announce

Download

announce@sfgreens.org

November 2014

1 participants
2 discussions

Greenzine: meeting moved to next Wed due to holiday
by Announcement list for SF Green Party, updated weekly 15 Nov '14

15 Nov '14

November 14 GREENZINE SF Green Party Weekly News and Events www.sfgreenparty.org twitter.com/sfgreenparty www.facebook.com/groups/SFGreenParty/ Dear Greens, We rescheduled our November meeting to next Wednesday due to the holiday, and will likely replace our December monthly meeting with a holiday party. Monthly Green Party Meeting Where: Redstone Building Rm 301, 2940 16th Street, SF When: Wednesday, 11/19, 7-9 pm (Please note date and room change) Agenda: * Election Recap * Design new literature for tabling next year * Plan holiday party * Other election strategy (e.g., next year's elections) *===========================* Greens in the News: Rosa Clemente, our former Vice Presidential candidate, was on Uprising this week talking about the Green Party. She had a lot of great and constructive things to say: http://uprisingradio.org/home/2014/11/10/former-green-vp-candidate-rosa-cle… Rosa has also gotten behind an effort to have a university president fired after he made some misogynist comments. https://www.change.org/p/the-lincoln-university-pa-board-of-trustees-fire-p… Rose Aguilar was speaking positively about the Green Party on Your Call last week (Yourcallradio.org.) She was saying she always looks at our election recommendations. She also lamented how hard it is to get any information about all the judges on the ballot. Rose is a nice alternative to the Democratic Party hack parade that is dominating KPFA these days. You may know that Gayle McLaughlin has been everywhere, including on Bill Moyers Journal for 2 weeks in a row. http://billmoyers.com/episode/full-show-facing-corporate-greed/ http://billmoyers.com/2014/10/30/mayor-gayle-mclaughlin/ *===========================* Paid contractor wanted: SF Green Party Fundraiser/Volunteer Coordinator (a part time independent contractor (1099) position): http://sfgreenparty.org/help-wanted *===========================* To submit events for our newsletter, please email a short blurb to news(a)sfgreens.org. Messages to a mailing list will be rejected.

1 0

Greenzine: go vote!
by Announcement list for SF Green Party, updated weekly 04 Nov '14

04 Nov '14

November 3 GREENZINE SF Green Party Weekly News and Events www.sfgreenparty.org twitter.com/sfgreenparty www.facebook.com/groups/SFGreenParty/ Dear Greens, Please vote this Tuesday, November 4, if you haven't already! If you're registered Green in SF, you should have received our postcard in the mail. Our complete Voter Guide with long explanations for all our endorsements is posted online (and copied below): http://sfgreenparty.org/endorsements/64-november-2014-endorsements Several people have called or emailed us asking why our candidates for Governor and Lt. Governor are not on the ballot. The reason is that California now has "top two" primaries, which were designed to eliminate minor party candidates, as Ellen Brown discusses: http://ellenbrown.com/2014/06/08/californias-top-two-primary-eliminates-thi… San Francisco Greens did not make any endorsements in these contests, but we strongly encourage Greens to vote for the candidates and positions that we did endorse. Here's a complete copy of our Voter Guide: NO on Prop A Prop A is a $500 million bond that is supposedly for the purpose of improving public transit. The cost of the bonds would be paid back by a property tax increase, although 50% of the costs could be passed through by landlords to tenants. The Green Party opposes Prop A for several reasons. First, we are generally hesitant to support measures that are funded by bonds, because bonds are an unfair form of taxation that transfers wealth from lower and middle class residents to the 1%-ers (see our full Statement on Bond Funding, below). Second, despite the name, this bond has no legal requirement to be spent on new transit improvements. It's "faith based" budgeting that could easily be diverted to fund other projects, such as cost overruns on the Central Subway. This "bait and switch" scam has happened before. In 2007, voters passed another Prop A, which dedicated $26 million per year in parking meter revenue to Muni. Within one year, Muni's payments to other City departments, mainly the Police Department, had increased by exactly the same amount (http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/munis-mismanagement-of-prop-a-may-hu…) Mayor Lee (like Newsom before him) routinely raids the Muni budget for other projects, leaving Muni with less service and increased fares. Please join us in opposing Prop A. YES on B Prop B would dedicate more money to Muni operations from the City's general fund, and increase funding with population growth. These payments could be replaced by a local increase in the vehicle license fee (VLF), if voters approve that in two years. Muni desperately needs money to increase service and prevent fare increases. Although we expect Mayor Lee to steal back some of this money to fund other projects (see our No on A argument for details), Prop B is a budget set-aside rather than a new revenue source, so the Mayor will have even easier access to those funds if Prop B doesn't