San Francisco Pocket Voter Guide is Here!

Print it, screenshot it, take it with you to the polls.

alix_pocket_bigolvoterguide

Design by Tim Paschke. Thanks Tim!

For a longer explanation of my recommendations on the California measures, go here.

For a longer explanation of my recommendations on the SF ballot, go here.

And if you find this guide useful, please make a donation here! Thanks.

Big Ol’ Voter Guide – June 2016

It’s a very short ballot for the June 7 election! This is a good thing, because the voters are so focused on the Presidential race that they might not notice that there are lots of other important decisions they need to make. These include the US Senate race to replace Barbara Boxer, the State Senate race in SF, a few ballot measures, and ME! I jokingly refer to myself as the lowest-ranking elected official in California, because I hold a seat on the San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee. The DCCC election is every 4 years on the Democratic presidential primary ballot, and there are 14 seats up for grabs on the east side of SF, and 10 seats on the west side. More about that later.

Without further ado, I submit to you my Big Ol’ Voter Guide. In the interest of full disclosure, I’m a liberal Democrat attorney with a background in municipal law who currently works for small technology companies, and whose passions include protecting and promoting San Francisco’s nightlife and culture, getting more women elected to public office, and bringing more public art to cities around the world. I’m Second Vice Chair of the San Francisco Democratic Party, and I also like long walks on the beach.

For those of you keeping track, it took exactly 2.75 bottle of rosé to help me write this guide. No, not in one sitting!

President – #DumpTrump
US Senate – Kamala Harris
US Congress, District 12 – Nancy Pelosi
US Congress, District 14 – Jackie Speier
State Senator, District 11 – Scott Wiener
State Assembly, AD-17 – David Chiu
State Assembly, AD-19 – Phil Ting
DCCC, AD-17 – East side of SF (in order of appearance on the ballot)
London Breed, Francis Tsang, Arlo Smith, Jill Wynns, Scott Wiener, Zoe Dunning, Malia Cohen, Tom Hsieh, Rafael Mandelman, Gary McCoy, Joshua Arce, Leah Pimentel, Rebecca Prozan, Alix Rosenthal (me!)
DCCC, AD-19 – West side of SF (in order of appearance on the ballot)
Keith Baraka, Mary Jung, Joel Engardio, Mark Farrell, Rachel Norton, Tom A. Hsieh, Emily Murase, Trevor McNeil, Kat Anderson, Marjan Philhour
Judge – Paul Henderson
State Prop 50 – Suspension of Legislators – No
SF Proposition A – SF Public Health & Safety Bond – Yes
SF Proposition B – Set-Aside for Park & Rec Department – Yes
SF Proposition C – Allowing for Increases in Affordable Housing Requirements – Yes
SF Proposition D – Investigations of All Police Shootings – YES!
SF Proposition E – Corrections to Paid Sick Leave Ordinance – Yes
Regional Measure AA – SF Bay Clean Water, Pollution Prevention and Habitat Restoration Program – YES!

President – #DumpTrump

Chances are good you have already made your decision about Bernie versus Hillary. Maybe you’re already posting articles on Facebook claiming that your candidate’s opponent is corrupt or incompetent, or can’t win against Trump. So I’m not going to tell you how to vote on this one, only PLEASE PLEASE PRETTY PLEASE SUPPORT WHOMEVER THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY NOMINATES AGAINST DONALD TRUMP. The Donald has said that he wants to deport 11 million immigrants, he has a deplorable history of treating women badly, and his tax plan is a joke. He joyfully encourages violence at his rallies and enjoys the support of white supremacists. Even if you think the federal government is corrupt and incompetent, I beg you not to let a President Donald Trump pick the next several Supreme Court Justices or represent America to the world for the next four years.

US Senate – Kamala Harris

Future Governor Kamala Devi Harris

Attorney General Kamala Devi Harris

When you look at your ballot, you’ll notice that it lists all 34 candidates vying to replace Barbara Boxer in the US Senate, including Republicans, Democrats, independents, and all the third parties too. This is because in 2010 California adopted the “Top Two” primary system for state and federal offices, which eliminated party primaries for these candidates. Top Two pits all candidates regardless of party affiliation against one another in “preliminary” elections (in June) with the two highest vote getters advancing to the general election (in November), even if those candidates come from the same party.

You might find it interesting to note that 44% of California voters are registered Democrats, 29% are registered Republicans, 21% have no stated party preference, and the remaining 6% is divided among the smaller parties. This is why Democrats dominate California’s statewide elections, and it would be highly unlikely that a Republican wins Boxer’s Senate seat. In fact, both of the Top Two candidates who will advance to the November election will almost certainly be Democrats.

Attorney General Kamala Harris and Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez are the two candidates who have been getting the most press in this election, and the most likely to advance to November, based on polling data. Harris is my choice – she is the former District Attorney of San Francisco and has been a powerful advocate for consumers and privacy protections, prisoner anti-recidivism programs, victims of mortgage fraud, and same sex marriage. She also brings a fresh perspective to the office, as she is the first African American, the first Indian American, and the first woman to serve as the state’s top cop.

Sanchez represents a Congressional district in conservative Orange County, which should tell you everything about her politics. She is a Blue Dog Democrat who has voted against important gun control legislation and for the tobacco industry. She is… unpolished, and once made a faux Indian war whoop as she flippantly tried to explain the difference between Native Americans and Americans of Indian descent.

I saw them both speak at the California Democratic Party Convention in February, and the difference between the two was stark. Sanchez’s speech consisted of a list of her accomplishments, and she struck a defensive tone about her conservative votes. By contrast, Kamala was luminous. She had the room on its feet when she talked about the divisive politics running though the Republican presidential contest. What they don’t understand, she said, is that America’s racial and ethnic diversity is its strength. You want to ‘Make America Great Again’?” she asked of Donald Trump and his supporters, “AGAIN FOR WHOM?” And finally, Elizabeth Warren stars in Kamala’s newest campaign video, below! Please vote for her. She gives me hope for this country.

US Congress, District 12 – Nancy Pelosi

Every two years I say the same thing: we are lucky to have Nancy Pelosi represent San Francisco. Her accomplishments in three decades in the House of Representatives are far too many to list here. She has stood up for reproductive rights, immigrants, women, LGBT folks and the poor. She fought hard to protect the social safety net when the Republicans in Congress wanted to slash it in 2013 and she helped shepherd Obamacare through the House, which was an incredible achievement in itself. Recently, she has advocated for open military service for transgender folks. If the GOP completely crumbles in the November election and large numbers of Republican voters stay home (fingers crossed!), it is not impossible that the Democratic Party takes Congress back in this election, and Pelosi will be Speaker again. Can’t wait to see how it unfolds. Also: watch this interview of Nancy by her daughter, it’s really great.

US Congress, District 14 – Jackie Speier

I have great admiration for Jackie Speier. She is fearless, thoughtful and smart, and she also has a remarkable personal story. In 1978 she was left for dead on a tarmac in Guyana with her boss Congressman Leo Ryan during the airstrip shootings that triggered the massacre at Jonestown. In her extraordinary career in public service, she has championed consumer protections, banking reform, and increasing federal funding to public transit in the Bay Area, particularly to Muni and for the electrification of Caltrain, an important component of the California High-Speed Rail Project. She has been tough on PG&E for the San Bruno explosion, and she has taken on the epidemic of sexual assault on college campuses and in the military. I can’t say enough great things about Jackie! Also: she has no credible opposition.

State Senator, District 11 – Scott Wiener

Screen Shot 2016-05-19 at 9.03.30 AMOver the years I have worked closely with Supervisors Jane Kim and Scott Wiener, who are running against each other for Mark Leno’s Senate seat. (Leno is termed out). Both candidates have their merits, and it pains me to have to choose one over the other.

Jane has served on the Board since 2010, and she represents District 6, which is mostly in SOMA and the Tenderloin. Jane’s district has felt real estate development pressure more intensely than most in the last 6 years, and so it’s understandable that her office has been focused on land use and development issues. I like what she has said about gentrification (the Tenderloin doesn’t need more market rate housing, it needs more services for the existing residents), and I think she’s been deft at negotiating with developers. Jane was also the sponsor of the controversial “Twitter tax break” that attracted tech firms like Twitter to the mid-Market area, earning her the scorn of many progressives. It’s interesting to see her now backpedaling on her support of tech companies by opposing the City’s commuter shuttle program, calling Google buses “rolling gated communities.” If you hate the Google buses, Jane is probably your candidate.

I have endorsed Scott because I think he will be a more effective legislator in Sacramento, and he is one of the smartest people I know in city government. He has done more than Jane on the Board of Supervisors to support women and families, including his recent legislation to require SF employers to provide six weeks of paid parental leave. He is a fierce advocate for nightlife and culture, and he will continue Senator Leno’s fight for 4am bar closures in the state legislature. And most important – Scott has done most of the heavy lifting in recent years to improve public transit, to fight for improvements and funding, and he will continue to do so in the State Senate. Senator Leno has endorsed him, and that says a lot to me since he knows the job, he knows both candidates well, and has worked with them both. I urge you to vote for Scott.

Also: keep in mind that because of California’s Top Two primary system (see above), Scott and Jane will face each other again in November because they are the only two (viable) candidates in the race. I know, weird.

State Assembly, AD-17 – David Chiu

davidChiuProfileSquareDavid is a close ally of mine, and he has no credible opposition for his re-election to the State Assembly. In his two years in the state legislature, he has authored 11 bills that have been enacted into law, and he has focused his efforts on affordable housing, supporting women, children and families, standing up for workers and immigrants, improving health care, supporting education, and fixing transportation. Just as important, he is a longtime advocate for car-free living, and every year he rides a Burning Man art car in the San Francisco Pride Parade! Awesome.

State Assembly, AD-19 – Phil Ting

Even though he and I haven’t always agreed, Phil Ting has my support. He is doing a great job of representing the West side of San Francisco. He currently serves as the chair of the Assembly Budget Committee, and in this capacity he has been instrumental in changing how schools are funded in California through the Local Control Funding Formula. He is a champion of bike safety and incentivizing electric vehicles, and he has also passed through the Assembly one of the most progressive gender-neutral bathroom policies in the country. He is also virtually unopposed. Go Phil!

Democratic County Central Committee – Vote for me! And also these other awesome people.

There are three levels of the Democratic Party: the DNC, which is the national organization that endorses presidential candidates (i.e. Bernie or Hillary), the state parties (which endorse candidates for Governor, US Senate, etc. in each state), and then there are the local parties. The Democratic County Central Committee (DCCC) is the governing body of the local Democratic Party, and I currently serve as its Second Vice Chair here in San Francisco. The DCCC endorses candidates in local races, charters Democratic Clubs, registers new voters, and takes positions on issues of local and statewide importance.

The DCCC race happens every four years, and you have to be a registered Democrat to vote in my race. (To check your voter registration, go here) And it’s a crazylondon election this time – there are 39 candidates in my district, and many of them are current or former elected officials who have more name recognition than I do. And some of them have no interest in participating in the critical party-building activities that the DCCC does. (Can you see former Congressman John Burton volunteering at naturalization ceremonies to register new voters? I think not). Which is a shame. I don’t think I’m exaggerating when I say that the party will fall apart if all of these famous folks get elected, because there will be no one left to do the work.

I have been a lifelong Democrat, and have been active in countless campaigns at the local, statewide and federal levels, as candidate, treasurer, fundraiser and counsel. As the DCCC’s Second Vice Chair, I am responsible for running the party’s endorsement process for every election. I have worked hard to recruit and train Democratic women to run for office, including serving as a trainer for the Emerge Program, and running a slate of women candidates for DCCC in 2012. In my 6 years on the DCCC, I have dedicated considerable time and energy to the party, and I enjoy the work! I would be honored to continue it for another four years.

progress demsIn the 17th Assembly District (east side of San Francisco), I am running with a slate of folks who are also ready to roll up their sleeves: London Breed, Francis Tsang, Arlo Smith, Jill Wynns, Scott Wiener, Zoe Dunning, Malia Cohen, Tom Hsieh, Gary McCoy, Joshua Arce, Leah Pimentel, Rebecca Prozan, and ME! I’m dead last on the ballot. And even though he’s not on my slate, please cast your 14th vote for Rafael Mandelman, because he’s a good Democrat and has worked hard for the party for 10 years.

In the 19th Assembly District (west side of San Francisco), please vote for Keith Baraka, Mary Jung, Joel Engardio, Mark Farrell, Rachel Norton, Tom A. Hsieh, Emily Murase, Trevor McNeil, Kat Anderson, and Marjan Philhour (in that order of appearance on the ballot).

