The ‘Deep Slate: My November 2024 Voting Guide

The latest edition of my San Francisco & California Voter Guide.

Ok. Let’s all take a deep breath. I know I need one. No one can say who’s gonna win next week and the stress of it all is nearly killing me.

Like all times of stress, I spend a lot of time trying to do something about it.

If you’re in a place where you can do something, PLEASE DO. The best would be to go to a swing state this weekend and knock doors! (SF Dems and Manny’s are taking groups to Reno!)

Kimberly and I are going to Pennsylvania this weekend, to spend more time knocking doors. I was there for 2 weeks earlier this month and it was incredibly rewarding and felt like one of the best ways I could make a difference (other than donate $$$). Then Kimberly, Aja and I all went to Reno with Manny’s to knock more doors.

If you want to do something closer to home, Kimberly’s been writing letters with VoteFoward and Manny’s and SF Dems are phonebanking as well!

Ping me if you want any details on that sort of stuff! And big shout out to everyone who’s already out there doing THE WORK in whatever capacity you can!

Anyway, regardless of the national scene, we have to take care of business here in the Bay Area and CA (every trip to a swing state makes me more and more thankful for our home – warts and all!). So here’s my voting advice, as usual….

If you want me to email you this (no spam!), every SF election cycle, send me an email and I’ll add you to my email list.

GO VOTE!

Thx
‘deep

.ps Wondering things like: What is this? How did I come up with these? Click here. Wanna know where to vote? Or stuff about Oakland or San Jose? Click here.

.pps BIG THANKS to all of you who asked for my recommendations over the years. I’m truly honored by your interest! And HUGE thanks to Kimberly, my lovely wife, for proofreading this and also for being so supportive of all my meetings and involvements!

.pps: Don’t forget to #votingstickerselfie AFTER YOU VOTE! (Take a pic with your voting sticker on your nose and hashtag it as #votingstickerselfie everywhere you can!)

UPDATE 11/1: Here’s our #votingstickerselfie from the plane to PA!

OK – let’s do this!

 

THE LIST:

Notes:

• If you just want this list as a handy, printable text version, just click here.
• The more CAPITALS, the more strongly I feel about it – especially on ballot measures.
• Click the title link to jump to the details for that item.
• Click here to download plain text version.

FEDERAL:

President: Kamala Harris/Tim Walz
Senate: (Next term): Adam Schiff
Senate: (Current term): Adam Schiff
House of Representatives: Nancy Pelosi

STATE:

State Senator: Scott Wiener
State Assembly D17: Matt Haney
State Assembly D19: Catherine Stefani

Prop 2: California School Facilities Bond: Yes
Prop 3: Protect Marriage Equality: Yes
Prop 4: Climate Risk Mitigation Bond: YES
Prop 5: Voter Approval Reform for Affordable Housing & Public Infrastructure: yes
Prop 6: Ban Forced Prison Labor: YES
Prop 32: Raise CA Minimum Wage: Yes
Prop 33: Local Control of Rent Control: No
Prop 34: Revenge Ballot Measure for Prop 33: NO
Prop 35: Medical Funding Tax on Managed Care: no
Prop 36: Increase Sentencing for Certain Offenses: No

SAN FRANCISCO:

School Board:
Parag Gupta
Jaime Huling
John Jersin
Supryia Ray

Community College Board:
Ruth Ferguson
Heather McCarty
Luis Zamora

BART Board D7: Dana Lang
BART Board D9: Edward Wright

Mayor: London Breed (#1), Aaron Peskin (#2)

Supervisor D1: Jen Nossokoff
Supervisor D3: Danny Sauter
Supervisor D5: Bilal Mahmood
Supervisor D7: Myrna Melgar
Supervisor D9: Trevor Chandler (UPDATED see below)
Supervisor D11: EJ Jones (#1), Michael Lai (#2)

City Attorney: David Chiu
District Attorney: Ryan Khojasteh
Sheriff: Paul Miyamoto
Treasurer: Jose Cisneros

Prop A: Local School Facilities Bond: YES
Prop B: SF Public Infrastructure: YES
Prop C: Inspector General: YES
Prop D: Arbitrary Commission Reform: NO
Prop E: Better Commission Reform: Yes
Prop F: Bad Police Retirement Scheme: NO
Prop G: Budget Set-aside for Super Low Income Housing: yes
Prop H: Bad Firefighter Retirement Scheme: NO
Prop I: Meh Nurse Recruitment Plan: no
Prop J: Oversight for Children’s Fund Spending: yes
Prop K: Great Highway Park: YES-YES-YES
Prop L: Ride Hail Tax for Muni: YES
Prop M: Gross Receipts Tax Update: Yes
Prop N: Needless Ballot Measure for First Responders: no
Prop O: Reaffirm Abortion Rights (in case of Project 2025): Yes

THE DETAILS:

Note: the more CAPITALS the stronger I feel about it, especially on ballot measures.

FEDERAL:

President: Kamala Harris / Tim WalzI’m *really* not going to spend any time on this one. I am however, going to indulge on a tiny burst of JOY:

Senate: (Next term): Adam Schiff
Senate: (Current term): Adam Schiff
Not going to spend a lot of time here either. Representative Schiff impressed me in his handling of the Jan 6th Investigations in Congress & is the Democrat in the race. Be sure to vote for him TWICE: one partial term to finish out Feinstein’s final term, AND the next full six year Senate term.

House of Representatives: Nancy Pelosi
I always say the same positive things about Nancy, and have some criticisms from time to time. But if you were following the emotional/psychological/political roller coaster of the Biden to Harris switchover this summer, you’ll understand why I’m just amazed by her at this point, creating possibility when there appeared to be none. It was simply amazing.

NY Times columnist Ezra Klein nails it in this great interview from that incredible moment:

The remarkable thing about the past couple of months in politics has been watching the Democratic Party act like something we have not seen for a long time — a political party. A party that makes decisions collectively. A party that does hard things because it wants to win. A party that is more than the vehicle for a single — usually — man’s ambitions.

But parties are made of people. And in this case, the party was in particular made of a person, Nancy Pelosi, one of the longest-serving House speakers, the first female speaker, and — it sometimes feels — one of the last people left in American politics who knows how to wield power and knows why she wants to do so.

So thank god for Nancy. Yes, she needs to hand over the reins sometime soon, but I feel like we owe this woman a LOT.

STATE:

State Senator: Scott Wiener
[Note: This is adapted from my March primary election voter guide.] I’m always happy to vote for Scott! I’ve worked with him a lot on environmental and transportation issues that are near and dear to my heart. Whether I agree with him or not, he consistently impresses me with his intelligence and his detailed, thoughtful, and thorough approach to issues in the City.

State Assembly D17: Matt Haney
[Note: This is adapted from my March primary election voter guide.] I have been a fan of Matt Haney’s diligence and thoughtfulness as a School Board member as a Supervisor, and continue to appreciate him as an Assembly member. (Update 11/24: Umm, Matt? This report from the SF Standard was not a good look. Let’s hope it’s a lesson learned.)

State Assembly D19: Catherine Stefani
[Note: This is adapted from my March primary election voter guide.] Catherine Stefani is the only really qualified candidate in the race to replace Phil Ting, who termed out.

 

Prop 2: California School Facilities Bond: YES

This is one of 2 school bond measures on our ballot & hopefully both will succeed. This measure enables CA to sell bonds to improve our school infrastructure state wide and, importantly, also starts to address some of the inequities in how our state allocates school funding. (Spoiler: the rich get richer 😖.) It doesn’t go far enough in the amount of spending or addressing the inequities, but is nonetheless a very GOOD thing. Vote YES.

.ps If you want more info, both SPUR’s & the Chronicle’s write ups are quite good.

