[Ed. Note: 10/31/2015: This “post” was originally an email I sent to my friends on 11/07/2011. 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 –

SORRY IN ADVANCE if this is choppy, I’m under big work pressure & so what you’re seeing is the best I can do 🙂

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 Tuesday’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
——————–

The key is as follows:
• the more UPPERCASE – the more strongly I feel
• exclamation = don’t get me started!
• * = I don’t know a lot about it & went with the Guardian or California League of Conservation Voters (CLCV)
————————————-

LIST:

Mayor:
1) David Chiu
2) John Avalos
3) Dennis Herrera

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

Sheriff: ROSS MIRKARIMI

A: YES – Repair & Modernize Schools
B: no – Street Repair Bond
C: yes – Consensus Pension Reform
D: no – Adachi’s City Pension Reform
E: no – Weiner’s Ballot Measure Oversight
F: Yes – Oversight of Political Consultants
G: Yes – Maintain the Sales Tax

————————————-

Mayor: Chiu, Avalos, Herrara

I love San Francisco, it’s a tremendous City despite it’s aversion to having a good mayor. Ed Lee might be be the best mayor we’ve had since I’ve been paying attention & I think his greatest plus as mayor is that he probably actually cares whether the City works. That’s a low bar. The problem with Ed Lee is that he has been surrounded (and put in place) by the current powers that be at City Hall, that is to say, the Willie Brown / Gavin Newsom administration power structure. Willie was a remarkably effective Mayor who knew how to get things done, but he used that power only to enrich the people he cared about. Gavin was a press-conference-driven feel-good-do-nothing Mayor who accomplished…. umm… probably something. He was a better Mayor than Willie in that he was not so corrupt. Great. In a remarkable bit of political maneuvering (his strong suit), Willie Brown and Chinatown powerbroker Rose Pak got City Administrator Ed Lee into the Mayor’s office as their last bid to hold onto power, and it looks to be working: it is quite likely that Ed Lee will be our next mayor.

Well, the good news is that Ed is well respected personally, and seems to like bikes. Other than that, I fear four more years of lame.

Luckily, his election isn’t a done deal – while he holds a lead in the polls, he doesn’t have a majority & since this is our first ranked-choice Mayoral election (YAY!!!!), the contenders have a shot. Better yet, I’d be pretty psyched to have any of my #1, #2, #3 as Mayor & indeed it is hard to pick any one of them over the others – all have big pluses and several minuses in my book. But all of them would be really good choices for Mayor I think.
1) David Chiu – David is a friend and I think a great deal of his instincts and his intellect. He’s a hard worker, sensible, and committed to making progress on issues that I care deeply about. Of all of them, I give him the slight edge in having the right combo of demeanor, intelligence, drive, and sanity to make a good mayor.
2) John Avalos – Is an excellent vote on the Board of Supervisors on progressive issues and most environmental ones. He is the darling of all my progressive friends. I think he, more than even David, would bring change to City Hall.
3) Dennis Herrera – Dennis has often impressed me with his smarts, his candor, and his independent thinking. He has been a great City Attorney. He also brings managerial skill that I think is critical in an office like the Mayor’s (and one of the many glaring weaknesses of the Newsom administration.)

District Attorney: Onek & Bock
I honestly haven’t been following this one closely enough to make a good responsible recommendation, that being said, the consensus amongst people I trust is that both David Onek & Sharmin Bock would be excellent choices.

Sheriff: ROSS MIRKARIMI
Ross is a friend and someone I respect, and while on the Board, has been one of the best environmental Supervisors in recent memory. I was a little surprised when he chose to run for Supervisor, but that was only because I think of him as environmentalist first & forget his long standing work and interest in criminal justice and justice reform. While I’ve heard valid criticisms of his personal style, I find that they are related to the fact that he is remarkably passionate about issues that mean a great deal to me, so he always has my vote. Vote for Ross.

DETAILS:

A: YES – Repair & Modernize Schools
This is a no brainer. We have a lot of schools in dire need of repair, upgrade & modernization.

