Kate Slate – June 2, 2026

Posted: May 26th, 2026 | Author: | Filed under: Elections | Tags: , , | Comments Off on Kate Slate – June 2, 2026

Hello Voter!

This is the Kate Slate for the June 2, 2026, Consolidated Primary Election in San Francisco. The goal of the Kate Slate is to encourage others to vote. If you’d like to learn more about the Kate Slate, scroll down to the end.

Please vote on or before Tuesday, June 2, 2026. San Francisco polls are open and I already received my ballot! 

Here is how you can vote this year

All registered voters were to be mailed a ballot for this election. You must return your ballot on time to be counted. You may also authorize another person to drop off your ballot for you. Follow the directions in your ballot package.

  • Vote using a Voter Drop Box. San Francisco provides 37 drop boxes across San Francisco where you can return your ballot. These boxes are available 24/7 through 8 p.m. on Election Day, June 2.
  • Vote in person at your polling place. Your polling place is open on Election Day, June 2, 2026, 7am to 8pm.You can also return your completed ballot in its signed envelope at your polling place on Election Day. They will also assist you if you make an error on your ballot and need a new one.
  • Vote at the Voting Center. The Voting Center is open now 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 (as is your polling place on Election Day).
  • Vote by mail. If you return your ballot by mail, mailed ballots must be postmarked by Election Day to be counted. If mailing your ballot on Election Day, take it to a post office counter and request a “hand stamp” or “manual postmark.” Mail dropped in a USPS collection box on Election Day may not be postmarked or picked up until the next day. A late postmark means your ballot cannot be counted.) You may also authorize another person to drop off your ballot for you. Follow the directions in your ballot package.

Even if you missed the May 18, 2026, deadline to register to vote in this election, you can still vote provisionally at all polling places in San Francisco, as well as the City Hall Voting Center. Provided you are eligible to vote in San Francisco and have not cast another ballot, your ballot will be counted. 

Go vote. Make sure you, and the voters you know, have a plan to vote. Once you vote, you can track your ballot using the very cool voter portal, no matter how you plan to vote. But make a plan to vote. My plan is to drop my ballot off in a Voter Drop Box in my neighborhood now that I have this Kate Slate drafted. 

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).

Grab and go! 

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

Federal and Statewide Offices

US Representative District 11: Saikat Chakrabarti

Governor: Katie Porter

Lieutenant Governor: Oliver Ma

Secretary of State: Shirley N. Weber

Controller: Meghann Adams

Treasurer: No endorsement

Attorney General: Rob Bonta

Insurance Commissioner: Jane Kim!!

State Superintendent of Public Instruction: Richard Barrera

Board of Equalization Member, District 2: Sally Lieber

State Assemblymember, Districts 17 and 19: No endorsements

Superior Court Judge, seat 16: Alexandra Pray

Local Offices

Board of Education: Virginia Cheung

Board of Supervisors, District 2: Lori Brooke!

Board of Supervisors, District 4: Natalie Gee

Local Propositions

Prop A – Earthquake Safety and Emergency Response Bond – YES

Prop B – Lifetime Term Limits for Mayor and Members of the Board of Supervisors – no

Prop C – Decreases to Business Taxes – NO

Prop D – Increases to Business Tax Based on Comparison of Top Executive’s Pay to Employee’s Pay – YES

The whole enchilada

Federal and Statewide Offices

US Representative District 11: Saikat Chakrabarti

My vote for US Representative is strategic. There are three contenders: poll leader State Senator Scott Wiener, San Francisco District 1 Supervisor Connie Chan, and techie-turned Berniecrat/AOC campaign manager, Saikat Chakrabarti. 

Wiener has the upperhand in many ways, with a mature career in elected public service. He is the most conservative of San Francisco progressives, which makes him far left of most Democrats in the US Congress. For those wanting a solid Democratic Party rule-follower who will work to fund transit, he’ll do. (Whatever that is in the context of the Federal Government in its current state.) Wiener seems likely to run off in one of the two places for US Representative on the November ballot.

