[SFGP] Greenzine: Help elect Francisco Herrera, complete Voter Guide

[Announcement list for SF Green Party, updated weekly]

November 7, 2016
GREENZINE
SF Green Party Weekly News and Events

www.sfgreenparty.org
twitter.com/sfgreenparty
www.facebook.com/groups/SFGreenParty/

Dear Greens,

All eyes are on our District 11 candidate Francisco Herrera, who
placed second in last year's mayor's race, receiving over 28,000
votes.  If Francisco wins, we will have a Green on the Board of
Supervisors!

We are asking our members to make a donation to his campaign at
https://franciscoforsupe-francisco.nationbuilder.com/donate
If you can volunteer over the next few days to help Francisco, please
call him at 415-286-2452.  http://www.francisco4supe.org/

Francisco Herrera is having his victory party at Pinata Art Studio and
Gallery, located at 4268 Mission Street, near Silver Street in the
Excelsior.  Nearby transit is the 14 Mission bus, which stops across
the street.  The party goes from 8 until 11.

Our Green Voter Guide is below.  Please share with any undecided voters you
know!  Our Voter Guide is also posted on our website:
http://www.sfgreenparty.org/endorsements/75-november-2016-endorsements

Thank you to all of our members for your continued support!

*===========================*

SF Green Voter Guide - endorsements for Nov 8, 2016

Federal Candidates:
    President and VP - Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka (Green Party)

Local Candidates:
    Supervisor, D1 - Sandra Fewer
    Supervisor, D3 - no endorsement
    Supervisor, D5 - Dean Preston
    Supervisor, D7 - no consensus
    Supervisor, D9 - Hillary Ronen
    Supervisor, D11 - Francisco Herrera (Green Party)
    School Board - Mark Sanchez and Matt Haney
    College Board - Rafael Mandelman, Tom Temprano, Shanell Williams
    Superior Court Judge - Victor Hwang
    BART Board, D9 - no endorsement

State Propositions:
    NO on 51 - limits on developer fees, masquerading as a school bond
    no endorsement on 52 - the CA legislature could extend the hospital
      fee in order to obtain federal Medi-Cal matching funds, without
      going to the voters
    NO on 53 - require voter approval for revenue bond-funded projects
      (although we still vehemently oppose Jerry Brown's Delta tunnels
      plan)
    YES on 54 - recording legislative sessions, allow time to read
     bills before voting
    YES on 55 - extend income taxes on rich people
    YES on 56 - increased tobacco taxes
    YES on 57 - increase parole opportunties (we don't think ANY kids
     should be tried as adults)
    YES on 58 - reform (and eventually repeal) Prop 227, California's
      English-only education law
    YES on 59 - advisory measure to repeal Citizens United (unlimited
      corporate political donations)
    NO on 60 - condoms in porn (we support better health care and
      testing regulations, and oppose criminalizing the sex industry)
    YES on 61 - make state agencies pay the same price as the US Dept
      of Veterans Affairs for drugs
    YES on 62 - ending the Death Penalty in California
    NO on 63 - restrictions on ammunition that don't apply to retired police
    YES on 64 - legalize recreational use of marijuana
    NO on 65 - attempt to undermine plastic bag ban
    NO on 66 - speeding up Death Penalty cases
    YES on 67 - upholding the statewide single-use plastic bag ban

Local Propositions:
    YES on A - school bond (although we have our usual reservations
      about bonds)
    YES on B - parcel tax to fund City College
    NO on C - $260 million bond to fund displacement of SF residents
      by private landlords
    YES on D - allow people to vote in special elections to fill
      vacant Supervisorial seats, rather than having them filled by the
      Mayor
    YES on E - City will maintain street trees, rather than property owners
    YES on F - allowing 16-17 yr olds to vote in local elections
    YES on G - an almost meaningless renaming of the Office of
      Citizens Complaints, that will at least make their budget
      independent of the SFPD's budget
    YES on H - decentralizing some of the Mayor's power into a new
      citywide elected Public Advocate position
    NO on I - set-aside of some of the SF City Budget to a
      Mayor-controlled agency that would provide services to seniors and
      adults with disabilities (although we support more funding for
      this purpose, the Supervisors can fund such programs without
      creating a new agency that's ripe for corruption and unaccountable
      to the voters)
    NO on J - set-aside of some of the SF City Budget to fund homeless
      services, housing, and transportation improvements (like Prop I,
      this would give more power to the Mayor, encourage corruption, and
      have less oversight by our elected Supervisors)
    NO on K - increase the regressive sales tax to 9.25%
    YES on L - gives the Board of Supervisors some appointments to the
      SFMTA, and allows them to reject the budget with 6 votes instead
      of 7
    YES on M - creates a Housing and Development Commission, which
      would decentralize Mayoral power and give the Board of Supervisors
      more input into development
    YES on N - allowing noncitizen parents/guardians of SFUSD kids to
      vote in school board elections
    NO on O - further gentrification of Bayview
    NO on P - a measure that encourage corruption by allowing the
      Mayor more opportunities to pick politically connected developers
      to build projects, with a lack of public transparency
    NO on Q - symbolic "open sidewalks" measure to encourage police to
      ignore serious crimes and instead push homeless people from one
      block to the next
    NO on R - misleading "safe neighborhoods" measure to create a
      full-time police unit specifically to push homeless people from
      one block to the next (it will create much more UNSAFE
      neighborhoods by taking police away from investigating serious
      crimes)
    NO on S - set aside hotel tax income to be used for arts and
      programs to help homeless families.  As is the case with Props I
      and J, these programs are something the Supervisors could fund now
      if they wanted to, without going to the ballot
    YES on T - restricting gifts and contributions from lobbyists
    NO on U - changes the definition of "affordable housing" to
      "unaffordable to most residents who live here"
    no consensus on V - 1 cent per ounce soda tax, that would go into
      the SF General fund.  We did not reach consensus on endorsing
      either yes or no on this proposition.
    YES on W - real estate transfer tax on $5 million+ properties
    YES on X - preserve space for arts, small business, and community
      services in Mission, SOMA
    YES on RR - $3.5 million bond to fund BART maintenance, with
      extreme reservations due to the BART board's near-perfect track
      record of mismanagement and boondoggles

President/VP - Stein/Baraka

Jill Stein is a Harvard-educated physician and longtime teacher of
internal medicine, as well as a mother and an environmental health
advocate. She has led initiatives promoting healthy communities, local
green economies, campaign finance reform, green jobs, racially-just
redistricting, and the cleanup of incinerators, coal plants, and
toxins. In 2002, Stein was the Green Party candidate for Governor of
Massachusetts, where she easily won the only gubernatorial debate she
was allowed to participate in. After her run as the Green Party's 2012
Presidential nominee, she continued to promote Green policy through

In August, Stein chose longtime human rights activist Ajamu Baraka as
her running mate. Baraka has served on the boards of Amnesty
International, Center for Constitutional Rights, Africa Action, and is
currently an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in
Washington. He also served as a policy advisor on the Green Shadow
Cabinet, and has written for Black Agenda Report.