B: no – Street Repair Bond
This one kills me. It would raise MUCH MUCH MUCH needed funds to repair our crumbling streets. It is sooo very necessary to do. The rub is that it goes about doing it irresponsibly – we are basically borrowing money to pay for our basic city services, because we have been too lame to do things right. Grr. I could accept that if only there was some part of this measure that acknowledged that this should not be done this way, and that would prevent this in the future. But there isn’t.

Worse still the folks behind this measure ran largely the same one a few years back and it failed to pass. Rather than improve it with regards to fiscal irresponsibility critique, they are just running it again. Lame.

If it passes, we’ll have money to do a lot of very needed things, including some bike & ped improvements, but I still can’t get behind it. No.

C: yes – Consensus Pension Reform
D: no – Adachi’s City Pension Reform

Pension Reform. Really boring, really tricky, really really important. The fundamental issue is this: Part of the tacit “contract” of working for the public sector is that you won’t get paid as well, but you’ll be taken care of with a good pension plan. This seems critical to attracting good, talented folks to work for the City – a very important endeavor. That being said, San Francisco, and much of the public sector, has a real crisis in that the pension investments that we have relied on have tanked with the rest of the economy. This has left SF having to devote more and more of it’s badly limited funds paying pension benefits. So the two ballot measures are competing efforts save money by restructuring how much people get in their pensions, how they buy in, and what exact benefits they get.

C is the “consensus” meausre in that it was hammered out between Mayor Lee, the Board of Supervisors, the unions & and representatives of business (the Chamber of Commerce). The other, is the brainchild of Public Defender Jeff Adachi. While perhaps well intentioned (although perhaps politically intentioned more than anything else), Adachi’s measure was done with little input from the effected parties & is pretty unpopular with City staff. In the end, I’m going with C for process reasons.

E: no – Weiner’s Ballot Measure Oversight
I’m tempted to vote yes on this, because I’m so fed up with the Ballot Initiative system. (see “Ballot measures are REALLY a bad way to govern.” at the end of this message). That being said I worry Scott’s measure is the kind of reform that causes more trouble than it solves. By placing controls on the most reviewed ballot measures (those proposed by the Board of Supervisors), this measure will probably spur more non-board measures which are much less reviewed and more likely to be problematic. The whole ballot measure system is flawed and needs to be reworked, but, I worry this will have worse consequences if it passes.

F: Yes – Oversight of Political Consultants
Political consultants in SF have a lot clout & there is a LOT of money in SF politics and it is, as usual, problematic. This law is a mixed bag of reforms – making the rules clearer and simpler, and allows the Ethics Commission to oversee the rules rather than having to change them at the ballot box. Many on my side of the fence have taken issue with the fact that making this measure allow the un-elected Ethics Commission change the ethics rules is undemocratic (which is true) but on the other hand the ethics rules are often byzantine and arcane and trip up the little guys (like me!) rather than the big corporate types who can afford lawyers. I think having the Ethics commission be able to fix them quickly and easily is probably for the better. Yes on F

G: Yes – Maintain the Sales Tax
Earlier this year, the state legislature let our temporary 1% sales tax expire – but since we are rolling in cash this isn’t a problem. Oh wait – we *aren’t rolling in cash* so we desperately need this money for City programs. Sales taxes are lame because they are regressive (they hit the poor harder than the rich) but this is a small one & it means a big deal to the City – so YES.

——————–
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 16 years & the tons of candidate interviews I’ve done with the San Francisco League of Conservation Voters (SFLCV) & 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 these measures are often 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.
• Just like you, some of my opinions come from listening to those I trust, or tend to trust, organizations like the ones listed above get more credence as well as politicians I support and believe in. Obviously this is dicey, nothing beats first hand knowledge and analysis, but that just gets us to why I think ballot measures suck….

[Ed. Note: 10/31/2015: This “post” was originally a pair of emails (“LIST” & “DETAILS”) I sent to my friends on 11/02/2010. I have posted it today in 2015, and backdated for archival/search purposes]

LIST:

(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)
(IF YOU GOT THIS FROM A FWD, ask the person who sent it to you to send along the “DETAILS” version which includes all rationale behind these recommendations)

Hey folks –

So here is my ‘Deep Slate for the November 2010 elections.
– This email contains the endorsements in a super-simple list – easy to print!
– The whys & wherefores are in a second email entitled: “DETAILS:…”. I’ll send that out shortly.
– Please feel free to forward this far & wide…. please pass along the DETAILS message to anyone you fwd this LIST to.
– NOTE: Not all your ballots will contain all these issues/races – it depends on where you live

To find your polling place:
http://tinyurl.com/yfbsg9
OR
415 554 4375
In addition to your polling place, you can vote at City Hall!
Polls close at 8pm

Please Go Vote TODAY TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 2ND!