In comparison to Wiener’s years of elected public service, Chan seems to only be beginning hers. She’s in her second term as District 1 Supervisor. On paper her politics align well with mine (better than Wiener on many items). She wants to fight for working families, protect immigrants, and expand affordable healthcare. But aren’t those the standing talking points for the Democrats? Unlike Wiener and Chakrabarti, she doesn’t have substantive plans for how to achieve those goals. In debates, they (Wiener and Chakrabarti) each run circles around Chan’s policy answers. She seems well out of her league. I don’t have confidence that Chan could beat Wiener in November.


Saikat Chakrabarti is a sure bet for those of us who feel passionate about resetting a vision for the Democratic Party that is focused on lowering the cost of living, stopping the coup in Washington, and protecting democracy and rights in the United States for everyone. All of us. He also has experience working at the Federal level in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s office when she was elected. I’d like to see him run for the seat against Wiener because I think he’ll push Wiener on these issues. And, who knows, maybe we get to see Chakrabarti put his big plans into action and help transform the federal government. After all, Chakrabarti’s dreamy vision for our country is solidly grounded with practical plans that deliver outcomes regular people want.


Let’s do this San Francisco! Vote Saikat Chakrabarti.

Governor: Katie Porter

I am going to start this justification for my position with slogan from a tshirt I am wearing as I type this: “She’s electable if you fucking vote for her.” 

In case you missed it, the California primary governor’s race has dozens of candidates vying for two spots on the November ballot. With several top contenders for the spots, there are concerns that left-leaning votes could split in such a way that the top two vote-getters on June 2 could be Republicans. This would leave voters in the November election with two bad options for governor. 

As such, many of us are following the polls predicting election outcomes so that we can vote strategically. We can put our votes behind someone we find acceptable to appear on the ballot in November and thereafter become governor.

The “top three” most viable progressive candidates are Xavier Becerra, Tom Steyer, and Katie Porter. The “best” of the three is Katie Porter. Full stop. Katie Porter understands the fundamental need to adequately fund affordable housing, healthcare, and education like only a mother and former teacher can. And she has a record of public service fighting for families against corporations. The only con to voting for her is if not enough of us vote for her and two republicans get the most votes. (Seemingly unlikely as of most recent pollsl.)

Your other two options are these: Xavier Becerra, who is more moderate but has decades of public service experience. I could live with him.. He says he will see to the delivery of high speed rail “on time and on budget.” He would be our first Latino governor. But he’s more moderate than Katie Porter and Tom Steyer. If I flip in the days between writing this slate and voting, I’d flip to Becerra.

And Tom Steyer is a progressive billionaire lauded for his generous personal funding of climate action efforts. (But also guess how he made his billions? Fossil fuel investments!) Can a billionaire who has prospered from problematic investments forge the best future for everyday Californians? Why are we even debating these two candidates when we have a great candidate right here? 

Everyone debating which of the three progressives to vote for has her in their top two, so LET’S DO THIS AND VOTE KATIE PORTER. (Also polls are looking less good for the two top-contending Republicans right now.) She’s electable when we fucking vote for her!

Lieutenant Governor: Oliver Ma

My pal just said to me: With the Governor’s race the way it is this election, the Lieutenant Governor seems critically important to stand for California values and protect civil rights when they are more under attack than seemingly ever. Oliver Ma is a successful Civil Rights Attorney for the ACLU that is everyone’s go-to for advocacy on cases involving ICE and immigration. His platform includes divestment of the UC system of apartheid. Some like Tubbs, and I generally like his politics, too.

Secretary of State: Shirley N. Weber

I applaud the work of incumbent Shirley N. Weber as she fiercely defends voters’ rights. Re-elect Shirley N. Weber. 

Controller: Meghann Adams

Meghann Adams who is a union organizer that advocates for taxing billionaires to raise money for education. She is the best candidate to challenge incumbent Malia Cohen, who is more a career politician than an intentional and thoughtful Controller for California. Cohen will likely win both this and the November runoff.

Treasurer: No endorsement

Eleni Kounalakis will win. She is the former Lieutenant Governor backed by big money. There’s no other viable candidate, and there’s no reason to endorse Kounalakis.

Attorney General: Rob Bonta (see November 8, 2022)

Here’s what I said for the November 2022 ballot, and it remains the same: Rob Bonta is the incumbent and has done okay in office—he wrote legislation that abolished cash bail and required investigations into police-involved shootings. But, he has a history of behested payments benefitting his wife’s nonprofits, so that definitely raises my eyebrows on the “avoid corruption” aspect of being a respectable public figure. The options in this race are otherwise pretty slim, unfortunately.

