The Kate Slate – November 4, 2014

Posted: November 4th, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments Off on The Kate Slate – November 4, 2014

Hello Voters!

Tomorrow is the midterm election we have all been waiting for (or at least the one that I have been waiting for), and as you may know, I write a Kate Slate for every local election, and have been for almost as long as I have been able to vote. The idea for the Kate Slate is to share with friends what I have found out in preparing my own ballot for the election.

For the past eight or so years, co-host Sacha Ielmorini and I have held a Slate Party in advance of the writing of the “Kate Slate”. Our every-election tradition is a mellow, civilized discussion among friends, who agree to disagree, for the sake of feeling confident about our own voting. If you are interested in being invited to the slate parties, let me know.

Feel free to forward the Kate Slate to friends (and friends, if someone other than me–Kate–sent this to you feel free to drop me a line if you end up reading it, I like to hear who this made its way to, and I can add you to the email list for the next Kate Slate).

For the Kate Slate, I go race-by-race, issue-by-issue, and sometimes end up voting against something that seems right up my alley if it has some fatal (to me) flaw. And, I will let you know if I think it does and why.

My opinions in the Kate Slate are my own, and in no way should be thought to represent any views of anyone other than myself. I have thoughtful engaging conversations with well-informed friends who sometime shed light on aspects I hadn’t considered, I get the tacky expensive mailers you get, and cool people like yourself send me other peoples’ slates who apparently aren’t waiting until the last minute to write it up like I am. And, I am not affiliated with any party.

Since voters recently changed how primaries work in California elections for most races, all registered voters can now vote for any candidate running in the primary (this year it was in June, in case you missed it), with the top two vote-getters overall moving on to the general election, regardless of parties of the voter and candidates. For that reason, some of my endorsements from June will be the same for this election, unless my original endorsement didn’t make the cut.

You probably won’t agree with me on everything, and that is okay!

Even if you don’t know your polling place, or where you were last registered to vote, you can always go to City Hall tomorrow 7am-8pm to cast a provisional ballot. Though, if you can, it is always best to cast your own ballot at your own polling place.
If you have an absentee ballot, you can surrender your absentee ballot for a live ballot at your polling place. The poll workers will destroy your absentee ballot and give you a live ballot. This assures you that your ballot is read and counted as you intended it. (ie. When you vote absentee, if a machine rejects your ballot, the machine depends on a human to interpret your absentee ballot. I am not trying to be all conspiracy-theorist here, but feeding your own ballot into the machine and hearing it beep is the best way to ensure your ballot is interpreted as you intend it to be.)

As always, thanks for reading, bonus points for voting.

Grab and Go (details below):

Governor: Jerry Brown
Lt. Governor: Abstain
Secretary of State: Alex Padilla
Controller: Betty Yee
Treasurer: John Chiang
Attorney General: Kamala Harris
Insurance Commissioner: Dave Jones
State Board of Equalization: Fiona Ma
US Representative: Abstain
State Assembly: David Campos / Phil Ting
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court: Goodwin Liu – YES
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court: Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar – Yes
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court: Kathryn Mickle Wedegar – No
Presiding Justice Court of Appeal, District 1, Division 1: Jim Humes – Yes
Presiding Justice Court of Appeal, District 1, Division 1: Kathleen M. Banke – yes
Presiding Justice Court of Appeal, District 1, Division 2: J. Anthony Kline – yes
Presiding Justice Court of Appeal, District 1, Division 2: Therese M. Stewart – yes
Presiding Justice Court of Appeal, District 1, Division 3: Stuart R. Pollak – yes
Presiding Justice Court of Appeal, District 1, Division 3: Martin J. Jenkins – yes
Presiding Justice Court of Appeal, District 1, Division 4: Ignazio John Ruvolo – no
Presiding Justice Court of Appeal, District 1, Division 5: Mark B. Simons – yes
Presiding Justice Court of Appeal, District 1, Division 5: Terence L. Bruiniers – no
Superior Court Judge: Daniel Flores
Superintendent of Public Instruction: Tom Torlakson
Member, Board of Education, vote for 3: Shamann Walton, Stevon Cook, Jamie Rafaela Wolfe
Member, Community College Board – Four-year term, vote for 3: Thea Selby, Wendolyn Aragon, Brigitte Davila or John Rizzo
Member, Community College Board – Two-year term, vote for 1: William Walker
Assessor-Recorder: Carmen Chu
Public Defender: Jeff Adachi
Proposition 1: Water Bond – no
Proposition 2: State Budget. Legislative Constitutional Amendment – no
Proposition 45: Healthcare Insurance – yes
Proposition 46: Drug and Alcohol Testing of Doctors – NOOOO!
Proposition 47: Criminal Sentences – YESSSSSS!
Proposition 48: Indian Gaming Compacts – yes
Proposition A: San Francisco Transportation and Road Improvement Bond – YESSSSSS!
Proposition B: Charter Amendment to increase amount provided to SFMTA based on population – YESSSSSS!
Proposition C: Charter Amendment to support services for children, youth, and families – Yes
Proposition D: Charter Amendment to make retiree health benefits available to former SF Redevelopment Agency and Successor Agency employees – yes
Proposition E: Tax on Sugar-sweetened beverages to fund health, nutrition, physical education, and recreation programs – YESSSSSSS!
Proposition F: Approve height limits for Pier 70 development – Yes
Proposition G: Additional tax on sale of multi-unit residential properties within five years of purchase – YES
Proposition H: Shall the city be required to keep natural grass at all athletic fields in Golden Gate Park and prohibit nighttime sports – yes
Proposition I: Allow renovations to children’s playgrounds, walking trails, and athletic fields – NO
Proposition J: Increase the minimum wage to $15/hour – YESSSSSSS!
Proposition K: Policy statement to help construct or rehabilitate 30,000 homes by 2020, including affordable housing – abstain
Proposition L: Policy statement to change parking and transportation priorities – NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