If you want to know more about all of these candidates, check out the Progress Slate’s website.

Judge – Paul Henderson

Three smart and competent candidates are running for this judicial seat: Paul Henderson, Victor Hwang and Sigrid Irias. Irias is a civil litigator and a past president of the San Francisco La Raza Lawyers Association. Hwang is a civil rights attorney with both criminal and civil law experience who also serves on the San Francisco Police Commission. Henderson is a former Deputy District Attorney who has dedicated his career to public service and currently works in the Mayor’s Office on criminal justice issues.

A funny thing has happened in this race. The two leading candidates – Hwang and Henderson – have become aligned with the candidates in the State Senate race, and their fates will probably rise and fall with those candidates. Supervisor Jane Kim has endorsed Victor Hwang, who is generally thought to be the more progressive candidate, and is engaged to marry a legislative aide of Kim’s. Supervisor Scott Wiener supports Paul Henderson, with whom he has worked for many years, and both men have served on the board of the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club.

Screen Shot 2016-05-19 at 9.07.09 AM

Paul Henderson

When the DCCC had to decide on a candidate to endorse, it was a tough call for me because all three candidates are highly qualified. But I am impressed with the number of high powered endorsements that Henderson has been able to earn, and I agree with him that the bench needs to reflect the diversity of the community it serves. Henderson is a black gay man – a constituency that is underrepresented on the bench generally. Given what is happening with the criminal justice system’s unfair treatment of black men nationwide, I think we should put more progressive black men on the bench to help insure that this demographic receives fair treatment from the courts. Vote for Henderson.

 

p.s. If no candidate wins at least 51 percent of the vote in June, the top two vote-getters will face each other in November.

State Proposition 50 – Suspension of Legislators – No

2014 was an extremely bad year for the California Senate: Senator Wright (D-Inglewood) was convicted of voter fraud and perjury for lying to voters about living in his district; Senator Calderon (D-Montebello) was charged with tax fraud, accepting bribes and money laundering; and Senator Yee (D-San Francisco) was arrested on suspicion of soliciting bribes, arms-trafficking and racketeering. The Senate voted to suspend these guys, though they continued to draw a paycheck and receive benefits until their cases were resolved because the current rules don’t allow the Senate to suspend its own members without pay.

Screen Shot 2016-05-19 at 9.11.21 AM

Former Senator Leland Yee is serving time for corruption

Proposition 50 is a reaction to this episode. If it passes, it would explicitly authorize the Legislature to suspend members without pay on a two-thirds vote.

Now I’m not saying that criminals should keep getting paid their full salaries, but I do have concerns about the potential abuses of this law. In the American criminal justice system, a person charged with a crime (even a politician!) is presumed innocent until proven guilty in court. This is why I think we should not allow a legislator’s colleagues to suspend them without pay until their case is resolved.

Moreover, I worry that the law could be used for nefarious political purposes against a legislator who is unpopular among his or her colleagues. The ballot measure doesn’t set any standard for what transgressions would justify suspension, and there’s no mechanism to ensure that it would be applied consistently. Eek.

I also wonder whether this is really a problem that needs solving. Before 2014, the Senate had never once suspended one of their members, and they haven’t since. State Senators make $90,000 a year (!), and so we’re not talking about a huge amount of savings for the state budget. I say vote no.

SF Proposition A – SF Public Health & Safety Bond – Yes!

Proposition A would increase the City’s debt by $350 million through issuing general obligation bonds and increasing property taxes to repay the debt. Or rather – it was designed to MAINTAIN the current level of property taxes because this measure will only replace bonds that are retiring this year. So homeowners won’t notice the difference in their property taxes if Prop A passes. Very smart.

The money would be spent like this:

  • $272 million:Renovation, expansion, and earthquake safety enhancement for fire safety and healthcare facilities, including General Hospital and the Department of Public Health.
  • $58 million:The construction of a larger and more modern city ambulance center and the repair and modernization of fire stations.
  • $20 million:Improving homeless care facilities.

Prop A was proposed by the Mayor, and 10 of 11 members of the Board of Supervisors have endorsed it, along with the Chronicle and the San Francisco Democratic Party. From what I can tell, the only people who oppose it are libertarians and people who generally hate taxes.

Screen Shot 2016-05-19 at 9.15.57 AM

Will this building be safe if the Big One hits?

I suppose if you’re a homeowner you’ll do the math and figure out how much your property tax bill would decrease if this measure fails (e.g., $90 per year for a $1 million home). If you’re a renter, I’m not sure why you wouldn’t vote for it, since technically it won’t cost you anything (unless you buy a home in San Francisco in the next 19 years, heh).

Personally, I think it goes without saying that if there are ANY buildings in SF that need to be seismically sound, it’s our fire stations and hospitals. What happens when the Big One hits?? We need our first responders to survive it. Right? What happens if we DON’T approve Prop A? I’m afraid to ask.

Also: given the raging debate about SF’s growing tent cities and why we aren’t doing more to house our homeless population, it would also seem like a no-brainer to put more money into homeless care facilities. Vote yes.

SF Proposition B – Set-Aside for Park & Rec Dept – Yes

It used to be that the parks in San Francisco were better funded. In the year 2000, the city allocated 2.1% of the General Fund to the Rec & Park Department. That percentage has declined steadily over time, and in 2016 that percentage has dwindled to 1.2% (which = $64 million, FYI). That means less money for the parks and playgrounds, and it’s why the Department has been forced to get creative with its funding sources. (See vendors inside city parks. Remember Chicken John’s puke-in in 2011? I do. Ew.)

Screen Shot 2016-05-19 at 9.20.22 AM

Outside Lands in Golden Gate Park

What this ALSO means is, the parks that get the most love are the ones that are revenue-generating (think golf courses, Golden Gate Park, Kezar Stadium). And the ones that don’t generate revenue – like parks and rec centers in poor neighborhoods – are often neglected.

Prop B is sponsored by Supervisor Mark Farrell. It is the first ballot measure that would make the Rec & Park Department look at disparities in funding and service levels in low-income neighborhoods, and provide equitable funding for parks and playgrounds for every neighborhood in the city. I think that’s great!

Prop B would also require a minimum level of funding every year for city parks – set at $64 million, with a $3 million increase every year for ten years (unless the city experiences a deficit of $200 million or more). This is what we call a “set-aside” and I usually vote against set-asides because we already have too many in the city budget, tying the hands of the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors every year when they are making decisions about the city’s funding priorities.

But on rare occasion, it is necessary to institutionalize a priority into the city budget. This feels like one of those times. City government has shown its willingness – year after year – to continue to squeeze revenue out of our parks, in a way that leads to vast disparities in funding priorities. Nine members of the Board support the measure – as if to say “please tie our hands.” I’m voting yes.

SF Proposition C – Allowing for Increases in Affordable Housing Requirements – YES

This is by far the most complicated measure on the ballot, so bear with me.

The City Charter has affordable housing requirements for real estate developments that have 25 or more housing units in them. These developers can either make 12% of their units “affordable,” or pay a fee to the city, or build new affordable units offsite.*

Because these requirements are in the Charter, the only way to change them is to go back to the voters for another Charter amendment, which is an expensive and cumbersome process. Almost everyone agrees that the current requirements are too low, and many developments in process have already agreed to affordable (aka “inclusionary”) housing standards that are higher than 12%.

Screen Shot 2016-05-19 at 9.25.11 AM

Prop C Sponsors, Supervisors Kim and Peskin

Rather than coming to the voters with a new number that’s higher than 12%, the authors of Prop C propose that we take it out of the Charter altogether. Prop C would authorize the Board of Supervisors to change affordable housing requirements by ordinance. Their argument is that with the rapidly changing housing needs of the city, the affordable housing requirements need to be more nimble, to change over time.

AND – here’s the key – Prop C provides that until the Board of Supervisors takes further action, the affordable housing requirement for new developments would go up to 25%, and Prop C would increase the off-site fee and the off-site units required if the developer doesn’t want to build on-site affordable units.**

This would make San Francisco’s inclusionary housing percentage the highest in the nation. Boston is at 13%, San Jose requires 15%, and New York requires that 20% of units be affordable in exchange for making the building much larger than otherwise permitted. Note, however, that there are developments in SF that have agreed to much higher affordable percentages. For example, the new development on the Giants parking lot agreed to 40% affordable. (!) But they did this at least in part because it will be built on City land, and since it’s on the waterfront the project is subject to much more scrutiny.

When they first heard about Prop C, the developers with projects in the pipeline screamed… as you would expect. And they argued that their inclusionary housing percentage shouldn’t change, since they have already made critical decisions about their projects based on the numbers that were in place when they first applied to the city for their approvals. SO – as a compromise, Prop C’s sponsors – Supervisors Aaron Peskin and Jane Kim – agreed to grandfather in these developers to the old requirements, in exchange for their support of Prop C. (Clever!)

Pro-development activists claim that 25% is way too high, that it will make building new housing too expensive, that development in San Francisco will screech to a halt. That’s the same argument that developers make every time a new requirement is placed on them that will cost them money, so I am not convinced.

I also agree with Prop C’s sponsors that affordable housing requirements should come out of the Charter. 25% affordable seems a little high to me, but this number was determined after many months of conversation and compromise, and it has earned the support of both the Mayor (who is pro-development) and every member of the Board of Supervisors, and that’s saying something. So I say vote yes.

*A rental unit counts as “affordable” if it is affordable to households earning up to 55% of the area median income. A unit for sale counts toward these requirements if it is affordable to households earning up to 90% of the area median income.

**If you want to learn more about the definition of “affordability,” why Area Median Income matters, and what the in-lieu fees are, go here.

SF Proposition D – Investigations of All Police Shootings – YESSSSSS

You have heard the names Alex Nieto, Mario Woods, Luis Gongora: black and Hispanic men who have been shot and killed by the SFPD in the last 2 years. Their deaths have given rise to a vocal and passionate #BlackLivesMatter movement in San Francisco. They are protesting every major city event, and five of their members are on a hunger strike.
But Nieto, Woods and Gongora aren’t the only people shot by cops in our city. In the last five years, 31 police shootings occurred, and complaints were filed with the City for eight of them.

Screen Shot 2016-05-19 at 9.28.15 AM

Prop D Sponsor, Supervisor Malia Cohen

The Office of Citizens Complaints (OCC) is the City Hall department that investigates complaints against police officers. OCC is not allowed to look into an incident if no one files a complaint, and this is where Prop D comes in: it would require them to investigate every single incident in SF in which a police officer kills or physically injures someone by firing a gun.

This measure is a good idea for several reasons. Officers are trained to avoid firing their weapons, and this measure will provide further reason for hesitation. If a cop knows that she will be investigated for using her gun – no matter what – she is less likely to use it in the first place. Moreover, an investigation by OCC is usually highly political, and if the office is required to investigate every single incident, it will have the political cover it needs to do its job.

The City Controller said Prop D could require the City to hire additional investigators to serve in the OCC, but estimated a “minimal effect on the cost of government.” The budget for the entire office was about $5 million in 2015-2016 and had 17 investigators on staff.

This measure was proposed by Supervisor Malia Cohen who represents the Bayview and Hunters Point neighborhoods, and has dealt with more than her fair share of shootings in her district. Kudos to her for having the courage to propose it. Vote yes!

SF Proposition E – Amending Paid Sick Leave Ordinance – Yes

I won’t spend much of your time on this measure, because it’s just a legislative fix that no one opposes. No really! Not a single person signed up to write a ballot argument against Prop E in the voter handbook. I have never seen that happen before.

In 2006, San Francisco voters adopted the Paid Sick Leave Ordinance (PSLO), which requires employers to provide hourly employees with one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked in San Francisco. Then, in 2015, the state legislature passed a similar law that does not override the PSLO and in some ways provides broader protections for employees. Employers have to comply with both the PSLO and the state law, which are slightly different from each other. What a pain.

Prop E would just amend the PSLO to make it so that: (1) employers don’t have to deal with separate compliance requirements, and (2) in the future, if there are changes to the state or federal law that provide broader protections to employees, the Board of Supervisors could amend the PSLO to adopt those provisions without having to go back to the voters. Makes perfect sense. Vote yes.

Regional Measure AA – San Francisco Bay Improvements – Yes!

This proposition has a very long name: “SF Bay Clean Water, Pollution Prevention and Habitat Restoration Program” – and it’s an easy one to endorse, so I’ll keep it brief.