Insurance Commissioner: Jane Kim!!

Jane Kim is my favorite progressive San Francisco politician who stands up for working class families and queer rights. She has a vision and plan for insurance reform that includes creation of a public insurer for natural disasters. And if we ever needed someone who was going to represent Californians instead of insurance companies, it is now in our time of seeming endless wildfires.

State Superintendent of Public Instruction: Richard Barrera

Let us please, please, please elect the person who has served for 18 years as a board member of the one school district (San Diego) that’s holding the line on both a living wage for educators and expanding student programs—Richard Barrera. In San Diego, Barrera reportedly “led the charge to reject austerity narratives, direct district leaders to stop hoarding taxpayer money in reserves, increase teacher pay, and improve outcomes for low-income and BIPOC students.” What a dream to think we could have this vision at the helm of Public Instruction? Vote Richard Barrera.

Board of Equalization Member, District 2: Sally Lieber

Sally Lieber is a Kate Slate incumbent who has been doing great work, particularly around the funding mechanisms of affordable housing, so I am going to endorse her again. Vote for Sally Lieber!

State Assemblymember, Districts 17 and 19: No endorsements

For both these races, the incumbents are likely to retake their seats for another term. They both are former San Francisco District Supervisors, Matt Haney (Assemblymember for District 17 and former District 5 Supervisor) and Catherine Stefani (Assemblymember for District 19 and former District 2 Supervisor). Neither are making San Franciscans proud of their work at the state capital, and that’s just too bad for everyone.

Superior Court Judge, seat 16: Alexandra Pray

Alexandra Pray has the credentials suited for the job, namely 15 years as a trial lawyer in the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office. She’s the only candidate who has represented people. Her opponent is a politically connected career prosecutor who is assistant DA under Brooke Jenkins. She’s backed by the questionable SF Police Officer’s Association, which always makes me leary. This race is another chapter in the fight over San Francisco’s judicial branch. I am on team Chesa Boudin, which means I am team Alexandra Pray in this race. Vote Alexandra Pray.

Local  Offices

Board of Education: Virginia Cheung 

During the SFUSD teacher’s strike for adequate pay this past year, Victoria Cheung was on the picket line of her child’s school standing up for teachers getting the contract they deserved. Representation matters, and Cheung would be the only Chinese-American on the Board, and a strong voice with roots among educators and community organizations. And even more importantly, while SFUSD seems to teeter on the brink, Cheung has a plan to stabilize schools to improve retention for teachers and students. Vote Virginia Cheung!

Board of Supervisors, District 2: Lori Brooke!

The current District 2 Supervisor is a former Bush White House intern who was appointed by Mayor London Breed. D2 voters can do better! Appointee Sherrill’s primary competition in this race is Lori Brooke, a member of the local (and politically potent) Cow Hollow Neighborhood Association and a housing activist. She’s been vocally opposing housing policy that puts real estate interests ahead of residents and small businesses by calling for a community-driven housing policy. And, she is deeply rooted in the community. With Lori Brooke we will have someone who better represents the district.

Board of Supervisors, District 4: Natalie Gee

The drama in D4 just won’t stop. Poor appointed Supervisor Alan Wong has seemed so lost in his role as District 4 Supervisor that he was crowd-sourcing San Francisco’s worst laws. My understanding was it was a stunt to fix dumb laws in SF as an act of legislative heroism. It left many thinking he didn’t have a plan with more than plenty to do in his role. 

Meanwhile there’s challenger Natalie Gee. She’s basically all you could hope for in a District Supervisor: She has worked in Supervisor Walton’s office (D11) so she knows the role and what it takes to deliver. She has written and passed legislation in that role. She is skilled at coalition building and centering community voices. District 4 needs someone like Natalie Gee who knows what needs to be done and how to do it. Vote Natalie Gee! 

Local Propositions

Prop A – Earthquake Safety and Emergency Response Bond – YES

Prop A is funding, via a bond, for retrofitting the emergency firefighting water supply system, Muni’s Potrero Yard, as well as some retrofitting at police and fire stations. The firefighting cistern retrofits alone should have us all voting yes. It also includes funds for retrofitting Muni’s Potrero Yard. That yard is home to the buses that provide service to about 20% of Muni’s weekday service. This funding is necessary to ensure we can maintain that fleet with a modern facility. Vote YES!

