Sasha’s March 2020 SF Voter Guide
Hey, guess what! It’s another election, not even 4 months since the last one (for those of us in San Francisco, anyway).
In presidential years, California now strives to be relevant to the nomination by moving our primary up from June to early March. So here we are!
San Francisco Ballot Measures
Proposition A — City College Bond: Yes. This is a huge-ass bond. City College, however, is one of the most democratic institutions in San Francisco, and is suffering from years of neglect.
Proposition B — Earthquake Safety Bond: Yes. This is another huge bond. I have some concerns about the way this one is written, as it’s pretty vague about how much money goes to what, but I’m assured the bulk of this bond will go to fixing and modernizing the city’s high-pressure emergency water system, and not to gold-plating fire stations and the like.
Proposition C — Retirement Benefits: Yes. Why do we keep having these barely comprehensible retirement benefits measures, you ask. Because retirement benefits for city employees are in the city charter. Why are retirement benefits in the city charter, you ask. Beats the hell out of me. Anyway, the San Francisco Housing Authority (which runs the city’s public housing) used to be an independent body. For various reasons (mostly cause it was generally incompetently and corruptly run)it’s being merged into city government, which is on balance a good thing. This measure would give the staff of the SFHA who are now City employees credit for their time at the SFHA when determining their retirement healthcare benefits. Seems only fair.
Proposition D — Vacancy Tax: Yes. The huge number of vacant commercial spaces in San Francisco saps the vitality of many of our neighborhoods. At least part of the reason for that is landlords expecting unreasonable rents. This measure will incentivize them to work with businesses or nonprofits to fill their spaces.
Proposition E— Limits on Office Development: No. This is actually the hardest item on the ballot for me. I’m entirely sympathetic with the notion that one of the biggest drivers of San Francisco’s housing crisis is the relentless building of office space, and this is an effort to tie new office space to new affordable housing. I am, further, amused that many of the very same YIMBY types who squawk “supply and demand!” and point to badly-scrawled line charts they vaguely remember from freshman Econ whenever anyone questions the advisability of building more luxury housing are opposing this effort to attack supply and demand from the demand side. However, I’m also of the opinion that ballot box planning isn’t generally a good idea, and this is certainly that. In addition, this is a local effort to address a regional issue, and will very possibly drive office development to Oakland, Burlingame, or San Leandro, while not reducing demand for housing overall in the region. I went back and forth on this one a few times, but overall I think it’s likely to be ineffective.
California Ballot Measure
Prop 13 — School bonds: Yes. It’s super weird that there’s only one state measure on the ballot, and it’s a relatively uncontroversial one. I wish it didn't set aside half a billion for charter schools, but that’s only about 3% of the total, so I can live with it.
San Francisco Candidates
State Senate: Fielder. Look, Scott Wiener’s gonna win this. His supporters are very passionate, and as an incumbent he has a big advantage. I have really mixed feelings about him, and admire some of the things he’s done. However, he often fails to do the work to build the coalition he needs to achieve his goals. Reforming California’s land use laws is crucial, necessary work. Doing it without the full participation of the communities most vulnerable to the dislocation inevitable to that reform deservedly sets your efforts up for failure. Jackie Fielder is a relatively new face to San Francisco’s political scene. She’s Native American and has been a force in the movement to establish a public bank in San Francisco, which I believe will be one of those advances — like guaranteed sick leave — that seems radical when we do it in San Francisco and 3 years later is common across the country. While I don’t expect her to win this, I’m excited to see more from her over the next few years.
Assembly 17: Chiu.
Assembly 19: Ting.
Congress 12: Buttar. Clearly, Nancy Pelosi’s gonna win this race. And, honestly, compared to many of the Speakers of the House we could have right now she’s far from the worst. Still, she may be a good speaker, but she’s not a very good representative of San Francisco. Buttar’s the most credible challenger, and while he won’t win, reminding Pelosi that she’s in Congress to represent San Francisco isn’t a bad thing.
Congress 14: Speier.
Judge Seat 1: Evangelista.
Judge Seat 18: Tong.
Judge Seat 21: Gold. I think you could go either way on this one. I tend toward Gold since she’s been an eviction defense lawyer, but Singh has plenty of relevant experience as well.
President: Warren. Inequality is the biggest issue facing the US today, and I believe Warren is the best equipped to address that. Honestly, overall, Sanders’s positions on most issues are closest to mine (particularly on foreign policy), and I would not be at all disappointed were he to be the nominee, but I believe that Warren has the deeper knowledge about the most important issues specifically. We are incredibly fortunate at this time of crisis to have two leading candidates committed to substantially reorganizing our political and economic systems. Either one of them would be an excellent candidate, and I believe they are the two most likely to be able to beat Trump, as well.