- Ciwg - example.com

(no subject)
by Liam Woods-Smith 10 Oct '07

10 Oct '07

Wed. Oct. 10th: just handed out 100 newsletters today (up and down Market Street). I'm wondering if someone could be in the office sometime on Friday for me to pick up more. -Liam _________________________________________________________________ Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You! http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us

1 0

draft endorsement statements on Candidates and Initiatives
by John-Marc Chandonia 02 Sep '07

02 Sep '07

These are proposed statements for our website and election newspaper (which we'll print instead of a slate card). Note that some have been approved already, while others are still in draft, and others still need to be written. I've noted the status of each, below. Please send proposed additions and corrections: -- Proposed statement about the Mayoral Candidates (still being drafted by various people; needs final approval by the CIWG): Grassroots Democracy is a key value of the Green Party. Our recommended candidates reflect that value in the best sense. The incumbent chose not to seek our endorsement. After careful consideration of the candidates' responsesto our questionnaires and verbal presentations as part of our process, being inclusive, with a focus on the future and the well-being of all San Franciscans, the following candidates for Mayor are recommended by the SF Green Party (presented in alphabetical order): Lonnie Holmes did ??? Quintin Mecke did ??? and was a key part of the 2003 Gonzalez campaign. Ahimsa Sumchai has been a tireless advocate for environmental justice in the Bayview and Hunter's Point. Josh Wolf served a record jail sentence to defend the rights of journalists to protect the privacy of their sources and include alternative journalism in that protection. He supports participatory democracy, open government and has new ideas to effect his goals. --- Proposed statement about the D.A's race (written by JMC; needs final approval by the GM): No candidate for District Attorney sought the SF Green Party's endorsement. (do we want to say anything further about the incumbent?) --- Proposed statement about the Sheriff's race (written by JMC; needs final approval by the GM): We have issued a ranked endorsed for Sheriff. Incumbent Michael Hennessey is our number one choice, and David Wong is our number two choice. (does anybody want to add anything about why we support them?) -- Proposed statement on Prop A (approved by the Transpo WG; we will be seeking endorsement at the GM on Wednesday): Prop A: MUNI charter reform - YES The SF Green Party believes that as a Transit First city, SF must limit the amount of new parking that we build in order to ensure smooth operation of public transit. Prop A would only allow an increase in private parking above current limits with a supermajority (9 of 11 members) of the Board of Supervisors. On the other hand, lowering the current limits would require only a simple majority of the Board. This provision of Prop A would supersede Prop H (see discussion of Prop H below). [Note that Marc suggested adding language condemning Peskin's compromise that will result in a SOMA garage if a future prop in February passes; such concerns might mean a neutral position instead of YES]. We also support returning more control over the MTA budget to our elected representatives; Prop A lowers the current threshold of 8 members of the Board of Supervisors required to reject the budget to 7 members. We think this limit should be lowered to a simple majority, and include the power of line item veto. Prop A dedicates more city funds to the MTA. Although this would allow more stable funding for Muni, there is no new revenue source in this proposition; all new money would come from the General Fund. We have concerns that Prop A will continue the failed policies of a board consisting entirely of mayoral appointees, which has raised Muni fares twice in recent years rather than aggressively seeking other sources of funding. In a time of global warming and peak oil, SF needs radical rather than incremental improvement to our public transit system. Incremental tinkering with policy is NOT "Transit First." We also have concerns about greenwashing in Prop A, as there is much language urging environmental improvement by the MTA, but no proposed infrastructure or measures of accountability to ensure that these changes actually happen. Similarly, there is a lack of accountability for reaching Muni performance standards. We think the generous pay raises in Prop A for MTA employees should be linked to improvements in performance, in cases where the job duties of the employee have the potential to directly result in performance increases. Prop A also provides no incentive to improve MTA employee attendance. On balance, we support Prop A, and urge a YES vote. However, we hope that a stronger measure that addresses the deficiencies of this one will appear on a future ballot. --- Proposed statement on Prop B; written by JMC and requiring CIWG approval. Endorsement was already made by the GM. Prop B: Limiting hold-over service on charter-created Boards and Commissions - YES On many SF government boards and commissions, the appointed representatives may not be removed without cause, until they finish serving their terms. This theoretically allows the commissioners more independence from the person or body that appointed them. However, there is currently a major loophole: commissioners who have finished their terms may continue to serve indefinitely without being formally re-appointed, and may then be replaced at any time, without cause, by a new appointee. The current law has resulted in many commissioners serving second terms without having been formally re-appointed. These commissioners know they are on a "short leash" and may be replaced at any time if they make a decision that their appointing officials disagree with. Prop B closes this loophole, and requires that commissioners whose terms have expired be re-appointed within 6 months, or the position be declared vacant. Prop B will allow more commissioners to be more independent, and is in keeping with the original intent of the charter provision that requires cause for their removal. In the interests of clean government, the SF Green Party urges a YES vote on Prop B. -- Prop C: Requiring public hearings for proposed ballot measures We need to discuss this at the GM; can proponents and opponents please draft something before then, and send it to the list? -- Proposed statement on Prop D; written by JMC and requiring GM approval. This proposition has not yet been discussed--I'm just presenting my position and hope that a proponent of the measure will write an opposing argument. Prop D: Renewing library preservation fund - NO The SF Green Party opposes Prop D. Prop D would expand the current library preservation fund (which is a necessary means to pay for keeping our libraries open and buying books) to also allow bonds to be issued without voter approval. These bonds would pay for unspecified construction projects and equipment. For 15 years, only approval by the Supervisors and Mayor would be required to issue these bonds, not the usual approval threshold of a 2/3 majority of voters. [the following was modified from the GP of Alameda County's voter guide; they have more good language concerning bonds] 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. 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. As noted in the 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). If Prop D passes, City funds would be used to pay the interest on the bonds, rather than going towards more open hours and library books. The proponents of Prop D argue that the funding is needed immediately to keep our libraries open; however, the current fund doesn't expire until 2009, which gives us several more elections to craft more fiscally responsible solutions that do not rely on bonds. Although the Prop D bonds would provide a short-term boost to library funds, repaying them will drain funds that will needed in the future. Prop D is a shortsighted solution that is not consistent with our Key Value of Future Focus, and we therefore oppose it. -- Proposed statement on Prop E; written by JMC and requiring CIWG approval. Endorsement was already made by the GM. Prop E: Requiring Mayor to appear monthly at a Board of Supervisors meeting - YES The SF Green Party strongly supports a YES vote on Prop E. Public debate over policy is a key part of the democratic process. In 2006, 56% of voters asked the Mayor to engage in formal policy discussions once per month at a Board of Supervisors meeting. The incumbent Mayor has ignored the will of the voters; Prop E will require future mayors to participate in this fundamental democratic process. -- Proposed statement on Prop F; written by JMC and requiring CIWG approval. Endorsement was already made by the GM. Prop F: Pork Not Police (a.k.a. Authorizing Board of Supervisors to amend contract for retirement benefits for police department employees who were airport police officers) - NO The SF Green Party opposes Prop F. For historical reasons, airport police officers currently receive retirement benefits through CalPERS, while other police officers receive City retirement benefits, which are better and more expensive for taxpayers to fund. Both groups of officers knew what type of benefits they were getting when they signed up. Instead of paying more benefits to airport police officers, additional money spent on our Police Department should be spent on community priorities, such as more foot patrols in SF neighborhoods with the highest crime rates. Prop F is a transparent attempt to buy the favors of the police union with public funds, and is a waste of taxpayer's money. The SF Green Party strongly opposes it. -- Prop G: Establishing Golden Gate Park stables matching fund No position taken so far. Concerns raised at the meeting are the there are far more important issues affecting SF residents, that there's no guarantee that the stables will be restricted to public uses only (i.e., public horse-power), and that the animals might be mistreated. We should finalize this at the GM; can anybody expand the above into a real proposed statement, and send it to the list before the GM? -- This statement has already been approved by the GM, although it can be overturned or modified by another GM: Prop H: Gridlock for Neighborhoods (a.k.a. Regulating parking spaces) - NO The SF Green Party strongly opposes Prop H. Prop H is an initiative backed by a parking lot development corporation that would slow MUNI service, violate SF's Transit First policy, increase housing costs, add to traffic gridlock, remove trees, increase global warming, and create dangerous conditions for pedestrians and cyclists. Prop H would require a minimum number of parking spaces to be built for each new housing unit, making housing more expensive and requiring that limited space be used to store cars instead of creating badly needed housing. Prop H would even override neighborhood development plans that call for fewer parking spaces in dense and transit-rich neighborhoods. Most San Franciscans have supported these plans in order to preserve their community's livability and character. Prop H would bring an influx of cars to all neighborhoods, resulting in traffic gridlock, dangerous conditions for cyclists, and even slower MUNI service. In an age of global warming, Prop H would increase carbon emissions, and is a step in the wrong direction. Worse, Prop H would allow developers to add private driveways and garage entrances wherever they want, eliminating public on-street parking, MUNI stops, and sidewalk trees. More private driveways would make it harder to find on-street parking, and more cars pulling in and out of garages would be dangerous for pedestrians. Removal of many street trees would be a detriment to the character and beauty of our city, in addition to the necessity of plants and the symbiotic dynamic to filter the airspace and contribute to oxygen. This amounts to the practice of clearcutting forests. Prop H is greenwashed with some minor concessions to car-sharing. Dont be fooled. The SF Green Party strongly urges you to vote NO on Prop H. -- Prop I: Establishing Office of Small Business as city departement and creating a Small Business Assistance Center We need to discuss this at the GM; can proponents and opponents please draft something before then, and send it to the list? -- Proposed statement on Prop J; written by JMC and requiring CIWG approval. Endorsement was already made by the GM. Prop J: Fake "Free" Wireless (a.k.a. Adopting a policy to offer free city-wide wireless high-speed Internet network) - NO The SF Green Party does not support any form of citywide communications infrastructure that is owned and/or effectively controlled by any private entity or corporation. Communications infrastructure such as internet or cable networks should be owned and controlled by the public, for the public interest. Prop J promises voters a free lunch, while not giving any of the ugly details of the corporate monopoly franchise deal the Mayor wants us to enter into with Google/Earthlink. It is also a purely advisory public relations tool that was created to allow the Mayor to circumvent Ethics rules on campaign financing. The SF Green Party strongly opposes it. -- Proposed statement on Prop K; written by JMC and requiring CIWG approval. Endorsement was already made by the GM. Prop K: Adopting a policy to restrict advertising on street furniture and city buildings - YES The SF Green Party urges a YES vote on Prop K. Prop K would restrict advertising on public street fixtures such as bus shelters and newspaper racks. Such objects are designed by advertising companies to provide optimal display of ads to street and automobile traffic, although they are not particularly effective for their stated purposes. Rather than clutter our City with useless ads, SF should put bus shelters where they are really needed, and use them to display useful information such as route maps. The SF Green Party also urges the City to enforce existing restrictions on the proliferation of private billboards. These ads often appear illegally on construction sites and private buildings, but their removal is not currently enforced by the City. Prop K addresses only the problem of excessive advertising on public street property, but both public and private ads should be limited. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/

