[SFGP] Green Party Endorsements for SF and KPFA elections

[Announcement list for SF Green Party, updated weekly]

Now that absentee ballots are going out, here's the full writeup with
the SF Green Party's endorsements for this November's election.  We
also endorsed candidates in the KPFA station board election--if you're
a member, please mail your ballot in time so that it's received (not
postmarked) by October 15.

These endorsements are also posted on our website:
http://www.sfgreenparty.org/campaigns/campaigns.gem


SF municipal election: Tuesday, November 3, 2009, and KPFA Local
Station Board election (for KPFA members, October 15, 2009)


Green Party Endorsements, San Francisco Propositions


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

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


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


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


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


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


San Francisco municipal offices


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


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


KPFA Local Station Board


KPFA listener candidates - Only KPFA members can vote in this
election; you should have already received a ballot in the mail if you
are a member. Voters can rank up to 29 candidates, and there are 9
seats open, so be sure to choose at least 9; this is a ranked choice
election, so you can't 'dilute' your vote by ranking additional
candidates. The SF Green Party has endorsed 10 of the
candidates. Please rank the following 9 candidates in your top 9, in
any order you prefer (they are listed here alphabetically): Jim
Curtis, Adam Hudson, Rahman McCreadie, Henry Norr, Richard Phelps,
Andrea Prichett, Gerald Sanders, Akio Tanaka, and Stan Woods. Please
rank Steve Zeltzer 10th*. In addition, we recommend that you do NOT
vote for any of the 10 candidates on the Concerned Listeners slate, or
that you rank them behind all 19 other candidates. The Concerned
Listeners slate currently holds a majority on the KPFA board and has
run the station in an undemocratic manner that has harmed programming
diversity and worker rights. None of the Concerned Listeners slate
chose to participate in the SF Green Party's endorsement process.

* - Sasha Futran originally sought our endorsement, and tied with
    Steve Zeltzer; after our endorsements were announced, Ms. Futran
    asked to be removed from our endorsement list.


KPFA staff candidates - Only KPFA staff members can vote in this
election. The SF Green Party has endorsed Anthony Fest.