[SFGP] Greenzine: Vote Today, and Haight-Ashbury Street Fair this Sunday

[Announcement list for SF Green Party, updated weekly]

June 5
GREENZINE
SF Green Party Weekly News and Events

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

Dear Greens,

    It's voting day!  Our full recommendations for today's elections
are below.  Scroll to the end of this message for info on our victory
party tonight, and volunteer information for those who can help us get
the SF Community Housing Act qualified for the November ballot this
weekend.

Mayor: Mark Leno and Jane Kim (either order, rank them #1 and #2)

This June, SF voters have a historic opportunity to end 23 years of
rule by the Willie Brown machine.  Although Brown himself was
term-limited to 8 years, his successors have re-appointed the same
department heads, commissioners, and "special assistants" who have run
the City for decades on behalf of the wealthy elite.

Our system of ranked choice voting gives us three choices, not just
one.  We encourage you to make these choices count by ranking Mark
Leno and Jane Kim -- the candidates with the best shot at reforming
our corrupt system -- in your preferred order.  Doing this will ensure
that our votes count, no matter which of these reform candidates ends
up in the final ranked choice bracket opposite the establishment
candidate.  There are so many undecided voters that we don't know
which will make it, but none of the other candidates has a realistic
shot.  Both of our endorsed candidates bring positive qualities to the
table, and we hope that a coalition between them will be sufficient to
overcome the vast amounts of corporate cash being spent to prop up the
status quo.
 
Mark Leno has built a broad coalition among both progressives and
conservatives.  During his years in Sacramento, he was a great
advocate for tenant rights, public power, and community choice
electricity.  On his candidate questionnaire, he indicated support for
many SF Green Party priorities, including stricter police
accountability, improved funding for Muni, and tenant protection from
evictions.  Leno has grown politically from his origins as a Willie
Brown appointee and he has endorsed Greens running for office
(including Mark Sanchez for Supervisor).  A slight majority of SF
Greens wanted to award a #1 ranked endorsement to Leno.  However,
because we require a supermajority (75%) to make endorsements, the
vast majority of Greens ultimately decided not to rank our Mayoral
endorsements, in order to create a slate with the best chance at
beating Willie Brown's forces.

Jane Kim started her political career with the Green Party and served
several successful terms as a Green on the School Board, but she
switched her registration to Democrat when she ran for Supervisor in
2010.  During her two terms as Supervisor, her voting record has been
fairly good.  The SF Green Party has been tracking all Supervisors'
records on important votes since 2012, and Kim has agreed with the
Green Party's position in 52 of 70 (74%) key votes over 6 years.  In
contrast, Mayor Farrell went a perfect 0 for 69 during the same
period, and Board President London Breed has gone 16 for 64 (25%) over
her 5-year career.  Kim's best votes (where Breed voted in opposition)
have been for stronger regulations on Airbnb, supporting "Black Lives
Matter" protests, funding public education, limiting Mayoral power to
appoint Supervisors, increasing developer fees to pay for Muni, and
fighting developers' plans to up-zone the entire City.  We think that
she'll be especially strong on police reform and funding truly
affordable housing.


Supervisor, D8: Rafael Mandelman

Rafael Mandelman is running for the Supervisor seat in D8 that was
vacated by Scott Wiener when he was elected to the State Senate.
Wiener's replacement, Jeff Sheehy, was appointed by Mayor Lee.  In his
one year in office Sheehy's votes have been as conservative as
Wiener's: Sheehy voted the Green Party position in just 1 of 16 key
votes in 2017.

Mandelman's not as progressive as some on the board of Supervisors,
but he'd be a huge improvement for D8.  D8 (which includes the Castro,
Noe Valley, Glen Park and Diamond Heights) voted for Gonzalez over
Newsom in 2003, but has sent conservative legislators to City Hall
ever since.  We endorsed Mandelman for Supervisor in 2010, and in both
his elections for College Board.  He's been a progressive voice on the
Board with the exception of his refusal to join colleagues John Rizzo
and Brigitte Davila in opposing luxury housing development that's
planned for the Balboa Reservoir site adjacent to City College.  The
site is public land owned by SF, and should be used to build badly
needed public housing rather than condos that will be unaffordable to
students and other area residents.

