[SFGP] Greenzine: complete Green Voter Guide, meeting tonight, Jill Stein on Sunday

Announcement list for SF Green Party, updated weekly announce at sfgreens.org
Wed Oct 24 10:25:51 PDT 2018

October 24
SF Green Party Weekly News and Events


Dear Greens,

    Our complete Green Voter Guide is now posted online!
Read the explanations behind all our endorsements, and share
them with friends:

    Because our website is not loading on some ISPs, we've also
included all the text here, following our event listings.

    Also, see our event listings below for tonight's monthly
meeting agenda, and details about a Jill Stein rally in Berkeley
this Sunday.


What:  Green Party Monthly Meeting
Where:  Redstone Bldg (2940 16th Street, near South Van Ness) #301, SF
When:  Wed, Oct 24, 7-9 pm


1) Introductions
2) Outreach to new members (Barry, 30 min)
3) Campaign update (Mike, 20 min)
4) Sunset groundwater test results (Mike, 20 min)
5) Oppose private buses using red lanes (JM, 10 min)
6) Election planning - events / precinct walking, etc

Every 4th Wednesday the SF Green Party meets to discuss issues of
concern, listen to interesting speakers, endorse events, plan outreach
and more!  Everyone welcome.  All meetings are wheelchair accessible.
To make a presentation or gain the SFGP endorsement of events and
issues, please contact our SFGP County Council at: cc at sfgreens.org


What:  Green Power Rally in Berkeley
Where:  South Berkeley Senior Center, 2939 Ellis St, Berkeley, CA, 94703
When:  Sun, Oct 28, 6:30-8:30 pm

Green Party 2016 Presidential Candidate, Dr. Jill Stein joins Bay Area
Green Party Candidates in the November 6th Election: Laura Wells,
Aidan Hill, Saied Karamooz & Mike Murphy.  Join us at this Green Power
Rally to hear the candidates' visions for social and environmental
justice and a Green future!

RSVP here:


What:  Walk Precincts with Mike Murphy for D4 Supe
Where:  Sunset and Parkside, West Side of SF
When:  Every weekend between now and the election

Every Saturday and Sunday, join Mike Murphy and Green Party volunteers
as we walk precincts throughout District 4 to support his campaign for
Supervisor!  For a detailed schedule each weekend, email
info at murphy4supe.org (preferred), or call the candidate himself: Mike
Murphy, 415-823-9743.


What:  Volunteer for Tony Kelly for D10 Supe and Prop C
Where:  Various locations (see below)
When:  Every Wed and Thurs evening between now and the election

Phonebank for Tony Kelly
Every Wednesday 5pm-8pm
1512 20th Street

DSA Mobilization for Tony Kelly + Prop C
Every Thursday 5pm-8pm
350 Alabama Street


What:  Striking Marriott workers need your help
Where:  Ritz-Carlton, Palace Hotel, W Hotel, Marriott Marquis
When:  All the time!

Marriott workers in Boston, San Francisco and San Jose who are members
of UNITE HERE are on strike today - and more than 8,300 Marriott workers
have authorized strikes in nine cities across the country.

More details on SF hotels with striking workers are here:

News about the strike:

Please join them on the picket line!


Green Voter Guide 2018

These are the SF Green Party Endorsements for the November 2018

   D2 Supe:  no endorsement
   D4 Supe:  #1 - Mike Murphy (Green Party member) #2 - Adam Kim (ranked
   D6 Supe: Matt Haney
   D8 Supe:  no candidate sought our endorsement this time, although we
      just endorsed Rafael Mandelman in June.
   D10 Supe:  Tony Kelly
   BART Board: Janice Li
   Community College Board:  Brigitte Davila & John Rizzo
   School Board:  Gabriela López, Mia Satya, & Li Miao Lovett
   Assessor:  Paul Bellar
   Public Defender:  Jeff Adachi

   NO on A (Seawall bond)
   NO on B (Privacy rules that undermine our sunshine and public records
   YES on C (Our City Our Home)
   YES on D (Cannabis tax)
   NO on E (Hotel tax set-asides)

   NO on 1 (Bond to buy private housing for veterans)
   YES on 2 (Revenue bonds for permanent supportive housing for mentally
      ill homeless people)
   NO on 3 (Bond for dams)
   NO on 4 (Bonds for private children's hospitals)
   NO on 5 (Realtor scam)
   NO on 6 (Gas tax repeal)
   YES on 7 (Daylight savings time repeal)
   YES on 8 (Fair pricing for dialysis)
   YES on 10 (Stronger rent control)
   NO on 11 (Ambulance employee regulations)
   YES on 12 (Prevent animal cruelty)

(complete explanations)

D2 Supe:  no endorsement.