pass. Mayor Lee had pledged to support a local VLF ballot initiative this year, but broke that promise. Prop B will put pressure on the Mayor to support a VLF increase next time. The VLF was a long-time means of funding public transit, but was lowered statewide by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2004 in order to reduce the cost of his six Hummers. We'll support Prop B, and also hope the voters pass the VLF in 2016, so we can have better Muni service without having to raise fares even more. YES on C Prop C would set aside about 3% of property tax funds received by the City, to pay for programs for children and young adults. Property taxes roughly correspond to property values (although large corporations get a break due to Prop 13), so more of this tax will fall on the rich than if these programs were paid for using bonds, a parcel tax, or a sales tax. Most Prop C funds would go to the public schools, paying for school libraries, arts, music, and sports, as well as general education. It would also help pay for public pre-K education (which is badly under-funded, and won't have enough spaces for every kid even if Prop C passes). Other funds would go to providing services (such as child care and job training) to kids and young adults, up to age 24. In the face of state and federal cuts to public education, it's especially important for SF voters to help improve our public schools, so we strongly support Prop C. YES on D Prop D would allow former employees of the SF Redevelopment Agency (SFRA) who are now SF employees to receive the same retiree health benefits as other SF employees who were hired at the same time they were hired by the SFRA. The SF Redevelopment Agency was dissolved by the State in 2012, and its members were State employees. Since then, about 50 of its employees have gotten essentially the same jobs working for the City. Prop D would treat these workers as if they'd been City employees for the whole time they were working for the SFRA. Without Prop D, these employees would have to work 20 more years to receive retiree health benefits. We support Prop D in the interests of fairness to those workers. no consensus on E. Prop E is a 2 cents per ounce tax on sugary drinks sold in SF (approximately 24 cents for a can of soda). The tax would bring in about $31 million per year, which would be earmarked for nutrition and health programs in the parks and public schools. The tax would apply to soft drinks (both corn syrup and sugar-sweetened), as well as sugary sports drinks, energy drinks, iced tea, and juice drinks that are not 100% made from fruits or vegetables. It would also apply to the concentrates used to make soft drinks in commercial soda fountains. The tax would NOT apply to diet sodas, milk and milk substitutes, baby formula, nutritional supplements, or concentrates for home soda fountains. Greens did not reach consensus on whether or not we should support Prop E, so we'll present arguments on both sides. We all agreed that sugary drinks are a serious health risk (see the article by UCSF researchers: https://accelerate.ucsf.edu/uploads/pilotawards/1331566366/the_toxic_truth_…) especially as a cause of diabetes. Many SF residents who get diabetes live in low-income neighborhoods with few healthy alternatives. Big soda corporations push sugary drinks heavily in poor neighborhoods, and Greens agree that SF should set policies that help people who live there switch to healthier foods and beverages. All Greens agreed that whether or not we support the tax, other methods for reducing sugar consumption discussed in the UCSF study (e.g., a ban on sales of all sugary drinks in schools and other government buildings) would also be worth trying. Greens disagreed on several points. Greens supporting NO thought the City should put the carrot before the stick, and subsidize healthier alternatives before instituting a regressive tax. Greens supporting YES thought that the money raised by the tax would be required to create the necessary subsidies. Greens supporting NO saw the tax as insufficient to actually change soda consumption habits, while at the same time large enough to be burdensome on top of other increased costs of living (like higher Muni fares and rising rents). According to the UCSF study, a 10 cent per ounce tax would be needed to significantly decrease consumption. Greens supporting YES saw the tax as a good start, which could later be increased to the level needed to reduce consumption. Greens supporting NO saw racism in the choice of which drinks to tax and which to exclude, when many excluded drinks are equally unhealthy or worse. Greens supporting YES thought that we have to start somewhere, and later try to expand the tax to diet drinks and sugary milk drinks such as lattes. YES on F - raise height limits for development on Pier 70 Prop F would raise height limits near Pier 70, in order to allow a proposed project by the Forest City developers to move forward. Because Prop B passed this June, voters need to approve such increases to height limits. The proposed project looks like exactly what SF needs: more affordable housing (30% below market rate), with plenty of parks and space for small businesses. If built, this should become a walkable, pleasant neighborhood. There was plenty of