Prop 3: Protect Marriage Equality: Yes

Back in 2008, we passed the hideous Prop 8, which stated “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Fortunately, we fixed this nationally at the Supreme Court in 2015 (& also deemed it unconstitutional here in CA) – so we kinda forget it’s still in the State Constitution.

Sadly, given comments by Clarence Thomas when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, there is the real possibility that the gay marriage case will also be overturned… and this forgotten clause in the State Constitution would come back to life, like an evil zombie. Let’s just nip this in the bud now. YES on Prop 3.

Prop 4: Climate Risk Mitigation Bond: YES

As an environmentalist I have many thoughts on climate issues, but in the interest of time, I’ll keep this short: Climate change continues to ravage our state and the planet. In addition to working harder to address it, we also must mitigate it wherever possible.  This measure floats $10 billion in state bonds to address fire risk & restoration, coastal area protection, watershed protection, clean energy projects & transmission & much more. YES YES YES!

.ps Good nitty gritty details here at SPUR.

Prop 5: Voter Approval Reform for Affordable Housing & Public Infrastructure: yes
Geez. This one should be a slam dunk… but isn’t because compromise is ugly.

First, the Slam Dunk: Remember 2022’s Prop A – the critical bond to fund Muni & help avoid the fiscal meltdown it’s now facing? It got 65% support, but not the critical 66% required for local bond measures and thus failed to pass. So a minority of voters (35%) blocked the needs and will of the majority (65%). This keeps happening all over CA; critical infrastructure like affordable housing and transportation bonds get foiled by this unreasonably high bar. This measure will drop the bond approval requirement for affordable housing & public infrastructure from two thirds to a much more reasonable 55%. I’m all for this!

Sadly, in exchange for not fighting this measure, the California Realtor’s Association stuck in a poison pill clause that restricts the use of affordable housing bonds to fund housing in low density (richer!) areas, which are huge parts of California. Never mind that suburban sprawl is an environmental disaster or that this is essentially saying we’ll codify “no poor folks on our side of town thankyouverymuch.”

The Chronicle’s really good writeup is the first editorial I saw that calls this out & it is why they went No on Prop 5. SPUR seems to have missed this & I haven’t found many other mentions of it (except for a callout in Ballot FYI’s cute write up)… so I’m torn. In the end, the sting of losing 2022’s Muni Bond makes me vote Yes, but if it goes down, I won’t be too chuffed. Though it might not ever come back in an improved fashion as the Chronicle hopes for. (If you’re at all interested, definitely read the Chron’s write up.)

Prop 6: Ban Forced Prison Labor: YES
This is an easy one, though a bit surprising & disturbing.

The CA Voter guide synopsis reads simply:

Amends the California Constitution to remove current provision that allows jails and prisons to impose involuntary servitude to punish crime (i.e., forcing incarcerated persons to work). 

But ummm… doesn’t “involuntary servitude” sound like slavery? Can we really be voting on slavery? Here’s the Chron:

The 13th Amendment to the Constitution bans slavery and involuntary servitude — “except as a punishment for crime” for which someone has been “duly convicted.” That language is mirrored in a section of California’s Constitution, which reads, “Slavery is prohibited. Involuntary servitude is prohibited except to punish crime.”

Um… yep. Voting on Slavery. Slavery should NOT have an “except” clause!

As it stands now, prisoners can be forced to work with no pay or very little pay & can be punished if they refuse. Add in the racial overtones of our prison system and WOW. This is fucked up. YES.

Prop 32: Raise CA Minimum Wage: Yes
My knee-jerk reaction to any minimum wage increase is always “how do people survive on that? YES.” Then I try to analyze the downsides of raising the minimum wage. The argument is that minimum wage increases hurt small struggling businesses & possibly cause more layoffs for low-wage workers. But frankly this is debated, with numerous studies suggesting otherwise.

In the end, I’m still Yes. (And if you want a good inside pool take on this measure, see my friend Alix’s thoughtful write up – the most interesting I’ve seen on this one.)

Prop 33: Local Control of Rent Control: No
This is another struggle for me. For the third time in six years, we’re trying to change CA’s rent control system, and once again, we’re considering repealing 1995’s Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which created California’s rules for rent control. The last two times, in 2018 and 2020, I struggled with the pros and cons of rent control, but ultimately decided that the pros of those measures outweighed the cons.

In both cases, it was the argument of the LA Times Editorial Board that swayed me into the “yes” camp, but this time they’ve gone “no”:

Instead of Proposition 33, the better option is for the Legislature to repeal or amend Costa-Hawkins so cities and counties have more flexibility to tailor local rent control laws to meet their needs — but not so much flexibility that cities could use rent control to stymie, intentionally or inadvertently, housing construction. 

The LA Times takes issue with the fact that in addition to repealing Costa-Hawkins, this ballot measure forbids the State from making any changes to what local municipalities do, because it additionally prohibits the state from limiting “the right of any city, county, or city and county to maintain, enact or expand residential rent control.”

SPUR raises similar concerns and points out, rightly, that this would be *best* done deliberatively and legislatively rather than at the ballot:

Addressing housing affordability for Californians requires solutions that go beyond rent control. More than half (53%) of renters in the state are considered “rent burdened,” meaning they spend more than 30% of their household income on rent and utilities each month. Cities are struggling to address homelessness challenges, and many communities and households continue to experience displacement pressures. We must act to make housing affordable, stabilize our communities, and open our cities to residents of all backgrounds and economic means.

However, Prop. 33 is not the right tool for the job. It would have negative impacts on the production of housing that would outweigh its potential benefits. The state plays a key role in setting guardrails for local rent control policy, and the details of these guardrails are important. We urge the California State Legislature to work toward compromise legislation that can be negotiated through the legislative process.

I tend to agree. We should probably reform rent control, but this seems too far – keeping the state from putting guardrails around rent control is a dangerous roll of the dice. And really, we should do this at the legislature, where we can fix things if they go wrong…because ballot measures suck. No.

Prop 34: Revenge Ballot Measure for Prop 33: NO
This is just dumb. Prop 33 (above) is an attempt to roll back rent control largely funded by the Los Angeles-based nonprofit AIDS Healthcare Foundation. And guess what? They also were the primary proponent of 2018’s attempt and 2020’s attempt to roll back rent control. And by the “AIDS HealthCare Foundation”, people are really talking about their ED, Michael Weinstein.

This ballot measure is surgically created by his opponents, like the California Apartment Association to attack AIDS Healthcare Foundation for its legislative measures at the ballot box.

There is a lot to criticize about a health organization spending so much money on not health. And Weinstein appears to be a real piece of work. And while this measure could possibly force them to do their actual job, it shouldn’t be on the ballot. (And is probably unconstitutional because you can’t target a law at an individual.)

.ps The Chronicle write up is good.

Prop 35: Medical Funding Tax on Managed Care: no
Wow. This one seems really easy, but isn’t. Once again, here’s an example of why things like this should NOT be on the ballot.

Basically, there is this really obscure tax called the MCO, on managed Health Care plans, like Kaiser. The proceeds of this tax get matched by the federal government & then dumped into the state’s general fund, where they are supposed to fund Medi-Cal, California’s health system for those who can’t afford care.

Lately, Newsom has used some of this money to balance the budget (given our $28 billion deficit) & the healthcare industry got pissed. Both sides have valid points, but this is much more complicated than what I present here:see the Chron’s “Vote No” editorial for the head-spinning details and you’ll perhaps agree that this should not be done at the ballot.  

If you want to read a capsule version of this, Ballot.fyi’s “Conversation with Gavin” is fun & hint’s at the complexity.

Prop 36: Increase Sentencing for Certain Offenses: No
Ugh. Real problems with bad solutions. 

