I almost always take the side of labor in my endorsements, and that’s because labor has played a central role in protecting workers and in bringing about the most critical reforms to the workplace. When I worked for the City of Oakland, I was a proud member of IFPTE Local 21, and when I ran for office, unions supported my campaigns, and I proudly displayed the union bug on all my campaign materials.

All that said, I disagree with their position on the classification of gig economy workers.  This is an issue where the unions are on the wrong side of history; they are clinging to an outdated version of the employment relationship. They are working very hard to cripple the tech companies that have provided the opportunity for gig work to millions of Californians, hurting the very workers they seek to protect. Instead, I think they should adapt to the modern workplace and organize the millions of gig workers, giving them even more power to influence worker protections.

In 2019, taxis and unions looked to the state legislature to strike a blow at the gig companies’ business model. The taxi lobby and the unions are powerful players in Sacramento, and they were able to work closely with Democratic legislators to pass Assembly Bill 5 (AB5), which changed the classification of millions of independent contractors around the state to grant them employee status. AB5 was a blunt instrument that had many unintended consequences, which is why the Assembly member who authored the bill immediately granted carve-outs to hundreds of businesses that she favored more than the app-based companies.

In response to AB5, Uber, Lyft and other gig transportation companies placed Prop 22 on the ballot. Prop 22 proposes a compromise between the independent contractor model and the traditional employment model. It would guarantee drivers the flexibility that they want, while granting them many of the benefits of employment. These include a minimum earnings guarantee of 120% of minimum wage, health care benefits that drivers would earn with every hour that they drive, and accident insurance that is similar to worker’s comp insurance.  The measure also codifies certain safety measures, many of which the companies already provide: annual background checks, safety training, sexual harassment policies, and the criminalization of impersonating a driver.

The proponents of Prop 22 believe that this gives drivers the best of both worlds: the flexibility they want, and the benefits they deserve, without tying them down to a traditional job.  The opponents of Prop 22 say that the app-based companies are just trying to escape having to treat their drivers with the dignity of having employee status.

The app-based transportation companies have poured more than $184 million dollars into the Yes on 22 campaign. Why? Because this measure isn’t just about benefits for drivers, it’s about changing the entire business model of these companies, and possibly ending app-based transportation as we know it in California.

As a voter, you are deciding between two very different outcomes. If Prop 22 passes, consumers will notice very little difference in the services they receive. Prices will go up a bit, because drivers will be paid more in earnings and benefits, and the companies’ overhead will go up a little.  The companies will be able to serve all the areas they do today. Drivers will get paid more, and they will continue to drive for multiple platforms at once, as they do today.

If Prop 22 fails, things will be very different. All drivers in California will be forced to sign up as employees if they want to keep driving. For most drivers, it will be infeasible to work for multiple companies. Along with the full benefits of employment, they will receive overtime, vacation, and a fixed rate of pay. They will be assigned to shifts, and they will be required to work a minimum number of hours, agreeing in advance to when and where they drive. They will have a supervisor and performance targets, like any other private sector job.

There is no doubt that some gig drivers would benefit from having employee status, because they drive full time and they want the security of a regular paycheck. However, an independent survey of gig drivers released on October 5 revealed that 69% of California respondents want to remain independent contractors compared to only 11.5% who want to be employees. This makes sense, as Lyft reports that 86% of its drivers drive less than 20 hours per week, and many of them already have full time jobs. They are also caregivers for sick family members, or students who drive to cover their tuition, or seniors who enjoy the social connections they make through gig work.

Since only a small minority of drivers (11.5%!!) will choose to be employees, the app-based transportation businesses will shrink dramatically in California if Prop 22 fails. For consumers, this means that wait times will become much longer, because there will be fewer drivers on the road. The companies will limit their services to denser urban areas, because that’s where the drivers will be concentrated, and where the consumers will be willing to pay more. And of course prices will go up, because drivers will be paid more and the companies’ overhead will go up considerably more than it would if Prop 22 passes.

It’s disappointing to see so many Democratic elected officials line up in the “No” camp, including Kamala Harris and Joe Biden. I suspect it’s because they are aligned ideologically with unions, and perhaps they haven’t been briefed on the nuance. (Note: Kamala’s brother-in-law Tony West is the General Counsel at Uber – I would love to be a fly on the wall for their dinner table conversations!) And despite the positive changes that some tech companies have brought into our world, there is a significant backlash against Big Tech in the zeitgeist.