Screen Shot 2016-05-19 at 9.30.46 AMThis measure proposes a $12 parcel tax – to be paid by every property owner in the nine counties that touch the San Francisco Bay – to raise approximately $25 million annually for the next twenty years. The money will go towards protecting and restoring the Bay by reducing trash, pollution and harmful toxins; improving water quality; restoring habitat for fish, birds and wildlife; protecting communities from floods; and increasing shoreline public access. Plus – the $25 million program could help attract even more federal and state funding for these projects! For $12 a year?? Done. Is there anyone who opposes it? Nope. Well, OK, there are people who hate both taxes and the environment. But if you have read this voter guide all the way to the end, then chances are good you are not one of those people. 😉

Unfortunately, because it’s a special tax it is subject to two-thirds approval in all 9 Bay Area counties. Eek. San Francisco and Alameda will pass it for sure, but they will have to carry the other counties with them. Fingers crossed. Vote yes!

For more about my candidacy for the DCCC, please check out the rest of my website or my Facebook page. Thanks for reading!

 

 

 

Big Ol’ Voter Guide – November 2015

There’s a theme to this year’s election: this CITY’S INSANE HOUSING MARKET! Yes, I’m shouting, it’s that serious. Friends of mine and yours are losing their homes. Others are stuck in rent-controlled apartments they can’t afford to leave. And just TRY moving here from somewhere else, if you don’t work for some hot new tech company that pays you well. And then…there’s this guy.

Yikes!

Yikes! Really?

There’s lots of finger pointing… at greedy landlords, Airbnb, Mayor Ed Lee, the Board of Supervisors, too much rent control, not enough rent control, tech companies, the Ellis Act, Google buses, the $725 cocktail. This November’s ballot attempts to place the blame on some of the folks on this list.

Three out of 11 measures (A, D, and K) hope to enable building more housing, most of which is affordable, two (I and J) are aimed at slowing the rate of gentrification, and one (Prop F) hopes to further restrict short term rentals in the city. Some are good, some are very very bad. I put a lot of thought into these endorsements, and if you know me, you may be surprised by a few.

Without further ado, I submit to you my Big Ol’ Voter Guide. In the interest of full disclosure, I’m a progressive attorney with a background in municipal law who currently works for a few mobile app companies (one small, one very small), whose passions include protecting and promoting San Francisco’s nightlife and culture, getting more women elected to public office, and bringing more public art to cities around the world. I’m Second Vice Chair of the San Francisco Democratic Party, and I also like long walks on the beach.

Mayor: Ed Lee
City Attorney: Dennis Herrera
Treasurer: Jose Cisneros
District Attorney: George Gascon
Sheriff: Vicki Hennessey
Community College Board: Alex Randolph
District 3 Supervisor: Julie Christensen
Prop A: Affordable Housing Bond – YES!
Prop B: Paid Parental Leave for City Employees – YES!
Prop C: Expand Lobbyist Ordinance – NO
Prop D: Mission Rock – YES!
Prop E: Remote Testimony in Public Meetings –NOOOOO!
Prop F: Restricting Short Term Rentals – F-NO!
Props G/H: Clean Energy – NO on G, YES on H
Prop I: Mission Housing Moratorium – YES!
Prop J: Legacy Businesses – Yes
Prop K: Affordable Housing on City’s Surplus Property – YES!

Mayor: Ed Lee

Screen Shot 2015-10-27 at 12.11.17 AMBroke-Ass Stuart is a friend of mine, and I’ve donated to his mayoral campaign. His candidacy is a performance art piece that gives voice to widespread frustration with the direction the city has headed in recent years. The city’s ever-widening economic divide and the scary housing market are making it impossible for young folks and the middle class to survive here. BUT: (1) calling attention to this doesn’t mean Stuart has the know-how to run a city with a $9 billion budget (Sorry, Stuart!); and (2) the city’s economic trajectory is not Ed Lee’s fault. Just as the mustachioed mayor can’t legitimately take credit for the dramatic increase in property tax revenues and record low unemployment, he also can’t be blamed for the housing crunch or for $4 toast. The mayor is, frankly, not powerful enough to control the economy in either direction. The rent is too damn high because too many damn people want to live here. And it takes a lot longer to build a hundred new housing units than it does for a tech company to create a hundred new jobs.

And hey, Lee is doing a fine job with the meager amount of power he does wield. He is working to alleviate the affordable housing crisis (see: Prop A – his affordable housing bond, and Prop K – his effort to build affordable housing on city-owned property) and he is showing leadership on keeping families and the middle class in SF (see: universal pre-school and improving economic opportunities for women). He has 26 years of experience in city government, he is not afraid to roll up his sleeves, and he has appointed women to the most important jobs in city government (which I just love, of course). Personally, I think the folks who actively oppose him need someone to blame for the outrageous cost of…well, everything.

City Attorney: Dennis Herrera
Treasurer: Jose Cisneros
District Attorney: George Gascon

I’m not going to waste your time on these races, because all three of these folks are unopposed. And each of them is doing a decent job. Let’s reflect on that for a minute: In San Francisco, where every public figure, movement, real estate development, legislation and stop sign placement has opposition, these three candidates don’t. To me, that’s saying something.

Sheriff: Vicki Hennessey

This was a hard one for me. Ross Mirkarimi has been a friend of mine for many years, and by most measures, he’s been a solid Sheriff. He is a strong advocate for progressive prison reform: from health care rights for prisoners, to improving recidivism rates through education, to stopping the gouging of inmates for the cost of personal phone calls (which has garnered national attention). But his successes have been overshadowed by the accusations that he engaged in domestic abuse against his wife Eliana early in his term. Eliana has always denied those charges and she has fought hard to defend him. However, Ross did plead guilty to misdemeanor false imprisonment for his actions, and earlier this year, he had his driver license suspended for failing to report an auto accident to the DMV. He has also taken heat for Sheriff deputies who were promoting fights among prisoners, and the accidental patient death at SF General that his deputies might have been able to prevent. Even just last week, it was reported that a deputy challenged Mirkarimi’s ability to take a firearms exam given his misdemeanor conviction. These distractions, I think, are preventing him from getting more done and they have affected morale in the department.

Vicki Hennessey is a former Chief Deputy Sheriff with several decades of experience. She ran the department while Mirkarimi was fighting domestic violence charges, and has avoided involvement in any scandal. I have worked with her since 2001 when I was on the Elections Commission and she did a good job at designing a ballot custody system. She has the support of lots of folks, and I sincerely hope that she will use the Sheriff’s office to continue the kinds of progressive reforms that her two predecessors have worked so hard to achieve.

Community College Board: Alex Randolph

Screen Shot 2015-10-27 at 12.12.38 AMAlex Randolph was appointed in April to fill an open seat on the College Board, and he is running to defend the appointment against two challengers: Tom Temprano and Wendy Aragon. All three have credited community college with giving them a leg up, although Randolph is the candidate with the most experience and insight to solve CCSF’s accreditation and enrollment problems. He wants CCSF to staff up the class registration process, which would help with the dramatic decline in enrollment, and he has also identified several places where CCSF could upgrade the technology it uses, to start solving its problems on a larger scale.

I met Alex Randolph when he was the campaign manager for my opponent in my ill-fated Supervisor race nine years ago. Back then, he was young and scrappy, and I was impressed by his willingness to work hard, even though it was against me. He has an impressive list of endorsements, including a majority of both the Board of Supervisors and the Board of Education.

District 3 Supervisor: Julie Christensen

Christensen is smart and competent, and she is working hard on stopping evictions, promoting neighborhood safety and improving transit. Her opponent is a former ally of mine, but we’ve parted ways politically for several reasons. For those reasons and more, see my endorsement in a separate blog post.

It's safe to say this housing is not affordable.

It’s safe to say this housing is not affordable.

Prop A: Affordable Housing Bond – YES!

If this bond is approved, $350 million will go toward building low- and middle-income units, and to rehab the city’s public housing. It also includes down payment assistance for teachers and middle-income folks. There is no reason not to vote for this measure! Housing prices are ridiculously high, and it costs a lot of money to build new units in the city. The entire city family has coalesced behind this bond measure.

Prop B: Paid Parental Leave for City Employees – YES!

Prop B would allow every city employee who becomes a parent to have the time to bond with their newborn. I’m not sure why this needs to be a ballot measure – perhaps the proponents want to make sure it’s hard to repeal? But it’s a no brainer to me – city government is the largest employer in San Francisco, it should absolutely serve as a model for family-friendly policies.

Prop C: Expand Lobbyist Ordinance – NO

Some pieces of legislation are better for the ballot, and some are better for the legislative process at the Board of Supervisors. Laws approved by ballot measure can only be amended by another ballot measure, making it nearly impossible to change it – it basically sets a law in stone. Laws that go through the Board, by contrast, can be improved by the public input of many stakeholders, and can be able to be amended over time, as time passes and circumstances change. Prop C should have been brought to the Board, and that is why I am opposing it.

Prop C is well meaning. It promises to daylight the activities of anyone engaged in direct or indirect lobbying, public outreach, research, reports on city activities, advertising, etc., requiring them to register and pay a $500 fee and submit monthly reports on their activities. It casts a wide net that catches all kinds of nonprofits and community organizations whose activities don’t warrant this kind of scrutiny. This law should be presented to the Board and subjected to public input, so that the Board can determine exactly which kinds of organizations should be registering, and which ones shouldn’t.

Prop D: Mission Rock – YES!

Screen Shot 2015-10-27 at 12.14.37 AM“Mission Rock” is code for “Giants Parking Lot A.” The Giants have been planning a mixed-use development on their parking lot for years, but it is currently zoned for open space. And after Prop B was passed in 2013, any waterfront development that seeks to increase height limits has to go to the voters. So – if the Giants want to build anything taller than a maintenance shed, they have to ask the City’s voters to give their consent. To the Giants’ credit, they did a good job of soliciting input from lots of stakeholders: neighbors, planners, community groups… and what has resulted is a great project. It includes 1500 new housing units (33% of which would be in the price range of low- and middle-income residents), 8 acres of parks and open space, and a retail center with shops and restaurants. Almost everyone supports it – even the staunchest of opponents to waterfront development. I’m looking forward to seeing it built.

Prop E: Remote Testimony in Public Meetings – NOOOOOO!

If approved, Proposition E would require that public meetings, testimony and comments all be made accessible through electronic and pre-recorded means. It also requires that any pre-recorded public testimony and live, remote public commentary be played at the meeting. Sounds great, right? Who doesn’t love public participation in the democratic process?

Rush Limbaugh wants you to vote for Prop E

Rush Limbaugh wants you to vote for Prop E

If you’ve been to a commission or board meeting at City Hall, you know that this measure would be a complete disaster. In my opinion, it would allow interest groups to jam up meetings that are already jammed up by folks who show up by the dozens to read the SAME. TALKING. POINTS. FROM A SCRIPT. OVER AND OVER. FOR HOURS. Don’t get me wrong – public comment is extremely important, and can often be persuasive to legislators who are on the fence. But to require that every video and email that gets sent to the City be played in its entirety would open the process up for abuse. And would be a catastrophic waste of time.

Moreover, this law would require that public testimony – from ANYWHERE in the world – be played live at the meeting. This means that every time Rush Limbaugh disagrees with legislation at the Board of Supervisors, he can tell his listeners to send thousands of emails, voice recordings and videos to City Hall. And City Hall will be required to play them. In their entirety. And because this is a ballot measure, the law will be very difficult to repeal, it might take a year or more to do it. ICK. Please vote NO.

Screen Shot 2015-10-26 at 3.19.10 PMProp F: Restricting Short Term Rentals – F-NO!

The main reason I oppose this measure is the same reason I oppose Prop C (above): Laws approved by ballot measure are nearly impossible to change. And this is exactly the kind of law that needs to iterate over time. The products and services created by technology companies like Airbnb are constantly evolving – and the laws that regulate them need to be just as nimble. If Prop F passes, it sets these restrictions in stone, and the Board of Supervisors won’t be able to amend them. Any revision – no matter how small – will require another election cycle and another contentious and expensive battle for votes. For a detailed explanation of the merits and flaws of this complicated legislation, see my separate blog post about Prop F.

Prop G/H: Clean Energy – NO on G, YES on H

Here’s the inside scoop on these two measures that you probably won’t hear from anyone else. The City has created a program called CleanPowerSF that will give city residents and businesses the option to buy power from renewable sources, such as wind or solar power. This program will be taking customers away from PG&E, and so the company (or rather, the electrical workers union) put Prop G on the ballot in order to make it harder for the city to market this new program. The measure would prevent the city from calling large portions of the energy produced by CleanPowerSF as “clean” or “renewable.” Yep, it is kinda evil.