The appointed incumbent in District 2, Catherine Stefani, did not seek
our endorsement.  Her main challenger, Nick Josefowitz, currently
serves on the BART board.  He's good on a few transportation issues
(e.g., he supports making Muni free to riders), but even in this area,
we have major concerns about Josefowitz's positions.  For example, he
appears to be OK with the status quo of Uber and Lyft flooding our
streets with cars and driving down Muni ridership, and as a BART board
member, he supported dragnet surveillance of BART riders.

On many issues, we find Josefowitz in opposition to Green Party
values.  He's strongly in favor of developing more market rate
housing...presumably in areas of the City that won't block his wealthy
constituents' views.  He failed to take a position on some
controversial issues, such as public power, Care not Cash, and
development of radioactive land in the Bayview.  He also supports
anti-environmental practices such as paving over our parks with
artificial turf, and the addition of toxic groundwater to SF's water

We therefore did not make any endorsement in District 2.

D4 Supe:  #1 - Mike Murphy (Green Party member) #2 - Adam Kim (ranked endorsement)

District 4 has several great grassroots candidates running, including
Green Party County Council member Mike Murphy.  We are excited to
endorse him, as well as SF Berniecrat activist Adam Kim for the #2

Mike Murphy is a long-time activist who has been a key part of many
campaigns to take back SF from the political machine that has ruled
City Hall for decades.  He and other Sunset residents have fought to
keep natural grass in Golden Gate Park, and to prevent a wall of
luxury condos from being built next to Ocean Beach.  He also helped
lead the "Recall Ed Lee" campaign in 2016, which was blocked by the
Department of Elections.  Murphy has been a resident of the Outer
Sunset since 1996, and has a child in the public school system.  He
has been registered Green since he arrived in the City.  His election
will be a welcome change from the string of appointed Supervisors in
D4 who have served as a rubber stamp for the Willie Brown machine for

Adam Kim is an activist with the SF Berniecrats.  He is not registered
with any political party, but his values are consistent with Greens.
Like Murphy, Kim supports instant runoff voting, public power, and police
accountability.  Both Kim and Murphy were strong supporters of the
Community Housing Act (https://www.sfcommunityhousingact.com/), which
Greens hope to help bring back to the ballot in a future election.
Kim also supports strong regulations on Airbnb, Uber, and other
"gig economy" businesses.

We are disappointed that neither of the two more mainstream candidates,
Jessica Ho and Gordon Mar, filled out our endorsement questionnaire
or sought our endorsement.  Another D4 candidate, Trevor McNeil, did
seek our endorsement, but we found his views to be too close to those
of Katy Tang, the current incumbent.

We strongly encourage a #1 vote for Mike Murphy and a #2 vote for
Adam Kim.

D6 Supe: Matt Haney

Matt Haney currently serves on the SF School Board.  He generally
agrees with the "progressive" wing of the Board of Supervisors, all
of whom have endorsed him for election.  He agrees with Greens on
many issues, including public power, SFPD reform, expanded voting
rights, and making Muni free to riders.  Haney's more conservative than
we are on housing issues: e.g., he mistakenly believes that Katy Tang's
"density bonus program" will lead to more affordable housing, and
he doesn't support a ban on Airbnb.

Former Planning Commissioner Christine Johnson also sought the Green
Party's endorsement.  Johnson embodies the current culture of "pay to
play" at City Hall: she served simultaneously on the Planning
Commission and as the director of SPUR, a pro-developer think tank.
In these roles, she solicited donations from luxury housing developers
with one hand, while rubber-stamping their proposed projects with the
other.  Johnson is also remembered for switching a key swing vote at the
Planning Commission in response to a text message from Mayor Ed Lee.
As a result of her vote, Airbnb was allowed to profit from vast
numbers of illegal rentals for years without any City oversight.