Although Mandelman's support for building more luxury housing is
troubling, he'll side with the progressive wing of the Board on many
other issues: he supports public power and CleanPowerSF, higher taxes
to improve Muni service, and immigrant rights.  He's also good on
voting issues, such as non-citizen and youth voting in local
elections, limiting Mayoral appointments, and ranked choice voting.
We enthusiastically support his election.


Congress, CD12:  Barry Hermanson (Green Party)

Barry Hermanson is running as the Green Party candidate against Nancy
Pelosi.  Pelosi continues to oppose Green priorities in Washington,
including impeachment of Donald Trump.  She is opposed to a Healthcare
for All "Single Payer" system, and she joined the majority of
Democrats in Washington in lobbying for even bigger increases to the
military budget than Trump had asked for.  Her out-of-touch elitism
serves as a lightning rod that boosts the campaigns of thousands of
Republicans around the country.  Due in part to Pelosi's
misleadership, Republicans now control every level of government in
most of the country, from school boards to the White House.

The key question facing voters this June is whether Pelosi will face a
Republican or a Green this November.  Because of the "Top Two"
primary, all voters (regardless of party) will vote in a single
election in June, with only the 2 leading candidates going on to the
November election.  A number of progressive Democrats are also
running, but they have no plans to build on any political
momentum after the June election.  If Barry Hermanson can beat the
Republican, San Franciscans will for the first time be able to go into
November with a clear choice: re-electing Pelosi, who does not
represent San Francisco values, or electing a Green who does.  And
although Pelosi has never agreed to debate her opponents, Hermanson
would challenge her support for a long list of terrible policies
including the ones mentioned above.

Getting a Green into the November election is our best chance to
change the political discourse on a number of issues.  Vote Barry
Hermanson for Congress this June to make it happen!


Judges: no endorsement

Several lawyers who currently work for the SF Public Defender's office
are challenging incumbent judges.  We sent candidates a short
questionnaire asking them their opinions on the death penalty,
reproductive rights, and corporate personhood.  Without exception, all
candidates refused to provide any information, citing the judicial
code of conduct linked below:

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_code_of_judicial_conduct/model_code_of_judicial_conduct_canon_5.html

    (Candidates for judge) shall not: with respect to cases,
    controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the court,
    make pledges, promises or commitments that are inconsistent with
    the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of the
    office;

We believe that the code of conduct allows candidates to express
opinions that are not "promises or commitments" without getting into
trouble.  For example, Victor Hwang, who we endorsed for the same
office in 2016, was quite open about his personal opposition to the
death penalty, while at the same time promising that he would follow
the law with impartiality.  Because none of the candidates this time
would say as much, we did not endorse any of them.

We do agree with the challengers that public defenders are generally
preferable as judges over lawyers with a background in prosecution, or
as corporate attorneys.

We are particularly concerned about a ruling made by one of the
incumbents, Curtis Karnow, in a suit challenging California's unfair
election laws.  Judge Karnow ruled that six regular citizens who filed
a lawsuit challenging a law against write-in votes being counted, and
a law that said independent candidates could no longer use the word
"independent" to describe their party status.  Judge Karnow not only
upheld the unfair laws, but required the citizens to pay attorney fees
of the firm representing Charles Munger, one of the richest men in
California.  But we have no idea what Karnow's opponent thinks about
the issue, since none of the candidates would discuss their opinions.


Statewide candidates

Governor: We have endorsed multiple Greens running for Governor: Josh
Jones, Chris Carlson, and Veronika Fimbres (write-in).

The SF Green Party is focused on local elections, and California's
"Top Two" primary system does not give candidates from non-corporate
parties a fair chance.  Ballot access requirements have been rigged in
favor of wealthy candidates: instead of simply gathering signatures
from members of one's political party, and competing in a party
primary, candidates must now gather thousands of signatures or raise
thousands of dollars to appear on the June ballot.  Non-corporate
candidates must compete in the same primary as well-funded corporate
puppets, giving them almost no chance for ballot access in November.
Rather than focus on a single candidate who will be blocked by "Top
Two" from appearing on the ballot in November, we have endorsed
three Greens who are each working to build the Green Party around
the state.  Vote for any one of them!

