Kate Slate – November 3, 2020

Posted: October 4th, 2020 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , | Comments Off on Kate Slate – November 3, 2020
Kate Slate logo

Hello Voter! Here is the Kate Slate for the November 2, 2020, Consolidated Election in San Francisco.

The goal of the Kate Slate is to encourage others to VOTE. I share my personal cheat sheet to help others navigate their own ballot. I write the Kate Slate race-by-race, issue-by-issue, and share why I am voting the way I am. Sometimes I end up voting against something that seems right up my alley if there is some fatal flaw, and in the Kate Slate, I tell you if I think it does and why. You probably won’t agree with me on everything, and that is okay! If you’d like to hear more about the Kate Slate, scroll down to the end.

Just please vote on or before Tuesday, November 3, 2020. In fact, bonus points if you vote early this election. San Francisco polls open October 5.

In typical elections in typical years, I encourage voters to cast their live ballot at their polling place. But, I probably don’t need to tell anyone that this year is unique and this election is different. Here is how you can vote this year:

  • Vote by mail. All registered voters are to be mailed a ballot for this election on October 5. (I received mine October 3). You must return your ballot on time to be counted! If you return your ballot by mail, make sure it’s postmarked by November 3 (check collection times if you use a USPS mailbox). You can also return your ballot at a drop-off station starting October 5, or at your polling place on Election Day. You may also return your ballot in any other county in California or authorize another person to drop off your ballot for you. Follow the directions in your ballot package.
  • Vote at the Voting Center. The Voting Center opens October 5 to provide ballots and services to all City residents who wish to pick up or drop off vote-by-mail ballots, register to vote (before or after the registration deadline), obtain personal assistance, use accessible voting equipment, obtain replacement ballots, and cast their ballots in person. This is a great resource if you make an error on your ballot and need to get a new one. 
  • Vote in person at your polling place. They will be open November 3, 7am to 8pm. They can also assist you if you make an error on your ballot and need a new one.

Even if you miss the October 19 deadline to register to vote, you can still vote provisionally at all 588 polling places in San Francisco, as well as the City Hall Voting Center, located outside the Bill Graham Civic Auditorium on 99 Grove Street. Provided you are eligible to vote in San Francisco and have not cast another ballot, your ballot will be counted.

But go vote. Once you vote, you can track your ballot using the voter portal, no matter how you plan to vote. But make a plan to vote. My plan is to drop my mail-in ballot off at the Voting Center when it opens October 5.

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).

As always, thanks for reading, now please go vote. Take others with you. And if you can’t take them with you, make sure they have a plan to vote.

Grab and go! (The short version you can take with you to the polls. See below for the details.)