This is a classic “tough on crime” measure that (oddly enough) I have some sympathy for, but is ultimately (and predictably) broken.

First, let’s start with 2014’s Prop 47 criminal reform measure. Here is what I wrote at the time:

Prop 47: Reduced Penalties for Some Crimes: YES

YAY! Something to be excited about at the state level! If you haven’t noticed, our state spends a RIDICULOUS amount of money on prisons – more than higher education. And they have become a human rights cesspool and a “hardening” process that makes small time crooks into career criminals. In short, they are a moral failure, and a fiscal nightmare. A big part of the problem is the overly harsh sentencing laws we are stuck with.

This measure reduces felonies to misdemeanors for various “non-serious, non-violent crimes” & will allow for resentencing of current inmates effected. That helps the moral part. The fiscal part is that this is expected to save use between $150 & $250 million. Oh and these funds will be shoveled into safe neighborhoods and schools funds, anticrime programs, mental health treatment, truancy and dropout prevention and victim compensation. More moral win. DO IT. YES.

Since then Prop 47 has saved the state somewhere around $816 million dollars and reinvested those funds into treatment.

But now, in our post-pandemic 2024, retail theft is rampant and folks are rightfully fed up. That’s where my sympathy comes in. But it evaporates when people say, “it’s because of Prop 47 – we’re too soft on crime in CA.” That’s completely bogus!

A big part of the problem is that police aren’t enforcing the laws on the books, either because they are understaffed or undermotivated. Here’s the LA Times in their excellent & informed take down of Prop 36:

Police could stop petty thieves now if they made misdemeanor arrests, as they can and sometimes should under current law. But they don’t, because they argue it’s not worth their time. They’re asking voters to change the laws to fit their accustomed practices, rather than update their practices to fit the laws they’re asked to enforce. Californians should expect police to follow the law, rather than the other way around.

And:

Proposition 47 had nothing to do with these crimes, and Proposition 36 would not have stopped them. That’s because robbery, residential burglary and grand theft are already felonies, punishable with long prison sentences. The law as it exists is appropriate to deal with those crimes — whenever law enforcement is ready to use it.

While that rings true to me, the SF Chronicle makes a larger point that even if the police did make the arrests, what then? There isn’t enough funding for drug treatment, mental health treatment and other services to stop recidivism: 

Prop 47’s money for treatment was never going to be enough. California needed immense infrastructural investments to support its reforms. But instead of building supportive reentry and treatment facilities, housing and wraparound services, the state and counties all too often released inmates to the streets. Between 2019 and 2023, more than 36,400 people were released from prison without a fixed address.

In an interview with the editorial board, San Francisco Sheriff Paul Miyamoto said that despite the city’s rhetoric surrounding crime and drugs, his office still doesn’t have the resources to ensure inmates with drug or mental health issues have a “warm handoff” to a service provider when released from jail.

Sadly, it looks like Prop 36 is going to pass easily. And we’re going to undo a lot of the value of 47 without fixing anything.  Le sigh. Vote No on 36.

SAN FRANCISCO:

School Board:

• Parag Gupta
• Jaime Huling
• John Jersin
• Supryia Ray

Ugh, SFUSD is a mess right now. I really feel for all the kids, parents & staff. Such vast failures of leadership and responsibility would be alarming in any situation, but kids and school are fundamental to how our society works. They deserve better & we all do really. The turmoil of the ridiculously irresponsible previous board (& the resulting problematic but totally understandable recall) & then the various financial fiascos culminating with the pending school closures and possible state takeover has been unbelievable.

I don’t pretend to have a great deal of insight on the school board (sorry) but we at the SF League of Conservation Voters went with these four based on their answers to our questionnaires and our deliberations internally. I’ve also spoken with friends in the know regarding SFUSD & they like these four as well. I hope this upcoming new board and the new Superintendent get the job done. 🤞🏽

Community College Board:

• Ruth Ferguson
• Heather McCarty
• Luis Zamora

Ugh. Once again, like it’s near-death experience of a few years ago, City College finds itself at risk of losing it’s accreditation. As near as I can tell, a big part of the problem is just ridiculous and dumb shenanigans from our current Community College Board (really, check out these links!) I don’t pretend to have a great deal of insight on the CCSF (just like the SFUSD board) but we at the SF League of Conservation Voters went with the 3 above based on their answers to our questionnaires and our deliberations internally. Let’s hope they can turn CCSF around.🤞🏽

BART Board D7: Dana Lang

BART Board D9: Edward Wright

We at the SF League of Conservation Voters picked Dana Lang & Edward Write because they seemed to have the best grasp of environmental issues facing the agency. 

Mayor: London Breed (#1), Aaron Peskin (#2)

Here we go. This is the biggest race on people’s minds OTHER than the Presidential race. For me it’s clear who should be the next mayor of San Francisco; though I admit to being a little surprised and also see significant room for improvement.

But let’s start with the positives.

London Breed was a steady leader through the darkest chapter in my 55 years of life: the Trump+COVID combo.

Very early in the pandemic, Kimberly and I (like probably everyone else reading this) were thinking “Holy hell! What do we do know?!” But we soon realized, very gratefully, that we were in one of the few places in the country that was handling the situation with the most seriousness, the most science, and the most thoughtfulness. We didn’t get it all right & there were numerous missteps, but our City was doing what I hoped it would do.

If we’re going to blame London for various things that ail San Francisco, we also have to give her credit for the steadfast, compassionate, strong & evidence-based leadership she showed during the pandemic.

In terms of her policies that I appreciate, here is what we wrote over at SF League of Conservation Voters:

Mayor Breed has overseen substantial improvements at Muni during her tenure, even through the COVID-19 pandemic’s challenges of reduced ridership and public unease. Under her direction, Muni has achieved historic levels of satisfaction and performance, a remarkable feat. And although Muni operates on a smaller scale post-pandemic, the focus on transit-priority lanes and enhancing service in equity priority neighborhoods has yielded positive outcomes, and the system is showing signs of growth. Despite these successes, Muni is now confronting severe financial difficulties, facing a projected budget deficit of $214 million as early as next July, posing a serious threat that Breed is best-equipped to manage.

Beyond transit, Mayor Breed has supported transformative projects like making JFK Drive a permanent car-free space in Golden Gate Park and advocating for a ballot measure to turn the Great Highway into Ocean Beach Park to enhance the city’s western shoreline as well as mitigate the effects of climate change. Mayor Breed has also been instrumental in fully funding the Department of the Environment and its initiatives advancing the City’s Climate Action Plan. Furthermore, as a former Supervisor, Breed was crucial in launching CleanPowerSF, demonstrating her commitment to sustainable energy solutions despite opposition from large corporations like PG&E.

Mayor Breed is also the strongest of the candidates in advocating for more multi-family housing close to transit and in well-resourced neighborhoods that have contributed very little new housing in recent decades.

That all being said, I am surprised to be in London Breed’s camp.

For all she has done that I appreciate, what she has not done is also very glaring: she has not changed the way this City is run.

When I first became active in San Francisco politics, Willie Brown was the mayor, and the regime he set up at City Hall is still effectively the same types of people (if not the same people) from his administration. This government has carried over from Brown’s to Gavin Newsom’s to Ed Lee’s and now to London Breed’s. It just feels like the same show. This institutional inertia is directly tied to the corruption, mismanagement, and stagnation that our City government suffers from.

I did not support Breed in years past, for fear she would be more of the same, and sadly there is too much evidence, from the Mohammed Nuru scandal, to the DreamKeepers program mismanagement, to my own slog dealing with jackassary of building permitting in San Francisco, to believe that she represents the change our City needs.