I am in an odd district so I don’t vote for District Supervisor this election but I endorse Jane Kim for D6. For the rest you are on your own!

The details…

Governor: Jerry Brown
Though he does have the best official gubernatorial portrait hanging at the state capital, he is otherwise lackluster. But, he is better than the Republican alternative.

Lt. Governor: Abstain
For the primaries I noted that I had strong feelings of disdain for incumbent Gavin Newsom, and things haven’t changed much here. I just can’t bring myself to vote for him, and he’ll win anyway.

Secretary of State: Alex Padilla
I said in June that Alex Padilla was, “Just taking the next step in his political career,” and let’s be real: He is. But, Alex Padilla has been a pretty great state senator representing his district in LA. He has been honored for his work as a champion of our state parks and was behind the bill for the statewide plastic bag ban. He also tried to impose a ban on lobbying during the final 100 days of the legislative session, but it didn’t go anywhere. He is an all around good guy, so he has my vote.

Controller: Betty Yee
I have been referring to the races for Controller, Treasurer and State Board of Equalization the “Chiang-Yee shuffle.” Awesome Controller John Chiang is termed out and running for Treasurer, and termed-out Betty Yee is going for Controller, and Fiona Ma is going for Yee’s vacated Member of State Board of Equalization seat. Here is a race with a talented candidate who is qualified for the job, running against a career politician who is less so. Betty Yee has a strong vision for her new role including top-to-bottom reform. I also have been endorsing her since she ran for State Board of Equalization.

Treasurer: John Chiang
As I mentioned above, and for the primary election, John Chiang is termed out as Controller, where he did well as a watchdog protecting taxpayer interests. Perhaps you recall how the state was closing 70 state parks due to the state’s budget shortfall and then all of a sudden $54 million was uncovered of hidden assets the department had been sitting on? Well, that was John Chiang’s discovery. And it saved the parks from closing. He has my vote for his new role as Treasurer.

Attorney General: Kamala Harris
I stand by my primary election endorsement, even though I have expressed reservations about her in the past: First, Kamala is running against a crazy person (read his statements yourself), so there is that. Second, her leadership impressed me when she asked the courts to allow California to continue to allow same-sex marriages while the courts were hearing the constitutionality of Prop 8, even though they denied her request.

She also walked out of talks with big banks responsible for the mortgage crisis when the deal they were arranging was too lenient. She has stood up to the NRA for gun control when other politicians have waffled. I think she has been good in this position and I hope she is reelected for a second term.

Insurance Commissioner: Dave Jones
Again, I will paraphrase my Primary endorsement, which includes a quote from my endorsement of him in 2010: This is a case where there is only one candidate who even makes sense for the office: incumbent Dave Jones. On one hand you have Ted Gaines who is an insurance businessman. (How is HE going to regulate the insurance companies? No conflict of interest there, right?) And then you have Dave Jones who is the incumbent. Here is what I wrote about him in the Kate Slate when he first ran in 2010, “Dave Jones is another champion of environmental causes and introduced the Green Insurance Act of 2010 that establishes environmental standards and protections in the insurance business, and provides incentives and tax credits for offering green insurance and making green investments.” Who are you going to vote for?

