[SFGP] Greenzine: Eviction Party Feb 28, Green Voter Guide to March 2024

[Announcement list for SF Green Party, updated weekly]

February 24, 2024
GREENZINE
SF Green Party Weekly News and Events

www.sfgreenparty.org
twitter.com/sfgreenparty
instagram.com/sfgreenparty
mastodon.sfgreens.org/@sfgreenparty
www.facebook.com/groups/SFGreenParty/

Dear Greens,

    After 10 years of meeting at the historic Redstone Labor Temple on
16th St, the investment group that bought the building two years ago
is kicking us (and other tenants who support social and economic
justice) out.

    Fortunately, we have some leads on a new affordable meeting space
nearby, and expect to make an announcemnt soon.  Please join us this
Wednesday, Feb 28, for our last meeting at the Redstone!  We'll be
having an eviction party and going through all of the items that we
store there to determine what to move and what to recycle.  See our
meeting announcement below.

    We have also published our complete Green Voter Guide to the
March 5, 2024 election in SF!  The complete text is below, along with
some volunteer opportunities for our endorsed campaigns and candidates.
The election is already underway, with early voting and vote by mail
happening all the way through Tues, March 5.  Please forward to any
SF voters who might be interested!

*===========================*

What:  Green Party monthly members' meeting, Redstone Eviction Party!
Where:  Redstone Bldg (2940 16th Street, near South Van Ness) #301, SF
When:  Wed, Feb 28, 7-9 pm

Please join us this Wednesday, Feb 28, for our LAST meeting at the
Redstone!  We'll be having an eviction party and going through all of
the items that we store there to determine what to move and what to
recycle.

Agenda:
* Introductions
* Report-backs on campaigns, and campaign updates
* Eviction Party - sort through our stuff and move some of it out

Every 4th Wednesday the SF Green Party meets to discuss issues of
concern, listen to interesting speakers, endorse events, plan outreach
and more!  Everyone welcome.  All meetings are wheelchair accessible.
To make a presentation or gain the SFGP endorsement of events and
issues, please contact our SFGP County Council at: cc at sfgreens.org

Mask policy: Masks are currently optional indoors, for both vaccinated
and non-vaccinated people.  We provide the option for SF Green Party
members and invited candidates to participate in our meetings via
Zoom, so email cc at sfgreens.org for info on how you can join us
virtually.

*===========================*

What:  Look in the Sky for NO on Prop E
When:  Sat, Feb 24, 5-6 pm

If you’re near Chinatown, the Mission, or Golden Gate Park this
Saturday, the No on E campaign, led by the civil liberties
organization EFF, needs your help. It’s easy: Just look up! Between 5
and 6pm, you might see an airplane flying an important message from
EFF.

Snap a picture of the plane and post it to social media. Tag @EFF and
@sfgreenparty, add your own message about why you’re voting #NOPE

See the Green Voter Guide below as well as:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/02/what-proposition-e-and-why-should-san-francisco-voters-oppose-it

*===========================*

What:  GET OUT THE VOTE with Retain Judge Begert 2024!
When:  Now through March 5

Greens have endorsed Judge Michael Begert for Superior Court
Judge, Seat 1.

GOTV Sign Up Form: https://bit.ly/gotvjudgebegert
(translated to English, Spanish and Chinese)

Please use the form above or email Vanessa Pimentel
<vanessa.pimentel26 at gmail.com> if you can volunteer for the
campaign.

*The Election Day Schedule for March 5th is as follows:*
5-8am: Early Morning Lit  Drop
8am-12pm: Phone bank, Visibility
12-4pm: Phone Bank, Visibility
4-8pm: Phone Bank, Visibility

If your members are not available on the 5th but want to get involved and
help Get Out the Vote, the campaign also needs help at these events:

*Saturday (3/02) at 10am*
Big Mega Mobilization at Rossi Playground

*Sunday (3/03) at 10am*
Big Mega Mobilization at Garfield Square Park

*Monday (3/04) from 5pm to 8 pm*
1155 Mission St

*===========================*

GREEN VOTER GUIDE for March 2024

These are the SF Green Party's final endorsements for the March 2024
election.  Our complete Green Voter Guide is now posted at:
https://www.sfgreenparty.org/endorsements/105-march-2024-endorsements

A copy of our voter guide text is below:

NO on CA Prop 1 (Behavioral Health Facilities Bond)

Prop 1 would amend 2004's Prop 63, the Mental Health Services Act.
Prop 63, which Greens strongly endorsed, enacted a 1% tax on income
above $1 million to pay for mental health services and programs.  Prop
1 would change the current law in three ways.  First, it would allow
the tax to be spent on substance abuse programs in addition to mental
health services.  Second, 30% of the tax would be required to be spent
on supportive housing for people needing services.  Finally, the state
would issue a $6.4 billion bond to build more facilities for mental
health care and substance abuse treatment, as well as supportive
housing.

