June 7 GREENZINE SF Green Party Weekly News and Events www.sfgreenparty.org twitter.com/sfgreenparty www.facebook.com/groups/SFGreenParty/ Dear Greens, Let's get out and vote! Our complete Voter Guide is online, containing our endorsements and analysis of contests on the June 7 ballot: http://sfgreenparty.org/endorsements/74-june-2016-endorsements Text from the voter guide is below; please share with like-minded friends! We will send another newsletter later this week focusing on post-election events we need volunteers for, including the Haight St Fair (this weekend) and Pride (end of the month). *===========================* Five candidates are on our primary ballot in California, competing to be the Green Party nominee for President. They are: * S.K.C.M. Curry (http://www.facebook.com/skcmcurryforpresident) * Jill Stein (http://www.jill2016.com/) * Darryl Cherney (http://www.feelthechern.com/) * William P. Kreml (http://www.billkreml.org/) * Kent Mesplay (http://mesplay.org) Local candidates: * Barry Hermanson for Congress, CD12 (http://barry4congress.org/) * Victor Hwang and Sigrid Irias for Judge (dual endorsement) (http://www.hwangforjudge.com/ and http://iriasforjudge.com/) Local propositions: * YES on A: bond for SF General Hospital * NO on B: Set-asides for corrupt Rec & Park department * YES on C: Charter Amendment for Affordable Housing * YES on D: Office of Citizen Complaints * YES on E: Paid Sick Leave Other propositions: * No position on AA: Parcel tax for Bay restoration * No position on 50: Legislative suspension process Early endorsement for November: * Francisco Herrera for Supervisor, District 11 Congress, D12 - Barry Hermanson Barry Hermanson is running as the Green Party candidate against Nancy Pelosi. As the Bay Guardian noted in 2014 in endorsing Pelosi, she "has presided over economic policies that have consolidated wealth in ever fewer hands and dismantled the social safety net, environmental policies that have ignored global warming and fed our over-reliance on the private automobile, and military policies that expanded the war machine and overreaching surveillance state." They didn't mention her opposition to Single Payer health care, or her repeated endorsement of the most conservative Democrats running for local office in SF. More importantly, San Francisco does not have a representative who represents San Franciscans; instead, Pelosi is a national spokesperson for defending Democratic Party policies and anything President Obama currently supports. Although the majority of San Franciscans are registered with the Democratic Party, most local Democrats (and Greens and members of other smaller parties) disagree with Pelosi's positions on the issues above, yet she places the needs of her political party above her job of representing all of us. The key question facing voters this June is whether Pelosi will face a Republican or a Green this November. Because of the "Top Two" primary, all voters (regardless of party) will vote in a single election June 7th, with only the 2 leading candidates going on to the November election. If Barry Hermanson can beat the Republican, San Franciscans will for the first time be able to go into November with a clear choice: re-electing Pelosi, who does not represent San Francisco values, or electing a Green who does. In a two-way race, the "spoiler" issue would be moot. And although Pelosi has never agreed to debate her opponents, Hermanson would challenge her support for a long list of terrible policies including the ones mentioned above. Getting a Green into the November election is our best chance to change the political discourse on a number of issues. Vote Barry Hermanson for Congress this June to make it happen! Victor Hwang and Sigrid Irias for Judge (dual endorsement) Multiple candidates are running for a position as Superior Court Judge, seat 7. In the June election, if no candidate gets more than 50% of the vote, the top two finishers will face off in the November election. Greens are impressed by the qualifications and values of two of the candidates, Victor Hwang and Sigrid Irias. Victor Hwang is a current member of the Police Commission, and has extensive experience as a public defender (in contrast to most judges, who previously worked only as prosecutors). He is opposed to the Death Penalty and is against arming police with Tasers. He also has a strong background on civil rights, including having helped defend Wen Ho Lee against racially biased false accusations. Sigrid Irias is a past president of the San Francisco La Raza Lawyers Association, and she has some experience as a pro tem judge. She has an excellent record in favor of tenants' rights. Greens hope that one or both of these excellent candidates will make it to the November election. YES on A: bond for SF General Hospital Prop A is a $350 million bond measure, most of which ($272 million) will go towards a seismic retrofit of SF General Hospital. Although the newly built hospital building meets seismic standards, other buildings on the same campus, including buildings that provide mental health and drug addition treatments, are unsafe and need to be retrofitted. Smaller parts of the bond will go the Fire Department's Ambulance Deployment Facility ($58 million) and to new homeless shelters and service facilities ($20 million). Greens support this bond measure because, unlike most bonds put forward by Mayor Lee's administration, the legal language of Prop A requires specific amounts of money to be spent on the above projects. While many of Mayor Lee's proposals amount to slush funds (see our endorsement of NO on Prop B), Prop A has proper oversight. Greens rarely support bond measures (see our statement on bonds, below), but often do when the money will be used for public infrastructure, such as a public hospital. We also note that our public hospital (paid for by a bond measure that Greens supported in 2007) has been named after a private donor, who put up very little money relative to the amount that taxpayers have been asked to contribute. It is unfortunate that this bond measure