The Democratic and Republican parties continued their "race to the
bottom" in 2016 by nominating two of the most unpopular candidates in
history. Democrat Hillary Clinton has never seen a war she didn't
like, from supporting the Bush invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan to
being the leading voice within the Obama administration in favor of
the disastrous military campaign in Libya. Her domestic record isn't
any better: she supports more militarized police and sent millions of
families into poverty by championing "welfare reform." She supports
expanding government spying on Americans and has accused political
opponents and critics of being Russian agents. As Secretary of State,
she solicited bribes from dictators and Wall Street corporations in
exchange for government favors (such as a weapons sale to Bahrain
following a large "donation"). Republic Donald Trump is an unstable
bigot, whose infamous misogyny and corrupt business practices are
extreme even among his fellow plutocrats. Trump initially ran to
Clinton's left on a few important issues, opposing US military attacks
on other countries and the TPP (a treaty that would give corporations
veto power over our regulations and laws). However, given Trump's
instability and Clinton's dishonesty, both can be counted on only to
expand war and militarism abroad, while supporting corporate rule at
home.

Because Stein and Baraka were barred from participating in televised
debates, few people really know what they stand for. Public opinion
has been poisoned by a Democratic Party misinformation campaign,
falsely alleging Stein is "anti-vaccine" or "anti-science." Stein has
polled highly among young people and others who have heard her
platform. We are optimistic that even if she does not win, she could
earn 5% of the popular vote in this election, which would ensure
public funding and increase ballot access for the Green
Party. Reaching the 5% threshold would allow us to get our message out
to an American public who are justifiably disgusted with politics as
usual.


Supervisor, D1 - Sandra Fewer

Sandra Fewer is a school board member who we endorsed in the past as
an excellent fit for that position. Although she has little political
track record outside of educational issues, her responses to our
questionnaire show that we are mostly in agreement on policy. Like us,
Fewer supports public power, more democratic control over City
commissions (e.g., elections or split appointments), police foot
patrols, non-citizen and youth voting in local elections, regulating
Airbnb, and free Muni. However, we have disagreements on some
environmental issues: she supported putting toxic artificial turf in
Golden Gate Park, has no position on Bus Rapid Transit on Geary, and
supports the Natural Areas Program, which involves closing large areas
of our parks to the public and liberal use of carcinogenic weed
killers. She also bought into the interdepartmental scam to trade a
SFUSD property in the Mission to developers who will likely attempt to
execute their gentrification scheme on the neighborhood. Until there
is some transparency, a robust public process, and a Planning
Department that does more than respond to developers requests, voters
should be wary of multi-parcel swaps. Despite these policy
disagreements, we think she's the best choice for D1 residents for
Supervisor, and we give her our sole endorsement.


Supervisor, D3 - no endorsement

The incumbent, Aaron Peskin, did not seek our endorsement. His
opponent, Tim Donnelly, is a populist who is to be commended for
running a citizen's campaign. However, we disagree on enough policy
issues that we are not endorsing anybody in this contest.
 

Supervisor, D5 - Dean Preston

Dean Preston is a long-time tenant activist and attorney. He is
especially good on issues of rent control and tenants' rights, and his
answers to our questionnaire show that he agrees with us on enough
other policy issues that he really should be registered Green instead
of Democrat.

Preston has had an uphill battle in challenging an incumbent, London
Breed, current President of the Board of Supervisors. Breed is an
African-American woman with a compelling personal background. However,
on key contested votes at the Board of Supervisors in the last three
years (see our Supervisorial Report cards for 2013, 2014, and 2015),
Breed has sided with the Green Party on only 6 of 33 votes
(18%). She's rubber-stamped the worst Mayoral appointees to
commissions, and she was the swing vote in favor of allowing Airbnb to
write its own regulations, which are both unenforceable and onerous by
design. As Board President, she stacked Board committees with
conservative Supervisors, leading to many issues being decided on this
ballot when they should have been taken care of legislatively.

Preston's votes would be much better aligned with the progressive
politics of D5, a district that has elected several Green Party
representatives in the past. He has our sole endorsement.


Supervisor, D7 - no consensus

Norman Yee has been an improvement over his predecessor, Sean
Elsbernd, who opposed the Green Party on every important contested
vote at the Board in 2012 (see our report card). In the last four
years, Yee voted with the Green Party on 44% (14 of 32) of key
contested votes (see our report cards for 2013, 2014, 2015). Yee
agreed with us on Airbnb regulation and supported CleanPowerSF, but he
sided with Scott Wiener on a midnight curfew on our public parks. Yee
also voted to block John Avalos' proposed law that would have allowed
bikes to roll through stop signs in cases where the bike rider has the
right of way. Yee also opposes Prop D (letting voters elect our
elected officials) on this November's ballot.

We therefore did not reach consensus on endorsing any candidate in D7.
 

Supervisor, D9 - Hillary Ronen

Hillary Ronen currently serves as Chief of Staff for David Campos, the
current D9 Supervisor. We expect that her policies would not change
much from her predecessor. In her answers to our questionnaire, Ronen
agrees with most Green Party policies, although she supports the
Natural Areas Program and did not take a position on most of our ideas
for increasing Muni funding.

Our biggest disagreements with Ronen are on issues of decentralization
and democracy. Like Campos, Ronen has close ties to City-funded
nonprofits, and would be unlikely to radically challenge the
Democratic Party machine if that funding were to be threatened. We
would have preferred to support Ronen as part of a ranked choice slate
along with other candidates such as Edwin Lindo, a SF native who
gained name recognition as one of the "Frisco Five" (which
successfully campaigned for the removal of SFPD Chief Suhr following a
wave of SFPD killings of civilians). Lindo has more of a base than
Ronen among residents of the Mission, and has skills and experience
that, were they to run on a slate together, would ultimately make
either of them a better representative once elected.

Unfortunately, many progressive Democrats (Ronen included) see ranked
choice voting as useful only if it helps their side to win, rather
than looking at the impact ranked choice voting has in expanding the
range of choices available to voters. Ronen indicated on her
questionnaire that she would like to re-examine SF's ranked choice
voting system. A lack of cooperation between progressive candidates in
D9 was presumably a factor in Edwin Lindo's decision to drop out of
the race.

Joshua Arce is also running as a "progressive" in this contest,
although he opposes regulating Airbnb and lists London Breed as his
favorite incumbent Supervisor. Unfortunately, Ronen's avoidance of
ranked choice strategy has the potential to elect more conservative
candidates such as Arce. Despite this concern, we're giving our sole
endorsement to Hillary Ronen.


