[SFGP] Greenzine - Green Voter Guide, upcoming meeting and campaign events

[Announcement list for SF Green Party, updated weekly]

May 21, 2022
GREENZINE
SF Green Party Weekly News and Events

www.sfgreenparty.org
twitter.com/sfgreenparty
instagram.com/sfgreenparty
mastodon.sfgreens.org/@sfgreenparty
www.facebook.com/groups/SFGreenParty/

Dear Greens,

    Our Green Voter Guide to the June 7 ballot is now posted online:
http://sfgreenparty.org/endorsements/101-june-2022-endorsements
Since an older version may be cached with your internet provider,
we also posted the complete text below.  Please share it with
other interested voters!

    Our top priority is NO on H - keeping Chesa Boudin in office.  You
can find out about volunteer opportunities by calling Sabrina on the
anti-recall team at (415) 316-5861.  You can also join us at the
events listed below to help distribute our Green Voter Guide postcards
to voters.

    Please join us this coming Wednesday for our monthly meeting;
details and agenda are below.

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

What:  Voter Outreach
Where:  various locations, see below
When:  Sun, May 22 - Sun, May 29

We'll be distributing our Green Voter Guide postcards and doing
outreach at the following times and locations:

Sun, May 22, 9 am - noon:  outside the main entrance of Stonestown
  Galleria Shopping Mall (3251 20th Ave, SF)

Sun, May 22, 1 - 4 pm:  at Sunday Streets Bayview, near 3rd St
  and Oakdale, SF:  https://www.sundaystreetssf.com/bayview/

Sat, May 28 - Sun May 29:  Carnaval SF, near 24th St and Mission, SF:
  https://carnavalsanfrancisco.org/

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

What:  Green Party Monthly Meeting
Where:  Redstone Bldg (2940 16th Street, near South Van Ness) #301, SF
When:  Wed, May 25, 7-9 pm

Agenda:

* Introductions
* Upcoming events and campaigning: Sunday Streets, Carnaval
* Resolution supporting CCSF teachers and students

Mask policy: Masks are currently optional indoors, for both vaccinated
and non-vaccinated people.  We provide the option for SF Green Party
members to participate in our meetings via Zoom, so email
cc at sfgreens.org for info on how you can join us virtually.

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

June 2022 Green Voter Guide

These are the SF Green Party's final endorsements for the June 2022
election.  We have mailed a postcard with our endorsements to all our
members.  If you can donate to help cover our printing and mailing
costs, please use the "donate" link on our website:
http://sfgreenparty.org/donate

Statewide Endorsements:

Vote for the Left Unity Slate

This year, the Green Party and the Peace and Freedom Party are jointly
fielding a "Left Unity Slate" in the statewide races.

This historic decision was based on the many shared values between
these two socialist parties.  Among these values are guaranteed access
to healthcare, also known as expanded and improved Medicare For All,
truly affordable housing, union-wage jobs, public ownership of energy,
ending wars for profit, and a comprehensive climate plan, including a
just transition to 100% renewables.

This cooperative strategy increases the likelihood that both parties
will be able to reach 2% of the vote in at least one statewide race,
which is the minimum threshold needed to retain ballot status.

The SF Green Party has endorsed this entire slate, along with several
other statewide candidates who are not affiliated with either the
Democratic or Republican Parties.  For more, see our endorsements in
each statewide contest, below.  Thanks to the Alameda County Green
Party for their work on drafting these analyses.


Governor - Luis Javier Rodriguez (Green Party)

Luis J. Rodriguez is the 2022 endorsed Green Party candidate for
Governor.  The author of 15 books of poetry, fiction and non-fiction,
Rodriguez is recognized as a major figure in contemporary Chicano
literature.  He is a poet, novelist, journalist, columnist and critic.
He was named the Poet Laureate of Los Angeles in 2014.  His entire
life has been in sharp contrast to the privileged existence of Gavin
Newsom.  Rodriguez has lived in accordance with his Green values.  He
is an authentic leader of the multinational California working class:
he is of the people and for the people.  He would make an excellent
and inspirational governor.