Screen Shot 2015-10-27 at 12.17.07 AMAfter Prop G qualified for the ballot, Supervisor London Breed sprang into action, crafting Prop H as a compromise measure, using the same definitions of “clean energy” and “renewable energy” as those used by state law. CleanPowerSF is happy because the new law will allow the city to call more of the energy it produces, “clean.” Consumers win because the city is forced to be accurate in its marketing of the program, in describing the percentage of types of renewable energy to be supplied.

In fact, Prop H was so well crafted (good work, Supervisor!) that PG&E (oops, I mean the electrical workers union) has withdrawn its support for its own measure, and has agreed to throw its weight behind Prop H. That’s why – you may have noticed – there is no “Yes on G” campaign, and everyone in town has endorsed H. Vote NO on G and YES on H. And then go to www.cleanpowersf.org to sign up for the program.

Prop I: Mission Housing Moratorium – YES!

Screen Shot 2015-10-26 at 11.37.56 PM

Boundaries of the Proposed Mission Moratorium

If approved, Prop I would establish a temporary, 18-month prohibition on the construction of any housing project larger than five units in the Mission neighborhood, roughly bounded to the west by Guerrero Street, to the south by Cesar Chavez Street, to the east by Potrero Avenue, and to the north by U.S. Route 101. Projects that include only 100% affordable units are exempt from the moratorium.

Yes, it’s true: the law of supply and demand tells us that stopping the building of housing is not the way to alleviate the housing crunch. However, this moratorium is not about solving the housing crisis. It’s about saving the Mission from losing its essential character, and about slowing the pace of change so that the neighborhood isn’t swallowed by the city’s insatiable appetite for development.

There are lots of good reasons to support this moratorium. The Mission has suffered the most profound effects of the housing crisis because every new tech worker moving to the city wants to live there. The speed of development there is especially intense, and has led to an unprecedented number of evictions and displacement. Walk down Valencia Street, and you will have to agree that the neighborhood looks nothing like it did even a few years ago. Moreover, when buildings are demolished, and new market-rate condos are built, the change is irreversible; the new buildings are designed to last for 50-100 years. Slowing this process down by 18 months – so that the city can be more deliberate in planning what the neighborhood should look like in 10, 20, 50 years – is a very good idea. It is a brief little window of time in the big picture. And finally, the amount of real estate we’re talking about is a small portion of the city. There are other places in the city where market-rate housing can be developed in the next few years.

Screen Shot 2015-10-27 at 12.31.51 AMMy only hesitation about Prop I is that it would have the consequence of delaying the Armory’s plans to turn its Drill Court space, recently fitted with a new floor and sound-proofing, into a full-time concert and event venue. The city needs more event venues of this size! But under Prop I, new permits of all kinds, including changes of use like the Armory’s, would be halted for 18 months. It’s a shame the Armory’s plans are caught up in this measure – but it would only be until mid-2017, so on balance, it’s a temporary sacrifice worth making.

It won’t surprise you to learn that landlords, developers, realtors, and construction trade unions oppose Prop I, along with the more moderate elected officials in town. Prop I supporters include an interesting combination of folks who don’t always agree, such as tenant groups; black, Asian and Latino groups; labor unions; teachers; environmental organizations; neighborhood political clubs from all over the city; and women’s organizations. I’m a homeowner and a real estate attorney, and I generally like development. And yet I side with the “yes” folks. Let’s give the Mission a breather.

Prop J: Legacy Businesses – Yes

As I have mentioned several times before, the city is changing very very rapidly. Neighborhood businesses give the city its character, and the ones that have been around the longest are disappearing quickly due to rising rents and the pressure from gentrification. Prop J, if approved, will establish small grants for these “legacy businesses” that have existed for more than 30 years and can show significant contribution to San Francisco’s identity and character. Eligible businesses will receive $500 for each of their full-time employees, and property owners leasing to these legacy businesses will be given a small grant ($4.50 per square foot) if they provide the business with a 10-year lease. (Aw! Isn’t that nice.)

The City Controller says this measure will cost the city about $3.7 million in the current fiscal year if fully funded. And the cost to the city could increase every year, reaching somewhere between $51 million and $94 million annually within 25 years. (Yikes! That’s a lot of money.) However – and this is critical – the actual costs of this proposition will depend on the number of businesses added to the “legacy list” and the budget approved each year by the Mayor and Board of Supervisors. Prop J would not legally require any amount of the annual budget to go towards the fund.

So…it’s really a symbolic gesture. But it could be a useful tool that city leaders can use to give a hand to neighborhood businesses that are contributors to the essential character of this fine city. Since it doesn’t actually commit the funds, I say, why not? Let’s give it a shot and let the Board and the Mayor duke it out later over how much money they are willing to put into it.

Prop K: Affordable Housing on City’s Surplus Property – YES!

By now you are sick of hearing about the city’s housing crisis. But hey! This is the last measure on the ballot, and it’s about housing. And it’s a good one.

Yep.

Don’t click on this image so that you can see the detail. Don’t do it.

 

One of the main reasons why it’s so hard to build affordable housing in the city is because the underlying land costs are so high that these projects just don’t pencil out for private developers. So! Enter Prop K, which attacks the shortage of affordable housing in the city by encouraging the development of below-market-rate units on surplus property already owned by the city. That’s right, it doesn’t matter how much the underlying property is worth, because the city already owns it and can do whatever it wants with it, like handing it over to affordable housing developers to build units that non-millionaires can afford.

Specifically, Prop K prioritizes the use of all surplus property to build housing for a range of households from those who are homeless or who make less than $51,000 per year (55% of area median income), to those with incomes up to $112,000 per year (120% of area median income). For projects of more than 200 units, some housing would be available for households earning up to $140,000 per year (150% of area median income). Everyone agrees that the city needs more housing for regular people and working class folks. And I do mean everyone, including both the Examiner and the Chronicle. The only people who oppose this measure are Chicken John and the people who hate taxes generally. Yes on K!

 

 

 

 

F-No, San Francisco! Vote No on the Short Term Rental Measure

Yes, the snarky Airbnb ad campaign was ill-conceived. However, don’t let it cloud your judgment about this ballot measure. I think Prop F should fail, and not for the reasons you’d expect.

Before we get into the merits of Prop F, I think it’s important to review the history.

In October of last year, the Board of Supervisors passed legislation that then-Supervisor David Chiu worked for two years to craft, regulating Airbnb and its competitors in order to restrict short-term rentals in the city. The new law was written in reaction to the dramatic effect that these companies are having on the city’s housing – both in rising rents and the number of units being taken off the permanent rental market. The law requires that hosts: (1) be permanent SF residents renting our their primary residence (i.e., no long distance landlords); (2) live on the property 275 days out of the year (limiting their short-term rentals to 90 days annually if they are renting out their entire house); (3) get a business license and register with the city; and (4) have at least $500,000 in commercial property insurance. As a part of the negotiations with the city over the Chiu legislation, Airbnb agreed to collect and pay the same taxes that hotels pay (called the Transit Occupancy Tax), which so far has amounted to $12 million.

Screen Shot 2015-10-26 at 3.19.10 PMThere are folks who are unhappy with the Chiu legislation, saying it didn’t go far enough. It’s housing rights activists, landlords, labor including the hotel workers union, and owners of hotels who are threatened by the competition. These strange bedfellows – who usually don’t agree on much – put Prop F on the ballot.**

If Prop F passes, it would further restrict a short-term rental to 75 days out of the year (instead of 90), and the cap would apply to individual rooms rented, not just whole units. It would require Airbnb, its competitors, and their individual hosts to file reports with the city every three months. The law would prohibit the short-term rentals of in-law units and it would provide citizens with a private right of action to sue their neighbors if they suspect their neighbor is violating the law.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am an Airbnb user. I have been an occasional Airbnb guest since 2011, and I became a host in September. As a progressive who supports rent control and has many friends who have been evicted or priced out in the last year, I am sympathetic to the plight of folks who have been affected by the insane housing market in this city. But I also know a lot of people who are using the service as hosts, and in my experience – despite the ad campaign depicting a company replete with over-entitled tech bros – most hosts are just trying to survive in the city. They are making sacrifices to rent out rooms in their homes, to help pay the mortgage or to pay the bills between jobs.

To me, lowering the number of rental days from 90 to 75 would not be a big deal if it applied to entire units, but applying this cap to guest rooms is just wrong. If I am living in my house every day of the year, and just renting out a guest room whenever I need the extra cash, I shouldn’t be restricted to such a low number of days. I don’t oppose restricting the short-term rental of in-law units – the city should make it harder for property owners to remove these units from the permanent rental market. Reporting my hosting activities to the city every three months won’t be the end of the world, though this provision seems intended to make it harder for folks to use the service, and it will probably make some hosts quit. Requiring Airbnb and its competitors to report their user data is probably in violation of California’s new Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in City of Los Angeles v. Patel, and that provision would probably be struck down in court if the measure passes. The private right of action by neighbors? That scares me – encouraging neighbors to sue each other seems like a terrible idea.

I think the Chiu legislation should be given some time to do its thing; it has been in effect for less than a year. The law took years of meetings and public hearings and negotiations to arrive at something that most stakeholders could live with, and it has promise to solve the problems that short-term rentals have created. The Office of Short Term Rentals was just opened in July, and they started enforcing against scofflaw hosts in August, imposing a few hundred thousand dollars in fines already in just a few short months.

But the main reason I oppose this measure is this: Laws approved by ballot measure can only be amended by another ballot measure, making it nearly impossible to change it. And this is exactly the kind of law that needs to iterate over time. The products and services created by technology companies like Airbnb are constantly evolving – and the laws that regulate them need to be just as nimble. If Prop F passes, it sets these restrictions in stone, and the Board of Supervisors won’t be able to amend them. Any revision – no matter how small – will require another election cycle and another contentious and expensive battle for votes.

We should encourage the Board of Supervisors do its job: soliciting input from stakeholders and constituents, weighing the complicated elements of the law against the impacts they will have on the community. If you don’t like the way the current law is written, you should let your Supervisor know. Speak up, come to hearings, write emails, make calls. That’s the way it is supposed to work.

Please vote NO on F!

**Speaking of strange bedfellows, Senator Dianne Feinstein is not usually on the side of housing rights activists. So why does she support Prop F? It might have something to do with the 161-room hotel that she owns with her husband. Not saying, just saying.

San Francisco: Vote for Christensen for District 3 Supervisor

Screen Shot 2015-10-17 at 12.00.43 PM

Supervisor Julie Christensen

In January, Julie Christensen was appointed to D3 Supervisor by Mayor Lee to fill the vacancy left by David Chiu when he was elected to the State Assembly. Christensen is smart and competent, and she is working hard on stopping evictions, promoting neighborhood safety and improving transit. Her opponent, former Supervisor Aaron Peskin, is running for his old seat. He is one of the sharpest minds in SF politics, a prolific legislator, and a ruthless competitor.

Until August of this year, I was genuinely torn – I had a good relationship with each of them, and had good reasons to support them both. But on August 12, the San Francisco Democratic Party was making its endorsement decision, and as a voting member, I needed to make a very difficult choice.

I have spent much of my political career recruiting and supporting women in public office, and I think Supervisor Christensen has the potential to do great things. Peskin is a former mentor of mine; he recruited me to run for the SF Democratic Party board and supported me in my first two races. But in 2012, our interests diverged. I worked hard to get more women elected to the DCCC and he worked hard to undermine my efforts. I understand his perspective – to him, political posture was more important than a candidate’s gender, and many of the female candidates on my slate failed Aaron’s ideological test.

SFW12_001_v3

A fundraiser for the 2012 women’s slate

The main reason why I worked so hard to elect more women is because I thought it would change the tenor at City Hall. If you’ve been watching local politics, you will remember how toxic that environment was just a few years ago. Policy debates often disintegrated into shouting matches and personal attacks, and Aaron was one of the main culprits. My hope – my bet – was that bringing more women to the table would moderate the tone, and maybe more good things could be accomplished.

When it came time for me to vote in the Democratic Party endorsement, I met with each candidate twice. I considered their positions on the issues, their effectiveness as Supervisor, their relative abilities to run a strong campaign, and my personal relationships with them. Both candidates made strong cases for my vote, and they each had several politically influential people call me as well. The folks who called me for Julie emphasized her accomplishments and her qualities as a leader. The people who called me for Aaron told me that I should side with him because he was going to win, and that I didn’t want to cross him. He himself told me that he would “remember it” if I voted for his opponent. It sounded to me like a threat.