Supervisor, D11 - Francisco Herrera

Francisco Herrera is a musician, a long-time Green Party member, and
an activist with the Living Wage Coalition. In last year's Mayoral
election, he finished 2nd, with around 1/3 of the voters ranking him
ahead of Ed Lee. Herrera's result was the best finish by a Green
Mayoral candidate since Matt Gonzalez, despite running a campaign with
almost no funding.

Herrera started the "People's Campaign" to form a long-term effort to
develop a plan and vision of San Francisco as a city friendly and
affordable to working families.

Herrera's platform includes building more affordable housing, eviction
protection, a budget that prioritizes arts and human services, safe
streets and a better Muni system, public education, an expansion of
Healthy SF, an end to deportations and cooperation with ICE,
accountable policing, and more living wage jobs.

As in District 9, Greens had hoped to support a slate of candidates
who share our values. Unfortunately, Kimberly Alvarenga rejected
Herrera's overtures to run on a ranked choice slate, and after we made
an early endorsement of Herrera, she declined to answer our
endorsement questionnaire or seek a ranked/dual endorsement from
us. Like Hillary Ronen in D9, it appears that Alvarenga does not "get"
ranked choice voting, and therefore we are very concerned that D11 may
be lost to a Democratic Machine candidate as a result.

We were impressed by the questionnaire answers from Socialist
candidate Berta Hernandez. Although we agree with Hernandez on the
vast majority of policies, she was previously part of Carlos Petroni's
"Frontlines" group, which had a history of co-opting other activist
movements rather than building momentum on their own. The Green Party
is "eco-socialist," and we have a history of working well with
socialists, including Kshama Sawant and Chris Hedges. However, we are
opposed to co-opting other activist groups, as Petroni's group tried
to do to the SFGP following Matt Gonzalez' mayoral campaign in
2003. Hernandez is also not endorsing Herrera due to his "being too
conciliatory towards Democrats."

Greens therefore awarded our sole endorsement in D11 to Francisco
Herrera.


School Board - Mark Sanchez and Matt Haney

Mark Sanchez is a long-time teacher, and was the SF Green Party's
first elected official in 2000 when he won his school board seat. He
recently switched his affiliation to Democrat in order to run as part
of a slate of progressive candidates for the DCCC. Before running for
office, he founded the groups Teachers for Change and Teachers for
Social Justice. As a school board member, he led opposition to the
corrupt administration of Arlene Ackerman, which ended with her
resignation in 2005. Sanchez was elected Board President in 2007, and
hired a new Superintendent, Carlos Garcia, who was much better than
his predecessor. Sanchez also led school board opposition to JROTC
program. He served through 2009 and has since worked as Principal at
several SF public schools.

Matt Haney was elected to the school board in 2012, and was recently
elected as Board President. Like Sanchez, he opposes JROTC funding,
supports non-citizen voting, supports increased teacher pay, and
opposes high-stakes standardized testing.

Since there are four seats on the school board up for election, we are
pleased to endorse both Mark Sanchez and Matt Haney.
 

College Board - Rafael Mandelman, Tom Temprano, Shanell Williams

The Green Party was part of a coalition that fought back against the
attempted takeover of City College by an accreditation board that was
trying to privatize our public college and sell off its properties to
developers. We therefore support candidates who have good insight into
how the crisis occurred and what might be done to head off future
attacks. Although the immediate takeover threat has been averted, City
College now needs to recover its enrollment. We looked for candidates
who share our values, such as free education, open government, and
equal rights for non-citizens, and we generally oppose candidates who
don't show sufficient skepticism towards "public-private partnerships"
that result in reduced public oversight and invite corruption and
theft.

Rafael Mandelman has served on the Board since 2012, and he did a
great job during the accreditation crisis and since. Tom Temprano is a
long-time Milk Club activist who shares many Green values and gave
excellent answers to our questionnaire. Shanell Williams is a former
College Board Student Trustee, who fought hard during the
accreditation crisis, and is well aligned with Green Party views on
public education.

The College Board has four seats up for election, so we have endorsed
all three of these candidates.
 

Superior Court Judge - Victor Hwang

Victor Hwang is a current member of the Police Commission, and has
extensive experience as a public defender (in contrast to most Judges,
who previously worked only as prosecutors). He is opposed to the Death
Penalty and against arming police with Tasers.

We dual-endorsed Hwang in the June election. As no candidate got more
than 50% of the vote, he is now in a runoff against a more
conservative candidate. Therefore, we are happy to endorse Victor
Hwang again.


BART Board, D9 - no endorsement

We did not endorse any candidate in the BART Board race. Bevan Dufty,
the leading candidate, is a career politician who has the Machine's
go-ahead to take this seat. He did not take any public position on the
Oakland Airport Connector boondoggle. Other candidates for the
position did not seek our endorsement. Therefore, we did not endorse
any candidate in this race.

(Note that the Alameda County Green Party has endorsed Lateefah Simon
for BART Board D7, which is almost entirely in the East Bay, but also
includes parts of SF. Since the Green Party is decentralized, we defer
to GPAC's judgment in this race.)
 

State Propositions:

NO on 51

Prop 51 pretends to be a $9 billion school bond, which we might have
considered supporting: despite our usual reservations about bonds
being primarily a tax on the poor and middle class (see full statement
below), $8 billion is targeted at public K-12 schools and community
colleges, with $1 billion going to charter schools (which we oppose)
and technical programs.

However, Prop 51 was put on the ballot by a group of real estate
developers and construction companies, and contains a little-noticed
provision. Currently, cities can charge fees to developers in order to
partially offset the costs of providing City services to new
developments; these services might include new schools, increased
public transit, water and sewer infrastructure, etc. Prop 51 would
prohibit school districts from raising developer fees in order to pay
for new schools, thereby resulting in lower fees (and higher profits)
for the developers.

We should fund our schools without giveaways to developers. Vote NO on
51, and support Prop 55 instead.


no endorsement on 52

Prop 52 would continue an existing program under which hospitals are
charged fees, which are used by the State to get federal matching
funds to pay for Medi-Cal. Those matching funds are then given back to
the hospitals, supposedly to cover the costs of uninsured patients and
low-income children. It would prevent the legislature from making any
changes to the program without a 2/3 vote.

We agree that continuing to obtain federal grant money for Medi-Cal is
a good thing, and we want the program to continue. However, Prop 52
does not need to be on the ballot--the legislature can extend the
hospital fee program indefinitely without voter approval. SEIU-United
Healthcare Workers is opposing the measure, calling it a money grab by
the hospitals, which are not required to open their books to prove
that all the funds raised actually go to uninsured patients and low
income children.

Greens believe that single payer health care (i.e., improved Medicare
for all) is the only viable solution to rising medical costs. In the
interim, this matching fee program is a useful stop-gap, but does not
need to be on the ballot. We therefore took no position on Prop 52.


NO on 53

Prop 53 would require vote approval for all large ($2 billion+)
projects that would be funded by revenue bonds. Greens are usually
opposed to bond-funded projects (see our Statement on Bonds,
below). However, there are many cases where they're justified for
public improvements, and putting up another barrier to public
investment would be a bad idea.