1 1

Re: [CIWG] [SFGP-A] draft endorsement statements on Candidates and Initiative s
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 27 Aug '07

27 Aug '07

JMC, Thanks for taking the time to do this. Here are my suggestions: Prop A: 1. While Proposition A lays out no specific plan to reduce San Francisco's contribution to global warming from its transportation sector, it requires the MTA create such a plan by Janaury 1, 2009. 2. With the exception of an increase in the number of supervisors required to approve an increase in the number of parking spaces allowed to be created by right and a decrease in the number of supervisors needed to lower the number of required parking spaces, Proposition A maintains the parking status quo. Proposition H, on the other hand, is a radical departure from 30 years of transit-based planning. Proposition H: 1. Proposition H makes deceptive concessions for low emission vehicles that essentially remove virtually all limits on the number of new parking spaces that can be created. Proposition H does this be exempting parking spaces that can be created for low emission vehicles from any legal limits. However, by 2008, almost all passenger cars and trucks in the United States will qualify as low emission. We think of Bangkok, Athens, Greece, and Mexico City -- some of the world's most congested metropolises -- when we think of Proposition H. Sue Please note: message attached These are proposed statements for our website and election newspaper (which we'll print instead of a slate card). Note that some have been approved already, while others are still in draft, and others still need to be written. I've noted the status of each, below. Please send proposed additions and corrections: -- Proposed statement about the Mayoral Candidates (still being drafted by various people; needs final approval by the CIWG): Grassroots Democracy is a key value of the Green Party. Our recommended candidates reflect that value in the best sense. The incumbent chose not to seek our endorsement. After careful consideration of the candidates' responses to our questionnaires and verbal presentations as part of our process, being inclusive, with a focus on the future and the well-being of all San Franciscans, the following candidates for Mayor are recommended by the SF Green Party (presented in alphabetical order): Lonnie Holmes did ??? Quintin Mecke did ??? and was a key part of the 2003 Gonzalez campaign. Ahimsa Sumchai has been a tireless advocate for environmental justice in the Bayview and Hunter's Point. Josh Wolf served a record jail sentence to defend the rights of journalists to protect the privacy of their sources and include alternative journalism in that protection. He supports participatory democracy, open government and has new ideas to effect his goals. --- Proposed statement about the D.A's race (written by JMC; needs final approval by the GM): No candidate for District Attorney sought the SF Green Party's endorsement. (do we want to say anything further about the incumbent?) --- Proposed statement about the Sheriff's race (written by JMC; needs final approval by the GM): We have issued a ranked endorsed for Sheriff. Incumbent Michael Hennessey is our number one choice, and David Wong is our number two choice. (does anybody want to add anything about why we support them?) -- Proposed statement on Prop A (approved by the Transpo WG; we will be seeking endorsement at the GM on Wednesday): Prop A: MUNI charter reform - YES The SF Green Party believes that as a Transit First city, SF must limit the amount of new parking that we build in order to ensure smooth operation of public transit. Prop A would only allow an increase in private parking above current limits with a supermajority (9 of 11 members) of the Board of Supervisors. On the other hand, lowering the current limits would require only a simple majority of the Board. This provision of Prop A would supersede Prop H (see discussion of Prop H below). [Note that Marc suggested adding language condemning Peskin's compromise that will result in a SOMA garage if a future prop in February passes; such concerns might mean a neutral position instead of YES]. We also support returning more control over the MTA budget to our elected representatives; Prop A lowers the current threshold of 8 members of the Board of Supervisors required to reject the budget to 7 members. We think this limit should be lowered to a simple majority, and include the power of line item veto. Prop A dedicates more city funds to the MTA. Although this would allow more stable funding for Muni, there is no new revenue source in this proposition; all new money would come from the General Fund. We have concerns that Prop A will continue the failed policies of a board consisting entirely of mayoral appointees, which has raised Muni fares twice in recent years rather than aggressively seeking other sources of funding. In a time of global warming and peak oil, SF needs radical rather than incremental improvement to our public transit system. Incremental tinkering with policy is NOT "Transit First." We also have concerns about greenwashing in Prop A, as there is much language urging environmental improvement by the MTA, but no proposed infrastructure or measures of accountability to ensure that these changes actually happen. Similarly, there is a lack of accountability for reaching Muni performance standards. We think the generous pay raises in Prop A for MTA employees should be linked to improvements in performance, in cases where the job duties of the employee have the potential to directly result in performance increases. Prop A also provides no incentive to improve MTA employee attendance. On balance, we support Prop A, and urge a YES vote. However, we hope that a stronger measure that addresses the deficiencies of this one will appear on a future ballot. --- Proposed statement on Prop B; written by JMC and requiring CIWG approval. Endorsement was already made by the GM. Prop B: Limiting hold-over service on charter-created Boards and Commissions - YES On many SF government boards and commissions, the appointed representatives may not be removed without cause, until they finish serving their terms. This theoretically allows the commissioners more independence from the person or body that appointed them. However, there is currently a major loophole: commissioners who have finished their terms may continue to serve indefinitely without being formally re-appointed, and may then be replaced at any time, without cause, by a new appointee. The current law has resulted in many commissioners serving second terms without having been formally re-appointed. These commissioners know they are on a "short leash" and may be replaced at any time if they make a decision that their appointing officials disagree with. Prop B closes this loophole, and requires that commissioners whose terms have expired be re-appointed within 6 months, or the position be declared vacant. Prop B will allow more commissioners to be more independent, and is in keeping with the original intent of the charter provision that requires cause for their removal. In the interests of clean government, the SF Green Party urges a YES vote on Prop B. -- Prop C: Requiring public hearings for proposed ballot measures We need to discuss this at the GM; can proponents and opponents please draft something before then, and send it to the list? -- Proposed statement on Prop D; written by JMC and requiring GM approval. This proposition has not yet been discussed--I'm just presenting my position and hope that a proponent of the measure will write an opposing argument. Prop D: Renewing library preservation fund - NO The SF Green Party opposes Prop D. Prop D would expand the current library preservation fund (which is a necessary means to pay for keeping our libraries open and buying books) to also allow bonds to be issued without voter approval. These bonds would pay for unspecified construction projects and equipment. For 15 years, only approval by the Supervisors and Mayor would be required to issue these bonds, not the usual approval threshold of a 2/3 majority of voters. [the following was modified from the GP of Alameda County's voter guide; they have more good language concerning bonds] 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. 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. As noted in the 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). If Prop D passes, City funds would be used to pay the interest on the bonds, rather than going towards more open hours and library books. The proponents of Prop D argue that the funding is needed immediately to keep our libraries open; however, the current fund doesn't expire until 2009, which gives us several more elections to craft more fiscally responsible solutions that do not rely on bonds. Although the Prop D bonds would provide a short-term boost to library funds, repaying them will drain funds that will needed in the future. Prop D is a shortsighted solution that is not consistent with our Key Value of Future Focus, and we therefore oppose it. -- Proposed statement on Prop E; written by JMC and requiring CIWG approval. Endorsement was already made by the GM. Prop E: Requiring Mayor to appear monthly at a Board of Supervisors meeting - YES The SF Green Party strongly supports a YES vote on Prop E. Public debate over policy is a key part of the democratic process. In 2006, 56% of voters asked the Mayor to engage in formal policy discussions once per month at a Board of Supervisors meeting. The incumbent Mayor has ignored the will of the voters; Prop E will require future mayors to participate in this fundamental democratic process. -- Proposed statement on Prop F; written by JMC and requiring CIWG approval. Endorsement was already made by the GM. Prop F: Pork Not Police (a.k.a. Authorizing Board of Supervisors to amend contract for retirement benefits for police department employees who were airport police officers) - NO The SF Green Party opposes Prop F. For historical reasons, airport police officers currently receive retirement benefits through CalPERS, while other police officers receive City retirement benefits, which are better and more expensive for taxpayers to fund. Both groups of officers knew what type of benefits they were getting when they signed up. Instead of paying more benefits to airport police officers, additional money spent on our Police Department should be spent on community priorities, such as more foot patrols in SF neighborhoods with the highest crime rates. Prop F is a transparent attempt to buy the favors of the police union with public funds, and is a waste of taxpayer's money. The SF Green Party strongly opposes it. -- Prop G: Establishing Golden Gate Park stables matching fund No position taken so far. Concerns raised at the meeting are the there are far more important issues affecting SF residents, that there's no guarantee that the stables will be restricted to public uses only (i.e., public horse-power), and that the animals might be mistreated. We should finalize this at the GM; can anybody expand the above into a real proposed statement, and send it to the list before the GM? -- This statement has already been approved by the GM, although it can be overturned or modified by another GM: Prop H: Gridlock for Neighborhoods (a.k.a. Regulating parking spaces) - NO The SF Green Party strongly opposes Prop H. Prop H is an initiative backed by a parking lot development corporation that would slow MUNI service, violate SF's Transit First policy, increase housing costs, add to traffic gridlock, remove trees, increase global warming, and create dangerous conditions for pedestrians and cyclists. Prop H would require a minimum number of parking spaces to be built for each new housing unit, making housing more expensive and requiring that limited space be used to store cars instead of creating badly needed housing. Prop H would even override neighborhood development plans that call for fewer parking spaces in dense and transit-rich neighborhoods. Most San Franciscans have supported these plans in order to preserve their community's livability and character. Prop H would bring an influx of cars to all neighborhoods, resulting in traffic gridlock, dangerous conditions for cyclists, and even slower MUNI service. In an age of global warming, Prop H would increase carbon emissions, and is a step in the wrong direction. Worse, Prop H would allow developers to add private driveways and garage entrances wherever they want, eliminating public on-street parking, MUNI stops, and sidewalk trees. More private driveways would make it harder to find on-street parking, and more cars pulling in and out of garages would be dangerous for pedestrians. Removal of many street trees would be a detriment to the character and beauty of our city, in addition to the necessity of plants and the symbiotic dynamic to filter the airspace and contribute to oxygen. This amounts to the practice of clearcutting forests. Prop H is greenwashed with some minor concessions to car-sharing. Don't be fooled. The SF Green Party strongly urges you to vote NO on Prop H. -- Prop I: Establishing Office of Small Business as city departement and creating a Small Business Assistance Center We need to discuss this at the GM; can proponents and opponents please draft something before then, and send it to the list? -- Proposed statement on Prop J; written by JMC and requiring CIWG approval. Endorsement was already made by the GM. Prop J: Fake "Free" Wireless (a.k.a. Adopting a policy to offer free city-wide wireless high-speed Internet network) - NO The SF Green Party does not support any form of citywide communications infrastructure that is owned and/or effectively controlled by any private entity or corporation. Communications infrastructure such as internet or cable networks should be owned and controlled by the public, for the public interest. Prop J promises voters a free lunch, while not giving any of the ugly details of the corporate monopoly franchise deal the Mayor wants us to enter into with Google/Earthlink. It is also a purely advisory public relations tool that was created to allow the Mayor to circumvent Ethics rules on campaign financing. The SF Green Party strongly opposes it. -- Proposed statement on Prop K; written by JMC and requiring CIWG approval. Endorsement was already made by the GM. Prop K: Adopting a policy to restrict advertising on street furniture and city buildings - YES The SF Green Party urges a YES vote on Prop K. Prop K would restrict advertising on public street fixtures such as bus shelters and newspaper racks. Such objects are designed by advertising companies to provide optimal display of ads to street and automobile traffic, although they are not particularly effective for their stated purposes. Rather than clutter our City with useless ads, SF should put bus shelters where they are really needed, and use them to display useful information such as route maps. The SF Green Party also urges the City to enforce existing restrictions on the proliferation of private billboards. These ads often appear illegally on construction sites and private buildings, but their removal is not currently enforced by the City. Prop K addresses only the problem of excessive advertising on public street property, but both public and private ads should be limited. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/ Files & Documents Help signature.asc (1KB) Attachment (1KB) These are proposed statements for our website and election newspaper (which we'll print instead of a slate card). Note that some have been approved already, while others are still in draft, and others still need to be written. I've noted the status of each, below. Please send proposed additions and corrections: -- Proposed statement about the Mayoral Candidates (still being drafted by various people; needs final approval by the CIWG): Grassroots Democracy is a key value of the Green Party. Our recommended candidates reflect that value in the best sense. The incumbent chose not to seek our endorsement. After careful consideration of the candidates' responsesto our questionnaires and verbal presentations as part of our process, being inclusive, with a focus on the future and the well-being of all San Franciscans, the following candidates for Mayor are recommended by the SF Green Party (presented in alphabetical order): Lonnie Holmes did ??? Quintin Mecke did ??? and was a key part of the 2003 Gonzalez campaign. Ahimsa Sumchai has been a tireless advocate for environmental justice in the Bayview and Hunter's Point. Josh Wolf served a record jail sentence to defend the rights of journalists to protect the privacy of their sources and include alternative journalism in that protection. He supports participatory democracy, open government and has new ideas to effect his goals. --- Proposed statement about the D.A's race (written by JMC; needs final approval by the GM): No candidate for District Attorney sought the SF Green Party's endorsement. (do we want to say anything further about the incumbent?) --- Proposed statement about the Sheriff's race (written by JMC; needs final approval by the GM): We have issued a ranked endorsed for Sheriff. Incumbent Michael Hennessey is our number one choice, and David Wong is our number two choice. (does anybody want to add anything about why we support them?) -- Proposed statement on Prop A (approved by the Transpo WG; we will be seeking endorsement at the GM on Wednesday): Prop A: MUNI charter reform - YES The SF Green Party believes that as a Transit First city, SF must limit the amount of new parking that we build in order to ensure smooth operation of public transit. Prop A would only allow an increase in private parking above current limits with a supermajority (9 of 11 members) of the Board of Supervisors. On the other hand, lowering the current limits would require only a simple majority of the Board. This provision of Prop A would supersede Prop H (see discussion of Prop H below). [Note that Marc suggested adding language condemning Peskin's compromise that will result in a SOMA garage if a future prop in February passes; such concerns might mean a neutral position instead of YES]. We also support returning more control over the MTA budget to our elected representatives; Prop A lowers the current threshold of 8 members of the Board of Supervisors required to reject the budget to 7 members. We think this limit should be lowered to a simple majority, and include the power of line item veto. Prop A dedicates more city funds to the MTA. Although this would allow more stable funding for Muni, there is no new revenue source in this proposition; all new money would come from the General Fund. We have concerns that Prop A will continue the failed policies of a board consisting entirely of mayoral appointees, which has raised Muni fares twice in recent years rather than aggressively seeking other sources of funding. In a time of global warming and peak oil, SF needs radical rather than incremental improvement to our public transit system. Incremental tinkering with policy is NOT "Transit First." We also have concerns about greenwashing in Prop A, as there is much language urging environmental improvement by the MTA, but no proposed infrastructure or measures of accountability to ensure that these changes actually happen. Similarly, there is a lack of accountability for reaching Muni performance standards. We think the generous pay raises in Prop A for MTA employees should be linked to improvements in performance, in cases where the job duties of the employee have the potential to directly result in performance increases. Prop A also provides no incentive to improve MTA employee attendance. On balance, we support Prop A, and urge a YES vote. However, we hope that a stronger measure that addresses the deficiencies of this one will appear on a future ballot. --- Proposed statement on Prop B; written by JMC and requiring CIWG approval. Endorsement was already made by the GM. Prop B: Limiting hold-over service on charter-created Boards and Commissions - YES On many SF government boards and commissions, the appointed representatives may not be removed without cause, until they finish serving their terms. This theoretically allows the commissioners more independence from the person or body that appointed them. However, there is currently a major loophole: commissioners who have finished their terms may continue to serve indefinitely without being formally re-appointed, and may then be replaced at any time, without cause, by a new appointee. The current law has resulted in many commissioners serving second terms without having been formally re-appointed. These commissioners know they are on a "short leash" and may be replaced at any time if they make a decision that their appointing officials disagree with. Prop B closes this loophole, and requires that commissioners whose terms have expired be re-appointed within 6 months, or the position be declared vacant. Prop B will allow more commissioners to be more independent, and is in keeping with the original intent of the charter provision that requires cause for their removal. In the interests of clean government, the SF Green Party urges a YES vote on Prop B. -- Prop C: Requiring public hearings for proposed ballot measures We need to discuss this at the GM; can proponents and opponents please draft something before then, and send it to the list? -- Proposed statement on Prop D; written by JMC and requiring GM approval. This proposition has not yet been discussed--I'm just presenting my position and hope that a proponent of the measure will write an opposing argument. Prop D: Renewing library preservation fund - NO The SF Green Party opposes Prop D. Prop D would expand the current library preservation fund (which is a necessary means to pay for keeping our libraries open and buying books) to also allow bonds to be issued without voter approval. These bonds would pay for unspecified construction projects and equipment. For 15 years, only approval by the Supervisors and Mayor would be required to issue these bonds, not the usual approval threshold of a 2/3 majority of voters. [the following was modified from the GP of Alameda County's voter guide; they have more good language concerning bonds] 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. 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. As noted in the 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). If Prop D passes, City funds would be used to pay the interest on the bonds, rather than going towards more open hours and library books. The proponents of Prop D argue that the funding is needed immediately to keep our libraries open; however, the current fund doesn't expire until 2009, which gives us several more elections to craft more fiscally responsible solutions that do not rely on bonds. Although the Prop D bonds would provide a short-term boost to library funds, repaying them will drain funds that will needed in the future. Prop D is a shortsighted solution that is not consistent with our Key Value of Future Focus, and we therefore oppose it. -- Proposed statement on Prop E; written by JMC and requiring CIWG approval. Endorsement was already made by the GM. Prop E: Requiring Mayor to appear monthly at a Board of Supervisors meeting - YES The SF Green Party strongly supports a YES vote on Prop E. Public debate over policy is a key part of the democratic process. In 2006, 56% of voters asked the Mayor to engage in formal policy discussions once per month at a Board of Supervisors meeting. The incumbent Mayor has ignored the will of the voters; Prop E will require future mayors to participate in this fundamental democratic process. -- Proposed statement on Prop F; written by JMC and requiring CIWG approval. Endorsement was already made by the GM. Prop F: Pork Not Police (a.k.a. Authorizing Board of Supervisors to amend contract for retirement benefits for police department employees who were airport police officers) - NO The SF Green Party opposes Prop F. For historical reasons, airport police officers currently receive retirement benefits through CalPERS, while other police officers receive City retirement benefits, which are better and more expensive for taxpayers to fund. Both groups of officers knew what type of benefits they were getting when they signed up. Instead of paying more benefits to airport police officers, additional money spent on our Police Department should be spent on community priorities, such as more foot patrols in SF neighborhoods with the highest crime rates. Prop F is a transparent attempt to buy the favors of the police union with public funds, and is a waste of taxpayer's money. The SF Green Party strongly opposes it. -- Prop G: Establishing Golden Gate Park stables matching fund No position taken so far. Concerns raised at the meeting are the there are far more important issues affecting SF residents, that there's no guarantee that the stables will be restricted to public uses only (i.e., public horse-power), and that the animals might be mistreated. We should finalize this at the GM; can anybody expand the above into a real proposed statement, and send it to the list before the GM? -- This statement has already been approved by the GM, although it can be overturned or modified by another GM: Prop H: Gridlock for Neighborhoods (a.k.a. Regulating parking spaces) - NO The SF Green Party strongly opposes Prop H. Prop H is an initiative backed by a parking lot development corporation that would slow MUNI service, violate SF's Transit First policy, increase housing costs, add to traffic gridlock, remove trees, increase global warming, and create dangerous conditions for pedestrians and cyclists. Prop H would require a minimum number of parking spaces to be built for each new housing unit, making housing more expensive and requiring that limited space be used to store cars instead of creating badly needed housing. Prop H would even override neighborhood development plans that call for fewer parking spaces in dense and transit-rich neighborhoods. Most San Franciscans have supported these plans in order to preserve their community's livability and character. Prop H would bring an influx of cars to all neighborhoods, resulting in traffic gridlock, dangerous conditions for cyclists, and even slower MUNI service. In an age of global warming, Prop H would increase carbon emissions, and is a step in the wrong direction. Worse, Prop H would allow developers to add private driveways and garage entrances wherever they want, eliminating public on-street parking, MUNI stops, and sidewalk trees. More private driveways would make it harder to find on-street parking, and more cars pulling in and out of garages would be dangerous for pedestrians. Removal of many street trees would be a detriment to the character and beauty of our city, in addition to the necessity of plants and the symbiotic dynamic to filter the airspace and contribute to oxygen. This amounts to the practice of clearcutting forests. Prop H is greenwashed with some minor concessions to car-sharing. Dont be fooled. The SF Green Party strongly urges you to vote NO on Prop H. -- Prop I: Establishing Office of Small Business as city departement and creating a Small Business Assistance Center We need to discuss this at the GM; can proponents and opponents please draft something before then, and send it to the list? -- Proposed statement on Prop J; written by JMC and requiring CIWG approval. Endorsement was already made by the GM. Prop J: Fake "Free" Wireless (a.k.a. Adopting a policy to offer free city-wide wireless high-speed Internet network) - NO The SF Green Party does not support any form of citywide communications infrastructure that is owned and/or effectively controlled by any private entity or corporation. Communications infrastructure such as internet or cable networks should be owned and controlled by the public, for the public interest. Prop J promises voters a free lunch, while not giving any of the ugly details of the corporate monopoly franchise deal the Mayor wants us to enter into with Google/Earthlink. It is also a purely advisory public relations tool that was created to allow the Mayor to circumvent Ethics rules on campaign financing. The SF Green Party strongly opposes it. -- Proposed statement on Prop K; written by JMC and requiring CIWG approval. Endorsement was already made by the GM. Prop K: Adopting a policy to restrict advertising on street furniture and city buildings - YES The SF Green Party urges a YES vote on Prop K. Prop K would restrict advertising on public street fixtures such as bus shelters and newspaper racks. Such objects are designed by advertising companies to provide optimal display of ads to street and automobile traffic, although they are not particularly effective for their stated purposes. Rather than clutter our City with useless ads, SF should put bus shelters where they are really needed, and use them to display useful information such as route maps. The SF Green Party also urges the City to enforce existing restrictions on the proliferation of private billboards. These ads often appear illegally on construction sites and private buildings, but their removal is not currently enforced by the City. Prop K addresses only the problem of excessive advertising on public street property, but both public and private ads should be limited. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/