community input from local residents, in contrast to most other recent proposed projects. Our only concern is that although the section of Prop F that changes height limits is legally binding, the mandate to develop the project exactly as described is not. In the end, we decided to endorse letting the project go forward, but we (and local residents) will be keeping a close eye on Forest City to be sure they keep their promises. YES on G - anti-speculation real estate transfer tax Prop G is a tax meant to limit speculative investment in SF housing. It would impose a tax of up to 24% on buildings with 3 or more units, owned for less than five years but not lived in by the owner, and then sold at a profit. There are a number of exemptions designed to protect renters and homeowners; for example, the tax is not charged if the sale happens within a year of an owner's death. Greens strongly support Prop G! This law should help cut down on cases where an investment company or tech billionaire buys an entire apartment building, evicts all the tenants using the Ellis Act, then flips the property for huge profits. YES on H - keep Golden Gate Park natural grass, no stadium lighting by the beach Prop H is a grassroots effort to stop SF from installing 7 acres of artificial turf and 150,000 watt stadium lighting on the soccer fields in Golden Gate Park next to Ocean Beach. The new fields would be run by City Fields, a "public-private partnership" (managed by the Fishers, heirs to the Gap fortune) best known for kicking local kids off of formerly public soccer fields in the Mission in order to allow wealthier players to reserve the fields for $27/hour (video of one such incident is posted here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awPVY1DcupE) The fake fields project has a number of problems, in addition to the privatization aspect: First, the fake turf would replace an existing grass field, which would cause several environmental problems. Just like a parking lot, it would create a "cap" to prevent rain from soaking through into the Golden Gate Park Aquifer, an underground source of fresh water that is now being tapped as a supplemental source of water for San Francisco. Instead, the plastic turf would cause rain water to run off into the ocean, carrying any pollutants with it. Fake turf would also be bad for the local animals and birds for which the current grass provides a habitat. Second, the turf field would be made of "crumb rubber," a waste product made from used tires that was banned in both New York and Los Angeles after studies showed that lead and other toxins from the tires contaminate the surrounding environment. In Italy, they have had to dig up previously installed crumb rubber soccer fields at great cost, in order to replace them with a more natural product, due to toxicity problems. Parents whose kids play on other crumb rubber fields in the City (such as the playgrounds in the Civic Center Plaza) have noted that when the fields are poorly maintained, as ours are, little granules of rubber get everywhere. There is even some evidence that the toxins in crumb rubber can cause soccer players to get cancer: http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/how-safe-artificial-turf-your-childs-sp… It's a terrible idea to install crumb rubber right on top of our drinking water supply. Third, putting bright lights so close to the beach will cause problems for both birds and sea life, as well as people enjoying Ocean Beach at night. When the project was up for review by the California Coastal Commission, the project staff urged the plan to be rejected in favor of a "more naturalistic" plan. However, the staff were overridden by political appointees. The City's Rec and Parks department has neglected the current soccer field for years, putting an illegally installed fence around the property with a locked gate, and allowing gophers to proliferate. SF has the best funded Parks department in the country, but they are not maintaining our soccer fields as they are paid to do. A YES vote on Prop H will send a message to Rec and Parks to keep the park public, and properly maintain the natural grass fields. NO on I - fake turf everywhere initiative Prop I was put on the ballot for one purpose: overriding Prop H. It would give the Rec and Parks department streamlined authority to "upgrade" fields throughout the City from grass to fake turf over the objections of environmental groups. Prop I even contains a provision specifically written to block Prop H in case both pass. Prop I is blatant misuse of the ballot by Supervisors, who are following the same playbook as (former Supervisor turned illegal lobbyist) Michael Yaki in putting a competing measure on the ballot in order to block a grassroots measure. Yaki, who represented the Richmond District, drafted a competing ballot measure in order to block a measure for a Sunday Streets-like closure of roads in Golden Gate Park back in 2000. His ploy worked, as both measures lost. The campaign ads for Prop I are full of lies, claiming that it will enable all kinds of improvements to our parks. In reality, Prop I will not fund any improvements to anything; it just allows unelected bureaucrats in the Rec and Parks department to ignore the wishes of City residents. YES on J - minimum wage