Greens oppose Prop 1 for several reasons.  First, Governor Newsom has
a track record of supporting involuntary forced treatment for mental
health and substance abuse problems.  We have concerns that the
programs funded by Prop 1 will mainly be used for this purpose, rather
than for people who want to get treatment.  We believe that the
community-based programs that Prop 63 currently pays for are more
effective than institutionalization.

Second, Prop 63 revenues are currently distributed to each county to
fund local programs.  One of our 10 Key Values is "Decentralization" -
meaning that we support local elected officials prioritizing the needs
of their local community.  Prop 1 would mandate top-down changes to
local funding priorities.  Although the quality of services and
programs currently varies by county, we don't believe that state
mandates on how to spend funds will help.

Third, Prop 1 would authorize $6.3 billion in bond spending without
any requirement that the funds go to publicly owned projects like
public hospitals and public housing.  Instead, the money will be
sucked up by Democratic Party patronage networks and not help the
intended recipients.  Greens believe that bonds should be used almost
exclusively for public projects (see our Statement on Bond Funding,
below).

Finally, Prop 1 is too long and complex.  Instead of making hard
choices about funding priorities, Democrats in the state legislature
threw a huge bond together with changes to spending rules that will
benefit Democratic Party patronage networks.  Prop 1 was designed to
buy support from various special interest groups, but overall it's bad
public policy.

Please join SF Greens in voting NO.


NO on A ("Affordable" housing bond)

Prop A is a $300 million bond to pay for the construction,
acquisition, and repair of "affordable housing."  The vast majority of
the funding would subsidize private developers to build private
housing.  Only a fraction would actually be affordable to people who
currently live in SF.

Prop A is a re-run of 2019's Prop A, a $600 million bond to do the
same thing.  In 2019, we opposed Prop A and wrote in our Voter
Guide:

   Prop A pays private developers to build "affordable housing" at
   nearly the same price as it would cost to build new public or
   social housing ($600,000 - $700,000 per unit).

Housing bond money has traditionally been used by the Democratic Party
Machine to award contracts to politically connected developers and
nonprofits, including some of the worst developers in the City such as
the John Stewart Co
(https://sfbayview.com/2017/02/my-constitutional-and-tenants-rights-were-violated-in-john-stewart-co-s-subsidized-hud-housing-on-treasure-island/).
Mayor Breed has also withheld funding to punish her political
opponents, e.g., by refusing to move forward on development of
affordable housing in Supervisor Dean Preston's neighborhood
(https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/S-F-Supervisor-accuses-Mayor-Breed-of-17724203.php).

We also have concerns that the Mayor is not funding enough housing
development and acquisition using "Our City Our Home" funds.  Voters
passed Prop C in 2018, providing a $300 million per year revenue
stream, half of which is required to be spent on permanent housing.
Given the major problems with bond funding (see our Statement on
Bonds, below), we prefer funds for social housing come from corporate
taxes such as Our City Our Home.

Greens recommend a NO vote on Prop A.  We hope others will join us to
insist City resources be directed towards real public investments such
as social housing.


NO on B (more police)

Prop B would increase the minimum police staffing requirement in the
City Charter.  It would not directly increase the number of police
officers, but it would increase political pressure to spend even more
City funds on an ineffective police department.

As we wrote in opposition to a similar measure, Prop E in 2020:

    Greens support making large budget reductions (i.e., "defunding")
    to the SFPD.  Although some trained officers are required to
    respond to serious or violent crimes, most of the duties currently
    performed by the SFPD can and should be taken over by civilians.
    That would both save the City enormous amounts of money, and also
    make our residents safer, as they would be at less risk of being
    harassed or shot by armed police.