Even though we expect Matt Haney would be far less progressive than his
predecessors on the Board, we endorse him as the best choice for D6 in
this election.

D8 Supe: no endorsement

No candidate for D8 Supervisor sought our endorsement this time,
although we just endorsed Rafael Mandelman in June.  Mandelman has
no serious competition for re-election.

D10 Supe:  Tony Kelly

Tony Kelly is a long-time activist from Potrero Hill who we have
now endorsed in three consecutive Supervisorial runs.  As we said last

  Kelly is especially strong on both public safety and development
  issues.  He supports expanded foot patrols and other police reforms,
  and has a credible plan to reduce violent crime in his District.
  Kelly also fought hard against the Lennar corporation's development
  project and other corporate polluters in the Bayview who have cut
  years off the average District 10 resident's life.  Kelly agrees
  with the Green Party on many other issues, from public power and
  CleanPowerSF, to the need to end corruption in City Hall.

Although Kelly still serves as President of the Potrero Hill
Democratic Club, he has recently re-branded himself as a socialist,
and his campaign is strongly supported by the local Democratic
Socialists of America (DSA) chapter.  We hope that this additional
force of volunteers, and the public attention that is finally being
paid to Lennar's development of housing on radioactive land in the
Bayview, will make the third time the charm for Kelly's campaign.

Several other candidates from D10 sought our endorsement, but Kelly is
the only one who convinced us that he can end the string of pro-Lennar
D10 representatives and strongly advocate for environmental justice in
City Hall.

BART Board: Janice Li

Representing San Francisco on the BART Board is a tough job, as the
incumbent will often be outvoted by their suburban counterparts.
Collectively, the BART board has made some incredibly stupid decisions
in recent years, from the Oakland Airport Connector boondoggle to
hiring expensive Muni-style "fare enforcement teams" to harass their
riders.  During the last round of labor negotiations, they wasted
money on hiring an expensive union-busting consultant, resulting in an
expensive strike and several deaths.  In the last year, BART has
focused on building higher fences and new facades for their stations
while neglecting maintenance of their trains to the point where even
a light rain routinely causes half-hour delays.

Janice Li is a strong supporter of Muni and bikes, and otherwise
generally agrees with the Green Party on transit policies.  She's
pro-union, and has stood in opposition to the long list of bad
decisions above.  She would be a welcome addition to the BART Board.

Community College Board:  Brigitte Davila & John Rizzo

Brigitte Davila & John Rizzo are current members of the College Board.
With three seats up for election, we are pleased to endorse both of them
for another term.

A major issue in this election is the long-term prospect for the Free
City College program.  Voters passed Prop W (which we strongly
supported) in 2016 to fund the program.  However, Mayor Lee imposed a
spending cap of around $6 million on the free tuition program.  This
has resulted in the program running a deficit, even though Prop W
brings in nearly $50 million each year!  We expect Mayor Breed to
follow the voters' mandate and extend the program, and expand it to
include additional benefits such as free textbooks.  We also want to
see the Free City College program extended indefinitely beyond its
initial 2-year period.

We enthusiastically endorsed Davila last time, as most of her
positions are in line with Green values, including support for free
education, rights for undocumented immigrants, and opposition to
military recruitment on campus.  Although we did not endorse Rizzo
last time, both he and Davila did a great job of stepping up to
finally solve the accreditation crisis.  We also appreciate their
support for public housing on the Balboa Reservoir site adjacent to
City College (although they were not joined by their colleagues).

Thea Selby is another incumbent Board member who sought our
endorsement.  However, as was the case 4 years ago, we are not
endorsing her out of concern for her support of military recruiting on
campus, and her opposition to non-citizen voting.

We strongly endorse both Brigitte Davila & John Rizzo for another term.

School Board:  Gabriela López, Mia Satya, & Li Miao Lovett

A number of candidates are running for three open seats on the school
board.  The Green Party picked the best among them: Gabriela López,
Mia Satya, & Li Miao Lovett.

We covered a variety of topics on our candidate questionnaires.
Several of the issues that most distinguished our endorsed candidates
from the others were the the questions about reforming the school
assignment system, JROTC, and student testing, as described below:

* We think the school assignments should be made using multiple
  criteria, with the goal of balancing neighborhood schools with
  maximal racial and economic diversity.  Because our neighborhoods
  are segregated, we do not support a simple approach in which
  proximity to a school trumps other criteria.