I don’t respond well to threats, and fear does not seem like the right reason to vote for someone. And then, a local progressive activist/journalist – who is a close ally of Peskin’s – published some highly sensitive information about me in order to influence my vote. The article attempted to connect me to Ron Conway, the venture capitalist bogeyman of the left, who is working hard to support Christensen. The Conway connection was laughable, but the personal information that was published was truly embarrassing for me. It was clearly an effort to shame me into voting for Aaron, and it had the opposite effect. I won’t be bullied. I voted for Christensen.sellout

The DCCC endorsement went to Christensen, and mine was one of the deciding votes. After the meeting – as if on cue – I received a few dozen angry messages and threats*, including the image to the right that was posted on Twitter. Former Supervisor Chris Daly warned me on my Facebook page, saying “Beware the wrath of Peskin.” That’s right, he substantiated every argument I’ve been making. [If you’re interested, here’s Chronicle columnist Chuck Nevius’s take on the matter.]

This nastiness is exactly why I ran the women’s slate in the 2012 DCCC race, and why I ran for office myself. Today, women comprise 5 out of 11 seats on the Board of Supervisors and the most acrimonious members are gone. We have also achieved gender parity at the DCCC, and Peskin is no longer a member. And I must say, both the Board and the Democratic Party are more pleasant, productive and collaborative places to work. Ask anyone who serves on these bodies.**

All of the news coverage about this race is about Aaron’s personality, and here’s why: the candidates are actually not that different from each other on the issues, but their styles couldn’t be more distinct. If you agree with me that scorched-earth tactics and threats are not the way to do the people’s business, vote for Julie Christensen.

* All from men, go figure

** Don’t get me wrong, there are some truly nasty female leaders out there; we can all think of a few. I recognize that this theory is an over-generalization about gender.

Big Ol’ Voter Guide for San Francisco – November 2014

vote image 1Hi friends –

Yes, it’s a long ballot. But as I’ve mentioned before, you’ve already voted for a lot of these same people once this year (Because of California’s top two system, look it up).

Also, many of the local candidates are unopposed or virtually unopposed. Blah. There is some really interesting and important stuff in the propositions, both locally and statewide. There’s an exciting school board race, with WAY TOO MANY great candidates. (I never get to write that! Too many great candidates! Yay us.)

This is the guide to the San Francisco election. The California guide is posted here.

Without further ado, I submit to you my Big Ol’ Voter Guide. This time, I put my recommendations in order of how each race or measure appears on the ballot. In the interest of full disclosure, I’m a progressive attorney with a background in real estate and land use, whose passions include protecting and promoting San Francisco’s nightlife and culture, getting more women elected to public office, and bringing more public art to cities around the world. I’m a Vice Chair of the San Francisco Democratic Party, and I also like long walks on the beach.

Click here for more information on your voter registration and what your ballot looks like.

Federal Offices
Nancy Pelosi for U.S. House of Representatives, District 12
David Chiu
Jackie Speier for U.S. House of Representatives, District 14

State Assembly
David Chiu, District 17 (East Side of SF)
Phil Ting, District 19 (West Side of SF)

Judiciary 
Carol Kingsley For Superior Court, Office 20

San Francisco Board of Education
Trevor McNeil, Emily Murase, Shamann Walton
Also: Hydra Mendoza, Stevon Cook and Mark Murphy.

Community College Board
Four-year terms: Thea Selby, Brigitte Davila, John Rizzo
Two-year term: Amy Bacharach

BART Board, District 8
Nick Josefowitz

SF Citywide Offices
Carmen Chu for Assessor/Recorder
Jeff Adachi for Public Defender

Local Measures
Yes on Prop A, Transportation Bond
Yes on Prop B, Adjusting Transportation Funding for Population Growth
Yes on Prop C, Children’s Fund
Yes on Prop D, Retiree Benefits for Former Redevelopment Agency Employees
YES YES YES on Prop E, Soda Tax
Yes on Prop F, Pier 70 Development
Yes on Prop G, Anti-Speculation Tax
Yes on Prop H? – Hating on Artificial Turf in Golden Gate Park
No on Prop I? – Supporting New Artificial Turf Soccer Fields in Golden Gate Park
Yes on Prop J, Minimum Wage Increase to $15/hr by July 2018
Yes on Prop K Additional Affordable Housing Policy
NO NO NO on Prop L, Transportation Priorities Policy Statement

San Francisco Board of Supervisors
Mark Farrell for District 2 Supervisor
Katy Tang for District 4 Supervisor
Jane Kim for District 6 Supervisor
Scott Wiener for District 8 Supervisor
Malia Cohen for District 10 Supervisor

FEDERAL OFFICES

US Congress, District 12: Nancy Pelosi

Remember: Nancy represents one of the most progressive districts in the country, and conservatives nationwide are constantly vilifying her based on her “San Francisco values.” And yet, not only has Pelosi refused to be marginalized, but she has earned the support of enough of her colleagues to become the most powerful woman in Congress. A remarkable feat indeed.

Her accomplishments In 21 years in the House of Representatives are far too many to list here. She has stood up for reproductive rights, immigrants, women, and the poor. She fought hard to protect the social safety net when the Republicans in Congress proposed their dramatic spending cuts in 2013 and eventually shut down the government. She helped shepherd Obamacare through the House, which was an incredible achievement in itself. Recently, she has advocated for open military service for transgender folks. (Wait – who says she’s not progressive enough?) If the Democratic Party takes Congress back in this election (which is unlikely), Pelosi will be Speaker again. And wouldn’t that be sweet.

US Congress, District 14: Jackie Speier

jackie-speierI love Jackie Speier. She is fearless, thoughtful and smart, and she also has a remarkable personal story. In 1978 she was left for dead on a tarmac in Guyana with her boss Congressman Leo Ryan during the airstrip shootings that triggered the massacre at Jonestown. In her extraordinary career in public service, she has championed consumer protections, banking reform, and increasing federal funding to public transit in the Bay Area, particularly to Muni and for the electrification of Caltrain, an important component of the California High-Speed Rail Project. She has been tough on PG&E after the San Bruno explosion, and recently she has taken on the epidemic of sexual assault on college campuses and in the military. I can’t say enough great things about Jackie! Also: she has no credible opposition.

STATE ASSEMBLY

Assembly, District 17: David Chiu

This is a funny race. The two leading candidates are both named David, they both went to Harvard, they both serve on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. They have an almost identical voting record. They both also serve on the board of the San Francisco Democratic Party with me, and so I know them both well, and consider them both friends. If you voted in the June election, you’ve already made your choice between David Campos and David Chiu. Because of a quirk in California’s top two voting system, these two candidates are up against each other one more time.

Both Davids would be progressive leaders in the state legislature. But I believe that Chiu will be a more effective advocate for legislation that reflects our San Francisco values. As the President of the Board of Supervisors, Chiu has proven to be adept at shepherding legislation and forging compromise, which skills are especially necessary in a state legislature populated with folks from all over this strange state. (For example, there’s THIS GUY. Yeah. Whoah.)

Campos is openly gay, like the two men who most recently held this seat, Tom Ammiano and Mark Leno. Campos and his supporters claim that the seat should be held by someone who identifies as LGBT. I disagree – no seat in the legislature should be a “gay seat” or an “Asian seat” or “fixie riding tech bro” seat. The candidate who can best represent all of the district’s constituencies should win. Period.

If you know me, you know that I have always been an advocate for getting more women (and especially mothers!) in public office. Women are generally underrepresented in leadership positions, and it’s important to include women’s voices in the decisions that affect all of us. But to propose that a specific seat is a “woman’s seat” would be ludicrous. There certainly aren’t enough LGBT folks in the state legislature (there are 8 including Ammiano, which is 7% of the total members), however, we have made considerable progress on this front in recent years. The current Assembly Speaker is an out lesbian and the previous Speaker was a gay man.

I do think it’s really gross that some well-funded haters have been sending out mail trying to connect Campos with Ross Mirkarimi’s domestic violence issues. Specifically, they claim that Campos’ vote against removing Ross from office makes him unqualified to serve in the Assembly. Regardless of your feelings about Mirkarimi, this argument is laughable. I don’t think that a person’s entire 6-year voting record should or can be boiled down to a single vote.

Assembly, District 19: Phil Ting

I really like Phil Ting. Suuuuuper nice guy, and also good at what he does. Ting represents the west side of San Francisco, which is considerably more conservative than the side I live in. And yet he’s been a consistent vote for legislation supported by San Franciscans citywide. He has pushed for closing the Prop 13 loophole that allows corporations to avoid paying their fair share of property taxes; he has promoted the building of separated bike lanes statewide, making biking safer and easier; and he has pushed for BART to reform its safety procedures. He is also virtually unopposed.

JUDICIARY

Carol Kingsley For Superior Court, Office 20

This was a tough decision for me. Both Carol Kingsley and Daniel Flores are strong candidates for this office. When the San Francisco Democratic Party interviewed each of them at our endorsement meeting in March, I was impressed with both. They would bring very different qualities to the bench.

Daniel Flores is a defense and civil rights lawyer with 13 years of experience and an impressive list of endorsers from all over the San Francisco political spectrum. He is a courtroom litigator with experience in big firms and his own practice, representing clients ranging from businesses to tenants fighting against their landlords. In the Democratic Party endorsement process, he was not afraid to declare his views on a wide range of political subjects, which made me wonder about both his judgment and his ability to be impartial.

Carol Kingsley is an attorney of 25 years who’s specialized as a mediator, skilled at sifting through disputes and convincing parties to cooperate. She is a crusader for stricter gun laws, since her husband and eight others were slain in the 1993 killing spree at 101 California. Given that she has twice the experience of Flores, and given that women are still under-represented on the bench, I’m going with Kingsley. She is endorsed by the San Francisco Chronicle, SFWPC, former City Attorney Louise Renne, and many other judges and community leaders.

SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF EDUCATION

I’ll say it again: TOO MANY GREAT CANDIDATES! In this election, I’m endorsing Trevor McNeil, Emily Murase, and Shamann Walton for the reasons below. But incumbent Hydra Mendoza has done a fine job on the School Board, and Stevon Cook and Mark Murphy would be excellent additions to the board as well.

Trevor McNeil

There aren’t any current teachers from San Francisco Unified on the school board, and there won’t ever be. The school board oversees the school district and negotiates teacher contracts, and so this would be a direct conflict of interest. This is why it’s important to elect Trevor McNeil – because he brings a very important perspective to the Board of Education, that of a third-generation educator. Trevor currently teaches 7th grade with the San Mateo-Foster City School District. Previously he was a substitute, tutor, and paraprofessional at San Francisco Unified, teaching in almost every neighborhood in our city.  I have worked with him for two years on the DCCC. He’s passionate about his students and about education policy, and he works very, very hard. He’s also a conciliator, which is needed on the school board, as there is considerable tension right now between the teachers union and the school board. I’m hoping that Trevor will help bring the two sides together. His long list of endorsers is here.

Emily Murase

Emily is a parent of two girls in the SF public schools and an alumna. She has worked hard on anti-bullying initiatives, reforming the school meals program, supporting foreign language and STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) programs, and the new Common Core Standards. Her day job is as the Executive Director of the San Francisco Department on the Status of Women, and so she brings a feminist perspective to the board, which I appreciate.

San Francisco schools get a bad rap. Several years ago, school quality was a disaster, and families were leaving SF in droves because of it. (Now they leave because of housing prices, but I digress). Our public schools have dramatically improved in recent years, the district’s budget is in the black, and construction projects are coming in on time and under budget. (!) This is in part due to the cohesion of the current School Board, of which Emily Murase serves as the President. She has an impressive list of endorsers, and she deserves another term.

Shamann Walton

I met Shamann the first time he ran for the Board of Education two years ago, and I was very impressed. I’m enthusiastically supporting him because he’s a native San Franciscan who has long worked with students through workforce and mentorship programs, mostly in the Bayview, giving him a unique perspective on the needs of students, particularly students of color. He’s young, he’s smart, he’s a parent, and he has boundless energy and passion for the schools.

The four most important endorsements in this race are the teachers union, the SF Democratic Party, the Chronicle and the Bay Guardian – and Shamann is the only candidate with all four. In fact, he seems to be the only candidate that everyone seems to agree on, including the Mayor, every member of the Board of Supervisors, five members of the School Board, and many others.

Hydra Mendoza

If I had a fourth vote, incumbent Hydra Mendoza would get it. She works hard on important issues like improving access to technology in the public schools, improving academic standards, and increasing parent engagement. I have enjoyed working with her over the years. She is a close ally of the Mayor’s – her day job is as the Mayor’s Senior Advisor on Education – which can be either good or bad depending on the issue. But the reason why she didn’t get a top-three endorsement from me is because she waited until the filing deadline to decide whether she wanted to run for re-election, and this tells me that her passion for serving on the school board is waning.