Josh Jones is a former campaign organizer with the Berniecrats who
joined the Green Party after the 2016 election.  He has been endorsed
by the California Green Party and he helped start a county Green Party
in his home county of Yolo county.  He is particularly involved in
anti-pipeline activism and empowering people from tribal nations.

Chris Carlson is a student and musician who is focused on
anti-fracking activism and the fight to restore the Delta.  He is
especially concerned about Governor Brown's plan to build giant
tunnels to ship water south from the Sacramento and San Joaquin
rivers, which would destroy the local ecosystem and promote suburban
sprawl in Southern California.

Veronika Fimbres is a local activist from San Francisco, who is
running as a write-in candidate.  She is the first Black woman ever to
run for CA Governor.  Fimbres is a pioneer in the fight for
transgender rights, an honorably discharged Navy veteran, and she
served as a SF Commissioner of Veterans Affairs for over 14 years.
She has been a Green Party member for over 15 years.  If you write her
in, don't forget to also connect the arrow next to "write-in" or your
vote will not be counted!


Lt. Governor:  Gayle McLaughlin

Gayle McLaughlin is a former Green Party Mayor of Richmond, CA, who was
a key part of the Richmond Progressive Alliance that took City Hall
back from Chevron.  During her two terms as a Green Party Mayor,
McLaughlin was a champion for environmental justice, forcing Chevron
to pay an additional $114 million in taxes and preventing expansion of
the refinery.  McLaughlin also promoted community policing, and she was
joined by the police chief she appointed at Black Lives Matter
demonstrations against police violence.  Her efforts at police reform
led to a sharp decrease in violent crime.  McLaughlin also launched an
ambitious plan for the City of Richmond to acquire "underwater
mortgages" through eminent domain, thereby reducing homeowners' debts
and preventing evictions.

McLaughlin changed her registration to independent (aka "Decline to
State") in order to be able to vote for Bernie Sanders in the
Democratic Party primary in 2016, and she is running for Lt. Governor
as an independent.  We believe she still strongly holds Green Party
values, and we think that she should have run as a Green in order to
continue to build a movement for political change after the primaries
are over.  We enthusiastically recommend a vote for McLaughlin this June!


Secretary of State: For the same reasons we described in our
endorsements for Governor, we have dual-endorsed two Greens, Mike
Feinstein and Erik Rydberg.

Mike Feinstein is a long-time Green Party activist and the former
Mayor of Santa Monica, CA.  He strongly supports expanding Ranked
Choice Voting to elections throughout the state.  He has also
campaigned on implementing proportional representation in the CA
legislature.  That will ensure that smaller, non-corporate parties
like the Greens will have a few representatives, and a voice in our
legislative process.

Erik Rydberg is a former Berniecrat who pointed out the conflict of
interest in our current Secretary of State, Alex Padilla, campaigning
for Hillary Clinton instead of remaining impartial in the party's
primary.  He has spent most of his time campaigning in California's
northernmost counties, and he has been very active in tribal nations'
fight against proposed oil pipelines in the area.


US Senate:  John Thompson Parker
Controller:  Mary Lou Finley
Treasurer:  Kevin Akin
Insurance Commissioner:  Nathalie Hrizi

The SF Green Party hasn't always been on best terms with the local
Peace & Freedom Party.  In the interest of extending an olive branch,
we're endorsing the same four P&F candidates as the Green Party of
California did, in four races where there is no Green running.

As we said in a statewide press release (http://www.cagreens.org/california-green-party-widens-endorsements-other-party-candidates-first-time):

    By reaching across party lines, Greens intend to improve the
    chances for progressives and independents to make it to the
    November ballot to be heard and elected.


Local propositions:

YES on A:  Public utility bonds

Prop A would give the SFPUC the authority to issue revenue bonds to
pay for new "clean power" facilities with a 2/3 vote at the Board of
Supervisors and the support of the Mayor.  Currently, the SFPUC can do
this for water-related projects, but cannot build new power projects
without going to the voters.

Prop A has safeguards that prevent the SFPUC from using this authority
to pay for any new fossil fuel or nuclear projects.  And these bonds
are backed by revenues from the clean energy projects themselves, not
by the SF General Fund, so we are not as concerned with this as we are
with most bond spending.

Prop A will help build infrastructure to power CleanPowerSF, which
may eventually replace PG&E in SF.  Vote Yes!