* We recognize that JROTC is a military recruiting program, and we
  support replacing it with alternative programs that teach leadership
  skills, such as one based on Neighborhood Emergency Response Team
  (NERT) training.  Given our military's role in the world, we see
  support for JROTC as incompatible with progressive values.

* We think that using 7 weeks of class time each year on preparing for
  and taking standardized tests is a waste of valuable instruction
  time.  The reading assessments (Fountas and Pinnell) that teachers
  give students throughout the year are useful in assigning them
  challenging reading material, but the Smarter Balanced (SBAC) tests
  are a waste of time.  We want board members to push back hard on
  state testing requirements, and to actively support parents' right
  to opt out.

Gabriela López is currently an elementary school teacher.  She
understands these issues well and agrees with us on all of them.
Mia Satya is not a teacher, but she is great on these issues, and also
has expertise in bullying prevention.  Li Miao Lovett is a Westside
parent, who also agrees with us on these key issues.  We strongly
support all three.

Assessor:  Paul Bellar

The Assessor's job is to keep track of the value of each property in
SF so that it can be taxed at an appropriate level.  For years,
corrupt politicians from the Willie Brown machine (like the incumbent)
have occupied the office.  They often let politically-connected large
businesses pay as little tax as they want.

Paul Bellar is a professional real estate appraiser, and he'd bring
both competence and honesty to an office that has long been lacking
both.  We strongly support his candidacy!

Public Defender:  Jeff Adachi

Jeff Adachi is running unopposed for another term as Public Defender.
Although we were disappointed by his attempts at pension reform
in 2010, his work in the past several years has been stellar,
and we're happy to endorse him for another term.

In particular, we were very impressed with Adachi's handling of
the Steinle murder trial, in the face of nation-wide right-wing
attacks.  San Francisco is one of the only places in the US where
a destitute defendant can receive top-notch representation from
lawyers like Matt Gonzalez.

We also appreciate Adachi's work on reforming the cash bail system,
which keeps people in jail while they await trial just for the
"crime" of being poor.  Adachi has also been appropriately skeptical
of bail reform efforts that have given judges more power to imprison
defendants before their trial.

SF Ballot Measures:

NO on A (Seawall bond)

Prop A is a $425 million bond to rebuild the seawall along the
Embarcadero.  The wall stretches from Fisherman's Wharf to the
ballpark, and provides some protection for downtown in major storms.
The wall is 100 years old and may fail in a major earthquake
(although it luckily survived in 1989).

The Green Party opposes Prop A for several reasons.  First, Prop A is
just a down payment on a multi-billion dollar project.  Seawall
proponents are unable to project how much the project will eventually
cost, but based on other major projects like the Central Subway, the
Transbay Terminal, Van Ness bus lanes, and the Bay Bridge, it will
certainly provide politically-connected construction companies with as
much money as they can shovel in to their bank accounts for years to

The new seawall will mainly serve protect a small area of Downtown and
South of Market that is built on landfill and is rich with
multi-billion dollar corporations and luxury condos.  Since these
wealthy folks will receive almost all of the benefits from the new
seawall, they should have been asked to pay the bulk of the costs.
Seawall proponents promise to ask residents and businesses in the area
to pay only if SF voters reject Prop A.  We think that a tax on
on landfill-based properties might be a good alternative to Prop A.

Another huge problem is that the seawall proponents haven't considered
the impact of sea level rise over the coming decades.  It is likely
that the new seawall will be underwater by the time it's finished.
Greens have accepted the reality that the only solution to global
warming-induced sea level rise is a managed retreat from our
shorelines to higher ground.  Rather than spending billions in a
futile attempt to bail out corporations that have unwisely built on
landfill, let's instead invest money to move critical public
infrastructure away from the flood zone.

The SF Green Party is generally opposed to bond funding unless there
is a compelling public benefit (see our Statement on Bond Funding
below).  We are not convinced that a replacement seawall qualifies.

NO on B (Privacy rules that undermine our sunshine and public records laws)

Prop B is a scam that pretends to protect San Franciscans from
internet companies that sell private details of our lives to
advertisers.  Instead, it was written to protect our corrupt
politicians from journalists who let the public know what happens in
the proverbial "smoke-filled rooms" at City Hall.