President and Vice President – Joe Biden and Kamala Harris
United States Representative, District 12 – abstain
United States Representative, District 14 – Jackie Speier
State Senator, District 11 – Jackie Fielder
Member, State Assembly, District 17 – abstain
Member, State Assembly, District 19 – abstain
Member, Board of Education (up to 4) – Mark Sanchez, Alida Fisher, Matt Alexander, Kevine Boggess
Member, Community College Board (up to 4) – Tom Temprano, Shanell Williams, Aliya Chisti, Anita Martinez
BART Director, District 7 – Lateefah Simon
BART Director, District 9 – Bevan Dufty
Member, San Francisco Board of Supervisors, District 1 – Connie Chan
Member, San Francisco Board of Supervisors, District 3 – Aaron Peskin
Member, San Francisco Board of Supervisors, District 5 – Dean Preston
Member, San Francisco Board of Supervisors, District 7 – Myrna Meglar
Member, San Francisco Board of Supervisors, District 9 – abstain
Member, San Francisco Board of Supervisors, District 11 – John Avalos
State Proposition 14 – Authorizes bonds continuing stem cell research. No
State Proposition 15 – Increases funding sources for schools, government services by changing tax assessment of commercial and industrial property. YES!
State Proposition 16 – Allows diversity as a factor in public employment, education, and contracting decisions. YES!
State Proposition 17 – Restores right to vote after completion of prison term. YES
State Proposition 18 – Amends California constitution to permit 17-year-olds to vote. Yes
State Proposition 19 – Changes certain property tax rules. NO
State Proposition 20 – Restricts parole, authorizes felony sentences, for certain offenses. NO
State Proposition 21 – Expands local governments’ authority to enact rent control. YES!!!
State Proposition 22 – Exempts app-based companies from providing employee benefits. NO!!!!
State Proposition 23 – Establishes state requirements for kidney dialysis clinics. no.
State Proposition 24 – Amends consumer privacy laws. No!
State Proposition 25 – Referendum on law that replaced money bail. NO.
City and County Proposition A – Health and Homelessness, Parks, and Streets Bond. Yes.
City and County Proposition B – Department of Sanitation and Streets, Sanitation and Streets Commission, and Public Works Commission. yes
City and County Proposition C – Removing Citizenship Requirements for Members of City Bodies. Yes!
City and County Proposition D – Sheriff Oversight. no.
City and County Proposition E – Police Staffing. YES!!!
City and County Proposition F – Business Tax Overhaul. yes.
City and County Proposition G – Youth Voting in Local Elections. YES!
City and County Proposition H – Neighborhood Commercial Districts and City Permitting. No.
City and County Proposition I – Real Estate Transfer Tax. YES!
City and County Proposition J – Parcel Tax for San Francisco Unified School District. Yes.
City and County Proposition K – Affordable Housing Authorization. YES!!!!!
City and County Proposition L – Business Tax Based on Comparison of Top Executive’s Pay to Employees’ Pay. yes.
District Proposition RR – Caltrain Sales Tax. YES!!!!

Now for the long form version of the Kate Slate:

President and Vice President – Joe Biden and Kamala Harris

In 2016 I wrote, “I am not even sure this requires explanation. There isn’t a realistic alternative in this election since there is only one viable candidate who is fit for the position.” It is now even more dire after a white supremacist leveraged by a corrupt party has exploited the presidency and our country for the past four years. If you are eligible to vote, please vote. Your rights, your life, depend on it. May apathy not be the path by which this corrupt administration destroys this country.

United States Representative
Note: San Francisco voters are either in Congressional District 12 or 14

United States Representative, District 12 – abstain

Before the March primary I was “encouraged by the momentum for us to challenge perhaps the most powerful woman in the world with a candidate who better reflects our district’s values,” so I endorsed Shahid Buttar against Nancy Pelosi. But, since he has run an apparently toxic campaign that caused numerous campaign staffers to flee and several endorsements to be revoked, including now mine. Though I stand by what I said in March about this race: I want to challenge Pelosi to better serve her constituents in a way that better reflects our district’s values.

United States Representative, District 14 – Jackie Speier

Here’s my usual spiel about Jackie Speier: Jackie Speier is a badass representative. Unlike our District 12 Representative, Ms. Speier does a great job representing her constituents. She is a staunch defender of immigrant rights, standing up to the federal government’s illegal tactics. She authored legislation to force lawmakers accused of sexual misconduct to pay settlements themselves instead of using public funds. And, she introduced legislation that, if approved by the senate, would remove the deadline for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment so that it may finally pass after pushing it for nearly 40 years. She also introduced legislation a couple weeks ago that would make sexual harassment a crime in military code. (Isn’t it nuts that it isn’t already?) Jackie Speier supports the New Green Deal. She is awesome! Vote Jackie Speier.

State Senator, District 11 – Jackie Fielder

Here is a rerun of my endorsement from the March primary: Jackie Fielder cares about renters and affordable housing at the local level. I do like that Scott Wiener supports transit with legislation that fund improvements, and I do agree that that state has to lead with housing policy for cities to be forced to do what is right, but I think Wiener’s tactics leave a lot to be desired in achieving a housing policy that works for cities and renters. I am excited about Fielder’s New Green Deal for California and she brings a unique and needed perspective to the state senate as a formerly unhoused person. Go Jackie!

Member, State Assembly
Note: San Francisco voters are either in State Assembly District 17 or 19.

