I’ve read my voter guide so you don’t have to — November 2015 edition, San Francisco
Hello fellow citizens,
I began writing this guide when I realized some people I know weren’t voting because the ballot was too complicated. Now, I study the issues with dorky zeal and offer this guide to the public.
The political system in San Francisco is corrupt. It’s embarrassing. A city so educated and innovative should have a government that exemplifies best practices in democracy, not one that just caters to the wealthiest interests. We can do better. Here’s how:
- VOTE. Not voting is actually a vote for, “I don’t care, be corrupt, put money in your pockets and screw the people.”
- VOTE against Ed Lee. Corruption is not acceptable, we have choices.
- IGNORE the advertising. The way money affects politics is through advertising. Paid political advertising will always be misleading, by design. Throw those mailers straight into the recycling. You will receive a stack of mailers right before election day. These will contain the worst lies — there will be no time for journalists to fact-check them.
You don’t have time to study the issues? I have done the work for your.
Below are:
- my picks for this election,
- a list of my sources,
- a detailed explanations of my choices, and
- at the bottom is some information about me.
Here is a link to a printable pdf of my choices you can take to the poll.
No excuses — be a voter.
If you have questions about any of my choices, let me know. I’ll be happy to discuss them further.
LOCAL OFFICES
Mayor: 1) Amy Farah Weiss 2) Francisco Herrera 3) Stuart Schuffman
District Attorney: Leave it blank
City Attorney: Dennis Herrera
Sheriff: 1) Ross Mirkarimi, 2) John Robinson
Treasurer: Jose Cisneros
Board of Supervisors, District 3: 1) Aaron Peskin
Community College Board: Tom Temprano
SAN FRANCISCO PROPOSITIONS
PROP A: Borrow $310M For Affordable Housing — Yes
PROP B: Minor Fix of Parental Leave for City Employees — Yes
PROP C: Track Spending by Expenditure Lobbyists — Yes
PROP D: Mission Rock Development — No
PROP E: Over-the-top Requirements for Gov’t Meetings — No
PROP F: Enforceable Regulations on AirBnB-Type Rentals — Yes
PROP G: PG&E’s Dirty Energy Power Grab — No
PROP H: Honest Clean Energy Labeling for CleanPowerSF — Yes
PROP I: Pause New Luxury Housing in the Mission — Yes
PROP J: Help Preserve Legacy Businesses — Yes
PROP K: Use Surplus City Property for Affordable Housing — Yes
Guiding philosophy:
I believe that local government should prioritize the interests of those who choose to put their time, love, and passion into improving the community around them over those who see San Francisco as a fun place to spend a few years making a quick buck or place to party on weekends (not that there’s anything wrong with that).
Evictions in San Francisco have been surging over the past five years as housing prices have become absurd. This is a crisis which should be treated with some urgency.
In this election, we have the opportunity to make several decisions, not just about what we should be building in this city, but who we should be building for. Developers are eager to build now because there is so much profit to be made from all that venture capital cash flying around, but we’ll be stuck with whatever they build for generations to come. Let’s choose now to maintain diversity and community here (those are the conditions that foster innovation and creativity in the first place). Let’s not build to just satisfy the whims of the current bubble.
I’ve looked at the propositions as having a collective impact. For example, Passing Prop. I and Prop. K makes land available for the affordable housing funded with Prop. A and passing Prop. F restores thousands of units to the rental market in actual neighborhoods allowing us to vote no on the potential affordable housing and additional offices of Prop. D.
Sources:
This year, I have kept up with SF politics and issues by reading 48 Hills, thoughtful columnists in the Examiner, Mission Local, features on KALW and KQED, occasionally stories in the Chronicle, and a wide variety of blog posts.
The loss of the SF Bay Guardian sure does make it more difficult to write this guide. I didn’t always agree with the paper’s endorsements, but their slate was a great starting point and they did a thorough job of explaining their choices.
Public Press came through with a guide to the issues .
The League of Women Voters also has a useful non-partisan guide.
Other endorsement and guides I’ve studied:
The League of Pissed Off Voters
The Harvey Milk Democratic Club
The Green Partyw
The San Francisco Tenants Union
SPUR (whose research is great, but who have been swinging further to the political right every year)
Candidates
Mayor: 1) Amy Farah Weiss, 2) Francisco Herrerra, 3) Stuart Schuffman
First of all vote 1–2–3 to replace incumbent mayor Ed Lee. We shouldn’t put up with outright corruption. We have not gotten an explanation for why members of his administration were selling access to Lee (as documented by the FBI in the Shrimp Boy Chow investigation).