Luis Rodriguez was born in El Paso, Texas of a Mexican father and an
indigenous mother from the Raramuir/Tarahumara native group.  He
became a Chicano activist as a teen, and was arrested and brutalized
with other peaceful protestors in the well-known 1970 Chicano
Moratorium protest against the Vietnam War.  Released after unjust
charges were dropped, Rodriguez left high school and was for years
employed in a series of working class jobs, including as a truck
driver, carpenter, welder, and millwright as well as work in a paper
mill, lead foundry, and chemical refinery.  Later, he went to night
school to work on developing his full potential as a human being --
and gradually became the inspirational writer and poet he is today.
He has done successful work with youth and indigenous peoples and
these community efforts together with his writing has resulted in a
number of awards, including the Hispanic Heritage Award for
Literature.

Rodriguez points out that there have always been two states of
California, one for Newsom and his allies: the corporations, robber
barons, developers and billionaires and another different state for
the multinational working class and the poor.  These are facts that we
should not push aside and ignore.  Rodriguez has a vision "towards
beauty, truth and good" that offers wisdom for members of the working
class: "engage in what speaks deeply and singularly to you... this is
how you access vitality for the physical world with all its
hardships... find your art, your passions, your innate purpose -- to
live out the story written on your soul the day you were born... find
a cause bigger than yourself... learn to own your life... once you
take back responsibility, with codes and propriety tied to your own
interests you become liberated."

We've written elsewhere about the many failures of Gavin Newsom
(http://sfgreenparty.org/endorsements/98-gubernatorial-recall-endorsements-2021).
Fortunately, Californians have a far better choice this year in Luis
Rodriguez.


Lieutenant Governor - Mohammad Arif (Peace and Freedom Party)

Mohammad Arif, 53, is the Kern County Chair of the Peace and Freedom
Party.  He and his wife are immigrants from the Punjab, in India.
They have four children born in California.  Arif earned a bachelor's
degree from Hailey College and a master's degree in economics from
Punjab University.  After coming to California in 1991, he attended
Abraham Lincoln Law College in Los Angeles.  He has worked as a legal
administrator for law firms to handle the legal needs of immigrants
for many years. He speaks English, Punjabi, Urdu, and Hindi, plus some
Arabic.  He was the Peace and Freedom Party candidate for State Senate
in the 2013 16th district special election.

Arif's occupation is oddly listed on the ballot as "businessman" - a
default designation used after the Secretary of State rejected his
chosen occupational description of "immigrant legal advocate."  In
fact, he earns his living by working for law firms, interviewing and
filling out forms for immigrants seeking legal status in the United
States.  Some of his strongest supporters are new citizens, grateful
for his assistance in winning that status. His basic campaign poster
features the slogan "Immigrant Rights" in English, Spanish, Chinese,
Punjabi, and Urdu.

The incumbent Democrat is Eleni Kounalakis, the daughter of a wealthy
real estate developer who became active in politics in order to serve
her family's interests in Sacramento.  Mohammad Arif would be a far
better choice, and the SF Green Party strongly endorses him.


Secretary of State - Gary Blenner (Green Party)

Gary Blenner is on a crusade.  A Sacramento area high school social
science teacher for 28 years, Blenner is not someone who believes in
being a bystander to history or politics.  "Activism is the key for
change. Silence is equal to acceptance," Blenner often tells his
students.  Whether it is requiring his students to volunteer with a
political campaign, or participate in a community service project
through Civitas (his school's political science academy), Blenner has
often been at the forefront of encouraging others to engage.  But this
isn't just empty rhetoric on his part.  Blenner is a strong believer
in modeling behavior for his students to follow.  "I would be a
hypocrite if I just said to my students 'become more active in your
community' while I just stood by and did nothing."  Rather than just
talking about politics and the lack of change in our society, Blenner
is doing something about it.

Blenner comes from a long family tree of activism and alternative
party politics.  His great-grandfather was a union organizer for the
CPUSA in the 1920s and 30s.  His grandparents were active in the
American Labor Party of New York and in the 1948 campaign of former
Vice-President Henry A. Wallace.  A great uncle was a union organizer
and active in the Brotherhood Party of New York.  "I guess you could
say trade unionism and activism is in my blood."  That might explain
his passion for progressive politics and involvement in the Green
Party.  Blenner describes his politics as democratic socialist.  "I
think democratic socialism has been misinterpreted as mild socialism.
In fact, I am as socialistic as they come these days.  I believe in
workers controlling the means of production through democratic means,
and the elimination of profit.  I just believe it should be done
through the electoral process."  To Blenner, the Green Party's vision
of grassroots government fits in exactly with his vision of a
cooperative, decentralized, democratic society.

