Now that absentee ballots are going out, here's the full writeup with the SF Green Party's endorsements for this November's election. We also endorsed candidates in the KPFA station board election--if you're a member, please mail your ballot in time so that it's received (not postmarked) by October 15. These endorsements are also posted on our website: http://www.sfgreenparty.org/campaigns/campaigns.gem SF municipal election: Tuesday, November 3, 2009, and KPFA Local Station Board election (for KPFA members, October 15, 2009) Green Party Endorsements, San Francisco Propositions Yes on A (2-year budget process). Prop A would convert the SF budget process from the current 1-year budget cycle to a rolling 2-year cycle (i.e., budgeting 2 years out, but with opportunities for the Supervisors to amend the budget every year). In addition, Prop A would require SF to adopt a 5-year fiscal plan, and would also standardize the deadlines for labor negotiations with all public employee unions. We support Prop A because it is in keeping with our Key Value of Future Focus. A rolling two year budget (and 5-year fiscal projections) would allow departments to make more long-term plans, while still allowing democratic modifications to the budget every year. It would also put other public employee unions on equal footing with the Police and Firefighters' unions, who currently get their contracts negotiated before the others. Although Prop A is a small step in the right direction, stronger reform will still be needed if it passes. Currently, the Mayor can "veto" any budget item approved by the Supervisors, by simply refusing to spend money that was legally allocated. There is no means for the Supervisors to override such action, even by unanimous consent. This is a major imbalance of power, and two of the authors of Prop A, Supervisors Avalos and Chiu, shot down stronger legislation sponsored by Supervisors Ross Mirkarimi and Chris Daly that would have given the Supervisors a legal means to override Mayoral budget vetoes. This year's budget was a largely a result of a backroom deal between Mayor Newsom and Supervisors Avalos and Chiu, and unfortunately these two Supervisors chose to roll over for the Mayor rather than challenging him. Yes on B (allow supervisors to hire more aides, if budgeted). Prop B would allow the Supervisors to have more than two aides, if sufficient funds were budgeted. Currently, Supervisors rely on a number of volunteers to help them research legislation and answer concerns from their constituents. These volunteers often do work that is comparable to the work done by paid staff, and the Supervisors should be allowed to hire them if they have sufficient funds in their budget. No on C (corporate naming rights to Candlestick Park). We have always opposed the growing commercialization of public spaces. In 2004, Green Supervisor Matt Gonzalez sponsored Prop H, which would would prevent the city-owned Candlestick Park from being renamed "PG&E Field," "Bechtel Stadium," "Halliburton Park" or other corporate names in the future. 55% of the voters agreed with Supervisor Gonzalez that "Monster Park" was a tacky name, and now the Chamber of Commerce is asking for a do-over. Just say no. No on D (giant, flashing, rotating corporate ad billboards on Market Street). The SF Green Party was instrumental in passing a ballot measure in 2002 that prohibited new billboards in SF (Prop G passed with 77% of the vote). Although Mayors Brown and Newsom have chosen to look the other way and ignore many new billboards put up in violation of that law, it would be difficult even for Newsom to ignore two blocks of giant, flashing, rotating video billboards that the sponsors of Prop D plan to build on Market Street. We sympathize with the owner of the Warfield Theater, who says he simply wants to restore a classic sign on his building, while replacing the old-fashioned light bulbs with energy-efficient lighting and removing obsolete corporate logos. There should be a legal way for him to accomplish this. However, Prop D goes way too far. It would give part of Market Street the garish look of downtown Tokyo, and result in San Franciscans being blasted with corporate ads that could be seen for miles. Worse, the authors of Prop D use poor kids as window dressing--although they claim that some profits from the billboards would be donated to programs that benefit "youth arts," the committee that would distribute such funding would be a self-selected group of business owners. Prop D does not legally require the committee to spend ANY funds to benefit local kids, as suggested by their ad campaign. It is