As we noted in this post a few weeks ago, we won’t be endorsing a mayoral candidate, nor any other people in the upcoming election. Instead, we’ll give you our short appraisals of each city proposition on the ballot — which includes perhaps the most important decision for Bay Area voters in years — and how we plan to vote. Without further ado …
Regional Measure 3: Bay Area “Traffic Relief Plan” Bridge Toll Increase
This is the most important item on the ballot and perhaps for years to come, with more lasting consequences than our choice for the next mayor. Nine Bay Area counties will vote, and it must pass with a simple majority. A $3 bump in Bay Area bridge tolls, save for the Golden Gate Bridge, would be spread over seven years to pay for a rich menu of regional transportation projects, including several San Francisco-specific efforts: new Muni vehicles and facilities; the Caltrain extension to the Transbay Transit Center; expanded ferry service, new BART trains, and much more. (Too bad it won’t pay for a whole new BART.)
The estimated $4.45 billion in toll money seems like a drop in the bucket and obviously won’t bring all these projects to fruition. But until the personal teleportation networks kick in, this is how infrastructure is done around here. (Forward-thinking plans, let alone money, clearly aren’t coming from the federal government anytime soon.) So if you’re sick of traffic and congestion, you have to be serious about supporting solutions. RM3 makes the list of needs clear, and it promises enough oversight of the spending to make us comfortable.
It would be great to snap our fingers, provide more housing near major job centers, and end the plight of the supercommuter. But places like Cupertino and Palo Alto aren’t going that way without a fight. So while that battle rages, let’s start getting the infrastructure right. The Frisc is a big yes for RM3.
The city’s Public Utilities Commission is in charge of our sewer and water systems, and it doesn’t need a ballot measure to issue bonds to pay for improvements. It does need public permission, however, to issue bonds to upgrade systems it runs to provide electricity to city schools, police and fire stations, and more. Prop A would relieve the PUC of this extra layer each time. (The Board of Supervisors would still have to give two-thirds approval.) It would also forbid those new funds to go toward fossil fuels and nuclear energy. Opponents of Prop A say it would usurp the public’s power to say no. On a case-by-case basis, that’s true. But the supervisors will still have a vote. If you don’t like the way they vote, you can let them know, and let everyone else know too. Yes on A.
You know those parking commissioners whose headshots are often posted next to the payboxes in every city garage? Prop B is for meant for them, and for all the other appointed board and commission members across the city who use their seats to prepare a run at elected office. Under Prop B they would have to resign as soon as they declare a candidacy. Prop B would not apply to an elected official — say, a city supervisor — running for another office.
There could be some palace intrigue at play here. The measure was supported by seven progressive supes and opposed by four moderates, including London Breed, who used two commission seats (Fire, Redevelopment Agency) as a platform for her first run for supervisor. Hidden agendas or not, it’s sensible and ethical. The Frisc says yes on B.
Proposition C: San Francisco Commercial Rent Tax for Childcare and Early Education
Proposition D: San Francisco Commercial Rent Tax for Housing and Homelessness Services
Let’s take these together, because their fates are tied. Unfortunately, Propositions C and D make up a zero-sum game, a reflection of the current divisiveness in City Hall and the city as a whole. People will say the rent is too damn high, but they’ll freak out over a third or fourth story added to a building on their block. People will say Muni is too slow and crowded but will fight improvements tooth and nail. While both C and D have worthy goals, they are in competition: They go after the same revenue source, so only one can prevail.
Further complicating matters, each has a different threshold for victory. Prop C, supported by mayoral candidate Sup. Jane Kim and Sup. Norman Yee, collected enough signatures from the public to go before voters, and so needs but 50 percent plus one vote to win. Prop D, supported by Sup. London Breed, was sponsored by city supervisors, so it requires a supermajority of two-thirds of the vote. Argh!