YES on B:  Prohibit appointed commissioners from running for office
without resigning first

Prop B is a basic "good government" measure that would require
appointed members of SF's Boards and Commissions to resign from those
positions in order to run for office.  Currently, candidates are
allowed to retain their seats, which enables them to perform political
favors for potential donors.  Prop B would shut down that potential
source of corruption, so we enthusiastically endorse it.


YES on C:  Tax on Commercial Rents to fund Childhood Education

Prop C is a 3.5% tax on commercial rents to pay for child care and
early education.  It would raise approximately $146 million every year
that would go to free child care and preschool for kids under 6 years
old (for poor families; for middle class families, the subsidy would
only apply to kids under age 4).  The money would also subsidize wages
for child care workers (who are notoriously underpaid).

Prop C exempts arts, industrial, and retail spaces; e.g., it would
mostly apply to office buildings.  And because it was put on the
ballot by signatures, it only needs a simple majority of the vote to
pass.

SF is a notoriously expensive city for families, and Prop C is
a great investment in our future.  Vote Yes!


NO on D:  Tax on Commercial Rents to fund Homelessness Services

Prop D is a 1.7% tax to pay for homeless shelters, middle class
housing and rental subsidies.  It would raise $64 million annually.
We'd normally support this, except for a key point: Prop D has a
"poison pill" that kills off Prop C if D gets more votes.

Conservatives on the Board of Supervisors, led by Ahsha Safai, put
Prop D on the ballot to kill Prop C, seemingly out of spite for the
fact that Prop C was spearheaded by Jane Kim.  Conservatives often
use the strategy of filling up the ballot with contradictory
propositions in order to confuse voters and cause both measures
to fail.

Prop D requires a 2/3 vote to pass, and presumably will only kill
Prop C if both get 2/3 of the votes.  But vote NO on D (and YES on C)
just to make sure this doesn't happen.


YES on E:  Ban on sales of flavored tobacco products

In 2017, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to ban sales
of flavored tobacco products (such as cigarettes and vaping supplies)
in SF.  The giant tobacco company RJ Reynolds immediately paid
signature gatherers to force the issue onto the ballot, and is
currently pouring millions of dollars into the No on E campaign.

Flavored tobacco products are marketed to kids, just as the "Joe Camel"
cartoon character was used before that was banned.  For example, the
JUUL vaping device is made to plug into laptops and is very popular
with teenagers, and many companies market vaping liquids that are sold
in packages that resemble candy or juice boxes.
(https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/01/health/fda-crackdown-vaping-children.html)
Although tobacco companies argue that adults also use flavored tobacco
products to quit smoking, these adults have other options that do not
appeal to children.

We also note that Prop E does not ban possession of flavored tobacco
products by adults, and therefore is not "prohibition" as some of its
more ideological opponents claim.  Decreasing the number of kids hooked
on nicotine is important for public health, so we strongly support it.


YES on F:  Right to an attorney for tenants facing evictions.

Prop F would give all SF tenants facing eviction the right to a
City-funded attorney to represent them.  This would be a great help in
reducing the number of evictions in SF, because landlords commonly use
illegal tricks to get tenants to vacate their unit.  Tenants are
currently often unable to afford legal representation, and landlords
take advantage of this.  Prop F would help to level the playing field
and give more people a chance to stay in their units.

Prop F would be a huge step forward for tenants' rights, so we
strongly support it.


YES on G:  Parcel tax to give SF teachers a pay raise.

Prop G is a $298 annual parcel tax to give SF teachers a pay raise.
Teachers around the country are striking due to low wages, and
teachers in SF are being paid less than their colleagues in
surrounding counties.  Prop G is a chance to give our teachers a
well-deserved pay increase without them having to resort to a strike!

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.

But just as we supported a $99 parcel tax to pay for City College back
in 2016, we also strongly support Prop G this time.  Senior citizens
are exempt from the tax, and it can't be passed through to tenants,
so Prop G will mostly affect those who can afford to pay.  Vote Yes!


NO on H:  Tasers for SFPD.

Prop H would require that SF police be armed with tasers, and would
give them the right to use these weapons almost whenever they want
to.