We are still vehemently opposed to Jerry Brown's Delta tunnels plan,
which would divert Northern California water to drive greater sprawl
in Southern California. However, Prop 53 is too broad an approach to
blocking this one project. Vote NO.
 

YES on 54

Prop 54 would prohibit the legislature from passing any bill until it
has been in print and published on the Internet for 72 hours prior to
the vote. It would further require that the legislature make
audiovisual recordings of its public proceedings and publish the
recordings online within 24 hours, and allow any individual to record
any open legislative proceedings either through audio or visual means
and use these recordings for any legitimate purpose.

Prop 54 is important in order to prevent "gut and amend" legislation,
where a legislator sneaks in an entirely new bill as an amendment,
without any notice. This prevents the public from having time to read
the new bill and organize opposition to bad legislation.

We think that even 72 hours is inadequate time to review complex
legislation, so Prop 54 should be stronger. However, it would be a
great improvement over the status quo (0 hours), so we support it.


YES on 55

Prop 55 is a renewal of most parts of Prop 30, which we strongly
endorsed in 2012. Prop 55 would keep in place three higher income tax
brackets (1% to 3%) for Californians who earn more than $263k per
year; if Prop 55 does not pass, that tax will drop back to 9.3% in
2019. Prop 55 does not extend the statewide sales tax increase (which
we opposed). Like Prop 30, Prop 55 would go to fund public education,
which is a great investment of our tax dollars.

We therefore strongly support a YES vote on Prop 55.
 

YES on 56

Prop 56 would raise taxes on tobacco by $2 per pack, with an
equivalent increase in other tobacco/nicotine products, including
e-cigarettes. Over 80% of the tax revenue would go towards treatment
of tobacco-related diseases through Medi-Cal. The rest would go to
prevention, education, tobacco-related disease research, physician
training, dental disease prevention, and prevention of interstate
smuggling.

CA has the 37th lowest cigarette taxes among all US states, at only 87
cents per pack. We supported Prop 29 in 2012, which would have raised
taxes by $1/pack. Although that lost narrowly, it is worth trying
again.

Despite the regressive nature of the tax, we are supporting Prop 56
because it will provide badly needed funding for Medi-Cal, while
reducing smoking rates.


YES on 57

Prop 57 will allow judges, not prosecutors, to determine when kids
should be tried as adults. It also allows more opportunities for
parole for people convicted of nonviolent felonies, and earlier parole
for prisoners with good conduct or who take rehabilitation or
education classes in jail. Prop 57 would relieve prison overcrowding
without causing any significant harm to public safety.

The Green Party doesn't believe that ANY children should be tried as
adults, and we also believe that the criminal justice system needs
major reform in order to focus more on restorative justice rather than
locking people up. There are already far too many nonviolent criminals
in jail, and that will still be the case if Prop 57 passes.

However, because Prop 57 is a step in the right direction, we endorse
it.


YES on 58

Prop 58 repeals most of Prop 227, the "English-only education" law
that passed in 1998. Prop 227 required that students who had been in
California schools for over a year be taught entirely in English in
classrooms with other English-speaking students.

Prop 58 would allow both English- and Spanish-speaking parents more
opportunities to place their children in bilingual dual-immersion
courses. It would also allow local school districts more control over
their curricula, and would allow further reforms to be made to Prop
227 laws without going back to the voters.

Greens strongly support local control of education, and an end to
discriminatory English-only laws. Vote YES on 58.


YES on 59

Prop 59 is an advisory measure that would ask our representatives in
Congress to work to repeal "Citizens United," the Supreme Court
decision that allows unlimited corporate bribery of our politicians.

We need to end the entire legal framework that declares that
corporations are people, and entitled to the same rights as people. It
should be legal to pass laws forbidding corporations from lying about
their products, or from interfering in the political process.

Although Prop 59 is purely advisory, it raises public awareness of the
problem, and therefore we urge a YES vote.
 

NO on 60

Prop 60 would require producers in the CA adult film industry to
ensure their performers use condoms during sex in filming, and to pay
for medical exams, vaccines and other health services for the
performers. Prop 60 would allow any citizen to bring a lawsuit against
the producers for non-compliance--which often include the performers
themselves, in cases where they produce their own videos.

We support better medical care and STD testing, but oppose the
requirement for condom use. We expect that if this law were enforced,
porn production would be driven underground in CA, or moved to other
states.

Greens support (fully consensual) sex workers, and oppose attempts to
criminalize the sex industry. Vote NO on 60.


YES on 61

Prop 61 would regulate drug prices by requiring state agencies, such
as Medi-Cal and CalPERS, to pay the same prices that the US Department
of Veterans Affairs (USDVA) pays for prescription drugs.

Although we would prefer single payer health care and, or at least
stronger regulation of drug pricing, we expect that Prop 61 will help
lower drug prices for Californians. Because the USDVA buys so many
drugs, it is able to negotiate better prices from drug
companies. Medi-Cal is prohibited from doing the same thing by the
2003 Medicare Act.

Groups opposing Prop 61 have raised concerns that drug prices are
often kept secret, so the new law will be difficult to
enforce. However, we expect that whistleblowers will help to expose
companies that break the law by charging state agencies higher prices.

Prop 61 would allow our smaller state agencies to take advantage of
the federal agency's clout. Therefore, we endorse a YES vote on 61.
 

YES on 62

Greens have always opposed the death penalty as immoral. Prop 62 would
end it in CA, changing the maximum sentence to life without
parole. This would also apply retroactively to the 741 prisoners
currently on Death Row. Ending the death penalty in CA would bring us
one step closer to a nationwide ban, as lawyers would be able to argue
more effectively that the penalty is "cruel and unusual."

Regardless of your stance on life without parole, most would agree
it's a better option than the death penalty. We strongly support YES
on 62.
 

NO on 63

Prop 63 would prohibit the possession of large-capacity ammunition
magazines, defined as those holding over 10 bullets. We support this
prohibition, and would even support a smaller limit. However, that was
already signed into law via SB 1446 in July; and, like all recent
gun-control measures, Prop 63 EXEMPTS active and retired law
enforcement officers from their restrictions.

Prop 63 would also require all civilian purchasers of ammunition to
pass a background check and obtain CA Department of Justice
authorization (which involves being entered into a DOJ database). It
would restrict people from giving ammunition to others.

Prop 63 exempts both current and retired law enforcement officers
(which includes IRS officers, park rangers, etc.), some of whom were
forced to retire after violently misusing their power. Thus, Prop 63
fails to hold accountable some of the most out-of-control abusers of
firearms.

With Black Lives Matter and other groups fighting for police
accountability, we cannot support a law that exempts cops and retired
cops. Vote NO on 63.