The key is as follows:
• the more UPPERCASE – the more strongly I feel
• exclamation = don’t get me started!
• * = I don’t know a lot about it & went with the Guardian or California League of Conservation Voters
———————————————

— National Candidates —

Senate: BARBARA BOXER
Congress: Nancy Pelosi

— State Candidates —

Governor: Jerry Brown
Lieutenant Governor: gavin newsom
Secretary of State: Debra Bowen**
Controller: John Chiang*
Treasurer: Bill Lockyer
Attorney General: Kamala Harris
Insurance Commissioner Member: Dave Jones*
State Board of Equalization: Betty Yee*
State Senator: no endorsement
State Assembly: Fiona Ma
State Assembly: TOM AMMIANO
State Superintendent of Public Instruction: Tom Torlakson*

— San Francisco Candidates —

Supervisor, District 2
Janet Reilly

Supervisor, District 4
bleagh.

Supervisor, District 6
1. JANE KIM
2. Debra Walker
3. Jim Meko

Supervisor, District 8
1. RAFAEL MANDLEMAN

Supervisor, District 10
1. ERIC SMITH
2. Tony Kelly
3. Chris Jackson

Board of Education:
Natasha Hoehn
Kim-Shree Maufas
Hyrda Mendoza

Community College Board: JOHN RIZZO

BART Board, District 8: BERT HILL
Assessor-Recorder: PHIL TING
Public Defender: Jeff Adachi
San Francisco Superior Court: Michael Nava*

— State Propositions —

19: Yes
20: NO
21: YES YES YES
22 : No
23: NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
24: YES
25: YES YES YES
26: NO NO NO
27: Yes

— San Francisco Propositions —

AA: YES
A: Yes
B: No
C: Yes
D: Yes
E: Yes
F: no
G: YES
H: No
I: Yes
J: Yes
K: No
L: NO NO NO
M: YES
N: Yes

DETAILS:

Hi folks!

Please go vote TODAY! Obviously there is the national midterm elections, but also critical STATE and LOCAL measures (HELL NO ON 23 / 26 and L)
—————–

(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)

These are the details of my ‘Deep Slate endorsements, to see it in simple list form see the other email entitled: “LIST:…”.

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 16 years & the tons of candidate interviews I’ve done with the San Francisco League of Conservation Voters (SFLCV) & 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 these measures are often 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.
• Just like you, some of my opinions come from listening to those I trust, or tend to trust, organizations like the ones listed above get more credence as well as politicians I support and believe in. Obviously this is dicey, nothing beats first hand knowledge and analysis, but that just gets us to why I think ballot measures suck….

The key is as follows:
• the more UPPERCASE – the more strongly I feel
• exclamation = don’t get me started!
• * = I don’t know a lot about it & went with the Guardian or California League of Conservation Voters (CLCV)
————————————-

— National Candidates —

Senate: BARBARA BOXER:
Boxer has been a real progressive leader on most issues in the Senate and has been a champion on Climate Change stuff – YES! Oh & Fiorina – Anti Gay (pro-prop 8), pro-gun, and according to the Guardian has not taken a position on the evil Prop 23 (see below) UGH. GO BOXER GO!

Congress: Nancy Pelosi
Pelosi has been decent (not great but decent) as a legislator, and has been decent as a leader of the Dems in the House, so “yes.” Moreover, if she were to fall, where would the Dems be?

— State Candidates —

Governor: Jerry Brown
The best option going. Whitman is a nightmare.