Member, State Assembly, District 17 – abstain

I stopped voting for Chiu in 2018. There are just so many city issues being tangled by state policy, from the housing crisis to innovative street design, and we need strong leaders representing San Francisco to adequately address them. David Chiu is unfortunately running unopposed so there is no need for me to vote for him for another term.

Member, State Assembly, District 19 – abstain

I am similarly unmoved by Phil Ting. We need a representative that is going to bring badly-needed state legislation to help San Francisco address some of its boldest challenges. His opponent in this race is unlikely to win.

Member, Board of Education (up to 4) – Mark Sanchez, Alida Fisher, Matt Alexander, Kevine Boggess

Mark Sanchez is a former teacher, principal, and school board member who has worked hard for social justice. He is progressive and supports affordable housing for educators and higher salaries for school workers. He has been very strong during the pandemic helping the district adjust to the emergency measures.

Alida Fisher is a fixture in the SFUSD community who is a special education advocate that wants support services prioritized. She chaired the SFUSD community advisory committee for special education and is a member of the African American Parent Advisory Committee. She leverages these roles to address institutionalized discrimination in our school system.

Matt Alexander founded and led the June Jordan School for Equity where he gained some expertise with funding formulas and city property tax distribution that could bring the district much-needed revenue. He also aspires to close the digital divide, an issue that is paramount as the COVID-19 pandemic endures and students continue to depend on remote learning.

Kevine Boggess is an Education Policy Director at his day job where he monitors legislation coming out of the Board of Education and the Board of Supervisors advocating for students of color who face disproportionate inequities in our schools. He will bring a much-needed perspective to the Board as an SFUSD alumnus, and it will be fun to see him on the other side of the table.

Member, Community College Board (up to 4) – Tom Temprano, Shanell Williams, Aliya Chisti, Anita Martinez

Tom Temprano is a local leader with lots of great experience and strong ideas for addressing the enrollment issues including stronger outreach and rebuilding the relationship City College has with SFUSD.

Shanell Williams is a badass student who got involved in City College politics as its accreditation was in question and she helped lead the fight to save City College.

Aliya Chisti oversees the Free City College Program at the Department of Children Youth and Their Families (DCYF) and the partnership between City College and the City of San Francisco. I love her idea to invest in wraparound services for undocumented and unhoused students to support better outcomes.

Anita Martinez is a 28-year educator at CCSF who wants to restore CCSF to a community center in San Francisco that serves everyone, no matter their path in life, by promoting civic engagement, cultural enrichment, and life-long learning.

BART Director
Note: San Francisco voters are either in BART District 7 or 9.

BART Director, District 7 – Lateefah Simon

A plug for candidate Lateefah Simon: Her priorities for BART are affordability, accessibility, and accountability for transit-dependent people and working families. She has been a necessary voice for people of color in the debates about policing on BART and is actively working to expand BART’s unarmed safety staff, including new teams of ambassadors onboard patrolling the trains. Her leadership inspires me. She’s an important voice on the BART board.

BART Director, District 9 –  Bevan Dufty

Bevan Dufty has been doing good work on the BART Board that directly benefits the district he serves. Since he became director in 2017 he addressed issues with maintenance staffing at the 16th Street BART Station, rolling up his sleeves initiating a weekly cleaning program to address the squalor there. He did the same in 2018 at the Civic Center BART Station where he held office hours in the station for a month until conditions improved. Because of his long history as a public servant, he is able to leverage his political connections for much needed improvements to the BART system in our district. Vote Bevan Dufty.

Member, San Francisco Board of Supervisors
Note: San Francisco voters are in one of eleven supervisorial districts. Only odd numbered districts have elections this year.

Member, San Francisco Board of Supervisors, District 1 – Connie Chan

With a focus on protecting wage-workers, prioritizing small business support, affordable housing, and comprehensive, accessible public health, Connie Chan’s platform is what is needed to stabilize our community in these uncertain and unprecedented times. And, her familiarity working in the system as aides to Sophie Maxwell, Kamala Harris, Aaron Peskin, and for SF Rec and Park and City College make me very confident in her ability to make it happen. Since this is a rank-choice race, you can pick a second and third choice, but be sure to mark Connie Chan as your number one.

