San Francisco voters head to the polls Tuesday, November 5 to cast votes for four city offices. Only one of them is contested, and in that race, District 4 supervisor, the challenger has not mounted a serious campaign.
For city attorney, we enthusiastically recommend Dennis Herrera for another term. This time around, Herrera (and Treasurer Jose Cisneros) are running for truncated two-year terms because voters passed a ballot measure last year that will see all citywide elected officials appear on the same ballot in 2015.
Herrera has earned the respect of the LGBT community by his relentless pursuit of marriage equality through the courts. Whether defending former Mayor Gavin Newsom's 2004 directive that city officials issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples or joining respected attorneys Theodore Olson and David Boies in their successful challenge to Proposition 8, Herrera and his staff have been on the cutting edge working to secure marriage equality. While that has, at long last, been accomplished in California, Herrera told us in a recent editorial board meeting that his philosophy has remained the same: to use the power of the law to make a difference in people's lives.
That is evident in two recent issues Herrera has tackled: City College and patient dumping.
With regard to City College of San Francisco, Herrera's office recently filed a lawsuit against the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, alleging that the private agency unlawfully allowed its advocacy and political bias to prejudice its evaluation of college accreditation standards. This summer, the ACCJC said it would strip City College of its accreditation next July, a drastic step that would likely lead to the school's closure. Herrera's suit has merit. There have been reported instances of conflict of interest and other issues by the ACCJC that must be addressed. In the meantime, City College has appealed the commission's decision. The bottom line is that City College serves thousands of students, including a sizable LGBT population, and provides much-needed education options.
Patient dumping has emerged as a relatively new tactic whereby other states or jurisdictions send their mentally ill residents to San Francisco on a one-way bus ticket, with no resources. Earlier this year, Herrera filed a lawsuit against the state of Nevada, alleging it has engaged in the practice and seeking reimbursement for treatment of psychiatric patients. An investigation by Herrera's office identified 500 discharged patients transported to California since 2008.
The city is fortunate to have a public servant such as Herrera, whose office advises departments on legal matters. But it's San Francisco residents who also benefit from his leadership. The city attorney's office has long had a reputation for cutting-edge public interest work. Herrera is the latest official to continue that tradition.
Treasurer-Tax Collector
Jose Cisneros is the only out citywide elected official. But that's not why we're endorsing him for another term. Rather, as the city's treasurer and tax collector, Cisneros has done an excellent job as the chief investment officer, despite the economic dips in recent years. He manages a portfolio of about $6 billion but how that's invested is largely regulated by state law to avoid financial problems like Orange County's bankruptcy several years ago. Cisneros told us in our editorial board meeting that the $6 billion average daily balance is the highest it's ever been.
It's the other part of his job that will affect businesses starting next year as Cisneros and his staff roll out the tax changes that are the result of voters approving the city's change from collecting payroll taxes to gross receipt taxes. A gradual phase-in will see businesses shift to gross receipts in the coming years, culminating in 2018. It is a more complicated system than payroll taxes, with eight different categories with unique tax rates. Additionally, Cisneros is hoping to see an increase in the number of businesses paying taxes. Currently, he said, the city has about 90,000 businesses registered but only 7,000-8,000 of them pay the payroll tax because of where the threshold is set, at about $260,000 of annual payroll. It is likely that will change under the new system and it could be that 20,000 businesses will be required to submit gross receipt taxes, he said.
For consumers, Cisneros has also been proactive in helping them keep more of their money. Several years ago he launched Bank on San Francisco, whereby people who were unbanked (didn't have checking accounts) were able to open them without fees. He told us about a new initiative he has to reach out to employers to get them to use direct deposit for their employees' pay. The estimated 20 percent of workers who are not on direct deposit are unbanked and they often end up spending money on high fees at check cashing establishments. Debit cards for payroll can also be problematic, he said, because of the "horrible" fees associated with them. Prepaid payroll cards could be an alternative, he said, as long as people can withdraw the money without a fee.
The city, in partnership with Citibank, has also started a college savings program where every student entering kindergarten is given an account with $50 in it. The city raised private funds to offer cash incentives for the program, and it looks like the program is paying off, with 12 percent of families already saving for their children's college education.
The city's finances are in very capable hands, and Cisneros is deserving of another term.
Assessor-Recorder
New Assessor-Recorder Carmen Chu is running to complete the term of Phil Ting, who was elected to the state Assembly last year. In her first several months on the job, Chu has proven to be a good fit for the office and we endorse her for election.
On the assessor side, Chu has been working to reduce the backlog of assessment appeals, of which now there are about 5,000. The job requires coordination with other city departments. If a hearing isn't held within two years, the assessment reverts back to the lower amount for the property owner, she explained.
Chu has also taken steps to improve the department's website so that it is more user-friendly.
On the recorder side, most people come into her office for copies of their marriage licenses. And Chu was up to the task of getting things organized so that when same-sex marriages resumed in late June, her office was able to handle the crush of weddings. About 500 couples were married that Pride weekend, and the assessor's office was one of several that stayed open to accommodate people.
Mayor Ed Lee's appointment of Chu was a solid pick and she should finish out Ting's term.
District 4 Supervisor
When the mayor named Chu assessor-recorder he also got to pick her replacement on the Board of Supervisors. He didn't have to look far, though, as he selected Chu's longtime legislative aide, Katy Tang. She is running to complete Chu's term on the board and we believe District 4 residents got a representative who is from the district and has hit the ground running.