Lieutenant Governor: gavin newsom
As I’ve said before, I’m not very impressed with Gavin. He’s been all press release, no policy. He talks a good game and then does very little – I’m tired of it & don’t want to see more of the same in Sacto. But he’s running against a “no taxes” Republidiot, Abel Maldonado. Unsurprisingly, Maldonado’s been a lame vote on environmental issues, 43% lifetime, while the California Chamber of Commerce gives him 100%. Go Gav. Maybe he’ll improve at the State level, which happens a lot. (see Fiona Ma below)

Secretary of State: Debra Bowen*
Controller: John Chiang*
Treasurer: Bill Lockyer*
Insurance Commissioner Member: Dave Jones*
State Board of Equalization: Betty Yee*
State Superintendent of Public Instruction: Tom Torlakson*
Judge of the Superior Court (15): Michael Nava*
Not much to say here. Going with the CLCV & the Guardian

Attorney General: Kamala Harris
I’ve not been overly impressed with Kamala Harris as our DA, but her Republican opponent, Steve Cooley, is a “death penalty cures all” type. I’ve heard some good things about Peter Allen, but this will be close between Harris & Cooley & I think shaving votes from Kamala is a bad idea.

State Senator: NO ENDORSEMENT I can’t bring myself to endorse Leland Yee – he was a horrible vote as a Supervisor for anything environmental and has been pretty bad on lots of other issues. He’s running practically unopposed so there is no upside in voting for him.

State Assembly: Fiona Ma – She was a pretty bad vote as a Supervisor on environmental and transportation issues, but has been better at the State level, becoming a major proponent of High Speed Rail and a few other good environmental initiatives such as public power and the like.

State Assembly: TOM AMMIANO
Tom has been a true progressive champion for a long time here in San Francisco & his short tenure at the Assembly has already been dramatic for numerous good reasons (Medical Marijuana anyone?) From transit to air quality, from PUC reform to green buildings, Tom has fought for it all. I’m a big fan.

— San Francisco Candidates —

Supervisor, District 2: Janet Reilly is much better than her opponent, I’m not a huge fan, but she’ll be miles better than the always horrible incumbent Alioto-Pier who never met an biking or good-transportation measure she liked. Reilly will be good on energy issues and decent on some bike/ped/MUNI stuff. And unlike her predecessor, she’ll have a functioning brain-stem. It’s going to be a tight race against her main opponent who has been getting big bucks from anti-rent control Republicans…. Go Janet.

Supervisor, District 4
NO ENDORSEMENT
bleagh. Carmen Chu is really fairly lame. She’s also unopposed. No upside in voting for her.

Supervisor, District 6
1. JANE KIM
2. Debra Walker
3. Jim Meko

This is a tough one. Both Jane and Debra are fantastic. Jane is super smart and has been great on the School Board and thus has a great deal of experience as an elected official. Debra is also smart and extremely experienced – she’s worked in D6 on various issues for years and has done great work. In the end, I give the edge to Jane because Debra has come down on the lame side of a few planning issues and Jane’s a personal friend. But really we can’t go wrong with either of them. The number 3 on my list is a long time neighborhood activist, Jim Meko who has worked for years on planning issues in the neighborhood and is a good consensus builder. It is a toss up between him and Anna Conda (who is surprisingly good) – but I don’t think either of them will really get elected.

Supervisor, District 8
1. RAFAEL MANDLEMAN
This one is a no brainer. In addition to being a friend, Rafael is super smart and super thoughtful. Here is an earlier endorsement I wrote about him that sums it up well”Rafael demonstrates both the thoughtful and reasoned approach one would hope for in a Supervisor and also an appreciation of the larger issues at stake in local policy matters. In particular, his understanding of complex issues such as MUNI reform, land use policy, and affordable housing make Rafael Mandelman the best choice to represent District 8!” Seriously – he’s that good. His challengers are fairly problematic. Prozan is OK but has no greater vision – all she sees are potholes to fix, worse even than Dufty (the incumbent) who was all about microgovernment too. And Scott Weiner has been shifting uncomfortably rightward for a while now – and is getting big bucks from anti-rent control Republicans, which is fairly chilling. GO RAFI!

Supervisor, District 10
1. ERIC SMITH
2. Tony Kelly
3. Chris Jackson

D10 is an incredibly crowded field and has a few really good candidates. Eric Smith is my favorite by far, because of his strong enviro background and work in social justice issues in a part of the City that is HUGELY struggling with such things. Additionally, he’s a person of integrity in a District that REALLY struggles with political corruption. Tony Kelly also impressed me with his spirit and smarts in our SFLCV interview, and though I don’t know him as well, believe in his politics when it comes to land use and development in the Bay View. The third candidate I liked was Chris Jackson, who is also smart and thoughtful.

