[SFGP] Greenzine: Vote Green, not Machine!

[Announcement list for SF Green Party, updated weekly]

November 5, 2024
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,

    Please vote today if you haven't already!

    Our complete Green Voter Guide with full explanations of the
reasons behind our endorsements is now posted here:
  https://www.sfgreenparty.org/endorsements/108-november-2024-endorsements

    A text copy of the Green Voter Guide is also included below;
please feel free to share it with other interested voters!

    Many Greens volunteered on the Prop L campaign, so many of us will
be joining their election night watch party tonight.  See announcement
below.  We're also planning a Green Party holiday social and election
debrief on November 20, so please save the date!

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

What:  Yes on L Election Night Watch Party
Where:  Finnegans Wake, 937 Cole St, SF
When:  Tues, Nov 5, 8 pm

Greens will join other Prop L volunteers after the polls close to
watch the results and raise a glass to the campaign!  Event will be on
the back patio.  21+.  Easy to get to on the N Judah; it's less than a
block from the Carl and Cole stop.  Note that no campaigning will be
allowed in the bar - join us after the polls close at 8!  RSVP here:
https://lu.ma/election

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

What:  Save the Date - Green Holiday Party and Election Recap
Where:  2973 16th St, #300, SF
When:  Wed, Nov 20, 6;30-9:30 pm

Please save the date - details to be announced!

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

GREEN VOTER GUIDE 2024

President/VP:  Stein/Ware

Jill Stein is a Harvard-educated physician and longtime teacher of
internal medicine, as well as a mother and an environmental health
advocate.  She has led initiatives promoting healthy communities,
local green economies, campaign finance reform, green jobs,
racially-just redistricting, and the cleanup of incinerators, coal
plants, and toxins. Stein previously ran for president in 2012 and
2016, with her a 2016 campaign centered around Medicare for all,
canceling student debt, climate justice, closing the wage gap, and
workers' rights.

Dr. Butch Ware, the Green Party Vice-Presidential nominee, is a
lifelong activist, artist, organizer, and professor specializing in
the history of empire, colonialism, genocide and revolution.  For the
past two decades, he has put scholarship in service of the people,
especially in response to the Gaza genocide and the 2020 George Floyd
murder.  His work is focused on building sustainable, just, peaceful
alternatives rooted in African, Indigenous, and Abrahamic traditions.
Ware is currently a UC Santa Barbara professor, teaching in History,
Black Studies, and Islamic Studies.

The 2024 election is an unprecedented moment in US electoral history
as the global outrage over the genocide in Palestine has led to the
awakening of many voters.  Previously apathetic voters or those loyal
to corporate parties now clearly see the US government's role in the
global war machine and are making a connection between violent police
states in our cities and universities and the global violence
perpetrated by the war industry.

In this critical moment, the Green Party's vision is a roadmap to a
future that voters across the political spectrum want.  Voter trust in
the two corporate parties is at all-time lows, as Trump incites hate
and division and the Biden administration and now the Harris campaign
have doubled down on funding a genocide, silencing voices of dissent,
and dismissing people's needs, while they keep laser-focused on
serving billionaires' greed.

A record vote this year for the Green Party ticket will be a message
to both parties that we've had enough of their genocide, endless war,
and ignoring the climate crisis.  It's past time to get serious about
building a real alternative!


Mayor:  Aaron Peskin (#1 ranked choice), Dylan Hirsch-Shell (#2 ranked choice)

For 29 years, Willie Brown and his chosen successors, most recently
London Breed, have (mis)managed the City on behalf of wealthy elites.
2024 is a rare chance for voters to end this mess, and Greens are
pleased to have found two candidates who will represent the interests
of ordinary people rather than the Democratic Party Machine.  We urge
voters to rank Board President Aaron Peskin #1, and former Tesla
engineer Dylan Hirsch-Shell #2.

We have followed Aaron Peskin since his first term on the Board of
Supervisors as part of the "Class of 2000", which included the Green
Party's Matt Gonzalez and progressive champion Chris Daly.  Peskin
knows how to govern (a sharp contrast from the incumbent Mayor), and
throughout his decades in City government, he has always been in
opposition to the ruling Machine's self-described "moderate" faction.
He's the only major Mayoral candidate who will build social housing
(https://www.sfcommunityhousingact.com/), the only feasible solution
to the City's affordability crisis.  Peskin supports building safe
shelter beds for homeless people, rather than pointlessly sweeping
people from neighborhood to neighborhood, as his major opponents
Breed, Farrell, and Lurie propose.  Peskin also has the strongest
track record on renters' rights.