1 0

Re: [CIWG] [SFGP-A] URGENT! Pls consider my views on NAP
by John-Marc Chandonia 04 Aug '07

04 Aug '07

Hi Chin, I'm also against NAP, but I think we should ask about it. For many questions on the questionnaire of the form "do you support X?" the right answer is not necessarily yes. If you prefer, we could add a sentence to the question indicating there's controversy within the environmental community on the issue, so there's no implication that we support it. We also don't have to worry about sabotaging any Green candidate's chances, because there are no credible Green candidates in this race. Finally, NAP is one of those issues that's below many people's radar. Raising the issue will force people to look at it and take a stand. I don't know whether most people in SF would support the program or not if they knew more about it, but I think it's very important to have some democratic input. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/

1 0

Fw: Re: [SFGP-A] last Sheriff, DA questionnaires -- one more item abou t juveniles
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 29 Jul '07

29 Jul '07

I'm adding a question about juveniles to the DA questionnaire. Sue Please note: forwarded message attached My suggestions and changes are between the == and the ==. Sue Please note: message attached Here are our last Sheriff and DA questionnaires, from 2003; note that they also need updating with regards to current issues. These will also be finalized at our Aug 6 CIWG meeting. Sheriff: 1. Please state your background and qualifications for Sheriff and why you are running for this position. 2. ==Would you support merging the Sheriff and Police Departments?== Please describe any benefits or flaws that you see in the plan, and any corrective solutions that you might make. 3. Do you believe that the Sheriff's Department currently operates with excessive levels of overtime, and if so, why? Are departmental payroll and overtime practices economically prudent, and do you have any practical solutions for reducing staffing expenses and the work burden on departmental employees, particularly in light of current hiring freezes at City Hall? 4. ==Do you feel that excessive force has been used by sheriff's deputies in recent years, espcecially against anti-war protestors? Was there any merit to the accusations of some detained anit-war protestors?== ==If so,== what steps would you implement to ensure the civil liberties of those subjected to this procedure? Under what circumstances do you advocate the use of strip searches? 5. What funding sources would you explore in order to re-institute or fully fund rehabilitation and recovery programs that might have been cut under recent budgetary constraints? 6. ==What is your position on the outsourcing of medical care of inmates?== 7. Please provide us with a list of your current endorsers. 8. Is there anything else that you would like to add? DA: 1. What is your position on the death penalty? Under what circumstances would you pursue the death penalty? Do you think that three strikes cases with capital punishment should include any nonviolent crimes? If so, what prior crimes that are not violent should be considered in charging decisions? 2. What are your suggestions for police reform? ==Would you support proposals== to limit the lenghth of time of MOUs negotiated during mayoral election years to one year?== How would you have improved the recently passed MOU? 3. Would you prosecute simple possession of marijuana cases? What marijuana cases would you prosecute? What steps would you take to protect those who are providing medical marijuana from prosecution by federal authorities? 4. How do you define "quality of life crimes"? How would you pursue quality of life offenses such as prostitution, drug possession, vehicles parked in the middle of the street, aggressive panhandling, public urination, and sleeping outdoors? 5. In light of recent scandals, how would you pursue alleged corruption and wrongdoing in city government? 6. What crimes are you going to make it a priority to pursue? Are you going to treat a break-in in the Marina the same as a break-in in the Bayview? 7. ==Who has endorsed you?== 8. ==In what ways to you plan to improve the office of the District Attorney?== 9. ==What other information should we know about you and your candidacy?== 10. ==Please comment on Woodside, YGC and the practice of incarcerating juveniles. When you think it is necessary to incarcerate juveniles? What kinds of programs would you enhance or try to develop to avoid the incarceration of juveniles?== Here are our last Sheriff and DA questionnaires, from 2003; note that they also need updating with regards to current issues. These will also be finalized at our Aug 6 CIWG meeting. Sheriff: 1. Please state your background and qualifications for Sheriff and why you are running for this position. 2. Do you support Supervisor Chris Daly's proposal to merge the Sheriff and Police Departments? Please describe any benefits or flaws that you see in the plan, and any corrective solutions that you might make. 3. Do you believe that the Sheriff's Department currently operates with excessive levels of overtime, and if so, why? Are departmental payroll and overtime practices economically prudent, and do you have any practical solutions for reducing staffing expenses and the work burden on departmental employees, particularly in light of current hiring freezes at City Hall? 4. Do you feel that there was any wrongdoing by the Sheriffs Department regarding recent allegations of the two women who were subjected to this procedure as recently reported in the SF Chronicle? What steps would you implement to ensure the civil liberties of those subjected to this procedure? Under what circumstances do you advocate the use of strip searches? 5. What funding sources would you explore in order to re-institute or fully fund rehabilitation and recovery programs that might have been cut under recent budgetary constraints? 6. Please provide us with a list of your current endorsers. 7. Is there anything else that you would like to add? DA: 1. What is your position on the death penalty? Under what circumstances would you pursue the death penalty? Do you think that three strikes cases with capital punishment should include any nonviolent crimes? If so, what prior crimes that are not violent should be considered in charging decisions? 2. What are your suggestions for police reform? Would you support Supervisor Tom Ammiano's proposal to give the Board of Supervisors the power to appoint four members of the police commission? 3. Would you prosecute simple possession of marijuana cases? What marijuana cases would you prosecute? What steps would you take to protect those who are providing medical marijuana from prosecution by federal authorities? 4. How do you define "quality of life crimes"? How would you pursue quality of life offenses such as prostitution, drug possession, vehicles parked in the middle of the street, aggressive panhandling, public urination, and sleeping outdoors? 5. In light of recent scandals, how would you pursue alleged corruption and wrongdoing in city government? 6. Now that many of the diversion programs are going to be cut because of a ten percent cut in the budget of the office of the district attorney and in the sheriff's department budget, what crimes are you going to make it a priority to pursue? Are you going to treat a break-in in the Marina the same as a break-in in the Bayview? JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/