State Board of Equalization: Fiona Ma
As previously mentioned, Fiona Ma is doing the Chiang-Yee shuffle, going for the office that termed-out Betty Yee who is running for the Controller’s office vacated by termed-out John Chiang who is running for Treasurer. She served on the SF Board of Supervisors until 2006, and was okay. I picked her because she is running against a Republican, honestly.

US Representative: Abstain
Look. Nancy Pelosi is going to win. But she is one of the big Democrats biggest fund raisers, attending more than 400 fund raisers in a single year in the past, according to this story. And, though I usually lean Democrat when the alternative is Republican, I think the money in politics is gross and wasteful, and me abstaining on this vote is just me keeping a little of the slime off of me.

State Assembly: David Campos / Phil Ting
I feel much stronger about supporting David Campos for State Assembly than I did at the Primaries. The big game changer for me has been the serious conflict of interest of David Chiu presenting legislation to benefit Airbnb (and rip off the city for back taxes owed). Airbnb people are pumping money into the Chiu campaign, and the lobbyist working for Airbnb just happens to be none other than David Chiu’s own campaign spokesperson, Nicole Derse. So gross. That is exactly what I was worried about when I wrote this for the primaries:

Here is the deal: I just don’t trust David Chiu. After he flopped on the mayoral appointment when Gavin Newsom got elected to Lieutenant Governor I felt so deceived, and now we are stuck with Ed Lee as Mayor.

And, Chiu didn’t demonstrate the strong willpower we need at the State Assembly when he let a few loud businesses water down a really great street design for Polk Street that would have made the important corridor safer for everyone using it. I just don’t trust him and I worry that his vote will be bought in the state assembly. So he is a no-go.

I live in Campos’s district and have never been impressed, but I like the race he is running much better and I trust him more. He claims that he will work on important legislation at the state level that could help the dire housing situation in SF. I sure hope so. The lesser of two evils. Big sigh.

As for that OTHER assembly race…Phil Ting helped get physically separated bike lanes legalized in California this year, and has worked on other safety-critical bicycling legislation at the state level. I think his Reset SF thing was a little weird, but I have forgiven him for that thanks to all his great work making California safer for bicycling….

Associate Justice of the Supreme Court: Goodwin Liu – YES
Progressive, left-leaning who has ruled in favor of social issues I care about including affirmative action, same-sex marriage, and access to abortion.

Associate Justice of the Supreme Court: Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar – Yes
Cuéllar was a scholar who worked with Obama on immigration reform before being appointed to the Supreme Court by Jerry Brown.

Associate Justice of the Supreme Court: Kathryn Mickle Wedegar – No
Wedegar has some weird conflict of interest on her record where she presided in a case against Wells Fargo when she owned $1million in Wells Fargo stocks, and did not meet financial disclosure requirements. Her office said she, “regrets the error,” but it is enough to sour me.

Presiding Justice Court of Appeal, District 1, Division 1: Jim Humes – Yes
Jim Humes was California’s first openly gay justice when he was appointed by Jerry Brown. Prior he worked for Jerry Brown’s office and worked on Jerry Brown’s Prop 8 briefing stating why the state would not defend the anti-gay measure.

Presiding Justice Court of Appeal, District 1, Division 1: Kathleen M. Banke – yes
Kathleen Banke was appointed by Schwarzenegger which means she is Republican or at least leans conservative. She seems to be very focused on law practice, engaging in all sorts of legal education programs including teaching at Hastings College of Law in SF, and moot court competitions (which is awesomely nerdy).

Presiding Justice Court of Appeal, District 1, Division 2: J. Anthony Kline – yes
J. Anthony Kline is involved in all these youth service programs like Youth Service America and the National Association of Youth and Service Corps. He also was the Legal Affairs Secretary for Jerry Brown back in the ‘70’s

Presiding Justice Court of Appeal, District 1, Division 2: Therese M. Stewart – yes
Therese has a similar resume as Jim Humes–she is also from San Francisco and has also worked on gay marriage issues in California, though Stewart did so representing the City and County of San Francisco.

Presiding Justice Court of Appeal, District 1, Division 3: Stuart R. Pollak – yes
Back on the day he served on the Warren Commission, investigating the assassination of President Kennedy. Can’t dig up anything too juicy about him. Though I did find out that he enjoys California legal history trivia, so you may not want to invite him to your holiday party.