does not include language requiring the restoration of the original name, "SF General Hospital." Greens do not support naming our public infrastructure after friends of local politicians, especially as taxpayers continue to be asked to pay for improvements to this infrastructure. We urge the Board of Supervisors and Mayor to restore the proper name of SF General Hospital before they come back to the voters again in a few years asking for more bond money to upgrade additional buildings on the site. NO on B: SF Rec and Parks' over-the-top, skim-off-the-top slush fund Even the Mayor's paper, the SF Chronicle, got it right. It would be wrong to vote in favor of Prop B. http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Chronicle-recommends-N... The San Francisco Green Party strongly recommends voting NO, absolutely NO, on Prop B. Prop B would guarantee that the SF Rec and Parks Department (RPD) would continue to operate as the City's premiere venue for trading in political favors. It's no longer the City's dirty little secret that RPD managers Mark Buell and Phil Ginsburg are a conduit for the corrupt activities, favoritism, influence peddling, and the occasional scandal that plague City Hall. That erstwhile secret is now openly discussed on the streets of San Francisco. The details are almost too awful to bear. Prop B would amend the City's Charter to provide a steady revenue stream to fund RPD's privatization schemes at the expense of other discretionary items in the budget (such as medical care, emergency housing, and in fact, all money in the General Fund which may be used for public purposes). Prop B requires only a simple majority to pass. San Franciscans would pay dearly (estimates range as high as $4.5 billion over 30 years) for the privilege of being assed out of their parks by public-private partnerships. San Franciscans would pay and pay again in use fees (as RPD management has shown tireless dedication to the monetization of our commons) and in unknown losses of public services due to budgetary shortfalls caused by this RPD train robbery. $4.5 billion that could fund other needed services. No specifics. No oversight. For a Department that has been censured for deleting emails to cover up sweetheart contracts, installed materials known to be hazardous to human health on playfields and playgrounds, sprays toxic herbicides and pesticides in Parks without proper notice, has lied to CalRecycle to get grant money, wants to replace high school sports with second-tier pro soccer at Kezar, fences off the Western half of Golden Gate Park for a month or more each summer into fall for concerts, wants to build a pro-style sunken tennis stadium in the Eastern half of Golden Gate Park, has plans for an indoor soccer stadium near the Beach Chalet, wants to build a water treatment facility with the PUC to detox runoff it's rendered toxic with hazmats, would like to allow one of its donor partners to build a hotel with boutique shops at the Palace of Fine Arts, evicts threatened and endangered species from its properties, and the list goes on. We love what's left of our parks and open spaces that we're not locked out of. Voting NO on B won't diminish them. Rec and Park is already City-funded. Voting NO on B might send a message that we care to be resourceful rather than impoverished, and, that we care enough about our parks to see them under new management--that would be a sweet amenity. YES on C: Charter Amendment for Affordable Housing Prop C would allow the Board of Supervisors to update the minimum amount of "affordable" housing that is required in large new developments. It also sets interim requirements that are higher than existing law, requiring 25% of the units to be affordable to rent for people making the median income (currently approximately $71,000 per year for a single person, plus around $10,000 more for each person in the household), vs the current minimum of 12% of the units. Although "affordable" units in new development won't necessarily be affordable to people who currently live in SF, Greens see Prop C as a step in the right direction. It is important to allow the Board of Supervisors to be able to change the limits in response to the boom and bust cycle of the SF economy, rather than having to go to the voters every time to make minor changes to the law. YES on D: Investigate Police Shootings SF has an Office of Citizen Complaints (OCC) that is supposed to investigate charges of police misconduct. Prop D would require the OCC to investigate all police shootings, and would also require police to cooperate with those investigations. Police throughout the United States generally operate with impunity, almost never facing legal consequences even in cases where they callously disregard the lives of the people they are supposed to be "serving and protecting." Recent cases in SF include the police killings of Alex Nieto, Amilcar Perez Lopez, Mario Woods, and Luis Gongora. None of the officers involved in those cases were even charged with a crime, much less punished. The OCC is a toothless organization, without the power to actually fire or even discipline police officers. However, Prop D is a tiny improvement to existing law, because officers are not currently legally required to cooperate with OCC investigations. Much more work on police reform is needed to actually make a difference. The culture of the SFPD needs to change, especially their "anti-snitching" culture that requires all officers to cover for a few violent sadists. Reform starts at the top, and a new police chief would be a start. We also need to reform state law, including the "police officers' bill of rights" that gives police more rights than ordinary citizens. The status quo is unacceptable, and will require a lot of work and dedication to fix. We thank all the people who have raised public awareness in SF recently. Let's pass Prop D, but not stop there. YES on E: Paid Sick Leave Prop E would amend SF's Paid Sick Leave Ordinance to make it easier for employees to actually use the paid sick leave they are entitled to. Under Prop