Tang, who grew up in the Sunset, has spent a lot of time on issues related to Muni. The switch-backs are a problem in the district and Tang pointed out they are a symptom of bigger problems at Muni. The Municipal Transportation Agency has taken several steps to procure parts more quickly and to develop a better inventory of them to help hasten repairs.
She is also concerned about the Golden Gate National Recreation Area's proposal to eliminate vast stretches of land from use by dogs, noting that the plan to "take away 90 percent of the space" is "very troubling." The beach area in her district is impacted, but Tang noted that San Francisco is an urban area and that space is needed for dogs and their owners.
All in all, Tang is in tune with her district but also has an eye to regional issues that will serve her constituents well. We endorse her for election.
San Francisco ballot measures
Proposition A: Retiree Health Care Trust Fund. YES
Currently, city employee retirement health care costs are paid out of the general fund as they come due. This is no more than a "promise to pay," a promise which many municipalities around the country have defaulted on in recent hard times. Prop A creates a type of lockbox that sets aside adequate funding to insure that promises are kept and prohibits the city from raiding the fund for uses other than retiree health costs. All retirement plans should be structured this way to prevent default. Prop A will also allow the city to eliminate a $4.4 billion liability already incurred for retiree benefits over about 30 years.
Propositions B and C: 8 Washington. YES on B and YES on C
We analyzed in depth these companion propositions in last week's Bay Area Reporter and refer our readers to the link to that editorial (http://tinyurl.com/mrbuyhc). Essentially, the Port of San Francisco and the city would like to develop the one remaining parcel along the Embarcadero that has not been renovated following the dismantling of the Embarcadero Freeway after the 1989 earthquake. It currently serves no public use and is surrounded by a 12-14 foot high fence. This plan will open up more than 50 percent of the space for public parks, walkways, bike paths, cafes with outdoor seating, as well as open up access directly to the Embarcadero on Jackson Street and improve access along Pacific Avenue. It will be a beautiful public space to be enjoyed by everyone who walks or bikes along the waterfront.
To fund these public improvements and amenities, two condominium buildings will be constructed creating 134 new market rate housing units. The building that sits at the back of the lot, on Drumm Street, will exceed current height limits of 84 feet up to 136 feet, stepping down to 92 feet. The Golden Gate Commons condo building that already sits directly across Drumm Street is higher, at 200 feet. This will create a step down effect and the building to be built closest to the Embarcadero will be under existing height limits at 70 feet, stepping down to 54 feet, further creating a tiered down effect that will blend a dynamic city to the west with the flow of the Embarcadero and the waterfront to the east. In exchange for these development rights, expected revenues to the city are considerable, according to the City Controller, with $11 million to fund affordable housing and approximately $4.8 million to fund transit improvements. The Port would receive approximately $3 million from the sale of its lot. Over the long term, the controller estimates that tax revenues, added property value and infrastructure improvements accruing to the city and the Port would be more than $350 million.
Any development along the Embarcadero or near the waterfront deserves close scrutiny. The Bay Area Reporter editorial board has spent many hours analyzing both sides. We feel satisfied that this project is good for the waterfront and good for San Francisco. We recommend a yes vote on both Propositions B and C.
Proposition D: Prescription Drug Purchasing. NO
On its face, Proposition D seems like a no-brainer. Who wouldn't be for cheaper prescription drugs? But the more we examined this measure the more we questioned its necessity. While Prop D would declare it official city policy to negotiate directly with drug manufacturers for the best price for city institutions like San Francisco General Hospital, Laguna Honda Hospital, and the jails, the city already does just that. Current law authorizes the health department to use outside companies to negotiate in order to ensure that the city gets the lowest prices possible.
What Prop D is really about is the power of one AIDS organization, the Los Angeles-based AIDS Healthcare Foundation, and its war with HIV/AIDS drug companies, in particular Gilead Sciences, which makes one of the most expensive medications available, Stribild, at a cost of $28,500 per patient, per year. AHF has held demonstrations outside Gilead offices, and is regularly taking the company to task for its pricing. That's not a bad thing �" all drug companies should do more to lower costs. And in the case of HIV/AIDS medications, most drug companies have some sort of discounted pricing so that low-income patients can get the medication. Is that enough? No. Will Prop D do anything to change that? No.
AHF officials who met with us stressed that they want price controls to be debated and discussed. That's a good thing. Unfortunately, Prop D does nothing to move that conversation forward. They're counting on liberal San Francisco voters and politicians to support a policy advisory in the hopes that other municipalities might join in.
But the clincher for us was AHF's acknowledgment that no San Francisco-based HIV/AIDS service organization has signed on in support of Prop D. Not a single one. With the numerous HIV/AIDS nonprofits that serve thousands of clients operating in the city, you would think that they would line up behind Prop D. They have not. When we asked a couple of organizations why, the responses were telling. It turns out that some of them work with the Fair Pricing Coalition and the AIDS Drug Assistance Program Crisis Work Group, two entities that have been doing the "heavy lifting," in the words of Project Inform's Dana Van Gorder, for many years. His agency sees Prop D as largely symbolic because of the very small amount of drug purchasing done by the city. Other HIV/AIDS leaders said they didn't know enough about the city's contracting process to determine if Prop D was viable public policy. Health Director Barbara Garcia was lauded for her leadership on the issue.
Yes, AHF has a presence in San Francisco and provides needed HIV treatment and prevention services. But spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a ballot measure in a go-it-alone approach is not in the best public policy. And while AHF told us that the campaign money was not coming from client services, it's fair to say that the funds could have been used for something more important than a symbolic ballot measure.
Prop D is bad medicine. Vote no.