Blenner is no newcomer to electoral politics.  He got elected as a
Green to the Center Joint Unified School District school board in
2006.  He has run unsuccessfully for the Sacramento County Board of
Supervisors in 2012 and 2016, challenging developer and real estate
interests.  This time, Blenner has his sights on becoming California
Secretary of State.  "I’m not just running as a protest candidate. I’m
in it to win it."  What is it that Blenner wants to change?  And why
is it that the current incumbent (Dr. Shirley Weber) is the wrong
candidate for that position?  "I think Dr. Weber is an amazing woman,
and her achievements and life story should be celebrated by everyone.
However, she is no friend to progressives, and is another corporate
stooge like practically every other mainstream Democrat."  Blenner
points out that Weber opposes ranked choice voting and a single payer
health care system. And we also note that her current campaign
contributors include the likes of Chevron, Phillips 66, Facebook,
Nike, Anheuser Busch, Lyft, Eli Lily, Mercury General, and AT&T.

SF Greens are happy to endorse Gary Blenner, a genuine, progressive,
corporate-free candidate!


Controller - Laura Wells (Green Party)

Alameda Green Party stalwart Laura Wells is a founder of the "No
Corporate Money" Campaign, in which candidates pledge to take no
corporate money and a critical mass of voters declare their intention
to vote for no-corporate-money candidates.  Wells's focus is on
solutions, such as implementing public banking at local and state
levels to save money on interest and to invest in California, not Wall
Street.  She would tax the super-rich the way they were taxed decades
ago, when California had greater opportunity and quality of life for
everyone, and even the rich could still get richer.  She would push
for an oil severance tax which every oil-producing state except
California already has, and push to use water wisely, and never for
fracking.

Wells graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Wayne State University in Detroit,
and earned a Masters degree from Antioch University.  She worked in
information technology in the financial industry for twenty years.
She then served in a range of volunteer and professional capacities
for community and labor organizations, including Pesticide Action
Network, Women's Economic Agenda Project, and SEIU United Healthcare
Workers.

Laura Wells has previously competed as the Green Party's candidate in
several high profile races, doing quite well for a person
representing a third party.  She earned 5.7% of the vote in her 2014
run for Controller.  She also won nearly 12% of the votes in her 2018
run for Congress, a one-on-one contest against incumbent Barbara Lee.

Incumbent Malia Cohen has taken corporate donations from Clear
Channel, Liberty Mutual, Union Pacific Railroad, Comcast, California
Cattlemen's Association PAC, Blue Shield, and the Real Estate Law
Group, LLP.

We're happy to see Laura Wells running again, and we award her our
enthusiastic endorsement.


Attorney General - Dan Kapelovitz (Green Party)

Dan Kapelovitz ran for Governor last year in the Newsom Recall
election, and earned our endorsement
(http://sfgreenparty.org/endorsements/98-gubernatorial-recall-endorsements-2021).
Kapelovitz is an attorney who also teaches law at the People's College
of Law in Los Angeles.  His clients are mainly poor people caught up
in the criminal justice system, as well as defenders of animal rights.
Therefore, he is a great candidate to represent the Green Party in the
race for Attorney General.

Kapelovitz' main opponent is the Democratic Party incumbent, Rob
Bonta.  Bonta served on the Alameda City Council and in the State
Assembly from 2012 to 2021 before his appointment as Attorney General
by Governor Newsom last year.  He must have impressed people in high
places, because as of December 31, 2021, he had $5 million in his
campaign war chest: over 4000 donations, 200 of which were more than
$8,000.  General Motors PAC made 4 donations totaling $8100.  Anheuser
Busch gave $16,200.  Airbnb made seven donations (including employees)
totaling $5,500.  Also conspicuous on Mr. Bonta's donors list are a
number of casinos and gaming establishments, corporations that will
benefit from Bonta's decisions if he is reelected to another term.