SF has some of the strongest Sunshine laws in the country, and they
can't be weakened without voter approval.  Prop B is a Trojan Horse,
asking voters to give up our right to approve any future changes to
the City's Sunshine laws, in exchange for privacy protections.  If the
Board of Supervisors really wanted to protect San Franciscans from
internet spying, they could easily pass regulations without going to
the ballot.

If Prop B passes, journalists will no longer be able to find out who
politicians meet with.  The "privacy rights" of lobbyists will trump
the public's right to know what our elected officials are up to.
Corruption is bad enough in City Hall already: the Mayor's office
allows huge cost overruns on every major public works project.  The
corporations awarded City contracts by the Mayor do substandard work,
pocket the profits, then return a small percentage of their stolen
money as campaign donations and PAC spending.  Even "progressives" get
in on the action, steering City money into politically connected
nonprofits that divert taxpayer money from public services into
supporting their preferred candidates.

SF's Sunshine laws are one of the few ways voters can keep our corrupt
"City Family" in check.  Let's protect these laws by rejecting Prop B.

YES on C (Our City Our Home)

Prop C is a tax on large companies (those with $50 million or more in
gross receipts), which will raise $300 million per year to help
homeless people in San Francisco.

Greens strongly support Prop C, because $300 million each year will be
enough money to make a major investment in improved services and
low-income housing, while the costs will all fall on major
corporations that just received a huge tax cut from the federal
government.  A maximum of 3% of the revenue will be used for
administration, and an oversight committee will be created that will
report to both the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor.

Unfortunately, the beneficial effects of Prop C may not be realized
for some time, due to our current leadership.  San Francisco has now
been run by the Willie Brown machine and his hand-picked mayoral
successors for 23 consecutive years.  This regime has shown no
interest in helping homeless people--on the contrary, it has cynically
used them as a tool to win elections.  Police push homeless
encampments away from the Mayor's wealthy supporters, and into
communities that support progressive leadership.  Mayoral policies
create unsafe conditions on our streets, which voters often blame on
their district Supervisor (e.g., Jane Kim when she challenged London
Breed in June).

Because San Francisco's budget is nearly 100% under the control of the
Mayor, we expect little of the Prop C funds will be used to actually help
homeless people until we have a change in leadership.  Prop C was put
on the ballot by many of the same non-profits that hope to receive
City funding from the measure.  We expect that the Mayor will use Prop
C funding to keep these non-profit leaders on a very tight leash.

That being said, it's very important to pass Prop C now, without
waiting another 9 years for our next chance at an open Mayoral
election when we stand a chance of evicting Willie Brown's cronies
from City Hall.  By voting YES on C, voters will make a strong
statement in favor of housing homeless people, and more importantly,
establish a long-term funding stream to do so.  This is an important
first step, and with our Key Value of Future Focus in mind, we
enthusiastically support Prop C!

YES on D (Cannabis tax)

Prop D is a 1% to 5% tax increase on cannabis businesses that earn
over $500,000 per year in gross receipts (higher income businesses
will pay more).  If Prop D passes, the tax rates and thresholds can be
adjusted the Supervisors, with a simple majority needed to lower taxes
(down to 0%) and a 2/3 supermajority needed to raise them (up to 7%).
The Prop D tax will not apply to sales of medical cannabis.

Greens support Prop D, as it is a progressive tax that will fall
mainly on large corporate cannabis businesses that are forcing small
"mom & pop" businesses out of the market.  We don't want to see
legalized cannabis dominated by "Big Weed" in the same way that "Big
Tobacco" has taken over that market.

Prop D tax revenues will go into SF's General Fund, and will therefore
benefit San Franciscans even if they are not cannabis users.

NO on E (Hotel tax set-asides)

Prop E is a re-run of 2016's Prop S, which we also opposed.  It was
re-written to only require 50% to pass.  Like Prop S, Prop E would
take control of hotel tax revenue away from the Board of Supervisors,
and put it into a fund that must be spent on specific priorities
favored by the proposition's authors.

As we wrote in 2016:

  While well-meaning, 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 E.

