Matt’s 2019 San Francisco Voting Guide
I know, I know: I’m late to this.
You’ve probably already dutifully sent in your mail-in ballot (you are registered to vote by mail, right?) or cast your early ballot at City Hall. But in case you’re still looking for guidance on how to most effectively prosecute your civic duty, I’m here for you. (Or, rather, I’m here for my wife, who demanded I research ballot initiatives so she doesn’t have to… tomayto, tomahto.)
Critical Tools: San Francisco Chronicle Voter Guide, YIMBY Party Voter Guide, and the SPUR Voter Guide.
Note: I’ve ordered these as they appear on the San Francisco mail-in ballot and I’ve decided not to weigh-in on offices that have only one candidate (City Attorney, Public Defender, Sheriff, Treasurer, and Community College Board).
San Francisco Offices
Mayor: London Breed
San Francisco has many, many, problems to contend with right now, and the rate of progress has been far short of ideal, to put it nicely. That said, the folks running against Mayor Breed are all unproven long-shot candidates with little hope of improving that rate of progress. Breed still has a lot to prove, but her more debated stances have been encouraging — siding with the Embarcadero navigation center and with Scott Walker’s housing initiatives are standout examples. Let’s give her some more time to prove where she can take this.
SF Chronicle agrees. (YIMBY and SPUR do not weigh in on this one.)
Aside on how to rank: honestly, it doesn’t matter; the rest of them are long-shots that are in a fight for relevance. Rank according to your heart (or which of the professional descriptions you find most entertaining — I’m a big fan of “Retired Airport Analyst”, personally).
District Attorney: Suzy Loftus
Suzy Loftus has an impressive resumé — she worked in Kamala Harris’ State Attorney General office, was the president of the police commission, was very active in numerous local non-profits, the list goes on—and an equally impressive list of endorsements — Mayor London Breed, state Sen. Scott Wiener and U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris. And I’ve heard nothing but good things from those who have come in contact with her.
She’s the clear standout here and the SF Chronicle agrees. (YIMBY and SPUR do not weigh in.)
Aside on how to rank: (1) Suzy, (2) Nancy, (3) Leif, (4) No vote. This is where rank-choice voting strategy comes in. This race is really a fight between Suzy and Chesa, and unfortunately, rank-choice voting does incentivize these sort of strategic no-votes in two-way competitions.
Board of Education: Jenny Lam
I’ll be honest, I’m just following the Chronicle’s endorsement on this one. This is an important position, but I find it difficult to get signal here. If anything, it seems easy to eliminate Coleman from the choices; who seems to have entered the race because he has a specific beef with Lam. Strobel making school assignment a central issue in the race is interesting, but by default, I defer to the Chronicle’s assessment and Lam’s incumbency.
City and County Propositions
I’ll save you my usual diatribe about how the prop system is a tragic dereliction of duty and a terrible way to govern because, hey, it’s the most fun part of this election cycle.
Prop A: YES
Prop A will authorize the city to issue $600 million in bonds to build, rehabilitate or acquire affordable housing in San Francisco. It’s the biggest housing bond in SF history and could lead to the construction of 2,800 affordable housing units in the next four years.
YIMBY really worked hard supporting this, and SPUR and the Chronicle all agree: Vote Yes!
Prop B: YES
This prop improves the delivery of services to disabled adults with little to no downside — it’s a data-driven response to a real need and an absolute no-brainer. Also, if you’re not supporting SPUR yet, just read this write-up of a prop that seemingly only changes the name of a city agency, and tell me that they don’t deserve a few of your hard-earned dollars.
SPUR and the Chronicle agree: Vote Yes! (YIMBY abstains.)
Prop C: NO
Of course the most controversial ballot initiative in 2019 is about vaping. (But, if you’re a nerd, it’s also pretty interesting.)
In 2016, the FDA updated a federal law to require all new tobacco products to undergo a premarket health review. Existing products (as of 2007) would have to submit an application by 2018. But in 2017, the Trump Administration (of course) extended the window to 2022 — courts kind of overturned this and then tobacco companies counter-sued; the timeline is still caught up in litigation. To end-run the delay due to litigation, the SF Board of Supervisors stepped in and passed an ordinance which bans e-cigarettes that have not undergone a premarket health review (originally scheduled to go into effect last year). In response to this, Juul (and others) put this measure on the ballot to end-run the Board of Supervisor’s end-run of the Trump administration. Democracy!
In summary, I dislike all of the following things: bypassing public health regulations through deceptively marketed ballot initiatives motivated purely by private profits, Juul, and the Trump Administration.
SPUR and the Chronicle agree: Vote No! (YIMBY abstains.)
Prop D: YES
Basically, this prop will add a tax of 1.5% to 3.25% to every Uber/Lyft ride and put it towards public transportation improvements. The measure is estimated to bring in $32 million annually and should have a slight deterrent on using ride-sharing services (and therefore, reduce the number of cars on the road). Uber and Lyft actually agreed not to oppose the measure after negotiations with the city.
I, for one, am more than happy to slightly increase my fares for the prospect of a slightly saner transportation system — it’s a drop in the bucket, but every little bit helps.
SPUR, Chronicle, and YIMBY all agree: Vote Yes!
Prop E: YES
This prop seeks to “expedite the approval of affordable housing and educator housing on large residential parcels,” as YIMBY states. Based on a few of the analyses I’ve read, it seems like this is a well-intentioned measure that will likely do some good, but isn’t particularly well-drafted or researched, and which could have easily been legislation instead of a ballot measure. A few years ago, I likely would have recommended vote “no” for those three reasons, but my demands for a more ideal process have yielded to my pragmatic desire to address the housing crisis.
SPUR, Chronicle, and YIMBY all agree: Vote Yes!
Prop F: NO, NOOOOOO
F is one of those that sounds completely reasonable based on the ballot language, but is suspiciously biased towards specific groups. These types of deceptive ballot measures are a particularly grievous transgression to this poly-sci major. In sum, Prop F sounds like it increases transparency in elections, but actually targets developers specifically while also requiring a very burdensome set of disclosure requirements that don’t seem to address the real issue. If you’re interested in details, I recommend reading SPUR’s analysis — it’s all quite strange and more than a little suspicious.
Maybe I’ve just gotten used to California’s unique brand of democracy, but only 8 offices and 6 ballot measures feels like a walk in the park! The real action is next fall when we get to finish the job that, I assume, the Senate will be too chicken-shit to do for us. See you then!