SF Greens are pleased to endorse Kapelovitz once again.


Treasurer - Meghann Adams (Peace and Freedom Party)

Meghann Adams has been a tireless organizer of anti-war and
anti-racist actions in the Bay area for fifteen years.  She has been a
school bus driver for seven years, active in SMART 1741, the union
representing school bus drivers in San Francisco and San Mateo
Counties.  She was elected president of the union last year.  Active
in many community organizations over the years, she has served as
treasurer of campaigns, and is now running for California Treasurer to
represent working people.  Her campaign slogan, "End Poverty in
California," hearkens back to the Upton Sinclair campaign of 1934.
Sadly, the slogan is as appropriate today as it was 88 years ago.
Meghann Adams considers capitalism the reason why poverty is still so
common today.

Adams has twice served as a Peace and Freedom Party candidate for
Presidential Elector, and is an elected member of the Peace and
Freedom Party California State Central Committee, as well as the State
Executive Committee.  Her opponent is Fiona Ma, who is well known
in San Francisco for misrepresenting District 4 from 2002 to 2006,
before moving up the corporate Democratic Party political ladder.
Adams would be a huge improvement.


Insurance Commissioner - Nathalie Hrizi (Peace and Freedom Party)

Nathalie Hrizi is a SF teacher who has been the Peace and Freedom
Party Party's candidate for Insurance Commissioner in 2014, 2018, and
now in 2022.  Hrizi is the recently elected head of the substitute
teacher's unit within the SFUSD teacher's union.  She has been active
in SF politics for years.

Hrizi's main opponent is Ricardo Lara, the Democratic Party incumbent
who is in bed with major insurance companies.  Hrizi is an outstanding
champion for the campaign to replace those insurance companies with
"expanded and improved Medicare for All."  The SF Green Party is
pleased to endorse her.


State Superintendent of Public Instruction - Marco Amaral (No Party Preference)

Marco Amaral is a working teacher and currently President of the South
Bay Union School District, near San Diego.  Amaral holds a degree from
UC Berkeley and a graduate degree from the University of San Diego.
He was born in Escondido, California.  His family background is
working class and Latinx.

When asked about his campaign issues, he talks about making systemic
changes in our schools, especially for Latinx students.  He also
prioritizes holding politicians accountable for the serious problems
in our schools.  He wants to spend more money in our schools and
favors raising teacher salaries to retain teachers and to attract good
students to teaching careers.  Regarding accountability, he blames
both the Democratic and Republican parties for the state of our
schools.  He also sees the Superintendent position as a bully pulpit
to promote the ideals of public education.

Although he is registered "Decline to State" and thus not formally
part of the Left Unity Slate, Marco Amaral's platform shows that his
values are very well aligned with the 10 Key Values of the Green
Party.  The SF Green Party awarded him our enthusiastic endorsement.


US Senate - John Parker (Peace and Freedom Party)

John Thompson Parker, a community organizer in Los Angeles, is running
his third campaign for Senator, having received substantial Green
Party support as well as Peace and Freedom Party support in previous
elections.  To the confusion of some voters, the same Senate seat
appears twice on the June ballot.  The full six-year term starting in
January, 2023 has 23 candidates, and the short remnant of the present
term (this July through the end of 2022) has eight candidates on the
ballot.  Parker appears on the ballot for the full term, and he is
also asking that voters write in his name for the partial (short) term
as well.

Parker is a longtime member of the Peace and Freedom Party, the
coordinator of the Harriet Tubman Center for Social Justice, and a
leading member of the Socialist Unity Party.  He accompanied now
deceased former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark on many anti-war
delegations abroad.  Parker was only 18 when he organized his first
union election -- at a small steel plant in New Jersey.  Parker
sparked the minimum wage increase proposals in Los Angeles, being the
first to author the Los Angeles $15 minimum wage ballot initiative in
2013.  Parker recently attended the inauguration of socialist
President Xiomara Castro in Honduras at the invitation of her Libre
Party, due to his solidarity work with Honduras.