What kind of dystopia pits kids and key early schooling against the crisis of housing scarcity and homelessness? Our toxic political culture is forcing voters to make a cruel choice. Well, then: According to Maslow’s hierarchy, shelter comes first. Secure housing isn’t just essential for all of us but fundamental to healthy childhood development. We’re voting no on C, but we’ll be helping at our neighborhood school — whether it’s tutoring, fundraising, or volunteering. Then we’re voting yes on D.
Proposition E: San Francisco Ban on the Sale of Flavored Tobacco
The libertarian corner of our brain is screaming that this is an overreach. Have we banned other fruit- and candy-flavored adult products (ahem) to keep them out of kids’ hands? No, we haven’t, to the chagrin of every teenager who has retched all night after chugging peach schnapps. If current laws aren’t working, let’s boost the penalties for selling booze and tobacco to minors.
Unfortunately, the campaign against Prop E is paid for by R.J. Reynolds, the tobacco company that really wants to help young people (but not too young!) start their own personal tobacco journeys. No on E has raised $16 million and is running ads that cynically equate a ban on flavored tobacco to the prohibitions on alcohol and hard drugs. And what did those prohibitions get us, asks the Sam Elliott-type announcer, as if he’s having a chat and a beer with the Dude? Why, nothing but gangs, violence, racist incarceration rates, and more!
Sorry, libertarian brain. An even larger corner of our brain is screaming, “Fuck you, R.J. Reynolds, and your fake concern for society,” so we’ll probably vote for E to spite the self-righteous vice peddlers. If local corner stores can’t adjust to the loss of flavored tobacco revenue, they’ve got bigger problems to solve.
Proposition F: San Francisco City-Funded Legal Representation for Tenants Facing Eviction
The city already spends $4.4 million a year on legal help for tenants facing eviction. Prop F would double that figure, at least, according to the city controller. Some of that money might go toward the defense of those who don’t deserve it, but more likely the extra cash gives the wrongfully evicted a real shot at staying in their homes, which means keeping people off the streets with less stress on city services. That might even save the city some money, but the controller isn’t pushing that analysis too strongly. No matter. We can afford a few million dollars more to help fight landlords who aren’t playing by the rules. Yes on F.
Proposition G: San Francisco Unified School District Parcel Tax
Just as it needs critical infrastructure, parks, and libraries to thrive, a city needs to attract and keep good public-school teachers. Ours are underpaid compared with their regional peers. No-brainer. Yes on G.
Proposition H: San Francisco Tasers for Police Officers
This is an, er, loaded issue that’s outside most voters’ general expertise, and you can understand why local politicians punted on it. You want police to have the tools to provide for public safety, but you don’t want the heightened potential for lethal violence. Yet Tasers can be lethal. Tasers are being misused, with law enforcement going through a crisis of credibility in our communities.
A main thrust of the arguments against H center on language. Current SFPD policy, only a few months old, allows Taser use against violently resistant people. Prop H would change it to the more vague, “actively” resistant. Such granularity underscores our feeling that this matter, like many others put to a ballot-measure vote, would be better served through legislative debate. Turns out we’re not alone.
It’s not the public’s job to to give the cops the benefit of the doubt. Legislators are elected to make hard decisions and to be held accountable for them. Be sure to give your supervisor an earful about this. The Frisc is a hard no on H.
Proposition I: San Francisco Local Policy Discouraging the Relocation of Established Sports Teams
This is a nonbinding proposition for people who feel guilty that SF stole the Warriors from Oakland. We were never fans of the move, but have never been able to afford tickets anyway, so rooting from across the bay for a beloved Oakland team made sense. (For the record, we’re stealing them back. San Francisco was the Dubs’ first West Coast home after moving from Philadelphia in 1962.) But is San Francisco now looking to lure the San Jose Sharks? The Las Vegas Raiders? Are there secret plans to let radioactive Jed York build a stadium in the Hunters Point Shipyard for his Santa Clara 49ers? What exactly is the point here? The Frisc is voting no.
