Tag Archives: district attorney

Alix’s Voter Guide – San Francisco – November 2019

This one is a short ballot. I mean really short. Only 6 ballot measures and just a few candidate races with more than one contender. Incredibly, 7 out of 9 local races are either unopposed or virtually unopposed! Weird. Or is it? 

In the last few years, local politics has seemed less important to many of us. Given what is happening at the national level (see: a President who thinks he is above the law, the Democratic primary, the worsening gun violence crisis), it feels like arguments over zoning laws and homeless encampments are a bit like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The planet is LITERALLY BURNING…every one of us may be homeless in a few decades.

This all makes me wonder if this short ballot and multiple uncontested races has something to do with our collective despondence about the national situation. Perhaps the political class in San Francisco is standing down because they would rather use their energy to battle a common enemy in the White House than fight each other over taxes.  …just kidding. it’s just an off-cycle election and the voter turnout is predicted to be an all-time low. Without big races at the top (e.g., Governor, President), off-cycle ballots are predictably short.

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

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

Here’s the summary, with detailed explanations below:

Prop A – Affordable Housing Bond – YES
Prop B – Minor Changes to the Aging and Adult Services Commission – YES
Prop C – Reversing the City’s new restrictions on flavored vaping products – NO NO NO
Prop D – Congestion Tax on Ridesharing Companies – YES
Prop E – Affordable Housing for Teachers and School Employees – YES
Prop F – Campaign Contributions and Campaign Ads – NO

Mayor – London Breed
Board of Supervisors, District 5 – Vallie Brown
City Attorney – Dennis Herrera
District Attorney – Suzy Loftus
Public Defender – Mano Raju
Sheriff – Paul Miyamoto
Treasurer – Jose Cisneros
School Board (one seat) – Jenny Lam
Community College Board (one seat) – Ivy Lee

MEASURES

Prop A – Affordable Housing Bond – YES

You already know this: the rising cost of housing in SF is squeezing out the middle class. Affordable housing is harder and harder to find, and it’s a contributing factor in our growing homelessness problem. Well…the city wants to build new affordable housing, and Prop A will enable the city to borrow $600 million by way of a general obligation bond.

In case you need a refresher on municipal funding mechanisms (ahem), here you go:

A general obligation bond:

  • Is a low-risk way for local governments to raise funds for projects like roads, parks, equipment, and bridges.
  • Imposes a new property tax on homeowners, to pay the bond back over time.
  • Needs 66.6% of the vote to pass, like any other tax in California
  • Must be spent on the specific projects listed in the bond, and always includes enforcement and transparency mechanisms to make sure the funds are being spent appropriately.

Prop A is the biggest housing bond in San Francisco history, and the city estimates that it will fund 2800 new housing units in the city.

It would impose a new tax of 1.9 cents per $100 of assessed property value – which means that if you are a homeowner, and your home is assessed at $1 million, you will pay $190 per year in property tax. However, your property taxes won’t actually go up – the bond is structured so that the new tax will only be imposed as old taxes expire, so your taxes will remain at 2006 levels even after Prop A passes. Win!

The revenue will be divided like this: $220 million to low income housing, $150 million for public housing, $150 million for senior housing, $60 million for middle income housing, and $20 million for educator housing. What is “middle income,” you ask? Up to $215,500 per year for a household of four. Oh, San Francisco.Screen Shot 2019-11-02 at 4.30.30 PM.png

As a homeowner, I don’t mind paying such a small amount for $600 million in new affordable housing in the city. I’m really hoping it will make a dent in our housing crisis. Unfortunately, the projects funded by Prop A will still have to face the ridiculous amount of red tape that all residential development projects do – and this Board of Supervisors is dead set against streamlining the process.

The folks who oppose Prop A are the same people who dislike taxes generally. OR they are worried that this measure doesn’t go far enough, since it will only build a few thousand units. I say: something is better than nothing, and as a homeowner, I’m happy to chip in.

Supporters include: Mayor Breed, the entire Board of Supervisors, the SF Chronicle, the SF Examiner, San Francisco Democratic Party, SPUR, SF Chamber of Commerce, Sierra Club, literally everyone across the political spectrum.

Opponents include: People who hate all taxes; Libertarian Party of San Francisco.

Prop B – Minor Changes to the Aging and Adult Services Commission – YES

Prop B is a technical measure that no one opposes, so I won’t waste your time on it. The measure will rename several city agencies that coordinate services for seniors and people with disabilities, changing the Department of Aging and Adult Services to the Department of Disability and Aging Services. The commission that oversees that department would similarly become the Disability and Aging Services Commission. The idea is that adding the word “disability” to their names will clarify what the agencies do, so that folks with disabilities will know where to go when they are seeking help from the city. The measure will also require the commission to include a person with a disability, a veteran and a senior. Makes sense to me!

Supporters: Mayor Breed and the entire Board of Supervisors; SF Chronicle; SF Examiner; SF Democratic Party; SPUR

Opponents: No one.

Prop C – Reversing the City’s new restrictions on flavored vaping products – NOOO!

Prop C is one of the wildest ballot measures in San Francisco history, and I really hope it fails.

The measure was placed on the ballot by Juul, San Francisco-based e-cigarette manufacturer, in order to reverse a new ordinance banning vaping products in San Francisco. The campaign is totally sleazy, if you ask me, because it is intentionally confusing.Screen Shot 2019-11-02 at 10.10.55 PM.png

Prop C would impose new restrictions on vaping like limiting how many devices and cartridges can be purchased at a time, prohibiting their sale to anyone under the age of 21, and banning the marketing of vaping products to minors.  Keep in mind that most of these rules already exist as to tobacco products, so they are really a red herring.  More important, this complex set of regulations would permanently legalize the sale of vaping products in San Francisco. Because it’s a ballot measure, it can’t be modified by the Board of Supervisors. Ugh.

But here’s the sleazy part: the campaign ads made it sound like Prop C would impose NEW restrictions on vaping that would protect children from the addictive habit. However, the whole purpose of the measure is to overturn the new vaping ordinance so that e-cigarettes could continue to be sold in San Francisco. Incidentally, Juul has been under fire nationwide for marketing their flavored tobacco products to teens.