You might think that would suggest Daniel Lurie, the self-funded “outsider” who can presumably “shake things up”. There is a part of me that sees that appeal – but if we’re going to be honest about Breed, we must also be honest about Lurie: Daniel Lurie has no new ideas for anything. More glaringly, he has no experience in truly doing anything. Being mayor of San Francisco is a tough job, full of all kinds of wrangling, negotiating, managing fiefdoms, conflicts and divergent centers of power, all with real ramifications for our lives. Money does not make a mayor, and this is no job to throw to some rich guy who is “fresh.” Just no.

The only other serious pick in this race is Aaron Peskin. I’ve backed Aaron in race after race, and think he truly possesses the political acumen, keen intellect, and policy chops to be a great mayor. Historically, Peskin has stood for things I really care for, from transit to smart urban planning to clean energy. But over the past five years, I’ve been utterly despondent at his votes on things I value deeply: his opposition to closing JFK to cars (which Breed courageously supported); his misguided blockades of new housing unless it’s 100% affordable; his attempt to stop SFMTA’s ability to raise parking fees necessary for Muni’s funding; his current opposition to Prop K, the Great Highway Park (which Breed supports); his saber rattling to shutdown CalTrain; his opposition to upzoning (increasing much needed density) for large chunks of the City. What happened Aaron?

In the end, I’ll vote for Breed and hope she surprises me. She has done a lot of good and many of of her policies seem to be getting traction. She’s a savvy enough politician to understand that San Francisco wants CHANGE… maybe she can start to deliver in a second term.

With that, how to vote? Since this is a ranked choice election and polls suggest it is unlikely anyone will win a majority on the first count, who we vote for as our #2 and #3 is very important. So you should really pick the candidates in the order you prefer them — that’s the whole point of ranked choice! For me that order is:

1. London Breed
2. Aaron Peskin (even if I disagree with him, he’s more capable than anyone else)
3. Ahsha Safai (No chance he wins, but I’d still pick him over Lurie since he has relevant experience)
4. Daniel Lurie (See above)
5. Mark Farrell (from near-ethics violations, to deceptive mailers, to sketchy-at-best campaign financing, on top of Republican talking points about SF, this is nobody I want at City Hall – also see Prop D below.)

Luckily, I only have to rank the top three. That’s how I’m voting.

Supervisor D1: Jen Nossokoff

We at the SFLCV are big fans of Jen Nossokoff and gave her our sole endorsement. Of all the District 1 candidates she has the best grasp of transit, housing, and parks priorities in a district where such urban and environmental priorities can be a tougher sell.  

Whatever you do, please do NOT vote for Connie Chan: she has been terrible on transit issues, opposed closing JFK to cars, and now, predictably, opposes Prop K, the Great Highway Park.

Supervisor D3: Danny Sauter
The race to fill Aaron Peskin’s seat in D3 is wide open, and say what you will about Aaron Peskin, his are big shoes to fill. 

My favorite of the newcomers is easily Danny Sauter. At SFLCV we gave him our sole endorsement: he’s smart, fresh, and understands the urban and environmental issues in Chinatown and North Beach. But the most impressive thing about Danny is that he does the work in the district: he’s been working as a community organizer in North Beach and Chinatown for the past decade. He’s even been learning Cantonese to better represent his district! It’s always nice to reward someone who has been doing the work for their community and Danny seems to be the real deal.

I’m tempted to also recommend Sharon Lai as a number #2; she’s smart, well qualified, ambitious, and a woman of color; but in our interviews at SFLCV she was a little too evasive for my taste.This race might be close and as such, strategically, it’s best to give a sole endorsement to the person you *really* want to win, so I’ll leave her off my list.

Supervisor D5: Bilal Mahmood

The D5 race is a good example of the struggle I have with progressive politics in San Francisco. If you sat Dean Preston and I down, we’d agree 95% of the time on most issues. We’d probably debate things like his belief that we must only build 100% affordable housing and my belief that we have to build all types of housing (and that to entice developers to build, some will be for profit). But there is a line that gets drawn where progressives like Dean get dogmatic and obstructionist. They brook no compromise, accept no middle ground, and think winning means holding onto your principles even if it means sinking the ship. Dean Preston is of that mold. Add to that a combativeness and abrasiveness that comes out all too often, and you can see why he doesn’t get my vote.

Luckily, we have a great challenger in Bilal Mahmood. From our write up at SFLCV:

We at SFLCV appreciate his focus on often-underlooked details that can act as a lever to accomplish the bigger changes he proposes. When we asked what “streamlining the hiring process” actually looks like, he made specific observations about obstacles in the current system. One example is that civil service exams must be taken by paper and are only available once per month. On a wide variety of topics, he drew our attention to seemingly minor issues that can slow progress.

Bilal Mahmood’s robust track record on climate policy, housing, and transportation makes him the standout candidate for environmental voters in District 5. His proactive proposals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving public transit safety and reliability highlight his capability to lead San Francisco toward a more sustainable and equitable future.

Vote Mahmood for D5. 

Supervisor D7: Myrna Melgar

This is an easy one. Myrna Melgar is an excellent supervisor from a district that hasn’t had a lot of great ones. She’s an environmental champion on the Board, a dedicated urbanist, and a thoughtful and capable legislator. Also she zooms by me in the bike lane all the time on Valencia. 🥰 Whatchu doin’ so much on this side of town Myrna?

.ps For more info, see our write up at SFLCV.

Supervisor D9: Trevor Chandler (#1) Roberto Hernandez (#2)

This one is near and dear to my heart as D9 is my district! Shout out to the Mission!

I’ll quote (most) of what we wrote at SF League of Conservation Voters, with my own conclusions at the end:

For the District 9 Supervisor’s race, the San Francisco League of Conservation Voters found itself faced with a difficult choice. The leading candidates each have different strengths and yet none met all of our expectations. In the end, we have made a dual endorsement of Trevor Chandler and Roberto Hernandez.

Trevor Chandler had a nearly perfect questionnaire, aligning with SFLCV on almost every issue we raised, including transportation and housing. However, one notable point of difference is his opposition to this November’s Proposition L, the ComMUNIty Transit Act. 

More than any other candidate, we would expect him to side with us on environmental votes as a supervisor. That being said, while we appreciate his work as a political organizer, his relative newness to District 9 led us to question whether he has the existing relationships and local experience to navigate City Hall and effectively lead and persuade residents of District 9 in an environmental direction.

Roberto Hernandez, on the other hand, is a longtime Mission District community activist and organizer and is well regarded by many in District 9. His years of work in the Mission, and in its communities of color in particular, give him relationships, credibility, and trust from many constituents. This will help him lead and get things done. Nonetheless, of the major candidates, his commitment to improving transit is inconsistent: He supports the Geary Boulevard Improvement Project, but he opposed red transit lanes for Mission Street. Although he told us he supports traffic diverters and modal filters to calm traffic on slow streets, he actively opposed removable slow street infrastructure on 24th Street in the Mission. He publicly supported protected bike lanes on 17th Street in Potrero Hill, but he has not publicly supported protected bike lanes on 17th Street in the Mission. While he ably reflects existing views of many District 9 residents, leadership requires holistically envisioning a better future. We hope that if elected, his positions will evolve to meet the environmental imperatives of both District 9 and the entire city. 

From this, the SFLCV decided on a dual endorsement of Chandler and Hernandez and dropped Jackie Fielder for disagreeing with us on how best to address our housing shortages, making the usual 100%-affordable-only vs build-all-types-of-housing argument.

For me personally, this is another race where I have serious reservations about all the candidates before us.

The three leading candidates are Trevor Chandler, Jackie Fielder, and Roberto Hernandez.

Jackie Fielder’s platform and history are a pastiche of solid leftist slogans but light on any sense of her ability to navigate City Hall and actually legislate. Given that her interview at SFLCV was remarkably lackluster, I’m left with the impression that she’d be more of an ideologue on the Board. We have real issues that need solving, so no.

