Guide can be viewed at:http://theballot.org/2009/sf

San Francisco's Anticlimactic Ballot

San Francisco, CA

November 3, 2009

What the hell is this election all about?
To be honest, this isn't the most exciting election, but Props C, D, and E give us a chance to say no to commercialization of public space. We wanted bold budget reform and progressive taxation on the ballot, but...fail. You can thank the 2/3rds vote requirement for local revenue measures for that.

That Damn 2/3rds Rule
In our last several voter guides, we've ragged on Prop 13. Now we're going to hate on 13's little brother: Prop 218. It requires a 2/3rd vote (nearly impossible) to pass local revenue measures in off year elections - so we can only raise money every other year. If it wasn't for Prop 218, we'd be voting on new taxes to seal our brutal deficit. Instead: another year of city fee increases and painful cuts to crucial services.

What We Want to See on the 2010 Ballot:
- Real budget reform: Let's dump weird "set asides" and the Mayor's unfair pocket veto. See Prop A.
- Tax the rich: Progressive taxes ask the rich to pay a fair share, and take it easy on low & middle income folks.. & next November we've got a chance to pass new revenues.
- Options: Downtown transit impact fee: Muni carts loads of workers to downtown offices. Businesses there need to chip in.
-Carbon tax: On greenhouse gas emitters like power plants & gas guzzlers.
-Gross Receipts tax: Replace the payroll tax with a tax on companies' revenue. Massive corporations would pay more than small businesses, and hiring becomes cheaper - which might mean more jobs.
-Alcohol/marijuana/soda fees: We love sin-goodies too....but let's pay a tad more for these luxuries to fund public health.
Tax Tip - Our whole society is shaped by what we tax. General principle = tax what you want less of (like pollution and sucking up resources), and leave alone what you want more of (like small businesses and jobs).

P.S. Why Prop 13 Still Sucks:
A quick reminder of how 1978's Prop 13 crippled California's budget:
- It slashed property taxes by 60%
- It forces new home and business owners to pay scads more property tax than their older neighbors
- It requires a 2/3rd vote of the legislature to pass new taxes - which gives radical republicans veto power

Prop A - Switch to a Two-Year Budget Cycle

Endorsed Vote: Yes

Currently, the city crafts a new budget annually. If Prop A passes, then each year they'll budget for that year and sketch a rough draft for the following year. Plus it mandates a 5-year plan for the City's finances. Ho hum.

SF is skint for cash. Our cracked budget process makes things worse: some random city depts have guaranteed funding ('set-asides') while others have to fight for it each year. And after everyone's agreed on a budget, the Mayor can still hijack it, by refusing to disburse dough to programs he dislikes (we call it a "pocket veto"). Prop A doesn't fix any of that. Weak!

Still, Prop A seals up an unfair loophole. Currently, all the unions representing city employees have to settle their contracts before the budget battle begins, *except* Police & Firefighters, who can re-open negotiation in the middle of the process, to wield more power. Cockeyed playing field, we say. Prop A levels that out, which is reason enough to vote for it. The rest... we say "myeh."

Prop B - Remove Arbitrary Limit on Number of Supervisor's Aides

Endorsed Vote: Yes

Right now the city charter says each Supervisor gets two aides. Prop B deletes the limit. If if passes, Supervisors' staff will be chosen like the number of employees in every other city department: in the regular budget wrangle between the Mayor and the Supes. No other elected officials have their staff nailed down like that, and with only two, each aide 'represents' approx 30,000 people - yikes! Democracy suffers when officials' brains pan-fry from overwork. We say open it up.

Prop C - Sell the Naming Rights to Candlestick

Endorsed Vote: No

Candlestick Park? Monster Park? 3-Com Park? Prop C would let the City and the 49ers sell naming rights to the highest bidder, and split the money 50-50. It bites that this desperate clutch at cash is the only prop that would earn us revenue...and it's pocket change, enough to run the city for a few hours. Is that worth selling out? Will the 49ers even be here in 5 years? In 2004, 55% of SF voted to keep the name "Candlestick Park." We agree.

Prop D - Huge Digital Billboards on Mid-Market?

Endorsed Vote: No

Ah, finally, something on the ballot to be pissed about. This is some $traight $leaze that won't help Mid-Market at all. Prop D overrides an SF billboard ban (which passed with 79% of the vote) so property owners on Market between 5th and 7th can engorge their buildings with massive digital signs and keep pretty much all-a-the-dolla. This prop was bankrolled by...surprise, a Mid-Market property owner (David Addington) who'll make serious money off it. Prop D is chock-full of fakery about 'helping the area' and 'youth arts programs' but there's no public process for spending the money and no guarantee that any cash will reach the city...or any kids. The only guarantee? Lots of gaudy flashing signs sucking up lots of electricity. The League says *Hell* No!

Prop E - Ban New Advertising on City Property

Endorsed Vote: No Endorsement

Prop E would ban new ads on city property (to be precise, it makes-enforceable a ban we already voted for). Ads suck, and selling off our public space is a sure sign we don't have enough real and reliable revenue to run the city. On the other hand, this will kill the contract through which ads pay for our Muni shelters (about 1% of MUNI's budget). If this passes, the City will have to pony up a bit more for new bus shelters...which might mean less of them. Public transit is clutch for working class folk, the carless, & the environment. For us, this was too close to call.

City Attorney

Dennis Herrera

Endorsed Vote: No Endorsement

Dennis Herrera is running unopposed for re-election...and is going to run for Mayor in 2011. He's done some admirable things. His defense of our city's universal healthcare effort, Healthy SF, has been great. He threw himself into trying to overturn Prop 8. But he's pulled some serious BS on the underdogs of this city. He's issued several gang injunctions, heavy-handed 'tough on crime' policies which crush civil liberties and target youth of color. Plus he invalidated 33,000 signatures to put a proposition on the ballot about development in Bayview-Hunters Point, because the volunteer signature gatherers didn't lug around the 300-page legal text. We'll pass.

City Treasurer

Jose Cisneros

Endorsed Vote: No Endorsement

Jose Cisneros is also running for re-election unopposed. He's done well managing the City's money, and he's led a charge against check cashers and payday lenders preying on working class communities of color. So that's cool....but he and the League have never supported the same candidate in a contested local election. He's usually on the side of the more conservative, big money candidates, and that turns off enough of our members that we couldn't endorse him.

This guide uses the Dark City design by