Stevon Cook

Stevon is a third-generation San Franciscan and resident of the Bayview. He has a few key endorsements, including the teachers union, Assemblymember (and former School Board member) Tom Ammiano and the Bay Guardian. One of his campaign issues is teacher retention, recognizing that SFUSD often loses many qualified teachers in their first five years on the job. It’s an important issue for the School Board to tackle. I like Stevon, and I hope he runs again if he doesn’t win this time around.

 

Mark Murphy

Mark is married to a San Francisco public school teacher and he also has many years of involvement in the public schools. He currently serves as Co-Chair of the Community Advisory Committee of an annual $50 million public fund that benefits the school district. He also has a civil rights background, having served for 5 years on the Human Rights Commission’s LGBT Advisory Committee, where he worked on an LGBT anti-discrimination program in the public schools. He has tutored students, and has been involved in multiple committees and political organizations. And also: super nice guy.

COMMUNITY COLLEGE BOARD

Why would you POSSIBLY run for a seat on the Community College Board, which is the least powerful place to be in elective office in San Francisco? The board – which is normally responsible for setting policy for City College – is now powerless, after being replaced last year by Special Trustee Bob Agrella as part of the district’s battle to retain its accreditation. And – the board might not even exist in a few years if the accreditation is lost. I think each of the 10 candidates is nuts for even running.

But! City College is a vital institution in San Francisco, and I am glad to see that so many people are passionate about its revival. Really. In this election, there are four seats up: three four-year terms, and one two-year term to replace Chris Jackson, who resigned in the middle of his term. For the four-year terms I am supporting Thea Selby, Brigitte Davila, and John Rizzo. For the two-year term, I am endorsing Amy Bacharach.

Brigitte Davila

Brigitte is one of the few candidates running for the college board with experience as a teacher. For over 20 years, she was a professor at San Francisco State University, which is where many City College students transfer. She is also a community college success story. As the first in her family to seek higher education, she worked her way up from community college in LA County to undergraduate and graduate degrees from Berkeley. For these reasons, her perspective on the board would be a valuable one.

Thea Selby

Thea-Selby_Emerge-AmericaI am convinced that Thea doesn’t sleep. She runs her own business, she is an active parent of two kids, she is a passionate advocate for transit, and she’s involved in numerous community and small business groups. I have been impressed with her work as chair of the San Francisco Transit Riders Union, and also when she ran for Supervisor in District 5 in 2012.

Thea is the consensus choice for the College Board, having earned a broad range of endorsements from the City College teachers union and United Educators, to the Bay Guardian, the SF Democratic Party, and many more. A neighborhood and small business advocate, she was a solid candidate when she ran for District 5 supervisor in 2012, and she’s learned a lot since then. She will bring a level head to the College Board, and so I enthusiastically support her.

John Rizzo

rizzoJohn is an incumbent on the College Board, and that stacks the deck against him because the accreditation debacle has happened under his watch. However, John is the one incumbent I’m supporting, because he has shown himself to be a reformer, he has worked hard to fight the corruption and mismanagement at City College. As President of the board, he increased the frequency of Board meetings from monthly to weekly, and urged the Board to bring in auditors to identify problems and recommend solutions. I believe his is a critical voice in fighting dis-accreditation.

 

Amy Bacharach

I supported Amy when she ran for College Board two years ago, and I am proud to support her again. Bacharach understands the value of community college, because it enabled her to get her college degree, and ultimately her PhD. She is smart, competent, and willing to make the tough calls, particularly in centralizing decision-making in CCSF’s administration.

 

BART BOARD, DISTRICT 8
Nick Josefowitz

This one was an easy one for me. Nick is a solar energy entrepreneur who has put together a strong and well-funded challenge to James Fang, the only Republican holding elective office in San Francisco. I am a little embarrassed for both of the candidates, as this race has gotten very nasty in recent weeks. In mailers sent in mid-October, Fang accuses Josefowitz of being a carpet bagger who couldn’t even get the endorsement of his own party, and Josefowitz accuses Fang of being one of the five most corrupt politicians in San Francisco history. The truth is, for the first time, Fang actually is at serious risk of losing re-election, and upstart Josefowitz smells blood in the water, and this has caused them both to behave badly.

Fang earned the support of (the extremely powerful) SEIU Local 1021 when he walked a picket line with BART workers last year. To me, it seemed like a craven political tactic, and it essentially neutralized some of Fang’s biggest political enemies. Fang also has a lot of support from SF’s old guard: Nancy Pelosi, Gavin Newsom, Kamala Harris, Ed Lee, Jeff Adachi, and many others. But I’m guessing this has more to do with Fang’s longevity in office: he has been friends with all these people for a few decades now, and has probably supported all of their campaigns. This is the power of incumbency.

But Fang’s no friend of mine, and I think the BART board needs new blood. BART has serious problems – broken escalators, closed bathrooms, dirty trains, broken promises for transit-friendly development – and Fang doesn’t have good answers for why the BART Board hasn’t solved any of them. Josefowitz has energy, ideas, and a fresh perspective. He is focused on improving the rider experience, and making the system more sustainable, accountable, and innovative. He has the endorsement of the Chronicle, the Bay Guardian, the Examiner, BART Director Tom Radulovich, several Supervisors and many others.

SF CITYWIDE OFFICES

Carmen Chu for Assessor/Recorder
 and Jeff Adachi for Public Defender. Both are unopposed, and both are doing a great job by all accounts.

The Assessor-Recorder assesses property values for tax purposes and brings in about one-third of the city’s General Fund revenue. Carmen has done a fine job of standing up to commercial property owners who have sought reassessments. She is smart and professional and she runs the office well. Also – did I mention she’s unopposed?

Jeff Adachi has been Public Defender since 2003. His clients and staff love him. He founded the Reentry Council to help coordinate the delivery of jobs, education, and substance abuse treatment to folks who have been released from prison or jail to help them make a fresh start. Also – did I mention he’s unopposed?

LOCAL MEASURES

Yes on Prop A, Transportation Bond


The SF transit system is at a breaking point. This measure will authorize the city to issue $500 million in general obligation bonds to fund transportation infrastructure projects, like safety, circulation, streetscaping, and Muni’s many years of deferred maintenance needs. The measure was carefully crafted so that it benefits motorists, cyclists and pedestrians alike. It needs a 2/3 supermajority to pass.

Opponents include Retired Judge Quentin Kopp and taxpayers organizations. They call it a “blank check,” saying that it doesn’t restore past Muni cuts and there isn’t proper oversight over how the money is spent. But I don’t buy it. Everyone else – and I do mean everyone – supports it: elected officials, media organizations, advocacy groups. The transit projects funded by Prop A will improve traffic flow for buses, cars, and bicycles; improve MUNI reliability and decrease travel times; improve emergency response times; make the city’s streets and sidewalks safer and more accessible for pedestrians and people with disabilities; and separate bicyclists from car traffic to make it safer for everyone. Because the bonds will replace previous bonds as they expire, the measure will not raise tax rates. No brainer.

Yes on Prop B, Adjusting Transportation Funding for Population Growth


If approved, Prop B would amend the City Charter to require the city to increase the base contribution to the Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) by a percentage equal to the city’s annual population increase. Without it, the city would continue to provide a minimum funding amount to the SFMTA based on a percentage of the city’s overall revenue and not tied to the city’s population.

What a great idea! As the city continues to grow, our transportation infrastructure is straining under its existing infrastructure and funding sources. Muni’s operating costs go up along with its ridership, and so tying transit funding to population growth makes perfect sense.

The reason why this is on the ballot is because city leaders had promised to put a local increase in the vehicle license fee on this ballot. But when the Mayor backed out, Supervisor Wiener and five of his colleagues responded with Prop B – which contains a provision allowing the Mayor to repeal this set-aside if and when voters approve a local VLF increase.

Yes on Prop C, Children’s Fund

Prop C will extend the city’s Children’s Fund and Public Education Enrichment Fund for the next 25 years, dividing the city’s general Rainy Day Reserve into a City Rainy Day Reserve and a School Rainy Day Reserve. Much of the money from the two funds renewed by this measure goes towards supporting public schools and public school programs.

Set-asides like this one make me nervous, because they tend to tie the hands of legislators in the careful and complicated balancing act that is the city’s annual budget process. But I am supporting this one because it is the culmination of two years of work by a grassroots coalition of youth service providers. And the youth programs — including preschool programs, art and music curriculum in schools, and violence prevention programs — have been proven to work. The measure has a broad range of support, and no organized opposition.

Yes on Prop D, Retiree Benefits for Former Redevelopment Agency Employees

This one is a bit complicated, and also doesn’t apply to very many people. It closes a loophole to allow for a small number of City employees to be eligible for retirement benefits.

In 2012, Redevelopment Agencies were eliminated in California, and in San Francisco, most Redevelopment Agency employees were transferred over to City departments. The City Charter provides that City employees hired on or before January 2009 are eligible for retiree benefits after five years of service. This measure amends the City Charter to allow former Redevelopment Agency staff who were hired before January 2009, and who have become City employees, to be eligible for the same retirement benefits as other City employees. (Employees hired on or after January 2009 are required to work 20 years before they are eligible for retiree health benefits.)

This measure was unanimously placed on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors, and it only applies to about 50 people. The Controller’s Office estimates that it will only cost the City about $75,000 over many years. It sounds fair to me, and honestly it’s such a minor issue that I don’t think it’s worth wringing our collective hands over it.

YES YES YES on Prop E, Soda Tax – cut obesity in SF!

This measure would impose a 2-cents-per-ounce tax on “sugary beverages” in San Francisco, the proceeds from which would go towards nutrition, physical activity, and health programs in public schools, parks, and elsewhere in the city. It is estimated to bring in revenue of about $31 million per year, and it is primarily aimed at decreasing the consumption of these sugary drinks. It needs a 2/3 supermajority to pass.

The soda companies have spent MILLIONS of dollars fighting this measure. I don’t think I’ve ever gotten so much mail from a single campaign! And that’s saying a lot. (Ahem, PG&E). That’s because if it passes in San Francisco, it will likely serve as a turning point in the fight against obesity and diabetes nationwide. Many other jurisdictions have tried to pass similar laws, to no avail – the soda companies have always succeeded in beating them back.

Study after study links soda consumption with diabetes and obesity rates, increasing health care costs. Especially in poorer communities. In fact, a Harvard study has found that the per person cost of obesity is similar to the cost of smoking. YES – this is another nanny state law wagging its finger at people making bad decisions for themselves. And yes – it’s a regressive tax, meaning it hurts poor people the most. But I think it’s fine for the government to help solve this problem by discouraging unhealthy behaviors.

And it’s also a tactic been proven to work – Mexico approved a more modest version of this law last year, and preliminary results show that consumption of taxed sugary drinks were down 10 percent compared with the previous year. And if we can all do something to improve the public’s health – and save the state the cost of treating rampant obesity and diabetes – then it’s worth a shot. Don’t let Big Soda buy your vote. Vote yes.

Yes on Prop F, Pier 70 development 


Everyone loves Prop F. Even the people who normally oppose every real estate development proposal in San Francisco. Seriously. Environmental groups, the Bay Guardian, former Mayor Art Agnos, neighborhood organizations near the project…everyone.

Proposition F would authorize the $100 million redevelopment of Pier 70 in the Dogpatch. The proposed plan would renovate and rehabilitate three historical buildings occupying 28 acres of pier space in order to create residences, office space, and buildings for retailers, artists and manufacturers. It includes nine acres of new parks! It requires voter approval because it seeks to increase the height limits on Pier 70 from 40 feet to 90 feet, a process that requires a ballot measure. (Remember Prop B from the June 2014 ballot? Yep. This is the first measure to be required under that new law).

The reason why no one opposes it is because the developer, Forest City, put the project together only after significant community input. They have shown themselves to be responsive to the neighborhood and the city’s political interests.

Yes on Prop G, Anti-Speculation Tax

If approved, Proposition G would impose an additional transfer tax on the sale or transfer of multi-unit properties that have been owned for less than five years. The idea is to make it much more expensive for real estate speculators to buy and flip large apartment buildings after evicting the entire building, thus contributing to the City’s eviction epidemic and housing crisis.

Prop G would levy a 24 percent tax if a property is flipped with a year of purchase or 14 percent within five years. It doesn’t apply to single-family homes and large apartment complexes – only to medium-size multi-unit buildings that are often the targets of speculation.

The opponents of this measure are realtors and small property owners who, frankly, don’t want their profits limited. They have dumped more than $1 million into the race, claiming that this tax will drive up rents, that it is hurting small property owners. I don’t buy it. I think it is most likely to prevent people from selling properties quickly after they buy them, and it will likely mean that fewer San Franciscans will lose their homes. And that’s a good thing.