Juul put Prop C on the ballot, and then spent $10+ million on the campaign… and then on September 30, in a shocking reversal, they announced they were withdrawing their support. Juul got a new CEO, who apparently (has a conscience and) re-evaluated the company’s political activities. So now the measure is in this weird purgatory where it has qualified for the ballot, and lots of people have seen their misleading campaign ads, and plan to vote for it, and yet its sponsor isn’t supporting it any more.

I feel like I should also mention the recent news about vaping, including more than 1000 incidents of illness and a few deaths. Most of those vaping-related injuries have been associated with THC-containing products bought from underground sources, though the scientific community is still investigating. Prop C is only about tobacco products produced by major e-cigarette distributors.

And while vaping tobacco products might not be the cause of serious injuries and deaths in the news, it is not the panacea for smokers that Juul and the Prop C campaign claim. It makes me sad how many friends I have who are addicted to vaping – and they all think it’s safer than smoking cigarettes, despite a growing body of evidence to the contrary.  Juul’s claim that vaping is a healthy alternative to smoking isn’t supported by any legitimate medical authority, and they have gotten the company into trouble with regulators.

Here’s the strongest case I have against Prop C: the regulation of vaping has no business being in a ballot measure.  A ballot measure is a blunt instrument: it can’t be amended except by another ballot measure, which is an expensive and time-consuming process. Measures aren’t intended for nuanced and complicated subjects like this one, particularly since this issue continues to evolve as the medical profession learns about the relative safety of vaping. These proposed rules shouldn’t be permanent and hard to amend – quite the opposite – they should be written by the Board of Supervisors, and iterated over time, and also subject to public input and scrutiny.

Anyhoo, I hope this is enough information for you to vote against Prop C. Even if you think that sales of vaping products should be allowed in San Francisco, and the new ordinance should be overturned, this measure is not the way to do it. Vote no.

Supporters: Coalition for Reasonable Vaping Regulation (i.e., Juul); Neighborhood Grocers

Opponents: Speaker Nancy Pelosi; Former NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg; SF Democratic Party; SPUR; SF Chronicle; SF Examiner; D10 Supervisor Shamann Walton; San Francisco Kids vs. Big Tobacco (“a coalition of doctors, parents, and community groups protecting youth from flavored tobacco products and addiction, sponsored by nonprofit health organizations.”)

Prop D – Congestion Tax on Ridesharing Companies – YES 

Prop D will impose a new tax on Uber and Lyft rides you take within San Francisco. You’ll pay an additional 3.25% on solo rides in gas vehicles and a 1.5% tax on shared rides or rides in electric vehicles. The measure will authorize the city to issue tax bonds up to $300 million to be spent on improving bus and train services, as well as pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure like protected bike lanes. The bonds will be paid back using the new tax revenues.

You may be surprised to learn that the measure is funded by Lyft and Uber, whose businesses will almost certainly suffer once the new tax is approved.

Screen Shot 2019-11-02 at 10.13.40 PM.pngProp D was introduced by Supervisor Aaron Peskin, who worked with Uber and Lyft to settle on the tax rate in exchange for their support for the measure. In my day job, I work for Lyft, and I am proud to support the measure because I think public transit and traffic safety in San Francisco desperately need improvement. As a Lyft employee, I’m a *little* nervous about what the new tax will do to our business in San Francisco. But the average cost of a ride will go up by less than a dollar, so I’m hoping most Lyft and Uber users will barely notice the change. The added cost to solo rides will almost certainly push some users into shared rides (which are less expensive), which is a very good thing. Shared rides help ease congestion by making each car trip more efficient, ultimately getting more cars off the road. The most price-sensitive users will probably use transit, bikes and scooters more, and that will also help in making traffic more bearable in the city.

Some opponents of Prop D argue that the proposed tax isn’t high enough. Others argue that this measure simply makes living in San Francisco more expensive, since public transit isn’t a viable alternative for many people. They also point to the City Controller’s report, which estimates that Prop D will lead to a $25 million loss in San Francisco’s gross domestic product over 20 years and a reduction of 190 total jobs over 20 years. In my opinion, these are small sacrifices to make to improve public safety and transit, but also to reduce driving and encourage other modes of travel.

Supporters: Lyft, Uber, SF Chronicle, SF Examiner, Mayor London Breed, Supervisor Aaron Peskin, San Francisco Democratic Party, San Francisco Labor Council, San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, San Francisco Transit Riders, San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, Walk San Francisco, and California Alliance for Retired Americans

Opponents: People who hate taxes; San Francisco Republican Party

Prop E – Affordable Housing for Teachers and School Employees – YES

Prop E is a complicated measure, but here’s the gist: it would make it easier and faster to build housing for educators and projects that are 100% affordable housing. It will do this by changing zoning codes and approvals, allowing this housing on public land, and shortening the time it takes for the city bureaucracy to review development plans.Screen Shot 2019-11-02 at 10.16.17 PM.png

That last part is key: accelerating review times will help make it easier for these much-needed housing units to actually get built. The common complaint from real estate developers in San Francisco is that it takes too damn long to get anything approved in this city. And the longer it takes, the more expensive a project becomes. And when you’re trying to develop housing with very low profit margins (like affordable housing), even the smallest delays can kill projects that everyone agrees are needed.

In my voter guides, I am always griping about how ballot measures are a terrible way to run a government. My chief complaint is that ballot measures are permanent – you usually can’t amend a ballot measure except with another ballot measure, which is a long and expensive process. Prop E cleverly sidesteps this problem by enabling future amendments by a two-thirds vote of the Board of Supervisors. I love this, and wish more measures did the same.

By the way, if you want to nerd out on the definition of “affordable housing” and “educator housing,” in Prop E, here you go:

  • 100% affordable housing projects must serve households with an average income of 80% of the area median income (AMI). AMI is defined as $98,500 for a household of 2, and $123,150 for a household of 4. (See table below for sample incomes.) Such projects may allow households making up to 120% of AMI.
  • Educator housing projects require that at least one employee of the San Francisco Unified School District or the San Francisco Community College District lives in each unit. Projects must serve an average household income of 100% of AMI.

graph.pngSource: SPUR

I am supporting Prop E because I think the city needs to do everything it can to keep its middle class from fleeing. Building more affordable housing and teacher housing is a good step in that direction. That said, teachers and people within the affordable housing range are not the only workers who need housing, and I think Prop E should have gone further to help solve a larger range of housing needs.