YES on 64

Prop 64 would legalize the adult use of marijuana. The SF Green Party
has forever championed the legalization effort and encourages a YES
vote on Prop 64 as a step in the right direction against the
wrongfully-directed war on drugs that has unfairly targeted and
incarcerated countless members of our communities.

Prop 64 was put on the ballot through the citizens' initiative process
and is the only one of many that cleared the high bar. This proposed
statute has flaws, but the Green Party's key value of social justice
and equal opportunity overrode active members concerns about the more
problematic parts of the law.

Especially since the Ray-Gun years in the White House, people of color
have been persecuted, prosecuted, and incarcerated as part of the
dollars-for-bodies war on drugs to generate profits for the
prison-industrial complex. Politicians, including those in robes,
super-predatory law enforcement officials and broken-windows
opportunists, have made careers out of punishing petty drug offenses
and consensual crimes. Prop 64 "Authorizes resentencing and
destruction of records for prior marijuana convictions." Victims of
racial profiling and unwarranted incarceration will be set free. Tens
of millions of dollars will be saved as those in jail for minor pot
offenses will no longer waste their lives in prison. This alone is
enough to support legalization of a plant-derived, natural substance
that so many use for recreational and medicinal purposes anyway.

Greens expressed concerns regarding the regressive nature of the taxes
that Prop 64 imposes on weed and its cultivation: a 15% tax on
marijuana products, and cultivation taxes of $9.25/ounce on buds and
$2.75/ounce on leaves. Greener Greens will likely buy the leaves and
make the butter, or grow their own. Also problematic is how production
schemes might affect small-scale growers. Some, including principal
members of the Humboldt Growers Collective, have expressed concerns
that a big tobacco-style takeover might ensue.

Still, Prop 64 places some initial limits on the size of growing ops
and, if it passes, legislators who care about Community-Based
Economics and Economic Justice would have the opportunity to make
changes to the law. Those legislators would be Greens, so we should
elect Greens every chance we get, and remember to vote YES on 64!


NO on 65

Prop 65 is another scam proposition put on the ballot by corporations
that manufacture plastic bags. It would require that all carry-out bag
fees be turned over to the state Wildlife Conservation Board.

Prop 65 is an attempt to split environmentalists from grocers, who
currently keep all bag fees (and thus favor the ban). If it passes,
grocers are likely to stop selling heavy-duty reusable bags, since the
fees would be turned over to the state.

Bans and fees on single-use plastic bags are a signature piece of
legislation for the SF Green Party, having been first legislated in
the US by Ross Mirkarimi, when he was registered Green and represented
D5 at the Board of Supervisors. Let's keep the ban alive by voting NO
on 65 (and YES on 67; see below).
 

NO on 66

Prop 66 would keep the Death Penalty in CA, and limit appeals in Death
Penalty cases to 5 years. It would also allow Death Penalty cases to
proceed with inexperienced attorneys. Even worse, Prop 66 would block
Prop 62 (Ending the Death Penalty) from going into effect if Prop 66
gets more votes.

Vote NO on 66 and YES on 62.


YES on 67

Prop 67 is a referendum on SB 270, which enacted a statewide plastic
bag ban in 2014. Plastic bag corporations put this on the ballot in
order to delay or overturn the law.

Confusingly, because this is a referendum, a YES vote upholds the law
passed by our legislators and a NO means overturn it. In order to keep
the bag ban, vote YES on 67 (and don't forget to vote NO on 65).
 

Local Propositions:

YES on A

Prop A was put on the ballot by unanimous vote of the SF Board of
Education. It requires a 55% supermajority of votes to pass. A Yes
vote on the measure will allow the SF Unified School District to incur
debt of $744,250,000 by issuing General Obligation Bonds. This debt,
and the interest on it, will be paid by property owners whose taxes
will be increased. The text of the legislation indicates that sale of
the bonds will be put to use in a variety of ways, primarily to
modernize and repair aging structures. These uses would likely result
in a lasting benefit to our schools and one which will exceed the time
required to issue and pay off the bonds. However, like all bond
measures, which the Green Party often oppose (see our Statement on
Bonds at the end of this Voter Guide), this one has its problems.

The SF Green Party would prefer that Developer's Fees foot this 3/4
Billion Dollar Bill. We would also prefer School Board Members who are
responsible, accountable, and who act in the public interest
independent of political forces that have devastated our
communities. Not all of them are or do, and they are responsible for
placing this money order.

On balance, we think the benefits of Prop A outweigh the drawbacks, so
we encourage a YES vote.


YES on B

Prop B is a $99 annual parcel tax to fund City College. SF residents
and businesses currently pay a flat $79 annual tax for City
College. Prop B would renew the tax before it expires in 2020, and
also increase it by $20/year.

Parcel taxes are a more progressive form of taxation than bonds or
sales taxes, and thus are sometimes a good option for increasing local
taxes. However, they are still not fair: large downtown corporations
pay the same amount as small property owners.

In this case, the increase is small and the money will provide a
crucial investment in public education. Therefore, we strongly endorse
Prop B.


NO on C

Prop C would alter the terms of a bond passed by voters in 1992, in
order to allow money from the bond to be used for different
purposes. The 1992 bond authorized the City to borrow money, and loan
it out at low interest rates to SF residents who are seismically
retrofitting their multi-unit buildings.

Prop C would change the law to allow the bond money (up to $269
million) to be borrowed and then loaned to private building owners in
order to allow other types of retrofitting.

Greens are generally skeptical of bond funding (see our Statement on
Bonds, below), as this is a very regressive form of taxation. In this
case, the money will be used to benefit private homeowners, not public
housing. In addition, the money from Prop C will be used to retrofit
affordable housing, kicking out any tenants while the retrofitting is
done. Although tenants will technically have the right to return, many
will be displaced, because they will be forced to move (either far
away, or to a vastly more expensive unit) while construction is
underway.

We support preservation of safe and affordable housing. But Prop C
won't do what it says--instead, it will inevitably fund more
gentrification and displacement, and will harm rather than help
current SF residents. Vote NO.


YES on D

Currently, when there's a vacancy at the Board of Supervisors, the
Mayor appoints a loyal ally to the position. That person dutifully
rubber-stamps Mayoral legislation, appears at City-funded public
events, and then gets to run as an incumbent with name recognition in
the next election (which may not take place for over a year). Because
so many of our current elected officials have first been appointed to
office through this system, most trace their loyalties back to Willie
Brown, who appointed Gavin Newsom, who appointed Ed Lee, etc. Voters
in the Sunset haven't had an open election for Supervisor in 14 years!

Prop D would limit the Mayor's power to appoint his cronies to vacant
Board seats, by prohibiting him from keeping the seat open (as is
often done to game the timing of the next election) and requiring a
special election to fill the position within 5 months. The Mayoral
appointee would not be able to run in the special election, allowing
candidates to compete on a level playing field to fill the seat.