A, employees could use paid sick leave in more circumstances, such as to avoid domestic violence, or to take care of a foster parent. Employees would also begin to accrue sick leave on their first day of employment, and would keep any sick leave they had accrued if they were temporarily laid off and then rehired. Greens support much stronger rights for workers, including the requirement to provide workers with paid vacation and personal days. Workers should also be allowed to reschedule or turn down work shifts without being penalized. However, Prop E is an improvement on the status quo, so we support it. No position on AA: Parcel tax for Bay restoration Prop AA is a multi-county initiative that requires a 2/3 majority vote to pass. It is a parcel tax of $12/parcel on property owners (Google, Apple and single family homeowners alike) in the Bay Area. The proceeds of the tax (approximately $500M over 20 years) may be used for projects chosen by the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority, a government agency made up of local elected officials. Most of the projects that the backers of Prop AA promise to spend the money on are worthwhile and necessary. With rising sea levels, wetlands restoration is a critical priority. Bike and pedestrian paths are also much-needed infrastructure. Despite those promises, the SF Green Party has taken no position on Prop AA. We are skeptical for the following reasons: 1. The worthwhile projects promised by the backers of Prop AA are not legal requirements. It's possible that instead of wetlands, we'll get seawalls and beach armoring to protect valuable private real estate. Bad actors in the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority (namely, Supervisor Scott Wiener) and People for a Clean and Healthy Bay (Bob Fisher) have track records of environmental irresponsibility. Greens worry that they would take their projects to protect real estate interests and elite donors to the feeding trough first. 2. The SF Bay Restoration Authority is a bond funded entity. So far, in its eight year existence, SFBAR has managed to craft legislation, pitch it Bay Area Counties, and commission studies which resulted in a rough plan to justify this parcel tax. Some proceeds of this parcel tax would pay for interest debt on the bond that created the Authority, rather than necessary projects. 3. The legislation emphasizes public-private partnerships. The SF Green Party strongly opposes privatization. With respect to safeguarding our natural resources, giving control over that critical function to an elite class (especially those who have actively worked to create environmental problems) is a travesty. 4. The SF Bay Restoration Authority operates under the authority of the Association Bay Area Governments (ABAG) an appointed body of elected officials from 101 Bay Area communities that is under fire. http://www.48hills.org/2016/04/15/regional-government-sells-small-cities/ A number of influential environmental organizations have signed on in support of AA. Their good work should be honored and supported, not subject to the whims of in-the-pocket politicians. No position on 50: Legislative suspension process Prop 50 would prevent state legislators who are suspended by their colleagues from being paid or receiving any benefits for the duration of their suspension. Prop 50 was motivated by recent cases in which three legislators (including San Francisco's Leland Yee) committed serious crimes, but continued to be paid after being suspended. Greens agree that voters should be able to recall legislators. However, the legislative suspension process, in which any legislator can be suspended by a 2/3 vote of their colleagues, has several serious problems. First, there is no requirement that the suspended legislator must have committed any crime--suspensions can occur for any reason, including ideology. Second, the voters who elected the suspended legislator have no input in the process; all their colleagues who vote on the matter represent different parts of California. Prop 50 would compound an already flawed process, because there would be no recourse for wrongfully suspended legislators to get their back pay restored if their suspension was reversed. Prop 50 has the potential to lead to serious abuses, similar to the coup currently underway in Brazil, or Mayor Lee's suspension of former Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi immediately after he was elected to office, for "official misconduct" that allegedly took place prior to his taking office. At least in the latter case, Mirkarimi's pay was restored after his suspension was overturned. Greens therefore made no endorsement of Prop 50. Francisco Herrera for Supervisor, District 11 Francisco Herrera is a musician, a long-time Green Party member, and an activist with the Living Wage Coalition. In last year's Mayoral election, he finished 2nd, with around 1/3 of the voters ranking him ahead of Ed Lee. Francisco's result was the best finish by a Green Mayoral candidate since Matt Gonzalez, despite running a campaign with almost no funding. Francisco started the "People's Campaign" to form a long-term effort to develop a plan and vision of San Francisco as a city friendly and affordable to working families. Francisco's platform includes building more affordable housing, eviction protection, a budget that prioritizes arts and human services, safe streets and a better Muni system, public education, an expansion of Healthy SF, an end to deportations and cooperation with ICE, accountable policing, and more living wage jobs. Greens have made an early endorsement of Francisco's campaign to succeed John Avalos as Supervisor in District 11. Please donate to his campaign today, so he can qualify for matching funds and run a more high-profile campaign. Greens need representation again at the Board of Supervisors, and District 11 needs a representative who can convince Mayor Lee to listen to long-ignored neighborhoods. 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@sfgreens.org. Messages to a mailing list will be rejected.