In recent years, police have effectively been on strike, refusing to
investigate even serious and violent crimes unless the victims are
wealthy or influential.  SF needs major police reform instead of
continuing to throw money at a failed system.


NO on C (tax break for developers)

Prop C would waive the City real estate transfer tax for developers
who convert large office buildings to residential use.  Greens are
opposed to giving away public money to increase developers' profits,
so we strongly oppose Prop C.

Currently the real estate transfer tax ranges from 0.5% to 6%,
depending on the value of the property.  Since the pandemic, office
space has become cheap, so in some cases, it can be profitable for
developers to buy office buildings and convert them to condos.  The
construction work itself is very expensive, as most offices do not
have the plumbing or access to light needed for residential living
space.  Proponents of Prop C claim that the tax break will make more
of these conversions profitable.

Greens believe that there may be opportunities for the City to take
over failing office buildings (including hotels and shopping malls)
cheaply using eminent domain, then convert them to social housing.
This would be a more appropriate use of public funds than subsidizing
for-profit developers to build more market rate housing.  And the
resulting residential units would be available to current SF residents
at affordable rents, rather than turning into more empty investment
condos that SF already has too many of.

Prop C would give tax breaks to billionaires and not help our
affordable housing crisis.  Vote NO.


YES on D (ethics reform)

Prop D would make minor reforms to SF's ethics rules.  It would
standardize rules about accepting gifts and other favors across City
departments.  It would also allow additional changes to ethics rules
if supermajorities on both the Board of Supervisors and the Ethics
Commission agree to the changes.

Greens' major concern with SF's current ethics rules is that they are
usually only enforced against grassroots campaigns and candidates.
Serious cases of corruption are ignored until the FBI steps in, and
ethics rules are routinely broken by right-wing billionaire-backed
candidates without consequence.  Strengthening our ethics rules will
not address this fundamental problem.

Nevertheless, Prop D is an improvement over the rules we have now, so
the Green Party supports it.


NO on E (let police do anything)

Prop E would reduce civilian oversight of the SF Police Department,
allow police to engage in more high speed car chases, cover up
cases of police violence, and allow warrantless spying on all
San Franciscans.

In 2003, Greens led the campaign to establish a civilian Police
Commission to oversee the Police Department.  We defeated the police
union at the polls
(https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/voters-support-major-police-reform-san-francisco-proposition-h-sets-standard-police).
Although the Mayor appoints the majority of the members of the Police
Commission, members cannot be removed arbitrarily, which gives them a
small degree of independence.

The Police Commission currently requires police to file a report when
they use violence, and only allows them to engage in high speed car
chases if there is a public safety risk or if the person being chased
is suspected of committing a violent felony.  Prop E would allow
police to engage in high speed car chases in almost any circumstance,
and would not require police to file reports on use of violence unless
the suspect is injured.

Worse, Prop E would open the door to warrantless spying on all San
Franciscans, including the use of AI-based facial recognition
technology and drones.  Civil liberties organizations such as the ACLU
and EFF strongly oppose Prop E for this reason.

If Prop E passes, instead of investigating serious and violent crimes,
police could spend their working hours spying on San Franciscans using
drones and other cameras, and joyriding around SF like they're
re-enacting Bullitt.

Prop E is not even a serious policy proposal, but rather a way for
tech billionaires to pour money into SF politics promoting
authoritarian policies and right-wing candidates.  Greens strongly
oppose it.


NO on F (mandatory drug tests for poor people)

Prop F would require that people who receive welfare benefits from SF
be screened for illegal drug use, and that drug users would be
required to participate in a free treatment program in order to continue
receiving benefits.

SF does not currently have enough free substance abuse treatment
programs for people who want to participate.  Greens support public
spending on "Improved Medicare for All" (a.k.a. single payer health
care), which would be free to everyone in the US and include mental
health and substance abuse treatment.  However, we do not support
forcing health care on people without their informed consent, and Prop
F would coerce people to participate in drug treatment programs they
would otherwise be unwilling to participate in.

Prop F would also increase the number of homeless people forced to
live on the street, as the additional requirement for drug testing
would make it more difficult for poor people to access housing
assistance programs.  Currently, poor people with housing are entitled
to $712 in cash assistance, while homeless people are only given $109
due to Newsom's "Care not Cash" program.  If these funds are cut off
due to the additional red tape of having to prove they are not using
illegal drugs, many more people will be forced onto the streets or
turn to crime in order to obtain money to survive.