Board of Education:
Natasha Hoehn
Kim-Shree Maufas
Hyrda Mendoza

The School Board has turned around in the last few years. They got rid of the divisive old Superintendent and replaced her with a munch more functional one & things have been getting better ever since. It is nice to see progress. Maufus has been a significant part of this as has Mendoza, so they’re both in (though neither without blemish) but the third spot is a tough one for me. Margaret Brodkin is a great advocate for children and has done a LOT of great work over many many years, but she’s brusque and abrasive, and I wonder if she cares about anything but kids. That kind of narrow-mindedness can be useful in an advocate, but I’m more skeptical in an elected official. Bill Barnes is super smart and a great legislator (he’s been behind the scenes as an aide in numerous great policy strides at the Board of Supes and now in Sacto with Fiona Ma) but really doesn’t seem to have a passion for education. The other one that impresses me is Natasha Hoehn – who is a young educator and policy wonk who seems to really have an affinity and passion for children and schooling, so I’m going with her for my third.

Community College Board: JOHN RIZZO
There are 3 open seats and three candidates running for the College Board, so why am I only endorsing one? Because they will all win, but the one with the most votes will become the next President of the College Board. And the other two have been pretty lame, so it is in our best interest to just vote for John. John has been really good on the Board and is a long time Sierra Club activist of strong political instincts and great values.

BART Board, District 8: ELBERT HILL
This one is a no brainer. James Fang, the only elected Republican in SF has been pointless at best, and nefarious at worst on the BART Board. Bert Hill is a long time bicycle advocate and a very smart and conscientious man.
BERT FOR BART!

Assessor-Recorder: PHIL TING
Phil is running unopposed and will win. That being said he has been a really good assessor in a time when SF needs all the money it can find. But the thing that has sold me on Phil more than anything else is is spirited attack on the greatest evil of California politics – Prop 13. Prop 13 which limits how much the state can tax property has decimated this great state since it’s passage and needs to be scrapped (see the WIkipedia if you don’t know what I’m talking about.)

Public Defender: Jeff Adachi
Jeff Adachi has been a really good public defender and will get reelected and should. He’s been criticized lately from the left for his Prop B (see below), but while I don’t support Prop B due to devils in the details, the problem he’s trying to address is a very real one.

San Francisco Superior Court: Michael Nava*
I don’t know much about Nava or his opponent. I went with various friends recommendation & the Guardian.

— State Propositions —

19: Yes – Legalize Marijuana
This is a no brainer except for the fact that this bill has flaws. Personally I don’t care if it is legal or not, I just think it should be the same as alcohol*. This bill has problems, but they can be fixed at the legislature. More importantly this could begin to turn the tide nationally on the woefully wasteful and wrong-headed federal War on Drugs. (*frankly, if you look at societal damage, alcohol seems much worse than pot: I’m never worried about stoned assholes, but drunk ones? All the time.)

20: NO – DANGEROUS Redistricting Plan: On the surface, this sounds good, because Congressional districts often get gerrymandered to make them safe seats for entrenched powers. But by handing the redistricting off to a a commission equally comprised of Repubs and Dems, in a state that is heavily Dem, you are basically giving the Republicans a lot of undemocratic power. That is why this is so nefarious: under the guise of fairness comes a dangerous power grab.

21: YES YES YES – Fully fund California state parks! In one of the biggest boondoggles of California’s recent political history, Governor Schwarzenegger slashed vehicle license fees and nuked our already dangerously problematic budget. This measure is a small step to restoring some of that damage by putting a small increase on Vehicle License Fees ($18) that will go directly to the desperate CA State Parks System. VOTE YES

22 : No – Blocks the state from borrowing funds from city redevelopment agencies. This is another deceptive one. While it seems that it would be good for California to keep the State gov from moving funds that it pays cities to other projects, in our perennially cash strapped state budget, having that wiggle room is sometimes critical to preventing significant service cuts.