That leaves Chandler and Hernandez.

Trevor Chandler impressed us with his thoughtful questionnaire and a solid interview. I appreciate that he has been an organizer for LGBTQ issues nationally. The fact that he sits on the Democratic County Central Committee and has been a teacher at SFUSD make him at least somewhat plugged in to some of the constituencies involved in City Hall politics. But he is also pretty lacking in legislative experience, and the fact that he has only recently moved to D9, leaves me with the sense that we could do better.

All of this brings us to Roberto Hernandez, who seems to epitomize the “represents the people of the district” definition of “District Supervisor.” He’s been doing the work in the neighborhood for literally decades. He lives and breathes the Mission and has accomplished laudable projects in the neighborhood (from the Chronicle: “When the pandemic began, Hernandez started the Mission Food Hub in his garage to provide groceries to struggling families, ultimately scaling up to feed thousands of people three times per week.”).

But per the comments from SFLCV, I disagree with him on issues like transit and how to address our housing crisis. I don’t expect him to be a particularly good vote on urbanist and environmental issues at City Hall. To make matters worse, I’ve heard reports that he can be aggressive and antagonistic in public meetings. Lord knows we don’t need more of that, so I’m really not sure how to vote. UPDATE: I just learned he has opposed bike and Muni improvements to the Mission citing gentrification even though our lowest income community members depend on Muni and safety improvements benefit everyone. 

At the end of the day, one of these three folks will almost assuredly be our next Supervisor. So since I’m guessing that I’ll agree with Chandler’s votes a bit more often, I’ll give him my #1 vote. I’d like to vote for the local activist and person of color who’s been doing the work in the district for a long time too, so with reservations, I’ll give Hernandez my #2.

UPDATE: A friend I believe provided firsthand descriptions of Hernandez’s actions and beliefs that make me think he’s really not an appropriate choice for Supervisor. Also I’ve learned he has opposed bike and Muni improvements to the Mission, citing gentrification, even though our lowest income community members depend on Muni and safety improvements benefit everyone. I recommend solely voting for Chandler.

Supervisor D11: EJ Jones
In District 11, we have a chance to elect EJ Jones, who is an excellent choice for Supervisor – we really liked him at SFLCV and I’ve heard great things about him from several sources.

From our write up at SFLCV:

Jones sees housing as an environmental and climate issue. As the former Housing Development Director for Bernal Housing Corporation, he has a deep understanding of housing policy. He supports all types of housing development, especially workforce housing. He supports upzoning along transit corridors and sees mixed use as a good opportunity to improve vibrancy, bolster ridership in the transit system, and bring diversity of residents to the neighborhood. 

Jones supports a variety of measures to address the transit funding gap. In his view, more frequent and reliable service will encourage D11 residents to choose transit, and extending the red bus lanes down Mission Street will help D11 see the same benefits D9 residents have experienced. He understands the unique transit needs of D11, a hilly neighborhood where seniors often have a hard time getting safely to a transit stop.

He is a proponent of protected bike lanes and traffic calming measures to make cycling safer. While residents often initially oppose such projects, his experience shows that involving the community from the beginning, identifying common goals, and finding solutions can help all stakeholders come to agreement.

Along with housing and bike infrastructure, Jones sees opportunities to protect and expand parks and greenspace. D11 has great parks that don’t get the love and attention they deserve.

The Chronicle goes on to say:

In this regard, Jones’ breadth of experience both in and out of City Hall set him apart from the pack. He has a clear willingness to build community consensus while pushing for much-needed homeless resources and housing. And we believe Jones is capable of thinking systemically not just about the issues facing his district, but those challenging the city at-large. Moreover, his relaxed and hopeful demeanor would be a much-needed steadying force on the Board of Supervisors.

I’ve heard some good things about several other candidates but am giving Jones my only endorsement to make sure he comes out on top in the ranked choice if no one wins a clear majority.

City Attorney: David Chiu

As I wrote back in 2022:

Full disclosure: David is a friend, and a parent at my daughter’s school. Regardless, he’s proven himself as smart and dedicated at every stop on his career. And he’s been a great vote for the environment. I expect him to do good things as City Attorney.

(One 🤔 note: I am a bit concerned about the SF vs EPA lawsuit that David is bringing to get clarification on our wastewater requirements. David says the concerns that this could blow up in our faces, by damaging the Clean Water Act, are overblown. I’m honestly still learning about the issue. I hope David is right.)

In any case, YES on David Chiu.

[Also I should point out that the link from 2022, si our 2022 endorsement of David. SFLCV didn’t endorse in the race this year, largely because David is running practically unopposed and we had our hands full with the avalanche of races we were considering.]

District Attorney: Ryan Khojasteh
I don’t really know much about this race, but in November of 2022 I wrote this about Jenkins’ challenger that time, and it still perfectly encapsulates where I am today, just updated with Khojasteh. 😉

The Boudin recall struck me as a particular travesty. As such, I’d have a hard time endorsing our current DA, Brooke Jenkins, who seemed to have turned on her boss Boudin out of sheer political opportunism. I don’t know much about Hamasaki Khojasteh…

 The SF progressive left is lining up behind Hamasaki Khojasteh, and the SF moderates are signing up behind Jenkins & there are people I respect on both sides of that fence. So I’m really at a loss, but in the end, I’m going to vote for Hamasaki Khojasteh.

Sheriff: Paul Miyamoto
This is another race I don’t know much about, but it’s a bit of a non-choice. Miyamoto, the incumbent, is the only one of the two candidates qualified for this job regardless of anything else.

Treasurer: Jose Cisneros
I’ve had good things to say about Cisneros in the past & he’s running unopposed. Enough said.

Prop A: Local School Facilities Bond: YES

 

As grim as the situation is at SFUSD, there are clear and simple things we all can do to help: improve the decaying facilities our public school students face which will improve educational out comes, and improve the meals that many students rely on for daily nutrition. That’s what Prop A does, allowing San Francisco to sell $790 million in bonds to improve facilities at SFUSD.

SPUR has an excellent write up of the details of the bond revenue will be spent, including this salient bit about the meals:

Many students rely on the district’s Student Nutrition Services (SNS) for food security. SFUSD estimates that 62% of San Francisco children served by SNS receive most or all of their daily nutrition from free school meals.4 In addition to renovation and basic repair projects that would make all schools safe and functional, Prop. A would support the construction of a new central hub for Student Nutrition Services to serve more students and offer a wider range of healthy meals.

Easy YES.

Two important notes:

1. Like all our bonds, this one will be enacted as other bonds expire, which is a smart and fiscally responsible thing our local government does. 💖
2. School closures are coming 😭 (as I mentioned in the School Board section) but none of these funds will be used for facilities that have been closed.

Prop B: SF Public Infrastructure: YES

No brainer. Prop B authorizes San Francisco to sell $390 million in bonds for much-needed public infrastructure projects, of which we have a backlog. SPUR puts it well:

The COVID-19 pandemic was a clarifying moment for San Francisco, putting on full display the strengths of — and cracks in — San Francisco’s public resources. Designed to help the city recover on myriad fronts, this bond measure would support a rich array of SPUR priorities, such as street safety, housing for homeless families, high-quality outdoor civic spaces, and the commitment that all people should have fair and just access to basic rights like health care. This bond elegantly ties together a number of pressing needs with the single theme of positively envisioning the future San Francisco wants to achieve and what critical investments are necessary to get there.

Like all our bonds, this one will be enacted as other bonds expire, which is a smart and fiscally responsible thing our local government does. 💖

Prop C: Inspector General: YES

This measure creates an office of Inspector General in the City Controller’s office to investigate and prosecute fraud, waste, and abuse. The Inspector General would handle complaints and conduct investigations, audits and inspections as needed. Additionally, Prop. C would grant the IG the right to issue subpoenas, execute search warrants, and audit city contractors, sub-contractors, and nonprofits.