Member, San Francisco Board of Supervisors, District 3 – Aaron Peskin

Supervisor Aaron Peskin certainly has his quirks, but he goes to bat for his constituents, particularly those who are most vulnerable in his district. His team works tirelessly to support small businesses and defend affordable housing. In fact, his team is one of the hardest working and most effective in City Hall. Aaron Peskin keeps city agencies accountable and responsive at a time when it seems like many are looking the other way.

Member, San Francisco Board of Supervisors, District 5 – Dean Preston

Dean Preston is a tenants’ rights advocate first and foremost, and a voice that his district thought the Board of Supervisors needed after he was elected to replace Vallie Brown to complete the rest of the term left vacant by Mayor London Breed. My endorsement is based on that just happening in November, and because there are no candidates whose platform is more compelling.

Member, San Francisco Board of Supervisors, District 7 – Myrna Meglar

Myrna Meglar is an urban planner with a background in city government. Her platform is focused on housing and public transportation. She’s served on the San Francisco Planning Commission as President. I see lots of folks endorsing Vilaska Nguyen, but as of October 4, he has no platform on his campaign’s website (it says “putting families first”) and I have no idea how voters are supposed to intuit his platform. There is a candidate questionnaire he answered for the SF Bicycle Coalition with lots of compelling responses, but it did not restore my confidence. With rank choice voting it is good to have your second and third choices in mind, and these two candidates seem to be the best options in a packed race.

Member, San Francisco Board of Supervisors, District 9 – abstain

The incumbent in District 9 is unfortunately running uncontested. The city has had a lot of data about COVID-19 transmission disproportionately impacting Latinx community members in the Mission, and I have been incredibly underwhelmed by the city’s efforts to protect our most vulnerable neighbors. It is disappointing to see no other candidates in the race for this highly political district. Oh well.

Member, San Francisco Board of Supervisors, District 11 – John Avalos

Former Supervisor John Avalos is back after serving two past terms and taking his required leave from the Board of Supervisors before throwing his hat back in the ring in 2020. And, with his strong record in the office serving workers and families while defending San Francisco from corporate predators, I strongly endorse John Avalos for Supervisor. He is the candidate who best represents the values of his district.

State Proposition 14 – Authorizes bonds continuing stem cell research. No

Proposition 14 authorizes bonds to be sold for stem cell research. This would require repaying these bonds from the general fund for these studies. Bonds are expensive, and I am averse to using ballot box budgeting to restrict funds in the general fund. There are other, less expensive and restrictive ways this research can be funded. Furthermore, there are higher priorities to address in medical research than stem cell work, such as addressing inequities to reduce disparities in health outcomes.  As such, I am voting No.

State Proposition 15 – Increases funding sources for schools, government services by changing tax assessment of commercial and industrial property. YES!

Prop 15 aims to restore balance to property taxes by amending Prop 13 that has been the enemy of adequate school funding, amongst other things, since it was passed in 1978. Prop 13 has limited taxes to 1% of the assessed property value, gutting funding for public services dependent on property taxes. The reform you’d be voting on here proposes to require reassessing commercial properties every three years at market value. Those business owners with properties valued less than $3 million would be exempt from the new rule. 

Of course, big business hates the idea of this. But, the change has major social benefits: 60% of the revenue would stay local, providing counties fire protection, recreation, and other services. A statewide fund for K-12 schools and community colleges accounts for the remainder. Our local governments and schools need this funding restored so desperately to maintain basic services. Vote YES!

State Proposition 16 – Allows diversity as a factor in public employment, education, and

contracting decisions. YES!

Currently, consideration of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin is not allowed in in public employment, public education, and public contracting decisions in California. As such, some groups have reduced access, particularly people of color and women. This would be a major step in providing equitable access by allowing these diversity categories to be considered in decisions for public employment, education, and contacting. If you care about racial and gender equality vote YES!