Opponents of Prop E say that this issue could have been addressed legislatively and did not need to be on the ballot. They argue that the streamlined process may not actually work in practice, because most development projects still need to go through an onerous environmental review required by state law (DOH!). Finally, they argue that housing projects that are 100% affordable usually don’t pencil out for the developer, and this measure doesn’t do enough to incentivize builders to actually put these kinds of projects together.

That last argument is a doozy. I do worry that this measure doesn’t go far enough to make sure affordable housing actually gets built. But it’s worth a shot, given the severity of the city’s affordability crisis. The Association of Bay Area Governments determined that San Francisco needs to build 29,000 new housing units to keep up with housing demand through 2022, and that more than half of those need to be very low, low, or moderate income units. Yikes. We are very far away from that goal today, with few affordable housing projects in the pipeline.

The San Francisco Examiner wrote, “While far from a magic bullet, [Prop E] could save precious money and time and make some projects more likely to come to fruition.” I agree.

Supporters: Mayor London Breed, the entire Board of Supervisors, SPUR, SF Democratic Party, SF Examiner, SF Chronicle

Opponents: Libertarian Party of San Francisco

Prop F – Campaign Contributions and Campaign Ads – NO

Prop F is about two issues: (1) tightening up campaign contribution rules to make it harder for private companies and law firms to influence the Mayor, Supervisors and City Attorney in land use matters; and (2) giving voters more information about who is funding certain kinds of political ads. Both are superwonky issues, so bear with me.

Issue #1: Prop F would specifically prohibit campaign contributions from LLCs and law firms, and ban contributions to members of the Board of Supervisors, Mayor and City Attorney, and any candidates for those offices, from any person with land use matters before the City. This seems a little silly to me. Campaign contributions for these offices are already capped at $500, and citywide candidates need to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to compete in their races. So I sincerely doubt that any candidate for public office is going to be swayed by such a small dollar amount.

Issue #2 is more interesting to me – changing the disclosure requirements in campaign ads.

Screen Shot 2019-11-02 at 10.22.24 PM.png

During election season, you see campaign advertisements and mailers from PACs. The small print on those ads say something like, “Paid for by the Committee to Promote Avocado Toast.”  The problem with this disclaimer is that the “committee” is designed to hide the names of its funding sources, so you might be shocked to learn that its funding comes from people who actually HATE avocado toast. Presumably, if you knew the funding sources, you would view the ad with some skepticism, right? “This campaign mailer is trying to mislead me about the nutritional value of this delicious brunch entrée!” you would declare, hypothetically.

That’s the idea behind the new advertising rules in Prop F.  The measure will require campaigns and PACs to prominently disclose the name and dollar amount contributed by the top donors contributing $5,000 or more toward campaign ads. This applies to campaign websites, print materials (flyers, posters, mass mailings, etc.), radio and TV ads. Notably, Prop F does NOT apply to digital or online ads, which, um, is where all campaigns are headed. This, to me, is a very serious flaw (and tells me that Prop F’s authors are out of touch).

Prop F will make it easier for voters to follow the money. This is important in an environment where PAC spending is on the rise (thanks, Citizens United!).  However, if you read my voter guides, you know that I think ballot measures are a terrible way to make complicated policy decisions like this. Complex laws should be written with input from experts, and iterated over time, so that they can adjust to changing circumstances. Measures, by contrast, are set in stone once they are passed. They often aren’t vetted by the right stakeholders, and they can’t be amended except by another ballot measure, which is a time-consuming and expensive process.

While transparency in campaign advertisements is a good idea, Prop F isn’t the way to do it. Campaign finance issues are just too nuanced to be governed by ballot measure. Let’s make the Board of Supervisors do its job, and pass an ordinance that they can go back and adjust over time.

Supporters: Supervisors Yee, Mar, Haney, Fewer, Walton, Ronen, Brown and Mandelman; SF Examiner; SF Democratic Party; SF Tenants Union; SF Labor Council

Opponents: SPUR; SF Chronicle; SF Republican Party

CANDIDATES

Mayor – London Breed

Screen Shot 2019-11-02 at 10.25.33 PM.pngMayor London Breed was first elected in June 2018 after Mayor Ed Lee died suddenly in December of the previous year. Breed is virtually unopposed, meaning, the candidates running against her don’t have the money or name recognition to be viable. And none of the big names in SF politics chose to run against Breed this time around, which says a lot about her strength and her ability to neutralize her opponents. I think the political class decided to give her a pass in this election because she was only sworn in 15 months ago.

Board of Supervisors, District 5 – Vallie Brown

Screen Shot 2019-11-02 at 10.26.53 PM.pngThis one is fascinating – it’s a highly contested race between two candidates who are hard to distinguish politically, so the contest is boiling down to the candidates’ personalities and experience.

Incumbent Supervisor Vallie Brown was appointed by Mayor Breed to fill her old Supervisor seat this year. Brown started in politics as a neighborhood activist, and has worked in the District 5 Supervisor’s office for more than a decade. Because of her work in the community, she knows the district inside and out. In her short time as Supervisor, she’s been focused on solving homelessness, affordable housing, improving Muni, and gender and equity issues.  She’s terrific at constituent services, and she’s adept at forging compromise between the warring factions inside city hall.

Brown was an interesting choice for Mayor Breed because their politics aren’t always aligned. Supervisor Brown has split with the Mayor on some important issues – notably Prop C, the homelessness measure that passed in the 2018 election, which would raise $300 million in taxes from the city’s largest businesses to fund homeless services.

Brown’s main competitor, Dean Preston, made his political debut three years ago when he ran against then-Supervisor Breed. Preston is the founder of Tenants Together, a statewide renters’ rights group. He’s a Democratic Socialist and Bernie bro. He has argued that Brown isn’t aggressive enough on housing and homelessness issues. He has never held elective office, and it shows; his proposals on how to build new housing and enable free Muni are completely unworkable.

I’m supporting Vallie because I find her to be thoughtful and pragmatic. She cares a lot about the district, and has no ambition beyond Supervisor, which is refreshing. She prefers to get things done over getting publicity for herself. Frankly, in today’s political environment I think we need more workhorses (and fewer show ponies) in political office.