Presiding Justice Court of Appeal, District 1, Division 3: Martin J. Jenkins – yes
Originally from San Francisco, Martin Jenkins has worked on Civil Rights law for many, many years. He also has a legal doctrine that deals with copyright law named after him, the Jenkins-Laporte Doctrine.

Presiding Justice Court of Appeal, District 1, Division 4: Ignazio John Ruvolo – no
Another Hastings College of Law professor who has won lots of honors and awards for his work, but liberal judges have dissented from his opinions on issues such as firearms, so I shall dissent as well.

Presiding Justice Court of Appeal, District 1, Division 5: Mark B. Simons – yes
Yet another Hastings College of Law professor! Though his specialty is evidence. He also enjoys working out at the gym, apparently. Sometimes there really isn’t a lot of info about the judges online, and then when you do find something it is about their recreational activities? So weird.

Presiding Justice Court of Appeal, District 1, Division 5: Terence L. Bruiniers – no
Look. I have my doubts about anyone who was a police officer in Berkeley 1967-1973, served as a US Marshall, AND prosecuted capital cases earlier in his career. He has had a long career already and will probably be elected anyway, so I am not going to feel guilty for being judgmental.

Superior Court Judge: Daniel Flores
This is what I wrote for the primary about Daniel Flores: I find this race important, too. People never pay attention to the judges on Election Day, but they get elected and hold office for ages, never challenged, ruling in our courts for years. This one is important, too, because the person who should win is not paying for ads (or at least none that I got) [note: still true as of 11/3] and I worry that Daniel Flores, a civil rights attorney, will be outspent by Kingsley. What turned me off about his competitor is who endorsed her. I got her mailers and thought, “No, thank you!” (Endorsements from David Chiu, London Breed, Gavin Newsom, and Carole Migden to name a few.) And, Daniel Flores has the endorsements of people and groups I trust (Jane Kim, SEIU 1021, John Avalos).

Superintendent of Public Instruction: Tom Torlakson
Still endorsing Torlakson after many moons. Previous endorsement: “I have endorsed Torlakson for many elections. This is what I wrote in the 2010 November Kate Slate, “I endorsed him in the June primary, and I still think he has the right idea about the public school system. I like that he is ready for the fight for funding, that he favors neighborhood schools, and supports a healthy school environment including access to healthy foods, physical education and health care. While that might not seem like a primary educational focus, I promise you that after four years of teaching middle school in East Oakland, I discovered they are crucial social justice issues to address in education.” He still has my endorsement. He is doing a good job in a difficult office.”

Member, Board of Education, vote for 3: Shamann Walton, Stevon Cook, Jamie Rafaela Wolfe
Okay. I have triangulated the endorsements from SF Guardian (we’re still counting on you to rise from the dead, guys), League of Pissed Off Voters, local celebrities like ‘Deep and Broke Ass Stuart, and the slates of friends, like Laura Thomas, friend of Jesse Stout (no link; it was on FB and Jesse sent me the slate in the text of an email}, and Pete from Leftwing, a radical soccer club. And, these three people get the most repeat endorsements. Rafaela-Wood will give trans youth a voice at the BOE, Cook is supposedly an all around good person, young, progressive, and driven, and product of SFUSD, and Walton works with youth in the Bayview.

Member, Community College Board – Four-year term, vote for 3: Thea Selby, Wendolyn Aragon, Brigitte Davila or John Rizzo
City College is so beyond crisis mode–and it is crucial that this community educational resource is protected for San Franciscans. I have been saying this for years, while constantly trying to vote for the College Board candidates that would save City College from losing accreditation, or would save City College from itself, and it just hasn’t happened (yet).

Wendolyn Aragon, Thea Selby, and Brigitte all have the political chops to get it done. John Rizzo is incumbent, and was the only reformer Board Member who seemed to be getting results. But he hasn’t always been trustworthy in his politics, according to some. So, I’d say Aragon and Selby for sure, and then you can pull the trigger on Rizzo if you think experience on the Board matters, or Davila if you think a clean slate will save City College.

Member, Community College Board – Two-year term, vote for 1: William Walker

Everyone seems to think William Walker is the top choice here. I have only heard one person not endorse William Walker and they said he was a loud mouth. Walker served as a Student Trustee on the College Board. And sometimes being a loud mouth gets things done.