23: NO NO NO NO NO – Don’t let Texas oil companies derail the fight against Global Warming! THIS ONE IS CRAZY IMPORTANT: Here’s what I wrote elsewhere. “In 2006, California passed Assembly Bill 32, designed to fight global warming, improve our environment, and create thousands of clean energy jobs. The only losers? Texas oil companies and their profits! That’s why they’re pushing Prop 23 to roll it back! Say no to Dirty Energy! No on 23!” This is SERIOUSLY bad news! PLEASE VOTE NO!

24: YES – Close Corporate Tax Loophole – Reinstates some corporate taxes that got axed in budget negotiating hell. Good thing. CA needs $$

25: YES YES YES – One of the two key follies that define state government these days is the fact that a small number of Republicans can bar CA’s ability to pass a budget. This gives them great power to stymie budget passage and extract demands out of the majority Dems. Prop 25 would change this to make budget passages be a simple majority vote. Fairer AND better.

26: NO NO NO – 2/3 Vote Requirement for Raising Fees: Stop the Polluter Protection Act! Another SERIOUSLY evil measure. Currently if the state legislature or a city wants to raise a penalty it can do so by a simple majority. This would require it to reach a super majority (a 2/3 vote) thus making it very difficult to pay such “pollution fees.” HELL NO.

27: Yes – Fix the undemocratic redistricting system! This measure repeals the 2008 ballot measure that set up our current wrongheaded redistricting plan for state seats. See Prop 20 for why this needs to be done.

— San Francisco Propositions —

AA: YES – Vehicle Registration Fee to Support MUNI and Transit: Prop AA adds a mere $10 to the SF Vehicle License Fee and earmarks that money for transit. This is exactly the kind of putting your money where your mouth is that we need. The only problem is that it is chicken feed. It will come to about $5 million which won’t help MUNI much. Still, it is a needed step in the right direction.

A: Yes – Earthquake Retrofit Bond – Here’s what I wrote elsewhere: “Prop A funds seismic retrofits for certain types of at-risk low income and affordable housing in San Francisco. Since much of our landfill waste comes from building demolition, Prop A is the environmental choice as well as the public safety choice. Vote Yes on A!” It also an economic justice choice, in that it helps protect those who can least afford it.

B: No – Problematic Attempt at Fixing Rising Pension Costs: As I said above, this measure, pushed by public defender Jeff Adachi, is a real attempt to fix a real problem – our ballooning pension costs (mostly driven by health care) that are threatening our City’s budget and our ability to have city services. That being said, this measure seems to have some big flaws, esp. pertaining to fairness. While it does force high-salaried employee to pay a fairer share, it also hits lower salaried employees who can least afford it which is dangerously unfair. Vote No.

C: Yes – Mayoral Appearances at Board Meetings – This is the latest in the quixotic attempt to get the Mayor to appear at the Board of Supes for “Question Time” just as the British Prime Minister does at Parliament. Ideally, it could improve public discourse. At worst it could be a bad waste of time. But I’m an optimist & it could also prove amusing.

D: Yes – Non-Citizen Voting in School Board Elections: Given that parental involvement in schooling is critical to a student’s success, and given that a large portion of SF public school students are the children of non-citizens, this seems a basic fairness issue. And as many problems as democracy has, it’s the best thing we’ve got.

E: Yes – Election Day Voter Registration – Easier to vote = more voters = better democracy. Done.

F: no – Health Service Board Elections Consolidation. yawn. I’ve tried really hard to care about this one and I can’t. In the end the current HSB system does not seem to be broken. The savings introduced by this measure seem minimal and there is the risk that this will politicize a non-political board.

G: YES – An Important Step in MUNI Reform – MUNI has many many problems. The biggest is probably years and years of underfunding, and then an operating deficit of $100 million annually, but somewhere in the mix are bad MUNI operator contracts that are guaranteed in the City Charter. This is the equivalent of setting the pay of Amtrak operators in the Constitution. In addition to being dumb, it makes it practically impossible for the City to negotiate with the MUNI unions on other important issues like work rules. We need to fix this. Their contracts should NOT be in the charter – this gets us there. It is NOT a perfect measure, and it is being oversold as a fix for MUNI with a BIG F, but nonetheless it is an important step in the right direction.