One big happy family

Despite what you may hear from the “No” campaign, this is not a partisan issue. In addition to the usual pro-business advocates, many progressive groups and civil rights organizations support Prop 22, including the California NAACP, California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, senior rights advocates, and crime survivors groups. Mothers Against Drunk Driving also supports Prop 22 because of the positive impact ridesharing has had on drunk driving in California.

Above all, this argument should not be about what is good for the companies versus what is good for labor unions. It should always be about what is good for the drivers. Prop 22 isn’t perfect, but it will make the drivers’ lives much better. Go ask them yourself! They will tell you to vote yes.

If you want learn more, I encourage you to read two competing newspaper endorsements: the San Francisco Chronicle which went ”yes” on 22, and the Los Angeles Times which went “no.”  The two opinions do an excellent job of examining the nuance of gig work and in particular, the frailties of AB5.

Alix’s Voter Guide – SF & CA – March 2020

Other than the Presidential Primary, this ballot is a snoozer. The six ballot measures are mostly uncontroversial, and our congressional and state delegates are largely unopposed. The rest are down-ballot races that very few of you care about… but I do! And that’s why you are here. I’m happy to help you cut through the crap and decide who you will vote for on Tuesday.

Before we begin, I should clarify that the opinions I express in this voter guide are my own, and should not be attributed to my employer, my baby girl, or any of the many Democratic clubs I belong to. Please send all hate mail to me at info (at) votealix.com.

In the interest of full disclosure, I’m a single mom, a liberal Democrat attorney and a government nerd, whose passions include arts and culture, getting more women elected to public office, and protecting our environment for future generations. I’ve worked on more political campaigns than I can count, including my own, and I also like long walks on the beach.

Here’s the summary, with detailed explanations below:

President of the United States – Elizabeth Warren
*Though, to be clear, I will vote for any Democrat in November

US Congress, D12 – Nancy Pelosi
US Congress, D14 – Jackie Speier
State Senator, D11 – Scott Wiener
State Assembly D17 – David Chiu
State Assembly D19 – Phil Ting
Superior Court Judge, Seat #1 – Maria Evangelista
Superior Court Judge, Seat #18 – Dorothy Chou Proudfoot
Superior Court Judge, Seat #21 – Kulvindar “Rani” Singh

Democratic County Central Committee – AD17 (Central/East side of SF)
Kristen Asato-Webb
Nima Rahimi
Mike Chen
Frances Hsieh
Austin Hunter
Tyra Fennell
Victor Olivieri
Mick Del Rosario
Bivett Brackett
Tami Bryant
Vallie Brown
Steven Buss

Democratic County Central Committee – AD19 (West side)
Abra Castle
Kathleen Anderson
Nadia Rahman
Cyn Wang
Suzy Loftus
Jane Natoli
Seeyew Mo
Mary Jung
Mawuli Tugbenyoh

CA Proposition 13 – YES
SF Proposition A – YES
SF Proposition B – YES
SF Proposition C – YES
SF Proposition D – YES
SF Proposition E – NO

President of the United States – Elizabeth Warren

Wow, they are dropping like flies, aren’t they? On the eve of Super Tuesday, Steyer and Buttigieg just dropped out of the race. That leaves Sanders, Biden, Warren, Klobuchar and Bloomberg. If you are starting to think that Bernie has this thing wrapped up, I refer you to the numbers below, showing that this thing is still anyone’s race.

Screen Shot 2020-03-01 at 4.57.08 PM

I am supporting Elizabeth Warren because she is the only candidate who gives me hope for America. She understands the struggles of working families, having lived it and breathed it herself, and she has translated that understanding into workable policies that will actually improve people’s lives. She’s thoughtful, fearless and above all, persistent. And her comedic timing is unmatched.

 

“Comedic timing?” You ask. “Why on earth would that matter for a presidential candidate?!” Ask Hillary Clinton that question, and then ask Donald Trump. The candidate with the quickest wit is the one best suited to beat Trump at his own game: on the debate stage and on social media. And that is, to me, what matters more than anything.

I also want to remind you that a candidate only gets a state’s delegates to the national convention if they receive 15% of votes statewide. A candidate can also get delegates in individual congressional districts if they get 15% in that district. I know, it makes my head hurt too. Klobuchar is polling at less than 10%, so if she is your first choice, I suggest voting for someone else to make sure your vote counts. Or, you know, you could vote your conscience. Nothing wrong with that.