Prop D would correct a flaw in our current system, in which the Mayor
is effectively in charge of both the executive and legislative
branches of local government. By putting voters in charge, we should
decrease polarization of government and lessen the power of the local
Democratic Party Machine.

Let's elect our elected officials! We strongly urge a YES vote on Prop
D.
 

YES on E

Prop E was put on the ballot by unanimous vote of the San Francisco
Board of Supervisors. It is a Charter Amendment and requires a simple
majority of votes to pass. Prop E would turn responsibility of the
City's street trees back over to the City, from property owners who
were strapped with that task in budget cuts caused by the last
recession. It will initially set aside $19 million, to be adjusted in
the future according to revenue projections.

The Green Party encourages a Yes vote on Prop E. However, we have our
concerns:

First, the City has a policy against set-asides. Most of the City's
budget is already set aside, and revenues that not pre-allocated are
already minuscule. Supervisors fight like chickens in a cage for
handfuls of grain over what's left. That should change. Prop E is also
a set-aside, which we are only supporting because it creates a new
City-funded service.

Second, Prop E will likely result in more wasteful and damaging
public/private partnerships that the City Attorney's office will sign
off on. Mayor Lee's buddies at PG&E doesn't want trees messing up
their power lines (which they were supposed to put underground). The
SF Department of Public Works (DPW) and SFUSD contract serial tree
killers who make more from tree removal than pruning, and the head of
DPW, Mohammed Nuru, an old crony appointee, has been involved in a
number of scandals. Sometimes it's hard to see the forest for all the
scandals in the trees. What it comes down to is that property owners
will have to advocate for their trees (and maybe hire a certified
arborist who actually cares about them for an indy assessment) when
the city's private contractor comes by with a chainsaw.

We support Prop E, but expect the Supervisors who put this on the
ballot to keep a close eye on how the funds are actually spent.


YES on F

Prop F would allow 16 and 17 year olds to vote in all municipal
elections. This policy has been part of the Green Party platform for
many years. Young people are as well informed as other voters on
policy and candidates, and in many cases are more affected by the
outcome of the elections. Beginning to vote while still in high school
also establishes a habit of good citizenship that should last a
lifetime.

Our current cutoff age of 18 means that many people first become
eligible to vote while away at college, so there are often questions
about whether students should register at their college address or
their parents' home address. This results in lower voting
participation among students. Lowering the cutoff age to 16 would give
students several some experience at voting before transitioning to
college.

We strongly support a YES vote on Prop F.


YES on G

Prop G is political posturing that should never have been placed on
the ballot. It renames the "Office of Citizens Complaints" (OCC) to
the "Department of Police Accountability" (DPA) and places their
budget directly under the Mayor, rather than having the office
included in the SFPD budget.

Most people will never notice the difference. Instead of complaining
to one City board about bad policing, then being ignored, SF residents
will be able to be ignored by an entirely new department! As we saw
the the Frisco Five protests, direct action is the only way to make
changes, short of electing a new Mayor to oversee this mess.

On the plus side, Prop G would make the new DPA's budget more
independent from the SFPD's, and if Prop H also passes, the new Public
Advocate will appoint the director of the DPA. Because Greens support
decentralization of municipal power, we support a YES vote on Prop G.
 

YES on H

Prop H is about decentralization. In 1996, the SF City Charter was
rewritten to give SF a "strong mayor" system of government, in which
most City policy is the Mayor's responsibility. If voters want change,
our main opportunity comes every four years in the Mayor's
race. Unfortunately, because the Mayor's Office is in charge of so
many things, he could do a terrible job in one area (e.g., police
oversight) while keeping enough voters satisfied to win re-election.

Prop H would create another citywide elected official, the Public
Advocate, and move some Mayoral duties and powers to this
position. Those responsibilities and powers would include
investigating citizen complaints and whistleblower reports, appointing
the director of the new Department of Police Accountability (should
prop G pass), and putting legislation on the ballot. As a result,
voters will have another elected official besides the Mayor to hold
accountable for problems under their jurisdiction. We therefore
support a YES vote on Prop H.


NO on I

Prop I is a set-aside to fund services for seniors and adults with
disabilities. Although Greens think these services are a worthy cause
that should be funded, we don't support Prop I because it would tie up
funds and prevent future Supervisors from allocating money in response
to more urgent priorities.

If today's Board of Supervisors wanted to fund seniors and adults with
disabilities, they could do so. But instead of making tough decisions
about what other programs to cut, or what taxes to raise, they're
passing the buck to the voters.

Prop I would create a new agency, fully controlled by the Mayor, with
no supervision or control by the Board of Supervisors. Like Muni and
the Department of Recreation and Parks, the new agency would be a ripe
opportunity for pay-to-play schemes and other forms of corruption.

Prop I should not be on the ballot. Vote NO, and ask your Supervisor
to fund these programs through the normal budget process instead.
 

NO on J

Prop J would set aside a minimum amount of funding from the SF City
Budget to fund homeless services, housing, and transportation
improvements.

We oppose Prop J for the same reason we oppose Prop I: it would create
another niche within City government with no oversight from the Board
of Supervisors, thereby encouraging pay-to-play schemes, bribery, and
other forms of corruption. Supervisors should fund these programs
directly rather than cluttering up the ballot.
 

NO on K

Prop K increase SF's sales tax to 9.25%; if it does not pass, the tax
will drop to 8.5% at the beginning of next year.

Sales taxes are regressive, meaning that poor people pay a
proportionally higher share of their income in sales taxes than rich
people do. Just as bond-funded projects transfer middle class income
to the rich, sales taxes transfer poor people's income upwards.

SF's budget should rely on more progressive forms of taxation, such as
property taxes. Let's start eliminating our dependence on sales taxes
by voting NO on K.


YES on L

Prop L would give the Board of Supervisors the ability to appoint
three members of the Municipal Transit Agency's (MTA) board of
Directors. The MTA is the City agency the oversees Muni, streets, and
parking policy. Currently, the Mayor appoints all 7 members of the MTA
Board, so the Board of Supervisors has almost no influence over Muni
fares, parking meter costs, or bike lanes.

Prop L would also give the Board of Supervisors more influence over
the MTA's budget, allowing them to reject the Mayor's proposed budget
with a simple majority (6 votes) instead of a supermajority of 7
votes.

Greens support Prop L, because it decentralizes the authority of a
single elected official (the Mayor) into other elected offices
(Supervisors) who are more likely to be responsible to the voters of
SF. A mix of Mayoral and Supervisorial appointees should be much more
responsive to the people of San Francisco than the current MTA Board
is.
 

YES on M

Prop M is another decentralization issue. It would create a Housing
and Development Commission, to oversee two departments: the Office of
Housing and Community Development and the Office of Economic and
Workforce Development.

Both departments currently report only to the Mayor. The new
Commission would be split between people appointed by the Mayor, the
Board of Supervisors, and the Controller.

Like Prop L, Prop M would shift some Mayoral authority to other
offices that are more responsive to the public. We therefore support a
YES vote.
 