State Proposition 17 – Restores right to vote after completion of prison term. YES

This proposition would restore voting rights upon completion of prison term to those who have been disqualified from voting. Currently people on parole are not eligible to vote. People should have the opportunity to choose their representatives and vote on policies that impact their lives, so I am going to vote YES.

State Proposition 18 – Amends California constitution to permit 17-year-olds to vote. Yes

If passed, this would allow 17-year olds who would be 18-years old by the next general election to vote in its primary. This aims to boost participation by our youngest voters, and as you will see by my endorsement of State Proposition 17 above and San Francisco’s Proposition G below, I am very much interested in people being able to vote on the representatives and policies that impact them. Vote Yes.

State Proposition 19 – Changes certain property tax rules. NO

This is poorly written legislation that should not be passed. Vote NO. This measure, like Prop 15, aims to make changes to Prop 13 of 1978. This initiative could potentially increase real estate sales by allowing property owners to take their property tax breaks with them when they move, which is why real estate interests got it on the ballot. But in doing so, it expands inequities in the property tax system in favor of longtime property owners over first time buyers. No thank you.

State Proposition 20 – Restricts parole, authorizes felony sentences, for certain offenses. NO

Prop 20 is a pro-prison industrial complex initiative that would reverse years of criminal justice reforms, cost taxpayers more, and change the process created when Prop 57 passed in 2016 that decriminalized nonviolent crime by making inmates with nonviolent felonies and good behavior eligible for parole. Let’s continue progress reforming our criminal justice system. Vote NO.

State Proposition 21 – Expands local governments’ authority to enact rent control. YES!!!

Proposition 21 aims to limit rent increases and preserve affordable housing by expanding local government authority to enact rent control on housing that is more than 15-years old. Rent control is how I afford housing and I am going to vote yes and I hope you do too so this tenant benefit can be extended. VOTE YES!!!

State Proposition 22 – Exempts app-based companies from providing employee benefits. NO!!!!

This is a blatant, sinister attempt by ride hailing companies to skirt employment law, exploit workers and make these changes permanent. Uber and Lyft did a big charade recently threatening to shut down their services to give these companies more time to comply with state law. But, the law has been around as long as they have been in business: If they can’t provide their employees the benefits to which they are legally entitled, then their business model needs to adjust. This would change the law instead, exploiting labor nearly permanently: if it passes, the legislation requires a 7/8 majority to be overturned (7/8 majority is pretty unprecedented)! Frankly, this is a good time to download a taxi app like Freewheel and support the taxi industry. The taxi industry is regulated and that has been a huge benefit during the pandemic when we needed to ensure measures would be taken to decrease risk of COVID-19  transmission. VOTE NO!! 

State Proposition 23 – Establishes state requirements for kidney dialysis clinics. no.

This proposition represents an unresolved dispute between labor unions and medical industry groups dating back to 2018 when Californians voted on a similar proposal that involved many of the same players. This is a dispute with nuances that should not be resolved by ballot box and I am voting no. In short, the labor union representing healthcare workers in California, Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, argue that passing the proposition would provide a safer environment for dialysis patients and stronger protections for them. Meanwhile, medical companies and groups, like Davita, the California Medical Association, and California NAACP State Conference say that this would increase costs, that there is a lack of resources, and it could limit access to care. I support labor unions and yet I am confident a resolution exists outside of this election. Vote no.

State Proposition 24 – Amends consumer privacy laws. No!

This is one of those propositions that looks good on the surface as a measure that would help protect consumers’ privacy related to data collection. But actually, the prop is misleading as it  has big loopholes for big tech and the ACLU says it actually weakens protections for consumers. Ugh! Vote No!

State Proposition 25 – Referendum on law that replaced money bail. NO.

Prop 25 is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, so to speak. It is an effort to replace cash bail, which sounds good on the surface, but it replaces it with the only thing worse than cash bail: an algorithm. Essentially, this algorithm would determine the risk that the person would not appear at trial and thus whether they should be released. The issue here is bias: our algorithms are subject to human bias, so continue to be discriminatory. We should not be replacing one flawed, discriminatory system with another. End cash bail, but do it right. Vote NO.