H: No – Local Elected Officials on Political Party Committees – This is bad political theater masquerading as public policy. If this passes it means that anyone who is an elected official in the City can’t hold an office with their party’s governing body. This is just an attempt by Gavin to hit back at many of the progressives on the Democratic County Central Committee. It does no good and some bad. Why is this even here? LAME GAVIN.

I: Yes – Saturday Voting – this is a test of Saturday voting which I think is a good thing because it will make it easier for more people to vote (see my argument for E above). I’m a little leery of some provisions (the polling places will be privately funded), but as this is a one-shot trial, it seems like a good experiment.

J : Yes – Hotel Tax 1
K: No – Hotel Tax 2
J and K are competing measures: due to a provision in K, if it gets more votes, J is scrapped. Both will close a loophole regarding how hotel stays in SF are taxed when booked online – no big deal, a reasonable thing & something that will bring a nice trickle of $$ into City government. The difference is that J also adds a temporary $3 surcharge onto hotel stays, basically increasing the hotel tax for the first time in 14 years. We need the money and I don’t think $3 more is going to keep any tourists away.

L: NO NO NO – Sitting in Public Spaces is NOT a Crime!: Prop L makes the act of sitting in a chair on the sidewalk outside your home illegal. Think about that. All in the name of increasing public saftey? All of the stuff that the authors of this law complain about are ALREADY ILLEGAL: aggressive panhandling, loitering, blocking sidewalks all of that stuff. Unnecessary at best, destructive to the social fabric at worst, Prop L is a bad idea that erodes public life in San Francisco. Really all it does is give police officers more carte blanc to annoy people who are doing nothing wrong at their discretion. This is just stupid and wrong-headed. NO!

M: YES – Community Policing and a poison pill for L: This measure promotes community policing: more cops walking beats, more input from the community . It does so by requiring the Chief of Police to come out with a written policy and begin implementing it rather than leaving it to their discretion. Additionally it promotes the idea that community policing is a better solution for the “civil sidewalks” issues that Prop. L. purportedly addresses, and as such, if M passes, L is rescinded. YES

N: Yes – Real Property Transfer Tax for Multi-Million Dollar Buildings – this is a simple economic justice issue in a cash strapped city. Buildings that sell for over $5 million will be taxed at a higher rate than buildings below. You either believe that the rich should shoulder more of societies burdens, given their greater resources, or you don’t. I do.

[Ed. Note: 10/31/2015: This “post” was originally an email I sent to my friends on 06/08/2010. I have posted it today in 2015, and backdated for archival/search purposes]

DETAILS:

Hi folks!

Please go vote today! For many seats this is a primary election – which actually matters – but there are also numerous important ballot measures, both on the state level (HELL NO ON 16) and locally PROP G: HELL YES!)
—————–

(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)

These are the details of my ‘Deep Slate endorsements, to see it in simple list form see the other email entitled: “LIST:…”.

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.

The key is as follows:
• the more UPPERCASE – the more strongly I feel
• exclamation = don’t get me started!
• * = I don’t know a lot about it & went with the Guardian or California League of Conservation Voters
————————————-

Senate: BARBARA BOXER:
Boxer has been a good progressive voice on most issues in the Senate and has been a champion on Climate Change stuff – YES!

Congress: Pelosi
Pelosi has been decent (not great but decent) as a legislator, and has been quite good as a leader of the Dems in the House – yes.

Governor: Jerry Brown
The best option going as far as I know.

Lieutenant Governor: Janice Hahn*
I don’t know much about Hahn, but I’m in the anyone-but-Newsom camp. The Guardian says Hahn & she don’t look like Gavin to me. Gavin has been all press release, no policy. He talks a good game and then does very little – I’m tired of it & don’t want to see more of the same in Sacto.