disgraceful that the local Democratic Party has joined with the Chamber of Commerce in supporting the over-commercialization of our public space. Yes on E (ban on additional corporate ad billboards on public property). Prop E would ban new corporate ads on public street furniture, such as newspaper racks and Muni bus shelters. After the 2002 billboard ban passed overwhelmingly (see discussion above), corporations found a loophole, and lobbied Muni to build new bus shelters plastered with their ads. Most of these new bus shelters are not located out in the neighborhoods where they are needed, but rather downtown where they will be seen by the advertisers' target customers. It's time for Muni to focus more on running the buses than on selling billboards. Let's limit visual blight by voting Yes on E. San Francisco municipal offices Treasurer - no endorsement. Jose Cisneros is currently running unopposed for reelection. We appreciate Cisneros' efforts to lower taxes on SRO residents, and his lobbying of banks to provide less costly alternatives to check-cashing companies for SF's poorest residents. However, we would like Cisneros to be more proactive in pushing for changes to laws that would benefit City residents. For example, state law severely limits the types of investments that a local Treasurer can make. City funds must be invested in commercial banks and government bonds, and may not be invested in projects such as community land trusts, alternative energy development, or even home loans to local residents. Rather than working to create a publicly-owned Bank of San Francisco that could invest City funds in such projects, Cisneros has focused on making deals with private banks. Although he has extracted small concessions (such as lowering some fees for low-income residents), he should ask for more, as many of these same banks recently received trillions of our federal tax dollars from the Bush and Obama administrations. And while Assessor Phil Ting has called for reform of Prop 13 to require large corporations to pay their fair share of California taxes, Cisneros has not publicly joined him. City Attorney - no endorsement. Dennis Herrera is running unopposed for re-election. Although Herrera's office has done admirable work lobbying on behalf of marriage equality rights, he hasn't accomplished much else. In 2007, he sided with the Lennar Corporation in blocking a citizen-led initiative regarding Bayview-Hunters Point redevelopment from being placed on the ballot, even though the residents had gathered a sufficient number of signatures. By ruling that the petitions were invalid because the signature gatherers had not attached copies of a phone book-sized piece of legislation they were seeking to overturn, Herrera set a dangerous precedent that will allow authorities to reject any petition that they believe shouldn't be allowed before voters on similar technicalities. Herrera also promised 4 years ago to enforce the Raker Act (which would bring public power to SF), and he hasn't made any moves towards doing so. He's also been unwilling to enforce open records (Sunshine) laws. Herrera did not participate in the SF Green Party's endorsement process. KPFA Local Station Board KPFA listener candidates - Only KPFA members can vote in this election; you should have already received a ballot in the mail if you are a member. Voters can rank up to 29 candidates, and there are 9 seats open, so be sure to choose at least 9; this is a ranked choice election, so you can't 'dilute' your vote by ranking additional candidates. The SF Green Party has endorsed 10 of the candidates. Please rank the following 9 candidates in your top 9, in any order you prefer (they are listed here alphabetically): Jim Curtis, Adam Hudson, Rahman McCreadie, Henry Norr, Richard Phelps, Andrea Prichett, Gerald Sanders, Akio Tanaka, and Stan Woods. Please rank Steve Zeltzer 10th*. In addition, we recommend that you do NOT vote for any of the 10 candidates on the Concerned Listeners slate, or that you rank them behind all 19 other candidates. The Concerned Listeners slate currently holds a majority on the KPFA board and has run the station in an undemocratic manner that has harmed programming diversity and worker rights. None of the Concerned Listeners slate chose to participate in the SF Green Party's endorsement process. * - Sasha Futran originally sought our endorsement, and tied with Steve Zeltzer; after our endorsements were announced, Ms. Futran asked to be removed from our endorsement list. KPFA staff candidates - Only KPFA staff members can vote in this election. The SF Green Party has endorsed Anthony Fest.