Parker's main opponent is Alex Padilla, the incumbent Democrat who is
favored to get the most votes in this primary election.  The candidate
who comes in second will go on to the runoff in November with Padilla.
Depending on how things go, if the Republicans split their vote ten
ways, an outsider from the Peace and Freedom Party with the
endorsement of the Green Party could have a real chance.

Although two members of the Green Party also are running in this
contest, the SF Green Party endorsed the entire Left Unity Slate,
including Parker, as part of a strategy to maintain ballot access for
both parties.  We hope that all SF Greens will join us in supporting
John Parker.


Local Endorsements:

NO on Prop A:

Prop A is a $400 million bond that is being sold to voters as being
for "Muni Reliability and Street Safety."  Unfortunately, none of the
money would actually be required to be spent on public transit.  The
Green Party is strongly recommending a NO vote.

The legal text of the bond lists a number of projects that the bond
money "may be" spent on.  Several of them are projects that were
already promised to voters as part of the Prop A "Transportation and
Road Improvement" bond that passed back in 2014
(https://ballotpedia.org/City_of_San_Francisco_Transportation_and_Road_Improvement_Bond,_Proposition_A_(November_2014).
Because none of the spending proposals contain the legally binding
phrase "shall be", the Mayor could spend the $400 million any way she
wants.

In the current climate emergency, convincing people to switch from
private cars (including Uber and Lyft) to public transit should be a
top priority at all levels of government.  Public transit should be
such a compelling option that everybody would actually want to use it!
To convince people not to drive, Muni needs to be convenient, fast,
reliable, safe, and free of charge to the passengers.  Even if all of
Prop A's money were actually spent on the projects that it "may be"
spent on, the money wouldn't go nearly far enough towards the urgent
transit needs of San Franciscans.

Greens often oppose bonds (see our Statement on Bond Funding, below)
and request that City officials consider other, more progressive,
means of raising funds.  A progressive parcel tax (i.e., one based on
a property's size or value), a financial transactions tax, or higher
taxes on flipped properties would all fall mainly on large
corporations, and could raise enough money to increase overall Muni
funding while eliminating fares.

To convince voters to approve the large revenue stream needed to turn
Muni into a world-class transit system, City officials should not only
release a detailed report on what previous "transit" funding was
actually spent on, but also create a detailed budget on what specific
projects and ongoing costs would be paid for by new revenue.  A list
of "may be" projects, most of which we've been promised before, simply
doesn't cut it.

This bait and switch Prop is insulting to voters who have endured
decades of Machine promises to "fix Muni," dating back to 1973 when
the Supervisors unveiled the City's Transit First Policy.  Greens urge
a NO vote on this $400 million Mayoral slush fund.


YES on Prop B:

Prop B would make minor changes to the rules governing the Building
Inspection Commission, which oversees SF's massively corrupt
Department of Building Inspection (DBI).  Greens support these
changes and recommend a YES vote.

Currently, this Commission consists of 4 seats appointed by the Mayor
and 3 by the President of the Board of Supervisors.  The commission can
appoint and remove the director of DBI as well as 2 top assistants.

Prop B would not change the 4-3 appointment split, but would give both
the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors more flexibility in the
qualifications of the people they appoint.  With Prop B, Mayoral
appointments would also need to be approved by the Board of
Supervisors.  And instead of directly appointing the DBI chief, the
Commission would forward 3 candidates to the Mayor to choose from -
the same way the process works on most other commissions that oversee
City departments.

Prop B would be a slight decentralization of power away from the
Mayor, and provide a bit more public oversight.  Greens would prefer
that each Supervisor appoint one member of the Commission, as that
would provide even more grassroots oversight.  However, Prop B is a
step in the right direction and would probably reduce corruption
somewhat, so we urge voters to support it.


NO on Prop C:

Prop C would create new restrictions on the right of voters to recall
elected officials in SF.  It would also prevent Mayoral appointees who
replace recalled office-holders (as well as interim Mayors) from
running in the subsequent election.  There are serious problems with
they way recall elections in SF work now, but disempowering voters
is not the right solution.  Greens are therefore strongly opposed to
Prop C.

