May 26, 2026

Alix’s Voter Guide – California June Primary 2026

I wasn’t going to write a voter guide for this primary election because there aren’t any statewide measures. But folks kept asking, and because I can’t help myself, I researched the hell out of every race and started posting about it on social media.

And I’m here to say holy crap, tensions are high. My Facebook page is blowing up. But hey! This is just the primary, so maybe calm the F down. You get to vote on these same races in November. You’ll probably even get to vote for your favorite candidate again.

So here are my thoughts about the statewide candidate races in the June primary. As always, my aim is to provide you with enough information to inform your vote. My sources include newspaper endorsements, Ballotpedia.com, and friends who work in state and local government, including many elected officials.

Disclaimers

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 clients, my little girl, or my perimenopausal women’s support group. 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, and an attorney whose passions include making government work better, helping professionals lead healthier lives, and protecting our environment for future generations. I’ve worked on/volunteered for more political campaigns than I can count, and I also like long walks on the beach.

Governor – Tom Steyer

I’ve changed my mind about the California governor’s race approximately five times. Here’s where I landed, and why.

I started with Xavier Becerra. First Latino governor? Hell yes. Most experience, Democratic front runner, and frankly I just wanted to make sure a Democrat makes the November ballot. It was more strategy than feeling. He talks a good game on housing and health care costs, but he’s an incrementalist who’s been collecting political IOUs for decades. His whole brand is stable, predictable governance. This is the pre-Trump Democratic party. I respect it. I don’t want it right now.

Then I moved to Katie Porter. Smart, fierce, single payer, tax the rich, not afraid of anyone. I love voting for qualified women and I believe the patriarchy should take a seat. But there’s video of her yelling at a staffer, and she has a reputation for being hard on her people. She apologized. Is she being judged more harshly because she’s a woman? Probably, to some degree. But how a politician treats staff isn’t just a vibe thing — it’s a proxy for management style, whether people feel safe giving honest input, and whether they punch down when they have power. If someone consistently mistreats staff, it can lead to high turnover, worse policy outcomes, and insular decision-making. That stuff has real policy consequences.

I remember meeting her at a small event and she didn’t look me in the eyes when she shook my hand. Should that matter? Maybe not. Politicians are humans under extreme pressure. But I generally don’t like voting for jerks.

I’m also not voting for Matt Mahan or Tony Thurmond. Both have great qualities. Neither has the traction to make a runoff, and I’m not in the business of throwing my vote away. (Remember, your vote is a chess move, not a Valentine)

Which brings me to Tom Steyer.

A billionaire white man. I know. I KNOW. I have written at length about why billionaires shouldn’t exist and why California’s long tradition of wealthy outsiders parachuting into statewide office — Schwarzenegger, Whitman, the Huffingtons, Poizner, all of them — is bad for democracy. No voting record. No accountability. Too risky.

But.

Steyer is saying all the right things: tax the rich, single payer, squeeze the utility monopolies, aggressive climate policy, housing, cost of living. And here’s the thing I keep coming back to — his wealth and his outsider status are actually the point. He doesn’t owe the unions anything. He doesn’t owe the Chamber of Commerce anything. He doesn’t have thirty years of political favors to repay. That used to terrify me. In the Trump era, it’s starting to look like a feature.

Governor Pritzker in Illinois. Mayor Lurie in San Francisco. Rich guys who bought their elections and have actually been effective — because they can make hard calls and absorb the blowback. Is Steyer the next Pritzker? I genuinely don’t know. But the times call for big bets, and I’m willing to make one. I’m voting Steyer.

Lt. Governor – Fiona Ma, Josh Fryday or Michael Tubbs

I have some thoughts on Lieutenant Governor’s race. First, you should know that it REALLY DOESN’T MATTER. The Lt Gov sits on the boards overseeing the UC system, the coastal commission, and economic development, and they get to fill in every time the Governor leaves the state to (run for president or) attend a conference.

This race has three front runners, all of them will be FINE, and two of them will advance to November, so you’ll have another crack at it in a few months.

Fiona Ma is the current Treasurer and has the reputation of being a strong fiscal watchdog. She has done basically every job in Sacramento short of operating the espresso cart in the Capitol basement. She’s the institutional pick with the fundraising network to match. She also settled a sexual harassment lawsuit brought by a former employee for $350K, which she called frivolous. It sounds like the accuser had an axe to grind, and there is no evidence that this is a pattern for her.

Josh Fryday is a Navy vet, former Novato mayor, and currently heads Veterans Affairs under Newsom. He is endorsed by lots and lots of Very Important Democrats. Newsom-aligned, next-gen, says the right things about climate. Perfectly fine. It’s not his fault that he’s a white dude. However, if you’re done with white dudes running the government (which I am!) vote for Ma or Tubbs.

Michael Tubbs was elected the first Black mayor of Stockton (at the age of 26!), launched a guaranteed income pilot before it was cool, and is genuinely compelling to watch speak. Most progressive of the three. Less machine support, which means he hasn’t been as good as his competition at raising money or getting endorsements, but he has a legit, enthusiastic following. Has a real personal story and gives good speech.

This isn’t a race that requires strategic anxiety. All three are credible, all three are Democrats. Just vote for whoever you could see possibly supporting for Governor in 4-8 years. Because that’s what this race is really about.

Secretary of State – Shirley Weber

Weber has been a genuine defender of voting rights and election access in an era when that is not a given. More importantly, she has spent the last several years actively blocking Trump administration attempts to restrict voting and hoover up sensitive California voter data. She has a reputation for following the rules even when it’s politically inconvenient — a quality so rare in elected officials that it now counts as a distinguishing characteristic. She has earned re-election.

Controller – Malia Cohen

The Controller is the state’s chief financial officer: she issues payments, manages cash flow, and audits state and local agencies to make sure public money is being spent legally and not just vibes-based. Cohen has improved the timeliness of the state’s financial reporting (boring, important, good for bond ratings and public accountability) and has been publicly calling for fiscal restraint as California stares down budget deficits. In a political environment full of people who want to use every office as a platform, having someone in this seat who is focused on actual cash management is underrated. She has earned my vote.

Treasurer – Anna Caballero

The Treasurer manages the state’s investments, bond sales, and debt, financing schools, housing, and infrastructure. The office also runs key programs supporting affordable housing, economic development, and environmental initiatives. In other words: they control a lot of money, and who controls that money matters.

The top Democratic candidates are Eleni Kounalakis, Anna Caballero, and Tony Vazquez. And I’ll be direct: this race is class warfare.

On the other side, you have two candidates with working class roots who actually paid their dues.

On one side you have Kounalakis, uber-wealthy establishment candidate whose entire state government resume is “Lieutenant Governor” — a job she purchased with personal wealth and no prior electoral experience. To be fair, she’s held that office for nearly two terms. But the Lieutenant Governorship is a lightweight role by design, she hasn’t done much to distinguish herself in it, and yet she walks into this race as the presumed frontrunner because she’s the only statewide officeholder running. She has stronger fundraising, statewide name recognition, and labor endorsements not because she’s earned them through subject matter expertise, but because she’s been on the statewide ballot twice and has favors to call in. She is the Democratic establishment, full stop. I’ll just say the quiet part out loud: I don’t think she actually wants to be Treasurer. I think she wants the next rung on the ladder.

Caballero has a deep resume. She headed California’s Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency, overseeing roughly 16,000 employees and a multibillion-dollar budget. She served in both the Assembly and the State Senate. Before that, she was the Mayor of Salinas. She has direct familiarity with the bond financing and public investment programs the Treasurer actually runs. And the part I like most: she started her career as an attorney representing farmworkers and labor interests. Her allies frame this as proof she understands economic policy from a working-class and Central Valley perspective rather than from the vantage point of finance or elite political circles.

Vazquez is emphasizing his tax-policy and fiscal experience from the Board of Equalization and his background in local government. His pitch is that he’s the only candidate with hands-on experience running California’s tax system. He has significantly less money and visibility than the other two. Critics — including the Chronicle editorial board — took issue with comments he made about accepting lower investment returns in favor of more local investment, arguing it reflected an overly political approach to managing a pension and treasury portfolio. That’s a fair concern.

One thing worth naming for my progressive friends: there’s no true progressive in this race, and for this office, I’m not sure that matters.

Kounalakis is a capital-L liberal who won’t rock the boat. Caballero is a Central Valley moderate — yes, she was a farmworker attorney, but she also has ties to business and agricultural interests and has built her reputation as a coalition builder, not a crusader. Vazquez talks more openly than the others about using public money for community benefit over pure returns, which sounds progressive in tone, but he’s not aligned with the organized progressive movement — the groups pushing hard on climate divestment, criminal justice reform, and the like.

And honestly… for this office, I’m fine with that. There are races where I want a candidate with big, bold ideas — Governor, Attorney General, the Legislature. The Treasurer’s race is not that. Fiscal responsibility is kind of the whole enchilada here. I want someone with deep experience who will manage our money competently and responsibly.

Caballero fits that bill better than anyone else in this field.

As I’ve written before, I don’t think the ultra-wealthy should be able to parachute into statewide office except in very rare circumstances. Kounalakis purchased the Lieutenant Governorship, has no signature accomplishment to show for nearly two terms in it, and has no apparent subject matter expertise for the job she’s now seeking. Her endorsements and war chest are structural advantages, not evidence of fitness for office. They’re the spoils of having run statewide twice.

Caballero is scrappy, actually wants this job, has the relevant experience, and has spent her career fighting for working people. That’s the whole argument.

“But wait! Alix, how can you support wealthy Tom Steyer for Governor while opposing wealthy Eleni Kounalakis for Treasurer?”

I have always opposed wealthy candidates parachuting into higher office. That’s not a new position. Politicians who pay their dues build voting records, make alliances, and earn a level of accountability to the people they’ve served. Wealthy outsiders skip all of that, and Californians suffer the consequences.

Steyer is the exception, and I want to be clear that I’m making a Hail Mary pass here. In the pre-Trump era, I wanted incrementalism, stability, candidates I could evaluate based on evidence. That era is over. The Trump administration is trying to screw us every way they can, and many California politicians seem afraid of their own shadow — too worried about the next race to say anything that might cost them. Steyer’s wealth buys him something specific and valuable in this moment: the freedom to make hard decisions and absorb the blowback. He doesn’t need the job. He doesn’t need the job after that. That’s the only reason I’m setting aside my rule, and only for this office, in this political moment.

Kounalakis doesn’t get the same exception, because nothing about her candidacy justifies one. The Treasurer’s job is fiscal stewardship — responsible, technical, not ideological. It doesn’t call for big swings. She isn’t offering any. And she has no relevant experience in the office she’s trying to purchase. Wealthy candidates get a pass from me in exactly one scenario: when the moment demands boldness and the money buys them the freedom to deliver it. Kounalakis meets neither condition.

Attorney General – Rob Bonta

Bonta is the busiest person in Sacramento and it’s not close. He has filed dozens of lawsuits against the Trump administration covering immigration, reproductive rights, environmental rules, education funding, and federal spending cuts — basically a full-time job on its own. He has also gone after Live Nation and Amazon, prioritized gun violence prevention, housing enforcement, hate crimes, and anti-trafficking work. The AG’s office exists to protect Californians’ legal interests, and he is using it for exactly that. Vote for Bonta!

Insurance Commissioner – Ben Allen

The California Department of Insurance regulates more than 1,400 insurance companies, licenses hundreds of thousands of agents and brokers, investigates fraud, reviews property insurance rates, and handles consumer complaints. The Insurance Commissioner has to be responsive to public pressure for reform while understanding the industry well enough to actually get those reforms done. It is probably one of the hardest jobs in state government, and yet somehow we fill it with an election instead of, I don’t know, a national search.

Ben Allen is a wildfire and insurance nerd, and I mean that as the highest possible compliment. He brings 12 years as a State Senator (Santa Monica) with policy experience tied directly to insurance and climate risk. He knows Sacramento, he knows how to move legislation, and he knows where the bodies are buried in the regulatory process.

Supporters argue he combines serious policy expertise with the legislative experience to actually implement reforms, not just announce them. His work on climate and wildfire policy reflects a clear-eyed understanding that California’s insurance crisis is fundamentally a climate risk problem, not an administrative inconvenience. His push for stronger insurer disclosure requirements and fossil-fuel accountability has made some industry-aligned observers nervous. Also worth noting: he represents Pacific Palisades, and has earned praise from his constituents for how he has handled the disaster.

His critics come from both sides: progressives say he’s not aggressive enough, and business-aligned critics worry he’ll over-regulate a fragile market. I kind of love this. When you have enemies on both sides of an issue, it usually means you’re doing something right. It tells me he’d actually be good at the job.

Steven Bradford is a genuinely lovely human being who has served 14 years in the State legislature with a focus on energy, utilities, and consumer issues, though with less direct experience in insurance mechanics than Allen. His supporters rave about his decency, his steadiness, and his ability to build consensus, which matters when you’re running an office where both consumer groups and insurance companies are screaming at you simultaneously.

He’s the most balanced candidate: pro-consumer without being reflexively anti-industry. Supporters frame him as someone who can hold insurers accountable while still keeping them in California’s market, which is, you know, kind of the whole problem we’re trying to solve. He’s a practical dealmaker, not an ideological crusader.

His critics say he’s not enough of a reformer and lacks a distinctive vision for the crisis. Some progressives view him as too cozy with industry. Meh. I’d take Bradford over most of the field in another race. In this one, I think we need someone willing to actually push.

Jane Kim is the anti-Bradford: fierce, aggressive, and ready to burn it down. I’ve known her since before she ran for Supervisor in San Francisco in 2011, when she built a reputation for leading and winning high-profile policy fights.

Her supporters argue the current system is broken beyond incremental repair and needs radical restructuring. She’s proposing a public disaster insurance option, stronger consumer protections, profit caps, and broader accountability measures. She is not here to make friends with insurers.

The problem: she has no statewide policy or regulatory experience, and that matters enormously for this job. She has worked on housing, budgeting, and economic policy, but not insurance regulation specifically. And the flipside of “fierce” is “combustible.” Would her style produce the political conflict that further destabilizes a market that is already on fire (sometimes literally)?

I want to be clear: I get triggered when I hear her policies are “politically unworkable,” because that’s the same argument incrementalists used against universal healthcare and universal preschool. A new idea is “unworkable” until it isn’t. But there’s a difference between bold reform and reform untethered from how the regulated industry actually functions. I worry that Jane’s aggressive instincts, without deep knowledge of insurance mechanics or state regulatory process, means the reforms won’t stick. A good idea badly implemented is still a loss.

Patrick Wolff is the anti-politician. He’s a competent financial analyst with strong technical chops, no electoral experience, and a focused platform around making the existing system function efficiently: enforcing deadlines, clearing backlogs, and rebuilding trust after the Ricardo Lara years.

I respect the pitch. I don’t buy it for this race. The Office of Insurance Commissioner is a massive state bureaucracy, and running it requires the ability to absorb political pressure, negotiate with powerful interests, and move legislation. Technical expertise matters, but it’s not sufficient. His critics also note that he doesn’t push hard enough on consumer protections and is too sympathetic to industry. That tracks.

The bottom line: I’m voting for Allen. He has the policy depth to understand the problem, the legislative experience to actually solve it, and a track record of being willing to irritate people in service of getting something done. He’s not Bradford (too cautious) or Kim (too unmoored from operational reality) or Wolff (impressive resume, wrong job). The office has roughly 1,400 employees and enormous regulatory power over every Californian’s ability to insure their home. Send the nerd.

Member, State Board of Equalization (District 2) – Sally Lieber

The Board of Equalization oversees property tax administration, hears tax appeals, and manages taxes on alcohol, insurance, and fuel. District 2 runs the coast from Marin down to Ventura, which is why it reliably elects Democrats

Incumbent Sally Lieber is a rare bird in politics: she’s actually a good human who takes her office seriously and doesn’t treat it like a political parking spot. Her resume is long and legitimate — Mountain View mayor and council member, State Assembly, Assembly Speaker pro Tem, and now BOE chair. She has strong progressive credentials and is working on greater uptake of the various tax credits available to Californians. She also mentors younger women to run for office, which is how I met her. She’s the real deal.

Her only Democratic opponent, John Pimentel, is running as a reformer with a shorter political resume. He emphasizes efficiency and even questions whether the Board of Equalization should continue to exist in its current form. Lieber has all the major endorsements and a commanding fundraising lead. I’ll be watching whether Pimentel — or one of the four Republicans on the ballot — makes it out of the primary.

Vote for Sally. She’s earned it.

Superintendent of Public Instruction – Josh Newman

I changed my mind a few times on this one. And really, you can’t go wrong with any of the four top Democrats.

No clear front-runner here. Four Democrats (all men!) are fighting to make it out of the primary, the teachers unions are fragmented, and — this is the part that should get your attention — Republican Sonya Shaw might actually make it onto the November ballot if Democrats split the vote evenly enough. She’s the only candidate in this race whose brand is intentionally confrontational and culture-war-oriented, which makes her a pretty stark contrast to the four guys who are otherwise running a remarkably civil, qualified, non-chaotic race.

Richard Barrera is president of the San Diego Unified School District board and probably the candidate most closely aligned with organized labor. He has the endorsement of incumbent Tony Thurmond and the California Teachers Association, plus two decades helping run one of California’s largest school districts. Supporters call him collaborative and pragmatic — someone who works well with unions, administrators, parents, and local officials. Critics call him an incrementalist too tethered to the education establishment to push real reform.

Al Muratsuchi chairs the Assembly Education Committee and is very much the policy-wonk candidate. He’s picked up the remaining labor endorsements — California Federation of Teachers, Association of California School Administrators, CA School Employees Association — and he genuinely knows education finance and policy cold, including co-authoring the $10 billion Proposition 2 school facilities bond with Newman. Critics say he represents the Sacramento education status quo too completely: deeply aligned with unions and bureaucracies, less associated with measurable improvement in student outcomes.

Josh Newman is a former chair of the Senate Education Committee and co-authored Proposition 2 with Muratsuchi. He’s trying to occupy a more independent lane, with military and nonprofit experience alongside his policy work. His focus is on system coordination and cutting bureaucracy so money actually reaches classrooms. Supporters say he’s willing to challenge entrenched interests. Critics say he lacks the deep K–12 operational background of Barrera, has less institutional support than the others, and is stuck in an awkward middle between unions and reformers.

Anthony Rendon is the most powerful Sacramento insider in the race — former Assembly Speaker, strong name recognition, strong fundraising. His case is straightforward: he knows how state government actually works, and his years as Speaker mean he can move budgets and navigate agencies better than anyone else on this ballot. He also has a genuine focus on early childhood education and anti-poverty work, not just traditional K–12 politics. The criticism is equally straightforward: transactional legislative operator, not an education visionary. Some progressives still haven’t forgiven him for how he managed progressive legislation as Speaker.

This was a genuinely hard call. All four are qualified, none are volatile or scandal-prone, and I could vote for any of them. I’m voting for Newman, because I think some independence from union influence is actually an asset in this role. But mark your ballot for whoever you like — the real race will start this summer, after we see who makes it to the November ballot.

US Congress, District 11 (San Francisco) – Scott Wiener

Nancy Pelosi held this seat for 37 years, with 20 of those years in leadership. Let that sink in. Whoever succeeds her won’t face a Republican opponent worth worrying about—but make no mistake, this race is a fight because the stakes are real. This district has a tradition of sending leaders to Washington, not just warm bodies. The question is whether we keep that tradition or blow it.

Scott Wiener is, by most objective measures, the most effective legislator in California. The nonpartisan Center for Effective Lawmaking ranked him first in the entire California Legislature for 2023–2024—out of 120 lawmakers—and he’s ranked near the top since his first term. He doesn’t just introduce bills; he shepherds complex, controversial legislation through to passage. He builds coalitions, absorbs setbacks, and keeps coming back until he gets to yes.

His housing work gets the most attention, and it should—he has taken real political risks to push for supply in a state defined by scarcity. But his record is broader: reproductive healthcare access, protections against sexual assault and harassment, public health, criminal justice, nightlife policy, emerging technology regulation. These are not easy wins. They’re messy, politically risky fights that most elected officials avoid. Wiener runs toward them.

Critics say he’s too developer-friendly, too willing to steamroll local control. Fair point to raise, though I think you need to break a few eggs to make an omelet. I’ve also heard the criticism that he hasn’t been vocal enough on racial discrimination and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act. I know that he’ll vote the right way when the time comes, but I agree we need to hear more from him on that critical issue.