increase Prop J will raise the minimum wage in San Francisco to $15/hr by the year 2018. The minimum wage would increase with inflation after that, and there would not be an exception for workers who (sometimes) get tips. The Green Party would prefer to set the minimum wage at a "living wage," meaning that full-time workers could make ends meet without needing any extra government subsidies. This year, we supported and gathered signatures for an alternative measure that would have raised the minimum wage to $15/hr one year faster. However, Democratic politicians like Mayor Lee fought hard to keep wages low until 2018. Back in 2002, the Green Party spearheaded the campaign to raise the minimum wage to its current level. Prop J would be an improvement, so we strongly support its passage. But even after Prop J passes, we will need to continue to work to raise wages to "living wage" levels. NO on K - non-binding statement that supports building less affordable housing than current policy Prop K would urge the City to build at least 30,000 units of new housing in the next 10 years, at least 50% of it affordable to the middle class, and 1/3 affordable to "moderate income" households. The Green Party would have supported a much stronger measure, such as one that would require a minimum level of low income housing to be built before new projects are approved. Supervisor Jane Kim had originally planned such a measure, but withdrew it in a "compromise" with Mayor Ed Lee (who supports letting developers build whatever they want). Past Supervisors have made a lot of noise about setting policy to build more housing, but nothing has ever come of it. In 2006, Supervisor Sophie Maxwell passed legislation making City policy that 64% of new housing in eastern neighborhoods of SF should be affordable. Prop K would actually lower this goal, although nothing in Prop K is legally binding. Therefore, we urge voters to vote NO. NO on L - "transportation balance" proposal Prop L is a non-binding statement of policy that would ask the City for more heavily subsidized parking prices for private cars, cheaper parking tickets, more parking garages, and more enforcement of laws against illegal behavior by pedestrians and bicyclists (e.g., jaywalking, or bikes not coming to a full stop at a stop sign). Although Mayor Lee behaves as if Prop L has already passed, the official City policy is still "Transit First." Prop L would mean "Drivers First, Transit Last." Although it's non-binding, it's important to send a message to Mayor Lee by voting NO. SF Board of Supervisors, D2 - Juan-Antonio Carballo (sole endorsement) Juan-Antonio Carballo is a Democratic Party member who agrees with us on many issues (see his questionnaire, http://sfgreens.org/questionnaires/carballo_d2.html) He supports public power, non-citizen voting in local elections, community choice aggregation, and improved public transit. He opposes the fake turf fields planned for Golden Gate Park, as well as Mayor Lee's efforts to drive Sheriff Mirkarimi from office. His opponent, incumbent Mark Farrell, has a perfect 0% record on our Supervisorial Report Card over the last two years (http://sfgreenparty.org/issues/60-sf-supervisors-report-card-2013) and he has basically been a rubber stamp for Mayor Lee. While almost any randomly picked person from District 2 would be an improvement, Carballo agrees with the Green Party on most issues, so we're pleased to endorse him. SF Board of Supervisors, D4 - no endorsement Katy Tang is running unopposed, but has a perfect record of opposition to Green Party positions on contentious issues (http://sfgreenparty.org/issues/60-sf-supervisors-report-card-2013) She's been a rubber stamp for developers and Mayor Lee. We hope the Sunset fields a better candidate next time. SF Board of Supervisors, D6 - Jamie Whitaker (sole endorsement) Jamie Whitaker is a Democratic Party member who agrees with us on most issues (see his questionnaire, http://sfgreens.org/questionnaires/whitaker_d6.html) Unlike most Democrats, he sees the corruption in City Hall for what it is. He believes in more transparency and public input, and an end to the cronyism and back room dealing that dominates the local Democratic Party. Whitaker has a Green perspective on many issues, ranging from better parks to public power to improved public transit. His opponent, incumbent Jane Kim, is a former Green Party member. Unfortunately, as she's gotten closer to the Democratic Party power structure, her votes have moved further from Green positions, falling from 75% on our 2012 Report Card to 50% last year. Jamie Whitaker would be a huge improvement. SF Board of Supervisors, D8 - no endorsement Scott Wiener, the incumbent, has a consistent record of supporting the Green Party only about one-eighth of the time over the past two years (http://sfgreenparty.org/issues/60-sf-supervisors-report-card-2013) Weiner's supported CleanPowerSF, in opposition to Mayor Lee, and we're strongly supportive of Prop B, Wiener's initiative to fund Muni. However, his record on civil rights (aside from LGBT issues) is atrocious, and he's otherwise been in lockstep with developers and Mayor Lee. Several of Wiener's opponents sought our endorsement, but none were sufficiently aligned with Green values for us to support them. SF