His policies reflect his allegiances. In the last month, Lee has worked to prevent developers from contributing to transit costs, as if developers can’t afford to pitch in for the infrastructure that makes their new condos and offices so valuable.
His statement that the homeless “would have to leave the street” to make way for the “Super Bowl City” on Market Street is obnoxious on many levels. If he can solve homelessness so easily, why wait for the Super Bowl to do so?
Lee also delayed implementation of Clean Power SF for an extra two years through administrative stall tactics. I could go on.
In 2011, there were 16 candidates for mayor, nine of whom had experience in city-wide or supervisor offices. This year, they’ve all been scared away by the massive political contributions that billionaire Ron Conway et al. can offer, and none of the current challengers have major fund-raising operations.
Fortunately, several of them are quite intelligent and articulate advocates for smart, progressive policies. Amy Farrah Weiss, Francisco Herrera, and “Broke Ass” Stuart Schuffman have teamed up as the “Vote 1–2–3 to replace Ed Lee” ticket.
Weiss, who has entered into politics as a capable neighborhood organizer, would make a great mayor. Notice the way she’s run her campaign. Look back through her social media streams, you’ll see that for the past year, she has been tireless at studying the issues and engaging with the political process at all levels. And she’s been doing it with great transparency.
Watch the League of Women Voters forum, and you’ll see that her grasp of the issues is far superior to Ed Lee.
Herrera has worked as an activist and a humanitarian his whole life. He is a populist organizer in the Latino community who founded the San Francisco Day Labor Program. I recommend making him your number two choice to support a real champrion for justice.
Schuffman is primarily a travel writer who has been expressing his love for San Francisco for many years. I love the way he calls out corruption and hypocrisy in Lee’s administration. He is also using his campaign to persuade tech workers that they have a responsibility to become knowledgeable and involved in city politics. He may come across as crude and jokey, but he’d be a better mayor than Lee.
District 3 Supervisor: Aaron Peskin
This is only for North Beach and Nob Hill residents. It is a special election to see who will replace David Chiu (who got elected to the state assembly last year). Julie Christenson was appointed by Mayor Ed Lee, so she is the incumbent, and she does what Lee says. Peskin was a progressive leader and the president of, the board of supervisors in the early aughts. He, and his record as a champion of tenant rights, is returning because Christenson is so lousy (in her latest atrocity, she has accused Jane Kim of making up eviction horror stories — go ahead and google #DearJulieImReal).
Sheriff: 1) Ross Mirkarimi, 2) John Robinson
The other candidate, Vicki Hennessy, is firmly in Ed Lee’s camp. Mirkarimi has gotten the endorsements of the SF Tenants Union, the Harvey Milk Democratic Club, the League of Pissed Off Voters, and Former Sheriff Mike Hennessey among others.
Mirkarimi’s 5 Keys Charter School just won a major education award — that’s an example of progressive policies that kept SF as a leader in reducing recidivism. Supporting Mirkarimi can feel icky after he bruised his wife during a 2011 fight, but his wife contends that this was an accident and not any pattern of abuse and that any other reading is disrespectful and condescending to her. She even has a whole one-woman play about it).
Mirkarimi was willing to take a heaping of criticism for defending SF’s sanctuary city policy (your neighbors can cooperate with the police without fear of deportation), while Ed Lee fell all over himself apologizing to Fox News.
When guards at his jail were caught staging inmate fights, Mirkarimi immediately called in the FBI. Hennessy, as demonstrated in her management positions, has favored internal investigations that shield officers from punishment. I trust Mirkarimi to be be more independent, progressive, and ethical.
District Attorney: Leave blank
George Gascon went from the police department to DA, and out police department has not been held accountable for multiple shootings of civilians. He’s running unopposed, and that sucks. Gascon doesn’t deserve your vote, leave this blank. (A blank entry on your ballot might make the machine beep, but don’t worry, it won’t cause any problems with the rest of your ballot.)
City Attorney: Dennis Herrera
Herrera has stood up for SF on issues of marriage equality and protecting City College, and has been generally good at his job.
Treasurer: Jose Cisneros
By all accounts, Ciscneros has been good at his job and has gone further by promoting economic literacy for our poorest citizens.
City College Board: Tom Temprano
Temprano told me about his plan for City College. It involves fewer consultants and more representatives and partnerships at high schools. He got the immediate support of Tom Ammiano (former state assemblyman and my favorite politician), so he’s got my trust to help SFCC return triumphantly from a bogus accreditation battle. If we had ranked-choice voting for this one, I’d make Wendy Aragon #2, but we only get to choose one and Temprano is THE best.