State Ballot Measures:

NO on 1 (Bond to buy private housing for veterans)

Prop 1 is a $4 billion bond to that funds a number of housing-related
things, from rehabilitating affordable housing to helping veterans
purchase private homes.  It is similar to 2008's Prop 12, which we
also opposed.  As we said at the time:

  While we strongly support our veterans, and would support giving
  veterans a higher priority in getting into publicly financed
  housing, we don't think that such a large sum of public money should
  be issued exclusively on private housing for veterans, while
  ignoring other people in more desperate need for housing.

  When bonds are used, they should be used only for urgent investment
  in the public sector.  Public bond money should not be used for
  private cars or private housing.

The same arguments still apply, so we urge a NO vote on Prop 1.
Also, please refer to our Statement on Bond Funding, below.

YES on 2 (Revenue bonds for permanent supportive housing for mentally ill homeless people)

Prop 2 is a modification to 2004's Prop 63, which we also supported.
Prop 63 enacted a "Millionaire's Tax" (on annual personal incomes over
$1 million) that currently brings in around $2 billion each year to
fund mental health services in CA.  Prop 2 would allow CA to use some
of that money to issue $2 billion in revenue bonds, which would be
used to build permanent supportive housing for homeless people.

We see Prop 2 as being consistent with the intended use of Prop 63
funds, as homelessness can be a significant cause of mental illness.
Prop 2 would build around 20,000 units of permanent supportive
housing, and it's therefore a good investment to help reduce mental

Greens note that bond-funded housing should be publicly owned, which
Prop 2 does not guarantee.  And we note that Prop 63 is only needed
because we still do not have universal health care, which should include
mental health services.  But while we continue to fight for those
priorities, we see Prop 2 as worthy of our support.

NO on 3 (Bond for dams)

Prop 3 is a $9 billion bond to pay for a number of different
water-related projects in CA.  It is similar to 2014's Prop 1,
which we strongly opposed.  We wrote at the time:

  There are a lot of good projects in there, including water recycling
  and cleanup of contaminated groundwater...  However, the main
  purpose of Prop 1 is to build additional dams.  Dams are terrible
  for the environment, since they generally increase the salinity in
  downstream areas and kill fish and other wildlife.  Dams will also
  do nothing to help the current drought crisis, since they simply
  store water that comes from mountain snowmelt.  Bond funding also
  ensures that CA taxpayers will pay for the project twice: once for
  the project itself and once to borrow money from Wall Street (see
  our Statement on Bond Funding).

We therefore strongly oppose Prop 3, for the same reasons.

NO on 4 (Bonds for private children's hospitals)

Prop 4 is a re-run of 2008's Prop 3, which we also opposed.  Both
are billion-dollar bonds to give money to children's hospitals.
As in 2008, we are concerned that this bond money is not being spent
in the public interest.  Much of the money will go to private hospitals,
including "non-profits" that pay their CEOs exorbitant salaries.

As we wrote in 2008, if taxpayers are going to fund the expansion of
privately owned hospitals, the taxpayers should get a share of the
ownership.  A universal health care system would be a much better use
of our scarce tax dollars than issuing more bonds.

Prop 4 perpetuates our unfair, privately dominated medical system,
and we therefore oppose it.

NO on 5 (Realtor scam)

Prop 5 is a Realtor-supported attack on local governments in CA.
1978's Prop 13 sets limits on how much taxes can be increased on
homeowners--think of it as rent control, but for taxes.
(Unfortunately, Prop 13 also applies to businesses, which we strongly
support repealing.)

Prop 13 has been amended several times to allow older homeowners to
move to other properties without their taxes increasing.  However,
this can currently be done only if the move is within the same county
or to other counties that allow it (currently about half the state).

Prop 5 would allow homeowners from counties like SF and LA with high
home prices to move anywhere in the state, transferring their tax
savings with them.  This would be great for Realtors who profit from
the sales of expensive homes.  But it would be devastating for the
local governments of inland counties, which would see their tax
revenues disappear if people from wealthy coastal areas moved in.

Prop 5 is a capitalist band-aid on the real problems of older
homeowners who want to move to smaller homes without facing huge tax
increases.  Greens support programs like social housing, which would
create affordable housing for people of all income levels.  A
statewide social housing program would allow older homeowners to sell
their buildings to the government to use for affordable rentals, and
move closer to their families without any increase to their
housing costs.