Board of Supervisors, D10 - Tony Kelly (sole endorsement) Tony Kelly is a neighborhood activist in Portrero Hill, who we also endorsed in his last run for Supervisor. He is especially strong on both public safety and development issues. He supports expanded foot patrols and other police reforms, and has a credible plan to reduce violent crime in his District. Kelly also fought hard against the Lennar corporation's development project and other corporate polluters in the Bayview, who have cut years off the average District 10 resident's life. Kelly agrees with the Green Party on many other issues, from public power and CleanPowerSF, to the need to end corruption in City Hall. Kelly's opponent, Malia Cohen, is not the worst Supervisor on the Board. She agrees with the Green Party about 25% of the time (http://sfgreenparty.org/issues/60-sf-supervisors-report-card-2013) and has been a consistent supporter of both CleanPowerSF and free Muni for low income youth. However, she's also too close to the Mayor's corrupt politics: recently, she was the swing vote to allow Airbnb to skip out on paying $25 million in back taxes, even though she's taken almost $10,000 in campaign "donations" from Airbnb investor Ron Conway. Tony Kelly is one of the only challengers to Democratic Party Machine candidates who has a good chance of winning, so we strongly support his campaign and urge Greens to volunteer for him. SF Community College Board, 2-year term - William Walker William Walker is currently the student trustee for City College. He is running for a 2-year term in the seat left vacant by Chris Jackson's resignation. Walker is very critical of the current board members, because he says he current accreditation crisis was "entirely preventable." It has taken a tremendous grassroots campaign to take City College back from pro-privatization forces, and that campaign has been led by students. While some politicians have also been key supporters of the campaign, for the most part they have followed the lead of the grassroots activists. Walker was out front in the campaign, so we think he deserves a full seat on the board. His answers to our questionnaire (http://sfgreens.org/questionnaires/walker_ccb.html) also showed he is fairly well aligned with Green Party positions, so we're happy to endorse him. SF Community College Board, 4-year terms - Wendy Aragon and Brigitte Davila Wendy Aragon is a long time activist who is seeking her first elected office on the College Board. She has good ideas for how the current Board could have avoided the accreditation crisis, and her answers to our questionnaire (http://sfgreens.org/questionnaires/aragon_ccb.html) show that she supports many Green Party priorities, such as free education, open government, and equal rights for non-citizens. She has also been out front in the campaign to take back City College from the ACCJC, so we give her our enthusiastic endorsement. Brigitte Davila is a faculty member at SF State, who is also seeking elected office for the first time. She gave very thoughtful answers to our questionnaire (http://sfgreens.org/questionnaires/davila_ccb.html) that showed her positions are in line with Green values, including support for free education, rights for undocumented immigrants, and opposition to military recruitment on campus. We strongly support Davila for College Board as well. Several incumbent members of the board, including John Rizzo and Anita Grier, also sought our endorsement. Rizzo is a former Green Party member who we've supported in the past, and he gave great answers to our questionnaire. However, in office, he failed to use his status as President of the Board to respond adequately to the ACCJC's takeover. He should have loudly and publicly objected to the ACCJC taking away the elected Board's voting authority, and even more to the appointment of a Special Trustee. Instead, current board members put too much faith in the ACCJC, then let other Democratic Party politicians and grassroots activists do the hard work to save City College. Anita Grier also gave great answers to our questionnaire, but as a long-time board member, she's supported some fairly corrupt practices in the past, and we think it's time for fresh faces on the Board. State Assembly, D17 - David Campos Without a Green in the race, the Assembly contest comes down to choosing between two Democratic Party Supervisors, in a rematch of the primary. Despite both candidates being Democrats, their political choices and attitudes towards the Green Party have been very different. David Campos has been most in agreement with Green Party values, scoring 88% for two straight years on our Supervisors Report Cards (http://sfgreenparty.org/issues/60-sf-supervisors-report-card-2013) His opponent, David Chiu, fell from 50% in 2012 to 38% in 2013. The main issues on which Campos differs from Chiu have been related to supporting corruption by the Lee Machine. Four of the key votes on which the two Supervisors differed related to Mayoral appointees: Chiu was a rubber stamp for Mayor Lee, while Campos opposed the worst Lee appointees. Campos is also much stronger on civil rights: Chiu was the swing vote in two new laws to impose curfews in public parks and a ban on public nudity. And of course Chiu was also the swing vote in favor of