[Ed. Note: 10/31/2015: This “post” was originally an email I sent to my friends on 11/03/2009. I have posted it today in 2015, and backdated for archival/search purposes]
(my apologies if you get this multiple times & if you don’t want to get this type of stuff from me, just let me know)
Hey folks –
Usually, I write two emails for the ‘Deep Slate, one for just the simple list of my voting recommendations & another which is the detailed “whys & wherefores” , however for today’s election that won’t be necessary. The two bits will fit in this handy email 🙂 I’ve included the boilerplate “who I am section” at the bottom for those of you who are receiving this who don’t know me.
Please feel free to forward this far & wide….
————————————-
To find your polling place:
http://tinyurl.com/yfbsg9
——————–
LIST:
A: yes – Move the City to a 2 Year Budget Cycle
B: YES – Add Board of Supervisor Aides
C: No – Sell Candlestick Naming Rights
D: NO – Creates a Mid Market Special Sign District
E: Yes – Block Advertisements on City Property
Treasurer: Jose M. Cisneros
City Attorney: Dennis Herrera
DETAILS:
A: yes – Move the City to a 2 Year Budget Cycle
This measure would change the City’s budgeting process so that every year, they would prepare budgets for the next two years. Thus every year, there would be an “expected” budget for the subsequent year. There are arguments that this would do very little good, but I haven’t seen much to suggest it would make things worse. Optimistically it would add an element of slightly longer term thinking into our budget process. Additionally, it closes a loophole exploited by the Police Union & the Firefighters Union (two of my least favorite) to get special budgeting treatment outside the City’s normal budget process. I say yes.
B: YES – Add Board of Supervisor Aides
This is actually the best and simplest measure on the ballot. The City Charter allows for supes to have only 2 aides & was created in a bygone era when Supes were expected to be part-time & have little to do. That is certainly not today. Supes staff time is stretched way to thin and the quality of work suffers and the job is remarkably taxing. Adding additional aides would be a BIG win for the quality of government in San Francisco. YES.
C: No – Sell Candlestick Naming Rights
This is an attempt to change the City’s prior (initiative) decision to keep the name of Candlestick Park as it is & allow the naming rights be sold. While the city is in DIRE need of cash, this isn’t really a good deal as it gives half the proceeds of the sale to the family who own the 49ers & the rest to the City – even though the City owns the park.
D: NO – Creates a Mid Market Special Sign District
This is bad bad bad for a number of reasons. Even though I’d love to find ways to fix the perennially-blighted mid-Market area, this plan is just bad. It would let a private entity (the business owners, – so no electoral oversight) essentially side step and normal City process to add large scale electronic billboards and keep the majority of the money raised to be used as they see fit. Some portion would be donated to youth programs in the Tenderloin, but that is just the lipstick for this particular pig. Vote NO.
E: Yes – Block Advertisements on City Property
This measure essentially just makes our existing ban on new outdoor advertising enforceable. Vote Yes
Treasurer: Jose M. Cisneros
Cisneros has done some pretty good stuff, esp. in regards to predatory pay-day-loans places . On the other hand, he has yet to take much of a stand about California’s BROKEN budget process, and especially Prop. 13 which is LAME. & But he is unopposed, so go ahead an vote for him (or not.)
City Attorney: Dennis Herrera
Herrera has been a pleasant surprise as City Attorney and has done some pretty good work in many areas, in particular SF’s landmark health care efforts, marriage equality (Prop 8 stuff), and making the City Attorney’s office a professionally run department . I haven’t agreed with his stuff 100% but on the whole, I have been impressed.
——————–
Thanks again to the number of folks who have asked me for my opinions. I know I say it every time but it is quite true: I really am honored. Any questions or flames can, of course, be addressed to me….
Ok – so to figure out how to value (or devalue :-)) my opinions you should know the following:
• My opinions come from my experience in local politics over the past 13 years & the tons of candidate interviews I’ve done with the San Francisco League of Conservation Voters & the SF Bicycle Coalition & all the lobbying I’ve done at City Hall, etc etc…. As you know I don’t get a dime for this, I’m a software engineer by day, and a political activist in my spare time.
• The 3 biggest “norths” of my political compass are environmentalism, social justice issues & good government (reform type) issues.
• I’m President of the San Francisco League of Conservation Voters & on the Board of Directors of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. While my views are definitely shaped by my activities in these organizations, my endorsements do NOT represent their views.
• I’m basically an idealist, an optimist, and a humanist.
• In some of these races it is a matter of picking between flawed options….
• Ballot measures are REALLY a bad way to govern. Most of the things done in ballot measures SHOULD be done in the normal legislature, where they are easier to fix if they turn out wrong. Another problem is that you have to boil complex issues down to yes/no votes – which rarely is a good idea. But this is what we have, so keep in mind that some good ideas make bad ballot propositions & a lot bad ideas can be made to be sound like good sense in ballot initiative form because the devil is often in the details. And also note that often, these measures are grey – there is often a lot of balancing going on…..
• 90% of my experience & knowledge is about local issues – so understand that state issues are a little greyer for me unless I say otherwise. Thus, some of the endorsements (as marked) below are taken from compiling what the California League of Conservation Voters, the SF Bay Guardian, and the Sierra Club have had to say.