He’s also had moments on Israel and Gaza where his words fell short—he acknowledged it and clarified his position. As a Jewish American, I have also wrestled with the tightrope of supporting Israel’s right to exist and defend itself, while also denouncing the vile and criminal acts of its current government. In a moment when many politicians retreat to slogans or avoid the issue entirely, Wiener has engaged—even when imperfectly—and shown a willingness to take responsibility when he gets it wrong.

Connie Chan has real roots in San Francisco neighborhoods and strong labor relationships—those things matter in this city. Her platform focuses on affordability and working families: cost of living, immigrant protections, worker representation over corporate interests. She’s also making an explicit play for San Francisco’s Chinese American electorate, which, if it breaks her way, could matter. She also has Nancy Pelosi’s endorsement, which is a big deal. I have the utmost respect for the Speaker Emerita, and I’m proud that the first female Speaker of the House was from San Francisco. However, I do wonder how much her endorsement of Chan will matter, given how eager voters are to overthrow the gerontocracy.

Something to think about: getting legislation through the Board of Supervisors is small potatoes compared to Congress. Chan hasn’t demonstrated policy leadership or impact at the scale this role demands. I don’t think she’s ready for the national stage, and “she’ll grow into it” is not a reason to send someone to one of the most watched congressional seats in the country.

Saikat Chakrabarti is the insurgent—backed by Justice Democrats, largely self-funding, and positioning himself as the candidate willing to challenge the Democratic establishment. His base finds that appealing. His platform is the most structurally ambitious of the three: Medicare for All, clean energy, dramatic tax increases on the wealthy. He’s also running explicitly against the Democratic establishment — his campaign homepage doesn’t mention Trump; his villains are Democrats (!). For those of you who oppose uber-wealthy candidates parachuting into office (ahem) (see my previous posts), it’s worth noting that he’s financing his campaign with ~~$4.8 million~~ $10 million of his own Stripe equity.

He has also never held elective office, which means we have no way of knowing how he performs under real pressure. He hasn’t built the relationships that make Congress work. And the degree to which he foregrounds his AOC connection—without her endorsement—is off-putting. CNN reported she was not pleased to learn from media reports rather than from Chakrabarti directly that he was running. To me, name-checking AOC reads less like earned credibility and more like borrowed relevance. AOC not endorsing her own former staffer is a signal worth sitting with.

This district doesn’t just need a representative. It needs someone who can step into Pelosi’s legacy of power and actually wield it. At a moment when it’s easy to confuse rhetoric with impact, Wiener has demonstrated, over and over, that he knows how to turn ideas into law.

He’s a doer. Right now, that matters more than anything else.

Tagged california, election, elections, news, politics
Leave a comment

Alix’s Voter Guide – November 2024

I know. You almost forgot there’s more to vote on this November than the presidential circus. Don’t worry, I’ve got you. While you were marveling at the cesspool that Twitter has become, I was diving deep into the actual swamp – California’s ten statewide ballot propositions.

If you’ve read my voter guides before, you know that I think the state’s direct democracy process is a complete trainwreck. Voting shouldn’t require a master’s degree and a month of research.

But here is the good news: This time, Sacramento actually DID ITS JOB and slashed the number of ballot measures from OMG why to just manageable. No kidney dialysis drama, no condoms-on-porn-sets debates, no empty policy statements. Let’s celebrate the small wins.

For reasons I can’t explain, I spend (many, many) hours researching and analyzing these propositions so that you don’t have to. My aim is to provide you with enough information to inform your vote, including any secret backstory that helps you understand why you’re voting on a measure in the first place. My sources include newspaper endorsements, Ballotpedia.com, the state’s Legislative Analyst’s Office, and friends who work in state government, including many elected officials.

Disclaimers

I won’t be analyzing any local measures, or any candidate races, except to say that Kamala isn’t the only rockstar Black woman you should be following. San Francisco Mayor London Breed deserves re-election – she guided San Francisco through the pandemic with a steady hand, at an impossibly challenging time in the city’s history. She is eliminating red tape so that the city can build housing faster, and she is working hard to make downtown SF a more vibrant mixed-use community. And East Bay Congressional candidate Lateefah Simon is absolutely electrifying. Give her all your money. Go to one of her events while you can still shake her hand before she becomes too famous.

In the interest of full disclosure, I’m a single mom, a liberal Democrat, and an attorney whose passions include making government work better, getting more women elected to public office, and protecting our environment for future generations. I’ve worked on/volunteered for more political campaigns than I can count, including every single campaign of Kamala’s since her DA race in 2002, and I also like long walks on the beach.

Without further ado, I offer my thoughts on the 2024 statewide ballot measures. First is a summary of my recommendations, with detailed analysis below.

My Totally Subjective Recommendations

Prop 2 – $10 billion in bonds for school facilities – YES
Prop 3 – Repeal Proposition 8 and establish a right to marry – YES! DUH!
Prop 4 – $10 billion in bonds for state and local parks, environmental projects – YES
Prop 5 – Lower the vote threshold from 66.67% to 55% for local bond measures – YES
Prop 6 – Banning forced prison labor – YES
Prop 32 – Increase minimum wage to $18 an hour – YES
Prop 33 – Repeals Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act – NO
Prop 34 – Revenues from federal discount prescription drug program – YES
Prop 35 – Tax on health plans to fund Medi-Cal – YES?
Prop 36 – Increase drug crime and theft penalties – NO?

My Snarky Analysis with Way Too Much Detail

Prop 2 – School Facilities Bond Measure – YES

California’s public schools are crumbling faster than my willpower at Salt & Straw. This $10 billion bond measure would help the state borrow money to fund repairs and upgrades at elementary schools to community colleges. Like previous school bonds, it includes a matching requirement – districts receive funds based on what they can raise themselves. It needs a simple majority (50%+1) to win.

Yes, we’ve been here before. Yes, it’s annoying. Don’t get me started on California’s budget process and how schools get funded.

The 2020 school bond measure – for $15 billion – failed. The 2016 school bond – for $9 billion – passed, and you won’t be surprised to learn that the money has long since been spent.

Actual photo of a middle school in Berkeley that was forced to close because of dry rot.
**Credit:** American School & University Magazine

It’s clear California needs a complete overhaul of its budgeting system. But that’s a huge undertaking and not likely to happen soon. In the meantime, we have to approve bond measures to make sure that students don’t sit in moldy and crumbling classrooms. You *could* vote no just to send a message to Sacramento, but the kids are the ones who will actually suffer. It’s a terrible conundrum.

Proponents claim that $3.4 billion will go toward already approved projects to repair hazardous mold, leaky roofs, and septic systems, as well as to build classrooms, modernize science labs and replace aging buildings.

Supporters include dozens of (mostly larger) school districts including LA Unified, the Association of California School Administrators, the California School Boards Assn., the California Chamber of Commerce, the League of Women Voters, as well as construction groups and organized labor. They point to the fact that there is no dedicated funding stream for school facilities in the state budget process (which is so F’ed up! Seriously). The schools just need more cash, period. And this is the only way to do it.

Opponents of the bill fall into two buckets: (1) poorer and smaller school districts, along with advocacy groups that say the proposal does not go far enough in addressing the equity gap that benefits affluent schools; and (2) the people who dislike taxes generally, who point to the cost. If it passes, the bond is going to cost the state’s General Fund about $500 million per year for 35 years to repay (or $17.5 billion).

$500 million sounds like a lot of money until you realize it’s less than one-half of 1% of the state’s total General Fund budget. According to the state’s legislative analyst, “the total cost of the bond would be about 10 percent more (after adjusting for inflation) than if the state paid up front with money it already has.” Still, I don’t like that bonds are so expensive and that our tax dollars are footing the bill for so much interest.

I’m a YES on the bond measure, while holding my nose because I wish there was a better way. A 2020 report from the Public Policy Institute of California found that 38% of students statewide go to schools that do not meet minimum facility standards. That’s just outrageous.

Prop 3 – Repeal Proposition 8 and establish a right to marry – YES – I mean, DUH.

I can’t believe we’re still talking about this. It’s been 16 years since Prop 8 passed, banning same-sex marriage in the state. For five years, courts went back and forth on its constitutionality, until the US Supreme Court struck the law down in 2013 based on a legal technicality.

Credit: Jose Luis Magna/AP Photo — **Credit**: Jose Luis Magna/AP *Photo*

If we’ve learned one thing from the recent Supreme Court dockets, including the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v Wade, it’s that we need to get outdated laws off the books. We can’t rely on the Supreme Court to uphold a longstanding precedent confirming a basic human right.

Prop 3 will repeal Prop 8, making sure that California doesn’t accidentally ban same sex marriage again if the Supreme Court reverses its Prop 8 decision. The socially conservative, civil-rights-hating Supreme Court has made some shocking decisions. It’s only a matter of time before LGBT rights are back on the chopping block.

In addition to BEING THE RIGHT THING TO DO, Prop 3 may serve another important purpose. There are a few key House races in California in this election, and Prop 3 could pull LGBT+ friendly folks out to vote. That is, if voting for Kamala wasn’t enough motivation.

One friend in state government told me, “Control of the House [of Representatives] is going to be decided in California and New York. We have five swing districts – four Republican seats we can pick up and one that Democrats are defending.” If Prop 3 can help energize progressive voters in those districts, it might help change the balance of power nationwide. Can’t wait to see how it plays out.

Prop 4 – Bond measure for firefighting, water projects, climate resilience

This one’s all about protecting California from turning into a fiery, flooded hellscape. Prop 4 would allow the state to borrow $10 billion to fund various climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts. Specifically:

$3.8 billion for drinking water and groundwater projects
$1.5 billion for wildfire and forest programs
$1.2 billion for sea level rise protection

The Legislative Analyst estimates it will cost the General Fund about $400 million annually for 40 years to repay the bond – totaling about $19 billion over time. Ouch, that stings.

But! Supporters argue that it’s an investment in the state’s climate resilience. California desperately needs the money to proactively address climate change impacts, and there really is no other funding source. Critically, it also benefits disadvantaged communities: at least 40% of funds must be used in lower-income communities most impacted by climate change.

Just about everybody supports the bond, and my sources say it is polling well (it only needs 50%+1 to win). The main supporters are (surprise!) environmental organizations. It also has the support of labor unions and Democratic lawmakers.

Opponents include a few Republican elected officials and the people who dislike taxes generally. They say it increases the state’s debt (duh!), doubling costs due to interest (yes, that’s how bonds work unfortunately), and they object to the portion of the costs that go to administration. They also say that the state should find other funding sources for these projects.

“Before approving more borrowed money, voters deserve to see results from previous investments. Bonds come with long-term financial burdens that eventually can cut into essential public services.”
– Republican State Senator Brian Jones [Source: Ballotpedia.com]

Friends in state government tell me that Prop 4 was placed on the ballot after many years of negotiations with the right stakeholders. Yes, bonds are expensive, and yes, it’ll cost us for the next 40 years. But unless you’re planning to live in a houseboat on a sea of regret, we need this.

In related news, did you know:

·    2024 was the hottest summer on record?
·    The beloved Joshua tree is facing extinction?
·    24–75% of California’s beaches could be completely eroded by the end of the century?
·    Los Angeles imports more than 85% of its water from snowmelt in Northern California and the Colorado River basin?
·    In 2020, wildfires burned 4.2 million acres in California, more than double the area burned in any previous year?

Vote yes.

Prop 5 – Lower the vote threshold from 66.67% to 55% for local bond measures

Oh man. This suuuuuuper technical measure made my eyes glaze over when I read it. But here’s the simplest way to think about it: If you like public services and hate red tape, vote yes. If you generally don’t like taxes, and think it should stay difficult for local governments to borrow money, vote no.

While state bonds (like Prop 2 and Prop 4, above) can pass with only a simple majority (50%+1), local bonds usually require a two-thirds supermajority (66.67%) to be approved. Prop 5 is a constitutional amendment that would lower the voter approval requirements for local housing and infrastructure bonds to 55%.

The voting threshold for local bonds has gone back and forth a few times. Until 1978, local bonds were approved with only 50% of the vote. That year, Prop 13 came along and (among other things) made it much harder for local governments to get bonds approved, raising the threshold to two-thirds (or 66.67%). Then in 2000, voters approved Proposition 39, which carved out local school bonds, lowering the target to 55% for those specific measures. (There are other limits on those bonds, but that’s not important right now).

Naturally, after the vote threshold changed in 2000, a LOT more school bond measures started passing. From 2001-2021, 81% of the 1404 school bond measures proposed under the new rule were approved. This is 26% higher than the pass rate for bonds under the previous 2/3 threshold.

So – local and state government officials have been wanting to make it easier for housing and infrastructure bonds to pass. And they placed Prop 5 on the ballot after a multi-year negotiation involving lots of nerds and experts.

Supporters of Prop 5 include affordable housing advocates, good government groups like the League of Women Voters, labor groups representing firefighters and construction workers, the California Democratic Party, and the Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative. They argue that California desperately needs to build more housing, transportation and public health infrastructure, and say that Prop 5 will make this easier.

“We think it’s a fairer way to make spending and taxing decisions. Requiring supermajority support gives disproportionate power to the naysayers to decide the appropriate level of taxation and spending. Why should one-third of voters get to set priorities for an entire community?”
– Los Angeles Times Editorial Board

Opponents include the Republican Party, the Chamber of Commerce, as well as the usual business and taxpayer groups who generally dislike taxes. As the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association said, “In future years, municipal budgets could become increasingly strained as more and more revenue gets diverted to repay investors for old debt.” (BTW, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has opposed every single tax and bond measure on every single ballot since the beginning of time).

The state needs to build more housing, and Prop 5 seems like a reasonable step in the right direction. (BTW if you want a deep dive on why housing construction hasn’t kept up with demand, listen to this fascinating episode of The Daily podcast by the NY Times). I say we give it a shot and see if it improves the housing shortage. Vote yes.

Prop 6 – Banning forced prison labor – YES

It’s 2024, and somehow, we still need to vote on whether prison labor should be forced. Spoiler: It shouldn’t. No one is campaigning against this measure, so voting yes is just a formality. I won’t waste (much of) your time except to give you a basic overview.

Prop 6 is a constitutional amendment to limit forced labor and protecting prisoners who refuse a work assignment. The state legislature’s Black Caucus engaged in a years-long process to refine the measure to earn bipartisan support.

Supporters include criminal justice reform groups including the ACLU, good government groups like the League of Women Voters, and labor unions. They argue that Prop 6 is aligned with modern views in favor of human rights and against slavery, and that it is a small step in the direction of reparations.

“[Prop 6] prioritizes rehabilitation for incarcerated people. Incarcerated people should be able to choose jobs and shifts that allow them to continue their education, use the law library, get counseling, and participate in other rehabilitative programs that facilitate growth and transformation.”
– Lori Wilson, State Assembly (D)

While there is no official opposition, the Mercury News & East Bay Times Editorial Board wrote, “California’s prisoners should not be subjected to abuse by their jailers. But inmates should not be legally empowered to dictate what chores they’re willing to do while behind bars. That’s why voters should reject Proposition 6, a measure cloaked in language about slavery and involuntary servitude that’s really about prisoners being able to turn down work assignments.”

To me, it’s less about slavery or reparations, and more about dignity. Just because you serve time doesn’t mean you lose all your rights. Even convicts should be treated as human beings, and they shouldn’t be forced into work assignments that conflict with their own journey to rehabilitation. Vote yes.

Prop 32 – Increase minimum wage to $18 an hour – YES

OK, so this one feels a bit like showing up late to the party. Minimum wage is already creeping up to $18 under current law, but Prop 32 would lock it in by 2026. Is it groundbreaking? No. Is it necessary? Also no. But I’m still supporting it, so hear me out.

A 2016 law set the minimum wage at $15 in 2022, and it allowed for future increases tied to inflation – which is why the current minimum wage is $16. And it could go up by as much as a dollar every year, depending on changes to the Consumer Price Index, so it might actually be up to $18 by 2026 under the current law.

If you’re confused as to why Prop 32 is necessary, that’s understandable. Many (most?) low wage workers in California already make $18 or more. Last year, in fact, unions were able to secure $25 an hour for healthcare workers, and $20 an hour for fast-food workers. West Hollywood, Berkeley and San Francisco have already increased their minimum wage rates beyond $18 an hour.

So why is Prop 32 on the ballot?

Entrepreneur and investor Joe Sanberg paid to get it on the ballot, and has contributed nearly $10.9 million to support the campaign. He argues that the measure is a response to the rising cost of living and the fact that wages have not kept pace with inflation.

[He’s right about that. $18 an hour still isn’t enough income to rent a closet in San Francisco.]

*Joe Sanberg*
*[**Credit:** Al Seib/LA Times]*

Sanberg wrote the measure without consulting any of the usual experts, like labor unions, advocacy groups, or the legislature, thereby pissing off a lot of people in Sacramento, who probably would have made the case for a higher number. And now they will have to wait years before proposing another wage hike.

(In 2019, Sanberg was rumored to be eyeing a run for President of the United States. And it’s possible that Prop 32 is an effort to make a name for himself for a possible future campaign).

Even if the unions and Democrats don’t like the way it got on the ballot, they have no choice but to support it. They know that wage increases – no matter how small – improve the economic well-being of workers, and help fight the impacts of poverty. Also – what message would it send if it loses? That would do serious damage to the efforts to increase the minimum wage in future years. Besides, it’s polling well.

Some pro-business groups like to claim that increases in the minimum wage will hurt job creation. To the contrary, study after study has shown that raising the minimum wage actually supports job growth. Just this week, state and federal employment data has shown that in the four months after California raised its minimum wage in the fast food industry to $20 an hour, the industry has actually ADDED 11,000 jobs.

There are no identified committees opposing the initiative. Business groups who normally oppose wage hikes aren’t fighting Prop 32 it because it DOESN’T ACTUALLY DO THAT MUCH, and it probably keeps bigger wage increases off the ballot for a few more years.

Holding my nose and voting yes. But a small part of me wants to vote no, just to spank Joe Sanberg.

Prop 33 – Repeals Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act – NO

This prop would repeal the state law that limits rent control. Before I analyze the measure, it’s important to explain the current situation.

In 1995, voters approved the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which pre-empted local rent control laws, exempting all new buildings first occupied after February 1, 1995, and all single family homes. As a concession to landlord groups, Costa-Hawkins also prohibited rent control laws that tell a landlord what they can charge a tenant when they first move in (a.k.a. “vacancy control”).

In 2019, the state’s housing crisis caused the legislature to approve AB 1482 (the California Tenant Protection Act) to add some new tenant protections. The law limits annual rent increases and removes the right of landlords to evict tenants without just cause. It also changed the types of buildings covered by rent control: all new buildings lose their exemption after 15 years. This is meant to encourage developers to build new apartment buildings, without their income being limited by rent control for the first 15 years.

Even after this law was passed, renters rights advocates have made repealing Costa-Hawkins their holy grail. They want to eliminate all restrictions on rent control laws, giving localities free reign to impose rent control on any rental property within their borders, and to eliminate vacancy control. Prop 33 would do just that.

The AIDS Healthcare Foundation (see also Prop 34 – below!) is leading the campaign in favor of Prop 33. The embattled organization also sponsored two similar initiatives in 2018 and 2020, donating $63.1 million in support of those measures. Both lost.

Supporters of Prop 33 include the Senator Bernie Sanders, the California Democratic Party, the California Nurses Association, ACLU of Southern California, and housing rights advocates. They say their measure is critical to keeping Californians in their homes and ensuring new residents can afford to live here. It would give local governments more tools to address the housing affordability crisis and would allow cities to limit rent increases on vacant units. Supporters have raised more than $40 million for their campaign.

Opponents of Prop 33 have raised over $66 million. They include a bipartisan coalition of Democrats and Republicans, the California Apartment Association, California for Responsible Housing, construction-related unions, and pro-housing advocates. They argue that the measure will discourage new housing construction, will make California’s housing crisis worse.

“[R]esearch shows that while rent control can protect some existing tenants, it also tends to disincentivize the production of new housing — which is key to bringing down costs — and the maintenance of existing housing while reducing the supply of existing rental housing.”
– SF Chronicle Editorial Board

Opponents also argue that in the cities that have rent control, rental housing tends to deteriorate over time because landlords – whose revenues are limited – don’t spend money to maintain their buildings. This reduces property values by up to 25%, affecting homeowners’ investments and life savings, and reducing local property tax revenues. The California Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates this reduction in local property tax revenues to be at least tens of millions of dollars annually.