1 0

Re: [CIWG] [SFGP-A] last Sheriff, DA questionnaires
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 29 Jul '07

29 Jul '07

My suggestions and changes are between the == and the ==. Sue Please note: message attached Here are our last Sheriff and DA questionnaires, from 2003; note that they also need updating with regards to current issues. These will also be finalized at our Aug 6 CIWG meeting. Sheriff: 1. Please state your background and qualifications for Sheriff and why you are running for this position. 2. ==Would you support merging the Sheriff and Police Departments?== Please describe any benefits or flaws that you see in the plan, and any corrective solutions that you might make. 3. Do you believe that the Sheriff's Department currently operates with excessive levels of overtime, and if so, why? Are departmental payroll and overtime practices economically prudent, and do you have any practical solutions for reducing staffing expenses and the work burden on departmental employees, particularly in light of current hiring freezes at City Hall? 4. ==Do you feel that excessive force has been used by sheriff's deputies in recent years, espcecially against anti-war protestors? Was there any merit to the accusations of some detained anit-war protestors?== ==If so,== what steps would you implement to ensure the civil liberties of those subjected to this procedure? Under what circumstances do you advocate the use of strip searches? 5. What funding sources would you explore in order to re-institute or fully fund rehabilitation and recovery programs that might have been cut under recent budgetary constraints? 6. ==What is your position on the outsourcing of medical care of inmates?== 7. Please provide us with a list of your current endorsers. 8. Is there anything else that you would like to add? DA: 1. What is your position on the death penalty? Under what circumstances would you pursue the death penalty? Do you think that three strikes cases with capital punishment should include any nonviolent crimes? If so, what prior crimes that are not violent should be considered in charging decisions? 2. What are your suggestions for police reform? ==Would you support proposals== to limit the lenghth of time of MOUs negotiated during mayoral election years to one year?== How would you have improved the recently passed MOU? 3. Would you prosecute simple possession of marijuana cases? What marijuana cases would you prosecute? What steps would you take to protect those who are providing medical marijuana from prosecution by federal authorities? 4. How do you define "quality of life crimes"? How would you pursue quality of life offenses such as prostitution, drug possession, vehicles parked in the middle of the street, aggressive panhandling, public urination, and sleeping outdoors? 5. In light of recent scandals, how would you pursue alleged corruption and wrongdoing in city government? 6. What crimes are you going to make it a priority to pursue? Are you going to treat a break-in in the Marina the same as a break-in in the Bayview? 7. ==Who has endorsed you?== 8. ==In what ways to you plan to improve the office of the District Attorney?== 9. ==What other information should we know about you and your candidacy?== Here are our last Sheriff and DA questionnaires, from 2003; note that they also need updating with regards to current issues. These will also be finalized at our Aug 6 CIWG meeting. Sheriff: 1. Please state your background and qualifications for Sheriff and why you are running for this position. 2. Do you support Supervisor Chris Daly's proposal to merge the Sheriff and Police Departments? Please describe any benefits or flaws that you see in the plan, and any corrective solutions that you might make. 3. Do you believe that the Sheriff's Department currently operates with excessive levels of overtime, and if so, why? Are departmental payroll and overtime practices economically prudent, and do you have any practical solutions for reducing staffing expenses and the work burden on departmental employees, particularly in light of current hiring freezes at City Hall? 4. Do you feel that there was any wrongdoing by the Sheriffs Department regarding recent allegations of the two women who were subjected to this procedure as recently reported in the SF Chronicle? What steps would you implement to ensure the civil liberties of those subjected to this procedure? Under what circumstances do you advocate the use of strip searches? 5. What funding sources would you explore in order to re-institute or fully fund rehabilitation and recovery programs that might have been cut under recent budgetary constraints? 6. Please provide us with a list of your current endorsers. 7. Is there anything else that you would like to add? DA: 1. What is your position on the death penalty? Under what circumstances would you pursue the death penalty? Do you think that three strikes cases with capital punishment should include any nonviolent crimes? If so, what prior crimes that are not violent should be considered in charging decisions? 2. What are your suggestions for police reform? Would you support Supervisor Tom Ammiano's proposal to give the Board of Supervisors the power to appoint four members of the police commission? 3. Would you prosecute simple possession of marijuana cases? What marijuana cases would you prosecute? What steps would you take to protect those who are providing medical marijuana from prosecution by federal authorities? 4. How do you define "quality of life crimes"? How would you pursue quality of life offenses such as prostitution, drug possession, vehicles parked in the middle of the street, aggressive panhandling, public urination, and sleeping outdoors? 5. In light of recent scandals, how would you pursue alleged corruption and wrongdoing in city government? 6. Now that many of the diversion programs are going to be cut because of a ten percent cut in the budget of the office of the district attorney and in the sheriff's department budget, what crimes are you going to make it a priority to pursue? Are you going to treat a break-in in the Marina the same as a break-in in the Bayview? JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/

1 0

Re: [CIWG] [SFGP-A] last Supervisorial questionnaire -- including six request s of candidates and others at the bottom
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 22 Jul '07

