[SFGP] SFGP Newsletter: Vote Today!

Tue Nov 3 16:14:07 PST 2009

Green Greetings,

It's been a week since our highly successful and super-fun Goodbye-Office
Blow-out Bash, thanks to everyone who donated art, food and drinks, DJ'd,
read, painted, dealt with the details, and to the full house of party-people
who helped make it such a rockin' good time!  The auction was fun and
entertaining thanks to our spirited professional auctioneer, Antler and we
raised a few hundred bucks which more than covered the cost of a generous
supply of free food and open bar!  Our host, the new tenant, Joshua of
Brightline Defense was exceptionally gracious and let us keep the party
rolling well into the wee hours!  The place looked so good and was so alive,
we almost felt sorry to leave it, but it's time and we have better things to
look forward to.  We even got a good, funny review (albeit with some snide
remarks) in the SF Weekly!  Check it out here: http://www.sfgreenparty.org
Tian Harter also did a short pictorial review:
http://tian.greens.org/SanFrancisco/Green/Party/Oct09/index.html

===============================

*Today is also election day, so get out there and vote* if you've put it off
this long and spread the word about *our endorsements *(Also written out
below)*:*
http://www.sfgreenparty.org/campaigns/campaigns.gem

===============================

*Save the Date - Wed 11/18*  7-9pm
Our next *General Membership Meeting* will be a week early this month to
avoid Thanksgiving.  The plan is to focus on *Medical Marijuana* and in
particular looking at city policy around people trying to follow the spirit
of Prop 215 to legally grow their own medicine and how some are being
busted, and what can be done to clarify the rules so people know how to stay
within the law.  We are expecting to have well-known activist, Ed Rosenthal
on hand to take part in the discussion and are awaiting a response from the
Women's Building about our reservation of one of their rooms.  Stay tuned.

===============================

*Green Party Endorsements, San Francisco Propositions*

*Yes on A (2-year budget process).* Prop A would convert the SF budget
process from the current 1-year budget cycle to a rolling 2-year cycle
(i.e., budgeting 2 years out, but with opportunities for the Supervisors to
amend the budget every year). In addition, Prop A would require SF to adopt
a 5-year fiscal plan, and would also standardize the deadlines for labor
negotiations with all public employee unions.

We support Prop A because it is in keeping with our Key Value of Future
Focus. A rolling two year budget (and 5-year fiscal projections) would allow
departments to make more long-term plans, while still allowing democratic
modifications to the budget every year. It would also put other public
employee unions on equal footing with the Police and Firefighters' unions,
who currently get their contracts negotiated before the others. Although
Prop A is a small step in the right direction, stronger reform will still be
needed if it passes. Currently, the Mayor can "veto" any budget item
approved by the Supervisors, by simply refusing to spend money that was
legally allocated. There is no means for the Supervisors to override such
action, even by unanimous consent. This is a major imbalance of power, and
two of the authors of Prop A, Supervisors Avalos and Chiu, shot down
stronger legislation sponsored by Supervisors Ross Mirkarimi and Chris Daly
that would have given the Supervisors a legal means to override Mayoral
budget vetoes. This year's budget was a largely a result of a backroom deal
between Mayor Newsom and Supervisors Avalos and Chiu, and unfortunately
these two Supervisors chose to roll over for the Mayor rather than
challenging him.

*Yes on B (allow supervisors to hire more aides, if budgeted).* Prop B would
allow the Supervisors to have more than two aides, if sufficient funds were
budgeted. Currently, Supervisors rely on a number of volunteers to help them
research legislation and answer concerns from their constituents. These
volunteers often do work that is comparable to the work done by paid staff,
and the Supervisors should be allowed to hire them if they have sufficient
funds in their budget.

*No on C (corporate naming rights to Candlestick Park).* We have always
opposed the growing commercialization of public spaces. In 2004, Green
Supervisor Matt Gonzalez sponsored Prop H, which would would prevent the
city-owned Candlestick Park from being renamed "PG&E Field," "Bechtel
Stadium," "Halliburton Park" or other corporate names in the future. 55% of
the voters agreed with Supervisor Gonzalez that "Monster Park" was a tacky
name, and now the Chamber of Commerce is asking for a do-over. Just say no.