The ability to recall elected officials is a critical right in a
representative democracy, because politicians who disregard the wishes
of those who put them in office know they are always at risk of being
fired.  Current law gives elected officials a "grace period" in which
they cannot be recalled -- during the first 6 months and the last 6
months of each term (i.e., a total of 1 year out of a typical 4 year
term).  In practice, this period can be even longer, due to the time
required to gather signatures, and political roadblocks raised by the
Department of Elections if an attempt is made to recall officials
allied with the Mayor.  Prop C would expand the official period in
which recalls cannot be initiated to the first 12 months as well as
the last 18 months (i.e., a total of 2.5 years out of a 4 year term).
This gives elected officials an extra 1.5 years in which they can
ignore the concerns of their constituents without consequences.

Greens believe that our current recall system is broken in two ways:
first, if voters recall an elected official in SF, only the Mayor has
the power to choose a replacement.  Voters who the Mayor does not
listen to cannot meaningfully exercise our constitutional right to
recall elected officials, because if we recall a Mayoral ally, the
Mayor can just replace that person with a different sock puppet.
Second, there are no meaningful campaign finance laws that apply to
recall elections, as there are for regular elections, so wealthy
people and corporations have far too much influence.  This leads to
even more corruption in our local government.

Greens have long called for giving voters (not the Mayor) the right to
choose the replacement for recalled elected officials.  Recall
elections could be done as a "vote of confidence" in the politician,
who would appear on a single ranked choice ballot along with all the
candidates hoping to replace them.  The person with majority support
in the final ranked choice tally would win: either the original
official would survive the recall, or the voters would choose a more
popular candidate to serve the remainder of the term.

Until we find a way to seriously redistribute wealth in the United
States, the problem of money in politics can only be solved by
imposing strict campaign finance laws, along with public financing of
our elections.  This includes recall elections.  Both the candidate
facing recall and potential challengers should be able to obtain
enough public financing to be competitive, if they demonstrate a
sufficient level of support from their constituents.  And current
limits on contributing to local candidates should also apply to
candidates in a recall election.

Prop C would provide one limit on the Mayor's current appointment
powers: any appointee who replaced a recalled official would be
ineligible to run in the subsequent election.  This limit would also
apply to "interim Mayor" appointees chosen by the Board of Supervisors
to replace a recalled Mayor.  However, this restriction is inadequate
and easily sidestepped, because it only applies to vacancies that
result from a recall vote and not other reasons, such as resignation.
Mayoral allies facing defeat in an upcoming recall election could
just step down prior to the vote, allowing the Mayor to choose a
replacement who is not restricted by this rule.

Greens favor more restrictions on the executive power of the Mayor, so
we might support new rules that apply to all vacancy appointments.
However, we strongly oppose Prop C's diminishing the power of ordinary
voters, and endorse a NO vote on Prop C.


NO on Prop D:

Prop D would create an Office of Victims and Witness Rights,
centralizing City services that are mostly provided by the District
Attorney (but also by the police, Sheriff, and several other
departments) into a new City department run by the Mayor.  It would
also provide a City-funded lawyer to anyone alleging that they are a
victim of domestic abuse.  Currently, the District Attorney provides
services to crime victims, and we see no reason other than politics
(drumming up opposition to Chesa Boudin) to move that service under
the control of our corrupt Mayor.  Greens endorse a NO vote on Prop D.

We also believe that the plan to provide free attorneys is not well
thought out.  We strongly support domestic violence victims, but Prop
D looks like nothing more than a performative campaign vehicle for
Catherine Stefani, who wants to replace Chesa Boudin as District
Attorney.  Prop D will provide Stefani publicity and name recognition
without actually helping anybody, just as "Care not Cash" and
"Sit/Lie" gave Gavin Newsom the notoriety he needed to get promoted to
Governor.  If Prop D passes, domestic violence victims will continue
to rely on the help of non-profit legal services, as Prop D does not
provide any new funding for services.

Prop D is a poorly written political tool of the City's "moderate"
(i.e., conservative) Democrats.  Just say NO.


YES on Prop E:

Prop E would ban behested payments from contractors seeking approval
of their projects.  This is a means of reducing corruption in SF
government, so the Green Party supports it.

A "behested payment" is a donation made by somebody at the request of
an elected official, typically to a charity.  It's a legal form of
bribery, because the payment does not go directly to the elected
official, but instead to a charity that the elected official has some
connection to.  For example, the charity could be run by a relative,
business partner, or friend of the elected official.