Assessor-Recorder: Carmen Chu

It is hard to care about an uncontested race. Carmen Chu is a product of the Newsom-Lee machine and I’m not so into her. But people keep pointing out that she is managing the office well. Whatever.

Public Defender: Jeff Adachi

Jeff Adachi has been doing interesting things around re-integrating recently released prisoners, and other good progressive public defender-type things. He is also running unopposed. Did you know that is an indication of an unhealthy democracy? Even though I like him.

Proposition 1: Water Bond – no
This is frustrating because we need a solution to our water issues (beyond just getting some rain), but the fact is that this is terrible legislation. It is such bad legislation that our state legislators didn’t want to touch it with a ten foot pole so they pulled the old, “let’s let the voters decide!” tactic. Hmm. It is a hugely expensive bond, it doesn’t actually resolve the issue, and has major environmental flaws. And for those who say, “but we desperately need this right now!” I say what we desperately need is a wet winter and strong, smart legislation to appropriately handle California’s water management.

Proposition 2: State Budget. Legislative Constitutional Amendment – no
Here is another case of just bad legislation. It would lock finances in a so-called “rainy day fund,” but with strings attached that would make the already cumbersome state budget even more restricted. It is also a constitutional amendment, and I find that problematic because there are other, less drastic and permanent legislation that could be done to address our state budget issues.

Proposition 45: Healthcare Insurance – yes
This just closes a regulatory gap allowed by Obamacare by allowing the Insurance Commissioner to regulate health insurance rates as it already does for auto and home insurance. Of course, insurance companies are fighting this like crazy because they don’t want to be regulated, but don’t let them win!

Proposition 46: Drug and Alcohol Testing of Doctors – NOOOO!
At our slate party this year, Mike said that this just sounded like a pissing contest between doctors and lawyers. And that is exactly what it is. I got permission to use that line. The random drug testing of doctors is unfair and an invasion of privacy. And, is just a malpractice lawsuit ploy by lawyers, anyway. It is also unnecessary.

Proposition 47: Criminal Sentences – YESSSSSS!
I am so excited that there is finally smart criminal justice legislation on the ballot. This would decriminalize nonviolent offenses allowing for people who are serving time for nonviolent crimes (property crimes of $950 or less) to be released from our overly stuffed prisons. And, everyone (who is smart) supports this (including groups that typically are more conservative on criminal justice issues) because it is just smart legislation. Thank you, California for finally putting a decent criminal justice item on the ballot!

Proposition 48: Indian Gaming Compacts – yes
So this is pretty ugly and I don’t feel good voting on it. Here is the thing: There is an Indian tribe that wants to build a casio on land they acquired, but the land they acquired is not on their reservation. Another Indian tribe is fighting it because this acquired land is close to their reservation and casino.

But here is the thing that seems weird: Both tribes are all displaced peoples and the distinction of sovereign reservation land is pretty arbitrary. After all, the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs assigned the plots of reservation land to the various tribes and it has nothing to do with birthright or homeland or any of that. It is based on this social construct we have about sovereign Indian land. And to this end, if the tribe owns the land and they own their reservation, does it matter per se if the casino is not on the reservation? It all seems so arbitrary and odd.

Annnnnd at the same time I hate casinos. So you could just vote no if you hate casinos, and that is that.

But I say vote yes because our federal government already negotiated this agreement under fair terms with the tribe, and as a country we should stop going back on our word with the indigenous communities.

Proposition A: San Francisco Transportation and Road Improvement Bond – YESSSSSS!
This bond requires a supermajority to win. I hate bonds, it is an expensive way to fund city and county work, but with the current state of the city budget, there simply is not enough funding to cover some of the basic transportation projects that we need to implement to make our streets safer for walking and bicycling. This is the mayor’s transportation measure and if it doesn’t win a bunch of critical projects won’t get funded. For reals. So please, please, please vote yes on A!

Proposition B: Charter Amendment to increase amount provided to SFMTA based on population – YESSSSSS!
So, this basically says that the City will fund the SFMTA (our City transportation agency) based on population as it grows, which makes sense. I often am against ballot box budgeting but I am for this one because the Mayor had originally said he was going to put a Vehicle License Fee on this year’s ballot to help fund transportation. But then the Mayor got cold feet so Supervisor Weiner put this on the ballot to force the mayor to put the VLF on the 2015 ballot–if the Mayor does get the VLF passed in the next election, Prop B will be nullified. At the same time, I don’t think it is a terrible idea for a “transit-first” city to base funding its transportation agency on they city’s population. So yes.