We are far from agreeing with Peskin on everything: we took him to
task in 2019 for his close ties to Uber and Lyft, but to his credit,
he now joins us in support of Prop L, the new Uber and Lyft tax on the
2024 ballot.  We also disagree with him on the need for more police,
given that they rarely bother to investigate even serious and violent
crimes, and do very little other than harass skateboarders and collect
overtime.  However, Mayor Peskin might also appoint a police chief who
supports real community policing and an end to the effective strike
that the cops have been on for the last 5+ years.

For our second choice, we're impressed by the Green values
demonstrated in Dylan Hirsch-Shell's thoughtful answers to our
questionnaire
(https://sfgreens.org/questionnaires/2024/hirsch-shell_mayor.html).
Hirsch-Shell agrees with us on the need for alternative voting
systems, proportional representation, rooftop solar energy, and social
housing.  We greatly appreciated Hirsch-Shell's championing of a
policy that Greens have long supported: a Universal Basic Income.
Hirsch-Shell proposes a cash grant of $1k/month to every San
Franciscan, which would eliminate much of the poverty and misery that
is present on our streets today.  Although some of Hirsch-Shell's are
aligned with Andrew Yang's Forward Party, there are many points of
commonality with Green Party policy positions and values.

As we predicted when we opposed 2022's Prop H, which eliminated
odd-year elections, few voters are paying much attention to
down-ticket offices, allowing billionaire-backed candidates such as
Mark Farrell and Daniel Lurie to try to buy the Mayor's office.  We
hope that voters will reject this effort and elect Peskin or
Hirsch-Shell, who would be accountable to average San Franciscans.


D1 Supervisor: Connie Chan

Although the Green Party did not endorse Connie Chan when she first
ran for office in 2020, her votes once elected have been surprisingly
good.  We are especially impressed with her track record on renters'
rights.  Chan has therefore earned our enthusiastic endorsement for
re-election.

Chan's opponent in D1 is Marjan Philhour, a YIMBY hack with close ties
the the Democratic Party Machine who has been rejected by voters twice
before, in 2016 and 2020.  But like a plastic bag mixed into a compost
heap, she stubbornly keeps resurfacing.  Unfortunately, the Machine
has put their finger on the scale in 2024 with some major
redistricting, moving conservatives from Seacliff into D1.  Chan needs
all the help she can get to come out ahead this time!


D3 Supervisor: Sharon Lai

Sharon Lai is a first-time candidate who is running to take over the
D3 seat vacated by the termed-out Aaron Peskin.  She was previously
a municipal urban planner, and then founded a nonprofit to house
homeless people.  Lai is impressive in having assembled a "bipartisan"
list of endorsers, including both very conservative and solidly
progressive supporters.  Greens are pleased to endorse her.

In answering our questionnaire
(https://sfgreens.org/questionnaires/2024/lai_d3.html), Lai agrees
with Green Party positions on a number of issues, from supporting
ranked choice voting to public power.  Like Peskin, she wants to
expand shelter capacity to address the homelessness crisis.  She also
supports social housing, police reform, and funding Muni.  We disagree
with her on some key issues, notably the Chesa Boudin recall, but
overall she's clearly more supportive of Green Party values than
opposed.

Moe Jamil also sought the Green Party's endorsement
(https://sfgreens.org/questionnaires/2024/jamil_d3.html), but we have
fundamental disagreements on the importance of hiring more police
officers.  With police effectively on strike, Greens don't think
doubling down on police funding without major police reform would be a
good use of scarce public tax money.  Jamil thinks otherwise, and does
not recognize the problem.

Like D1, D3 is ripe for yet another YIMBY pickup by a candidate
they've rescued from the compost heap of history.  As we said last
time about Danny Sauter:

  Sauter is endorsed by YIMBY Action, and appears to have little
  knowledge of how the City government works.  For example, he
  attacked Peskin for not providing district services, which only
  Mayor Breed has control over.