YES on N

Prop N would allow noncitizen parents, legal guardians, and caregivers
of public school children to vote in local school board
elections. This is a third try at passing 2004's Prop F, a measure
sponsored by Matt Gonzalez, then President of the Board of Supervisors
and its first Green Party member. Prop F failed by 3%, and its
successor, 2010's Prop D, failed by even more. We hope that with
Democratic Party voters' disgust at Republican Presidential nominee
Donald Trump's xenophobia, it will finally pass this time.

The Green Party has long supported voting rights for noncitizens in
local elections. Immigrants pay taxes, so why shouldn't they have a
say in how local government is run? Non-citizen voting in local
elections was common in the United States until the anti-immigrant
hysteria of the 1920s, and is still practiced in other countries
today.

We hope that all SF voters will join us this year in supporting
immigrant communities with a YES vote on Prop N.


NO on O

Prop O was put on the ballot as a "citizens' initiative" which, in
this case, means that a big money developer paid a bunch of citizens
to collect the necessary signatures to qualify it for the ballot. It
requires a simple majority of votes to pass.

Prop O would allow for "exclusions" for certain properties from the
cap on office space that voters who were disgusted by rampant Tech 1.0
development approved in 1986. In the current political climate, if
developers want to see changes to zoning/planning codes made, they can
just buy politicians and try to get them to legislate those
changes. So, why didn't they? It could be that this measure is on the
ballot due to the rising cost of politicians. In any event,
developers, represented by Five Point Holdings, LLC were able to
retain the services of former Supervisor Sophie Maxwell and current
School Board member Shamann Walton to front their measure as signers
of the official argument in favor of the measure.

FivePoint is the largest developer of coastal communities in
California. Lennar Corp is FivePoint's parent company and is the
developer working over the neighborhoods in the vicinity of their
projects at Candlestick Point and Hunter's Point Shipyards
(CP/HPS). Prop O would exempt office space development in CP/HPS from
the City's cap of 995,000 square feet/year. Thus, FivePoint could
build bigger/faster to capitalize on cheap financing in order to cash
in on the ass-end of the Tech 3.0 boom and ass-out working class
residents who will suffer from cost increases in basic necessities
(food, clothing, shelter).

Prop O is a canned gentrification scheme and will tax existing
infrastructure (water, sewer, transit). It will further decimate what
remains of the City's African-American community while degrading our
urban environment. Recent news of Lennar's fake-testing of brown-field
soil samples at the Shipyard lead us to believe that their toxic waste
trails are all over the Bayview.

Environmental Justice is a form of Social Justice and No Justice is
served by Prop O. Prioritizing profits and a potential IPO for
Lennar/FivePoints over the health and welfare of our community scored
zero points with SF Greens. We strongly encourage a NO vote on Prop O.
 

NO on P

Prop P would require that the City solicit and receive a minimum of 3
bids for any development of affordable housing on City-owned
property. On face, it seems that would be a good idea. However, the
reality is that competition on such projects is limited by thin profit
margins. (It's possible that putting up an additional hurdle here
might forestall affordable housing altogether.) In addition, it's
already the case that contracts are governed by generally accepted
practices for governmental fund accounting which encourage appropriate
advertisement, solicitation, and approval of such contracts. Prop P
contains NO metrics by which the Mayor would choose the winning
bid--presumably, he'd pick one that had written members of his "City
Family" the largest checks.

This pay-to-play scheme is propped up by the San Francisco Association
of Realtors, the California Association of Realtors, and the National
Association of Realtors. Also, added to the roster of poster children
for the real estate slate, Supervisors Katy Tang and Mark Farrell, who
consistently score zero or near zero on SF Green Party Supervisorial
report cards.

Filings with the Ethics Commission reveal connections that shed light
on the real estate slate's sphere of influence. In these documents are
a number of sketchy connections between the Prop P campaign, so-called
"Democratic Clubs," and opposition to measures D, H, L, M (the SF
Green Party says YES to all these props) that would decentralize and
limit the overreaching power of the Mayor's office. While it's
possible that no actual bags of money are changing hands, there's
enough in the filings to warrant a money-laundering investigation.

We strongly encourage a NO vote on Prop P.
 

NO on Q

Prop Q would make it illegal for homeless people to set up tents on
public sidewalks. It would give the SFPD authority to remove homeless
encampments after giving 24 hours notice, and would allow the police
to take homeless people's property, then throw it away after 90 days.

SF's current policy is to have cops push homeless encampments from one
neighborhood to the next, until the camps are sufficiently out of
public view or are concentrated in poor neighborhoods that the Mayor
doesn't have to listen to.

It is already illegal to camp on sidewalks, but there's no point in
having cops hassle homeless people unless there are shelters open for
them to sleep in. Prop Q would waste police time on pushing homeless
people around rather than investigating real crimes.

Aside from the bad policy, propositions like Prop Q serve two other
purposes for the Democratic Party Machine. First, they clutter the
ballot with issues that don't need to be decided by voters, thereby
depressing voter turnout. Second, they provide a loophole in campaign
finance laws: ultra-rich people like Ron Conway can give unlimited
amounts of money to proposition campaigns, which can then be spent on
favored political consultants, local media, and on other activities
that promote corrupt politicians like Ed Lee and Mark Farrell.

Vote NO on Prop Q to reject these corrupt practices and bankrupt
public policy.


NO on R

Prop R would create a full-time police unit dedicated to "quality of
life" crimes. In reality, that would mean more police officers wasting
their time pushing homeless people from one neighborhood to the next.

Like Prop Q, Prop R is a complete waste of money, and would result in
decreased public safety as our highly paid police officers would spend
less time investigating serious crimes and instead work overtime to
hassle homeless people.

Voters should not only reject Prop R, but also the corrupt politicians
who clutter our ballot as they buy favors from our Police union.
 

NO on S

Prop S is a local Prop put on the ballot as a citizens' initiative. It
requires 66 2/3% of the vote (2/3 majority) to pass. Prop S will
legislate allocation of the City's Hotel Tax for specific purposes,
which include payments to established governmental and grant funding
organizations whose mission is to support the City's culture through
the arts. Prop S will also establish a Neighborhood Arts Fund and an
Ending Family Homelessness Fund. Currently, Hotel Tax revenues go into
the General Fund and can be allocated by the Board of Supervisors for
similar public purposes.

Funding the arts, supporting local artists, and equitable distribution
of public resources to address systemic injustices that deprive
members of our community of their basic human right to housing, are
all within the purview of our elected and appointed officials. Setting
aside revenues from an existing tax does not change the job
description of members of the Board. Our Supervisors should want a
vibrant arts community, a vital cultural city, and a resilient and
supportive City that cares enough to ensure basic human rights like
housing.