Supporters of Vallie Brown: Mayor Breed; US Senator Dianne Feinstein; Senator Scott Wiener; Supervisors Yee, Fewer, Stefani, Walton & Safai; SF Chronicle; SF Examiner; SF Democratic Party; League of Conservation Voters; VoteProChoice; and many more.

Supporters of Dean Preston: Former Assemblymember Tom Ammiano; Former State Senator Mark Leno; Supervisors Mar, Peskin, Haney, Ronen & Mandelman; Tenants Union; Sierra Club; Teachers Union; and many more.

City Attorney – Dennis Herrera

Dennis Herrera is unopposed. He was first elected in 2001, and this will be his 6th term of office. The election of Donald Trump has breathed new life into this veteran politician – Dennis seems to be enjoying suing the White House at every turn for its cruel and unconstitutional policies. Go get ‘em, Dennis!

District Attorney – Suzy Loftus!!

This is an electrifying race between Suzy Loftus and Chesa Boudin, who couldn’t be more different from each other. They agree on many social justice issues, including reforming the police department and the criminal justice system, but the similarities stop there.

Two other candidates in this race – Nancy Tung and Leif Dautch  – aren’t getting as much attention. Tung is a Deputy DA who is the most tough-on-crime candidate in the race. Her key endorsements come from other prosecutors and some retired judges. Dautch is a Deputy Attorney General and former President of the San Francisco Juvenile Probation Commission, who has the endorsements of State Treasurer Fiona Ma as well as a few local Democratic clubs.

Screen Shot 2019-11-02 at 10.32.38 PM

Photo Credit: Rick Gerharter

Loftus was recently called the “front runner” by the SF Chronicle, in part because she has the backing of the SF Democratic Party, and most elected officials and Democratic clubs in town. She is a former Deputy District Attorney and President of the Police Commission, who has worked in criminal justice her entire career. She has an impressive resumé, and she has also rolled up her sleeves in the community to help children in Bayview-Hunters Point deal with the trauma of violence and adversity. She’s a mother of three, and has a progressive approach to policing. Loftus is committed to criminal justice reform and she is focused on quality of life crimes that San Franciscans desperately want addressed. A former prosecutor, she is campaigning on putting more law enforcement resources into stopping the car break-in epidemic, holding perpetrators of sexual violence accountable, and working to rebuild the community’s trust in the police force.

Chesa Boudin is a public defender who is running a pro-reform, anti-police campaign. He is intimately familiar with the criminal justice system, as his parents were convicted when he was 14 months old for participating in the murders of two police officers and a security guard. He is legit, in that he is well educated and brings the perspectives of the accused and the convicted to his campaign. He wants to hold police officers accountable when they commit crimes, and he wants to deprioritize misdemeanors.

I’m all for reforming the criminal justice system – it is racist and classist and backward. However, there are crimes that must be prosecuted – both felonies AND misdemeanors. The city has a property crime epidemic – my own apartment was burglarized twice this year – so I think it’s irresponsible for Boudin to declare that misdemeanor crimes won’t be taken as seriously if he is elected. I worry that it will lead to even more lawlessness on our streets.

Recent polls show that the race is neck-and-neck. Boudin has the backing of some big names in entertainment including Danny Glover, Michael Franti, and John Legend. Because of his national connections, including Bernie Sanders, he’s been able to raise money from many out-of-state sources. His local support comes from the more progressive faction of City Hall, including the SF Tenants Union, several labor unions, 5 of 11 members of the Board of Supervisors, and the League of Pissed Off Voters.

By contrast, Loftus’s endorsements come from across the political spectrum, and include Governor Gavin Newsom, Senators Feinstein and Harris, and 8 of 11 members of the Board of Supervisors, as well as the SF Chronicle AND the SF Examiner. (Your math is right: 3 of the Supervisors dual endorsed).

Screen Shot 2019-11-02 at 10.28.25 PM.pngA funny thing happened a few weeks ago – DA George Gascon surprised all of City Hall by resigning his office before the end of his term, leaving a vacancy for the Mayor to fill. Mayor Breed appointed Loftus, her endorsed candidate, causing quite a brouhaha. The Mayor was in a pickle – the DA’s office needed someone at the helm for the last 3 months of the year, and the Mayor knew appointing Loftus would be controversial. But if she didn’t appoint her, it would imply that she didn’t have enough confidence in Suzy’s ability to win. Both Loftus and Breed were criticized for the appointment by the far left, and yet it doesn’t give Suzy any advantage in this race whatsoever. It’s too late to change her ballot designation to “incumbent,” and it only gives Loftus additional work to do while running for the office. Ultimately, the appointment probably did more harm to Suzy’s campaign than good.

Regardless, I’m voting for Loftus because I think San Francisco needs a DA who will tackle our public safety challenges with both courage AND compassion. There is no doubt that the criminal justice system is broken, but I’d rather hire a mom with prosecutorial experience over a public defender who wants to prioritize reform over safety.

I’d like to add that Suzy is a just a badass. She is raising three young children in San Francisco, while taking care of her mom AND running for office at the same time. (And I think parenting one toddler is hard!) Suzy is one of the hardest working people I have ever met, and I trust her with solving some of the city’s most intractable problems.

Supporters of Suzy Loftus: SF Chronicle; Bay Area Reporter; Governor Gavin Newsom; Senators Feinstein and Harris; SF Democratic Party; Civil Rights Leader Dolores Huerta; Supervisors Yee, Mandelman, Brown, Stefani, Walton, Safai, Mar, Haney; SF Bicycle Coalition; SF Janitors Union Local 87

Supporters of Chesa Boudin: Senator Bernie Sanders; Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club;  League of Pissed Off Voters; San Francisco Green Party; Teachers Union; Former State Senator Mark Leno; Supervisors Fewer, Peskin, Mar, Haney, and Ronen

Public Defender – Mano Raju

Mano Raju was appointed by Mayor London Breed after the sudden death of Jeff Adachi earlier this year. Raju was one of Adachi’s chief deputies, and is well liked by the office. He is unopposed.