Proponents of tasers claim police will use them instead of guns.
However, a UCSF study
(https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2009/01/4188/first-study-test-real-world-effects-stun-gun-use-raises-questions-abo)
found that police killings of civilians increased 6-fold after tasers
were deployed.  The number of civilians that cops killed with guns
increased two-fold.  The police officers themselves were not any
safer: the study showed they had as many officer injuries as before.

In hindsight, these results should have been predicted.  Police armed
with tasers are more aggressive towards civilians, and often escalate
confrontations, which often ends up with the cop shooting the
civilian.

Prop H was written by SF's notoriously right-wing Police Union.  We
support strong civilian oversight of the police, and no tasers.
We urge voters to vote NO.


NO on I:

Prop I is a local citizen's group's reaction to SF stealing the
Warriors away from Oakland.  Although we also strongly oppose the
Warriors' move here (especially the lack of infrastructure at the
site), Prop I is a completely advisory measure and will do nothing to
actually stop what looks like a done deal.

Prop I adds a "placebo" measure to the ballot that makes voters
think they're getting something, but which will actually have no
effect.  This kind of abuse of the important right to place
initiatives on the ballot makes voters more cynical, and ultimately
will decrease public support for the whole ballot initiative system.
Vote No!



Regional proposition:

YES on RM-3: Raises bridge tolls to pay for more public transit

RM-3 would raise tolls on all Bay Area toll bridges except for the
Golden Gate Bridge by $3, $1 at a time in 2019, 2022, and 2025.  This
will raise $4.5 billion over 25 years.  RM-3 is a regional measure
that will need to be approved by a majority of voters around the Bay
Area.

Most of the money will be spent on public transit.  Some important
investments include new BART and Muni cars, extending Caltrain, and
fixing up Muni repair yards.  It will also expand ferry service and
extend BART, which are investments in transit that are not as
cost-effective as funding Muni but will still get cars off the road.
There's a little ($150 million) thrown in for biking and pedestrian
projects as well.

Along with public transit improvements, RM-3 unfortunately includes a
lot of road upgrades, mostly located in the East Bay in order to
buy support there.  Greens think that all the money (or at least a
much larger share) should be spent on public transit instead.

Bridge tolls are a somewhat regressive means of funding, but on
average, drivers are wealthier than riders of public transit.  It
currently costs about half as much to drive to/from the East Bay from
most places in SF as it does to take transit, except at peak hours.
Therefore, it's fair to ask drivers to pay for better BART service.

Although we have concerns about not enough of the RM-3 funds being
spent on transit, on balance we endorse it.  In practice, if RM-3
loses, its proponents will come back with another version with more
"pork" for suburban drivers and less money for BART and Muni, in order
to buy support in the suburbs.  We think the current version of RM-3
is a pretty good deal for SF transit riders, so we're supporting it.


State propositions:

YES on 68: Parks and Wildlife bond.

Prop 68 is a $4.1 billion bond, with the money being spent on
"Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor
Access For All" programs.  Surprisingly, most of this money would
actually go to improve state and local parks, and to conserve
wildlife.

The measure would require 15 - 20 percent of the funds (depending on
the type of project) to be dedicated to projects in communities with
median household incomes less than 60 percent of the statewide
average.  $725 million would go to neighborhood parks in park-poor
neighborhoods.  No money would go towards environmentally destructive
projects such as new dams or Jerry Brown's Delta water tunnels.

Although we have reservations on bond spending, we often make
exceptions for public projects.  This is one such good use, so
we strongly support Prop 68.


YES on 69: Restrict vehicle fees to be used for transportation

California has a long history of diverting revenues meant to improve
basic essential transportation and transit infrastructure, and
spending those funds elsewhere in the state budget.  Prop 69 prevents
funds raised for transportation and transit projects from being
diverted to other uses, and removes automatic state spending caps that
currently prevent transportation and transit revenues from being fully
spent.

At a time when the very survival of the planetary ecosystem depends on
rapid action to shift to low emission mass transit, it is vital that
the state maximize its spending on transit.  The US and California are
also burdened by decades of dangerous neglect of basic repairs of
roads, bridges, railways, and other transportation infrastructure.

Because of these realities we support Prop 69 as an important first
step to improving transit and transportation safety.