Given the scandals that have rocked City Hall over the past few years, the need for this position is obvious and the potential upside is dramatic. I’m hopeful this could really improve City Hall, not just removed corruption (though just that would be great!).

My only complaint is that this shouldn’t be on the ballot. The Board of Supervisors could have enacted this legislatively any time they wanted. It’s here because Aaron Peskin wanted to run on it in his mayoral campaign and so he made it a ballot measure. That being said, these “mayoral campaign vehicles in ballot measure clothing” can be worse, as we’ll see below with Prop D and Prop N below, and this is something we need, so YES.

Prop D: Arbitrary Commission Reform: NO
This one is complex and dumb. Why is it dumb? Two words: Mark Farrell. But read on with Prop E below.

Prop E: Improved Commission reform: Yes

To fully understand these two measures D and E, I recommend reading SF League of Conservations Voters’ detailed write up here. You can also read SPUR’s two write ups but I think they are overly harsh about E; while both orgs agree D is dumb, SPUR also says E is kinda useless, but it seems to me that it could still do some good.

The situation begins with the fact that several good government organizations have pointed out that San Francisco has too many commissions, boards, and advisory bodies that add waste and inefficiency to City government. The recommendation is to thoughtfully and carefully prune these to just the ones we need, or that are required by law, thus saving our government $$$ and making it work better. This seems like a smart and uncontroversial idea! Yay!

And then this stupid thing happened: Supervisor Mark Farrell decided to run for Mayor. Cut to my completely-made-up-but-I’m-sure-it’s-true-docudrama:

• Mark: Hey! I want to make voters think I’ll lead the charge against waste and inefficiency at City Hall!
• Advisor: Well, there was that report that said we had too many commissions?
• Mark: Perfect! Let’s put up a ballot measure I can campaign on that cuts the number of commissions to….. um…. 15. Sure 15!
• Advisor: But the report recommends we take our time and carefully consider which ones we need and which ones we don’t.
• Mark: But having a ballot measure now would give me double the press for my campaign AND a slush fund for donations! We don’t have time for egg head deliberations before the election! I want a ballot measure stat!
• Advisor: But there are a lot of important ones, I don’t think 15 will…
• Mark: Fine. 50! We’ll do 50 and that should do it!
• Advisor: Mark, we can’t just arbitrarily pick a number of commissions and …
• Mark: 50 should be plenty!
• Advisor: But if we fu…
• Mark: Fine 65! But I don’t want to talk about it anymore or I’ll find a new advisor!
• Advisor: 🤦🏽‍♂️

and thus Prop D was born.

Knowing that anything resembling streamlining City government would have a shot at passing, Supervisor Aaron Peskin and co-sponsors Ronen, Preston, and Mandelman created Prop E Their goal was to prevent the Prop D train wreck, and steal its votes so it won’t pass, All this while also presumably pointing out what an idiot mayoral candidate Farrell is and what a great guy mayoral candidate Peskin is, because E is smarter.

Prop E creates a two year deliberative process to determine which commissions we need and which we don’t. It grants the power to make ordinances that can remove commissions created by the Board of Supervisors (unless the Board of Supervisors disagrees). It can also essentially put forward ballot measures to change commissions created by the will of the voters or in the Charter. There are numerous flaws with this approach (just ask SPUR), particularly that this deliberative process could be created without a ballot measure. But it is a lot better than Prop D, and the recommendations of this process will be useful regardless. Vote Yes.

Prop F: Bad Police Retirement Scheme: NO

So way back in 2008, San Francisco needed more cops and instituted “a Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) for police, allowing officers, inspectors and sergeants who have 25 years of experience to generously dip into their pensions early — while still earning a salary — as an incentive to stay on the job.” (These quotes are from the Chronicle – you really should read their thoughtful writeup!)

It did not go well.

The program proved monstrously expensive and was abandoned several years later amid a growing pension crisis — echoing the results of similar police DROP programs across the country, including San Diego and Los Angeles.

Why?

DROP programs don’t have a great history of actually working to delay the retirement of officers who would otherwise be on their way out the door. A 2010 study out of Philadelphia showed that city’s DROP program delayed retirement only for police officers between two months and a year, while “imposing significant costs.”

Well, we again need more police on the streets and so Supervisor Dorsey polished this off, made some improvements and here we are.

But there’s no evidence it will work any better, and will probably blow a whole in our budgets long term. The Chronicle lists numerous things that would be a better way to get more police. Vote No.

NOTE: This is really about pension issues & the Chronicle’s piece on Prop H, is *really* worth a read. But here’s a quote that nails it: 

San Franciscans voted to cut back benefits because they were unsustainable. Bringing back promises we couldn’t afford to keep only hurts employees in the long run. The worst thing you can do to a hardworking city employee is to run their retirement lifeline into insolvency.

Also, see my caveat about my lack of pension expertise in my Prop H write up.

Prop G: Budget Set-aside for Super Low Income Housing: yes
I’m also torn on this one. While it is clearly a good and needed thing, I have problems with how it’s done.

There are several classes of super low income folks for whom even “affordable housing” rents are too high. This can force these disadvantaged populations, seniors, parents, and people with disabilities, making close to minimum wage, into homelessness.  

The City has an existing fund which essentially makes up the difference between what these people can pay and what their rent is so that they can stay in their homes. Whew.

This measure would require the City to always set aside $8.25 million from the General Fund to replenish this fund. There is no question in my mind that this fund is a good and needful thing, but it is also true that budget set-asides suck and are a terrible way to govern. That being said, if we were struggling to pay for this at risk population, I’d probably vote yes.

But, according to the Chronicle, we aren’t:

Thankfully, the rental assistance that Prop G proposes enshrining in the budget has been consistently funded through the normal legislative process for years. The Board of Supervisors launched the Senior Operating Subsidy program in 2019 with $5 million. In the years since, the board and the mayor have continued to add money to the pot every couple of years. There was also a one-time windfall of $52.3 million from the state for these efforts. 

Even facing a severe budget deficit, it’s unlikely the city would allow the program to lapse. It has broad support from the Board of Supervisors and the mayor, and it would be politically unpopular to drop these contributions.

So why do we need a ballot measure?

We don’t.

A recent 46-page San Francisco civil grand jury report detailed how a “legislative fetish” by city leaders for placing set-asides like Prop G on the ballot handcuffs the ability of lawmakers to be flexible during the budget process. That report further noted that leaders need to learn to manage the city’s money responsibly year to year, not by public fiat.

I tend to agree, so No…

…But then SPUR, which also dislikes budget set-asides, says the measure has some mechanisms in place to reduce the impact on the General Fund in lean years (which is set asides suck):

SPUR does not recommend establishing a set-aside lightly, but there is an urgent and overwhelming need to produce more affordable housing for ELI residents. Though SPUR is concerned about San Francisco’s long-term fiscal health, this measure outlines options to use existing unspent revenues to fund the set-aside, which could reduce impacts to the General Fund and allow more flexibility during difficult financial times.

So fine. I guess yes.

Prop H: Bad Firefighter Retirement Scheme: NO

Our pension programs and how to pay for them has been a continuous struggle for decades. At the moment, we are solvent and the money exists to pay what SF owes to retired City workers who have done what we asked of them. Great. But now we are faced with Props F, H, and I, which all threaten our retirement system. The Chronicle really nails it with their write up on H:

And so, it’s with great consternation we see that — even as San Francisco grapples with a $780 million deficit and the gutting of its downtown tax base — there are three pension benefit expansion measures on the November ballot.