Here’s more from the Chronicle:

“Studies show that robust housing supply, not rent control, is the most essential factor in keeping housing prices down. Rents are currently plummeting in Austin, Texas, despite intense demand from people moving there because of the city’s vigorous development of new housing. The same is true of Tokyo, which has kept rental prices stable by adding more units of housing in recent years than exist in all of New York City. Housing supply was also at the core of Houston’s successful effort to move 25,000 homeless people indoors.”

In a strange twist, some conservative-leaning cities who don’t want to build more housing may be supporting Prop 33. In fact, the Trump-supporting Mayor of Huntington Beach said the quiet part out loud: he is supporting Prop 33 because it will help the city avoid building new housing. Huntington Beach has sued California over its housing laws, which are intended to compel every city in California to participate in solving the housing crisis.

Regardless of whether you are a homeowner, a landlord, or a renter who has benefited from rent stabilization, I urge you to consider more than your personal interests when voting on this measure.

I agree that the cost of rent across California is outrageous, but I think that repealing Costa-Hawkins is a blunt instrument that only helps a portion of renters in certain cities. What will help EVERYONE who struggles with the cost of living in this state will be to build more housing. And Prop 33 will thwart those efforts. Vote no.

Prop 34 – Revenues from federal discount prescription drug program –YES

This ballot measure is just my type: it’s smart, it’s subversive, and it stands up for democracy.

On its face, Prop 34 is so wholesome: it’s about making sure certain nonprofit health care providers spend 98% of a specific kind of revenue on direct patient care. It also authorizes statewide negotiation of Medi-Cal drug prices. Makes perfect sense; both are good ideas!

The revenues in question come from the federal prescription drug discount program, known as 340B, which allows nonprofit health care providers serving low-income patients to buy prescription drugs from manufacturers at a discounted price. Providers can then charge insurers full price for the drugs — and pocket the difference. This program helps many nonprofits stay afloat and provide better care for poor patients. The 340B program doesn’t put many restrictions on spending of those revenues, and a few nonprofits have used the money for questionable purposes. For example, according to a New York Times investigation, one nonprofit actually used 340B revenue to build a luxury apartment complex and secure naming rights to a sports training complex in Richmond, Virginia.

But everyone knows that Prop 34 is aimed at a putting a different shady nonprofit out of business and running its polarizing leader out of politics. The Los Angeles based AIDS Healthcare Foundation (See Prop 33, above), and its leader Michael Weinstein, have made a lot of enemies.

“Weinstein is toxic,” “God, I can’t stand that guy,” and “I’m actually one of the few people who can work with him” are what I heard from elected officials who know him personally.

According to Politico, Weinstein has funneled more than $100 million from his nonprofit into political causes included sponsoring eight ballot measures, some of which are only loosely connected to healthcare or AIDS. Inexplicably, he also waged a public battle against the pill that prevents HIV infection. He snubs his nose at the laws limiting the political activity of nonprofit corporations, and he enthusiastically uses millions of tax-free dollars on his pet causes.

Some lawmakers have urged state investigations, and complaints have been filed with the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission claiming that the foundation has violated multiple political finance laws. And the organization has also faced scrutiny for safety violations in housing it operates in Los Angeles, according to an LA Times investigation, which found dangerous conditions and disrepair in its Skid Row properties.

The main proponent of Prop 34 is the California Apartment Association, which, not coincidentally, is the main opponent of Weinstein’s Prop 33 (above). Other supporters include folks who are also fed up with Weinstein’s antics, like the California Republican Party, the Firefighters Union, some Democratic elected officials, and multiple healthcare organizations like the ALS Association, the California Chronic Care Coalition, and the San Francisco Women’s Cancer Network.

Supporters argue that Prop 34 ensures public healthcare dollars are spent on patient care, and it closes loopholes allowing for misuse of funds on non-patient care expenses. It also may help lower drug costs for patients.

Opponents of Prop 34 include AIDS Healthcare Foundation (of course), National Organization for Women, Consumer Watchdog, League of Women Voters of California, the SF Chronicle editorial board, the Mercury News Editorial Board. They argue that Prop 34 is a cheap revenge initiative, that could set a dangerous precedent of using ballot measures to target specific organizations. Prop 34 is merely retaliation for the AIDS Healthcare Foundation’s rent control efforts.

Did I mention I’m not a fan of California’s direct democracy process? Weinstein is the biggest offender of all the people who put unnecessary issues on the California ballot. I estimate that he has cost ME PERSONALLY a dozen hours of research and writing time because he qualified measures that hadn’t been fully vetted, didn’t need to be there, and that ultimately lost.

I should note that even if Prop 34 passes, it has a potential legal hurdle: it is arguably a “bill of attainder,” which is unconstitutional. A bill of attainder is a law that is written to punish a single organization, often intended to bypass the normal judicial process. In this case, Prop 34 is written to apply to any managed care organization, that participates in the 340B program, that has spent more than $100 million on issues other than direct patient care, and has 500 or more health and safety violations on their low-income properties. Ahem. There’s only one organization that matches all of those oddly-specific criteria.

Even so, I’m a yes vote, because I do believe that 340B funds should be spent on patient care, and not be wasted on Weinstein’s pet projects.

Prop 35 – Tax on health plans to fund Medi-Cal – YES?

Oh ho ho, this one has a boring subject but it’s story is juicy. The whole purpose of Prop 35 is to slap the Governor and the state legislature for alleged misuse of tax revenues. This was another hard one for me, and I went back and forth on whether to support it.

In 2009, the voters approved a temporary tax on managed care organizations (“MCO”) (think Kaiser, Aetna, Blue Shield) that is set to expire in 2026. The “MCO tax” helps state government pay for Medi-Cal. While the tax was intended to improve the quality of care, in this era of budget deficits, state government has been, ahem, “re-directing” some of those funds to balance the budget in areas that have nothing to do with healthcare.

I won’t go into more detail about how Prop 35 would reallocate the revenues because it makes my head hurt, but if you want to know more, check out Ballotpedia’s explanation.

A coalition of healthcare providers and organizations was fed up with state government using MCO tax revenues for non-healthcare purposes, and they put Prop 35 on the ballot to: (1) make the temporary tax permanent, and (2) force the state to dedicate the revenues to health care.

They argue: “The Protect Access to Healthcare initiative will improve access to health care, reduce emergency room wait times for all Californians, make prescription drugs more affordable and expand our health care workforce. This initiative represents the most important investment in California’s health care in our state’s history and will increase access to care well into the future.” – Donaldo Hernandez, M.D., president of the California Medical Association

There’s some drama here because it bypassed the usual political channels. According to one source, Governor Newsom is “enraged,” because if it passes, it will cause the state major budget deficit headaches.

I think that state government knows it doesn’t have a leg to stand on, because there hasn’t been an organized opposition to Prop 35 until a few weeks ago. The small group in opposition includes the League of Women Voters, which says bluntly, “Prop 35 would [make the MCO tax] money unavailable for other priorities.”

Supporters include the entire healthcare industry, both the Democratic and Republican parties, big business. They have raised more than $48 million in favor of the measure. The opposition has raised exactly $0.

I’m a YES on this one, but… I also found the Chronicle’s “no” endorsement compelling. I share the concern about funding gaps in the state budget, and how Prop 35 would make it the state government’s budget process less flexible. I guess that’s why we elect a legislature: to figure it out.

Prop 36 – Increase drug crime and theft penalties, allow a new class of crime to be called treatment-mandated felony – NO?

I went back and forth on this one. It is certainly well intentioned, but ultimately, I don’t think it’s the right solution for a seriously vexing problem.

In 2014, voters passed Prop 47, an important criminal reform measure that reduced the prison population in California and reclassified many low-level crimes from felonies to misdemeanors, including drug possession, petty theft under $950, and receiving stolen property. By 2024, Prop 47 has saved the state approximately $816 million in prison spending, and those savings have been reinvested into mental health and drug treatment programs, as well as recidivism reduction programs. What an effective reform!

Fast forward to 2024. Petty theft seems to be rampant in every county in California. I live in Oakland, and many of my local stores have started locking up entire cases of merchandise and requiring security guards to check your receipts at the door. I’ve personally witnessed multiple auto break-ins.

The state’s District Attorneys and major retailers like Walmart, Target, and Home Depot have been fed up with retail theft, and they claim that Prop 47 was too lenient on shoplifters. They also say that Prop 47 took away the ability of criminal courts to mandate drug treatment in lieu of prison time, for the addicts who they believe are behind much of this crime. They put Prop 36 on the ballot to get tougher on certain minor crimes, reclassifying some theft and drug possession crimes to felonies from misdemeanors, lengthening some sentences and giving judges the option of mandating drug treatment.

After Prop 36 qualified for the ballot, the legislature put together a package of bills addressing retail theft and auto break-ins. The bills target organized crime rings and prolific thieves with harsher punishments, and close loopholes to allow prosecutors to convict auto break-ins more easily. As a result of these reforms, the major retailers have dropped their support of Prop 36.

The remaining proponents include some tough-on-crime groups like the Republican Party of California, California District Attorneys Association, and California State Sheriffs’ Association, as well as dozens of local elected officials (Democratic and Republican), and small and local businesses

“[Prop 36] will make targeted but impactful changes to our laws around fentanyl and help us tackle the chronic retail theft that hurts our retailers, our workers, and our cities. I fully support this measure and know it will make a meaningful difference for cities across California.”
– SF Mayor London Breed

I am sympathetic to the retail theft issue, as this is a real problem in our communities. However, increasing penalties for drug possession is just inhumane. More importantly, multiple studies have shown that increasing criminal penalties doesn’t deter crime. What deters crime is the certainty of getting caught. Improving enforcement – like more funding for police foot patrols and giving cops more tools to do their jobs effectively – will do more to prevent shoplifting than increasing penalties for those who are caught.

“Police could stop petty thieves now if they made misdemeanor arrests, as they can and sometimes should under current law. But they don’t, because they argue it’s not worth their time. They’re asking voters to change the laws to fit their accustomed practices, rather than update their practices to fit the laws they’re asked to enforce. Californians should expect police to follow the law, rather than the other way around.”
– Los Angeles Times Editorial Board

Experts also appear to agree that theft is an act of desperation and poverty, which means that addressing the root cause (such as housing, family support, social connection, drug treatment) is a better strategy to prevent crime than increasing criminal penalties. Prop 36 will likely reduce funding for services like employment assistance and housing because there will be less savings from prison spending under Prop 47. Prop 36 would also deepen mass incarceration, which tears communities and families apart. Critics of Prop 36 also point to racial disparities in drug possession convictions, and they argue that Prop 36 will both exacerbate these disparities and reverse progress in reducing prison populations.

Supporters of Prop 36 argue that the proposed law will help more drug addicts to break out of their cycle of poverty, addiction and petty theft, because mandatory drug treatment will be an option for those convicted. However, twenty-two counties in California don’t have any government-funded drug treatment facilities available, and so prison will be the only option in those counties. Judges will have discretion as to whether they mandate treatment or jail time, and you better believe that they will bring their own race-based biases to those decisions.

“Prop. 36 takes us back to the 1980s, mass incarceration, it promotes a promise that can’t be delivered. I would ask those who support it, particularly mayors: Where are the treatment slots, where are the beds? Twenty-two counties don’t have one residential treatment facility… I mean, they’re lying to you.”
– Governor Gavin Newsom

Opponents of Prop 36 include Governor Newsom, the California Democratic Party, the League of Women Voters, criminal justice reform groups and civil rights organizations like the ACLU of Northern California, the Los Angeles Times Editorial Board, some Democratic Mayors of major cities. So far, they are WAY outspent by the Yes on 36 campaign by 45-to-1! And the Yes on 36 campaign is polling very well. Sigh. I am voting no anyway, and hoping for the best.

Thanks for reading! If this guide saved you a few hours of research, please calculate your hourly rate and deposit that amount in my bank account. Kidding! Please throw a few pennies in the jar to help cover my costs. I don’t accept donations or advertisements from campaigns, so I rely on my readers to support what I do.

Please also consider sharing on social media. Help me expand my reach. Thank you!

Tagged alix rosenthal, ballot measures, california, California ballot, election, elections, homelessness, news, politics, proposition 33, proposition 36, propositions, rent control, statewide measures, voter guide, voting
Leave a comment

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.

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

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.

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:

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:

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

Tagged alix, alix rosenthal, ballot, ballot measure, Behavioral Health Services Act, BHSA, california, democratic party, election, homeless, homelessness, housing, mental-health, news, newsom, prop 1, proposition, votealix, voter guide, voting
Leave a comment

Alix’s Voter Guide – California – November 2022

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

So you know where I’m coming from: I’m a single mom, a liberal Democrat, an 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.

This ballot is surprisingly short for a Gubernatorial election, with only seven statewide measures. (I think I still have PTSD from 2016’s ballot, which clocked in at 18 measures. Writing that voter guide nearly killed me). What this ballot lacks in length, however, it makes up for in complexity – several of these measures require a graduate degree and a few hours of free time to study and understand them. That’s where I come in – I research the hell out of these 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.

This year I have decided not to analyze the statewide candidate races. Every race is a Republican running against a Democrat, and I shouldn’t need to tell you how to vote in those races. But I’ll make it easy for you:

Governor: Gavin Newsom (D)

Lieutenant Governor: Eleni Kounalakis (D)

Secretary of State: Shirley Weber (D)

Controller: Malia Cohen (D)

Treasurer: Fiona Ma (D)

Attorney General: Rob Bonta (D)

Insurance Commissioner: Ricardo Lara (D)

State Superintendent of Public Instruction: Tony Thurmond

Board of Equalization, District 2: Sally Lieber

Here are my thoughts on the 2022 statewide ballot measures. First a summary, followed by the more detailed analysis.

Prop 1 – State constitutional right to reproductive freedom – HELL YES

Prop 26 – Legalizes sports betting at American Indian casinos and racetracks – NO

Prop 27 – Legalizes mobile sports betting and dedicates revenue to homelessness– NO

Prop 28 – Requires funding for K-12 art and music education – YES!

Prop 29 – Yet another dialysis measure – HELL NO

Prop 30 – Tax on Income Above $2M for Electric Vehicles and Wildfire Prevention – HELL YES!

Prop 31 – Upholds the ban on flavored tobacco sales – YES!

Prop 1 – Provides a state constitutional right to reproductive freedom, including the right to an abortion – HELL YES

I’ll make this one easy for you: if you support reproductive rights, vote yes on this constitutional amendment to enshrine “an individual’s reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives.” If you oppose abortion and contraceptives, you will vote no.

“But wait,” you ask, “aren’t abortion and contraception already legal in California?” The answer is yes. Prop 1 doesn’t change reproductive rights law in California, per se, because contraception and abortion are both fully legal here, with abortion being legal up to fetal viability and after viability only if an abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the mother. These rights are protected by the privacy provision of the California Constitution, which has been repeatedly used by the California Supreme Court to strike down numerous attempts at abortion restrictions, as well as the Reproductive Privacy Act of 2002, approved by the California State Legislature and signed by then-Governor Gray Davis.

But if the recent Dobbs decision by the US Supreme Court (striking down Roe v Wade) has a lesson for us, it’s that longstanding precedent can be reversed at any time. And legislatures can change the law whenever they feel like it. This is why the proponents of Proposition 1 put this constitutional amendment on the ballot – because the constitution is much, much harder to amend, and they wanted to lock that shit down.

Supporters include the California Democratic Party, Governor Gavin Newsom, US Senators Feinstein and Padilla, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the California Medical Association, California Nurses Association, California Teachers Association, ACLU, and the Human Rights Campaign.

In his endorsement, Newsom said, “California will not sit on the sidelines as unprecedented attacks on the fundamental right to choose endanger women across the country. This measure will ensure that women in our state have an inviolable right to a safe and legal abortion that is protected in our constitution.”

My cynical political mind suspects that the measure is also about pulling Democratic women out to vote in the Gubernatorial election for Newsom, whose Kennedy-esque looks and feminist spouse make him popular with liberal moms. Polls show that support for reproductive rights are strongest in the Bay Area, which also happens to be Newsom’s base. Coincidence? Perhaps. Then again, Governor Newsom’s opponent is a Republican State Senator that no one has ever heard of, so maybe he doesn’t need the extra votes? But I digress.

Opponents of Prop 1 include the Republican Party of California, which is kind of surprising to me since the state GOP can’t afford to lose more suburban moms from its base, and opposing Prop 1 will continue to marginalize the party in this state.

Naturally, lots of Catholic organizations also oppose the measure, including the California Conference of Catholic Bishops, Democrats for Life of America, and the Knights of Columbus. In his endorsement, Roman Catholic Bishop Jaime Soto said, “The state’s political leadership continues to stubbornly cling to the practice of abortion and the throw-away culture. It is reprehensible to enshrine in the State Constitution the practice of abortion even until moments before delivery. The language of SCA 10 is overly vague, reckless and could further endanger children, especially among the poor and marginalized in our state.”

The Republican Party also argues that the amendment’s language is too broad, and will therefore allow all abortions late into pregnancy, overriding current laws that restrict post-viability procedures. This is baseless fear-mongering; there is nothing in Prop 1 that will change the current law’s viability restrictions.

Anyhoo, Prop 1 is likely to win by an overwhelming margin, since Democrats dominate California politics, and the polls are looking good. And you can follow the money: the committee sponsoring the campaign has raised over $9.3 million, and the opposition has raised less than $100k. A huge imbalance in campaign spending doesn’t always predict the outcome, but it is a strong indicator of a measure’s relative support.

Prop 26 – Legalizes sports betting at American Indian gaming casinos and licensed racetracks in California – NO

Prop 27 – Legalizes mobile sports betting and dedicates revenue to the California Solutions to Homelessness and Mental Health Support Account and the Tribal Economic Development Account – NO

I’m going to analyze Prop 26 and 27 together since they are intertwined. Before I tell you what the measures would do, I’ll share a bit of the history.

If you want to gamble in California, you are pretty much limited to 84 card rooms, 33 horse racing facilities, 23,000 stores selling lottery tickets, and the 66 Native American casinos on tribal land. Sports gambling is not legal here.

Enter Draft Kings and other online sports betting companies, who are working to break into the state. Online and mobile gaming has become a multi-billion dollar business across the U.S. in recent years, particularly during the pandemic. To give you a sense of just how big these guys are… Draft Kings went public in 2020 and its valuation in 2021 was over $20 billion. The global sports betting market size was valued at $76.75 billion in 2021 and is expected to grow by 10.2% every year from 2022 to 2030.

California is a huge untapped market for these companies, so they designed a measure in California that would allow them to operate here. Prop 27 would legalize sports gambling for adults 21 and older, and would establish regulations for the mobile sports betting industry. As a sweetener, it would also impose a 10% tax on sports betting revenues and licensing fees, and allocate the revenue to an account for homelessness programs (85%) and an account for tribes that don’t operate sports betting (15%). According the state’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, that sweetener could generate “possibly in the hundreds of millions of dollars but likely not more than $500 million annually” in state revenue.

But allowing sport wagering in California will jeopardize the financial future of the state’s Native American tribes, whose casinos generate $23.2 billion in economic activity every year. The companies tried to cut a deal with the casino-owning tribes, but they couldn’t reach agreement. So the tribes wrote their own measure (Prop 26) that would allow sports betting and other kinds of gambling only at casinos and licensed racetracks in California, further marginalizing the online betting companies. Ha. Game on!

In addition to sports betting, Prop 26 would allow casinos to expand into roulette and dice games. The measure defines “sports betting” as wagering on professional, college, or amateur sport and athletic events, with the exception of high school sports and events featuring a California college team. Like Prop 27, it would limit sports betting to adults 21 and over, and it would impose a 10% tax on profits derived from sports betting at racetracks (but not casinos). The revenues would be distributed to gambling prevention and mental health treatment (15%); enforcement of sports wagering laws (15%); and the rest to the state’s General Fund.

TBH, I am not a gambler or a fan of professional sports, so I’m ambivalent about whether California should allow online gambling. Should Californians be able to participate in sports wagering, as a matter of public policy? I could go either way. Do we need to spend more money on solving homelessness? Heck yeah!

Oh. Except that Prop 27 would generate no more than $500 million annually, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office. And the state already spends three to four billion dollars on homelessness every year – will another half a billion solve the problem? I’m not convinced.