22 Jul '07

Oops! I left out the six candidate requests that we passed on Wednesday night. They are at the bottom. My changes and additions are between the == and the ==. I have done some clean up right at the start of the questionnaire, eliminated some of the basics, and added a bunch. I will probably have more ideas later. Sue Please note: message attached Here's our last Supervisorial questionnaire, which we planned to adapt to use for Mayoral candidates. Note that these will be finalized at the next CIWG meeting on Aug 6. I'll send along our Sheriff and DA questionnaires also, if I can find them. JMC ----- Forwarded message from John-Marc Chandonia <jmc(a)sfgreens.org> ----- 2006 SF Green Party Supervisorial Endorsement Questionnaire Please return answers by email (plain text or attachment) to cc(a)sfgreens.org, by Monday, September 11 at 7 PM. For more information, call John-Marc Chandonia at 285-5696. Instructions: 1. There are 10 sections to this questionnaire corresponding to the 10 Key Values upon which the Green Party is organized, followed by a list of measures on the November ballot. 2. Each section begins with a written question and ends with several multiple-choice questions. 3. Please restrict your answers to 100-150 words for the written questions, and that same amount for each part of the two-part question. 4. The multiple-choice questions are answered by checking the box in the appropriate column to indicate which is closest to your position: + = ==Support / Agree / Yes== - = Oppose / Disagree / No ? = Undecided / Don't know / No opinion 5. The world is too complex to always break down neatly into yes / no / maybe choices, so feel free to clarify any answers to multiple choice questions with a few words to the right of the question. 6. Finally, please indicate your position on local and state ballot measures as per the multiple-choice questions above. ==Candidate Name: Phone Number: E-mail: Applying for Public Financing? Signed voluntary spending limit? Campaign Manager: 2nd, 3rd endorsements: Major Endorsements: Favorite Incumbent Supervisor: Least favorite: Paid Slates:== 1) Grassroots Democracy: What are your thoughts on Instant Runoff Voting, and District Elections? How have they worked to date? What would you change in the future? + - ? [ ] [ ] [ ] Sub-government such as Neighborhood Assemblies Networks or Dist. Councils [ ] [ ] [ ] 5 member commissions work better than 7 member commissions [ ] [ ] [ ] Some commissions should be democratically elected [ ] [ ] [ ] The Mayor should appoint all commissions [ ] [ ] [ ] Neighborhood boards should determine SFPD enforcement priorities 2) Ecological Wisdom: Please outline your view of the major environmental and ecological issues facing San Francisco and your proposed policies to address them. + - ? [ ] [ ] [ ] ==The Redevelopment plans for Bayview/Hunters Point== [ ] [ ] [ ] Saturday Closure of some roads in Golden Gate Park [ ] [ ] [ ] Diesel tour buses should be phased out [ ] [ ] [ ] ==Small, noisy two-seaters for tourists should phased out.== [ ] [ ] [ ] Public Power [ ] [ ] [ ] Community Choice Aggregation [ ] [ ] [ ] ==Public control of any tidal power that might be harnessed in San Francisco Bay.== [ ] [ ] [ ] New runways in the bay at SFO [ ] [ ] [ ] Rec & Park's Natural Areas Program [ ] [ ] [ ] ==We need to ask something about Candlestick Park here== [ ] [ ] [ ] ==Reducing and even eliminating parking minimums in new housing and commercial developments== [ ] [ ] [ ] ==Privatization of city-owned golf courses== [ ] [ ] [ ] ==An injunction to stop the current redevelopment of Hunters Point until questions about health risks to the neighborhoods are cleared up, at least.== [ ] [ ] [ ] ==An increase in residential water fees.== 3) Social Justice: A) What is your assessment of homelessness in San Francisco, and what solutions would you propose? Is "care not cash" helping? [ ] [ ] [ ] ==Is Project Homeless Connect helping?== [ ] [ ] [ ] ==Conversion of some golf courses into soccer fields== B) What are your views on housing affordability, what public sector strategies have worked, which have failed, and what are your proposals? + - ? [ ] [ ] [ ] Community Land Trusts [ ] [ ] [ ] Free MUNI fast passes for low income people [ ] [ ] [ ] ==A Prop. M for housing that would make developers compete to offer a minimum of 64 percent affordable housing, with different ranges of affordability that reflect the demographic of San Francisco, and community benefits== [ ] [ ] [ ] Building luxury housing solves the housing crisis [ ] [ ] [ ] Rent Control is too strong [ ] [ ] [ ] The Rent Board should be elected [ ] [ ] [ ] Amnesty for illegal inlaw apartments, even if thay have no off-street parking [ ] [ ] [ ] ==A deemphasis of parking requirements in favor of living space and affordability== 4) Nonviolence: What are your solutions for SFPD accountability while making the streets safer? + - ? [ ] [ ] [ ] The SFPD is doing a good job of solving violent crime [ ] [ ] [ ] Death penalty [ ] [ ] [ ] Prioritize SFPD enforcement of moving violations [ ] [ ] [ ] Arm the SFPD with assault weapons [ ] [ ] [ ] ==Expand foot patrols== [ ] [ ] [ ] ==Demand stricter accountability in future MOUs with the police department== [ ] [ ] [ ] ==Need a remark here about youth and violence, Woodside, and YGC== 5) Decentralization: What are your thoughts on the Kaufman Charter of 1996? Does it need revisiting? + - ? [ ] [ ] [ ] Bringing the Housing Authority under the Board of Supervisors [ ] [ ] [ ] ==Bring the Redevelopment Agency under the Board of Supervisors.== [ ] [ ] [ ] Keep the Redevelopment Agency under Mayor [ ] [ ] [ ] ==Will you create formal district councils to advise you== [ ] [ ] [ ] Two supervisorial aides are sufficient. [ ] [ ] [ ] Fund Legislative branch proportional to Executive to inform policy development [ ] [ ] [ ] ==You will cooperate with "Question Time" at the Board of Supervisors.== 6) Community Based Economics: What economic policies, including taxation, land use from the Planning Department and investment from the Redevelopment Agency would you propose that would drive capital into our communities and keep that capital here for residents? + - ? [ ] [ ] [ ] Bayview Redevelopment Plan [ ] [ ] [ ] ==Turning part of Hunters Point into a stadium for the 49ers.== [ ] [ ] [ ] Chain-store legislation [ ] [ ] [ ] Conditional use for big box stores [ ] [ ] [ ] The biotech payroll tax break [ ] [ ] [ ] Municipalization of energy infrastructure [ ] [ ] [ ] ==The Redevelopment of the Bayview.== 7) Feminism: Women continue to be underrepresented in ==city government==. Why do you believe this is the case? Is this a bad thing, and if so, what would you do to remedy this? + - ? [ ] [ ] [ ] The City should help SFUSD provide child care for children of working parents [ ] [ ] [ ] The DPH should provide reproductive health services [ ] [ ] [ ] Privatizing public spaces, e.g., parks and libraries [ ] [ ] [ ] ==If you are a Green Party member, do you agree to the six points of the policy proposal attached below?== [ ] [ ] [ ] ==Should you win, if any supervisorial seat should become vacant during your tenure in office, do agree to prioritize women when looking for a replacement?== [ ] [ ] [ ] ==Do you agree to seek solutions to problems based on communication and cooperation, as opposed to pressure and status?== 8) Respect for Diversity: Tell us what you believe are the best and the worst aspects of San Francisco's diversity. How would you try to protect the best while trying to change the worst? + - ? [ ] [ ] [ ] Same-sex marriage [ ] [ ] [ ] Multilingual government and education [ ] [ ] [ ] Undocumented immigrants should have equal access to education and health care [ ] [ ] [ ] Drivers' licenses for undocumented immigrants [ ] [ ] [ ] Non-citizen residents should vote in all local elections [ ] [ ] [ ] Boards and commissions now reflect the ethnic diversity of San Francisco [ ] [ ] [ ] Boards and commissions now reflect the political diversity of San Francisco [ ] [ ] [ ] ==Your own campaign will reflect the diversity of San Francisco.== [ ] [ ] [ ] ==Your own administration will reflect the diversity of San Francisco.== 9) Global and Personal Responsibility: What are your thoughts on the Board of Supervisors taking positions on state, national and international issues? + - ? [ ] [ ] [ ] City government cooperating with the PATRIOT Act [ ] [ ] [ ] Fleet Week and the Blue Angels flyover [ ] [ ] [ ] Business taxes are too high [ ] [ ] [ ] The City Ethics laws are well enforced [ ] [ ] [ ] ==Ballot measures on state and national policy reflect San Francisco's unique point of view.== 10) Sustainability: What does the Transit First City Charter provision mean to you? How has Transit First fared in recent years and how would you enforce that Charter Provision if elected? + - ? [ ] [ ] [ ] MUNI should be funded at current or greater levels and be free to the rider [ ] [ ] [ ] Eliminate minimum parking requirements along transit lines [ ] [ ] [ ] Higher residential construction along neighborhood transit corridors, ==which may include raising height limits to two to three stories more.== [ ] [ ] [ ] The City's solar energy program is working [ ] [ ] [ ] State law change that lets bicycles treat stop signs as yield signs and red lights as stop signs [ ] [ ] [ ] I ride MUNI regularly [ ] [ ] [ ] Bus Rapid Transit on Geary [ ] [ ] [ ] Light Rail on Geary [ ] [ ] [ ] ==BRT on Van Ness== [ ] [ ] [ ] Parking in SF is too inexpensive [ ] [ ] [ ] Caltrain extention to the Transbay Terminal [ ] [ ] [ ] ==The Central Subway to serve Chinatown.== [ ] [ ] [ ] ==Congestion pricing in downtown San Francisco.== [ ] [ ] [ ] ==I ride a bicylce on a regular basis.== [ ] [ ] [ ] ==Congestion pricing along other heavily-trafficked corridors in SF.== [ ] [ ] [ ] ==An increase in parking fees and fines to fund Muni== San Francisco Ballot Measures Prop + - ? ? [ ] [ ] [ ] Parking for All (Fisher and Webcor) ? [ ] [ ] [ ] Muni Funding (Peskin) ? [ ] [ ] [ ] Muni decision-making (McGoldrick) ==Other== [ ] [ ] [ ] ==Recall efforts against Supervisor Jake McGoldrick.== [ ] [ ] [ ] ==Efforts in City Hall to censor Supervisor Chris Daly== [ ] [ ] [ ] ==Recall efforts against Supervisor Aaron Peskin.== [ ] [ ] [ ] ==Efforts on the part of City Attorney Dennis Herrera to remove Supervisor Ed Jew from office.== [ ] [ ] [ ] ==Efforts to crack down on department heads and other elected or appointed officials who have questionable residency issues== California Ballot Measures Due Date: Monday, September ?? by 7 p.m. Please submit by email to cc(a)sfgreens.org. For more information, call John-Marc Chandonia at 285-5696 ==The SF Green Party will invite candidates who return completed questionnaires to attend one of our endorsement meetings, either: Wednesday, August 15 from 7:30 to 9:30; Saturday, August 18, from 12 noon to 5 p.m.; Wednesday, August 22, from 7:30 to 9:30 p.m.; or Saturday, August 25, from 12 noon to 5 p.m. (if necessary).== Those candidates will be notified by phone call and/or email. Our meetings are held at our office at 1028A Howard St, at 6th Street. Completed questionnaires will be posted on our website, http://sfgreenparty.org. Six Requests of Green Party Candidatesm, Elected Officials, and Other Greens 1. The active members of the San Francisco Green Party ask all Green Party candidates, officeholders, and general members to work cooperatively with us in the production of our slate card; 2. The active members of the San Francisco Green Party ask all Green Party candidates, officeholders, and general members to work cooperatively with us in the production of events, especially to ensure that competing events are not scheduled at or around the same time during non-campaign season. During campaign season, we understand that it is likely that there will be multiple competing events; 3. The active members of the San Francisco Green Party ask all Green Party candidates to make every effort to include people of various genders, ages, ethnicities, appearances, and sexual orientations in the inner circles of their campaigns, and to treat all campaign staffers (paid and volunteer) with high regard; 4. The active members of the San Francisco Green Party ask all winning Green Party candidates to make every effort to include people of various genders, ages, ethnicities, appearances, and sexual orientations in the inner circles of their staffs, and to treat all staffers (paid and volunteer) with high regard; 5. The active members of the San Francisco Green Party ask all Green Party candidates, officeholders, and general members to in other ways work to support the party-building efforts of the local party, if and when they have the time; and, 6. The active members of the San Francisco Green Party ask all Green Party candidates, officeholders, and general members to respect our decision-making process and to use this process when there is a disagreement. Our process involves submitting proposals to the County Council (cc(a)sfgreens.org) to be put on the agenda for the General Membership meeting. Proposals can also include suggestions for changing our process. _______________________________________________

1 0

Re: [CIWG] [SFGP-A] last Supervisorial questionnaire
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 22 Jul '07