However we also strongly believe that the state traditionally spends
far too much on new and expanded roadways for automobiles (which only
serves to increase driving and greenhouse emissions) and spends far
too little on expanding mass transit, bikeability, and walkability.
This measure would have been far better if it had very specifically
earmarked far more funds for transit, bikeways and walkability, and
had barred these funds from being used to build new and expanded
freeways and roadways.


NO on 70: Raid on "Cap & Trade" fund

Prop 70 will require a one-time two-thirds vote in each chamber of the
state legislature in 2024 or thereafter to pass a spending plan for
revenue from the state's cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gases.

Greens oppose "cap-and-trade" schemes, as they result in little actual
reduction in the use of fossil fuels, and simply allow polluters to
pay into a fund when they want to destroy the environment.  However,
this "Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund" does go to good causes, like local
clean energy production, that are a small step towards mitigating
the problems caused by the large corporate polluters that pay into it.

Prop 70 was put on the ballot by Republicans to allow them to block
spending the money in the fund on these worthy projects.  Although
the Republican Party is shrinking, they might manage to put together
1/3 of the votes in either chamber of the CA legislature to block
these expenditures.  This could lead to them demanding more concessions
for the big fossil fuel companies, that many Democrats will be all to
happy to collude in.

We strongly urge a NO vote on Prop 70.


YES on 71:  Allows statewide ballot measures to have time delays.

Prop 71 would amend the State Constitution so that state ballot
initiatives take effect by default on the fifth day after the
Secretary of State certifies the result of the election.  It will also
allow the authors of a measure to put "time delays" into initiatives
so that they can take effect later.

At present, most state ballot measures take effect the day after
Election Day.  However, in close elections, it is sometimes not
clear which side won.  There are often still millions of mail-in
and provisional ballots to be counted.  Prop 71 avoids situations
where a law would take effect, then later be repealed because the
it was later found to have lost.

Prop 71 fixes this situation by delaying the law until all ballots
are counted, so we support a YES vote.


YES on 72:  Tax breaks for rainwater capture systems.

Prop 72 adds rainwater capture systems to a list of other home
improvements that are exempt from triggering a property tax
reassessment.  Prop 72 therefore effectively subsidizes the
installation of these systems.

Rainwater capture systems help conserve water, and also have other
environmental benefits such as reducing erosion and groundwater
contamination.  Prop 72 shouldn't have to be on the ballot, but we
support it.

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

What:  Green Victory Party
Where:  Rosamunde, 2832 Mission St, San Francisco, CA 94110
When:  Tue, June 5, 8-11 pm

Our victory party tonight will be at Rosamunde, on Mission St right
next to the 24th St BART station.  They have vegan and non-vegan
sausages.  Please join us there tonight after the polls close at 8 to
watch the returns come in, and hopefully celebrate some victories!

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

What:  SF Community Housing Act Kickoff
Where:  Stage Werx Theater, 446 Valencia St at 15th St, SF
When:  Sat, June 9, 11 am - 1:30 pm

Greens have endorsed the SF Community Housing Act, a ballot measure
for this November to fund the building and acquisition of 500 units of
affordable public housing every year, as well as related
infrastructure such as public transit and child care:
https://www.sfcommunityhousingact.com/

Supporters are invited to the post-election kickoff of the SF
Community Housing Act campaign on Saturday June 9, 11 AM, at Stage
Werx Theater (near Valencia & 15th).  We'll have food, and it'll be a
fun opportunity to meet other supporters (some of whom will be getting
trained for signature gathering for the first time).

This initiative is being led by the Berniecrats, and Greens
are early endorsers:
https://www.facebook.com/events/199583890855282/

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

What:  Voter outreach at Haight St Fair
Where:  South Side of Haight St between Belvedere & Cole, SF
When:  Sunday, June 10, 10:30 am - 5:30 pm

We'll be gathering signatures to put the SF Community Housing Act (see
above) on the ballot, as well as registering new Greens and helping to
organize for Single Payer Healthcare for All in California.

We'll need volunteers to help staff our table, sign up volunteers, and
register new Greens!  Our booth location is D19S, on the south side of
Haight between Belvedere & Cole.  The fair runs from 11 am - 5:30 pm,
and we also need volunteers to set up at 10:30 am and break down
between 5:30 and 6 pm.  Please email cc at sfgreens.org if you can help!

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

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