Ballot measure endorsements

City propositions

Proposition A: School Improvement Bonds: YES

We support investment in education. Prop A provides $450 million in city General Obligation bonds plus $30 million in federal matching funds for needed physical plant improvements and program expansion (such as arts education) for 64 public schools in San Francisco.

Proposition B: Parental Leave and Teleconferencing for Public Officials: YES

This would authorize parental leave and permit participation and voting by teleconferencing for public boards and commissions (including the Board of Supervisors) when a member is not able to be present physically. This will move local government into the modern world where the private sector has long had these reforms. 

Proposition C: Setting Salaries of Certain Elected Officials: YES

Salaries of the seven elected officials (mayor, city attorney, district attorney, sheriff, treasurer, assessor-recorder, and public defender) should be set every five years by a formula that averages salaries of similar positions in the surrounding counties. This will have a modest financial impact and seems to us only fair in one of the most expensive cities in the country.

Proposition D: Nondisclosure of Private Information: YES

While we would have preferred open hearings and public debate to thrash out all the ramifications of this ordinance, we support the effort to protect privacy and prevent identity theft. 

Proposition E: Parking Tax: NO

San Francisco already has the highest parking tax in the nation, higher than Manhattan. This will affect working people, discourage visitors and shoppers from coming to the city, and hurt small businesses that make our communities vibrant; worse, it contains no guarantees that money raised will be used for needed services, like Muni. 

Proposition F: Paid Sick Leave: No Recommendation

While we support the fact that San Francisco has taken the lead on such important issues as higher minimum wage and universal health care, this proposition does not appear to have been subjected to a very thorough analysis. It attempts to circumvent legitimately negotiated labor agreements involving many building trade unions, and we think that is a bad idea. We would have preferred that the Board of Supervisors do what they are paid to do, which is to hold public hearings and craft appropriate legislation after input from all the stakeholders rather than passing off this important issue to the voters. 

Proposition G: Conditional Use for Formula Retail: NO

This citywide ban on all chain retail operations without going through a long and complicated administrative process is bad for small business, bad for the neighborhoods, and bad for the residents. Requiring conditional use authorization for chain retail business should be decided neighborhood-by-neighborhood based on the unique needs of each neighborhood and the wishes of the people who live in the neighborhood, like it is now. Again, our elected supervisors are passing the buck to the voters when this complex issue should go through the normal legislative process with public hearings and neighborhood input.  

Proposition H: Relocation Benefits for No Fault Tenant Removal: YES

This proposition increases the amount of already existing relocation benefits and expands the number of situations that are covered when tenants are evicted through no fault of their own. This will help maintain the city's diverse mix of residents. 

Proposition I: Mayor's Appearance at Board of Supervisor's Meetings: NO

Anyone familiar with some European parliaments' "question time" of government leaders has seen the boos, catcalls, and totally irrelevant and irreverent blather that goes on. We don't need that in San Francisco. Let our mayor do the job we elected him to do rather than requiring him to participate in political theater intended only to massage the egos of frustrated members of the Board of Supervisors.  

Proposition J: Impeachment of Bush and Cheney: YES

Aren't the reasons obvious?

Proposition K: Senior Housing Declaration of Policy: YES

This nonbinding statement of policy recognizes the particular difficulties of seniors and disabled in securing and maintaining housing in San Francisco. We would have preferred that its language was broad enough to cover all disadvantaged communities, but this is a start.  

State ballot measures

Prop 1A: Transportation Funding Protection: YES

This state constitutional amendment would prevent the diverting of taxes already raised from sales tax of fuels to uses other than those originally intended, e.g. transportation and transit projects. This closes a loophole.

Prop 1B: State Transportation and Infrastructure Bonds: YES

This $19.9 billion bond designated for highway and street repair and reconstruction, traffic congestion improvements, port goods movement and security, mass-transit projects, traffic safety, and air-quality programs is a necessary infrastructure expenditure. 

Prop 1C: Housing and Emergency Shelter Bonds: YES

This $2.85 billion general obligation bond will enable the city to continue many of its successful housing programs. While there is much more to do, this bond is a practical amount for the state to invest in housing statewide and past experience has shown that the city has been very successful in obtaining more than its fair share. This bond is a practical amount to invest toward the critically important goal of increasing San Francisco's – and the state's – supply of affordable housing.

Prop 1D: State Education Bonds: YES

This proposition authorizes the state to sell $10.4 billion in bonds to build and repair public school facilities. This money is essential to continue providing substantial funding to our state's public schools.

Prop 1E: Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Act of 2006: YES

This authorizes the state to sell $4.1 billion in bonds for flood control projects. It is another necessary infrastructure measure.

Prop 83: Increased Penalties for Sex Offenders; Residency Restrictions and Monitoring: NO

This is another politically motivated "tough on crime" initiative that sounds good but is full of opportunity for abuse. Its breadth extends to the type of non-violent, consensual sexual conduct, such as public bathroom busts, that historically have been used to brand gays as criminals. The current laws on the books are adequate to protect the public from real sexual predators.

Prop 84: Clean Water, Parks and Coastal Protection: YES

This is a state bond authorizing the issuance of nearly $5.4 billion in general-obligation bonds to fund programs and the construction of improvements for a diverse array of natural resource areas throughout the state, including safe drinking water supply, flood control, and the protection and preservation of parks, forests, lakes, rivers, beaches, bays and ocean coastline. This is an important cause and an important part of the broader package of infrastructure bonds.

Prop 85: Waiting Period and Parental Notification before Termination of Minor's Pregnancy: NO

This is just another attempt by the fundamentalist right to chip away at a woman's right to choose.

Prop 86: Cigarette Tax: YES

This $2.60 tax on each pack of cigarettes sold in California will reduce smoking considerably and have a major impact on preventing kids from starting to smoke. This will save lives. Money raised from the tax will go to reimburse costs incurred in hospital emergency rooms where most homeless and low-income people end up for what little health care they get. Other funding will be provided for anti-smoking programs and to fund medical school loans for physicians who choose to serve low-income areas that lack physicians.

Prop 87: Alternative Energy, Research, Production Incentives; Tax on Oil Production: YES

This is a tax to be imposed on oil companies for oil production in California to raise $4 billion to fund alternative energy programs over time. Other states with large oil production such as Texas, Louisiana, and Alaska all impose "drilling fees," but California does not. The proposed law makes it illegal to pass this tax on to the consumer. Big Oil should pay its fair share. 

Prop 88: Education Funding: Real Property Parcel Tax: NO

We don't see anything in this bureaucratic, top heavy, statewide parcel tax proposal that would really aid California's school kids. Existing law expressing voter sentiment on education funding (like Prop 98) should be implemented fully and given a chance to work before embarking on a slippery scheme such as this that could lead to a new statewide parcel tax for every pet project. 

Prop 89: Public Financing of State Political Campaigns; Corporate Tax Increase; Contribution and Expenditure Limits: YES

The influence of special interests in political campaigns, particularly ballot propositions, has gotten completely out of control. The initiative process, originally intended to empower the voters when our elected officials would not act, has become completely perverted. It is time for the voters to impose reasonable campaign contribution and expenditure limits and to adopt public financing of campaigns.

Prop 90: Government Acquisition and Regulation of Private Property: NO

This measure would be disastrous for all levels of government in California. Not only would it require massive payments to continue basic planning functions in cities, but it also would wreak havoc on our state's environmental laws and attempts to control sprawl throughout agricultural and environmentally sensitive areas.