NO on 6 (Gas tax repeal)

Prop 6 repeals the vehicle and fuel taxes and fees that were enacted
by the CA legislature last year (12 cents per gallon on regular
unleaded gas), and it would also require voter approval for all future
increases in state gas taxes and vehicle fees.

Gas taxes fund road repairs as well as public transit and bike
infrastructure.  If we're going to take climate change seriously,
private automobile use should be even more expensive, while public
transit should be free.

If Prop 6 passes, our infrastructure will continue to crumble
just to save Hummer drivers a few bucks.  Vote NO!

YES on 7 (Daylight Saving Time repeal)

Prop 7 would allow the legislature to keep CA on the same time year
round, instead of switching our clocks an hour forward or backwards
twice each year when we go on or off Daylight Saving Time (DST).
Such a legislative act would require a 2/3 vote, as well as federal

Research has shown that the sudden 1-hour time change twice a year
is hazardous to our health.  Every time, the disruption in sleep
patterns leads to a increase in heart attacks, strokes, and traffic

Proponents of keeping DST say they are worried about children having
to go to school in the dark.  However, this problem could easily be
solved, if necessary, by starting school an hour later in the winter.

Prop 7 moves CA closer to the rest of the world, where 68% of countries
do not change their clocks.  Vote YES on 7.

YES on 8 (Fair pricing for dialysis)

Prop 8 would limit profits and otherwise regulate companies that
provide dialysis, thus lowering the costs of health care.  It was put
on the ballot by SEIU-UHW (Service Employees International
Union-United Healthcare Workers West), as part of a campaign against
several large, rabidly anti-union, medical corporations.

We'll continue to fight for universal health care for all.  In the
meantime, we're happy to stand in solidarity with SEIU-UHW in
supporting Prop 8.

(Prop 9, another stupid proposal to break up CA into multiple
states, was removed from the ballot.)

YES on 10 (Stronger rent control)

Prop 10 would repeal the Costa-Hawkins law enacted by the state
legislature and signed by Republican Governor Pete Wilson in 1995.
Costa-Hawkins prohibits certain types of rent control.  Therefore,
Prop 10 would give cities like San Francisco more freedom to adjust
our rent control laws to benefit tenants.

Prop 10 would allow cities to enact rent control on newer buildings
(built after 1995) as well as on condominiums and townhouses.
Currently, we have a limited supply of rent-controlled housing, which
can only shrink as older apartments are replaced or converted to
condos.  Prop 10 would give tenants a much better selection of
places to live.

Even more importantly, Prop 10 would allow cities to vote to
enact "vacancy control" to limit the amount by which rents can
increase on new tenants.  The lack of vacancy control currently
gives landlords huge incentives to evict long-term tenants, leading
to many illegal evictions.

Prop 10 would restore an essential right to local governments,
and would be especially welcome here in SF!

NO on 11 (Ambulance employee regulations)

Prop 11 would require ambulance employees to stay on call during their
breaks.  The proposition is funded by the country's largest private
ambulance corporation, and is an attack on the rights of their

If Prop 11 fails, private ambulance corporations will have to hire
approximately 25% more drivers, or negotiate with their employees
to provide other benefits in exchange for fewer breaks.

We agree with Prop 11 proponents that ambulance costs are too high.
We need to lower costs, but not at the expense of eliminating worker
rights.  Instead, we must make ambulances a public service that are
free to patients.  CA has more than enough money to provide public
ambulance service with drivers as public employees, rather than
contracting essential services out to shady corporations.

YES on 12 (Prevent animal cruelty)

Prop 12 is an amendment to 2008's Prop 2, which we also supported.
Prop 2 was a ballot initiative that required farm animals to
be raised in less cruel conditions.  Opponents sued to prevent
implementation of the law, claiming it was too vague.

Prop 12 amends Prop 2 to set lower limits on the amount of space
that each animal can be confined to.  It also allows these regulations
to be enforced by the state of CA, rather than by local police (who are
often sympathetic to the large agricultural corporations).

As we said in 2008, Prop 12 does not go far enough in requiring
animals to be raised in a "free-range" environment.  However, we
support Prop 12 because it will help reduce some of the most cruel
practices of modern factory farms.

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.

More information about the announce mailing list