I was surprised to learn that Major League Baseball supports Prop 27. They say, “As legalized sports betting continues to expand across the country, Major League Baseball remains committed to protecting the integrity of its games and creating a safe experience for fans who wish to wager on those games. Proposition 27… includes strong integrity provisions designed to help MLB carry out those commitments.” I think they are saying, much like illegal drug use, sports betting is happening anyway, so let’s get it out in the open and tax the hell out of it.

Opponents of Prop 27 include the California Teachers Association, a smattering of Democratic and Republican elected officials, the League of California Cities, and both the Democratic and Republican Parties of California, who never agree on anything. They cite the need to protect tribal sovereignty, as well as the fear that legalizing sports wagering would send 90% of profits from sports gambling out-of-state or even out of country.

And of course, there’s the argument that unprecedented access to sports wagering would lead to more problem gambling, addiction and crime. The San Jose Mercury News opposes Prop 27 and argues that “turning every cell phone into a 24/7, portable casino” would increase the rate of gambling addiction across the state, just as it has in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Connecticut after each of those states legalized sports wagers.

Gambling addiction, they say, leads to financial ruin, broken families, increased crime, mental health issues and homelessness. That’s right, homelessness.

For me, it really comes down to what Prop 27 will do to the existing Indian casinos. Native Americans remain the most impoverished and underprivileged minority community in the nation, and I’m sure I don’t need to tell you why. (But I will anyway…) Early white Americans forced them onto land that they couldn’t mine or farm, and left them with nothing after obliterating their communities by way of violence and disease. (But how do you really feel, Alix?). The 19th century federal government acknowledged their tribal sovereignty, which later enabled some tribes to establish gaming casinos to support their communities. But the casinos have had inconsistent results: while some tribes (near urban areas) are doing relatively well, rural casinos don’t generate as much revenue. Here’s a good history of tribal casinos if you’re interested.

Anyhoo, U.S. census data consistently indicate that the legalization of Indian gaming has not improved the lot of the indigenous population in the aggregate, and many tribes continue to languish in poverty. Allowing sports betting to become legal in California would certainly undercut the casino-owning tribes’ self-sufficiency, and threaten the billions of dollars in economic activity that tribal casinos generate every year, along with a few hundred thousand California jobs.

Both the yes on 26 and 27 campaigns have been accused of spreading misinformation. For example, check out the Yes on 27 campaign website – the header is “Yes on Prop 27 – Homelessness Funding Backed by California Tribes.” It says almost nothing about sports betting, which I find incredibly disingenuous and deceptive. They also tout the support they have from the non-casino-owning tribes who stand to benefit from their measure, without mentioning that tribes have raised tens of millions in opposition.

It is intentionally confusing. Yuck.

You may also find it interesting that Prop 27 never gained widespread support among the folks you’d think would be thrilled to have a new half billion dollars a year to play with: California’s homeless service providers and low-income housing builders.

As for Prop 26, the supporters include a few law enforcement organizations and racetrack owners in addition to the casino-owning tribes. The supporters’ main argument is that Californians should have the choice to participate in sports wagering at highly regulated, safe and experienced gaming locations. Prop 26 helps make Indian casinos more profitable, which in turn supports the tribes’ independence.

The No on Prop 26 campaign includes the Republican Party, the California Animal Welfare Association (which presumably doesn’t support making racetracks more profitable), in addition to the online sports betting companies. They argue that Prop 26 will expand the tribal casinos’ “tax-free monopoly on gaming” and “rewards those operators for prioritizing their own wealth over public health and safety.” Oh, boo hoo. The tribes are being selfish instead of sharing the bounty of gambling in California with multi-billion-dollar corporations. Poor Draft Kings! Someone call them a Wambulance.

Given how much money is at stake in these two measures, it won’t surprise you to learn it is the most expensive campaign in California history. As of September 24, the pro-27 campaign had raised over $169.2 million. Its top three donors include BetMGM LLC, Betfair Interactive US LLC (FanDuel Sportsbook), and Crown Gaming, Inc. (DraftKings). The No on 27 campaign has raised $214.6 million. The top three donors include the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, and the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation. The Yes on 26 campaign is supported by several American Indian tribes, and has raised more than $73.08 million. The online gambling companies have raised more than $42 million to oppose the measure.

All of the newspapers oppose both measures: LA Times, SF Chronicle, San Jose Mercury News, Sacramento Bee, and I agree. Vote no.

Prop 28 – Requires funding for K-12 art and music education – YES!

Prop 28 is very simple – it secures funding for arts and music education in California schools, without raising taxes.

In 1998, California voters approved Prop 98, which required at a minimum, roughly 40% of California’s budget to go to schools and community colleges each year. Prop 28 would mandate that at least 1% of the total Prop 98 funds be spent on arts and music education. It also makes sure that more funding is allocated to schools with a high percentage of students from low-income households, rather than wealthy schools. Finally, it requires schools with 500 or more students to spend 80% of the money on employing teachers, with 20% going to training and materials. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office puts the number at around $1 billion annually! That’s a lot of arts teachers.

I won’t waste much of your time on Prop 28, because there is no organized opposition and Prop 28 is likely to pass. Proponents have raised more than $9.3 million in support of the campaign, and endorsers include former U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, the California Teachers Association, lots of elected school board members across the state.

Numerous celebrities and musicians back the measure, including Dr. Dre, Goldie Hawn, Jason Momoa, Katy Perry, Lenny Kravitz, Will.I.Am, John Lithgow, Christina Aguilera, Issa Rae, and even Weird Al Yankovich.

Even though there isn’t organized opposition, there is at least one good government argument against Prop 28, which is that budgeting by the ballot box is a bad idea. While arts and music education is an extremely noble cause, I generally don’t like it when voters are asked to earmark specific programs. Once a measure is approved by the voters, it is extremely hard to change or repeal. Prop 28 will be forever tying the hands of the legislature, of the Governor, and of the very schools this measure is intended to help. Measures like Prop 28 are all well and good in a year like 2022 when there is a budget surplus, and we have an extra BILLION dollars to throw around, but the next time the economy takes a downturn, Prop 98 funds are going to be much tighter and will force the schools to make some hard decisions.

As the San Jose Mercury News noted, “It’s fiscally reckless to keep earmarking unpredictable state general fund money when we don’t know what the future needs of California will be as it confronts, for example, a housing shortage, climate change, inadequate water supplies and wildfires.”

I am a mom and an arts enthusiast, so on balance I will support this one. Experts agree that arts education is not a luxury – it’s critical to the health of civil society, as expressed by increased civic engagement, greater social tolerance, and reductions in criminal behavior. One study in Boston showed that students and parents were more engaged in schools where art and music were a part of the curriculum — which led to lower truancy, and better test scores in some instances.

Unless you have a kid in public school, you may be surprised to learn that only 1-in-5 California schools have a full-time art or music program, according to Prop. 28 proponents. So this measure is sorely needed, particularly in schools that don’t have multi-million dollar PTA fundraisers. Rampant learning loss due to the pandemic, and the flight of students from the public school system continue to challenge our education system. Juicing up the arts and music programs in schools could get some kids and parents more engaged in schools again, and that is a good thing.

I am voting yes.

Prop 29 – Enacts staffing requirements, reporting requirements, ownership disclosure, and closing requirements for chronic dialysis clinics – HELL NO

OMG, seriously?? Prop 29 makes me mad because it is such a waste of your time. It is indeed the third time in six years that California voters have been asked to weigh in on whether dialysis clinics should be subjected to new requirements, because the union trying to organize those clinics can’t get the clinic owners to bargain with them. Voters have overwhelmingly rejected the dialysis measures in the past (See Prop 8 in 2018, which lost by 20% of the vote, and Prop 23 in 2020, which lost by a whopping 27%).

Prop 29 would require dialysis clinics to:

Have at least one licensed physician, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant to be on site during treatment;
Report dialysis-related infection data to state and federal governments;
Not close or reduce services without approval from the state; and
Not discriminate against patients based on the source of payment for care.

The only difference between this year’s measure and 2020’s Prop 23 is a change in the staffing requirement. Prop 23 would have required all clinics to keep a physician on-site during treatment hours. Prop 29 is the same, only the new measure would require either a physician, physician assistant or nurse practitioner with at least six months of experience providing care to kidney patients to be available on-site. If clinics can’t find the personnel, they can request an exemption to provide this service through telehealth.

Note that dialysis facilities are already required to employ a physician medical director and keep a registered nurse on site.Prop 29 would require that the physician, PA or RN be on site during every treatment, around the clock. California’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office found that this measure would “increase each clinic’s costs by several hundred thousand dollars annually on average.” You don’t need to be a financial whiz to know that this could force clinics to close, particularly in rural regions, putting patients at risk.

Here is what I wrote in 2020:

I can’t believe it, ANOTHER KIDNEY DIALYSIS BALLOT MEASURE?! You may remember Prop 8 from 2018, which asked voters to limit the profits of kidney dialysis clinics. I went “no” on that one because I didn’t think it was the kind of law that should be decided by the voters. And it was clearly a revenge play by SEIU-UHW West, the labor union that was in a fight with the state’s two largest dialysis businesses DaVita and Fresenius Medical Care. I feel that same way about Prop 23.

Here we are again. Same story, different day. …

SEIU-West has been trying to organize the kidney dialysis clinics for years, and they claim that the big greedy dialysis clinic owners aren’t doing right by their patients or staff and they want better staff-to-patient ratios. The union put Prop 23 on the ballot because they tried getting a law passed in the legislature, but they couldn’t get the votes.

As to the doctor requirement, they argue that dialysis is a dangerous procedure, and if something goes wrong, a doctor or highly trained nurse should be nearby. As for the reporting requirement, they say that they want problems to be identified and solved to protect patients, implying that the clinics aren’t meeting patient needs. Finally, they say that the clinics are critical to patient survival so they shouldn’t be allowed to close or reduce their services, even if this measure makes their costs go up.

…[Opponents] argue that Prop 23 jeopardizes access to care by imposing unnecessary bureaucratic mandates, making it harder for the clinics to do their jobs well. They worry that Prop 23 would increase state healthcare costs by an estimated $320 million annually, and force some clinics to close, pushing patients into emergency rooms for treatment.

For the on-site physician requirement, [opponents] argue that every dialysis patient is already under the care of their personal kidney physician and dialysis treatments are administered by specially trained and experienced dialysis nurses and technicians. Prop 23 would make the state’s physician shortage worse by taking physicians away from other hospitals and clinics where they are more needed.

Prop 23’s restrictions on clinics are a bit triggering for me. For most of my career, I’ve been closely watching all the restrictions religious conservatives have succeeded in placing on abortion clinics around the country, and the rules proposed in Prop 23 are eerily familiar. The abortion clinic rules have never been about quality of care, they have always been about making it harder for the clinics to keep their doors open. I suspect the same is true here. Why else would a non-healthcare related labor union put a measure on the ballot with healthcare-related implications? Seems very fishy. ESPECIALLY since the healthcare advocacy organizations (see: California Nurses Association, California Medical Association) oppose the bill.

I’ll conclude by quoting my 2018 analysis of Prop 8, because the same reasoning applies here:

“As you know, a ballot measure can only be amended or repealed by another ballot measure, and that’s no way to govern a state. Super detailed, highly technical laws should NEVER be passed by ballot measure because they usually need adjusting over time, and that can’t happen if they are approved by voters. Moreover, if this measure passes, and dialysis clinics start going out of business, it jeopardizes access to care for patients in California who need dialysis treatments to stay alive. SEIU should make its case in court, or with the legislature, or the National Labor Relations Board, anywhere but the ballot box.”

It’s notable that many public health and patient advocates oppose Prop 29, including California Nurses Association, California Medical Association, Minority Health Institute, Renal Healthcare Association, Chronic Disease Coalition, and many others. Likewise, all the newspapers have come down against it, including the SF Chronicle, LA Times, Sacramento Bee, Santa Cruz Sentinel, and San Jose Mercury News.

Over 80,000 Californians receive dialysis for kidney diseases. For these patients, missing even one dialysis appointment can be life-threatening. This cynical effort by SEIU to bring the clinics to the bargaining table is playing a dangerous game with these patients’ lives. I am a strong NO on this one.

Prop 30 – Tax on Income Above $2 Million for Zero-Emissions Vehicles and Wildfire Prevention Initiative – HELL YES! – I have posted my analysis separately here

Prop 31 – Upholds the ban on flavored tobacco sales – YES!

In August 2020, Governor Newsom signed into law a ban on the sale of flavored tobacco products. Senate Bill (SB) 793 bans menthol cigarettes, flavored e-cigarette products, and flavored oral tobacco products. Retailers can be fined $250 for each illegal sale, and exceptions were made for hookah, premium cigars, and pipe tobacco.

Even though it was signed two years ago, SB 793 has never gone into effect. The big tobacco companies bought themselves some time by filing Prop 31, which delayed the enforcement of the law until after the voters could weigh in. A YES vote on Prop 31 would approve of SB 793’s ban on flavored tobacco, and a NO vote would overturn the law.

If Prop 31 passes, California would become the second state in the U.S. to enact such a ban after Massachusetts. A number of cities, including Los Angeles and San Diego, have already enacted their own bans.

When you’re deciding how to vote on a measure, sometimes all you need to do is look at who is lined up on both sides. In the case of Prop 31, supporters include liberal politicians and advocates for children and public health: California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Democratic Party, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, American Cancer Society Action Network, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, and the California Teachers’ Association.

Opponents include big tobacco companies (R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Philip Morris USA), small business advocates who worry about the loss of revenue from cigarette sales, and the folks who hate taxes and regulation, including the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and the Republican Party of California. Which side do your values align with?

Supporters of Prop 31 argue that flavored tobacco products are intended to hook kids on tobacco, and they are especially dangerous amid the COVID pandemic when youth deaths spiked from respiratory complications. They acknowledge it’s already illegal to sell tobacco products to anyone under 21, but they say flavored cigarettes and vaping cartridges are still too easy for teens to obtain.

They note that menthol cigarettes disproportionately impact minority communities, observing that around 85 percent of Black smokers use a menthol cigarette, with the tobacco industry gearing its marketing of menthol cigarettes toward Black Americans. They also allege that menthol acts as a cooling agent, masking the harsh taste of tobacco, which allows new smokers to become hooked more easily.

The tobacco industry has fired back, defending the right of Black and Latinx consumers to smoke menthols. “It’s unfair for communities of color. Bad law. Bad consequences,” said one ad paid for by R.J. Reynolds. But the ads drew a backlash from some Black leaders. Then-Assemblywoman Shirley Weber, chair of the California Legislative Black Caucus, said it was offensive for the tobacco industry to “make us believe that mentholated cigarettes are part of African American culture, and that this is a discriminatory piece of legislation against Black people.”

The tobacco giants also argue that the increase in the tobacco age to 21 in 2020 has already reduced youth access to tobacco products. While the desire to protect youth may be well-intentioned, opponents say that California is becoming a nanny state, and adults should have the right to choose whether to use these products just like with alcohol and marijuana.

Howard Jarvis and the California Republican Party wants to repeal SB 793 because they say it would cause a giant loss in tax revenue. (This is a strange argument coming from the guys who normally oppose all taxes. But these taxes are OK, I guess? Mmm hmm.)

And they are right about the loss of revenue – sorta. The independent Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) estimates a ban could cost the state tens of millions of dollars to around $100 million annually in tax revenue. However, the LAO continues, if a substantial number of smokers quit because of the ban, it could mean some savings to the state’s health care system. And yet, the LAO further adds, if these smokers quit and live longer, it could increase the government’s health care costs. “Given the possibility of both savings and costs, the resulting long-term net impact on government health care costs is uncertain,” the LAO concludes.

Opponents also argue that a ban on flavored e-cigarettes is problematic from a health care standpoint because e-cigarettes are safer than combustible cigarettes. And yet, the claim that vaping is a healthy alternative to smoking isn’t supported by any legitimate medical authority. In fact, there is a growing body of evidence to the contrary.

According to the Chronicle, tobacco use still kills 40,000 people each year in California and costs the state nearly $10 billion in health care. And the evidence about teens using menthol cigarettes and other flavored tobacco products is undeniable – 1 in 8 California high school students was a tobacco user as of 2019, 86.4% of whom used flavored products.

It is worth noting that Canada banned menthol cigarettes several years ago without any controversy. One study predicted, based on Canada’s experience, that if the U.S. were to ban menthols it would help over 1.3 million people quit smoking.

What pisses me off is the tobacco industry’s cynical manipulation of the political system to buy themselves some time. By delaying the implementation of SB 793, and spending $20 million to get Prop 31 on the ballot, they will make an estimated $830 million in revenue from menthol cigarette sales alone since the start of 2021. So, regardless of whether they win or lose Prop 31, they have already won. Let’s hand them a clear message that they are on the wrong side of history. Vote no.

Thanks for reading! If you found this voter guide useful, please throw a few pennies in the jar to help me cover my costs. And please forward this link to your friends and frenemies, or post it on social media. Thank you!

Tagged abortion rights, alix, alix rosenthal, ballot, ballot propositions, california, election, electric vehicles, funding for the arts, gambling addistion, governor, kidney dialysis, native american casinos, newsom, november 2022, prop 1, prop 26, prop 27, prop 29, prop 30, prop 31, rosenthal, sports betting, votealix, voter guide, voting, wildfire prevention
1 Comment

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.

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.

Tagged alix rosenthal, ballot measure, california, classification, doordash, drivers, election, employee, gig drivers, gig economy, independent contractor, instacart, labor unions, lyft, prop 22, Proposition 22, uber, vote, votealix, voter guide, worker
8 Comments

May 3, 2020

The election is coming!

Election Day is Tuesday, November 3, 2020. It will be here before you know it. Verify your voter registration at Vote.org. If you have moved since the last time you voted, change your registration on or before October 20 at the CA Secretary of State’s website.

It’s going to be a HUGE ballot in California, as presidential elections always are. In addition to the race for President, we will vote on congressional seats, State Senate, and State Assembly. Several initiatives have qualified for November, including a few changes to the way property taxes are levied, changes to criminal sentencing and cash bail, and an expansion of local government’s power over rent control.

So buckle up, kids! And make sure you’re registered to vote.

Tagged ballot, california, election, register, vote
2 Comments

March 1, 2020

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.

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

Madame 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

Over 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

First, 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

I 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

Rani 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

The 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.

The 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 37^th (!!) 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?

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.

Is 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.

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

Prop 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.

Tagged alix, alixro, ballot, ballot measure, bond measure, california, city college, DCCC, democratic party, Dorothy chou proudfoot, elect, election, Elizabeth warren, endorsement, firefighters, housing, march 2020, Maria Evangelista, pelosi, primary, prop 13, prop a, prop b, prop c, prop d, prop e, proposition, public schools, rani singh, recommendations, rosenthal, san francisco, vacancy, votealix, voter guide, voting, wiener, women
1 Comment

November 1, 2018

Alix’s Voter Guide – SF Ballot, November 2018

All we hear about in the news is the House and Senate races nationwide. Here in San Francisco, our House and Senate races are foregone conclusions, but that doesn’t mean that the election isn’t very important.

In SF, the elephant in the room is homelessness and housing. And Prop C is the most controversial measure on the ballot, promising to double the city’s spending on homelessness solutions. The candidates for Supervisor are battling over where housing should be built, and who has the best solutions to the problem. Homelessness is even an issue in the race for BART Board! It’s everywhere in this election.

An exciting school board race also underway. With 18 candidates to choose from, voters have their work cut out for them. And four Supervisor races are neck-and-neck! Election night is going to be very exciting this year.

My guide to the California measures and races can be found here.

US House (CA-12) – Nancy Pelosi
US House (CA-14) – Jackie Speier
Assembly, District 17 – David Chiu
Assembly, District 19 – Phil Ting
Assessor Recorder – Carmen Chu
Public Defender – Jeff Adachi
Supervisor, District 2 – Catherine Stefani
Supervisor, District 4 –Trevor McNeil
Supervisor, District 6 – (1) Matt Haney (2) Christine Johnson
Supervisor, District 8 – Rafael Mandelman
Supervisor, District 10 – Shamann Walton
BART Board, District 8 – Melanie Nutter
Community College Board – Thea Selby, John Rizzo, Victor Olivieri
Board of Education – Michelle Parker, Faauuga Moliga, Phil Kim
Proposition A – Seawall Earthquake Safety – YES
Proposition B – City Privacy Guidelines – NO
Proposition C – Tax on big business to fund homeless services – No
Proposition D – Cannabis Businesses Tax – NO
Proposition E – Arts and Cultural Allocation – Yes

US House (CA-12) – Nancy Pelosi

Pelosi received 69% of the vote in June, and her next opponent, Lisa Remmer (R) got 9%. Pelosi’s re-election is a lock, and so she’s spending all of her time making the Blue Wave a reality. Her “Red to Blue HQ” is rallying volunteers to phone bank for Democrats in swing districts. You may think it’s time for new leadership, and I respect that, but before you judge her too harshly, let’s see how well she does at winning back the House for Team Blue.