City Propositions
A Affordable Housing Bond — YES
Legal Text (PDF), Legislative Digest (PDF), Controller Analysis (PDF)
Proposition A: “SAN FRANCISCO AFFORDABLE HOUSING BONDS. To finance the construction, development, acquisition, and preservation of housing affordable to low- and middle-income households through programs that will prioritize vulnerable populations such as San Francisco’s working families, veterans, seniors, disabled persons; to assist in the acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of affordable rental apartment buildings to prevent the eviction of long-term residents; to repair and reconstruct dilapidated public housing; to fund a middle- income rental program; and to provide for homeownership down payment assistance opportunities for educators and middle-income households; shall the City and County of San Francisco issue $310 million in general obligation bonds, subject to independent citizen oversight and regular audits?”
YES — There is a strong political consensus in favor of this bond. This allows the city to invest in more affordable housing. This was going to be smaller, but organized protests and pressure from supervisors got an extra 50 million added dedicated to the Mission District — which will pair well with passage of Prop. I.
B Paid Parental Leave for City Employees — YES
Legal Text (PDF), Legislative Digest (PDF), Controller Analysis
Proposition B: “ Shall the City amend the Charter to allow parents who are both City employees to each take the maximum amount of paid parental leave for which they qualify for the birth, adoption or foster parenting of the same child, if both parents are City employees; and to provide each parent the opportunity to keep up to 40 hours of sick leave at the end of paid parental leave?”
YES — San Francisco should be a leader in how to treat parents as workers.
C Expenditure Lobbyists — YES
Legal Text (PDF), Legislative Digest (PDF), Controller Analysis (PDF)
Proposition C: “Shall the City regulate expenditure lobbyists by requiring them to register with the Ethics Commission, pay a $500 registration fee, and file monthly disclosures regarding their lobbying activities?”
The ethics commission decided to put this on the ballot to close loopholes which allowed organizations and corporations to lobby behind the scenes by busing groups of people to testify at City Hall, paying non-profits to lobby on their behalf, sending mailers out encouraging you to contact your representative. I favor transparency, so I favor YES on this proposition.
Some have claimed that actual grassroots groups could unfairly suffer when the real target is meant to be corporate ‘astroturf’ campaigns. This is a drawback, but I think the transparency is worth it and non-profits are exempt from the fee. Some argue that this loophole should be closed through legislative channels, but the board of supervisors have taken no action (I’ve tweeted at them, but I’ve heard no response). If passed the measure can still be edited if the ethics commission and board of supervisors get 2/3 each to agree.
D Mission Rock Development — NO
Legal Text (PDF), Title and Summary (PDF), Controller Analysis (PDF)
Proposition D: “Shall the City increase the height limit for 10 of the 28 acres of the Mission Rock site from one story to height limits ranging from 40 to 240 feet and make it City policy to encourage the development on the Mission Rock site provided that it includes eight acres of parks and open space and housing of which at least 33% is affordable for low- and middle-income households?”
There are several reasons to say “no way” to the Mission Rock plan. The developers did a good job of soliciting support from many politicians and organizations with a promise of 40% affordable housing and got some endorsements from many groups I normally agree with. Those politicians now have to follow through and endorse it, but we, as voters, can still say “No.”
- The developers are bullsh*tting us about the height.
The images of a future Mission Rock make it look a lot shorter than it will actually be. They are proposing to build up to 240 feet high. That’s pretty darned blot-out-the-sun, block the southern views for the ballpark, tall. Taller than the Fontana Towers (see below). - The developers are bullsh*tting us about the open space.
When they tally up the amount of open space this development provides, they are misleadingly including the courtyard of their office complex, one-story buildings, and a little strip around the perimeter of the pier. And open space is not the same as public parks. The little bit of green space they create, and the park that is already there, will then be in the shadow of the buildings for much of the day. - They haven’t guaranteed an amount of housing.
Much of this development will actually be office space. Will they create enough housing for the people who might be moving to the city to fill those offices? They act like they are creating a neighborhood here, but have you walked around among the other recent high-rise developments in that area? It feels nothing like the rest of the city we love. - Can’t we just stick with the height limits we’ve made?
Are we really supposed to believe that developers can’t make money in this San Francisco market without getting exceptions to the rules? Seriously!? Let’s keep saying “no” to these massive boondoggles. Why don’t they just build smaller within the waterfront height restrictions? They wouldn’t need our approval — they could have been building already. - They are denying climate change.