Sheriff – Paul Miyamoto

Screen Shot 2019-11-02 at 10.30.28 PM

Credit: Kevin N. Hume/S.F. Examiner

Paul Miyamoto has served in the Sheriff’s Department for more than 20 years, and has served on the command staffs of three sheriffs.  He has run for Sheriff before, against Ross Mirkarimi in 2011. This time, there is a good chance he will win…because he is the only candidate in the race. He’s been endorsed by the outgoing Sheriff Vicki Hennessey, Mayor Breed, and just about everyone else.

Treasurer – Jose Cisneros

Jose Cisneros was first elected Treasurer in 2005, after being appointed by then-Mayor Gavin Newsom in 2004 to fill a vacancy. He is doing a fine job by all accounts, and he is unopposed this time around.

School Board (one seat) – Jenny Lam

Screen Shot 2019-11-02 at 10.34.49 PM.pngThere are three candidates for this seat, but Jenny Lam is the one. She was appointed by Mayor Breed in January to replace Matt Haney who was elected to the Board of Supervisors. Her day job is Mayor Breed’s education advisor, and she previously worked at Education SuperHighway, a San Francisco nonprofit working to bring high-speed internet to classrooms nationwide. Her two challengers have little connection to education, and haven’t put together viable campaigns. Because of this, Lam has been endorsed by literally everybody.  I am voting for her.

SF Community College Board (one seat) – Ivy Lee is unopposed

Screen Shot 2019-11-02 at 10.36.13 PM.pngIvy is unopposed, but I will still say a few nice things about her. She is a City Hall veteran, as she worked for many years as a Board of Supervisors aide to both Supervisors Norman Yee and Jane Kim. She was appointed to the College Board by Mayor Breed In 2018 to fill a vacancy. No one is running against her, at least in part because she has the chops – she was an architect of the Free City College program, and she has fought to stabilize City College and improve the education environment for the 63,000 students the college serves. I’m voting for her.

Ivy’s endorsements are here.

As always, I welcome your input in the comments below, or on Facebook or Twitter. Tell me why I’m wrong! I love a good debate.

Thanks for reading.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Big Ol’ Voter Guide – November 2011

If you’re like me, you’ve been getting piles and PILES of mailers from the campaigns in the upcoming San Francisco election.  I even got two of the same flyer in one day!  It’s over the top.

Why is this happening? Two reasons: (1) All three candidate races (Mayor, District Attorney, and Sheriff) are competitive, boasting several strong candidates for each office; and (2) San Francisco has a robust public financing program, which has pumped several million dollars into the campaigns, so that they can spend more money on things like, uh, mailers.

Despite this colossal waste of trees, and despite the dramatic claims in those mailers about what will happen if certain campaigns win or lose, this is actually a relatively tame election. Why? Because polarizing figures are out of the picture (I mean you, Gavin Newsom and Chris Daly).  And because the candidates for each office are relatively good-natured, competent leaders, with their hearts in the right place and with some great ideas for governance.

Don’t get me wrong. There are certainly some candidates who are MUCH better than others, with a lot more relevant experience and better priorities, IMO.  In the pages below, I offer my thoughts and suggestions, explanations and advice.  I expect to get some heat for many of the choices I’ve made below, particularly in the Mayor’s race. I say: bring it! If you disagree with me, please comment below.  I love to hear opposing opinions (so long as they are not personal attacks), and other readers will appreciate it too. And if you find this guide useful, please post it on your Facebook page, or email it to your friends and frenemies.

If you want to compare this voter guide with other endorsing organizations, I strongly recommend checking out DemDash. It’s a site that allows you to compare easily various endorsements of groups like democratic clubs, newspapers, and political parties.

At the top is a brief summary, and below you can find more detailed explanations of my endorsements.  In the interest of full disclosure, I’m an attorney who specializes in municipal law, elections and entertainment law, and a San Francisco progressive whose passions include preserving and promoting nightlife and culture, fighting for economic and social justice, and getting more women elected to office.  I like to boast that I’m the lowest ranking elected official in California, having been elected last year to the governing body of the San Francisco Democratic Party. And I also like long walks on the beach.

Before we begin, I should also mention that I serve as counsel for two of the campaigns I endorse below (Sharmin Bock for District Attorney and Yes on Proposition G), though my support of each of those campaigns predated the campaigns hiring me to do their legal work.  I have not been paid for any aspect of this voter guide.

With those caveats, here are my choices for the November San Francisco election.

Mayor: (1) David Chiu (2) John Avalos (3) Dennis Herrera
District Attorney: (1) Sharmin Bock (2) David Onek
Sheriff: (1) Ross Mirkarimi

Proposition A (School Bonds): YES
Proposition B (Street Repaving and Street Safety Bonds): YES
Proposition C (Pension Reform – Consensus Proposition): YES
Proposition D (Pension Reform – Adachi Proposition): NO
Proposition E (Reforming the Initiative Ordinance Process): YES
Proposition F (Campaign Consultant Ordinance): NO
Proposition G (Sales Tax): YES
Proposition H (School District Student Assignment): NO

MAYOR:

It’s confusing… what do you do when there isn’t a polarizing character in the San Francisco Mayor’s race? Incumbent Mayor Ed Lee is widely considered to be the front-runner. He’s a competent manager with a disarming mustache and many years of experience in city government.  He has also brought openness and a sense of humor to the office. However, he has a serious problem keeping his promises, some of his supporters have been accused of election fraud, and most agree that he takes direction from Willie Brown and Chinatown powerbroker Rose Pak.  But he’s no wine mogul who sleeps with his employees, marries B-list actresses and hates the little people.  Ahem. That said, there are several better candidates for Mayor in this race, so why settle for Mr. Not-a-Douche?

But first, can we talk for a second about Joanna Rees? She’s not going to win, but I feel like saying a few words about her candidacy. Rees is the least qualified person on the ballot. She’s Meg Whitman – a lifelong Republican (until recently) who has shown no interest in government until she decided to run. Managing a city with a multi-billion dollar budget and with complicated and unique problems requires a leader with experience in those same problems. We’re talking about complex civil service rules, transparency requirements unique to public officials, public contracting laws, the intricate budgeting process, understanding the nuance of negotiating a legislative agenda… it’s going to take Rees all four years of her term just to get up to speed on these things. Please don’t vote for her.

My choices are (1) David Chiu (2) John Avalos (3) Dennis Herrera. These guys are the most qualified candidates to be Mayor because of their experience, progressive ideals, and ability to cut through the bureaucracy and get things done.