US House (CA-14) – Jackie Speier

Speier got 79% of the vote in June. She’s also a lock, and so she’s spending her time amplifying women’s voices and combating sexual violence on college campuses.

Assembly, District 17 – David Chiu

Chiu is running virtually unopposed, and he’s doing a fine job, so I won’t waste your time (or mine) with a lengthy analysis of his fine qualities.

Assembly, District 19 – Phil Ting

Screen Shot 2018-11-01 at 4.45.28 PM.png

Assessor-Recorder Carmen Chu

Ting is running virtually unopposed.

Assessor Recorder – Carmen Chu

Chu is running virtually unopposed.

Public Defender – Jeff Adachi

Adachi is running unopposed.

Supervisor, District 2 – Catherine Stefani

Supervisor Catherine Stefani faces BART Director Nick Josefowitz and political newcomer Schuyler Hudak. In this district, which encompasses wealthy neighborhoods including Pacific Heights and the Marina, the top issues are homelessness and property crime. Stefani was appointed to the seat when her former boss, D2 Supervisor Mark Farrell, was appointed acting Mayor in the wake of Mayor Ed Lee’s sudden passing last year.

Screen Shot 2018-11-01 at 4.48.23 PM.png

Supervisor Stefani with Moms Demand Action

Stefani has by far the most experience in the district and in government, having served as a legislative aide for the previous two D2 Supervisors, and most recently as County Clerk. She’s the leader of the San Francisco chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, which was founded after the Sandy Hook massacre. She has recently called for an audit of the millions of tax dollars that are distributed to nonprofits serving the homeless, make sure our tax dollars are being well spent. I am supporting her because she has worked in the district for more than a decade, she knows its issues and its constituents, and she’s a fierce advocate for families and against gun violence.

Hudak is the founder of a documentary video startup who is campaigning as an outsider ready to bring change. I find her to be smart and well meaning, but her lack of experience in government disqualifies her, IMO.

Before running for BART Board, Josefowitz founded and ran a solar-energy company, and now he’s using his personal wealth to fund his campaign. Josefowitz earned the Chronicle endorsement because he has demonstrated a commitment to taking on the housing crisis while he has been on the BART Board, pushing for higher density development along transit corridors. I supported Nick for BART Board, and I think he has some good ideas, but I’m supporting Stefani because of her leadership on gun violence and her vast experience in City Hall.

Supervisor, District 4 –Trevor McNeil

The three main candidates for D4 are community activist Gordon Mar, public school teacher Trevor McNeil and Jessica Ho, legislative aide to D4 Supervisor Katy Tang. In this district, which encompasses the Sunset, voters mostly care about public safety and preserving neighborhood character (which means opposing large scale development).

Screen Shot 2018-11-01 at 4.58.19 PM.png

Trevor McNeil and his family

Gordon Mar is the brother of former Supervisor Eric Mar, and is favored by the more progressive politicians in City Hall and democratic clubs. He’s a community organizer, and the co-founder and Executive Director of Jobs with Justice, a labor organization. The so-called moderates are divided between Trevor McNeil and Jessica Ho. Jessica has only lived in SF since March, when she moved here from LA to take the job in Supervisor Tang’s office. While Jessica Ho has more experience in city government than either McNeil or Mar, she’s only been in City Hall for 7 months.*

All three candidates want to build more housing, support homeless services, and increase the quality and reliability of the public transit system. In fact, their positions on the issues are pretty close to indistinguishable. However, McNeil is the only one who said he would support a homeless navigation center in the district if it were necessary. I worked with McNeil in Democratic Party leadership several years ago, and I can tell you he works harder than anyone I know. He has three kids under 4, has a full time teaching job, AND works relentlessly for liberal candidates and causes in his free time. Vote for Trevor.

*Edit: She also spent a year interning for the previous D4 Supervisor, but it doesn’t make her much more qualified, IMO.

Supervisor, District 6 – (1) Matt Haney (2) Christine Johnson

District 6 includes SoMa, the Tenderloin and Mission Bay — neighborhoods hit particularly hard by homelessness and rapid development. The person elected to this seat will need to be able to straddle the vastly different worlds of new money and relentless poverty.

Screen Shot 2018-11-01 at 5.00.32 PM.png

Matt Haney (photo: San Francisco Magazine)

Matt Haney, former President of the school board, is the real deal. He lives in the Tenderloin, he walks the walk, and he has spent the last several years getting to know the woes and triumphs of this multi-faceted district. When Matt was first elected to the Board of Education, he visited every public school so that he could meet the students, teachers and administrators. He has also co-founded #cut50 with Van Jones. Together they have worked to reform the criminal justice system.

Christine Johnson is an engineer, a former Planning Commissioner and a policy nerd with 14 years of experience in public finance. I have heard her speak a few times and I have been impressed with how much she understands about real estate development and the San Francisco budgeting process. She brings ideas to the campaign that are both bold and specific, down to the municipal code sections she would like to see amended.

Trauss is a housing activist who built YIMBY — “Yes in My Backyard” — into a national pro-housing development movement. I have respect for the bold work she has done to increase public awareness around the causes of the San Francisco housing crisis. However, she is a bomb thrower and I find her style to be abrasive and unproductive.

Supervisor, District 8 – Rafael Mandelman

Rafi is running virtually unopposed. He just won the seat in June.

Supervisor, District 10 – Shamann Walton

Screen Shot 2018-11-01 at 5.03.07 PM.png

Shamann Walton (photo: SF Chronicle)

District 10 includes Potrero Hill, Dogpatch, the Bayview, and Hunters Point. The latter two are some of the city’s poorest and most isolated neighborhoods. The district is seeing some of the city’s most rapid growth along the Third Street corridor and at the former site of Candlestick Park, though some of this development is plagued by a cleanup scandal at the Hunters Point Shipyard. The next D10 supervisor has a very big job ahead of them.

The main candidates in D10 are Shamann Walton, a school board member and the Executive Director for Young Community Developers, a workforce training nonprofit; Theo Ellington, former President of the Bayview Opera House board and former Director of Public Affairs for the Golden State Warriors; and Tony Kelly, theater director and Potrero Hill Democratic Club leader. All three are focused on making sure that new development includes enough benefits for the local community.

I like Theo Ellington, whom I met when he was working for the Golden State Warriors on their arena project. He’s smart and knows a lot about politics and real estate development. However, his youthful enthusiasm doesn’t make up for his relative inexperience in government.

This is Tony Kelly’s third run for Supervisor, and he doesn’t seem to have much traction in this campaign. To his credit, he has some bold ideas around housing, including vacancy control which penalizes owners of vacant residences. He also wants to increase MUNI funding while decreasing fare enforcement, seems contradictory to me.

Having served on the school board for several years, Shamann Walton has the most experience in pulling the levers of government to benefit the community. He has also worked in the Bayview neighborhood for decades, building workforce programs for young people in D10. Shamann has earned the endorsement of every member of the school board, 8 of 11 members of the Board of Supervisors, including folks on both sides of the (progressive SF) aisle. This is a testament to his ability to work with everybody and get things done. Vote for Shamann.

BART Board (District 8) – Melanie Nutter

Screen Shot 2018-11-01 at 7.50.46 PM.png

Melanie Nutter

Melanie Nutter is a lifelong environmental advocate, and she is laser-focused on reliability and cleanliness of BART. She wants to enlist BART in taking an active role in getting homeless people out of BART stations and into city services. And as the former Director of the city’s Department of the Environment, she is also eager to move BART closer to environmental sustainability. Melanie has the endorsements of the SF Chronicle, Mayor London Breed, Senator Scott Wiener, David Chiu, League of Conservation Voters, many democratic clubs, among others.

Jonathan Lyens is a super nice guy, who I’ve known through his work on the FDR Democratic Club. Blind since childhood, Jonathan has overcome tremendous obstacles and taken on tough fights his entire life. He is very well meaning, but doesn’t have much transit-related experience. He’s been endorsed by the San Francisco Democratic Party, many labor unions, and Supervisors Peskin, Fewer, Yee, Mandelman, and Ronen.

Janice Li has transportation policy credentials, having worked as a policy advocate and community organizer for the SF Bike Coalition. She has earned many progressive endorsements, including Supervisors Peskin, Fewer and Kim, and Assemblymember Phil Ting.

I am voting for Nutter because her many years of working in City Hall will make her a far more effective leader than Lyens or Li. Where her opponents are focused on discrete aspects of BART’s operations, Nutter has a much bigger picture perspective, demonstrated by her understanding of BART’s impact on the Bay Area’s housing crunch and the regional environment. Vote for Melanie.

Community College Board – Thea Selby, John Rizzo, Victor Olivieri

Screen Shot 2018-11-01 at 7.53.49 PM.png

Thea Selby

Three seats are up on the College Board, and the three incumbents holding those seats are running for re-election: Thea Selby, Brigitte Davila and John Rizzo. They have worked closely together to save City College from the myriad of problems it’s had in recent years, including the accreditation crisis.

John Rizzo, former President of the local Sierra Club chapter, has served the longest on the college board, and his institutional knowledge is critical because there is much more work to do to keep City College on track. Thea Selby is passionate about public education. She is sharp as a tack, and she served as President of the Board when City College was re-accredited, which was no small feat. She’s also a mother of two, and she advocates for small businesses and public transit in her spare time. I honestly don’t know where she gets all her energy!

Brigitte Davila has been on the College Board for the last 4 years and currently serves as its President. Though she has some high profile endorsements, my sense is that her heart’s not in this campaign. Her website is outdated, and doesn’t say what she wants to do with the next four years if she wins. She’s endorsed by the SF Chronicle; the SF Democratic Party; the Labor Council; and Supervisors Fewer, Peskin, Kim, Yee, Mandelman, Ronen and Cohen.

One challenger has emerged – Victor Olivieri – and he has earned a surprising number of powerful endorsements including people who don’t normally endorse in such a down-ballot race: Gavin Newsom, Nancy Pelosi, State Controller Betty Yee, and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson among many others. Olivieri is young and ambitious. He has a detailed plan for City College, and his website is slick – which tells me that he may be using this race as a stepping stone for higher office. In any case, he has impressed me so far, and he is the one to watch in this race.

Board of Education – Michelle Parker, Faauuga Moliga, Phil Kim

Screen Shot 2018-11-01 at 7.54.55 PM.png

Michelle Parker

Three of the seven seats on the school board are up for election, with one incumbent (very recently appointed by the mayor) on the ballot. 18 candidates are vying for the positions, and I’m impressed with the quality of the candidates this year! There are parents, teachers, school counselors, and youth advocates, and they all have unique perspectives on how to make the public schools better. I’m not going to analyze every single one of their candidacies – there are so many of them! – but I’ll tell you about the ones getting the most ink. I’m endorsing Michelle Parker, Faauuga Moliga and Phil Kim for the reasons below.

The main issues this year are (1) the elimination of algebra classes in 8^th grade, (2) the always-controversial school assignment (lottery) system, and (3) how to manage the district’s $890 million budget, which is strapped by skyrocketing pension costs.

Michelle Parker is one of the most qualified candidates ever to run for school board. She is a parent of three public school students with a long track record of leadership as a parent advocate. She has worked with thousands of parents over the past ten years – as District PTA president, in facilitating community meetings, and in leading efforts to organize parents as a co-founder of Parent PAC. She has served on an array of education advisory committees at the state and local level. I have found her to be knowledgeable and level headed — and prepared to hit the ground running if she is elected. Parker is focused on individualizing student’s educations – bringing back 8^th grade algebra and gifted & talented programs; and attracting and retaining educators. Her top endorsers are Mayor London Breed; SF Chronicle; Senator Scott Wiener; Assemblymembers David Chiu and Phil Ting; and Supervisors Stefani, Tang, Brown, and Safai.

Faauuga Moliga is a school social worker and parent. Mayor Breed appointed him to the school board in October to fill the seat of Hydra Mendoza, who moved away. Moliga is the first Pacific Islander member of the school board, representing a community impacted by high poverty and incarceration rates, and low college readiness. His campaign focuses on the opportunity gap for students of all demographics, as well as supporting the well-being of students and families through mental health services. His main endorsers are the SF Teachers Union; organized labor; Mayor London Breed; Board of Supervisors President Malia Cohen; Supervisors Mandelman, Fewer, Ronen, Safai, Peskin and Yee.

Phil Kim is a science teacher and has served on several statewide committees that examine and promote STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) programs in California. He has a Masters Degree in Education Policy and Administration, and a passion for social justice curricula that are developed in partnership with parents and families. I met him at a cocktail party a few weeks ago, and I was impressed with how well he answered my barrage of questions about how to improve the public schools in San Francisco.

Although he works at a charter school (KIPP Academy), he tells me he opposes the proliferation of charter schools in San Francisco. He advocates for more accountability and oversight of charter schools, and he distances himself from the politics of Marshall Tuck, Betsy DeVos and others who think that charter schools should replace public schools. He thinks that charter schools can play an important but niche role in a public school system, but that the public schools should always remain primary. I agree with him on these points, and I think that his unique perspective would be valuable on the school board. Phil’s major endorsers are SF Chronicle, State Senator Scott Wiener, City College Trustee Alex Randolph.

Li Miao Lovett is legit. She’s an academic counselor, and has worked in public education for 20 years. Her focus is on making sure immigrant families and poor families have access to resources, ensuring the social-emotional development of all children, and programs that support children of working parents and those with special needs. She is endorsed by the progressive side of town, including the teachers union; Democratic Party; organized labor; progressive elected officials including Assemblymember Phil Ting, Supervisors Fewer, Peskin, Yee, Mandelman, Ronen; School Board member Matt Haney.

Screen Shot 2018-11-01 at 7.58.05 PM.png

Alida Fisher and her family

Alida Fisher is a public school parent and education consultant. She has a unique perspective because of her experiences as a foster parent and (white) adoptive mother of African-American children. To say she is an involved parent is an understatement. Fisher is a parent mentor with Support for Families of Children with Disabilities, a member of several advisory committees to the Board of Education, and Chair of the Community Advisory Committee for Special Education. She is endorsed by the SF Chronicle.

John Trasviña is the former dean of USF law school, and he also served as Assistant Secretary of Housing & Urban Development under Obama. He went to public school in San Francisco when he was a kid, but doesn’t otherwise have much of a connection to the public school system. Given his decades of political involvement, it seems pretty clear to me that this office would be a stepping stone for him… though that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t be a good school board member. He has a lot of powerful endorsements because of his work in immigrant rights and housing over the years, including a mix of both progressives and moderates: Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, SF Democratic Party Chair David Campos, Assembly Members David Chiu and Phil Ting, Board of Equalization Member Fiona Ma, DA George Gascon, Supervisor Katy Tang.

Screen Shot 2018-11-01 at 8.32.45 PM.png

Monica Chinchilla

Monica Chinchilla is a parent and a community organizer. In 2016 she was the campaign manager for the Proposition V (Soda Tax) campaign in San Francisco, which won despite overwhelming opposition from Big Soda. Her community organizing work has centered around fighting for resources and policy changes that positively impact the Latino and and African-American communities in San Francisco. Chinchilla’s main endorsers are Mayor London Breed; Board of Supervisors President Malia Cohen; School Board members Shamann Walton and Mark Sanchez; Former Mayor Art Agnos; several labor unions.

Gabriela Lopez is a fourth grade teacher who has worked in public schools for 10 years. She has a master’s degree in education and has spent much of her career designing arts-based professional development for educators. Her priorities are improving the classroom environment with smaller class sizes and access to arts programming, supporting students’ different learning needs and expanding special education, and supporting teachers through higher salaries and access to housing. She has been endorsed by the SF Examiner, San Francisco Berniecrats; Supervisors Fewer, Kim, and Ronen; School board members Mark Sanchez and Matt Haney.

Screen Shot 2018-11-01 at 7.59.52 PM.png

Mia Satya: Badass

Mia Satya has an inspirational personal story. As a young trans woman growing up in rural Texas, she was relentlessly bullied. After moving to California, she struggled with homelessness, discrimination and violence but made a career of working with youth, at an afterschool program and various programs for homeless youth. She’s been a community organizer advocating for racial, economic, and gender justice, and is an effective advocate for youth facing multiple barriers to success. She has been endorsed by the Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club; Supervisors Mandelman and Kim; School Board Member Matt Haney, and City College Trustees Thea Selby, Shanell Williams, Tom Temprano, and Ivy Lee

Alison Collins is a mother of twins and a community organizer. She has a master’s degree in education, and worked for the Oakland school district in the past as an administrator. She has initiated campaigns to improve park safety and playground facilities. Her website says she “speaks out on parent rights and holding district leaders accountable,” however, I have also heard from a few sources that her style of advocacy is abrasive and unproductive. She must be doing something right, though, because she has an impressive list of endorsers (from the progressive side of town): San Francisco Democratic Party; the teachers union; the San Francisco Labor Council; the SF Examiner; Supervisors Cohen, Fewer, Peskin, Brown, Kim, Yee, Mandelman and Ronen.

PROPOSITION A – SEAWALL EARTHQUAKE SAFETY – YES

If you’ve taken a walk or bike ride along the Embarcadero, you have seen the crumbling concrete and dilapidated piers along San Francisco’s waterfront. Frankly, it’s embarrassing, and it’s also a threat to public safety. Ponder this: scientists predict that the sea level will rise three feet in the next 30 years, and that the Bay Area will see another earthquake of magnitude 6.7 or larger sometime in the same 30-year span. You can see why the repair of San Francisco seawall is more urgent than ever.

Proposition A is a $425 million bond that will pay for repairs to the Embarcadero seawall, which protects $100 billion in property and infrastructure that are currently at risk. Earthquakes and sea level rise are no joke, and as climate change brings more severe weather, high tides and flooding will put more strain on the wall. Repairing the seawall is also critical for the SF economy; San Francisco’s waterfront draws 24 million tourists every year.

The Proposition requires a two-thirds majority to pass, and pretty much everyone has endorsed it. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Who supports it: SF Chronicle, SF Examiner, Mayor London Breed and every member of the Board of Supervisors, Lt Governor Gavin Newsom, US Senator Dianne Feinstein, State Senator Scott Wiener, Assembly Member David Chiu, Assembly Member Phil Ting, building and construction trades, every member of the Port Commission (duh!) San Francisco Democratic Party, environmental groups including the Sierra Club and League of Conservation Voters

Who opposes it: Libertarian Party of San Francisco

PROPOSITION B – CITY PRIVACY GUIDELINES – NO

Data privacy is the hottest topic in government this year after data breaches at Facebook and other companies revealed how tech companies use consumer information. Proposition B is a non-binding resolution asking the city to set privacy standards for companies who do business in San Francisco. The idea is an appealing one, because everyone agrees that consumers should have more control over their data, and if SF – the capitol of tech – sets a high bar, the rest of the nation might follow.

Specifically, the authors of Proposition B want to give you more control over how your personal information – including your sexual orientation, race, national origin, or religious affiliation – is used and shared. They want to regulate how your information is being handed over to law enforcement, third party advertisers, or other private special interests. And they want you to have more control over the use of your location data. These are all appealing goals, and I don’t disagree with any of them. However, I think that a San Francisco privacy law is unnecessary because it’s duplicative of a new California law, and from the perspective of the businesses, a patchwork of city-by-city privacy laws is a nightmare to comply with.

In 2016 the European Union enacted GDPR, a landmark law that grants European consumers far more control over the use of their data. And in June of this year California also enacted its own privacy law mirroring many of the GDPR’s provisions. The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) will give consumers the right to know all data collected by a business on you; the right to say no to the sale of your information; the right to delete your data; and the right to know the business or commercial purpose of collecting your information, as well as the categories of third parties with whom your data is shared.*

Opponents of Prop B are focused on a tacked-on provision that would allow changes to City Hall’s transparency laws. It would give lawmakers more control over what the public can now access about meetings and public records, and this makes journalists, voting rights groups and good government groups very nervous. I agree with them that maintaining public access to government information is critical to keep public officials accountable for their actions.

* Note: I lead the compliance team at a tech company, and I’m working to get our CCPA compliance plan together before it goes into effect in 2020.