But regardless of who you vote for in the primary, I hope you will join me in voting for WHOEVER THE FUCK THE DEMOCRATS NOMINATE AGAINST TRUMP. Seriously. Call voters, knock on doors, donate money, do everything you can to get the Trump criminal enterprise out of the White House.

US Congress, D12 , Nancy Pelosi

Screen Shot 2016-04-10 at 10.26.19 PMMadame Speaker is the most powerful woman in American government, and she has wielded that power in favor of progressive values in an extremely challenging political environment. She is partly responsible for wresting the House back to Democratic control in 2018 by supporting the right candidates (including many women!) in swing districts. I also admire her ability to troll President Trump and get under his skin. I am voting for her with enthusiasm.

Several folks are running against her this year, including attorney Shahid Buttar, who ran two years ago claiming that Pelosi isn’t progressive enough for San Francisco. I disagree, and I also think that this is not the year to throw Speaker Pelosi – a woman, a fighter, and President Trump’s political nemesis – out of office. It would be the absolute wrong message to send to the rest of the country.

US Congress, D14, Jackie Speier

Incumbent Jackie Speier has no credible opposition.

State Senator, D11, Scott Weiner

Screen Shot 2020-03-01 at 5.22.04 PMOver the years I have worked with Senator Scott Wiener in advocating for nightlife and culture and paid parental leave. He is also known for his work in improving public transit and access to housing. He is a tireless and prolific legislator, and in recent years he has been relentless in advocating for the development of housing of all kinds across the state. Because he has been fearless in tackling some of the states’ most intractable issues, he’s also made some enemies – especially among those who oppose real estate development. Personally, I agree with Scott that cities of all sizes need to start making sacrifices to build denser housing and taller buildings – it’s the only way out of our perpetual housing crunch in this state.

Scott has an opponent in this race, Jackie Fielder, an organizer for public banking. Fielder is a political newcomer, but a few high profile progressives have lined up behind her, including current and former Supervisors Gordon Mar, Hillary Ronen, Dean Preston, Matt Gonzalez, Eric Mar and David Campos, former Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, Democratic Socialists, and the Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club. If you are a Berniecrat, Fielder could be your candidate.

Scott has the support of both moderate and progressive Democrats, including everyone from Speaker Pelosi, Governor Newsom and Senator Harris, to Supervisors Yee, Mandelman, Stefani, Safai, and Walton. Most of the California labor unions support him, as does civil rights icon Dolores Huerta. I agree with them that he deserves a second term.

State Assembly D17

Incumbent David Chiu is unopposed.

State Assembly D19, Phil Ting

Incumbent Phil Ting is virtually unopposed.

Superior Court Judge, Seat #1 – Maria Evangelista

Screen Shot 2020-03-01 at 5.25.29 PMFirst, I would like to note that there are six candidates for judge on this ballot: all of them women, and five are women of color. This is remarkable. We’ve come a long way, baby!

In the race for Seat #1, both candidates came from humble beginnings. Maria Evangelista was raised by Mexican immigrant farmworkers. Though her parents had no formal education, Evangelista worked hard to become high-school class valedictorian and student body president, going on to graduate from San Francisco State and Vanderbilt University law school. She is a Deputy Public Defender with 17 years of trial experience, and she is endorsed by City Attorney Dennis Herrera, and all but one of the members of the Board of Supervisors.

Her opponent Pang Ly came with her family on a fishing boat to the United States in 1979 to escape the Vietnam War. She, too, became the first in her family to graduate from college and earned her law degree from the University of Missouri. She is endorsed by the San Francisco Chronicle and Assemblymember David Chiu, among others.

Each has received a “qualified” rating from the Bar Association of San Francisco, and I think they both have the experience to be adequate judges. However, I have heard credible evidence that Ly does not have the demeanor to be a fair and impartial judge. In her current role as a commissioner for the SF Superior Court, Ly is widely known to treat parties and their attorneys with disrespect and has bullied litigants into unfair settlements.  A group of attorneys who have appeared before her are actively opposing her candidacy for this reason.

Evangelista is a relative unknown, but she is a mother of two with nearly two decades of trial experience. I am all for electing more hard working mothers into office! She has a broad range of endorsers, which says a lot about her (and, perhaps, her opponent). She is committed to making sure the courts are accessible to everyone regardless of race, income, and primary language, and that’s a mission I can get behind.