If anybody should be tested for substance abuse, it should be the
people who wrote and support Prop F.  What are these people on?
Greens strongly oppose it.


YES on G (algebra)

Prop G is a non-binding measure that would encourage teaching algebra
to public school students in the 8th grade.  Greens recommend a YES
vote.

In 2014, algebra was moved from the 8th grade curriculum to 9th grade
due to concerns that many students were failing the class, and because
making kids take a class they weren't prepared for exacerbated racial
disparities in education.  This change was part of a transition to
Common Core Math, in which algebraic concepts such as variables are
now introduced as part of the math curriculum in lower grades.

10 years later, it is now clear that delaying algebra had no effect on
alleviating racial disparities, and many students now have to take
multiple math classes simultaneously in high school in order to get
an education that is comparable to their private school peers.  As a
result, SFUSD is already in the process of moving algebra back to 8th
grade.

The politics of Prop G are tricky, because it was put on the ballot by
the proponents of the 2022 school board recall.  Major funders of the
recall election had financial ties to the "EdTech" industry, and
wanted the Mayor to appoint school board members who would spend
scarce public resources on lucrative contracts with EdTech companies.
These same groups are now championing Prop G as a wedge issue to tar
future school board candidates who oppose Prop G as "anti-algebra."
Candidates who oppose Prop G will be smeared as elitist and
anti-parent, making it easier for right wing tech billionaires to
take over the school board this November and steal as much public
money as they can get their hands on.

Fortunately, Prop G doesn't contain any hidden provisions that will
directly privatize education: it's totally advisory and non-binding.
Greens recommend that voters take the proposal at face value and vote
YES, while being wary of the plans of Prop G funders in the school
board election this November.


SF Superior Court Judge, seat 1: Michael Begert    

Two judges are currently being challenged by right-wing tech
billionaires through a PAC called "Stop Crime SF."  Michael Begert is
one of the judges being challenged because he presided over several
diversion programs that allow people convicted of minor crimes to seek
treatment instead of going to jail.  We interviewed Judge Begert, and
are convinced that retaining him will improve public safety, so we
strongly endorse retaining him.

Judge Begert is not as progressive on criminal justice issues as most
members of the Green Party.  He was originally appointed to office by
Governor Schwarzenegger.  However, Judge Begert has volunteered for
years for groups such as the Asian Law Caucus and the Lawyers
Committee for Civil Rights, groups that share our values of social
justice.

Right wing tech billionaires already have too much influence in the
other branches of SF government; don't let them buy the courts as
well.  Please join us in voting to retain Judge Begert.


SF Green Party Statement on Bond Funding

The SF Green Party has often been hesitant to embrace bond financing.
In addition to being environmentally and socially responsible, we are
also fiscally responsible.  Bond funding requires payments totaling
about twice the actual cost of whatever improvements are made, and
passes costs on to future generations.  Because people who buy bonds
are almost exclusively the wealthy, as investors are paid back over
the 20-30 year life of the bond, wealth is transferred from middle and
low income taxpayers to rich bondholders.

Bond funding also helps rich people avoid paying their fair share of
taxes, since interest on municipal bonds is exempt from both state and
federal tax.  As noted in the California Voter Guide in 1992, over
35,000 U.S. millionaires supplemented their income with tax exempt
state and local bond checks averaging over $2,500 per week (that's
over $130,000 per year tax free).  They avoided paying federal and
state taxes on over $5 billion, which must be made up by the rest of
us.  The SF Green Party calls on the public to join us in working to
phase out this regressive and unfair subsidy of the rich and their
investment bankers (who take millions of dollars off the top when the
bonds are issued).

There are a few cases in which Greens have supported bond measures.
In general, we are willing to support bonds that are issued to in
order to build urgently needed, publicly-owned infrastructure, such as
a public hospital or high speed rail.  We generally oppose bonds that
fund ongoing maintenance projects; these should be paid for using City
revenues (which should be increased by raising taxes on the wealthy).


*===========================*

To submit events for our newsletter, please email a short blurb to
news at sfgreens.org.  Messages to a mailing list will be rejected.