Who supports it: Board of Supervisors President Malia Cohen; Supervisors Sandra Lee Fewer, Jane Kim, Rafael Mandelman, Aaron Peskin (sponsor of the measure), Hillary Ronen, Norman Yee

Who opposes it: SF Chronicle, SF Examiner

PROPOSITION C – TAX ON BIG BUSINESS TO FUND HOMELESS SERVICES – NO

This was a tough one for me, and there are smart and thoughtful people on both sides of this measure. I’ll do my best to summarize the pros and cons, so that you can make your own decision.

Prop C will authorize the city to fund housing and homelessness services by enacting a new tax on medium-to-large businesses in San Francisco at the following rates:

0.175 percent to 0.69 percent on gross receipts (revenues) for businesses with over $50 million in annual revenue, or
5 percent of payroll expense for certain businesses with over $1 billion in annual revenues and administrative offices in San Francisco.

If passed, Prop C will establish the Our City, Our Home Fund, which will go toward permanent housing (50%), mental health services for homeless individuals (25%), homelessness prevention (15%), and short-term shelters (10%). The San Francisco Controller’s office says that the new tax would generate new tax revenue of approximately $250 million to $300 million annually beginning in 2019. In the interest of full disclosure, I work for one of the 400 companies that will be subject to the tax if Prop C passes.

Screen Shot 2018-11-01 at 8.10.33 PM.png

Photo: San Francisco Business Times

Prop C is the hottest topic on the San Francisco ballot. Progressives and homelessness organizations are rallying for it, framing it as a matter of social justice. Centrist politicians and business groups contend it is potentially a job-killer, it’s way more money than the city needs, and what’s needed are more creative solutions along with a better accounting of money already being spent. My objections to it are technical, namely, that a ballot measure is not the right way to solve this problem, because it locks in the spending requirements in perpetuity, which is a terrible way to run a government program.

Arguments in favor of Prop C:

It’s about damn time! Homelessness is by far the city’s biggest problem, and it’s getting worse. Thousands of people sleep on the streets every night, and thousands more are at risk of becoming homeless. It’s inhumane and appalling that we are letting human beings continue to live in such horrific conditions. Plus, it’s hurting tourism and retail sales. SF is seeing fewer visitors because of the shocking number of people on the streets.
San Francisco is the city of love, and it should live up to its nickname. The big companies that are based here were attracted here in part because of the compassion and progressive ethics San Francisco is known for. Getting people off the streets will make San Francisco a better place to live for everyone.
The city spends $300 million per year on homeless services and it’s clearly not enough. Doubling this amount will make a huge dent in the homeless problem. Prop C funds will pay for housing for at least 5,000 people, 1,000 new emergency shelter beds and mental health programs for hundreds of people in dire straits. For years now, our elected leaders have tried to solve the issue, but have yet to commit the resources necessary to adequately address this complex problem.
Big companies can afford it. SF is an incredibly rich city with some very successful businesses, and they can afford to make San Francisco better in exchange for their success here. Moreover, the companies that created all the jobs in San Francisco are actually contributing to the homeless problem, by causing the insane housing demand in the city, driving housing prices up. They should pay to solve the problem.

Arguments against Prop C:

Homelessness shouldn’t be solved by ballot measure! You’ve heard me say it before: a ballot measure can only be amended or repealed by another ballot measure, and that’s a terrible way to make government decisions. Prop C will lock in existing funding levels and direct new spending, making the city’s homelessness spending nearly impossible to change. The city’s intractable homeless problem requires a multi-faceted, nuanced approach that HAS TO be able to iterate over time. Let’s find a better way to secure more funding for homeless programs, and make sure that the money is spent appropriately. To me, this is a very strong case against Prop C.
It’s too much money for homelessness relative to other spending. Prop C secures $682 million for the Department of Homelessness. For comparison, that’s 3x the budget of Rec and Park ($231 million), 7x the budget of the Department of Emergency Management ($95 million), 4x the budget of Libraries ($160 million), and nearly 3x the budget of the Sheriff’s Department, which includes the jails ($249 million). Moreover, if Prop 2 (2018) on the California ballot passes, SF is poised to receive another $100 million per year for homelessness programs. Senator Scott Wiener also recently secured $30 million from the state budget for homeless youth programs. Does SF need $812 million per year for the homeless?! No.
It’s more money than SF needs. San Francisco is actually doing a lot right now to solve the homeless problem, as evidenced by: (1) the growing numbers of navigation centers around the city; (2) the planned opening of a city-sponsored drug injection center; (3) new conservatorship rules to allow the city to help the homeless mentally ill; (4) Mayor Breed’s initiative to build 1000 new shelter beds; and (5) the securing of $30 million for homeless youth programs from the state budget this year. While still bad, the problem has actually gotten much better this year because the city is willing to take risks, and find more efficient ways to use its existing budget.
Prop C doesn’t contain a sunset provision. Meaning, it goes on forever! This is just unreasonable and shortsighted. I can understand the argument that we need to spend a lot of money up front to solve the intractable homeless problem. But once we’ve solved it, and everyone has housing, these programs won’t cost as much, year-over-year, right?
Money is not the cure-all to end homelessness. While our city’s homelessness spending has more than tripled over nearly two decades, the number of people experiencing homelessness on our streets has remained the same at about 7,000. This shows that money alone won’t solve the problem. There is nothing in Prop. C about enforcing laws against street tents, aggressive panhandling, or compelling treatment on people with grave mental illness. (On the other hand, there is nothing in Prop C that prevents city government from separately enacting and enforcing these laws.)
Big companies will leave San Francisco, and the local economy will suffer. I work for one of the companies that will be subject to this new tax, and I don’t buy the argument that companies will leave. Every time a new tax is threatened against big business, the Chamber of Commerce cries wolf, and then companies never actually move away. San Francisco is still San Francisco, and it’s a lot easier to recruit top talent when you’re based here. In fact, solving the homelessness crisis will make SF even more appealing for companies and workers to move here. A report by the city’s economist found that Proposition C’s “impacts are small in the context of the city’s job market and economy, equal to a 0.1% difference, on average, over 20 years.”
SF will lose jobs if Prop C passes. Because Prop C includes a payroll-based tax, it penalizes companies for the salaries they pay here in San Francisco, so it does incentivize them to move some jobs elsewhere – jobs like customer support, engineering, communications, finance and other functions that can be done remotely. While it’s unlikely that entire companies will move away, I do think that companies will stop hiring for certain kinds of positions here if the tax is imposed. (Given the insane demand for housing, maybe SF can afford to lose a few jobs?)
The tax is convoluted, leading to unfair results like smaller companies paying way more than huge companies. This article in the Chronicle does a good job of explaining why some smaller companies will bear an unfair tax burden, and why the structure of the tax can lead to higher prices for everything in SF. It includes an illustration as to how a single transaction could be taxed three times under Prop C. Companies that have big revenues but small (or non-existent) profits like Lyft and Uber will be especially F’ed under Prop C because a gross receipts tax is charged on their total revenue, not on their margins.
Increasing our spending on homelessness will draw more homeless people to San Francisco. The data just don’t bear this argument out. Most homeless San Franciscans became homeless IN San Francisco, and generally speaking, poor people stay where their support network is located. In any case, the way housing is allocated by the city is by giving long term residents priority, so the Prop C money won’t go to people who relocate here.
Prop C is a blank check, and the city is going to waste the money. San Francisco has been working to make its existing investment in homeless services more efficient and effective. But a huge infusion of Prop. C money would relieve pressure on city bureaucracy to identify and eliminate spending that isn’t working. The measure doesn’t include any mechanism for tracking spending, and it doesn’t include any performance requirements. There will be no way to know whether the agencies who receive the funds are using them wisely. Having worked in city government, I have seen the waste and inefficiency first hand, so this argument is very persuasive to me.
Prop C is an abuse of the initiative process. When the authors of Prop C were writing it, they didn’t include the Mayor, the Board of Supervisors, or the companies who will be impacted, and that will lead to bad law THAT WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE TO MODIFY WITHOUT ANOTHER BALLOT MEASURE. In the words of state senator Scott Weiner, “Prop C is… a massive tax increase – the largest tax increase in San Francisco history – yet the people who drafted Prop C did not engage a broad set of stakeholders. They didn’t even work with our Mayor. Prop C isn’t how government should work. A tax increase of this magnitude should engage a broad array of stakeholders in crafting the tax’s size, sources, and uses. That didn’t happen here. The voters should reject Prop C and allow for a true stakeholder process to determine the best approach to addressing our needs around homelessness.” I totally agree. Prop C is a blunt instrument, and what we need is a more holistic, nuanced approach to solving the problem.

After researching the $!@# out of this measure, I am voting against it. But it was a tough call because I recognize that more needs to be done to solve this problem. If Prop C passes, I hope that the companies that would have been subject to the tax will make big donations to homeless programs with proven track records, and come to the table to help the city solve this problem for good.

Who supports it: SF Examiner; Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi; Congresswoman Jackie Speier; Assemblymember Phil Ting; Supervisors Sandra Lee Fewer, Aaron Peskin, Vallie Brown, Jane Kim, Norman Yee, Rafael Mandelman, and Hillary Ronen; Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff; Comedian Chris Rock (huh?); San Francisco Democratic Party; Affordable Housing Alliance; Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods; GLIDE church; St. Anthony’s; SF teachers union; Mental Health Association of San Francisco; SPUR; San Francisco Tenants Union; San Francisco Board of Education; Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club; Alice B. Toklas Democratic Club

Who opposes it: SF Chronicle; Mayor London Breed; Lt Governor Gavin Newsom; State Senator Scott Weiner; Assemblymember David Chiu; police and firefighters unions; Chamber of Commerce; small business community, Supervisors Katy Tang and Catherin Stefani; Laborers union; Hotel Council; Edwin M. Lee Democratic Club; Chinese American Democratic Club; City Democratic Club.

PROPOSITION D – CANNABIS BUSINESS TAX – NO

Prop D would place a new tax on cannabis businesses based on their gross receipts (revenues). It would exempt their first $500K in revenue, and any revenue generated up to $1M would be taxed at an additional 2.5%. Revenue greater than $1M would be taxed at an additional 5%.

Beginning in 2021, the money collected from the tax would go into the general fund, so the city can spend it however it wishes. The city controller predicts proceeds of $2 million to $4 million at first, growing to as much as $16 million in three years.

The main argument against Prop D is that taxing marijuana products will – surprise! – make them more expensive to buy. And that will drive more consumers to buying it on the black market. The illegal market doesn’t pay taxes, and they also don’t have to test their products for quality or safety. They can also mistreat workers and damage the environment with impunity. All these things together make their products much cheaper.

By contrast, legal cannabis operators abide by the laws imposed on other businesses in California. They have to get permits; pay banks transaction fees; pay the business income tax, excise tax, and sales taxes; hire accountants and attorneys and an HR department; obtain workers comp insurance; require sexual harassment training for employees; yada yada yada. You can see how it adds up.

On the other hand, the proponents of Prop D, however, say that the new tax will help the city put illegal operators out of business, with increased building inspections, permit processing and legal action against non-compliant companies. They claim it will also go toward education of the citizenry about cannabis dispensaries, since there is still a lot of opposition to placing new dispensaries in most neighborhoods. However, since the revenues of Prop D will go into the General Fund, there is no requirement that they will be spent on these things. I’d be more persuaded to support Prop D if the money was required to be spent on enforcement and education.

As a person whose job title includes the word “compliance,” I am generally supportive of companies who make an effort to obey the law, and I think that we ought to give the legitimate cannabis companies a break. I can’t imagine the stress of running a marijuana business out in the open these days, given that it is still illegal under federal law, and that the Jeff Sessions Department of Justice is just dying to make an example of California.

Who supports it: SF Bay Guardian; Board of Supervisors President Malia Cohen; Supervisors Norman Yee, Katy Tang, Catherine Stefani and Vallie Brown

Who opposes it: SF Chronicle, SF Examiner; SF Chamber of Commerce; Supervisors Hillary Ronen, and Jane Kim; State Senator Scott Wiener; Board of Equalization member (and soon-to-be State Treasurer) Fiona Ma

Proposition E – Arts and Cultural Allocation – Yes

San Francisco charges a 14% bed tax on hotels, B&Bs, and Airbnb hosts, and it brings in about in $370 million per year. Prop E would take an 8% slice of this tax revenue and dedicate it to arts and cultural organizations and projects in the city, boosting the city’s arts budget from $22 million per year (2018) to $35 million by 2022. It requires a two-thirds vote to pass.

Prop E is about to make me a hypocrite. I like this measure because I support the arts and want to see them flourish in the city. I hate this measure because it’s a set-aside, and budgeting by ballot box is no way to run a government. Sigh.

The arguments in favor of Prop E:

Yay for the arts!
Prop E won’t increase any taxes, it merely redistributes the existing tax that is mostly paid by tourists.
The proposition will benefit a diverse and dynamic part of the city’s economy and personality.
Prop E reflects the original intent of the city’s hotel tax, which was created with a portion dedicated to the arts and culture because they help drive tourism. Prop E merely restores the original set-aside.
“The housing crisis and the affordability challenges that we face here in San Francisco mean that we are losing the lifeblood of cultural bearers and artists that make San Francisco the community we love.” – Rachel Lastimosa, arts and culture administrator of the city’s Filipino cultural district.

The one really good argument against Prop E:

Prop E IS A G&^%*#* SET-ASIDE. It would reduce budget flexibility by locking in the arts funding by way of ballot measure, which – say it with me – can’t be repealed or amended, except by another ballot measure, blah blah blah, and is a terrible way to run a government. When the city faces a downturn, and needs those Prop E funds for, say, recovery from a catastrophic earthquake/tsunami, or building its own militia to defend its water supply from invaders… it will be nearly impossible to do so.

I will close with a quotation that explains why I am voting yes on Prop E.

“The arts are what makes life worth living. You’ve got food, you’ve got shelter, yeah. But the things that make you laugh, make you cry, make you connect – make you love are communicated through the arts. They aren’t extras.”

— President Barack Obama

Who supports it: SF Chronicle; Mayor London Breed; Supervisors Katy Tang and Aaron Peskin; Tom Decaigny, director of cultural affairs, San Francisco Arts Commission; Hotel Council of San Francisco; United Educators of San Francisco; San Francisco Arts Education Project; San Franciscans for the Arts

Who opposes it: SF Examiner; Libertarian Party of San Francisco

Thanks for reading! If you found my voter guide useful, please share it on social media and consider donating here to support my writing habit. Thank you! My guide to the California measures and races can be found here.

Tagged aaron peskin, alix rosenthal, ballot, ballot measures, board fo education, board of education, california, campaigns, christine johnson, college board, development, election, faauuga moliga, gross receipts tax, homelessness, hotel tax, housing, john rizzo, london breed, marijuana tax, matt haney, michelle parker, our city our home, payroll tax, phil kim, privacy guidelines, prop a, prop c, prop e, proposition, public schools, real estate, recommendations, san francisco, school board, seawall, shamann walton, sonya trauss, thea selby, victor olivieri, voter guide, voting
Leave a comment

October 15, 2018

Alix’s Voter Guide – California Ballot, November 2018

I don’t think I’ve ever been so eager for an election to come. I don’t know about you, but I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore. Watching the Kavanaugh proceedings made me want to scream, cry, and volunteer for women running for political office. If you feel the same, I strongly recommend getting in touch with SwingLeft and Indivisible, two groups that are working hard to take Congress back. You can phone bank, you can volunteer your time, you can donate, you can post their websites on social media. It’s not too late. Do it.

Donate to Jacky Rosen for US Senate in Nevada, she is poised to beat (R) incumbent Dean Heller: https://www.rosenfornevada.com/

But just as important, please help make sure that everyone you know VOTES. Every single vote will matter in this election. The registration deadline in California is October 22, and the website with all the info you need is here. Call everyone you know in Nevada, Arizona, Texas, Florida, Missouri, and North Dakota and make sure they are voting for the Democratic candidates for Senate and Congress.

The theme of this November’s ballot is the #BlueWave that many of us are hoping for, and the efforts to keep it from happening. 44% of Californians are registered Democrat, 25% Republican, and 26% have indicated no party preference. Which makes the latter group very powerful, as you can see because you’re good at math. California is the center of the universe in November, as we are trying to flip 9 House seats here, including some very big name Republican incumbents (Devin Nunes, Tom McClintock, Dana Rohrabacher, Duncan Hunter). If we can topple these guys (and they are all guys), we can take down a President and his cronies.

The statewide candidate races are mostly snoozers, since most of the Democrats who made it into the general election have wide leads. As for the statewide ballot measures, there are only a few BFDs. Most of the propositions are about housing and infrastructure, and how to pay for them. Three of the measures are about how to manage discrete parts of the health care system in California. And one is about whether California should have permanent Daylight Savings Time. Yes really.

My guide to the November 2018 San Francisco ballot can be found here.

US Senate – Dianne Feinstein
Governor – Gavin Newsom
Lt. Governor – Eleni Kounalakis
Secretary of State – Alex Padilla
Controller – Betty Yee
Treasurer – Fiona Ma
Attorney General – Xavier Becerra
Insurance Commissioner – Ricardo Lara
Superintendent of Public Instruction – Tony Thurmond
Board of Equalization (Dist. 2) – Malia Cohen
CA Supreme Ct.– Kruger Yes, Corrigan No?
All Other Justices – Yes

Prop 1 – Housing Assistance Programs – YES
Prop 2 – Housing for Mentally Ill – YES
Prop 3 – Water Supply Sustainability – NO
Prop 4 – Children’s Hospitals – YES
Prop 5 – Property Tax Transfers – NO
Prop 6 – Gas Tax Repeal – NO NO NO
Prop 7 – Change Daylight Savings – yes?
Prop 8 – Outpatient Dialysis Centers – NO
Prop 9 – [removed from the ballot]
Prop 10 – Local Rent Control – YES
Prop 11 – Ambulance Workers’ Breaks – NO
Prop 12 – Farm Animal Confinement – YES

THE CANDIDATES

I’m not going to go into much detail for the candidates for statewide office, because you’ve heard it before. Each of the candidates I endorsed in the June election made it past the primary into the November election, so if you want more detail, please check out my June voter guide. Here is a brief update on what has happened since June.

US Senate – Dianne Feinstein

In the June primary, Kevin De Leon squeaked his way into the general election with 12% of the vote against Dianne Feinstein, who beat the rest of a crowded field with 44%. It is theoretically possible for DeLeon to beat Feinstein in November, however, DeLeon is running to Feinstein’s left, and general elections tend to vote more moderate than primaries.* Moreover, progressives who have been watching the Kavanaugh hearings are happy enough with Feinstein given her role in attacking the nominee. She hasn’t pulled any punches with Kavanaugh or the old white men who control the Senate, IMO.

*Also: Prop 6 is going to pull conservative voters out of the woodwork in California. See my analysis of Prop 6 below.

Governor – Gavin Newsom

In the June election, Gavin Newsom (D) got 34% to John Cox’s (R) 25% and Antonio Villaraigosa’s (D) 13%. Newsom is facing Cox in November, and he’s hoping that the Blue Wave and Villaraigosa’s voters will put him over the top. It’s a good bet, although there’s a wild card in this race, and that’s the impact that Prop 6 will have in pulling conservative voters out to vote for Cox. (See below)

Lt. Governor – Eleni Kounalakis

Notably, this is one of the few races between two Democrats in November, and it’s a tossup. Eleni Kounalakis got 24% of the vote in June, to Ed Hernandez’s 20%. Given the energy and enthusiasm behind women candidates this fall (including my own!), my money is on Kounalakis.

That said, Eleni has less experience in government than her opponent. And she comes from a wealthy family who has given gobs of money to Democrats over the years (which *might* have something to do with why she was appointed ambassador). Nothing wrong with being wealthy, I just want to know that she is doing her homework and willing to work hard, and that she shares my values. My research and my sources say that these things are true. Also, the job of Lieutenant Governor is a nothingburger, so the stakes are low, IMO.

Secretary of State – Alex Padilla

In the June election, Democrat Alex Padilla won 53% of the vote against Republican Mark Meuser (who?), who garnered only 31%. Since Padilla already has a majority of the state behind him, his victory in November isn’t in doubt. Which is good, now he can spend his time fixing the DMV voter registration debacle.

Controller – Betty Yee

In June, Betty earned 62% of the vote against Republican Konstantinos Roditis. Because Betty already has a majority of votes, she is a shoo-in.