Behested payments are just one of the ways that corrupt politicians in
SF receive bribes, but cutting them off might reduce the problem.
We therefore endorse a YES vote.


NO on Prop F:

Prop F would create a new "Refuse Rate Board" controlled by the Mayor
to set commercial trash rates in SF.  The Green Party opposes it.

Proposition F masquerades as reform while actually making the problem
worse.  The reason that San Francisco ended up with such a corrupt,
price gouging, garbage contract with Recology, is that appointees of
the corporate-influenced Mayor's office were in charge of the
contract, and in charge of the Refuse Rate Board.

Prop F leaves the Mayor's office completely in charge of the process,
only applying the weak fig leaf of making one of three members of the
"Refuse Rate Board" a "public ratepayer advocate" who would be
appointed by the Mayor.  So the rate board would still be made up up
three people chosen by the Mayor!  That's not progress.  It's a recipe
for another failed contract.

Real reform of our garbage contract process would be to take the power
over the contract out of the Mayor's office and either set up a
publicly elected board to oversee the contract, or at the very least,
create a Rate Board made up of a majority of appointees who are chosen
by the consistently progressive San Francisco Board of Supervisors,
and require those appointees to each be truly independent ratepayer,
environmental, and social justice advocates.

Passing Prop F would dangerously create the illusion of reform, while
leaving the same corporate-leaning bureaucrats in charge of our
garbage contract.  Vote NO.


YES on Prop G:

Prop G requires large employers to provide "public health emergency
leave" to their employees.  It would require that employers provide
some paid time off for employees to do things like quarantine in
response to COVID or other public health emergencies.  Prop G would
apply only to private businesses and governments with 100 or more
employees, but would not include small businesses or non-profits.
The Green Party supports it.

Prop G sets a new standard for the minimum amount of paid leave
employers must provide.  Under current law, employers are required to
provide employees with paid sick leave based on hours worked, but they
are not required to provide paid time off for public health
emergencies.  If Prop G passes, the minimum amount of paid leave per
year will be twice the average number of hours worked in a week.  For
example, full time employees would receive 2 weeks of paid public
health emergency leave per year, but half time employees would only
receive 1 week.  Employers who already meet this minimum standard
would not be required to provide additional paid time off, but they
would be required to let workers use their current paid leave for
public health emergencies.

Greens would prefer much higher labor standards, with additional paid
leave for everybody as is common in European democracies.  We also
want universal health care (i.e., "Improved Medicare for all"), which
would prevent people from worrying about losing their health insurance
by not working enough hours at a job.

Prop G is an incremental improvement to the status quo.  It also would
give the Board of Supervisors the ability to pass laws that improve
these minimum standards in the future.  The Green Party therefore
endorses a YES vote on Prop G.


NO on Prop H:

Prop H would recall our incumbent District Attorney, Chesa Boudin, and
allow the Mayor to choose his replacement.  Greens think Boudin has
done a great job as DA, living up to his campaign promises, and we
therefore strongly oppose Prop H.

Boudin has done great work in focusing DA resources on serious and
violent crimes, where he has a higher prosecution rate than any of his
predecessors.  He has fulfilled his campaign promise to prosecute
police officers who engage in criminal acts such as assaulting
civilians - one reason the SFPD is so strongly in favor of his recall.
And Boudin has pioneered a local version of the "innocence project,"
which recently led to the release of a wrongly convicted man who had
been imprisoned for 30 years.

It is because of Boudin's enthusiasm for prosecuting corporate
criminals and bad cops that conservatives are pushing for his recall.
If Boudin is recalled, the Mayor would presumably replace him with a
traditional "law and order" candidate who ignores these crimes in
favor of focusing DA resources on nonviolent crimes such as drug use.
Mayor Breed's previous appointee was Suzy Loftus, who allegedly helped
the SFPD conceal their failure to test rape kits.

Due to 2 years of COVID, Boudin has barely had a chance to show that
his approach can generate the results he was elected to produce.
Greens strongly believe that he should have a chance to finish
his term.  Vote NO on Prop H!


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.