Secretary of State: Debra Bowen*
Controller: John Chiang*
Treasurer: Bill Lockyer*
Attorney General: Kamala Harris*
Insurance Commissioner Member: Dave Jones*
State Board of Equalization: Betty Yee*
i don’t know much of these people – this list is combined from Guardian & the California League of Conservation Voters
Judge of the Superior Court (6): Linda Colfax*
Judge of the Superior Court (15): Michael Nava*
State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson*

State Senator: um. leland yee – I can’t bring myself to endorse Leland Yee – he was a horrible vote as a Supervisor for anything environmental
State Assembly: ma – she has been good on High Speed Rail issues – but I still remember how bad she was as a supe….
State Assembly: Tom Ammiano
Tom has been a leader here for a long time & his short tenure at the Assembly has already been dramatic for numerous good reasons (Medical Marijuana anyone?)

Democratic County Central Committee:

These DCC races are where I know the most & have met with the most candidates at one time or another. THE BOLD are people who I think very highly of! Please do vote for DCCC this is sneakily important stuff. The DCCC controls what ballot measure & candidates get the Democratic Party endorsement & thus go a long ways to what wins in local elections.

—– 12 ——-
Chris Gembinski
Connie O’Connor
MICHAEL BORNSTEIN
John Avalos
Hene Kelly
Melanie Nutter
Sandra Lee Fewer
ERIC MAR
MILTON MARKS
JANE MORRISON
Jake McGoldrick
ELBERT HILL

—–13—–

DEBRA WALKER
AARON PESKIN
ERIC QUEZADA
Joe Julian
ALIX ROSENTHAL
Michael Goldstein
DAVID CAMPOS
DAVID CHIU
RAFAEL MANDELMAN
Kim-Shree Maufas
Carole Migden
ROBERT HAALAND

— State Propositions —

13: Simplify Property Tax Assessment Laws with regards to Seismic Retrofitting of Existing Buildings*
yes
This one does seem like just a simplification of existing seismic retrofit support in the face of the great evil that is the historic Prop. 13

14: Open Primaries
NO NO
This measure would allow Republicans and independents to vote in Democratic Primaries and vice versa. NO NO NO. This would just force candidates to the middle and allow for sabotage of good candidates.

15: Rudimentary Steps to Public Financing of Elections
YES
Public financing is the best known way of taking the influence of money out of politics. Period. This measure removes a historic ban on public financing & uses public financing in elections for Secretary of State.

16: PG&E LAMENESS
NO NO NO NO
The Guardian lays it out perfectly here: “T deceptively titled “Taxpayer’s Right to Vote Act” was dreamed up and funded entirely by Pacific Gas and Electric Co., the monopolistic utility that is worried it could face actual competition here in San Francisco (and elsewhere) from municipal electricity programs that would offer customers a greener energy mix and more accountability than PG&E executives will ever demonstrate. Rather than accept some healthy competition, this sleazy corporation has opted to spend some $35 million to exterminate all possibilities of municipal electricity programs cropping up anywhere in the state in a bid to preserve its octopus-like grip on the energy market in Northern California. Prop. 16 would require a two-thirds majority vote at the ballot before any community choice aggregation (CCA) program — or any attempt at creating or expanding a public-power system — could move forward. That’s an extreme hurdle — -and PG&E knows it.”

17: Auto insurance Industry $$$ grab
no
A cynical bill put on by Mercury Insurance to tweak auto insurance rules in it’s favor & make more $$$.

— San Francisco Propositions —

A: Continue Existing School Facilities Special Tax
YES – This measure renews an existing property tax that funds seismic and saftey related building improvements at City schools. Pretty easy yes.

B: Earthquake Safety and Emergency Response Bond
Yes – funds needed seismic work on emergency preparedness infrastructure & replaces some city emergency facilities at the Hall of Justice.

C: Film Commission
yes – A reasonable measure in terms of the fact that we continue to need a Film Commission – and this makes some of the appointments go to the Board of Supes rather than all to the Mayor, and makes there be actual requirements for serving on the commission.

D: Retirement Benefit Costs
yes – a step to reigning in our ballooning City pension costs.

E: Budget Line Item for Police Department Security for City Officials and Dignitaries
Yes – transparency in the City’s spending on protecting dignitaries – in line with other law enforcement type agencies.

F: Renters’ Financial Hardship Applications
Yes – better protections for renters in tough economic times.

G: Transbay Transit Center
YES
A simple measure affirming City policy to bring High Speed Rail to a newly rebuild transit hub a the site of the Transbay Terminal rather than a less well connected hub a few blocks away.