Treasurer – Fiona Ma

Board of Equalization Member Fiona Ma (D) won 45% of the vote in June, beating Republican Greg Conlon by 24 points. It would be nearly impossible for him to overcome Ma’s lead in November.

Attorney General – Xavier Becerra

Incumbent Xavier Becerra (D) won the primary with 46% in June, and his next opponent is Steven Bailey (R), who came in with only 25%. The June primary was a three-way race between these two and Dave Jones, who is also a Democrat, so it’s fair to assume that most of Jones’ voters will swing to Becerra in the November election. 46 + 15 = 61. Becerra wins because math.

Insurance Commissioner – Ricardo Lara

If Democrat Ricardo Lara wins, he’ll be the first openly gay person elected to statewide office in California. But he’s got a tough fight ahead of him. Lara received 40.5% of the vote in June to (Republican-until-recently) Steve Poizner’s 41%, so it’s neck and neck. Poizner has an edge because he has held the office before (2007-11) and has lots of name recognition statewide. He’s also gotten some big endorsements recently, including the San Francisco Chronicle and the Sacramento Bee. However, the 3^rd place finisher in June was a Democrat (Asif Mahmood – 13%), so it’s likely that his votes add to Lara’s total, not Poizner’s. It might be a squeaker. See my June voter guide for why I think Lara should win.

Superintendent of Public Instruction – Tony Thurmond

In the June primary, Democrat Marshall Tuck won 37% of the vote to Democrat Tony Thurmond’s 36%. This one is too close to call. See my June voter guide for why I recommend Thurmond.

Board of Equalization (Dist. 2) – Malia Cohen

Malia Cohen ran away with the June election, earning 39% of the vote, compared to Republican Mark Burns (27%) and conservative Democrat Cathleen Galgani (26%). Cohen will beat Burns, because most of Galgani’s votes will go to Cohen.

CA Supreme Court Justices – Yes on Kruger, No on Corrigan?

Nobody ever pays attention to state Supreme Court elections, because they are weird and the candidates don’t campaign. Justices are first appointed by the Governor, and then they have to be approved by the voters – with a yes or no vote – at the first gubernatorial election after their appointment. If approved, they get to stay on the court, and they are put forward for another confirmation vote every 12 years. Nobody runs against them, and justices generally don’t campaign for their seats, so it’s hard to know anything about these people unless you are an attorney who appears before the Supreme Court.

Leondra Kruger and Carol Corrigan are the two justices up for election in November. Kruger was appointed by Governor Jerry Brown in 2014 and this is her first election to confirm the appointment. She is the second African-American woman to serve on the state Supreme Court, and she is doing a fine job by all accounts. Corrigan was appointed in 2005 by Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger. She was retained by voters in 2006, so this is her second election. The one thing you should know about Corrigan is that she dissented from the historic 2008 California Supreme Court case that legalized gay marriage in this state. She wrote that the court shouldn’t interfere with a vote of the people (the “vote of the people” in this case was the abhorrent Prop 8 that outlawed gay marriage). This doesn’t necessarily mean that she has something against gay people. And it also doesn’t necessarily mean that you should vote down a Supreme Court Justice on the basis of a single decision, out of hundreds of decisions under her belt. But, you know, knowledge is power.

All Other Justices – Yes

I don’t actually have an opinion on each of these races, and I honestly don’t think they should be on the ballot. No one is campaigning for or against these judges, so I think it doesn’t even matter how you vote.

STATE INITIATIVES

Prop 1 – Housing Assistance Programs – YES

If approved, Prop 1 will issue $4 billion in bonds for existing housing programs, including $1.5 billion for multifamily housing programs for low-income Californians, $1 billion for veterans home loans, $450 million for urban infill projects (like building housing on vacant parking lots) and transit-oriented housing projects, $300 million for farmworker housing, and $300 million for manufactured and mobile homes.

Prop 1 is a general obligation bond. As a refresher, general obligation bonds are essentially loans that the state takes out and then repays with interest over time. The bonds are repaid from the state’s General Fund, and that’s why they have to be approved by the voters. The General Fund also pays for essential services like health care, road repairs, and law enforcement, so we want to be careful about how we’re obligating it to other purposes.

Prop 1 was part of a bigger legislative package that was passed in August 2017. The measure was designed to increase housing production and lower housing costs, and the legislature voted nearly unanimously to put it on the ballot. If it passes, it won’t create any new housing programs, it will merely fund existing housing programs that have been proven to be successful.

I don’t need to tell you that California is in a housing crisis. It’s a statewide problem, and it needs a statewide solution. Investing more public funds toward building new affordable housing is a good start, however we also need streamlined regulations and incentives to build more housing in areas that can accommodate higher density (ahem, SF). And those are in the works. But in the meantime, passing Prop 1 is an important piece of the puzzle.

Who’s supporting it: Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (who contributed $250k); affordable housing groups; disability rights groups; building and construction trade unions; silicon valley business leaders.

Who’s opposing it: No official opposition

Prop 2 – Housing for People with Mental Illness – YES

Before we discuss Prop 2, let’s talk about set-asides.

A set-aside is a law that requires a specific funding source to pay for a specific program, SETTING the revenue stream ASIDE from the normal budgeting process. When a set-aside is created by ballot measure, the only way to change it is by another ballot measure – GAH! – which is a horrible way to govern.* I generally oppose set-asides because they tie the hands of future legislatures and they make it extremely difficult to adjust an annual budget according to the state’s changing needs. There are literally dozens of set-asides that have been approved by previous generations of voters that we are dealing with today. Which brings me to Prop 2.

Prop 2 is not a set-aside. But it does AMEND a previously approved set-aside (Prop 63) to make its funding more flexible. Prop 2 is a technical measure that merely allows the state government to use revenue from the existing “millionaire’s tax” for homelessness prevention.

Prop 63 (Mental Health Services Act, a.k.a. the “millionaire’s tax”) was approved in 2004. It’s a 1% income tax on people who make more than $1 million per year, requiring that the revenues go toward mental health services. Prop 2 (2018) will expand the use of this tax revenue so that it can go toward supportive housing for folks with mental health issues that put them at risk for homelessness. San Francisco would get about $100 million from the new revenue stream, because a significant portion of homeless San Franciscans have mental health issues.

Prop. 2 is a good idea. It affects only a modest slice of the Prop 63 revenue, and it is entirely consistent with the purpose of the original ballot measure. And cities desperately need the money to create more supportive housing for Californians with mental health problems. Vote yes.

*See also: Props C and Prop E on the SF ballot

Who’s supporting it: CA American College of Emergency Physicians; CA Labor Federation; CA Police Chiefs Association; CA State Firefighters’ Association; Habitat for Humanity; League of California Cities; League of Women Voters; National Alliance on Mental Illness CA

Who’s opposing it: No official opponents

Prop 3 – Water Supply Sustainability – NO

On its surface, Prop 3 seems like a good idea. It would issue nearly $9 billion in bonds for water-related infrastructure and environmental projects, including groundwater supplies and storage, dam repairs, watershed and fisheries improvements, and habitat protection and restoration. Who doesn’t love all of those things? Especially in the Trump era, when the federal government is wiping out all the programs that support water sustainability.

What’s fishy* about this measure is that it was funded in part by the very people and organizations that will receive a portion of the bond money. A few newspapers have called it a “pay-to-play” scheme, since it includes giveaways to some of the same special interests who qualified it for the ballot. I have supported previous water bonds that came before the voters in CA, but those measures were crafted in an impartial way by lawmakers or citizen committees. By contrast, Prop 3 did not go through the legislative process, and its $430 million in annual spending commitments over the next four decades will not need to go through the annual budgeting cycle to ensure that the funds are going where the voters intended. So there is not enough accountability for how the money will be spent.

The state fiscal analyst said the bond would generate about $8.4 billion in interest over a 40-year period, meaning the bond would cost the state a total of $17.3 billion. Eek. Vote no.

* pun intended

Who’s supporting it: Fresno Bee; Farmers, growers and agricultural associations; Dozens of environmental groups; 90+ water agencies; US Senator Dianne Feinstein; Gubernatorial candidate John Cox (R); Candidate for Treasurer Fiona Ma (D); Congressman John Garamendi (D); California Labor Federation

Who’s opposing it: SF Chronicle; Mercury News; Sacramento Bee; Sierra Club of CA; Friends of the River; League of Women Voters of California; Save The American River Association; Southern California Watershed Alliance

Prop 4 – Children’s Hospitals – YES

California has 13 regional children’s hospitals that provide specialized care to children and young adults up to age 21 who are suffering from serious and life-threatening diseases such as leukemia, sickle cell disease, cancer, and cystic fibrosis. Prop 4 is a $1.5 billion general obligation bond that will support the construction, expansion, renovation, and equipping of these children’s hospitals. They promise to use the money to acquire the latest technology and life-saving medical equipment.

The question for voters is, not whether this is a worthy cause (it clearly is!), but whether we should keep supporting these hospitals’ capital needs through general obligation bonds.

The interest on this bond would be $1.4 billion over 35 years, bringing the total cost of the bond to $2.9 billion. While this sounds like a lot of money, it’s actually quite small as far as state bonds go. (Compare it to, for example, Props 1 and 3). Bonds are paid off via the general fund, which cuts into money for other programs serving children (and everyone else).

Arguments against it:

This is the third general obligation bond for children’s hospitals in the past 14 years. Isn’t there a better way to pay for these important resources? A dedicated tax for children’s hospitals would be cheaper in the long run, because it wouldn’t involve paying so much in interest. (But new taxes are way harder to get approved.)
The initiative process is the wrong place to set budget priorities and encumber state government with repayment obligations that will make it harder to fund education, public safety and other programs in lean times.

Arguments for it:

From everything I’ve read, the spending on previous hospital bonds has been responsible, and I have every reason to believe the money from this bond will be spent appropriately.
These hospitals take in children from poor families for often subpar government reimbursement, so they deserve a boost.
This money will make a difference. Children’s hospitals are on the cutting edge of pediatric research; they perform 97 percent of pediatric organ transplants and 96 percent of all pediatric heart surgeries; and they oversee 76 percent of all pediatric cancer treatments, according to the California Hospital Association.

Who would not want the best for their children when they face a dire medical condition? I’m voting yes.

Who’s supporting it: SF Chronicle, LA Times, Mercury News, East Bay Times, Sacramento Bee, San Diego Union Tribune, Gavin Newsom, Alex Padilla, CA Democratic Party, California Hospital Assn, CA Medical Assn.

Who’s opposing it: No official opponent

Prop 5- Property Tax Transfers – NO

On its face, this seems like a good idea: making it easier for homebuyers who are older or disabled to transfer their existing tax assessments, so that they don’t have to pay higher taxes on their new home.

Prop 5 (2018) would amend Proposition 13 (1978) to allow homebuyers who are age 55 or older or severely disabled to transfer the tax-assessed value from their prior home to their new home, no matter (a) the new home’s market value; (b) the new home’s location in the state; or (c) the number of moves. Keep in mind, though, that homebuyers over 55 years of age are already eligible to transfer their tax assessments from their prior home if the new home’s market value is equal to or less than the prior home’s value and once in their lifetimes. So –empty nesters who want to downsize are able to keep their lower tax base on their new (smaller, cheaper) home.

This means that Prop 5 would only help folks who are buying a more expensive home than their original home, or who are moving for a second, third or fourth time after the age of 55. Basically, it helps the wealthy who don’t want to pay more in taxes if they get a fancier home, and it will cost cities and counties $2 billion in lost revenue to pay for things like public safety and housing the homeless. Meanwhile, younger, first-time home buyers with less income will face higher housing prices, and renters will have an even harder time becoming homeowners.

The California Association of Realtors developed the ballot initiative and filed to get it on the ballot, basically to enrich themselves. The newspapers who support the measure wrote endorsements that read like backhanded compliments:

Orange County Register: “While it’s true this reform will benefit many wealthier Californians, the tens of thousands of moves estimated by the legislative analyst to result from Prop. 5 is sure to free up critically needed housing stock.“

San Diego Union-Tribune: “The sponsors of Proposition 5 — real estate agents — came up with the measure to pad their pockets. But it’s actually a smart idea that will both give older people more flexibility with their lives and introduce liquidity to a housing market that could badly use it.”

Got it. So this measure will help make rich people richer, and it will create more demand AND supply for homes in California, probably driving home prices even higher. This is why most newspapers in the state oppose it, such as the San Francisco Chronicle, who wrote, “What makes this proposition all the more galling is the fact that this is the group of Californians who least deserve another tax break. They’re already reaping the benefit of rock-bottom property taxes and they’ve had the opportunity to build up equity in their homes. Meanwhile, their younger counterparts in California, who would bear the brunt of service cuts under Prop. 5, increasingly find homeownership out of reach. There’s nothing in Prop. 5 that would alter this calculus, and it should go down in flames.”

Support: Orange County Register, SD Union-Tribune, Calif Association of Realtors, CA Chamber of Commerce

Oppose: SF Chronicle, Mercury News, Sacramento Bee, California Teachers Union, Assembly member David Chiu

Prop 6 – Gas Tax Repeal – NO NO NO

Prop 6 is very bad. If passed, it will repeal the gas tax increases and vehicle fees that were enacted in 2017, AND make it much harder for California to impose gas taxes and vehicle fees in the future.

This measure is the big daddy of them all this year. Progressives are lined up against it, conservatives are all in for it, and Republicans hope it gets their voters excited to turn out this November. Prop 6 is bad for Gavin Newsom for Governor, it is bad for the progressive measures on this ballot, and very bad for the Blue Wave we are all hoping will take back more House seats from the GOP. The measure is funded by Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, gubernatorial candidate John Cox and the rest of the GOP leadership in Congress. Isn’t that all you need to know?

By the way, it is generally very hard to increase a tax in California. You need a two-thirds vote of both the state Senate and state Assembly, which usually means getting Republicans on board with it, and you need a signature of the Governor. Proposition 6 would make this process even harder by creating the additional step of voter approval to impose, increase, or extend fuel taxes or vehicle fees.

Here’s the background: The 2017 gas tax (a.k.a. The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017), increased fuel prices by $0.12 per gallon, and it is expected to generate an estimated $52.4 billion in revenue between 2017 and 2027. You may remember that just a few months ago, voters approved Proposition 69, which required the legislature to spend RRAA revenue on transportation-related purposes. The money is going towards repairing roads, fixing bridges, bicycle and pedestrian improvement projects (yay!) and other infrastructure.

Opponents of Prop 6 say that this measure will hurt job creation and the state’s economy; it will stop roads from being fixed and worsen congestion. As Governor Brown said, “I can’t believe the proponents of this ballot measure really want Californians to keep driving on lousy roads and dangerous bridges. Taking billions of dollars a year from road maintenance and repair borders on insanity.” Vote no.

Who’s supporting it: Orange County Register; Speaker of the U.S. House Paul Ryan (R); U.S. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R); Congressman Devin Nunes (R); gubernatorial candidate John Cox (R); California Republican Party

Who’s opposing it: LA Times; SF Chronicle; Sacramento Bee; Mercury News; Governor Jerry Brown (D); California Democratic Party; California Chamber of Commerce; California Bicycle Coalition

Prop 7 – Change Daylight Savings – Yes?

I’m mad at you, Prop 7. Here I am, researching the pros and cons of daylight savings time, when I could be phone banking for Jacky Rosen for Senate, or painting my daughter’s toenails. Seriously, though, this one has to go down as one of the silliest ballot measures on record.

Prop 7, if approved, will authorize the state legislature to provide for permanent Daylight Savings Time if the federal government allows it. That means, IF PROP 7 PASSES, in order for us to have permanent daylight savings, BOTH the federal government AND the state legislature have to approve it, the latter by a two-thirds vote. The reason why this has to be a ballot measure is because we need to repeal Prop 12 (1949) which established Daylight Savings Time in the first place, and – say it with me – a ballot measure can only be amended or repealed by another ballot measure.

As it stands, California cannot adopt permanent Daylight Savings Time without an act of Congress. In 2016, the California State Legislature asked the President and Congress to pass a law that would allow California to adopt year-round DST. Their response? <crickets>

Arguments in favor of Prop 7:

Time changes are bad for your health. University medical studies in 2012 found that the risk of heart attacks increases by 10% in the two days following a time change. In 2016, further research revealed that stroke risks increase 8% when we change our clocks. For cancer patients the stroke risk increases 25% and for people over age 65 stroke risk goes up 20%. All because we disrupt sleep patterns.
Time changes are bad for the children. Ask any parent – kids get all out of whack when their sleep patterns are disrupted.
Time changes increase energy consumption. Changing our clocks twice a year increases our use of electricity, and the amount of fuel we use in our cars. I read that changing to permanent DST would save consumers an estimated $434 million.
Time changes are so passé. 68% of all the countries in the world have stopped changing their clocks.

Arguments against Prop 7:

No chance it will happen. If progressive California wants it, the (petty) Republican federal government won’t give it to us.
Permanent DST threatens public safety. Severin Borenstein, a professor at the UC Berkeley Haas School of Business, said, “Permanent DST would likely lead to more pedestrian accidents on winter mornings as more adults and children venture out in darkness.”
Really? With so many other critical issues facing this state — homelessness, sea level rise, transportation infrastructure – Prop 7 is a waste of time.

I really don’t care how you vote on this one. I’ll probably vote yes, because of the children and the cancer patients. But really, who cares?

Who’s supporting it: Congressman Kansen Chu (D); Congresswoman Lorena Gonzalez

Who’s opposing it: SF Chronicle; Sacramento Bee; State Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson

Prop 8 – Outpatient Dialysis Treatment – NO

This is another ridiculous one that shouldn’t be on the ballot, IMO. Prop 8, if passed, would limit the profits of kidney dialysis clinics by requiring them to issue refunds for revenue above 115% of the costs of direct patient care and healthcare improvements. Have your eyes glazed over yet? Yeah me too. Seems kind of crazy that voters would be asked to make such a technical decision regarding an issue that affects only a small minority of Californians.

If you’re thinking there must be a salacious back story here, you’d be right. SEIU-UHW West, a labor union, is in a fight with the state’s two largest dialysis businesses DaVita and Fresenius Medical Care. SEIU has been trying to organize the workers at these clinics since 2016 without success, and they claim that the employers have been retaliating against pro-union employees. So SEIU is using its muscle in trying to obtain from the ballot box what it could not achieve through other processes.

Even though I usually side with unions, I’m certain that this is not the kind of thing that should be regulated by ballot measure. As you know, a ballot measure can only be amended or repealed by another ballot measure, and that’s no way to govern a state. Super detailed, highly technical laws should NEVER be passed by ballot measure because they usually need adjusting over time, and that can’t happen if they are approved by voters. Moreover, if this measure passes, and dialysis clinics start going out of business, it jeopardizes access to care for patients in California who need dialysis treatments to stay alive. SEIU should make its case in court, or with the legislature, or the National Labor Relations Board, anywhere but the ballot box.

Who’s supporting it: SEIU-UHW; CA Public Employees’ Retirement System; CA Labor Federation

Who’s opposing it: SF Chronicle, LA Times, and EVERY SINGLE NEWSPAPER in the state; The American Nurses Association (California), California Medical Association, American College of Emergency Physicians, California Chapter, National Kidney Foundation and patient advocates

Prop 9

Wait a minute – why isn’t there a Prop 9? This was the initiative to split California into three different states. It was removed from the ballot by the state Supreme Court in July because they found it to be an illegal constitutional amendment.

Prop 10 – Costa-Hawkins Repeal – YES

This might be the most controversial issue on the statewide ballot this year, and there are reasonable people on both sides. Prop 10 would overturn a 23-year old law limiting the use of rent control in California (1995 Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act), letting cities decide whether they want to enact rent control.

For as long as I’ve been involved in politics in San Francisco, repealing Costa-Hawkins has been the holy grail of progressive housing policy. Costa-Hawkins exempts properties built in 1995 or later from rent control, and it also prevents cities with pre-existing rent control laws from extending them to newer units. San Francisco’s ordinance, for example, remains limited to housing built before 1980. And Costa-Hawkins exempts single-family homes from rent control while guaranteeing property owners the right to raise rents to market value when units are vacated.

The people who oppose Prop 10 (and thus, also oppose rent control) include landlords, real estate developers, and realtors. They argue that rent control makes the current housing crisis worse, because it disincentivizes developers from building new rental housing, since it limits their profits. They also argue that rent control messes with market forces in a way that leaves some residents holding the bag.