The sea level is rising and development that is this close to the water should take that into account. This Public Press report on climate change and bay side development outlines how flooding is inevitable at Mission Rock and elsewhere. Since municipalities have yet to implement any codes around this issue, the city will end up having to pay for all that damage in the future.
E Requirements For Public Meetings — NO
Legal Text (PDF), Title and Summary (PDF), Controller Analysis (PDF)
Proposition E: “Shall the City broadcast all City meetings live on the Internet; allow members of the public to submit electronically during the meeting live, written, video, or audio comments from any location and require those comments be played; require pre-recorded video testimony to be played during a meeting; and allow the public or board, commission, or committee members to request that discussion of a particular agenda item begin at a specific time?”
Have you ever read the comments on SFGate? It’s filled with conservative trolls from who knows where. Imagine if they could all send in video testimony that had to be played at meetings? The idea of a more accessible political process is nice, but this is a poorly-written mess of a proposition. Pretty much everyone is against it. Vote NO.
F Short-Term Residential Rentals — YES
Legal Text (PDF), Title and Summary (PDF), Controller Analysis (PDF)
Proposition F: “Shall the City limit short-term rentals of a housing unit to 75 days per year regardless of whether the rental is hosted or unhosted; require owners to provide proof that they authorize the unit as a short-term rental; require residents who offer short-term rentals to submit quarterly reports on the number of days they live in the unit and the number of days the unit is rented; prohibit short-term rentals of in-law units; allow interested parties to sue hosting platforms; and make it a misdemeanor for a hosting platform to unlawfully list a unit as a short- term rental?”
I am a big fan of AirBnB (the service). I prefer staying in people’s homes when I travel. I think it’s great that my friends can make some money renting their rooms out. But the system is being massively abused in San Francisco and that is robbing the city of thousands of rental units — many of which would be rent-controlled.
Our city thrives when people can feel secure enough where they live to invest their time, energy, and passion in their community. We have a limited number of rent-controlled units and we really can’t afford to lose any more of them.
The board of supervisors passed some rules about AirBnB, but AirBnB made sure that the rules would be unenforceable and that the company would have no legal responsibility to assist with enforcement. If the company was willing to cooperate with the city, this wouldn’t be an issue. That really pisses me off.
Instead of complying with the laws it helped write, AirBnB is spending ungodly amounts of money ($8 million) to spread misinformation about Proposition F. Its lies are very capably rebutted, point-by-point by these opinion pieces: I Have Read Prop. F and it is a Perfectly Normal and Reasonable Piece of Legislation and I’ve looked at AirBnB and it’s Way Worse Than You Think
The most important piece of this legislation is that hosting platforms will be legally responsible for only showing listings that comply with the law. Other parts of the Prop. F require paperwork so that the city can determine who is complying. Hosted and unhosted units are lumped together because it is nearly impossible for the city to determine which is which without AirBnB’s cooperation.
I don’t know why Proposition F shortens the limit on rental days from 90 days to 75. They should have left that part off to keep the focus on accountability.
If AirBnB the company would take some civic responsibility, Prop. F would not be necessary. The abuses would be nipped in the bud, thousands of rent-controlled units would be back on the market, and my friends would be able to continue to use AirBnB responsibly. But nooo.
Instead, we need to pass Prop. F, and some of my friends will need to take on a roommate or register as a bed and breakfast.
G Disclosures Regarding Renewable Energy - NO
Legal Text (PDF), Title and Summary (PDF), Controller Analysis (PDF)
Proposition G: “Shall the City define ‘renewable, greenhouse-gas free electricity’ to mean electricity derived exclusively from certain renewable resources located within or adjacent to the California border or electricity derived from Hetch Hetchy, except for electricity from other types of resources such as rooftop solar and other large hydroelectric facilities; require CleanPowerSF to inform customers and potential customers of the planned percentage of ‘renewable, greenhouse-gas free electricity’ to be provided; and prohibit CleanPowerSF from marketing, advertising or making any public statement that its electricity is ‘clean’ or ‘green’ unless the electricity is ‘renewable, greenhouse gas-free electricity’ as defined in this measure?”