YIMBY Action is a fake 'nonprofit' real estate and big tech industry
funded front group to support luxury housing profiteering and
gentrification for its corporate and billionaire backers.  Please join
Greens in voting for Sharon Lai to continue Peskin's legacy in D3!


D5 Supervisor: Dean Preston

Dean Preston is a long-time tenant activist and attorney, who we've
endorsed three times before, in 2016, 2019, and 2020.  He leads the
Board on housing and tenants' rights legislation.  He is also a
leading member of the local DSA chapter, which is unusually
antagonistic towards the Green Party, compared to other DSA chapters
around the US.  Despite this, Greens share many values with DSA
members, including Preston, and we're happy to endorse him for
re-election.

Our major disagreement with Preston is his sponsorship of 2022's Prop
H, which cancelled odd-year elections in SF.  As a result, we're in a
situation today where few voters are paying attention to down-ticket
contests.  As we predicted:

  Moving (more down-ticket contests) into a single election when fewer
  voters will pay attention will benefit well-funded corporate
  candidates and their campaign consultants, but will not result in
  more informed voters.

Preston's leading opponents are a fake neuroscientist and an advocate
for more Mayoral control of our public schools.  Against this dismal
opposition, we expect he will be reelected overwhelmingly!  But with
the influx of billionaire cash and more uninformed voters into the 2024
election, he may have a harder time legislating than in the past.


D7 Supervisor: no endorsement

No D7 candidate sought our endorsement.  This is perhaps to Supervisor
Melgar's credit, since she recognized correctly that we would not be
inclined to support her reelection.  We wrote in 2020
(https://www.sfgreenparty.org/endorsements/95-november-2020-endorsements#D7)
about how she ran a nonprofit that sold out to Mayor Breed.


D9 Supervisor: no endorsement

The D9 Supervisor's seat is open in 2024.  Only one candidate, Jackie
Fielder, sought the Green Party's endorsement.  Fielder's answers to
our questionnaire
(https://sfgreens.org/questionnaires/2024/fielder_d9.html) agree with
us on many positions.  But not enough Greens were convinced by her
track record in City politics to earn the supermajority support
required for endorsement.

Around half of the active Greens supported Fielder because of her
positions on opposing YIMBY, protecting tenants, creating a Public
Bank and building a Green New Deal to reverse the climate crisis.  But
other Greens (including several who live in Fielder's district)
observed that she has only recently moved to District 9, and seems
more oriented towards the local Democratic Party's professional
nonprofit-based style of activism than real grassroots community
organizing.

In 2020, we did not endorse Supervisor Ronen for re-election, based on
similar reasoning.  Like Fielder, Ronen is closely linked to a number
of nonprofits that have a track record of soaking up grassroots
activist energy, and channeling it into internal Democratic Party
politics.  We wrote:

  The nonprofit industrial complex has a track record of defusing
  local activism going back more than 20 years.  Grassroots activists
  have tried to change City law to divest from fossil fuels, create a
  public bank, stop gentrification, and defund the police.  In every
  case, nonprofits led by professional Democrats have grounded this
  grassroots energy into their groups.  This has resulted in laws that
  are good PR, but don't actually effect the necessary changes -
  instead, issues are kicked up to the state level to die in
  Sacramento, or pushed off in a series of endless "studies."

Fielder's main opponent is Trevor Chandler, a former AIPAC lobbyist
backed by YIMBY who pretends to be a public school teacher.  Although
there are many other candidates in the race, none took the time or
effort to answer the Green Party's questionnaire.  We therefore did
not endorse any candidate in this contest.


D11 Supervisor: Ernest "EJ" Jones (#1 ranked choice), Adlah Chisti (#2
ranked choice)

The D11 Supervisor's race is also open this year, as termed-out
Supervisor Ahsha Safai is running a quixotic campaign for Mayor.  Greens
have endorsed two candidates in the race, "EJ" Jones for our first
choice, and Adlah Chisti as our second choice.

EJ Jones agrees with Greens on many issues
(https://sfgreens.org/questionnaires/2024/jones_d11.html), from public
power to social housing.  He supports more police accountability, foot
patrols, free Muni, and some measures to reduce political corruption.
He's more conservative than Greens would like (he previously supported
Mayor Breed , and would support Supervisor Melgar's for Board
President, although he has endorsed Supervisor Safai for Mayor this
year), but overall he'd do a great job of representing both the
constituents of his district and Green values.