Yes on Prop H and No on I? – Artificial Turf in Golden Gate Park


Prop H and I are both about the Recreation and Park Department’s proposal to renovate the soccer fields near Beach Chalet, to convert the grass to artificial turf, and to install new stadium lights. The plan has been in the works for six years, and has received the approval of both the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. But there are some neighbors and environmentalists who oppose the plan, and that’s why there are competing measures on the ballot.

Prop H will prevent the proposal from happening, and it was placed on the ballot by the individuals who oppose the project. Prop I will enable the new fields project, and it was placed on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors. If both measures receive more than 50 percent approval, the one with the most votes will be enacted.

This is a really hard one for me. I voted No on H and Yes on I at the Democratic Party endorsements, and I was prepared to recommend the same in this voter guide. The grass field that is there now is underused, and the proposed improvements are estimated to double the public’s use of the area. And adding nighttime lights will make this location more useable for everybody. The opponents of this project have had their concerns heard and vetted over the last six years and multiple government hearings, and I feel like six years is long enough for public debate. Supervisor Eric Mar (Richmond District) is a champion of families in his district and he supports the fields project.

However, I am sensitive to the argument that artificial turf and stadium lights could have unintended consequences for the environment. And I have recently learned something scary about this project – that there may be serious health consequences of using “crumb rubber” as a play surface for children, and no one has studied the question. The artificial turf is made of ground up tires, composed of carcinogens and chemicals including benzene (a nasty solvent), carbon black and lead. The national media is starting to take note of clusters of lymphoma and leukemia among soccer goalies who play on these fields. Sixty professional soccer players have sued FIFA over its decision to use artificial turf for the Women’s World Cup because of cancer concerns. Moreover, most of the people using these fields are young – and children’s bodies are growing and developing, so their bodies are more susceptible than adults to chemical exposures. The evidence is anecdotal at this point, but until we know more about the health consequences of playing on artificial turf, I can’t endorse the city’s proposal.

Yes on Prop J, Minimum Wage Increase to $15/hr by July 2018


Prop J will raise the minimum wage in San Francisco to $15 per hour by 2018 from the current rate of $10.78 per hour. It was spearheaded by Mayor Ed Lee and referred to the ballot by the Board of Supervisors as a compromise between labor and business interests.

A full time job paying $15 per hour results in a salary of $31,000. I think it’s fair to say that anyone working a minimum wage job – either before or after Prop J passes – can’t afford to live in this city, which is terrible. Economic disparity is a major problem in San Francisco, and it just feels right that we should raise our minimum wage. Labor unions, the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor support Prop J, and small business owners groups generally oppose it.

Yes on Prop K Additional Affordable Housing Policy

Prop K would establish a new City policy to help construct or rehabilitate at least 30,000 homes, the majority of which would be affordable for middle-class and low-income households – and to secure adequate funding to achieve that goal. It asks the Board of Supervisors to hold an annual hearing on progress toward the City’s housing goals and work with the Mayor to accomplish them.

I hate non-binding policy measures, they are usually a waste of time. There are no consequences if the goals of the policy aren’t met! Blah. When Supervisor Jane Kim originally wrote this measure, it was binding legislation that would have slowed down market-rate housing development by forcing additional studies and hearings when affordable units fell below 30% of total housing production. But then she was attacked by developers and the Mayor’s office, and it became a much more complicated battle that she didn’t want fight (the same year she is running for re-election). That said, I say yes – vote for it. At the very least it is drawing attention to the affordable housing crisis. In fact, I can’t imagine what it would say about this city’s priorities if it was voted down.

NO NO NO on Prop L, Transportation Priorities Policy Statement, which will make congestion insanely worse in SF

Prop L is horrible, just horrible. It’s the product of whiny motorists who don’t understand how transportation policy works.

If approved, the measure would establish a City policy that would prohibit the city from: (1) charging parking meter fees on Sundays and holidays, or outside the hours of 9am-5pm; (2) putting new meters in neighborhoods without consent from the affected residents and businesses; and (3) increasing parking garage, meter or ticket rates for at least five years, with increases tied to the CPI after that. The measure would also require the city to enforce traffic laws equally for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. Thankfully, it is not binding legislation and it wouldn’t directly change any city laws. But it’s still a terrible idea for several reasons.

Balancing the interests of cyclist, pedestrians and motorists is extremely difficult, and something that I think the city actually does a decent job of. The city is rapidly growing, and this means that there are more cars on the street, and more congestion and safety problems. We absolutely have to improve our public transportation system to get people out of their cars to make congestion better for everyone. This measure would essentially make it city policy to divert Muni funding to build more parking lots and give residents veto power over new parking controls in their neighborhoods. This would only make things much worse. I know that everyone hates parking meters – but they help the city manage and encourage parking turnover, especially in commercial areas.  Diverting Muni funding and taking parking policy decisions out of the hands of the City’s transportation experts is the opposite of what we should do to solve our city’s transportation problems.

SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

Mark Farrell For District 2 Supervisor


District 2 (Marina, Pacific Heights, Sea Cliff) is of the wealthiest and most conservative districts in the city. And while I’ve disagreed with incumbent Mark Farrell on some issues, he has proven to be a smart and effective, humble and accessible. He has worked hard to address homelessness, and he has done a decent job as chair of the Board’s Budget Committee.

 

Katy Tang For District 4 Supervisor

Tang votes with the more conservative forces in City Hall because she represents one of the more conservative districts in town. But! She knows the neighborhood very well, having been raised there, and having served as an aide in that district for years. She is focused the neighborhood’s needs, such as public transportation and public safety. She is a smart, level head in City Hall. She should be re-elected.

Jane Kim for District 6 Supervisor


Jane has been an effective Supervisor who hasn’t shied away from controversial topics that she knew might anger her base. And for that she has my respect. She also represents a tough district – it includes one of the poorest neighborhoods in the city (Tenderloin), as well as some of its most influential technology companies (Twitter, Autodesk), and fastest growing neighborhoods (China Basin, Mission Bay).

Jane has worked hard on affordable housing issues, pedestrian safety, homeless services. She sponsored the controversial Twitter tax break that has been credited with feeding the tech boom in San Francisco, and blamed for the housing crisis and gentrification. She is a prolific legislator and also works very hard for her district’s needs (and micro-needs). She deserves a second term.

Scott Wiener for District 8 Supervisor


Scott has grown on me. I supported one of his opponents four years ago, but since then I have had the pleasure of working closely with Scott, both at the Board of Supervisors and on the DCCC, where we both serve as elected members. Scott has been a forceful advocate for improving public transportation, for protecting San Francisco’s nightlife options, and for finding the funding for numerous community projects like the badly-needed Dolores Park renovation. I don’t always agree with him, but he’s doing a fine job for the district, and he is the strongest leader on nightlife issues the City has seen in a long while. Several candidates are running against him, but none appear to have gained any traction. However, if you really care about letting the naked guys in the Castro run free, you should vote for George Davis, whose sole platform is repealing Scott’s 2012 legislation banning nudity in public.

 

Malia Cohen for District 10 Supervisor

Malia is the only incumbent running for re-election this year with serious opposition. And I kind of feel bad for her – the district she represents is the most diverse in the city. From Potrero Hill to the Bayview, to Dogpatch, Viz Valley and Mission Bay – the district includes rich, poor, new, old, and every ethnic group. In a single day, she will visit the family of a shooting victim, cut the ribbon on a new restaurant on Third Street, and participate in negotiations over a new large-scale real estate development. She’s done a good job of balancing all of these diverse interests, her accomplishments are many, and I think she’s earned a second term.

I don’t dislike like her opponent Tony Kelly. Nice guy, and his heart is in the right place. However, he put out a mailer a few weeks ago saying that Malia is just too darn pretty to be Supervisor – and I thought that was just weird and vaguely sexist. And questions were raised earlier this year about Tony’s financial stewardship of a nonprofit he ran, including a $200,000 loan from the City that his company never repaid. I think Malia deserves re-election, but I’d like to see what Tony can do in four years.

Big Ol’ Voter Guide for California – November 2014

This ballot is a long one, but I have great news. You’ve already voted for a lot of these same people once this year (WHAA? Yes). Let’s review, shall we?

California has adopted the “top two” open primary system of electing our state officers and legislators, which means that: (1) in the June election, voters chose among candidates of all parties, not just the party they are registered in; and (2) the top two candidates, regardless of party, advanced to the general election in November. So if you’re like me, you’re voting in November for all the same people you voted for in June in the State Assembly and statewide officer races. (Surprise! They are all Democrats.) You can find them all in my June voter guide. But not to worry, I’ve included my explanations here too.

There is also some REALLLLLY interesting and important stuff in the propositions. So pay attention.

This is my guide for the statewide candidates and ballot measures in the November 2014 election. The guide specific to San Francisco is posted here.

Without further ado, I submit to you my Big Ol’ Voter Guide. This time, I put my recommendations in order of how each race or measure appears on the ballot. In the interest of full disclosure, I’m a progressive attorney with a background in real estate and land use, whose passions include protecting and promoting San Francisco’s nightlife and culture, getting more women elected to public office, and bringing more public art to cities around the world. I’m a Vice Chair of the San Francisco Democratic Party, and I also like long walks on the beach.

Click here for more information on your voter registration and what your ballot looks like.

California Statewide Offices

Jerry Brown for Governor
Gavin Newsom for Lieutenant Governor
Alex Padilla for Secretary of State
Betty Yee for Controller
John Chiang for Treasurer
Kamala Harris for Attorney General
Dave Jones for Insurance Commissioner
Fiona Ma for Board of Equalization, District 2

Judiciary
Approve all of the Supreme Court Justices and Justices of the Court of Appeal

Superintendent of Public Instruction
Tom Torlakson

State Measures
Yes on Prop 1, Water Bonds
Yes on Prop 2, Rainy Day Fund
Yes on Prop 45, Health Insurance Rate Regulation
NO NO NO on Prop 46, Random Drug Testing of All Doctors, Increasing Malpractice Damages Cap
YES YES YES on Prop 47, Misdemeanor Offense Classification
Yes on Prop 48, Off-Reservation Indian Gaming Compacts

CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE OFFICES

Linda Ronstadt’s ex-boyfriend

Governor: Jerry Brown

Remember when Jerry Brown ran for Governor four years ago, when the economy was in the tank and nobody else wanted the job? Think about how far we’ve come. Governor Brown can’t take ALL the credit for the vastly improved economy, but he can take credit for having turned around some of the state’s structural budget deficits. Today he has a 60% approval rating, and during his term, California went from a $25 billion budget deficit to a $4.2 billion projected budget surplus, in no small part due to the tax measure that Brown pushed for in 2012.

His opponent Neel Kashkari is a Republican former banker with marginal support. He is running a very strange campaign, in that he’s trying to win over voters who oppose Brown from both the left AND the right. He is arguing that Brown hasn’t done enough for the poor, for schools, or for jobs. But these arguments ring hollow to me, given the numbers I cited above. Brown is doing a fine job, let’s keep him.

Lieutenant Governor: Gavin Newsom

Newsom’s hair looks exactly the same in every single picture taken of him ever.

I kind of feel bad for Gavin Newsom. The Lieutenant Governor doesn’t have much to do other than fill in when the Governor is absent or incapacitated. He sits on the State Lands Commission and the UC Board of Regents, and these can be powerful places to be – but very boring places for someone like Newsom, who likes to be the star of the show. But Newsom has been able to use his office to draw attention to important issues like drug policy reform. He has called for ending the war on drugs, calling it “nothing more than a war on communities of color and on the poor.” (Tell it, brother!). I’m happy to support him again.

His opponent is political consultant (and former chair of the California Republican Party) Ron Nehring from San Diego. Field Polls have Newsom ahead by a landslide, and Newsom has ten times the amount of money in the bank, so this campaign is all but over. I was listening to Nehring on KQED radio the other day, and his campaign motto seems to be, glumly, “Everyone deserves to have an opponent.” Aw. Sad.

Secretary of State: Alex Padilla

padilla

You wouldn’t guess this charming fellow is an MIT-trained nerd.

Senator Alex Padilla is a Democrat. His opponent Pete Peterson is a Republican. Is that enough for me? Yeah probably. But in case you’re interested, here’s more detail.

Peterson, an academic at Pepperdine University, has some interesting ideas. He has suggested that politicians’ salaries be based on the number of campaign promises they are able to keep. (Ha! Yeah. Right.) He has proposed a ban on all fundraising activities by state legislators and statewide officeholders while the legislature in is session, thus leveling the playing field for candidates who are running against incumbents. Hmm. I kind of like that idea, actually.