City and County Proposition A – Health and Homelessness, Parks, and Streets Bond. Yes.

Prop A is a bond measure that would fund permanent supportive housing, transitional housing and shelters, the building of a Behavioral Health Access Center for mental health and addiction services, renovations at the Japantown Peace Plaza and Portsmouth Square, expansion of the Gene Friend Recreation Center in SoMa doubling its size, and a waterfront park at India Basin. Addressing health and homelessness in San Francisco is a critical need right now, and the facilities improvements are icing on top. Vote Yes.

City and County Proposition B – Department of Sanitation and Streets, Sanitation and Streets Commission, and Public Works Commission. yes

This proposition spins out of recent corruption at Public Works and aims to improve services relating to sanitation and streets. I have my doubts that creating a new agency, and the added expense to the city, will provide the fix desired by the seven Supervisors who voted to put this measure on the ballot. But, San Francisco’s maintenance and cleanliness have been neglected for years under the purview of Public Works, and this new department and commission would force attention on these critical needs for San Francisco that have been neglected for too long. So, I am voting yes.

City and County Proposition C – Removing Citizenship Requirements for Members of City Bodies. Yes!

Proposition C aims to remove the requirement that appointed members of city commissions and advisory boards be registered to vote in San Francisco. This would make it so non-citizens could serve as members on these commissions and boards. I am voting yes so that these boards and commissions can better reflect the communities they serve while giving these communities access to these boards and commissions. Vote Yes!

City and County Proposition D – Sheriff Oversight. no.

This was put on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors to resolve some oversight issues that have since been largely addressed. In 2019, the Department of Police Accountability (DPA) had entered into agreement with the Sheriff’s Department to provide much-needed oversight after many incidents involving sheriff misconduct were not properly or adequately addressed. But until the agreement was modified in August 2020, the DPA only investigated 35 cases as directed by the sheriff. The now modified agreement strengthens the oversight and allows both members of the public and incarcerated people to file complaints directly with the DPA, rather than the cases be assigned to DPA by the sheriff. These reforms are a start, but more is needed.

Our racist criminal justice system requires massive reform now, rather than providing the necessary substantive change, this proposition perpetuates and extends the existing system. Because creating a redundant Sheriff’s Department Oversight Board will cost our cash-strapped city approximately $3 million annually, and the oversight issues that would be provided by this proposition are being resolved incrementally with the Department of Police Accountability (DPA) with the August agreement, I am voting no. 

City and County Proposition E – Police Staffing. YES!!!

Speaking on necessary substantive change to the racist criminal justice system, Prop E aims to fix the City Charter that requires the San Francisco Police Department to maintain a minimum of 1,971 full-duty sworn officers and maintain 1994 levels for the number of officers dedicated to neighborhood policing. It appears to be lost to the nineties why they picked 1,971. A Strategic Police Staffing and Deployment Task Force established in 2018 developed a framework for determining police staffing levels that is aimed at providing the Police Commission a tool for evaluating staffing needs while addressing public safety. This was the basis of Prop E. 

The proposition would amend the charter to require the chief of police to submit a staffing report and recommendation to the Police Commission every two years. A public hearing would be held on the staffing report and the Police Commission would be required to adopt a policy to set methodologies for evaluating the staffing levels at least once every two years. These staffing levels would be ultimately approved in the budgetary process. Vote YES for this simple but important reform. 

City and County Proposition F – Business Tax Overhaul. yes.

Prop F, if passed, would unlock collected revenue from two 2018 ballot measures that went into litigation (both are named Prop C) to be used for the purposes those ballot measures intended. An estimated $963 million in fiscal year 2021–22 and $407 million in fiscal year 2022–23 would be dedicated specifically to homelessness services and childcare. It also shifts the tax burden to large companies from small businesses, and industries such as retail and hospitality, that have been hardest hit by the prolonged economic shutdown spurred by the COVID-19 pandemic. Vote yes.

City and County Proposition G – Youth Voting in Local Elections. YES!

Youth ages 16 and up would be allowed to vote in municipal elections if Prop G passes. As I said above about State Proposition 18, I am very much interested in people being able to vote on the representatives and policies that impact them, so I am voting YES!