While well-meaning in its intent, the intended results of Prop S could
(and should) be prioritized at City Hall by legislators who care to
listen to their constituents in their communities, instead of being
Prop-ed up on the ballot as set-asides. Many who contributed to
getting Prop S on the ballot and beyond truly do care about the
cultural heart of the City and the welfare of all who call SF
home. Others invested out of self-interest and, likely, to promote
their own questionable standards of taste. A real work of art would be
a functional Board of Supervisors. A real feat would be a concerted
effort to change a dysfunctional economic system that leaves families
without homes.

We therefore encourage a NO vote on Prop S.
 

YES on T

Prop T would prohibit lobbyists (people paid to influence politicians)
from giving gifts to City officials. It would also prohibit "bundling"
(having one person collect a number of small campaign contributions
and give them to a candidate).

Prop T would close some current loopholes in campaign finance law, by
making some common "pay-to-play" practices illegal. It wouldn't close
every loophole, but it's a good start. We strongly support it.
 

NO on U

Prop U claims it would create more affordable housing--by changing the
definition of the word "affordable." Currently, City building
regulations require a certain percentage of housing to be build for
people of various income levels. Prop U would give count any housing
that's affordable to upper middle class people (people making 110% of
the area's median income) towards these limits, thus eliminating any
requirements to build housing for lower income people.

This Orwellian proposition does nothing to help build real affordable
housing. Vote NO.


no consensus on V

Prop V is a 1 cent per ounce tax on sugary drinks sold in SF
(approximately 12 cents for a can of soda). Like Prop E two years ago,
the tax would apply to soft drinks (both corn syrup and
sugar-sweetened), as well as sugary sports drinks, energy drinks, iced
tea, and juice drinks that are not 100% made from fruits or
vegetables. It would also apply to the concentrates used to make soft
drinks in commercial soda fountains. The tax would NOT apply to diet
sodas, milk and milk substitutes, baby formula, nutritional
supplements, or concentrates for home soda fountains.

Greens did not reach consensus on whether or not we should support
Prop V, so we'll present arguments on both sides. We all agreed that
sugary drinks are a serious health risk (see the article by UCSF
researchers:
https://accelerate.ucsf.edu/uploads/pilotawards/1331566366/the_toxic_truth_about_sugar.pdf),
especially as a cause of diabetes. Many SF residents who get diabetes
live in low-income neighborhoods with few healthy alternatives. Big
soda corporations push sugary drinks heavily in poor neighborhoods,
and Greens agree that SF should set policies that help people who live
there switch to healthier foods and beverages. All Greens agreed that
whether or not we support the tax, other methods for reducing sugar
consumption discussed in the UCSF study (e.g., a ban on sales of all
sugary drinks in schools and other government buildings) would also be
worth trying. We are encouraged by the success of the Berkeley soda
tax in reducing consumption there.

Greens failed to reach consensus on several points. Greens supporting
NO thought the City should put the carrot before the stick, and
subsidize healthier alternatives before instituting a regressive
tax. Greens supporting YES thought that the money raised by the tax
would be required to create the necessary subsidies. Greens supporting
NO saw racism in the choice of which drinks to tax and which to
exclude, when many excluded drinks are equally unhealthy or
worse. Greens supporting YES thought that we have to start somewhere,
and later try to expand the tax to diet drinks and sugary milk drinks
such as lattes.


YES on W

Prop W would raise the real estate transfer tax on properties valued
at $5 million or more. It would generate $27 million per year to go
into SF's General Fund.

Prop W is one of only a few examples of progressive taxes that cities
like SF area legally allowed to enact under State law. Since we
generally oppose sales taxes, bonds, and other forms of regressive
taxation, we hope voters will take this opportunity to make rich
people in SF pay their fair share of the costs of living here.


YES on X

Prop X would preserve space for arts, small businesses, and community
services in the Mission and SOMA communities. Currently, many such
locations are being redeveloped into more profitable residential
developments or office space for tech companies.

Prop X would require that developers who want to buy and convert these
types of buildings get another level of approval from City
government. It would also require the developers to provide
replacement space to displaced community groups.

Although Prop X should apply city-wide, it is a good start at
preserving some of what's left in our neighborhoods that have been hit
hardest by gentrification. Vote YES on X!
 

YES on RR

Prop RR is a $3.5 billion bond to fund BART maintenance (e.g.,
repairing and replacing tracks, making electrical system upgrades,
repairing tunnels and other structures, etc.).

BART has hundreds of thousands of daily riders, and it is clear that
the system needs major repairs. BART is a critical piece of public
infrastructure; if it shuts down (or breaks) for any significant time,
the entire Bay Area economy would take a major hit as a result of
transit gridlock.

Unfortunately, BART management decisions over the past few years leave
us with very little confidence that the money will be well spent. BART
directors wasted nearly $1 billion on the Oakland Airport Connector, a
monorail that replaces a prior bus route with little increase in
convenience and major increases in cost (both to riders and the cost
to build the system). BART management wasted millions to bring in
union-busting consultants in the last labor dispute. They are wasting
additional millions to convert BART elevators into restrooms, while
keeping the existing restrooms closed. BART can't get working
escalators, but they always find homeless people to blame for the
problem. BART management also spends inordinate amounts of money on
BART police without requiring adequate civilian oversight.

Prop RR is like a hostage situation, with a group of Democratic Party
Machine politicians holding the Bay Area economy prisoner unless we
agree to their demands. Unfortunately, fixing BART governance is not
something we can accomplish soon, so we have no alternative other than
voting YES on RR.
 

SF Green Party Statement on Bond Funding

The SF Green Party has often been hesitant to embrace bond
financing. In addition to being environmentally and socially
responsible, we are also fiscally responsible. Bond funding requires
payments totaling about twice the actual cost of whatever improvements
are made, and passes costs on to future generations. Because people
who buy bonds are almost exclusively the wealthy, as investors are
paid back over the 20-30 year life of the bond, wealth is transferred
from middle and low income taxpayers to rich bondholders.

Bond funding also helps rich people avoid paying their fair share of
taxes, since interest on municipal bonds is exempt from both state and
federal tax. As noted in the California Voter Guide in 1992, over
35,000 U.S. millionaires supplemented their income with tax exempt
state and local bond checks averaging over $2,500 per week (that's
over $130,000 per year tax free). They avoided paying federal and
state taxes on over $5 billion, which must be made up by the rest of
us. The SF Green Party calls on the public to join us in working to
phase out this regressive and unfair subsidy of the rich and their
investment bankers (who take millions of dollars off the top when the
bonds are issued).

There are a few cases in which Greens have supported bond measures. In
general, we are willing to support bonds that are issued to in order
to build urgently needed, publicly-owned infrastructure, such as a
public hospital or high speed rail. We generally oppose bonds that
fund ongoing maintenance projects; these should be paid for using City
revenues (which should be increased by raising taxes on the wealthy).

*===========================*

To submit events for our newsletter, please email a short blurb to
news at sfgreens.org.  Messages to a mailing list will be rejected.