Adlah Chisti is the sister of Alilya Chisti, who currently serves on
the College Board (see College Board endorsements, below).  She has
a similar mix of issues on which she agrees with Green positions (public
power, free Muni, social housing), but she also supports Mayor Breed's
re-election.  We also think she'd do a great job representing both
Green values and her district.

Several other candidates in D11 merit mention.  Michael Lai is the
designated YIMBY/billionaire candidate.  He's best known for founding
an "ed-tech" scam business that destroyed the lives of numerous parents
and teachers (https://missionlocal.org/2024/09/michael-lai-tinycare/).
Chyanne Chen has been endorsed by several progressive Democratic
Party clubs, but she didn't take the time to answer the Green Party's
candidate questionnaire.

Please join us in ranking EJ Jones #1 and Adlah Chisti #2 in D11!



District Attorney:  Ryan Khojasteh

Ryan Khojasteh is an experienced criminal prosecutor who was one of
many prosecutors fired by Mayor Breed's hand-picked DA, Brooke
Jenkins, when she took office following the recall of Chesa Boudin.
Khojasteh easily found another job as a prosecutor in Alameda County.
Greens believe that he'll be a welcome change to restore public trust
in the DA's office, which has been badly mismanaged under Jenkins.
Khojasteh vows to depoliticize the DA's office, and focus on public
safety instead of being a public relations arm of the Breed
administration.

Khojasteh appears to have much better alignment with Green Party values
than the current DA.  For example, he is staunchly opposed to the Death
Penalty.  He has also vowed to restart the Innocence Commission, which was
largely dismantled by Jenkins.  The Innocence Commission works to
overturn convictions that were wrongly prosecuted by past DAs; for
example, one person was found to have been wrongfully imprisoned for
32 years for a murder he did not commit
(https://missionlocal.org/2022/07/innocence-commission-asks-da-to-continue/).

Khojasteh also is certain to be a better manager than Jenkins.
Jenkins's office is a nepotistic nightmare, as her chief of staff is a
close friend with no law experience.  May prosecutors who haven't been
fired for insufficient personal loyalty have left, and Jenkins has had
to drop dozens of cases, including some of people accused of serious
and violent crimes, because her office was unable to get their
paperwork together in a timely manner
(https://sfstandard.com/2024/08/14/san-francisco-drops-criminal-cases-court-backlog/).
Khojasteh will let many people accused of nonviolent crimes make
reasonable plea deals, and his office will make full use of
Collaborative Courts and diversion programs.  Then, he will be able to
focus the DA's resources on the most serious and violent offenses for
trial.

Greens enthusiastically support Khojasteh to bring and end to the
corrupt Machine politics presently at work in the DA's office.


Board of Education:  Matt Alexander, Laurance Lem Lee, Virginia Cheung

Our public schools are facing a severe crisis, as the district is
facing fiscal insolvency due to gradually declining enrollment.  This
decline is partly based on demographics (fewer families with
school-age kids), but also due to 1/3 of families choosing to send
their kids to private schools.  Fewer kids in public schools means
less funding from the State, which bases funding on daily attendance
and other factor such as the number of high-needs students.  Thus, our
schools are now faced with a deficit that may be in the hundreds of
millions of dollars.  This is actually not much when compared to the
City's budget, so the City could easily step in with additional funds
to prevent cuts and school closures.  However, this is complicated by
an ongoing power struggle between Mayor Breed and her allies on the
School Board who want to close public schools and convert them to
charter schools, and those of us who recognize the value of investing
in public education.

Four seats are up for election on the school board.  Only one
incumbent, Matt Alexander, is running for re-election.  Due to the
fallout from a contentious recall election and a number of management
crises (e.g., an outsourced payroll overhaul that meant teachers' pay
was not calculated correctly for years), several other incumbents we've
endorsed in the past (Kevine Boggess and former Green Party member
Mark Sanchez) have thrown in the towel and are not running again.
Superintendent Wayne has just recently announced his resignation, and
the next Superintendent and Board will have to navigate a whole host
of crises, including deteriorating facilities and a bevy of corrupt
contractors who are waiting to rip off SFUSD.