#1 – David Chiu

Chiu is a pragmatist, a progressive, and a really smart guy. He serves as the President of the Board of Supervisors and on the Democratic County Central Committee (DCCC) with me.  He doesn’t own a car, he rides his bike to City Hall every day, and environmental initiatives are his highest priority.  David has been a great friend to the women’s political organizations in SF, having carried legislation for them for many years. He has made urban agriculture and funding for public art two of his highest priorities. (Yay for public art and urban farming!) At my urging, he came to Burning Man this year for a brief visit, and he loved it; he’s already planning to come to the desert on his own in 2012.

David is an independent thinker, and he often finds himself as the swing vote in Board of Supervisors decisions, because his politics are somewhere in the middle of the Board’s.  This Board, keep in mind, ranges from super-lefty Democrat to moderate Democrat. (That’s right, every single member of the Board votes blue.)

David has been endorsed by the Chronicle (#1), the League of Conservation Voters (#1), the Bicycle Coalition (#2), many labor unions, San Francisco Arts Democratic Club (#3), Supervisors Mar, Kim and Cohen, four members of the school board, among many others.

David caught some heat from the left for supporting Ed Lee’s appointment to complete Newsom’s term as Mayor (See: “It’s on like Donkey Kong!”), and it is probably his biggest regret in his tenure on the Board.  He and Lee were friends for many years, and when the Board was considering appointing Lee as interim Mayor, Lee promised Chiu and others on the Board that he would only serve as a caretaker for the remaining year; that he would not run for a full term. Lee’s decision to renege on this promise was a personal and political betrayal.

I support David because I trust him to do the right thing, because he is great at finding practical solutions to complex problems, and because he is focused on government accountability.  (Here’s his Blueprint for San Francisco if you want to know more about his vision.) And besides, I’d really like for the next Mayor to be a Burner. ; )  Please vote for David as your #1 choice.

#2 – John Avalos.

My second choice for Mayor is John Avalos. This guy tops Ed Lee on the facial-hair-and-likeability index.  He’s also very smart, and he’s got some exciting ideas for San Francisco’s future. He will bring a progressive reform agenda to the Mayor’s office; he understands the plight of the poor, working class families, and small business. He’s also been a vocal supporter of the Occupy movement, staying up with them until 4am on the night the police were supposed to raid the camp. John is the 99%.

Something else I love: John’s life partner Karen Zapata is at the front and center of his campaign. She’s a teacher and activist, his partner in every sense of the word.  John and Karen are raising two kids in the Excelsior, one with special needs. They live and breathe the life of a working family in San Francisco.

John is the most lefty candidate in the race. He serves on DCCC with me and on the Board of Supervisors, representing the oft-neglected District 11 (Excelsior, Ingleside, Outer Mission).  As the progressive thought leader on the Board, Avalos has been a strong voice for bicycling and livable streets, for tenants and labor unions, for urban agriculture, and for a vibrant arts community.  And you have to see his rad bike video.

John has an impressive list of endorsements: San Francisco Democratic Party (#1), the SF Bicycle Coalition (#1) Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club (#1) San Francisco Bay Guardian (#1), League of Pissed Off Voters (#1), Dog PAC (#1), SF Arts Democratic Club (#2), Sierra Club (#2), League of Conservation Voters (#3), Assembly member Tom Ammiano, and many labor unions. This many lefties can’t be wrong! Vote for Avalos #2.

#3 – Dennis Herrera.

It can’t be easy to run for Mayor as City Attorney, particularly when you are running against half of your clients in City government, but Dennis is doing a good job of navigating the ethical minefields. Dennis is known to be a good manager, a top notch City Attorney, and an innovator in government. Part of me doesn’t want to endorse him because I’d really like for him to stay on as City Attorney.

He is endorsed by many of the organizations I care about, including San Francisco Women’s Political Committee (#1), SF Arts Democratic Club (#1), San Francisco Labor Council (#1), League of Conservation Voters (#2), San Francisco Democratic Party (#2), San Francisco Bay Guardian (#2), Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club (#2), and many, many more.

Dennis walks the walk. He has won all of those endorsements because of his many years in the trenches fighting for each of the constituencies that these groups represent, from women (see: battling the Bush administration over abortion records), to environmentalists (see: suing to shut down polluting power plant). And he has worked tirelessly to make marriage equality a reality in California. Vote for Dennis.

District Attorney: (1) Sharmin Bock (2) David Onek

Incumbent George Gascon made a good police chief. He has decades of experience, he brought professionalism to the SFPD, he is very personable, and has a long history of standing up for immigrants in the criminal justice system. But he is a bad fit for District Attorney.

When then-Mayor Newsom appointing Gascon as District Attorney, it had the intended effect: it surprised the political elite and frustrated his adversaries. We all wondered, “Does he have a law degree? Did he pass the bar? Has he ever practiced law?” It was very confusing. [The answers are yes, yes, and no]. The switch to DA created all kinds of conflicts of interest, particularly in police misconduct cases. Can we trust that the former police chief is going to aggressively prosecute misconduct cases? Will he be transparent about accusations made against his former colleagues? Is he going to be an objective judge of the credibility of officers who testify in cases brought by the DA’s office? Absolutely not. The fox is guarding the henhouse.

#1 – Sharmin Bock.

My choice is Sharmin Bock.  A career prosecutor, Bock has spent decades working on crimes against women and children, she has extensive experience managing several divisions within the DA’s Office in Alameda County.  This point bears repeating: Sharmin has 22 years of experience prosecuting crimes and managing other prosecutors. She is the only candidate in this race with this kind of experience.

Sharmin has an extraordinary 95% conviction rate in felony cases brought to trial.  She has led the way in focusing public attention on and prosecuting the purchase of children for sex. Though she has good working relationships with police officers, she believes it is vital that the DA and the police be entirely independent of one another so that the public can be assured of police transparency and accountability.

Sharmin has been endorsed by lots of people and organizations I care about, including the Sierra Club, SF Women’s Political Committee, Bay Area Lawyers For Individual Freedom (BALIF), African American Democratic Club, EMILY’s List, Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club (#2), SF Democratic Party (#2), San Francisco Bay Guardian (#2), SF Arts Democratic Club (#2), SF League of Conservation Voters (#2), San Francisco League of Young Voters (#2), Congresswoman Jackie Speier, Supervisors Cohen, Mar and Mirkarimi.  For more about her campaign, go here. Please vote for Sharmin!