Superior Court Judge, Seat #18 – Dorothy Chou Proudfoot

Screen Shot 2020-03-01 at 5.26.40 PMI see two highly qualified women of color in this race: an administrative law judge and a deputy public defender. Both candidates would bring formidable experience to the Superior Court bench. Proudfoot is a former prosecutor who has presided over more than 200 rent-control cases as an administrative law judge. She spent 16 years as a deputy district attorney, specializing in gang violence and sexual assault. She is endorsed by Senator Scott Wiener, Assemblymember David Chiu and over 20 judges.

Tong has been a deputy public defender for over 16 years, having tried more than 50 cases. She is endorsed by the left side of the Board of Supervisors, and many Superior Court judges.

I am impressed by both candidates’ commitment to their communities. Proudfoot has worked with the Asian American Bar Association to increase diversity in the legal profession and she has trained female lawyers for trial work in a program of the Bar Association of San Francisco. Tong has helped tenant families at the Eviction Defense Collaborative, and domestic violence victims, immigrants and restaurant workers through the Asian Law Caucus.

This might be too nerdy for most of you, but the reason I chose Proudfoot is because she refused to fall for a question posed to her by the San Francisco Democratic Party. In its endorsement process, the Party asks candidates whether, if elected, they will fight for the party’s platform. Judges, however, are specifically required to avoid engaging in political activity that would create the appearance of political bias.  Proudfoot answered no, Tong answered yes. What does it mean that Tong would fight for the SF Democratic Party’s platform as a judge? This goes against everything a judge is supposed to stand for. Proudfoot understands the need for political neutrality in a judge’s robe, so that’s one reason why I’m voting for her.

Superior Court Judge, Seat #21 – Kulvindar “Rani” Singh

Screen Shot 2020-03-01 at 5.27.49 PMRani Singh is an experienced prosecutor who has appeared in more than 100 trials. She is my choice because she received the rating of “exceptionally well qualified” from the Bar Association of San Francisco, which is very rare to see. Rani is not your typical DA – she leads the Collaborative Courts and Mental Health Units of the DA’s office, working with both victims AND defendants on addressing root causes of crime. She is endorsed by over a dozen Judges including Judge John K. Stewart, whose seat she is running for, Judge Linda Colfax, and elected officials including Senator Scott Wiener, former Senator Mark Leno, Assemblymember David Chiu, Assessor Carmen Chu, and Supervisor Aaron Peskin. That’s a broad coalition of support from both sides of the aisle.

Singh’s opponent is tenants’ rights attorney Carolyn Gold, who has 30 years of experience defending San Franciscans from eviction. She oversees San Francisco’s new Right To Counsel program, which provides free attorneys to tenants facing eviction. She is endorsed by the left side of the Board of Supervisors, as well as the most progressive organizations in town.

Gold’s courtroom experience qualifies her as judge, to be sure. But Rani’s support from a broad spectrum of elected officials and groups is what gives her the edge, IMO. In this polarized political environment, it speaks volumes for Singh that a broad coalition backs her.

Democratic County Central Committee

Screen Shot 2020-03-01 at 8.53.57 PMThe DCCC is the governing body of the local Democratic party. It registers voters, endorses candidates, and takes positions on issues important to San Franciscans. When I served on the DCCC (from 2010-2016), I was most proud of the work I did to recruit and support female candidates for public office.

You’ll notice that there are several candidates on your ballot who are current or former office holders (see: Supervisors Haney, Mandelman, Safai, Walton, Sheriff Miyamoto). While I am friends with many of these folks, and supported them for the Board of Supervisors or for Sheriff, I am not supporting them for DCCC because I believe that the DCCC seats should be held by everyday folks. In my experience, the elected officials aren’t able to roll up their sleeves and do the work necessary to build the party. They are running because they want to control the party’s endorsement process, and I think that’s not a good enough reason to serve on the DCCC. I also think the DCCC should serve as a bench for future candidates for higher office, as it’s an easier office to run for and therefore a good proving ground for future Supervisors and School Board members. That’s why I’m supporting the non-electeds this time around.

The DCCC is elected by Assembly District. AD-17 has 14 seats and AD-19 has 10 seats, based on their relative population size. The candidates on my list below are progressive and diverse. They are LGBTQ, straight, younger, older, black, white, brown and mostly female.  I chose them because I think they can win, and because I think they will work hard on behalf of the party.