Prop H is the costliest, and would turn back the clock on a key 2011 reform by allowing firefighters to retire with maximum pension benefits at age 55 instead of age 58. Maximum benefits include annual payments amounting to 90% of their average salary over the last three years of service.

And

San Franciscans voted to cut back benefits because they were unsustainable. Bringing back promises we couldn’t afford to keep only hurts employees in the long run. The worst thing you can do to a hardworking city employee is to run their retirement lifeline into insolvency.

Read the full article for more details, but H, F, and I are all bad – with F and H being the worst. 

NOTE: Also, I should point out that I don’t pretend to be an expert on retirement plans. Normally, I’d lean heavily into what SPUR had to say about F, H & I, but surprisingly they didn’t take positions on these. (Which seems odd?) So I went with the Chronicle. I really liked their write ups and their arguments.

Prop I: Meh Nurse Recruitment Plan: no
Several months ago, SF General Hospital was facing a potential nursing strike and chronic understaffing. Things were looking grim.

In that environment, Supervisor Ahsha Safai put this measure on the ballot to sweeten the nurse recruitment pot by allowing classes of them to buy into the retirement system early as a perk.

But, according to the Chronicle, SF General addressed the staffing issues with a pay raise:

In May, the city gave nurses a well-earned 17.5% raise, which helped avert a strike. It also significantly improved hiring outcomes.

By the end of May, nursing vacancy rates had already dipped to 1.9%. That number dropped to 0.5% in July.

So this measure isn’t really needed anymore, and monkeying with retirement plans should be avoided if possible. No.

NOTE: This is really about pension issues and the Chronicle’s piece on Prop H, is *really* worth a read. But here’s a quote that nails it: 

San Franciscans voted to cut back benefits because they were unsustainable. Bringing back promises we couldn’t afford to keep only hurts employees in the long run. The worst thing you can do to a hardworking city employee is to run their retirement lifeline into insolvency.

Also, see my caveat about my lack of pension expertise in my Prop H write up.

Prop J: Oversight for Children’s Fund Spending: yes
SF has several voter approved funding streams dedicated to children, and while there appears some level of coordination, this measure makes an oversight body for it:

That’s a lot of voter-approved money to serve children and families. But there is a lack of accountability over outcomes and how the money is spent. 

The city has a master plan in place to decide what its priorities are. What it doesn’t have is an entity dedicated to looking at where the money is being spent and if goals are being met. 

Proposition J would create such a mechanism.

I’m hesitant to add more city bureaucracy and am not clear on why this needs to be done at the ballot rather than legislatively at the Board of Supes. (Maybe it tinkers with funding sources that were created at the ballot?) But our City Government does seem to have a problem with financial oversight a la DreamKeepers and SFUSD… so Yes.

Prop K: Great Highway Park: YES-YES-YES

This is my favorite ballot measure!  Here’s a snippet of what we wrote over at SF League of Conservation Voters, but you should read the whole thing for the full scoop:

A vote for Prop K, to create a new “Ocean Beach Park” at the Great Highway is a vote for critical environmental restoration as well as creative, joyful, and necessary climate change mitigation. The SFLCV endorses it enthusiastically. This measure represents a generational opportunity to create a truly world class public space in San Francisco – we should seize it!

Regardless, change is coming to that roadway, both the pre-planned closure at the southern end, and climate change. So let’s make something GREAT out of it! Vote YES!!!!!

Prop L: Ride Hail Tax for Muni: YES

The SFLCV write up is spot on and goes into good detail on this one… but here’s the top line:

Prop L would raise approximately $25 million per year to pay for Muni transit service and fare discount programs. The revenue would come from a new tax on transportation network companies (TNCs) such as Uber, Lyft, and Waymo. The tax would range from 1% to 4.5% of annual gross taxable receipts. The tax would apply only to receipts from fares for transportation within San Francisco.

Muni faces a financial crisis as federal pandemic relief funding ends in the near future. The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), which runs Muni, expects a budget deficit exceeding $220 million for fiscal year 2026-27. Such a deficit would likely trigger Muni service cuts and reduce free fare programs for youth and seniors.

The whole write up is worth reading, but YES. This is a small amount relative to what MUNI needs, but it will nonetheless help!

Prop M: Gross Receipts Tax Update: Yes
This is a large and sweeping rewrite of the City’s taxes on businesses. Luckily Joe Eskanazi at Mission Local has done a thorough and, dare I say, entertaining write up – so please do read that if you’re interested. The Chronicle’s is a good, though less entertaining, shorter summary of it as well.

My super short and inadequate version is that our business tax structure is based on payroll tax – i.e. how many workers you have in SF on your payroll. With downtown hollowed out by COVID, these numbers are way down and our tax structure incentivizes businesses to keep them down. This is bad for downtown and the whole City’s economy.

Proposition M would essentially change our tax structure to a “gross receipts tax” tax instead – taxing businesses for their profits in San Francisco, not how many workers they keep here.

It also:

• Increases the exemptions on small business, by lowering the bar on what counts as a small business. (The city estimates that 88% of restaurants and 50% of retailers would meet this criteria.)
• Lowers the tax burden on the very largest companies, which I’m not super excited about, but the argument goes that this will lower our remarkable and dangerous over-dependency on a small fraction of businesses (like if Google left SF we’d be toast!), so 😐 I guess so.
• Simplifies and clarifies contentious business categories to clarify who owes what. This will stop a series of expensive lawsuits and release the funds ($400 million) pending on those lawsuits

So Yes.

Prop N: Needless Ballot Measure for First Responders: no

I’m so tired of writing. SO. TIRED. And this one is tiresome. So let’s see…. Actually, the League of Pissed of Voters, who I have a complicated relationship with (“frenemies”? “love-hate”? See my comments on them in “Sources“) absolutely nail this one and the excellent Peskin quote therein (emphasis mine):

Prop N creates a completely unfunded “fund” to forgive student loans for first responders. We love (most) of our first responders, but with no actual money allocated for this, it’s another 100% vibes-only prop that does nothing except make our ballot longer. Why didn’t the Board of Supervisors just pass this as an ordinance? Prop N is really a PR move: an empty gesture with the not-so-secret goal of boosting its author Ahsha Safaí’s mayoral campaign. 

We could write more about why it is not the best use of time or the effort to get it on the ballot, but Aaron Peskin summed it up pretty perfectly during a rules committee meeting on he measure, “We could pass it tomorrow at the BOS; it does not need to be an appendage to the ballot. We could just do our jobs right here.” Vote no.

Prop O: Reaffirm Abortion Rights (in case of Project 2025): Yes
Given that Trump may come to power again, and with him the terrifying Project 2025*, Prop O boosts several safeguards for reproductive health care:

• Establishes a reproductive rights fund for private donations in case Trump cuts off federal funding.
• Requires the City’s two deceptive “crisis pregnancy centers” – which are actually “organizations that seek to discourage people facing unintended pregnancies from accessing abortion care” – to post signs saying they don’t provide comprehensive healthcare. (I honestly didn’t know this was a thing! In SF! 🤬)
• Changes the planning code to allow reproductive health clinics in nonresidential areas.
• Requires City worker to protect the confidentiality of people seeking or recieving abortion care.

While it’s true that these measures could be done legislatively instead of at the ballot, this streamlines the process given that the presidential election is only a few days away. 😶

*Holy hell, that is difficult to write, much less contemplate. Stay strong my peeps – we’ll get through this together! 🥰🤞🏽🫣

So there you have it! Whew!  If you’re new, or curious, here’s all about this post!

WHAT IS THIS?:

 

Every San Francisco election cycle, I put out my “‘Deep Slate” voter guide – I’ve been doing this since sometime in the late 90’s. This post is my guide for this election!