appointing Mayor Lee as mayor in the first place, rather than somebody (such as former Sheriff Hennessey) not beholden to the Willie Brown/Gavin Newsom Machine. As President of the Board of Supervisors, Chiu has limited public comment and rarely bothers to listen to differing opinions, a sharp contrast to the days when Matt Gonzalez served as President and built bipartisan consensus. Although both Campos and Chiu originally supported the construction of toxic artificial-turf soccer fields in Golden Gate Park near Ocean Beach, Campos supports the Green Party's position of Yes on H / No on I, which together would require the soccer fields to remain natural grass. We strongly endorse David Campos for Assembly. Superior Court Judge, Office 20 - Daniel Flores Daniel Flores is in a runoff for Superior Court Judge. Based on his answers to the Milk Club questionnaire (http://www.milkclub.org/candidate_questionnaires_june_election) he seems to share many Green Party values. In response to the questionnaire, he responded that he supports issues including abortion rights, same-sex marriage equality, anti-discrimination laws to protect LGBT rights, rent control, and rights for non-citizens, including drivers licenses for all CA residents, voting rights in local elections, and the DREAM act. Flores' opponent, Carol Kinglsey, is endorsed by some prominent local conservatives, including Gavin Newsom. In this rematch from the primary, we strongly support Flores. Public Defender - Jeff Adachi Jeff Adachi has done an excellent job as Public Defender, and has been outspoken in defending the rights of SF's poor and homeless residents in the face of bad ideas from Scott Wiener, such as the Sit/Lie law and closing public parks. Adachi works well Sheriff Mirkarimi, and has supported several measures that would both improve public safety and reduce costs--measures such as increasing the number of uniformed police officers out on the streets instead of behind desks. In conrast, Mayor Lee will not even meet with Sheriff Mirkarimi. We continue to have concerns about Adachi's leading the campaign for Prop B back in 2010. Prop B was an effort to cut worker benefits in order to compensate for the City's pension funds having been mismanaged by mayoral cronies and then stolen by Wall Street. However, since that has little to do with his job as Public Defender, we'll endorse him for another term. SF Board of Education - no endorsement We're very concerned about the bipartisan emphasis on high-stakes testing and corporate charter schools that began with "No Child Left Behind" under President Bush, and then escalated under President Obama's "Race to the Top" program. Under these programs, good teachers are punished for teaching a curriculum that deviates from a corporate-designed test preparation system. The result has been a rush towards privatization of our public schools (in the form of more charter schools) and a dumbing down of the curriculum. Like Diane Ravitch, we see "Common Core" as a watered down version of the high-stakes testing agenda, which is diverting a huge amount of SFUSD's resources towards test prep and away from actual education. Greens also opposed SB 1381, a $700 million bipartisan cut to our State's public education system. SB 1381, which will require parents of children born after September 1 to delay enrolling their children in public schools for a year, will supposedly save the State money by reducing enrollment. We suspect that it will, by driving some parents into private schools. Although supporters claim that children prevented from entering school will have access to public pre-K programs, there's no funding to make that a reality: even if Prop C passes, there won't be enough funds to expand public pre-K to all SF kids. Supporters of SB 1381 justify this cut by saying that delays in starting school will result in higher scores on high-stakes tests. Greens oppose placing high-stakes tests above all other measures of how well our public schools are doing, and favor giving parents more of a voice in determining when their children are ready to start school. Unfortunately, NO candidates are running this year who share our concerns about these issues. This year's School Board candidates are unanimously pro-corporate, and several of them (Hydra Mendoza and Emily Murase) double dip by working for Mayor Lee, despite that being a clear conflict of interest. We hope that some real supporters of public education will run in the next School Board election. BART Board, D8 - no endorsement After the BART strike debacle, in which management brought in a highly paid union buster at great taxpayer expense, then hired scab train operators who killed two BART workers, we can't support any of the incumbents. And unfortunately, there is no progressive challenger running in this contest. State Props NO on 1 - anti-environmental water bond Prop 1 is a $7.1 billion bond measure to fund various improvements to our water infrastructure. There are a lot of good projects in there, including water recycling and cleanup of contaminated groundwater (which we'll need if Prop H fails). However, the main purpose of Prop 1 is to build additional dams. Dams are terrible for the environment, since they generally increase the salinity in downstream areas and kill fish