22 Jul '07

My changes and additions are between the == and the ==. I have done some clean up right at the start of the questionnaire, eliminated some of the basics, and added a bunch. I will probably have more ideas later. Sue Please note: message attached Here's our last Supervisorial questionnaire, which we planned to adapt to use for Mayoral candidates. Note that these will be finalized at the next CIWG meeting on Aug 6. I'll send along our Sheriff and DA questionnaires also, if I can find them. JMC ----- Forwarded message from John-Marc Chandonia <jmc(a)sfgreens.org> ----- 2006 SF Green Party Supervisorial Endorsement Questionnaire Please return answers by email (plain text or attachment) to cc(a)sfgreens.org, by Monday, September 11 at 7 PM. For more information, call John-Marc Chandonia at 285-5696. Instructions: 1. There are 10 sections to this questionnaire corresponding to the 10 Key Values upon which the Green Party is organized, followed by a list of measures on the November ballot. 2. Each section begins with a written question and ends with several multiple-choice questions. 3. Please restrict your answers to 100-150 words for the written questions, and that same amount for each part of the two-part question. 4. The multiple-choice questions are answered by checking the box in the appropriate column to indicate which is closest to your position: + = ==Support / Agree / Yes== - = Oppose / Disagree / No ? = Undecided / Don't know / No opinion 5. The world is too complex to always break down neatly into yes / no / maybe choices, so feel free to clarify any answers to multiple choice questions with a few words to the right of the question. 6. Finally, please indicate your position on local and state ballot measures as per the multiple-choice questions above. ==Candidate Name: Phone Number: E-mail: Applying for Public Financing? Signed voluntary spending limit? Campaign Manager: 2nd, 3rd endorsements: Major Endorsements: Favorite Incumbent Supervisor: Least favorite: Paid Slates:== 1) Grassroots Democracy: What are your thoughts on Instant Runoff Voting, and District Elections? How have they worked to date? What would you change in the future? + - ? [ ] [ ] [ ] Sub-government such as Neighborhood Assemblies Networks or Dist. Councils [ ] [ ] [ ] 5 member commissions work better than 7 member commissions [ ] [ ] [ ] Some commissions should be democratically elected [ ] [ ] [ ] The Mayor should appoint all commissions [ ] [ ] [ ] Neighborhood boards should determine SFPD enforcement priorities 2) Ecological Wisdom: Please outline your view of the major environmental and ecological issues facing San Francisco and your proposed policies to address them. + - ? [ ] [ ] [ ] ==The Redevelopment plans for Bayview/Hunters Point== [ ] [ ] [ ] Saturday Closure of some roads in Golden Gate Park [ ] [ ] [ ] Diesel tour buses should be phased out [ ] [ ] [ ] ==Small, noisy two-seaters for tourists should phased out.== [ ] [ ] [ ] Public Power [ ] [ ] [ ] Community Choice Aggregation [ ] [ ] [ ] ==Public control of any tidal power that might be harnessed in San Francisco Bay.== [ ] [ ] [ ] New runways in the bay at SFO [ ] [ ] [ ] Rec & Park's Natural Areas Program [ ] [ ] [ ] ==We need to ask something about Candlestick Park here== [ ] [ ] [ ] ==Reducing and even eliminating parking minimums in new housing and commercial developments== [ ] [ ] [ ] ==Privatization of city-owned golf courses== [ ] [ ] [ ] ==An injunction to stop the current redevelopment of Hunters Point until questions about health risks to the neighborhoods are cleared up, at least.== [ ] [ ] [ ] ==An increase in residential water fees.== 3) Social Justice: A) What is your assessment of homelessness in San Francisco, and what solutions would you propose? Is "care not cash" helping? [ ] [ ] [ ] ==Is Project Homeless Connect helping?== [ ] [ ] [ ] ==Conversion of some golf courses into soccer fields== B) What are your views on housing affordability, what public sector strategies have worked, which have failed, and what are your proposals? + - ? [ ] [ ] [ ] Community Land Trusts [ ] [ ] [ ] Free MUNI fast passes for low income people [ ] [ ] [ ] ==A Prop. M for housing that would make developers compete to offer a minimum of 64 percent affordable housing, with different ranges of affordability that reflect the demographic of San Francisco, and community benefits== [ ] [ ] [ ] Building luxury housing solves the housing crisis [ ] [ ] [ ] Rent Control is too strong [ ] [ ] [ ] The Rent Board should be elected [ ] [ ] [ ] Amnesty for illegal inlaw apartments, even if thay have no off-street parking [ ] [ ] [ ] ==A deemphasis of parking requirements in favor of living space and affordability== 4) Nonviolence: What are your solutions for SFPD accountability while making the streets safer? + - ? [ ] [ ] [ ] The SFPD is doing a good job of solving violent crime [ ] [ ] [ ] Death penalty [ ] [ ] [ ] Prioritize SFPD enforcement of moving violations [ ] [ ] [ ] Arm the SFPD with assault weapons [ ] [ ] [ ] ==Expand foot patrols== [ ] [ ] [ ] ==Demand stricter accountability in future MOUs with the police department== [ ] [ ] [ ] ==Need a remark here about youth and violence, Woodside, and YGC== 5) Decentralization: What are your thoughts on the Kaufman Charter of 1996? Does it need revisiting? + - ? [ ] [ ] [ ] Bringing the Housing Authority under the Board of Supervisors [ ] [ ] [ ] ==Bring the Redevelopment Agency under the Board of Supervisors.== [ ] [ ] [ ] Keep the Redevelopment Agency under Mayor [ ] [ ] [ ] ==Will you create formal district councils to advise you== [ ] [ ] [ ] Two supervisorial aides are sufficient. [ ] [ ] [ ] Fund Legislative branch proportional to Executive to inform policy development [ ] [ ] [ ] ==You will cooperate with "Question Time" at the Board of Supervisors.== 6) Community Based Economics: What economic policies, including taxation, land use from the Planning Department and investment from the Redevelopment Agency would you propose that would drive capital into our communities and keep that capital here for residents? + - ? [ ] [ ] [ ] Bayview Redevelopment Plan [ ] [ ] [ ] ==Turning part of Hunters Point into a stadium for the 49ers.== [ ] [ ] [ ] Chain-store legislation [ ] [ ] [ ] Conditional use for big box stores [ ] [ ] [ ] The biotech payroll tax break [ ] [ ] [ ] Municipalization of energy infrastructure [ ] [ ] [ ] ==The Redevelopment of the Bayview.== 7) Feminism: Women continue to be underrepresented in ==city government==. Why do you believe this is the case? Is this a bad thing, and if so, what would you do to remedy this? + - ? [ ] [ ] [ ] The City should help SFUSD provide child care for children of working parents [ ] [ ] [ ] The DPH should provide reproductive health services [ ] [ ] [ ] Privatizing public spaces, e.g., parks and libraries [ ] [ ] [ ] ==If you are a Green Party member, do you agree to the six points of the policy proposal attached below?== [ ] [ ] [ ] ==Should you win, if any supervisorial seat should become vacant during your tenure in office, do agree to prioritize women when looking for a replacement?== [ ] [ ] [ ] ==Do you agree to seek solutions to problems based on communication and cooperation, as opposed to pressure and status?== 8) Respect for Diversity: Tell us what you believe are the best and the worst aspects of San Francisco's diversity. How would you try to protect the best while trying to change the worst? + - ? [ ] [ ] [ ] Same-sex marriage [ ] [ ] [ ] Multilingual government and education [ ] [ ] [ ] Undocumented immigrants should have equal access to education and health care [ ] [ ] [ ] Drivers' licenses for undocumented immigrants [ ] [ ] [ ] Non-citizen residents should vote in all local elections [ ] [ ] [ ] Boards and commissions now reflect the ethnic diversity of San Francisco [ ] [ ] [ ] Boards and commissions now reflect the political diversity of San Francisco [ ] [ ] [ ] ==Your own campaign will reflect the diversity of San Francisco.== [ ] [ ] [ ] ==Your own administration will reflect the diversity of San Francisco.== 9) Global and Personal Responsibility: What are your thoughts on the Board of Supervisors taking positions on state, national and international issues? + - ? [ ] [ ] [ ] City government cooperating with the PATRIOT Act [ ] [ ] [ ] Fleet Week and the Blue Angels flyover [ ] [ ] [ ] Business taxes are too high [ ] [ ] [ ] The City Ethics laws are well enforced [ ] [ ] [ ] ==Ballot measures on state and national policy reflect San Francisco's unique point of view.== 10) Sustainability: What does the Transit First City Charter provision mean to you? How has Transit First fared in recent years and how would you enforce that Charter Provision if elected? + - ? [ ] [ ] [ ] MUNI should be funded at current or greater levels and be free to the rider [ ] [ ] [ ] Eliminate minimum parking requirements along transit lines [ ] [ ] [ ] Higher residential construction along neighborhood transit corridors, ==which may include raising height limits to two to three stories more.== [ ] [ ] [ ] The City's solar energy program is working [ ] [ ] [ ] State law change that lets bicycles treat stop signs as yield signs and red lights as stop signs [ ] [ ] [ ] I ride MUNI regularly [ ] [ ] [ ] Bus Rapid Transit on Geary [ ] [ ] [ ] Light Rail on Geary [ ] [ ] [ ] ==BRT on Van Ness== [ ] [ ] [ ] Parking in SF is too inexpensive [ ] [ ] [ ] Caltrain extention to the Transbay Terminal [ ] [ ] [ ] ==The Central Subway to serve Chinatown.== [ ] [ ] [ ] ==Congestion pricing in downtown San Francisco.== [ ] [ ] [ ] ==I ride a bicylce on a regular basis.== [ ] [ ] [ ] ==Congestion pricing along other heavily-trafficked corridors in SF.== [ ] [ ] [ ] ==An increase in parking fees and fines to fund Muni== San Francisco Ballot Measures Prop + - ? ? [ ] [ ] [ ] Parking for All (Fisher and Webcor) ? [ ] [ ] [ ] Muni Funding (Peskin) ? [ ] [ ] [ ] Muni decision-making (McGoldrick) ==Other== [ ] [ ] [ ] ==Recall efforts against Supervisor Jake McGoldrick.== [ ] [ ] [ ] ==Efforts in City Hall to censor Supervisor Chris Daly== [ ] [ ] [ ] ==Recall efforts against Supervisor Aaron Peskin.== [ ] [ ] [ ] ==Efforts on the part of City Attorney Dennis Herrera to remove Supervisor Ed Jew from office.== [ ] [ ] [ ] ==Efforts to crack down on department heads and other elected or appointed officials who have questionable residency issues== California Ballot Measures Due Date: Monday, September ?? by 7 p.m. Please submit by email to cc(a)sfgreens.org. For more information, call John-Marc Chandonia at 285-5696 ==The SF Green Party will invite candidates who return completed questionnaires to attend one of our endorsement meetings, either: Wednesday, August 15 from 7:30 to 9:30; Saturday, August 18, from 12 noon to 5 p.m.; Wednesday, August 22, from 7:30 to 9:30 p.m.; or Saturday, August 25, from 12 noon to 5 p.m. (if necessary).== Those candidates will be notified by phone call and/or email. Our meetings are held at our office at 1028A Howard St, at 6th Street. Completed questionnaires will be posted on our website, http://sfgreenparty.org. _______________________________________________