The format is:

1. The LIST: the simple list of my endorsements for this election.
2. The DETAILS: the whys and wherefores of each endorsement. This is how I arrived at each position.
3. My VALUES: a brief explanation of my values and sources, to help make sense of my opinions.
4. Sources: a collection of my sources and a tiny bit about how I arrive at my endorsements.
5. Extras: If you want to know where to vote, or want to find older ‘Deep Slates, or some Oakland/San Jose stuff…

Also note that a few days after the election, you can come back and check the RESULTS by clicking here.

 

 

 
MY VALUES:

I recommend reading all of this (it won’t take that long!) to understand how I think, so you’ll have a sense of how to assess my recommendations for yourself.

• I’m basically an idealist, an optimist, and a humanist.
• My opinions come from my experience in local politics over the past 29 years. I’ve done A TON of candidate interviews and lots of lobbying in my roles:
• as a Board member (and former long-time President of) of the San Francisco League of Conservation Voters (SFLCV)
• as a former long-time Board member of the SF Bicycle Coalition (SFBC)
• I don’t get a dime for this. I’m a software engineer by day and a political activist in my spare time.
• The three biggest “norths” of my political compass are environmentalism, social justice and good government (reform type) issues.
• While my views are definitely shaped by my activities in the SFLCV and previously the SFBC, my endorsements do NOT represent the views of either of those organizations.
• I use the term “progressive” a lot, as something I value. Unfortunately, classic San Francisco progressivism has become fairly problematic – but more on that after I mention what it means. In SF, progressivism has historically meant a combination of classical liberal Democratic politics (equity – social, gender, racial, diversity, a sense that government can and should play an important role in solving society’s problems) plus environmental values (sustainability, long-term systematic thinking) and neighborhood-level populism (tenant’s rights, ethnic and socio-economic diversity, populism vs. corporatism). So that’s the good stuff. The bad stuff is that SF’s progressive movement has too often become “circle the wagons and shoot inward” performance art. Pragmatism and progress are too often sacrificed in the name of litmus tests and posturing – and it’s sad to see. I still believe in similar things at the end of the day, but I’d rather get things done.
• I try to be aware of my biases; here are few that come to mind:
  • Poorer before richer when considering fairness issues. It’s best if something is fair, but if someone has to get screwed, make it the rich person. Because society always favors the richer.
  • The more money a local campaign has, the more questions should be asked of it: if a campaign has a lot of expensive media ads, mailers, etc… why? It might be fine, but the more money, the more questions as to why.
• In some of these races it is a matter of picking between flawed options. 🙁
• Ballot measures are a REALLY bad way to govern:
  • Most laws created by ballot measures SHOULD be done in the normal legislature, where they are easier to fix if they turn out wrong: you have to use a another ballot initiative to change or fix something that became law by a ballot measure, whereas the legislature can amend or fix any of their laws whenever they want.
  • 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, and a bad idea can sound good in a ballot initiative because the devil is often in the details. Also note that these measures are often gray – there is a lot of balancing going on…
  • Which leads to another fundamental problem: These issues are often complex and when they are, they would be much better served by decision-makers who have the time at hand and expertise at their disposal. This is the whole point of a representative democracy: people elect a set of deciders who have time and are given resources to study the issues at hand before making decisions on complex legislation. Far too many ballot measures would be better served by more informed choice.
• Budget set-asides are usually a bad idea: A set-aside guarantees the same amount of funding be taken from the general fund every year for a given program. The problem is that in lean years, set-asides then squeeze out funding for other important things, and generally reduce our government’s flexibility. That is fine for public good that is almost always difficult to prioritize, like libraries or parks, because they get deprioritized chronically (leading to deferred maintenance and more expensive fixes when the money finally does get appropriated). But it’s a really bad idea for normal expenses. Set asides should be avoided whenever possible.
• 90% of my experience and knowledge is about local San Francisco issues, so state issues are a little greyer for me unless I say otherwise. Thus, for state stuff, I try to do a lot of reading and research from the sources listed below and anything else I can find.
• Just like you, some of my opinions come from listening to those I trust, or tend to trust. Organizations like the ones listed as “bedrock” below get more credence, as well as politicians I support and believe in. Obviously this is dicey, as nothing beats first-hand knowledge and analysis, but that just gets us back to why I think ballot measures suck.

Sources:

My best sources are personal experiences, and interviews and lobbying I’ve done with the SFLCV and the SFBC. But the limits of this are pretty obvious. I have very little direct experience with state issues, so below are some of the sources I use and a bit on how I arrive at my endorsements.

The first source for SF stuff is the official SF Voter guide and for California stuff, the State Voter guide. I like to read the pro and con arguments and also note who is writing them, as that often tells you at least as much as what they say. Also the analysis and explanations are critical. Dig in!

And for good baseline info on all of it, I highly recommend Ballotopedia: A wiki for ballots and elections! This is an incredible resource! I donated and maybe you should too! Here are there SF and CA pages – but you can fine other pages easily too:

• San Francisco Ballot Measures
• California Ballot Measures

Some of my bedrock sources are:

• My own San Francisco League of Conservation Voters (of course) (SF)
• The San Francisco Bicycle Coalition (SF)
• Livable City (SF)
• A great bunch of transit & urban activists
• The California League of Conservation Voters (state)
• The Sierra Club (state & SF)
• SPUR (a.k.a. San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research)

The groups above, with the possible exception of SPUR, generally share my values directly, and as such influence me a lot. SPUR is somewhat of an outlier, in that they seem a tad more centrist-pragmatic than the others (and and occasionally me) but they are pro-urban, good-governmenty and I trust their motives. I particularly enjoy their commitment to sound policy, their clarity of thought, and their thorough write ups – I’d love to have the time and energy to do a slate as well as they do!

For state issues in particular, I really like to look at the various larger city newspapers. I know the most about the SF Chronicle‘s bias – I take them with a grain of salt on local stuff as they tend to be more conservative than me, but on state stuff I like to hear them out. It is also worth checking the other state papers like the San Jose Mercury News, the LA Times and the Sacramento Bee. Sadly, most of these are behind a paywall, but often you can read a certain number for free. (They should all make their endorsement editorials free as a public service.) Ballotpedia often has good links to the various newspapers as well.

In the “Worthwhile But Rabid” category are two more organizations I value, but view their recommendations with caution. Both are super “progressive”, and I tend to share a lot of their values, but they are often are the chorus of the “circle the wagons and shoot inward” progressivism I mention above – so I try to check their work:

• The League of Pissed Off Voters: I’ve never liked their name (Who can sustain angry for so long!?!) – but I really do enjoy reading their opinions, because they do their homework. Beware of absolutism and litmus tests
• The San Francisco Bay Guardian: Once the standard bearer of the progressive left in San Francisco, the quality of this source has really declined. They seem to be a bit of a shell ever since they were basically dissolved and sold the name to one of the editors. Beware of “more heat than light.” Still, it is worth reading.

Some other sources I checked out are:

• A few years ago, I stumbled across Ballot FYI and really enjoyed them! They went on hiatus for a while, but they’re back and they’ve put up a fun, breezy site that also manages to convey some good thinking. Nice.
• My friend Kate McCarthy’s opinions are always worth reading.
• My friend Alix Rosenthal hasn’t written her slate up in a while, but I’m glad she did this year…

 

Extras:

Where To Vote:

SF has set up a awesome one stop website for all your “how to vote” type questions: SF Voter Portal

It should have anything you need to know:

• Where do I vote?
• Am I registered
• Has my ballot been counted?
• etc etc…

Older ‘Deep Slates:

I believe I’ve been doing the ‘Deep Slate since sometime in the ’90s. You can read all the ones I’ve saved by clicking here – it gets a bit dicey because before 2012, they were email only (not blog posts), so I’ve posted the email versions I could find.