AD17 – Castro, Haight, Marina, Fillmore, North Beach, SOMA, Financial District 

KRISTEN ASATO-WEBB, Environmental Non-profit Manager
NIMA RAHIMI, Transportation Policy Attorney
MIKE CHEN, Data Engineer
FRANCES HSIEH, Immigration Rights Analyst
AUSTIN HUNTER, Nonprofit Policy Analyst
TYRA FENNELL, Director, Arts Non-Profit
VICTOR OLIVIERI, Professor
MICK DEL ROSARIO, Public Health Manager
BIVETT BRACKETT, Commissioner / Entrepreneur / Mother
TAMI BRYANT, Youth Employment Coordinator
VALLIE BROWN, Appointed Supervisor – City and County of San Francisco
STEVEN BUSS, Housing Data Analyst

AD19 – Sunset, Richmond, St. Francis Wood

ABRA CASTLE, Parent/School Volunteer
KATHLEEN ANDERSON, Small Business Owner
NADIA RAHMAN, Digital Communications Strategist
CYN WANG, Small Business Owner
SUZY LOFTUS, Attorney
JANE NATOLI, Financial Crimes Investigator
SEEYEW MO, Civic Tech Entrepreneur
MARY JUNG, Incumbent
MAWULI TUGBENYOH, Chief of Policy

State Prop 13 – YES

Prop 13 will authorize $15 billion in state general obligation bonds for construction and modernization of public schools, including pre-K, elementary schools, community colleges and universities. “Wait,” you ask, “didn’t we just approve a statewide school bond in 2016?” Why yes we did, you nerd, it was Prop 51, and it approved $9 billion in bonds to fund improvement and construction of school facilities for K-12 schools and community colleges.

Screen Shot 2020-03-01 at 9.00.03 PMThe revenues from Prop 51 have already been claimed, and unfortunately it was structured on a first-come, first-served basis, so the schools who benefitted were mostly in wealthier and larger school districts who could get their applications in the fastest. Ugh. So here we are, with a LARGER bond measure, specifically designed to prioritize NEED, not SPEED. If Prop 13 passes, the schools in smaller and low-income districts will get the funds they deserve to make their improvements.

It makes me sad that this bond is necessary at all – that the state government isn’t able to dedicate enough of its annual budget to make basic repairs to schools. But I know that California’s structural budget issues are huge and intractable, so here we are… supporting yet another massive loan to the state government to make sure our schools get the upgrades they need.

Part of me wants to vote no, and scream at the legislature to fix the problem at its root. Why don’t they figure out how to fund school repairs without coming to the voters every time?  But the other part of me knows that if this bond measure fails, the poorer schools will simply go without necessary repairs and upgrades, and it will be the children – not the legislature – who will suffer. *Sigh*

When I was a kid growing up in Southern California, the state’s public schools were among the best in the nation. Now that I have a daughter who is approaching school age, it makes me profoundly sad that we are now ranked 37th (!!) for K-12 education. I am voting yes on Prop 13 and I hope that the rest of the state will join me in showing our commitment to public education.

Prop 13 requires two-thirds of the vote to pass. It is endorsed by nearly everybody, including Governor Gavin Newsom, Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, and every union in California. The only folks opposing it are the folks who hate all taxes.

SF Proposition A – YES

Prop A will authorize $845 million in general obligation bonds to repair City College facilities, including much-needed earthquake safety improvements and improved energy efficiency. The bond will increase property taxes by 1.1 cents/$100 assessed value, and it will sunset in 2053. If you own your home, and your house has $1 million in assessed value, your property tax will go up by $111 per year. This measure requires 55% of the vote to pass.

Are you detecting a theme here? State and local governments aren’t able to fund school repairs through their usual budget process, so they have to come to the voters for massive loans, paid for by property owners.

When I research bond measures, I usually ask a few questions: (1) Does it have a worthy purpose? (2) How do we know the money will go to the right places to solve the problem? (3) Will there be enough oversight and accountability?

Screen Shot 2020-03-01 at 9.09.15 PM

NOT an actual photo of a City College facility

The answer to question 1 is almost always yes. Here, the bond revenues will go toward desperately needed repairs to City College’s facilities, including dilapidated roofs and walls, outdated heating and plumbing systems, buildings that are seismically unsound. City College is an important piece of the city’s education landscape; it gives San Franciscans from all walks of life the opportunity to remake themselves.