But I like Padilla because he has been a prolific (and liberal) legislator in the State Senate, authoring bills on a wide range of issues including local prosecution of military sexual assault, criminalizing the mislabeling of seafood, and improving campaign communication disclosures. Remarkably, he is also an MIT-trained engineer who is both charismatic and charming (!). If elected, he promises to modernize the technology used by the Secretary of State’s office (‘bout time!) to make it easier to open a business and to register to vote. Given his background, he is just the guy to tackle this pressing matter.

Controller: Betty Yee

319850_4242416383172_1371294887_n

Betty Yee speaks for me

I can’t say enough good things about Betty Yee…she is genuine and smart, tough and effective, and she has far more  financial experience than her opponent. She is a lifelong public servant, having worked in financial-related offices in state government before running for the Board of Equalization, on which she now serves. On the BoE, she has used her position to fight for tax equity for same-sex couples, she has advocated for the legalization of recreational marijuana (think of the tax revenues!), and she has adhered to the highest of ethical standards (for example, she rejected campaign contributions form the tobacco industry). The Controller’s primary responsibility is to track and control the disbursement of the state of California’s money, and so having an unimpeachable ethical record is important.

Her opponent Republican Ashley Swearingen is the mayor of Fresno, and is widely considered to be a rising star in her party. Her only relevant experience is turning Fresno’s financial ship around, and she did so by cutting city jobs and forcing public employees to pay more of their pension contributions. (If you know me, you know these things make me wince). Fresno is not California, and I don’t think she’s ready for prime time.

Treasurer: John Chiang

Mathlete John Chiang

The Treasurer is the state’s banker, the officer who is responsible for managing the state’s investments, including state employee pension funds. Who better to serve as our next Treasurer than the person who has done a great job as the state’s Controller for the last 8 years? As Controller, he made a name for himself by enforcing a constitutional requirement holding that legislators would not be paid if they failed to pass a balanced budget by June 15, 2011. During the Great Recession, as California teetered on the brink of bankruptcy, Chiang helped to keep the state functioning and paying its bills. He also helped balance the budget by identifying $6 billion in waste that was made available for more productive purposes. Also: he was a high school mathlete (I ❤ nerds!), and he is virtually unopposed.

Attorney General: Kamala Harris

Future Governor Kamala Devi Harris

Future Governor Harris

Incumbent Kamala Harris is also virtually unopposed, so I’ll keep it brief: Kamala is a rockstar. She has been a powerful advocate for consumers and privacy protections, prisoner anti-recidivism programs, victims of mortgage fraud, and same sex marriage in California. She is also brings a fresh perspective to the office, as she is the first African American, the first Indian American, and the first woman to serve as the state’s top cop. I am proud that she comes from San Francisco, and I hope she runs for Governor in four years.

Her opponent is Republican Ron Gold, whose campaign is focused on legalizing recreational marijuana (Yes! And he’s a Republican!). I’m all for it, but Gold doesn’t have a chance – he got only 12% of the vote in the June primary. But his campaign seems to have softened Harris’ stance on the issue. Which is a good thing.

Insurance Commissioner: Dave Jones

Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones – I can’t think of a single snarky thing to say about him.

Dave Jones is earnest and hard working, and he’s done some great things with his first four years as Insurance Commissioner. He has required health insurance companies to use no more than 20 percent of premiums on profits and administrative costs, and he has secured strict regulations on life insurance companies to prevent them from withholding benefits improperly. Recently, Jones held hearings on the insurance practices of ride-sharing companies to make sure that they are adequately insured to protect both their drivers and the general public. Jones’ Republican opponent, State Senator Ted Gaines, actually wants to decrease oversight of the insurance industry. Um, no. And no.

Board of Equalization: Fiona Ma

Fiona Ma no longer hates raves

Fiona Ma represented the west side of San Francisco on the Board of Supervisors and in the State Assembly for many years. She and I have disagreed on some policy issues, including a bill she wrote in 2010 that would have banned large-scale electronic music events in California. But she did write some great legislation in the Assembly, including a bill that would have required more employers to provide paid sick leave and one that banned toxic chemicals in plastics and children’s toys. She is a good fit for the Board of Equalization, which is the state’s main taxing body. She is a certified public accountant, and would bring her financial experience to that role. She is virtually unopposed, and she deserves your vote.

 

JUDICIARY

Approve All Of The Supreme Court Justices And Justices Of The Court Of Appeal


Does it even matter which one is which? No. No it does not.

Your ballot includes an entire page asking you to ratify judges you’ve never heard of. Save yourself the headache and just vote yes on all of them.

Justices of the State Supreme Court and the State Courts of Appeal must run for “retention” in the first gubernatorial election after they are appointed and then every 12 years. In these elections, voters are asked to ratify them with a yes or no vote, there is no competition. And since the state started its system of retention elections in 1934, justices have been rejected only once – in 1986, when three Supreme Court Justices were thrown out for ruling against the death penalty.

In this election, there doesn’t seem to be any kind of public outrage threatening the ouster of any of these folks. And I couldn’t find any particularly interesting dirt on any of them. So they are all going to win by large margins, perhaps because they should.

SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION – TOM TORLAKSON

Tom Torlakson is busy thinking about ways to improve public schools

Incumbent Tom Torlakson and his main opponent, Marshall Tuck, have very different visions of how to improve public schools in California. A former teacher himself, Torlakson champions teachers and their unions, dislikes the nation’s growing reliance on standardized tests, and advocates for more funding.

An investment banker by trade, Tuck is an advocate for charter schools and for changing the seniority rules for teachers. Personally, I think privatization will serve to drain the public school system of its high achieving students, leaving underperforming students in the dust. (See this great article by my friend Paul Buchheit on the subject.)

On the other hand, it’s clear that the current regime isn’t working for our kids, and I’m sensitive to the argument that the teacher tenure system is broken. But if you ask me, the major problem facing the school system is the lack of funding; California ranks 48th in the United States in school spending! Ridiculous! And sad. It’s clear that Torlakson will be a more effective advocate for more funding, and is a better choice for this reason alone.


STATE MEASURES

Yes on Prop 1, Water Bond

This complicated measure will authorize $7.12 billion in new general obligation bonds for state water supply infrastructure projects, such as public water system improvements, surface and groundwater storage, drinking water protection, water recycling and advanced water treatment technology, water supply management and conveyance, wastewater treatment, drought relief, emergency water supplies, and ecosystem and watershed protection and restoration.

The environmental groups can’t agree on this one. The Sierra Club went with no endorsement, other big environmental groups like The Nature Conservancy support it because of the funding it provides for ecological restoration. The Center for Biological Diversity opposes it because $2.7 billion will go toward dam projects with possible environmental consequences.

It’s tough call, but I support Prop 1 because California is in a severe drought, and this solution is better then no action at all. The measure will not raise taxes, it merely reallocates money from unused bonds to invest in critical projects. Folks from across the political aisle agree: Democrats, Republicans, farmers, and some environmentalists. I think it’s worth a shot.

Yes on Prop 2, Rainy Day Fund


Proposition 2 is highly technical, so bear with me. It’s a constitutional amendment that would change the state’s existing requirements for its rainy day fund, and it would create a Public School System Stabilization Account (PSSSA). If approved, it would require the state Controller to deposit annually in to the rainy day fund 1.5% of all general fund revenues and significantly more of the state’s capital gains tax revenues. Deposits would be made starting no later than October 2015, and would continue until the rainy day fund balance reaches an amount equal to 10% of all general fund revenues. For the first 15 years, the rainy day payments would be split in two, with 50% going towards the state’s liabilities, like pensions and loans. In case you’re worried about future lean years, there’s a relief valve so that the payments can decrease if the Governor declares a budget emergency.

Prop 2 seems like a common sense fiscal reform to me, and I’m delighted that our economy is doing so well that we can have a real conversation about saving for the future. It’s about time that we start thinking long term about protecting vital services during an economic bust. If you’ve lived in California for more than a few years, you know that the public schools and social services are held hostage with every budget cycle, and this measure will insulate them a bit from the ups and downs.

Yes on Prop 45, Health Insurance Rate Regulation

Prop 45 will require health insurance companies to get any rate changes approved by the state Insurance Commissioner before taking effect. It also requires for more transparency in rate changes, including public notices and hearings. Finally, it prohibits health, auto, and homeowners insurers from determining policy eligibility or rates based on lack of prior coverage or credit history.

Have you seen lots of TV ads about this measure? Yeah, the insurance companies are freaking out about this one. Prop 45 seeks to place controls on rising insurance costs so that consumers will stop getting ripped off by insurance companies.

Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones sponsored the measure, and its supporters include Senators Feinstein and Boxer, consumer watchdog groups, NOW, the California Democratic Party, teachers and nurses unions.

Opponents include the California Republican Party, Nancy Pelosi (!), insurance companies, medical organizations, and business groups. They claim that Prop 45 is an attack on Obamacare and that it’s not necessary because Covered California already negotiates insurance rates and benefits on behalf of consumers. It’s true that Prop 45 would give the Insurance Commissioner the right to reject a premium increase by one of Covered California’s approved providers – but what’s the harm in adding safeguards against higher rates? I don’t buy the argument, and I don’t trust insurance companies.

NO NO NO on Prop 46, Random Drug Testing of Doctors, Increasing Malpractice Damages Cap


This measure does three things: (1) it increases the amount of non-economic damages that can be awarded for pain and suffering in medical malpractice claims from $250,000 to over $1 million; (2) it requires the random drug testing of all doctors and requires the medical board to suspend all doctors with positive tests; and (3) requires health care practitioners to consult a state prescription drug history database before prescribing certain controlled substances.

I don’t have a problem with increasing the “pain and suffering” damages cap; in fact, it’s been 40 years since the current cap was established, and increasing it is probably warranted. Creating a statewide prescription drug history database makes me a little itchy – there will be people with access to this database who are not medical professionals and this measure hasn’t thought through the patient privacy issues.

But the main reason why I oppose this measure is…RANDOM DRUG TESTING OF ALL DOCTORS?? Really? C’mon. A dermatologist can lose her medical license because she smokes a joint on the occasional weekend? That’s just not right. I’m not aware that rampant drug use by doctors is a big problem. And who says that the state medical board isn’t already doing a decent job of disciplining doctors who are impaired on the job? The measure doesn’t say what kinds of drugs would be tested or how, or what kinds of penalties would apply.

The measure’s proponents just seem to be demonizing doctors here. They should come back to us with a measure that only increases the pain and suffering cap – that’s a measure I would support. Over 500 state and community organizations oppose Prop 46 – including labor unions, business organizations, the ACLU, women’s rights groups and Planned Parenthood. Please vote no.

YES YES YES on Prop 47, Misdemeanor Offense Classification


This state jails far too many people for nonviolent property and drug crimes. Period.

Prop 47 will reduce the classification of most “nonserious and nonviolent property and drug crimes” from a felony to a misdemeanor, unless the defendant has prior convictions for violent crime. The measure would require misdemeanor sentencing instead of felony for the personal use of most illegal drugs, and for shoplifting, grand theft, receiving stolen property, forgery, fraud, and writing a bad check, where the value of the property or check does not exceed $950. It will also permit re-sentencing for anyone currently serving a prison sentence for any of the above offenses, making about 10,000 inmates eligible for re-sentencing.

Our state’s prison system is overcrowded, and so this measure is way overdue. I also think it’s fundamentally unfair to put someone in prison for possession of small amounts of drugs or bouncing a check; we need to rebalance our criminal justice system so that it prioritizes violent and dangerous crimes. Prop 47 will save the state millions of dollars a year, and put that money towards treating mental illness and drug addiction, fund anti-truancy programs in K-12 schools, and help victims of crime recover from their trauma. The measure is sponsored by SF District Attorney George Gascon, and supported by the ACLU, the California Democratic Party, Newt Gingrich (really?! yes), labor unions, and many victims groups. It is opposed by Senator Feinstein, police officers groups and district attorneys.

Yes on Prop 48, Off-Reservation Indian Gaming Compacts

This measure affirms compacts negotiated by Governor Brown and ratified by all stakeholders to allow the North Fork Tribe to establish an off-reservation casino in Madera County, splitting revenues between the North Fork and the Wiyot tribes. Proponents say that it will create thousands of jobs, promote tribal self-sufficiency, avoid an alternative development plan in environmentally sensitive areas, and generate business opportunities and economic growth. Opponents say that gambling is a bad thing for California, that this measure is a slippery slope that will cause an avalanche of off-reservation casino projects. I don’t have a moral objection to gambling, and the slippery slope argument rings hollow to me, so I don’t see a reason to oppose this measure.