Saskia and I have been doing a slate card almost every election for almost 10 years. Unfortunately, Saskia’s now living on the other coast, so it’s all up to me..

Supervisor:
District 9: Eric Quezada. I’ve known Eric for almost 20 years, but that’s not why you should vote for him. You should vote for Eric because he has a long history of work in District 9, building and running affordable housing and getting the tenants to work together with their neighbors to make their communities safer. Or, you could vote for Eric because he’s an expert on land use and planning, which is a huge part of the supervisors’ job. Or, you could vote for Eric because he’s helped get rid of lead paint in old housing stock and helped reclaim the land for Ninos Unidos Park.

I am voting for Eric for all those reasons, but also for these:
1) When Eric and I have disagreed, he’s always been willing to sit down and talk about our disagreements and listen to my opinions. Even when we ended up on different sides of an issue, he’s never let that interfere with working with me on other issues. He doesn’t hold grudges, and he’s always respectful, even of people with whom he disagrees.

2) When the dot com boom began to transform the Mission, Eric helped form the Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition. He could have stopped by just getting neighborhood non-profits together, and pushed a narrow nationalist or racial line. Instead, he reached out to artists, sympathetic professionals, business owners, and other people who didn’t fit the simplistic view of who was going to suffer from the Mission’s demise.

#2: Mark Sanchez.
#3: David Campos.

District 1: Eric Mar. I’ve known Eric for a few years, and although I don’t agree with him on everything, I think he’s an upstanding guy who’s good on the issues and deals honestly with people.
District 3: Denise McCarthy (1), David Chiu (2), Tony Gantner(3)
District 4: Whoever
District 5: Mirkarimi
District 7: None
District 11: John Avalos. John is Chris Daly’s former aide, and for all Chris’s reputation as a crazy person, he’s actually been by far the most productive supervisor over the last 8 years in terms of legislation passed. I think John can take much of the credit for that.

State Propositions:

1a-High speed rail: yes. It’s time to get serious about public transportation, and this proposition is exactly the kind of public works projects we’re gonna need in the upcoming tough economic times.
2-Be nice to Animals: yes
3-Children’s Hospitals: Reluctant yes. I am in favor of hospitals, but I find it somewhat cynical that this proposition focuses on children’s hospitals rather than all the hospitals that need it most (Cue Simpsons: “Who will think of the children?”). It also makes me a little uncomfortable that some of this money will be going to privately-owned hospitals.
4-Parental Notification and Waiting Period: Hell no. We’ve defeated this twice already in the last 2 years. All women have the right to choose, whether they’re 18 or not.
5-Drug Treatment: YES. California spends more on prisons than on higher education. Many of the people stuck in the prisons are there for non-violent drug crimes. These folks need treatment most of all, not another 5-10 years in prison. This will save money, but more important, will save lives.
6-”Victim’s rights”: NO. This is another “get tough on crime” measure, which will basically result in more people in prison for longer, more spending on prisons, and–the reason it’s on the ballot–more spending on prison guards’ salaries.
7-Renewable-energy generation: no. 7 and 10 are “alternative energy” props which are both actually pretty bad. They sound good, but they both end up being boondoggles for one group or another without actually increasing alternative energy use.
8-Deny gays and lesbians the right to marriage: NO!! Duh.
9-Limitations on Parole: NO. Yet another “tough on crime” measure which won’t reduce crime, merely mean more spending on prisons.
10-Make T. Boone Pickens Richer: No. See Prop 7.
11-Redistricting reform: No. This is a tough one. It seems sensible, and it’s true that our state government is screwed up (to put it kindly). However, it doesn’t actually address the number 1 issue crippling California government, which is the 2/3 budget approval requirement. The likely effect of this proposition will be slightly more competitive state legislative elections and an equally hamstrung state government.
12-Veterans’ Bonds: sure.