Question 2 is more complicated. City College has been plagued in the recent past by mismanagement and headline-grabbing faculty layoffs. It nearly lost its accreditation in 2012 because of its management issues. However, setting the management issues aside, I believe the bond is well structured to prioritize the highest need. The majority of the revenues will go toward a specific list of repair, renovation and construction projects that have already been identified based on their state of repair and shovel-readiness. About 10% will go toward specific seismically-related improvement projects, and another large chunk will go toward improving disability access, which has been deferred for decades.

As for Question 3 (accountability), Prop A would require the creation of a citizens’ oversight committee to review how the bond funds are spent. This is standard practice, and will help ensure that the funds are allocated in a way that the voters intended. The committee will NOT include district employees, and WILL include a member of a taxpayers association, who will certainly scrutinize the way the money is spent. The committee will also produce annual audits and ensure that none of the money went toward administrator salaries.

I’ll support this one with the same reasoning as Prop 13, above. City government should absolutely have a better way to fund critical education needs like, oh, keeping school roofs from caving in. However, voting no on this measure won’t solve the city’s basic budget problems. I think this cause is worthy – critical, even – and so I’m voting yes.

SF Proposition B – YES

Yep, ANOTHER BOND MEASURE. This one is for emergency preparedness, and will issue $628 million in general obligation bonds. It will increase property taxes by 1.5 cents/$100 of assessed property value, sunsetting in 30 years. If you own your home, and your house has $1 million in assessed value, your tax will go up by $150 per year. This measure requires two-thirds of the vote to pass.

Screen Shot 2020-03-01 at 9.03.06 PMIs it a worthy cause? Seismologists say there is a 72% likelihood that the next major regional earthquake will strike by the year 2043. YIKES. In 2019, a civil grand jury report warned that some SF neighborhoods are woefully underserved by emergency water supply systems for firefighting, including the Sunset and the Bayview. I absolutely want to know that every neighborhood in the city is prepared when the big one hits. So – yes, it’s a worthy cause.

Will the money go to the right places? Yeah, I think so. The revenues will go toward improving or replacing firefighting and emergency preparedness facilities, including: (1) deteriorating pipes and cisterns that ensure firefighters a reliable water supply; (2) neighborhood fire and police stations; (3) the City’s 911 Call Center; and (4) other disaster response and public safety facilities.

Will there be accountability? Yep. Prop B would require a citizens’ oversight committee to do periodic public reporting, as well as the creation of a website describing bond projects and progress.

The bond’s authors are Supervisors Catherine Stefani and Sandra Lee Fewer, and Mayor London Breed, women who do not normally come together on major policy initiatives. I think this demonstrates the nonpartisan nature of this measure, and explains why a broad spectrum of San Francisco political players are backing it.

Literally every elected official supports this measure, as well as SPUR, the Firefighters Union, the Chronicle, and anyone else who matters. There is no organized opposition. Please vote yes!

SF Proposition C – YES

This is a cleanup measure and it’s fairly innocuous. It amends the city charter to make retiree health care coverage available to certain city employees who used to work for the San Francisco Housing Authority. The City Controller estimates an increased cost to the city of approximately $80,000 spread over many years. The reason it’s on the ballot is because changes to the city charter can only be approved by the voters. It’s annoying that such minutiae needs to be on your ballot, but this is only way to make this change. I’m supporting it because the cost is minimal, and it seems like the fair thing to do.

I haven’t been able to find an organized campaign for it, or an organized campaign against it. So yeah, not a controversial measure.

SF Proposition D – YES

Prop D, if it passes, will impose a new vacancy tax on commercial landlords and tenants who keep ground floor retail space empty for 6 months in certain neighborhoods. The city will use the revenues to support small businesses.

Screen Shot 2020-03-01 at 9.12.13 PM

Empty storefronts are bad for neighborhoods – they contribute to blight, and they drag down the neighboring businesses. The premise of Prop D is that landlords are intentionally keeping these properties empty while they wait for a higher-paying tenant, to the detriment of all of the businesses around them. And if the city makes it more expensive to keep a storefront vacant, landlords will do more to get the spaces rented more quickly.