*No on D (giant, flashing, rotating corporate ad billboards on Market
Street).* The SF Green Party was instrumental in passing a ballot measure in
2002 that prohibited new billboards in SF (Prop G passed with 77% of the
vote). Although Mayors Brown and Newsom have chosen to look the other way
and ignore many new billboards put up in violation of that law, it would be
difficult even for Newsom to ignore two blocks of giant, flashing, rotating
video billboards that the sponsors of Prop D plan to build on Market Street.
We sympathize with the owner of the Warfield Theater, who says he simply
wants to restore a classic sign on his building, while replacing the
old-fashioned light bulbs with energy-efficient lighting and removing
obsolete corporate logos. There should be a legal way for him to accomplish
this. However, Prop D goes way too far. It would give part of Market Street
the garish look of downtown Tokyo, and result in San Franciscans being
blasted with corporate ads that could be seen for miles. Worse, the authors
of Prop D use poor kids as window dressing--although they claim that some
profits from the billboards would be donated to programs that benefit "youth
arts," the committee that would distribute such funding would be a
self-selected group of business owners. Prop D does not legally require the
committee to spend ANY funds to benefit local kids, as suggested by their ad
campaign. It is disgraceful that the local Democratic Party has joined with
the Chamber of Commerce in supporting the over-commercialization of our
public space.

*Yes on E (ban on additional corporate ad billboards on public
property).*Prop E would ban new corporate ads on public street
furniture, such as
newspaper racks and Muni bus shelters. After the 2002 billboard ban passed
overwhelmingly (see discussion above), corporations found a loophole, and
lobbied Muni to build new bus shelters plastered with their ads. Most of
these new bus shelters are not located out in the neighborhoods where they
are needed, but rather downtown where they will be seen by the advertisers'
target customers. It's time for Muni to focus more on running the buses than
on selling billboards. Let's limit visual blight by voting Yes on E.

*San Francisco municipal offices*

*Treasurer - no endorsement.* Jose Cisneros is currently running unopposed
for reelection. We appreciate Cisneros' efforts to lower taxes on SRO
residents, and his lobbying of banks to provide less costly alternatives to
check-cashing companies for SF's poorest residents. However, we would like
Cisneros to be more proactive in pushing for changes to laws that would
benefit City residents. For example, state law severely limits the types of
investments that a local Treasurer can make. City funds must be invested in
commercial banks and government bonds, and may not be invested in projects
such as community land trusts, alternative energy development, or even home
loans to local residents. Rather than working to create a publicly-owned
Bank of San Francisco that could invest City funds in such projects,
Cisneros has focused on making deals with private banks. Although he has
extracted small concessions (such as lowering some fees for low-income
residents), he should ask for more, as many of these same banks recently
received trillions of our federal tax dollars from the Bush and Obama
administrations. And while Assessor Phil Ting has called for reform of Prop
13 to require large corporations to pay their fair share of California
taxes, Cisneros has not publicly joined him.

*City Attorney - no endorsement.* Dennis Herrera is running unopposed for
re-election. Although Herrera's office has done admirable work lobbying on
behalf of marriage equality rights, he hasn't accomplished much else. In
2007, he sided with the Lennar Corporation in blocking a citizen-led
initiative regarding Bayview-Hunters Point redevelopment from being placed
on the ballot, even though the residents had gathered a sufficient number of
signatures. By ruling that the petitions were invalid because the signature
gatherers had not attached copies of a phone book-sized piece of legislation
they were seeking to overturn, Herrera set a dangerous precedent that will
allow authorities to reject any petition that they believe shouldn't be
allowed before voters on similar technicalities. Herrera also promised 4
years ago to enforce the Raker Act (which would bring public power to SF),
and he hasn't made any moves towards doing so. He's also been unwilling to
enforce open records (Sunshine) laws. Herrera did not participate in the SF
Green Party's endorsement process.

===============================

*NEWS*

The Green Party U.S. has launched a campaign, "Focus on Rwanda, as party
struggles to emerge."
http://www.gp.org/campaigns/international/rwanda/index.php

===============================

If you read this far, we love you!
Join our Facebook group and invite your friends:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=62534706497
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.sfgreens.org/pipermail/announce/attachments/20091103/a4c9e69b/attachment.htm>