*

State:
A-General Hospital Bonds: Yes. State law requires we rebuild SF General Hospital. It’s a vital healthcare lifeline for San Franciscans and the only trauma center closer than Palo Alto.
B-Affordable Housing set-aside: Yes. There’s no more important issue in San Francisco than affordable housing. Families making less that 100,000 a year can’t afford housing in SF, which is ridiculous. Although I hate budget set-asides, this proposition has become necessary because the Supervisors appropriated 20-some million last year for affordable housing, and the Mayor refused to spend the money.
C-Prohibit city employees from sitting on city boards and commissions: No.
D-Pier 70 bonds. Yes.
E-Recall Reform. Yes. Recall campaigns have become a form of political payback, rather than a way to remove corrupt officials. This measure would reduce their effectiveness as harassment, while still allowing them to be used to remove the criminally venal.
F-Citywide office elections in even-numbered years. Yes. The people who were involved in moving the elections for citywide officials (Mayor, City Attorney, Public Defender, District Attorney) tell me that having the election in off-years was intended to increase coverage of these races. Unfortunately, what ends up happening is that we have to have elections every year. Off-year elections end up being even harder to educate voters and raise turnout. In addition, with a small amount of money, special interests can get sneaky propositions on the ballot which would never pass on regular election years, but have a better chance of passing in off-years.
G-Retirement Credit for unpaid parental leave. Yes. There is one incomprehensible city employee retirement proposition on every ballot. Some of them, I think, are somewhat sketchy, but this one merely gives employees who took time off to care for their families more than five years ago the same retirement credit that employees who take time off now get.
H-Renewable Energy/Public Power: Yes. The campaign against Prop H has been deceptive, misleading and very, very, expensive. PG & E will end up spending $10 million against it, including many mailers and even secretly paying bloggers to be sock puppets. The charge that seems to be sticking is that it will give the Board of Supervisors the power to unilaterally issue bonds to buy up the city’s power infrastructure. In fact, Prop H would not give the Supervisors anhy more power to issue electricity bonds than they already have to issue water or sewer bonds. In all these cases, any bonds need to be approved by the Mayor as well as the Supes. In addition, they can only be revenue bonds, so if the market doesn’t think the bonds will be repayable, no one will buy them.
I-Independent Ratepayer Advocate: No. Ironically, this is one of the provisions of Prop H. However, by itself it will do nothing.
J-Historic Preservation Commission: Yes. I have some issues with this one, but it’s apparently the result of a whole lot of negotiation and collaboration among the people involved in development and preservation. So, fine.
K-Make enforcement of prostitution lowest priority: Yes. This is the single hardest proposition on the ballot for me. I think there are legitimate concerns that decriminalizing prostitution (or making enforcement of solicitation laws the lowest priority for the police, which is what Prop K would do) will have unintended consequences. I worry that it has the potential to make San Francisco a sex tourism destination. Much of the criticism of the measure, however, has been based on the (I think mistaken) position that it would make sex-trafficking prosecution harder or reduce funding for rehabilitation and other services. Neither of those things seems be true, according to the advocates I trust. What tips the scales for me is the support of St. James Infirmary, which provides health care and advocacy to sex workers. Their position is here: http://stjamesinfirmary.org/?p=44 .
L-Community Justice Center: No. The Supervisors already voted to fund the Community Justice Center.
M-Tenant Harassment: Yes. This would define harassing behavior and provide some recourse short of criminal proceedings for tenants who have been harassed.
N-Real Estate Transfer Tax: Yes. This would apply to properties over $5million, and bring some badly-needed revenue for the city.
O-911 funding: Yes.
P-Transportation Authority. No. It’s a mayoral power grab.
Q-Payroll tax reform: Yes. There’s no reason why lawyers and architects should be exempt from the payroll tax that other business have to pay. This would also raise the exemption to protect truly small businesses.
R-George Bush Sewer Plant. No (I think it’s an insult to shit).
S-Set Asides: No. Limiting set-asides isn’t a bad idea, but insisting on raising new revenue, rather than raising revenue or cutting other costs, is a mistake. Plus, this is on the ballot as a political maneuver to counter Prop B, not as a sincere attempt to limit set-asides.
T-Treatment on Demand: Yes.
U-Defunding the Iraq War: Sure. Not gonna do much, but can’t hurt.
V-JROTC: No. I think the way the school board acted to get rid of JROTC was pretty screwed up. It’s a popular program, and if they wanted to get rid of it, they should have come up with alternative programs to replace it. That said, I don’t think it should be city policy to have JROTC, which is what this proposition proposes.

BART:
Tom Radulovich.

School Board:
Sandra Fewer, Norman Yee, Bobbi Lopez.

Sandra Fewer has been a revelation for me this year. I’d never heard of her before this year, but I’ve heard her speak a few times and she’s impressed me every time. She’s a parent and an effective advocate for students, from what I can tell, and she seems like she’ll be a great school board member. I had a similar experience with Norman Yee four years ago, and I think that he’s someone who’s proven his effectiveness. I haven’t agreed with every position he’s taken (he joked at one point that he should change his middle name to “swing vote”), but he’s served with integrity and honor. I’ve been impressed with Bobbi Lopez the times I’ve met her, and I think she’ll be a positive force on the Board. Especially if you think part of the School Board’s role is to encourage new leadership, she’s a good choice.

There’s a fourth seat open on the Board as well. I haven’t found a fourth person that I am comfortable recommending. Various people and organizations I respect endorse either Kimberly Wicoff, Rachel Norton or Jill Wynns, but I don’t know that I can choose one.

Community College Board:
Chris Jackson, Bruce Wolfe

City College is one of the lynchpins of San Francisco’s educational system. Lately, it’s run into some pretty serious problems, including diverting college funds to political campaigns. Because of that, I have a pretty strong reform tendency on these endorsements.

I’ve known Bruce for a couple years, and worked with him on community wi-fi stuff. He’s not always the easiest person to work with, but he’s deeply dedicated to what he does, and he cares strongly about City College.

Chris is a young guy who seems to have a pretty sincere concern for the college as well. His emphases are on working to reach out to communities who might not feel they have a chance to even go to City, as well as streamlining the financial aid procedure.

There’s a third open seat as well. Milton Marks seems to be the consensus choice.

Assembly: Tom Ammiano
Senate: Mark Leno
Congress: Pelosi, unless you feel a really strong need to send a protest vote, in which case feel free to vote for Cindy Sheehan.