Here’s what they say: Because rent-controlled tenants pay lower rent, other tenants in the same building will pay even more so that the landlord can recoup their investment. As a former tenant AND landlord I can explain why this argument is total BS. Landlords will charge as much as the market will bear, period. If one tenant is rent controlled and another is not, the landlord will charge as much as they can on the non-rent-controlled unit. How much a landlord charges in rent is not relative to all of the units they own; it is only about making as much money as the market will allow them to make.

I am a homeowner. If I ever want to rent my home out in the future, it is in my financial interest to keep Costa-Hawkins in place and to oppose Prop 10. However, I bear witness every day to the housing crisis in San Francisco, and I have watched too many of my friends move out of the city because they can no longer afford it. San Francisco is losing its economic and cultural diversity, and that is only going to stop if we do more to limit the skyrocketing rents.

I agree with the proponents of Prop 10: Costa-Hawkins should be repealed because rent control is a local issue. California is facing an unprecedented housing crisis, and local governments should be able to determine whether rent control is a tool they want to use to prevent homelessness and limit the rising cost of housing in their regions. As our current crisis has demonstrated, the marketplace can’t handle providing shelter to everyone who needs it.

Arguments against Prop 10:

The solution to the housing crisis is to build more housing, not to cap rents.
Rent control doesn’t work. Much like tarriffs, rent control enjoys popular appeal despite its nearly universal rejection by economists. Let market forces take care of rental pricing.
Rent control’s benefits accrue to those renters who occupy the controlled units, at the expense of property owners and of other tenants.
For a state with a crushing housing deficit, rent control tends to reduce the quality and quantity of rental housing, the construction and maintenance of which is discouraged by price caps.

Arguments in favor of Prop 10:

Return rent policy to local control. Each city has its own challenges and needs the flexibility to adopt its own remedies. The Sacramento Bee says, “It no longer makes sense to tie the hands of local officials in dealing with this crisis, especially when they’re also being left to deal with the financial and humanitarian consequences of rising homelessness.”
Landlords suck. Entire communities are being wiped out while Wall Street landlords rake in the cash.
Costa-Hawkins has undermined the state’s ability to protect our residents from being displaced, especially the most vulnerable, due to skyrocketing rent increases.
Housing is a human right, something that everyone needs and deserves. It is not just another commodity that should be bought and sold and rented without limits.

Support: Tenants rights groups; California Democratic Party; ACLU; Democratic Socialists of America and other Berniecrats; teachers, nurses, and service workers unions; LA Times; Sacramento Bee; AIDS Healthcare Foundation; Coalition for Affordable Housing; SF Board of Supervisors

Oppose: Landlords, realtors, and real estate developers; BOTH gubernatorial candidates Gavin Newsom (D) and John Cox (R); SF Chronicle; Fresno Bee, Mercury News

Prop 11 – Ambulance Workers’ Work Breaks – NO

Proposition 11 is yet another highly technical measure that has no business being on the ballot. It would allow ambulance providers to require workers to remain on-call during paid breaks. And just like Prop 8, it’s here because of a bitter dispute between a union and an employer.

American Medical Response, a major employer of ambulance workers, put Prop 11 on the ballot to settle a fight with its employees. In 2017, a bill that would have resolved the issue – AB263– passed in the Assembly but stalled in the state Senate. AB263 spelled out that employees could be required to monitor radios, cell phones and other communications devices during their breaks and could be required to answer an emergency call.

I’m not even going to dignify this measure with a detailed analysis of ambulance-related working conditions, because I don’t think it’s fair to ask the voters to weigh into this kind of decision.

As with Prop 8 above, I’m a no vote because this is not the kind of thing that should be regulated by ballot measure. I’m getting tired of saying it – a ballot measure can only be amended or repealed by another ballot measure, and that’s no way to govern a state. Super detailed, highly technical laws should NEVER be passed by proposition for this reason. AMR should make its case in the legislature, with all parties at the table to negotiate and compromise. Get out of my ballot box!

Support: American Medical Response; LA Times; Sacramento Bee

Oppose: SF Chronicle; CA Teachers Association; State Assemblymember Freddie Rodriguez (D)

Prop 12 – Farm Animal Confinement – yes?

Prop 12, if passed, would ban the sale of meat and eggs from calves raised for veal, pregnant pigs, and egg-laying hens confined in areas below a specific number of square feet. Again, this is a highly technical measure – why is this even on the ballot? Because it makes a necessary amendment to a previous ballot measure. And a ballot measure can only be amended or repealed by ballot measure. GRRR. When will it all end? We need to overhaul our initiative process.*

In 2008, California voters approved Proposition 2, which banned the confinement of these animals in a manner that did not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs. Prop 2 did not provide specific square feet when defining confinement. To correct this, the Humane Society, the original sponsor of Prop 2 (2008), put Prop 12 on the ballot this year.

Beginning in 2020, Prop 12 would ban:

whole veal meat from a calf that was confined in an area with less than 43 square feet of usable floor space per calf;
whole pork meat from a pregnant pig or the immediate offspring of a pig that was confined in an area with less than 24 square feet of usable floor space per pig; and
eggs from a hen (chicken, turkey, duck, goose, or guinea fowl) that was confined in an area with less than 1 square foot of usable floor space per hen. Beginning in 2021, all hens will be “cage free.”

Prop 12 (2018) also provides for stricter enforcement requirements, and makes the state Agriculture Department responsible for the measure’s implementation. The previous law did not authorize a specific government agency to enforce it, which meant that there was very little action taken against violators of the law.

Opponents of Prop 12 say that the ballot box is not the place to regulate such details of California agriculture. And I would generally agree with such a statement. However, such details have already been regulated by ballot measure (Prop 2), so we’re stuck. If Prop 12 fails, then Prop 2 continues to exist without proper enforcement or even a definition of what inhumane confinement means, and the animals Prop 2 was designed to protect remain in deplorable conditions. However, if Prop 12 succeeds, we’ll be codifying specific provisions of a law that we won’t be able to modify without another ballot measure. Ugh. In an ideal world, we’d repeal Prop 2 entirely and force the legislature to write a comprehensive law about the treatment of animals. But this is not an ideal world.**

This is a tough one for me, because my belief that technical laws shouldn’t be approved by ballot is in conflict with my conviction that animals should be treated more humanely. I also suspect that the reason why Prop 2 happened in the first place is because the legislature didn’t have the backbone to pass a law that farmers and food producers oppose. So I’m a yes.

*understatement
** an even bigger understatement

Who’s supporting it: Prevent Cruelty California, Humane Society

Who’s opposing it: Egg, sheep and pig farmers; SF Chronicle. Notably, the Humane Farming Association (HFA), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), and Friends of Animals – animal rights organizations – oppose it because it’s not strong enough.

Thanks for reading! If you found my voter guide useful, please share it on social media and consider donating here to support my writing habit. Thank you!

My guide to the SF measures and candidates may be found here.

Tagged #bluewave, alix, alix rosenthal, alixro, ballot, blue wave, california, campaign, congress, dianne feinstein, election, gas tax, gavin newsom, john cox, november 2018, proposition 10, proposition 6, register, rent control, take back the house, vote, votealix, women
6 Comments

June 3, 2018

Alix’s Voter Guide – San Francisco Ballot, June 2018

Hello! Here in SF, we have an electrifying Mayor’s race among three main contenders to complete the term of Mayor Ed Lee, who passed away suddenly earlier this year. London Breed, Jane Kim and Mark Leno are fighting for the honor of tackling some of the city’s most intractable problems like affordable housing and homeless encampments.

For my guide to the 2018 California candidates and measures, go here.
My printable one-pager with my ballot recommendations is here. Take a screen shot and take it with you to the polls!

U.S. Representative, District 12 – Pelosi
U.S. Representative, District 14 – Speier
State Assembly, District 17 – Chiu
State Assembly, District 19 – Ting
Superior Court Judge 4: – Andrew Cheng
Superior Court Judge 7 – Curtis Karnow
Superior Court Judge 9: – Cynthia Ming-mei Lee
Superior Court Judge 11: – Jeffrey Ross
Mayor – Breed
Supervisor, District 8 – Mandelman
Prop A – yes
Prop B – NO
Prop C – no position
Prop D – yes
Prop E – YES!
Prop F – yes
Prop G – yes
Prop H – NO!
Prop I – NO

U.S. Representative, District 12 – Pelosi

Incumbent Nancy Pelosi has never had a credible challenger for her Congressional seat. This year, she has several challengers who say they represent the Resistance, and they argue that it’s time for a new generation of leaders in the Democratic Party. I agree that it’s time to shake things up, and I like to see these candidates using their campaigns to keep Pelosi honest. But Pelosi has been a powerful advocate for progressive values in a very conservative House of Representatives. This is not the year to topple the most powerful woman in Congress who is spending all her time wrestling the House back from Republican control.

If you want to register a protest vote, Shahid Buttar is (a friend of mine and) a solid progressive candidate. He’s an attorney, a musician, and a grass roots organizer, most recently at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. You can check his campaign out here.

U.S. Representative, District 14 – Speier

Incumbent Jackie Speier has no credible opposition.

Member of the State Assembly, District 17 – Chiu

Incumbent David Chiu has no credible opposition.

Member of the State Assembly, District 19 – Ting

Incumbent Phil Ting has no credible opposition.

Judges of the Superior Court
Seat 4: Andrew Cheng
Seat 7: Curtis Karnow
Seat 9: Cynthia Ming-mei Lee
Seat 11: Jeffrey Ross

For the first time in a long time, we have an exciting judges race. Four public defenders are attempting to take down four incumbent Superior Court judges. The four incumbents are Andrew Cheng (Seat 4), Curtis Karnow (Seat 7), Cynthia Ming-mei Lee (Seat 9), and Jeffrey Ross (Seat 11). All four of them were appointed by Republican governors, but all four judges are registered Democrats and don’t have particularly conservative reputations.

Four public defenders, Phoenix Streets (Seat 4), Maria Evangelista (seat 7) Kwixuan Maloof (seat 9), and Niki Solis (seat 11) say that they are running because the system is failing their clients, who are criminal defendants. And I agree with them on one point: the racial and economic inequality that pervades our criminal justice system is inexcusable, and must be changed. However, I haven’t been convinced that replacing these judges will have the impact that they are looking for.

Side note: I have never understood why judges have to stand for re-election. Running for office is kind of the antithesis of serving as a judge, a job where you need to avoid bias and any hint of favoritism. So to ask them to defend their records in the highly charged world of electoral politics, and raise money, and ask voters for their support, seems really unfair to me. It provides sitting judges with the wrong kind of incentives, to let political considerations enter the decisions they make.

If it matters to you, the consensus among the political class (both left and right) is to re-elect the judges. Politicians from both sides of the aisle have endorsed the incumbents, as well as all of the newspapers in town, 30 past presidents of the SF Bar Association, and about a hundred criminal defense attorneys and Superior Court judges. This doesn’t mean they (and I) think the justice system doesn’t need reform, it just means that there are more effective ways to do it. I hope the challengers will consider running for the Board of Supervisors or the state legislature, where they can have a deeper impact on the criminal justice system as a whole.

Mayor – Breed

I’m voting for Board of Supervisors President London Breed. I can tell you from personal experience, there is a culture of toxic masculinity in San Francisco City Hall, and London is one of the few women who has stood up to this culture without fear.

The main criticism I hear about London is that she is controlled by “billionaires,” which (a) is insulting, sexist and racist, and (b) could not be farther from the truth. I have never heard of a white male candidate being accused of being controlled by ANYONE, so please think about where that accusation is coming from. Yes, she has been great at raising money for her campaign, and she has some powerful people behind her. But to me, that speaks to the strength of her candidacy, and doesn’t mean she is “controlled” by these powerful folks who are donating and volunteering for her campaign. And if you have ever met London, you know that she has a mind of her own; she is unbought and unbossed.

London is the very definition of a self-made woman. She was raised by her grandmother in the public housing projects of the Western Addition. Her brother is in prison, and many of her childhood friends were killed by gun violence. She worked very hard in her district to get where she is, and has not forgotten her roots. Unlike her opponents, she has supported getting more women and diverse voices in public office. Voting for London is what it feels like to slap the patriarchy right across the face.

Former State Senator Mark Leno is a strong candidate for Mayor, as he was a solid legislator, both at the Board of Supervisors and in the State Senate. However, I have been profoundly disappointed in the negativity coming out of his campaign in recent months. I have known Mark for years, and I have been surprised to see how low he has been willing to stoop when the polls started showing him losing the race. If you’ve seen the ads, you know what I’m talking about.

I am not supporting Jane Kim because it is hard to trust her political positions. She once supported the tech industry creating jobs in San Francisco, authoring the so-called Twitter tax break to lure companies to the mid-Market area. Now she helps lead the anti-tech protests, and hopes that she can capitalize on the left’s resentment of tech companies, calling Google buses “rolling gated communities.”

Every year, Kim opposed efforts at the Board of Supervisors to get more street cleaning into the city budget, and she supported legislation to allow homeless encampments to remain on the sidewalk. During her campaign for Mayor, however, she has learned that voters want the streets to be cleaned, and she has changed her tune. She is now pressing for legislation that will provide $2.5 million outside the normal budget process to fund citywide street cleaning. (IMO, helping the homeless get permanent supportive housing is an even more important goal… cleaning the streets is a band-aid over a much bigger problem.)

Most important to me, though, is that Jane has never been involved in getting more women and diverse voices in public office. As someone who has worked most of my life to elect more women, I find this inexcusable. Jane Kim is only about Jane Kim.

Member, Board of Supervisors, District 8 – Mandelman

I like incumbent Supervisor Jeff Sheehy, he is a nice guy, and well meaning. But he doesn’t seem to have the fire in the belly that one needs to serve as Supervisor. The Chronicle editorial board put it this way: “At several points, [Sheehy] expressed doubts about his desire for the office and a disdain for politics generally. It was almost as if Sheehy were tacitly asking us to do him a favor by endorsing his opponent.”

Rafael Mandelman, by contrast, has the drive and the tenacity to be a great Supervisor. He is a smart fellow, a good human and has done what I failed to do when I ran for District 8 Supervisor: he has unified all sides of San Francisco’s political world to support his candidacy. I don’t agree with all of his positions, but he has the resilience and the smarts to be a great Supervisor for District 8. I wouldn’t be surprised if he has knocked on every single door in the district. Vote for Rafi!

SF Proposition A – yes

Prop A will allow the public utilities commission (PUC) to issue revenue bonds and build new power facilities that deliver clean energy (and NOT be fossil fuel or nuclear-power based power). This measure will help the city fund new energy technologies like solar power and electric vehicle charging stations, while helping the city meet its sustainable energy goals. All the good guys are for it: environmental groups, progressive political groups.

SF Proposition B – NO

Prop B will require members of boards and commissions to resign their seats upon running for local or state office. It was a policy of Mayor Willie Brown’s to require city commissioners to resign if they decided to run for office. This was a shrewd political move – it meant that the Mayor wouldn’t be tarnished with the silly things that his own appointees would say as candidates. But there was also a virtuous reason for it, namely, that candidates for office shouldn’t be able to use their commission seat to earn press attention or prop up their political campaigns. That said, serving as a Commissioner is a great way to learn the ropes of City Hall before you run for office. I think Prop B is a cynical political move by the folks who currently hold power and don’t want commissioners running against them for their seats. And that’s anti-democratic.

SF Props C & D – yes on D, no position on Prop C

Both Prop C and Prop D impose new gross receipts taxes on commercial leases to be paid by landlords. Prop C imposes a 1% tax on the total rent paid for warehouse space, and 3.5% of total rent paid for other commercial properties. The revenues from Prop C (approx. $146 million a year) would go toward childcare and early education programs. Great idea, right?

With a baby girl at home, and a new appreciation for how hard it is to care for a baby while working full time, I want the city to put more resources in to early childhood education and child care. I want my daughter’s future public school classmates to have all of the advantages that she has.

Prop D imposes a new 1.7% tax on landlords to fund low-income and medium-income housing and homelessness services (approx. $70 million per year). Also a great idea, right?

Homelessness and affordable housing are the biggest and most urgent challenges the city faces right now. There are families on the street whose very lives are on the edge. I can’t say this is more important than early childhood education, but it certainly feels more urgent at this moment in the city’s history.

But we do have to decide between them because both measures can’t win. Prop D includes “poison pill” language stating that the one that wins with more votes will cancel the other out. And the math is a little confusing. Prop C requires a simple majority vote to win (50%+1). Prop D requires a two-thirds supermajority vote for approval. If both measures receive enough votes to win, the measure with the most votes will win (most likely Prop D, since reaching a supermajority is a pretty high hurdle to overcome). Of course, if neither meets their own threshold, neither wins.

If it matters to you, the more progressive elected officials and organizations are supporting Prop C, and the more moderate folks are supporting Prop D. Nobody, except the Republican Party, is opposing both. I am definitely voting for D, although I might vote yes on both. The Chronicle makes a good argument against C in that it’s irresponsible to tie the funding such an important program (early childhood care and education) to such a volatile funding source. The city should find another way to fund childhood education programs.

SF Proposition E – YES

Prop E will ban the sale of flavored tobacco products in SF. I think I have received about 100 mailers against this measure. The tobacco industry REALLY doesn’t want it to pass.

I know my friends who vape will have a hard time with this one, but I think it’s an easy yes. Tobacco is gross, addictive and deadly. And candy-flavored tobacco is the gateway tobacco product for kids. If you look at who is lining up for and against this one, you’ll agree with me: On the one hand, we have the tobacco companies spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in ads and billboards to convince you to vote against it. On the other hand, we have every health organization, children and youth advocacy groups, every major Mayoral candidate and all but one member of the Board of Supervisors. Whose side are you on?

SF Proposition F – yes

If you are a renter in San Francisco, you know what it feels like to have housing insecurity. In the last decade, the volatility of the housing market has been terrifying for many of us. Prop F promises an important safeguard against unfair evictions: It will require the city to provide legal representation for any residential tenant facing an eviction lawsuit. It won’t solve the housing crisis, but it will prevent some folks who can’t afford an attorney from losing their homes.

The cost will be significant. Depending on the number of cases and other factors, the program would increase the City’s program costs by between approximately $4.2 million and approximately $5.6 million annually, and this amount would be likely to grow in future years. That’s a lot of money, but only a fraction of the city’s annual $9 billion budget.

SF Proposition G – yes

Prop G is an annual parcel tax of $298 per parcel of taxable real property in the city intended to fund educators’ salaries, staffing, professional development, and technology. This state WAY underfunds its public schools, so I am always going to say yes to new taxes for this important cause. If you’re a renter, then you don’t even pay the new tax, so there’s no reason to vote no. And if you’re a homeowner, you want to vote yes because good schools help maintain high property values. Oh and also it’s just a good thing to do for the world. Think of the children.

SF Proposition H – NO!

This one is confusing, so bear with me. Prop H was put on the ballot by the police officers’ union because it was frustrated by the city’s unwillingness to enact a policy allowing cops to use tasers. Since then, the Police Commission did enact a taser policy, thus rendering Prop H moot. The proponents of Prop H still want it to pass, though, because they want it to be codified into law that can only be repealed by the voters, which I think is a terrible idea. This is exactly the kind of law that needs to be decided by representatives in city government (i.e., police commission or the board of supervisors), so that they can amend it or repeal it if tasers turn out to be a bad idea (which I personally think they are). If Prop H passes, it will undermine the ability of the Police Department and the Commission to set law enforcement policy. Just about everybody agrees that Prop H is terrible, including all of the major candidates for Mayor, the Police Chief (!!), the District Attorney AND the Public Defender, the ACLU and every local newspaper.

SF Proposition I – NO

Come on, now. Prop I basically asks voters to say that they don’t want the Warriors to move to SF. It’s non-binding, and is designed to stick a finger in the eye of Warriors ownership. IMO, it’s totally pointless because there is nothing that can stop the move. The Warriors arena is already being built at 16^th and 3^rd in the Dogpatch neighborhood, and I, for one, am excited that SF is finally going to get a large concert venue inside city limits. Did the City of Oakland put this on the San Francisco ballot? Can they even do that?

Thanks for reading! I look forward to hearing what you think in the comments below.

Tagged 2018, affordable housing, alix, california, campaign, chiu, election, homelessness, Jane Kim, judges, june ballot, london breed, mandelman, mark leno, mayor, pelosi, prop a, prop b, prop c, prop d, prop e, prop f, prop g, prop h, prop i, rosenthal, san francisco, speier, superior court, ting, votealix, voter guide
3 Comments