#2 – David Onek

Like Gascon, Onek has also never prosecuted a case. He is a progressive and a smart guy who has made a career of thinking about criminal justice issues.  Onek understands that the criminal justice system is broken, and that the entire system needs to change.  It bothers me that he has no experience working as a prosecutor, but he would be a better DA than the incumbent.

Onek’s endorsement list is long and impressive, and includes dozens of law enforcement professionals, elected officials and organizations, including outgoing Sheriff Mike Hennessey; Assemblymember Tom Ammiano; Supervisors Chiu, Avalos, Chu, and Mar; six members of the school board, the SF Democratic Party, the California Police Chiefs Association, SF Bay Guardian, several unions, SF League of Conservation Voters, Sierra Club, Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club, SF Young Democrats, SF League of Young Voters, SF Arts Democratic Club.

Sheriff: (1) Ross Mirkarimi

Retiring Sheriff Mike Hennessey has done a great job. He’s been Sheriff for over 30 years, and has implemented many innovative reforms to the City’s jail system, such as creating the country’s first charter high school within the jails.  He has handled evictions in a humane way, he has held his deputies to a high standard of behavior, and he has done great work in reducing recidivism and providing alternatives to incarceration.

Hennessey has endorsed Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi to replace him as Sheriff. The two have much in common; both are progressives and reformers. They both think outside the box when it comes to how law enforcement can prevent crime and reduce recidivism, not just penalize criminals. Ross is the candidate best situated to carry Hennessey’s legacy forward.

What’s interesting about Mike Hennessey is that he had no law enforcement experience going into the job; he was a civil rights attorney before being elected. By contrast, Mirkarimi has extensive law enforcement experience, having graduated from the Police Academy, where he was president of his class, and having worked as an investigator in the DA’s office for nearly a decade.

Ross represents a district with many crime-related challenges (Western Addition, Haight, Fillmore) and he has spent much of his tenure on the Board of Supervisors focused on public safety issues. He personally appeared at every homicide scene, pushed for community policing and for organizing the community around crime — and he delivered the first veto override of Mayor Newsom’s career over forcing the police to use foot patrols in high crime neighborhoods.

Ross is endorsed by just about everybody: Sierra Club, San Francisco Democratic Party, San Francisco Bay Guardian, Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club, SF Tenants Union, San Francisco Women’s Political Committee, San Francisco Arts Democratic Club, San Francisco for Democracy, African American Democratic Club, Latino Democratic Club, San Francisco Young Democrats, League of Pissed Off Voters, San Francisco Labor Council, Senator Mark Leno, Assemblymembers Fiona Ma and Tom Ammiano, Supervisors Mar, Kim, Campos, Avalos.  For more about his candidacy, go here. Please vote for Ross!

Proposition A (School Bond): YES

Yes, I know. It seems like we are asked to approve a school bond in every single election. Why? Because California’s budget process is bleeding schools to death, and this is really the only way local school districts are able to make capital improvements. Sad.

The $531 million new bond will go towards upgrading the seismic safety of 50 of 140 schools in the district, and it will require homeowners to pay about $21 per $100,000 of assessed value every year until the bond is paid off.  If you are not a homeowner, frankly you have nothing to lose in voting yes. You don’t have to pay for it, and the money will improve these schools significantly. I’m a (child-free) homeowner, and I’m voting yes because improving school quality in San Francisco makes it easier for families to stay here, it improves my property value, and because $21 is a small price to pay for seismically safer school facilities. Every member of the school board signed the ballot argument for this one, and it has been endorsed by just about everybody I care about. Vote YES.

Proposition B (Street Repaving and Street Safety Bond): YES

If you ride a bike or a scooter, you know that pavement quality in the City is horrible and dangerous. If Prop B passes, the new $248 million bond will accelerate major streetscape enhancements for biking, walking, and transit. It will make it easier to obtain grants from federal, state, and local agencies, and it will fund other badly needed infrastructure work. The Bike Coalition supports it, and so do I.

But one thing bothers me: City streets are supposed to be maintained by the general fund as a part of the City’s normal maintenance budget. Paying for this by way of a bond sets a really bad precedent. However, the City’s financial situation is dire, and delaying street repair can lead to exponentially higher costs down the road (not to mention the safety hazards), and so all things considered, the city will be worse off if B fails.  Vote YES.

Proposition C (Pension Reform – Consensus Measure): YES
Proposition D (Pension Reform – Adachi Measure): NO

Everyone agrees: San Francisco’s pension liability is a huge cause for concern.  While pension costs are rapidly increasing, the investment funds that support them are being decimated by the economy.  By 2013, the Department of Human Resources estimates that pensions are going to constitute 52% of the City’s payroll expenses. And according to the San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco owes $4.476 billion in pensions to its employees but can only afford to pay three-quarters of that cost. Yikes!

How did we get into this mess? Because during the fat years, city management offered increasingly better and better retirement options and benefits to city workers to improve the quality of employees they could attract, and to make the unions happy. The promise to a new city employee was: Take a pay cut to come work for the public sector now, and we’ll take care of you after you retire. I know, I was one of these public employees who took that deal.

Then, the City’s pension investment fund took a $4 billion hit in 2008, and the City was forced to start contributing hundreds of millions of dollars to pension costs using its annual revenues that pay for basic services such as police, fire, parks and roads. So here we are. With battling pension reform measures that we need to decide between.

Propositions C and D present voters with two different pension reform options. If both propositions receive a majority vote, the one with the most votes will go into effect.

Prop C is called the “consensus” measure because it was the product of a collaborative effort by Mayor Lee, the Labor Council AND the Chamber of Commerce, and the Board of Supervisors. It requires all City workers to pay a higher percentage of their salary into their own pensions – 2.3% to 12.5%, depending on the type of job and the City’s future investment successes. It also requires recent and future employees to contribute a percentage of their salaries into their retirement health plan.