Proposition C: Charter Amendment to support services for children, youth, and families – Yes
Everyone says yes to this which will extend funding for support services for young people up to 24 years old. I don’t like that it restricts funding from the general fund, but I do like the idea of a rainy day fund for these services.

Proposition D: Charter Amendment to make retiree health benefits available to former SF Redevelopment Agency and Successor Agency employees – yes
This is more about fairness than anything. When the state legislature ended the Redevelopment Agency as we know it, retiree health benefits for its employees also went with it. This would restore these 50 or so city employees’ benefits.

Proposition E: Tax on Sugar-sweetened beverages to fund health, nutrition, physical education, and recreation programs – YESSSSSSS!
Tell the Libertarian in yourself that this is not a tax on sodas, a tax on your god-given soda-drinking civil liberties, but instead as a revenue source for critically underfunded youth health, nutrition, P.E. and after-school rec programs. Then you shouldn’t have any issue voting yes on E because all the money generated from the tax goes to fund good stuff.

Proposition F: Approve height limits for Pier 70 development – Yes
This is actually a positive outcome of last year’s prop B. Voters said that waterfront developments that want to increase height limits have to be approved at the ballot. And the Pier 70 development project planning was well underway when that passed. So with the new law, the Pier 70 developers had to get voter approval for the increased heights for their project, so they took their plans and made them even better so they could win voter approval in this election. Prop F will allow the development to proceed that includes affordable housing, space for artists, and a walkable and bikeable community on the southern waterfront that could really use a little love. Say yes.

Proposition G: Additional tax on sale of multi-unit residential properties within five years of purchase – YES
G would allow a penalty tax for landlords flipping multi-unit residential properties within five years of acquiring it. It is one small step in addressing our housing crisis in SF, but it is a step. Vote yes.

Proposition H: Shall the city be required to keep natural grass at all athletic fields in Golden Gate Park and prohibit nighttime sports – yes
Okay. I hate H and I because H is written in a confusing way and I, if it gets more yes votes will undo H. I hate when SF does this on the ballot! Confusing voters to get what you want is sleazy, and is a mockery of democracy. I’ll get off my soap box now.

This is quite literally a turf war that has been going on about the soccer fields at GG Park for ages. Some people want to install artificial turf and install lighting to allow night games (that would be No on H). But, it is not a good idea because the artificial turf has started to raise health concerns and is not as environmentally-friendly. Also lighting at night is problematic due to the sensitive nature of the ecosystem in that area.

Proposition I: Allow renovations to children’s playgrounds, walking trails, and athletic fields – NO
Even if you disagree with me on H, I hope you’ll consider a No vote on I. Basically this would allow recreational development in the city to trump the public process. Though the public process does have its challenges, the public review process is important and protects the city from special interests. Please vote no.

Proposition J: Increase the minimum wage to $15/hour – YESSSSSSS!
This increases the minimum wage in San Francisco to a whopping $30,000 a year as a full-time job. The fact that people who work and live in this wealthy and expensive city are making under $15/hour is unconscionable when EDD reports the median income of our city to be $90,000/year. As voters we can move towards making it right by voting yes.

Proposition K: Policy statement to help construct or rehabilitate 30,000 homes by 2020, including affordable housing – abstain
One of my favorite SF politicians, Supervisor Jane Kim, worked on this gutsy legislation to take a stab at addressing the affordable housing situation in SF. But, it got watered down to a far less powerful, non-binding policy statement by the mayor. I think if we vote Yes and it passes, Ed Lee will take credit for doing something about our housing crisis when it is really weak, lame policy. But at the same time I do want to encourage our leaders to continue to work on this important issue and a Yes vote would do that. I am on the fence! I’ll probably abstain.

Proposition L: Policy statement to change parking and transportation priorities – NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Lastly is this terrible policy statement that basically says that we should throw out our city’s transit-first policy. This proposition is bad for everyone–it will make traffic more congested, and our streets more dangerous for walking and bicycling. Our city is going to continue to become more congested and the way to ensure we can all get around is to make sure that people have access to safe and efficient transportation options like public transit, walking, and bicycling.

As an aside, the people who are in favor of L have been actually lying and misrepresenting the issue on campaign materials. For example it says 80% of SF households own cars–that is just completely false; in truth only 37% own one car and only 28% of SF households rely on cars for transportation. So, we actually do need our city to have its priorities focused on transit first–because otherwise we will all just be stuck in traffic.

Okay! Thanks for reading! Now go vote!

Best,
Kate


Comments are closed.