This is some convoluted Orwellian bullsh*t courtesy of PG&E who really doesn’t want us to switch to CleanPowerSF (voter-approved municipal power that has been delayed by the mayors office for years). Should I go off on a rant about PG&E’s criminially negligent safety record. Naw, I’ll just say, Vote NO on G and support:
H Defining Clean, Green, and Renewable Energy — YES
Legal Text (PDF), Legislative Digest (PDF), Controller Analysis (PDF)
Proposition H: “Shall the City use the State definition of ‘eligible renewable energy resources’ when referring to terms such as ‘clean energy,’ ‘green energy,’ and ‘renewable Greenhouse Gas-free Energy’; and shall CleanPowerSF be urged to inform customers and potential customers of the planned percentage of types of renewable energy to be supplied in each communication; and shall it be City policy for CleanPowerSF to use electricity generated within California and San Francisco when possible?”
Because of PG&E’s ridiculous Proposition G, the city needed to put Prop. H on the ballot to make sure we use the regular, state-definition of “green energy.” Vote YES.
I Suspension of Market-Rate Development in the Mission District — YES
Legal Text (PDF), Title and Summary (PDF), Controller Analysis (PDF)
Proposition I: “Shall the City suspend the issuance of permits on certain types of housing and business development projects in the Mission District for at least 18 months; and develop a Neighborhood Stabilization Plan for the Mission District by January 31, 2017?”
Development should be planned so that it can actually benefit the community. Allowing developers to build large projects designed for millionaires is not good planning. Building expensive condos (which are likely owned by people who don’t even live here) is not going to help our housing crisis.
Most people being evicted from their rent-controlled apartments will not be able to afford anything “market-rate” while the market is so fueled by so much venture capital cash. Proposition I gives the city a chance to use that Proposition A bond money to grab some land to build the affordable housing our community needs.
Broke-Ass Stuart lays it out pretty well in this video:
Proposition I isn’t a permanent solution, it just gives us some breathing room. The housing problem is a regional one — municipalities to south of us have rapidly expanding corporate campuses but refuse to allow housing for the tens of thousands of new, well-paid employees. And inequity problem is global — the rich are getting hella-richer while the middle-class, not-so-much.
Gentrification does not lower costs in a neighborhood. The Mission is a trendy neighborhood and the new developments are designed to make it feel trendier and more expensive. Visions of a fancy new building at 16th and Mission Street might seem tempting as a way to clean up the neighborhood — but it will actually encourage more real estate speculation and more evictions which will just result in more people on the street.
I used to have an art studio at CELLspace, part of a block filled with small businesses. Now that entire block — the artists, the theater prop shop, the cheap diner, the auto shop — have been evicted. The landlord was supportive of the small businesses, be he couldn’t say no to an 8-digit offer from a developer with plans for luxury housing. Proposition I would have prevented these evictions.
Pause for a plan, vote Yes on I.
J Legacy Business Historic Preservation Fund — YES
Legal Text (PDF), Controller Analysis (PDF),
Proposition J: “Shall the City establish a Legacy Business Historic Preservation Fund, which would give grants to Legacy Businesses and to building owners who lease space to those businesses for terms of at least 10 years; and expand the definition of a Legacy Business to include those that have operated in San Francisco for more than 20 years, are at risk of displacement and meet the other requirements of the Registry?”
YES. I wish we had commercial rent control . Meanwhile, we are losing a valuable San Francisco small business every week as fancier restaurants and over-funded start-ups drive rent up. Proposition J creates a process to identify the businesses who do the most to make San Francisco awesome, and helps those businesses lock in a 10 year lease and continue to pay their employees.
K Surplus Public Lands — YES
Legal Text (PDF), Legislative Digest (PDF), Controller Analysis (PDF)
Proposition K: “Shall the City to expand the allowable uses of surplus property to include building affordable housing for a range of households from those who are homeless or those with very low income to those with incomes up to 120% of the area median income; and, for projects of more than 200 units, make some housing available for households earning up to 150% or more of the area median income?”
If the City has extra land, it should be used for affordable housing (not sold to developers for quick cash). This proposition has wide support and represents productive, long-term thinking.
Todd Berman has a Public Policy degree from Brown University. He has lived and worked in San Francisco since the first dot-com boom in 1998. You can see his crowd-sourced paintings of San Francisco on ten buses as part of the SF Beautiful Muni Art program and online at TheArtDontStop.com.
Todd also uses his art as an educator with the San Francisco Unified School District and the Contemporary Jewish Museum. For the past two years, he has coordinated Where Art Lives, an anti-vandalism arts education program, for the San Francisco Arts Commission and the Department of Public Works. He holds a seat on the San Francisco Graffiti Advisory Board and is treasurer of the Arts Providers Alliance of San Francisco.
The views expressed above are his own.