and other wildlife. Dams will also do nothing to help the current drought crisis, since they simply store water that comes from mountain snowmelt. Bond funding also ensures that CA taxpayers will pay for the project twice: once for the project itself and once to borrow money from Wall Street (see our Statement on Bond Funding). We're therefore strongly opposed to Prop 1. NO on 2 - rainy day fund, when we should be stimulating the local economy Prop 2 would change the maximum size of California's "rainy day fund" to 10% of annual revenue, up from the current 5%. Unfortunately, our state schools and universities are in a (unfortunately figurative) "rainy day" right now. It is foolish to withhold money rather then spending it, at a time when spending is desperately needed to stimulate the economy. The tech sector is doing great, but for most other people, the economy is as bad as it's been since the Wall Street meltdown. California has never recovered from earlier cuts to education, and not spending the money will hurt the state for decades to come. Vote NO on Prop 2. YES on 45 - limits on health insurance rate increases Prop 45 would require increases to health insurance rates to be approved by the CA Insurance Commissioner, just as car insurance and homeowners insurance are currently regulated. We support this change, as it may lead to lower rates. However, Greens remain strongly committed to fighting for Single Payer Health Care (i.e., improved and expanded Medicare for All). Under Obamacare, health insurance company profits are still at an all-time high, and the system is as inefficient as ever. So vote YES on 45, and join us in fighting for real universal health care. NO on 46 - we support raising the malpractice award cap, but strongly oppose random drug testing Prop 46 would raise the limit on medical malpractice lawsuits to $1 million (which we support) but also require random drug testing of doctors and nurses (which we strongly oppose). Random drug testing is not only unreliable (since users can test positive long after the effects have passed) but is also a gross violation of civil liberties. Random drug testing should be completely abolished, not expanded into new professions. Vote NO on 46. YES on 47 - changing some nonviolent felonies to misdemeanors Prop 47 would change some nonviolent felonies into misdemeanors, including shoplifting, theft, forgery, fraud, and drug use cases, in which the value of the lost or stolen property is less than $950. Prop 47 would not apply to any violent crimes, nor to defendants with a prior history of murder, rape, or gun violence. It would allow 10,000 nonviolent inmates to be released early, and would also cut down on future prison overcrowding. Vote YES on Prop 47 as a good first start to reforming our prison system. no consensus on 48 - casino referendum Prop 48 is a referendum on an Indian casino agreement approved by the state legislature. A YES vote on the referendum allows two tribes to build a casino on the lands of one of the tribes, along Route 99 near Madera, CA. A NO vote would veto the legislation, prohibiting the casino. Greens did not reach consensus on whether to support or oppose Prop 48, so we're presenting arguments on both sides. Greens supporting YES favor full tribal sovereignty, and support the tribes' decision to build the casino in order to improve their finances. Greens supporting NO consider the problems of political corruption, crime, and addiction surrounding gambling to outweigh the reasons to allow the tribes build the casino. YES on 49 - statement opposing unlimited corporate bribes (but not on ballot) Greens strongly supported Prop 49, before it was pulled from the ballot by a judge. Prop 49 would have been a non-binding vote asking Congress to approve an amendment to the US Constitution to overturn "Citizens United," a Supreme Court decision that allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections. We think that money is not speech, and corporations are not people, and therefore Congress (and local jurisdictions such as San Francisco) should be able to limit corporate campaign contributions. Although this vote would have been basically just a straw poll, it's important to keep this issue in the minds of voters, before our political system becomes even more corrupt than it currently is. 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). Bond funding became an even worse option for cities and states as of September 2014, when regulators from the Obama administration changed rules regarding bank purchases of municipal bonds. Under the new rules, private banks have regulatory incentives to buy corporate bonds (and even stocks) rather than municipal bonds. This means that local governments must pay even more interest on these bonds, which the Green Party's Ellen Brown called "asset-stripping local government." (http://ellenbrown.com/2014/09/08/preparing-to-asset-strip-local-government-…) *===========================* Paid contractor wanted: SF Green Party Fundraiser/Volunteer Coordinator (a part time independent contractor (1099) position): http://sfgreenparty.org/help-wanted *===========================* To submit events for our newsletter, please email a short blurb to news(a)sfgreens.org. Messages to a mailing list will be rejected.

1 0