City and County Proposition H – Neighborhood Commercial Districts and City Permitting. No. 

This was put on the ballot by the Mayor and seeks to address the woes of our cumbersome city permitting system. But, the ballot box is not the path forward for this effort. This legislation has so many issues I hardly know where to start, but eliminating public notification for the permitting process in a city that demands notification is a major red flag (full disclosure, I am a Public Outreach & Engagement Manager for the city of San Francisco and most definitely biased). There are also several process issues that the legislation doesn’t account for. It changes the problems with permitting rather than resolving them. Surprise! I am voting No.

City and County Proposition I – Real Estate Transfer Tax. YES!

Vote yes! Proposition I would increase the transfer tax rate real estate with a price of at least $10 million. The transfer tax rate for property less than $10 million would stay the same. The Controller’s Office estimates that the proposed ordinance may result in average additional revenue of $196 million per year, though it suggests this may cause tax avoidance strategies. I say it is worth the risk. Vote YES!

City and County Proposition J – Parcel Tax for San Francisco Unified School District. Yes.

Proposition J is a redo of Measure G from 2018. Essentially the validity of the tax approved by a majority of voters is being challenged in court. Prop J decreases the parcel tax from Measure G and aims to reach a 2/3 majority to bring schools the much needed funds (that were approved by a majority of voters back in 2018). Vote Yes. Again.

City and County Proposition K – Affordable Housing Authorization. YES!!!!!

Housing is San Francisco’s foremost issue. Prop K would give San Francisco authority to own, develop, construct, acquire, or rehabilitate up to 10,000 units of low-income rental housing. This would remove the proverbial middle-man and direct more funds directly to providing critically needed affordable housing. VOTE YES!!!!

City and County Proposition L – Business Tax Based on Comparison of Top Executive’s Pay to Employees’ Pay. yes.

Proposition L seeks to bring some taxing equity with an additional tax on businesses in San Francisco whose top earners are making more than $2.7 million annually and have an executive pay ratio that exceeds 100:1 calculated based on total compensation of its highest paid employee and the median compensation of its San Francisco employees. There is a lot of speculation that Prop L won’t be able to achieve its aims at addressing pay inequity, but it is a start and it does so in a way that results in minimal harm so I am voting yes.

District Proposition RR – Caltrain Sales Tax. YES!!!!

If Prop RR does not pass, Caltrain will be forced to shut down without a dedicated funding source. Vote YES. We simply cannot afford to lose this vital regional public transit connection. Even getting the prop to the ballot has been quite a haul, trying to get political bodies representing all the various jurisdictions in three counties where Caltrain travels to agree on the terms of a funding measure to put on the ballot by the deadlines for this election during a pandemic. But they got it on the ballot in the nick of time so that you can help save Caltrain. And it requires a two-thirds majority in each county to pass. Vote YES!!!

About the Kate Slate

I write the Kate Slate for every election because when I voted for the very first time as an eighteen year old, I found myself in the voting booth surprised that I didn’t understand all the issues or know all the candidates on the ballot. I felt like I had showed up to take a test that I hadn’t studied for. The next election, I studied the ballot and shared my notes with friends, bringing about the Kate Slate. Now the Kate Slate is old enough to vote!

For the past decade the slate is preceded by a Slate Party my pal Sacha Ielmorini co-hosts with me. The Slate Party is a big informer of the Kate Slate, as are voter guides provided by the League of Pissed Off Voters (impeccably researched but too late this year to be of much assistance for the Kate Slate), SPUR (easy to read and to disagree), San Francisco’s legendary drag mother Juanita Moore (succinct), San Francisco Bicycle Coalition (helpful, yet appropriately biased), social media, and (virtual) coffee break chatter.

And, in case you were wondering, the 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 sometimes shed light on aspects I hadn’t considered; I get the tacky expensive mailers you get (no I am not going to vote for you Mr. Super Billionaire); and, cool people like yourself send me others’ slates. I am not affiliated with any party. Happy voting!!