Prop B – Lifetime Term Limits for Mayor and Members of the Board of Supervisors – no

This proposition appears to be aimed at Aaron Peskin, who did two two-term tours of service in the Board of Supervisors. Is someone afraid he’ll take a third tour through the Board of Supervisors? This seems silly and unnecessary. Vote no.

Prop C – Decreases to Business Taxes – NO

Prop D – Increases to Business Tax Based on Comparison of Top Executive’s Pay to Employee’s Pay – YES

Props C and D both have a “poison pill” so one passing negates the passing of the other. If they both pass, the one with the more “yes” votes wins. Essentially, you get to pick how your city services get funded:

With Prop C, businesses making between $5 and $7.5 million in sales per year would be exempted from gross receipts, that money would be balanced by small tax increases to other businesses, netting an estimated $30-40 Million. 

With Prop D, a tax would be levied on companies with executives who earn 100x their median workers’ salary or those with over 1000 employees or over $1 billion in revenue. This would generate an estimated $300 Million. 

Prop D would benefit so many! It would pay for vital neighborhood services that are being cut due to our post-pandemic budget shortfalls. Vote yes on Prop D!

About the Kate Slate

Standing in the voting booth on my first eligible Election Day, I was well-versed in local politics. Pen-in-hand, poised to vote, I poured over the ballot full of people and propositions. I was shocked that I didn’t understand all the issues or know all the candidates on the ballot. It was as if I showed up to take a test unprepared. 

Before I voted in my second election, I wrote the first Kate Slate. I studied the ballot studiously and shared my notes with friends. Every election since, the Kate Slate is a tradition I’ve continued. With the Kate Slate, I share my personal cheat sheet to help others navigate their ballot. I share what impacted my decisions. Sometimes I end up voting against something that seems right up my alley if there is a fatal flaw. You probably won’t agree with me on everything! 

For the past decade plus, the Kate Slate is preceded by a Slate Party my pal Sacha Ortega co-hosts with me. The Slate Party is a big informer of the Kate Slate, as are voter guides, social media, and coffee break chatter.

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 people who shed light on aspects I hadn’t considered; I get the tacky expensive mailers you get; and, cool people like yourself send me others’ slates. I am not affiliated with any party. 

Happy voting!!


The Kate Slate – June 8, 2010 Primary

Posted: June 8th, 2010 | Author: | Filed under: Elections, Kate Slate | Tags: | Comments Off on The Kate Slate – June 8, 2010 Primary

I have gotten a little heat that my Kate Slate is late for this election. I will feel especially bad tomorrow when not enough folks vote, and the sneaksters who purposely put initiatives in low-turnout elections (like tomorrow) pass said initiatives by launching a terribly misleading and expensive media campaign. And, you see the problem there.

So, even if you aren’t planning on voting, lost your ballot, don’t know where your polling place is, or whatever, here is what to do:

Alright. For this primary, I don’t have the, erhm, honor, of voting Primary party tickets–but I MIGHT, if in the future, if 14 passes (no no no), but we will get to that later. At any rate, I am just going to cover the basics of what any independent voter would get to vote on tomorrow in San Francisco.

Thanks, as always, for reading and forwarding, and let me know if you do. I keep doing it (even at 11pm the night before the election) for you. Have a good night and a happy vote tomorrow.

The Kate Slate

Superintendent of Public Instruction – Tom Torlakson

Judge of the Superior Court, Seat #6 – Linda Colfax

Judge of the Superior Court, Seat #15 – Michael Nava

Prop 13 – Limits on Property Tax Assessment – Yes

Prop 14 – Elections – No

Prop 15 – California Fair Elections Act – YES

Prop 16 – Imposes New Two-Thirds Voter Approval Requirement for Local Public Electricity Providers – NO NO NO

Prop 17 – Allows Auto Insurance Companies to Base their Prices in Part on a Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage – NO

Prop A – School Facilities Special Tax – Yes

Prop B – Earthquake Safety & Emergency Response Bond – Yes

Prop C – Film Commission – yes

Prop D – Retirement Benefit Costs – yes

Prop E – Budget Line Item for Police Department Security for City Officials & Dignitaries – YES

Prop F – Renters’ Financial Hardship Applications – yes

Prop G – Transbay Transit Center – no

 

Here goes, in depth:

State Superintendent of Public Instruction – Tom Torlakson

I am going to lean towards the teachers on this one, most of whose unions endorsed him over his opponents, none of whom work in education. Boo. (Though Tom taught high school before his now-termed-out political career.) The biggest issue that seems to set him apart is that he does not support a school district “choice” model, which would allow parents to send their kids to whichever district they choose. It would give further advantage to children with more mobility while the students with fewer resources would continue to get the short end of the stick.