The Prop D tax would apply in areas like North Beach, Divisadero Street in NoPa, Taraval Street in the Sunset neighborhood and 24th Street in Noe Valley – all neighborhoods with vital business corridors, and which have been impacted by empty storefronts. According to the SF Office of Economic and Workforce Development, a neighborhood should maintain about 5-10% vacancy rate in retail units to remain healthy. The current citywide average is about 12 percent, and it is much much higher in some commercial corridors.

Greedy landlords are just one of the reasons for vacant storefronts, of course. Vacancies also result from permitting problems, recessions, fire and earthquake damage. Prop D accounts for some of these problems by including a generous grace period (it doesn’t take effect until 2021), and by making exceptions for fire and earthquake repairs. It also gives the Board of Supervisors the ability to amend or freeze it in a recession. It does NOT address other reasons for vacancy including the cost of construction, the city’s permitting processes, the city’s seismic retrofitting requirement, etc.

The elephant in the room is Amazon and other online retailers, which are putting the brick-and-mortar shops out of business. According to SPUR, private sector employment has grown by 32% in SF since 2001, while brick-and-mortar retail employment has declined by 12%. Just as the San Francisco economy is booming by most other measures, storefront retail is hurting, and it’s even less able to pay the rising rents in commercial corridors.

All that said, I am voting yes on Prop D because I think it will actually make it harder for landlords and commercial tenants to keep a storefront vacant. It may mean that commercial rents will also start to come down around the city, and that is a good thing for everyone (except for the commercial property owners). I also appreciate that the authors included the feedback of many stakeholders in the design process, including small business leaders, neighborhood districts and city agencies.

Prop D has the support of the entire Board of Supervisors, Mayor London Breed, and merchant associations. Commercial landlords oppose it, as does the San Francisco Republican party.

SF Proposition E – NO

Screen Shot 2020-03-01 at 9.18.05 PMProp E would limit the development of new office space by tying office development projects to whether the city is meeting its affordable housing goals. It is true that the city has enjoyed an incredible employment boom (thanks, Big Tech!); however, it has not been able to build housing fast enough to accommodate all the people who are taking those jobs. As a result, a lot of these folks need to live outside the city, and all those commuters are bad for traffic congestion, transit resources, the environment, etc.. The idea behind Prop E is that we need to bring jobs and housing into a better balance – and we do that by requiring that more affordable housing be built BEFORE we build ANY new office space.

In my humble opinion, the answer to the imbalance isn’t SUBTRACTING office space and choking the city’s growth, it’s BUILDING MORE HOUSING. Prop E doesn’t fund or facilitate the building of housing. In fact, by stopping office developments, Prop E would actually rob the city of “impact fees” that developers pay that WOULD actually fund affordable housing. Doh!

The City’s own economist estimates that over the next 20 years, Prop. E would deprive San Francisco of more than 10 million square feet of office space, 47,000 jobs, $114 million in public programs and services, and 8.6 percentage points in economic growth, the equivalent of $23 billion. Office rents will continue to go up, which will hurt smaller, less profitable businesses. Limiting job growth will not make San Francisco more affordable. This is just bad policy.

Prop E is supported by the progressive members of the Board of Supervisors and the SF Tenants Union. Opposing the measure are SPUR, Mayor London Breed, and the moderate Supervisors, as well as SF Housing Action Coalition, YIMBY and State Senator Scott Wiener.

***

Thanks for reading! If you found this voter guide helpful, please donate here to help me cover my costs, and share this post on social media to spread the word. Writing voter guides is a labor of love for me, so I appreciate your support.

Voting Begins NOW

Holy moly, the election is here. Voting begins in San Francisco on Monday, May 7.

In San Francisco, 60% of the electorate votes by absentee, meaning, they get their ballot mailed to them 30 days before Election Day (June 5). And San Franciscans may also vote at City Hall any week day between May 7 and June 5.

I’ll be putting out my Voter Guide very soon with my insights and recommendations, and I hope you’ll hep me spread the word that THERE IS AN ELECTION HAPPENING.  Not many people know about it, because there hasn’t been much controversy. Except, well, regarding a certain slate of female candidates, and a ballot measure threatening the livelihoods of San Francisco waste and recycling workers. (Vote NO on A!)

The key to my campaign will be getting out the vote… convincing the Democrats we know to return their absentee ballots and get to the polls. I’d be grateful for any help you’re willing to provide… get out and vote, forward my voter guide, come with me to walk a precinct! It’s crunch time. Thanks.