Proposition D, by contrast, was written by Public Defender Jeff Adachi with little or no input from the City’s managers or organized labor. It will save the city $50 million more a year than Proposition C. It will require a higher contribution percentage across the board, and it will set a $140,000 cap on the total annual pension payout to any employee. Prop D does not address how the city handles health care for retired workers.

Labor strongly opposes D, and it will be a much more difficult burden to bear for most public employees, who have already taken many hits in recent years, including cuts to pay and benefits, and increases in workloads as the City has been laying off workers. Believe me, it is very difficult to be a public employee in the current environment. Please vote YES on C and No on D.

Proposition E (Reforming the Initiative Ordinance Process): YES

The ballot measure system is seriously flawed.  If the voters approve a law by ballot measure, that law can’t be amended except by going back to the voters.  This makes it nearly impossible to amend the law in many cases, and burdensome on voters who shouldn’t have to vote on a law every time it needs tweaking.

Because of the way the ballot measure system is set up, the City’s municipal code is a patchwork including dozens of crazy unworkable (and sometimes unenforceable) laws.  Prop E is an important reform to the way in which voters can make law, and coming from a person whose job it is to interpret the municipal code, I tell you this measure is a breath of fresh air.

If it is approved, Prop E will make the following changes:

  • For the first three years after a measure is approved, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors will not be able to amend it.
  • In years four to seven after the law is passed, the Board will be able to amend or repeal a measure with a 2/3 vote.
  • After seven years, the measure will be amendable or repealable by a simple majority vote of the Board of Supervisors.

Prop E does not apply to any past voter-approved measures. It will only apply, if it is approved, to ballot measures adopted in the future. Sometimes laws have unintended consequences that need fixing, or they need a little tweaking to make them more workable. This law allows the Board of Supes to do the fixing and tweaking, and to remove provisions ruled illegal or unenforceable by the courts.

Supervisor Scott Wiener, SPUR (the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association), and the Chronicle support Prop E. It is opposed by the San Francisco Democratic Party, the Bay Guardian, Supervisor John Avalos and former Ethics Commissioner Eileen Hansen. They each say that Supervisor Wiener, the measure’s sponsor, hasn’t provided an adequate explanation as to why the law is needed, and that the democratic process is fine the way it is.  I disagree! This reform is a modest and thoughtful one, and it includes protections against abuse by future lawmakers. I suspect that much of the opposition is due to political biases against Supervisor Wiener, and due to fears that he has a particular law or laws in mind that he wants to change. Sup. Wiener is a former Deputy City Attorney, and I’ve spoken with him at length about his motivations – I think he genuinely wants to make the Municipal Code easier to use.

Reduce the size of future ballots, and allow City government to operate more efficiently.  Please vote yes on E.

Proposition F (Campaign Consultant Ordinance): No?

Prop F asks you whether you want to modify the law that sets reporting rules for local political consultants.  The San Francisco Ethics Commission, which is in charge of administering rules governing political consultants, asked for the changes.

Under the existing law, consultants are required to register if they earn $1,000 or more a year on political consulting (which is nothing, IMO). Under Prop F, that threshold would be raised $5,000 in annual consulting income (which is still very low). These changes are fine by me because it really won’t change the number of people registering as consultants. However, the new law would also allow the Ethics Commission to make any other changes it wants in the future.  In the words of Supervisor Wiener, the measure’s sponsor, “We don’t want to have to go back to voters and ask whether consultants should file every month or every three months.”  Sounds good, except that I’m not so sure the Ethics Commission can be trusted – it is not elected, but appointed by the very elected officials who would probably do away with the registration law if they had the chance. Unlike Prop E, this measure doesn’t include the same safeguards in exchange for taking away the voters’ power to make amend this law.

Prop F is supported by Supervisor Wiener, SPUR, and the Chamber of Commerce.  Environmental groups and lefty organizations like the Sierra Club, the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods and the San Francisco Democratic Party oppose it. So does Assembly member Tom Ammiano, who drafted the original law.

I’m all for streamlining government (see Prop E above), but I think this measure goes a little too far.

Proposition G (Sales Tax): YES

The next few paragraphs are very dry and involve math, so bear with me.

At the beginning of the year, the sales tax in SF was 9.5%.  It is now 8.5% because state lawmakers couldn’t agree on whether to extend a 1% temporary sales tax that expired June 30. Letting that 1% expire means less money coming from Sacramento for cities and counties.  (If you haven’t been paying attention, in the last few years the state government has been starving city and county governments by imposing new fees on them and refusing to pass along monies that the localities used to depend on for basic services).

So the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors put Prop G on the ballot to increase the local sales tax rate by 0.5% to make up some of that revenue loss – and it will pump approximately $60 million back into the City’s general fund. The sponsors say the money will go toward public safety, children’s services and programs for seniors.  AND – if Sacramento acts to raise the California sales tax by 1% sometime before November 30, or by 0.75% by January 2016, this new local sales tax hike will be scrapped. If it’s not scrapped, the increase will expire after 10 years.

The City needs the money really badly. And the new tax doesn’t even take us back to where it was earlier this year. Yes, OK, it’s regressive – meaning, poor people are hurt more by this tax than the rich.  But I honestly don’t think it’s going to make that much of a difference to people’s pocketbooks – if it passes, it will add 5 cents to your next $10 purchase.  And $60 million WILL make a big difference to the services that the City is able to provide. Vote yes.

Proposition H (School District Student Assignment): NO

Prop H is based on a fallacy: that every San Francisco family wants their kid to go to the school that is closest to their home. If Prop H is approved, it will become an official policy of the City of San Francisco to encourage the school district to give the highest priority to assigning each student to the school closest to where they live. And I understand the premise: that families are leaving SF in large numbers because their kids are being bused across town.  And yet proximity is only one of many factors in a family’s school choice, and this premise ignores the many complicated factors that go into school preferences.

The teachers union and every member of the school board oppose Prop H, and for good reason: this measure only helps those families who live in neighborhoods with good schools. And it punishes those who live in poor neighborhoods and/or near underperforming schools.  Moreover, there are lots of different kinds of schools to choose from, depending on your child’s interests and abilities. Even if you live near a “good” school, you still might want your kid to go somewhere else. As if that weren’t enough, the measure is badly written, and will encourage school reassignments to happen in the middle of the school year if it passes. Prop H is just a bad idea all around. Please vote NO.