A better idea? Working to ensure a child can get an excellent education no matter which public school they attend. Wasn’t that the idea of public education in the first place? Judge of the Superior Court, Seat #6 – Linda Colfax Linda Colfax was a Board Member for the ACLU, and she supports opening the courts more to press. Basically that and she interviews a lot better (and looks slightly better on paper) got her my vote.

Judge of the Superior Court, Seat #15 – Michael Nava

Michael Nava’s story is a good one. Nava is taking on the Republican incumbent who was appointed by the Governator. Then he realized, oh shit, SF is in my district and has a lot of votes, and moved to SF changing his party from Republican to independent. Then Michael Nava came along and thought, wow, I could bring a new perspective to the Courts as a gay son of Mexican immigrants, and decided to run against the incumbent. And, he is down for transparency in the courts, too.

Prop 13 – Limits on Property Tax Assessment – yes

This modifies the current way they assess property values just slightly. It is all horribly boring, but basically currently you are required to reassess the value of the property after renovations or improvements are made, unless you are excluded because you have a brick building or the improvement was required by local law. This removes the two exclusions so all buildings with renovations or improvements would be required to reassess the value for property taxes.

This is pretty fair and consistent policy, yes.

Prop 14 – Elections – NO

Woah, this would change California elections so much, and make it such a longer, and potentially uglier, process. It is a wacky idea to allow all voters to vote for all candidates (regardless of party) in the Primary Election. Then, the top two vote winners–regardless of party–would go to the second round, the final election. Hmmmm.

While I like the idea that the political parties wouldn’t get to nominate their douchey candidates, the primary election could potentially wipe out all of one type of candidate just based on the population of the voters. Say for example there are two conservatives and two liberals running for the same office in the primary, 50/50. If the voter turnout is, say, 80% conservative in the primary, they could wipe out the more liberal options, and the general election would decide between one of two conservatives.

Other concerns I have are about the long, painful, drawn out shitstorm of this type of election. And you thought Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner were already exhausting. And on the flip side, what about all those potential voters who aren’t really informed until the general election? What if people don’t know enough about the candidates to make an informed decision?

We do need to reform the electoral process, but this isn’t the answer.

Prop 15 – California Fair Elections Act – YES

This is a cool little trial to test out ending the current ban on publicly-funded political campaigns and allow publicly-funded campaign funding programs to be established by the state legislature. The trial is one program that impacts only one office, the office of the Secretary of State, who oversees elections, just for 2014 and 2018. Perfect, right?

The details for the trial for these two elections for the Secretary of State is that they would be able to voluntarily sign up to be publicly-funded and collect $5 from a certain number of registered voters to run, and they could not mostly not accept other donations. There would be funding limits for the public-funded candidates, but they would be allowed extra matching funds when outspent by a privately-funded candidate. And, if the program funds weren’t enough, the publicly-funded candidates would be allowed to make up the difference with private funding.

While I am not sure the proposed solution is going to be the best solution in the long run (or even have an impact since candidates for those two elections could completely opt out of the program), I really like the idea of doing a small test on one office and tweaking it from there.

This is a small pilot program for election reform, and it is worth a shot.

 

Prop 16 – Imposes New Two-Thirds Voter Approval Requirement for Local Public Electricity Providers – NO

Currently, a local government can only use public funds if approved by the local government or a simple majority of the voters. This would require a 2/3 vote by the people (very difficult) for a local government to use public funds to start up or expand electricity service.

This is a big power grab by private energy to lessen the chance local governments would invest in the energy market, challenging their current dominance. They have issued one of the most misleading and pricey campaigns to sway the fewer voters they need to convince for this primary election. It is gross, and it is greedy, and it is totally unnecessary. NO.