1 0

last Supervisorial questionnaire
by John-Marc Chandonia 22 Jul '07

22 Jul '07

Here's our last Supervisorial questionnaire, which we planned to adapt to use for Mayoral candidates. Note that these will be finalized at the next CIWG meeting on Aug 6. I'll send along our Sheriff and DA questionnaires also, if I can find them. JMC ----- Forwarded message from John-Marc Chandonia <jmc(a)sfgreens.org> ----- 2006 SF Green Party Supervisorial Endorsement Questionnaire Please return answers by email (plain text or attachment) to cc(a)sfgreens.org, by Monday, September 11 at 7 PM. For more information, call John-Marc Chandonia at 285-5696. Instructions: 1. There are 10 sections to this questionnaire corresponding to the 10 Key Values upon which the Green Party is organized, followed by a list of measures on the November ballot. 2. Each section begins with a written question and ends with several multiple-choice questions. 3. Please restrict your answers to 100-150 words for the written questions, and that same amount for each part of the two-part question. 4. The multiple-choice questions are answered by checking the box in the appropriate column to indicate which is closest to your position: + = Suppor / Agree / Yes - = Oppose / Disagree / No ? = Undecided / Don't know / No opinion 5. The world is too complex to always break down neatly into yes / no / maybe choices, so feel free to clarify any answers to multiple choice questions with a few words to the right of the question. 6. Finally, please indicate your position on local and state ballot measures as per the multiple-choice questions above. Candidate Name: District: Phone Number: E-mail: Applying for Public Financing? Signed voluntary spending limit? Campaign Manager: 2nd, 3rd endorsements in District: Major Endorsements: Favorite Incumbent Supervisor: Least favorite: Paid Slates: Mayoral pick in Nov, 2003: Dec, 2003: 1) Grassroots Democracy: What are your thoughts on Instant Runoff Voting, and District Elections? How have they worked to date? What would you change in the future? + - ? [ ] [ ] [ ] Sub-government such as Neighborhood Assemblies Networks or Dist. Councils [ ] [ ] [ ] 5 member commissions work better than 7 member commissions [ ] [ ] [ ] Some commissions should be democratically elected [ ] [ ] [ ] The Mayor should appoint all commissions [ ] [ ] [ ] Neighborhood boards should determine SFPD enforcement priorities 2) Ecological Wisdom: Please outline your view of the major environmental and ecological issues facing San Francisco and your proposed policies to address them. + - ? [ ] [ ] [ ] Underground Parking Garage in Golden Gate Park [ ] [ ] [ ] Saturday Closure of some roads in Golden Gate Park [ ] [ ] [ ] Diesel tour buses should be phased out [ ] [ ] [ ] Public Power [ ] [ ] [ ] Community Choice Aggregation [ ] [ ] [ ] City-constructed new fossil fuel power plants [ ] [ ] [ ] New runways in the bay at SFO [ ] [ ] [ ] Rec & Park's Natural Areas Program 3) Social Justice: A) What is your assessment of homelessness in San Francisco, and what solutions would you propose? Is "care not cash" helping? B) What are your views on housing affordability, what public sector strategies have worked, which have failed, and what are your proposals? + - ? [ ] [ ] [ ] Community Land Trusts [ ] [ ] [ ] Free MUNI fast passes for low income people [ ] [ ] [ ] The current plan for rebuilding the Central Freeway [ ] [ ] [ ] Building luxury housing solves the housing crisis [ ] [ ] [ ] Rent Control is too strong [ ] [ ] [ ] The Rent Board should be elected [ ] [ ] [ ] Amnesty for illegal inlaw apartments, even if thay have no off-street parking 4) Nonviolence: What are your solutions for SFPD accountability while making the streets safer? + - ? [ ] [ ] [ ] The SFPD is doing a good job of solving violent crime [ ] [ ] [ ] Death penalty [ ] [ ] [ ] Prioritize SFPD enforcement of moving violations [ ] [ ] [ ] Arm the SFPD with assault weapons 5) Decentralization: What are your thoughts on the Kaufman Charter of 1996? Does it need revisiting? + - ? [ ] [ ] [ ] Bringing the Housing Authority under the Board of Supervisors [ ] [ ] [ ] Keep the Redevelopment Agency under Mayor [ ] [ ] [ ] Will you create a formal district council to advise you [ ] [ ] [ ] Two supervisorial aides are sufficient [ ] [ ] [ ] Fund Legislative branch proportional to Executive to inform policy development 6) Community Based Economics: What economic policies, including taxation, land use from the Planning Department and investment from the Redevelopment Agency would you propose that would drive capital into our communities and keep that capital here for residents? + - ? [ ] [ ] [ ] Bayview Redevelopment Plan [ ] [ ] [ ] Chain-store legislation [ ] [ ] [ ] Conditional use for big box stores [ ] [ ] [ ] The biotech payroll tax break [ ] [ ] [ ] Municipalization of energy infrastructure 7) Feminism: Women continue to be underrepresented at the Board of Supervisors and in appointments to Boards and Commissions. Why do you believe this is the case? Is this a bad thing, and if so, what would you do to remedy this? + - ? [ ] [ ] [ ] The City should help SFUSD provide child care for children of working parents [ ] [ ] [ ] The DPH should provide reproductive health services [ ] [ ] [ ] Privatizing public spaces, e.g., parks and libraries 8) Respect for Diversity: Tell us what you believe are the best and the worst aspects of San Francisco's diversity. How would you try to protect the best while trying to change the worst? + - ? [ ] [ ] [ ] Same-sex marriage [ ] [ ] [ ] Multilingual government and education [ ] [ ] [ ] Undocumented immigrants should have equal access to education and health care [ ] [ ] [ ] Drivers' licenses for undocumented immigrants [ ] [ ] [ ] Non-citizen residents should vote in all local elections [ ] [ ] [ ] Boards and commissions now reflect the ethnic diversity of San Francisco [ ] [ ] [ ] Boards and commissions now reflect the political diversity of San Francisco 9) Global and Personal Responsibility: What are your thoughts on the Board of Supervisors taking positions on state, national and international issues? + - ? [ ] [ ] [ ] City government cooperating with the PATRIOT Act [ ] [ ] [ ] Fleet Week and the Blue Angels flyover [ ] [ ] [ ] Business taxes are too high [ ] [ ] [ ] The City Ethics laws are well enforced 10) Sustainability: What does the Transit First City Charter provision mean to you? How has Transit First fared in recent years and how would you enforce that Charter Provision if elected? + - ? [ ] [ ] [ ] MUNI should be funded at current or greater levels and be free to the rider [ ] [ ] [ ] Eliminate minimum parking requirements along transit lines [ ] [ ] [ ] Higher residential construction along neighborhood transit corridors [ ] [ ] [ ] The City's solar energy program is working [ ] [ ] [ ] State law change that lets bicycles treat stop signs as yield signs and red lights as stop signs [ ] [ ] [ ] I ride MUNI regularly [ ] [ ] [ ] Bus Rapid Transit on Geary [ ] [ ] [ ] Light Rail on Geary [ ] [ ] [ ] Parking in SF is too inexpensive [ ] [ ] [ ] Caltrain extention to the Transbay Terminal San Francisco Ballot Measures Prop + - ? A [ ] [ ] [ ] School Bond B [ ] [ ] [ ] Teleconferencing C [ ] [ ] [ ] Setting Salaries of Certain Local Elected Officials D [ ] [ ] [ ] Disclosure of Private Information E [ ] [ ] [ ] Parking Tax F [ ] [ ] [ ] Paid Sick Leave G [ ] [ ] [ ] Limitations on Formula Retail Stores H [ ] [ ] [ ] Relocation Assistance for No Fault Tenant Removal I [ ] [ ] [ ] Question Time for Mayor J [ ] [ ] [ ] Impeachment of Bush and Cheney K [ ] [ ] [ ] Housing Needs Of Seniors and Disabled Adults California Ballot Measures Prop + - ? 1A [ ] [ ] [ ] Transportation Investment Fund 1B [ ] [ ] [ ] Transportation Bond 1C [ ] [ ] [ ] Housing Bond 1D [ ] [ ] [ ] School Bond 1E [ ] [ ] [ ] Disaster/Emergency bond 83 [ ] [ ] [ ] Sex Offenders 84 [ ] [ ] [ ] Water Safety Bond 85 [ ] [ ] [ ] Parental Notification for Abortions 86 [ ] [ ] [ ] Cigarette Tax 87 [ ] [ ] [ ] Alt Energy/tax on Oil 88 [ ] [ ] [ ] School Bond 89 [ ] [ ] [ ] Public Financing 90 [ ] [ ] [ ] Eminent Domain Due Date: Monday, September 11 by 7 p.m. Please submit by email to cc(a)sfgreens.org. For more information, call John-Marc Chandonia at 285-5696 The SF Green Party will invite candidates who return completed questionnaires to attend one of our endorsement meetings, either Wednesday, September 13 or Wednesday, September 20, from 7:30-9:30 p.m. Those candidates will be notified by phone call and/or email. Our meetings are held at our office at 1028A Howard St, at 6th. Completed questionnaires will be posted on our website, http://sfgreenparty.org. _______________________________________________ San Francisco Green Party CC mailing list CC(a)sfgreens.org To unsubscribe or change options, go here: https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cc ----- End forwarded message ----- -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/

1 2

A potential candiate for public office.
by Micheas Herman 09 Jul '07

09 Jul '07

Chelsey is Andy Blues better half. http://www.fogcityjournal.com/profiles/profile_chelsey_hart.shtml I'll keep posting potential greens to run for office as I come across them. -- He hath eaten me out of house and home. -- William Shakespeare, "Henry IV"

2 1