 

Prop 17 – Allows Auto Insurance Companies to Base their Prices in Part on a Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage – NO

Another scheme from another big company. This was sponsored by an insurance company to profit by a policy change. Basically if you had a lapse in insurance (say, like me, you forewent a car) it would allow them to levy fees for having a break in insurance coverage.

I pity the soul who ever has to pay car insurance after living car-free. (The naughty me kinda wants people who do go back to cars after being car-free to get that added penalty.) But, since it benefits another one of those sneaky businesses sneaking policy through a low-voter election, it is much better to vote no. No, no, no.

 

Prop A – School Facilities Special Tax – yes

This Prop extends and modifies a 1990 property tax that needs to be re-approved by 66% of voters in the district. It would maintain funding for repairs and improvements at 150 San Francisco Schools. Seems logical to fund maintenance for earthquake and fire safety at schools, especially since it essentially renews a tax that has been in place for 20 years.

 

Prop B – Earthquake Safety & Emergency Response Bond – YES, yikes!

Our fire department is reliant on a 1906 emergency water system. This has to pass with a 2/3 vote for the city to be able to issue bonds to pay for improvements for earthquake, fire & emergency response.  I normally don’t like paying with credit because it costs a lot more than it seems, but based on what I have heard about the unfitness of our fire response system in the event of an earthquake, we just need to make a move to improve the situation.

Fitness and being healthy are super important, but seriously why would you ever risk anything above your health. Stay healthy and active and you’ll be able to overcome anything in life. Get a Body Contouring Scottsdale  for your own sake and for your own health because you deserve it.

Renters, if passed, landlords are allowed to pass off 50% of the tax to you. A place that has a value of $131,000 would be taxed about $12 for a year ($6 for renters) at the highest estimate. It is worth it. Even if you add a zero to your property’s value, it is still worth it!

 

Prop C – Film Commission – yes

Changes the criteria by which the Film Commission, which approves permits for filming in San Francisco, is selected. All eleven now are selected by the Mayor, and if this passes, he would select only 6, the others selected by the Board of Supervisors. Both the Mayor and the Supervisors would be required to select these people based on specific criteria , like professional experience in the film industry or being from the district impacted by the film permits. It also requires them to be residents of SF. Why not?

Prop D – Retirement Benefit Costs – yes

Ewwww, this is the booooring wonk that generally makes me fall asleep. Prop D is basically a happy compromise reached about how a pension could be calculated. This suggests it should be based on the final two years pay, not the current standard of just the final year pay when often there is an extra little bump. In the end it is a cost-saving measure for the cash-strapped city. Yes.

 

Prop E – Budget Line Item for Police Department Security for City Officials & Dignitaries – Yes (duh)

This simply allows the Police Department to add a budget line item for the expenses related to providing security (that they already are providing) to City officials and dignitaries.

For me, as someone who has worked on budget spreadsheets for the past 13 years of my life (I know, exciting, right?), I like more line items in a budget because it provides me greater transparency on where all the money is going to and coming from.  I like this kinda thing, though it can sure make a for a beastly budget spreadsheet. On the other hand, I imagine the Police Department’s budget is already pretty burly, and I wonder how they currently account for those expenses.

I hate those big mushy line items called things like “general” or “miscellaneous supplies,” and I bet this would make one currently mushy line item a little less mushy by breaking this expense out.

Prop F – Renters’ Financial Hardship Applications – yes

Currently renters in SF have rent control, limiting the amount that landlords can raise the rent annually to 10% to account for increasing taxes and property improvements. This would allow renters with financial hardships to file an application to limit the increases even further, though not completely, and only if approved at a hearing.

Prop G – Transbay Transit Center – no

UGH it is a policy statement–I hate that!! It is like using the ballot to declare it is my official policy to enjoy artichokes at dinners.

It means nothing, binds nothing, trivializes the democratic process into the not-getting-shit-done train wreck in slow motion that it is.

And at the same time, you might think it is a lovely idea for the train from LA to end at the Transbay Transit Center. And it might be. In fact, that is what current Transbay Terminal planners are planning for.  But I think I will exercise my right not to vote on this one out of my general belief that policy statements are a waste of time and stupid.

Man, they sure do love those policy statements in SF. Gotta love SF.