Of all the members of the Board, we think Matt Alexander best
exemplifies Green Party values
(https://sfgreens.org/questionnaires/2024/alexander_boe.html).  He's
led the charge to cut SFUSD's central office budget in favor of
prioritizing spending in classrooms.  His recognition of the
importance of in-person learning during the pandemic was spot on.  He
is also opposed to new charter schools in SF, and recognizes the
overuse of standardized testing in SFUSD.  As Alexander was recently
elevated to Board President when one of Mayor Breed's appointees
resigned, we have high hopes that he will lead us out of the current
crisis.  We are enthusiastically supporting his re-election!

Laurance Lee is a citizen activist who currently serves on the
Citizens Bond Oversight Committee
(https://sfgreens.org/questionnaires/2024/lee_boe.html).  He also
helped lead the School Board recall in 2022, primarily out of concern
(unfounded, as it turned out) that changes to Lowell admissions would
result in lower academic standards.  Although we think Lee is too
conservative with regards to the issues of Lowell admissions,
standardized testing, and JROTC, we also believe that his detailed
knowledge of the SFUSD budget will be invaluable in preventing future
contracting fraud (as happened with the payroll debacle).  His social
conservatism is balanced by his strong commitment to citizen activism
and a genuine desire to ensure that our public schools meet the needs
of the most demanding San Franciscans.  For example, the SFUSD
citizens' bond oversight committee (CBOC), tasked with monitoring
large bond expenditures, was inactive for years after the 2016 bond
passed.  Lee has been blogging and speaking at School Board meetings
about this problem since 2019.  He helped ensure a CBOC was seated and
has helped oversee $744 million in planned bond expenditures.

Virginia Cheung is a public school parent who is new to electoral
politics.  Her questionnaire answers
(https://sfgreens.org/questionnaires/2024/cheung_boe.html) indicate
that she agrees with Greens on a number of positions, including the
dangers of expanding charter schools and standardized testing.  Like
Lee and Alexander, she seems extremely committed to ensuring that our
public schools are successful and attractive to more families.

As budget cuts and potential school closures continue to strain our
public school community, it is of the utmost importance that our
elected school board members have in-depth knowledge of the school
district's many moving parts.  We believe that both Alexander and Lee
have demonstrated management expertise, as well as a commitment to
fixing the many problems that families, teachers and staff face.  We
also expect that Cheung will provide valuable perspective as a deeply
involved parent.  We hope the three of them can work together to
restore San Franciscans' trust in our public schools and pull us out
of the current crisis.


College Board:  Alan Wong, Aliya Chisti

Four seats are up for election on the CCSF Board of Trustees (College
Board).  As previously, the major consideration for us is the
financial state of the college and the continued need for Free City
College.  Since the accreditation crisis, private interests have
salivated at the thought of driving City College into financial
insolvency and then taking it over.  Although SF voters
enthusiastically endorsed Prop W in 2016, most of the funds raised by
the real estate transfer tax have been captured by our corrupt City
government, and they are under renewed thread from Mayor Breed this
year.

Alan Wong currently serves as the President of the College Board and
co-chair of the Free City College Oversight Committee.  Elected in
2020, he has helped turn the fiscal situation at the College to the
better.  Enrollment is up, and the budget is balanced.  Wong has
pledged to work to continue to increase enrollment, primarily by
protecting the Prop W funds owed by City government to ensure that
courses at City College remain tuition-free.  Wong's positions are
also in good alignment with other Green Party priorities, including
supporting non-citizen voting in local elections and opposing military
recruitment and firearms on campus.

Aliya Chisti got our endorsement back in 2020 when she was first
elected, and we're happy to support her reelection.  Like Wong, she
has been a champion of Free City College
(https://sfgreens.org/questionnaires/2024/chisti_ccb.html).  We also
agree with her on limiting military recruiting on campus, and
replacing campus police with more alternative personnel to cover
necessary services without criminalizing students.  She also promises
to ensure the public will have adequate time to review CCSF's budget.

We are pleased to endorse both Wong and Chisti for re-election to
the Board of Trustees.


BART Board: no endorsement

BART suffers from numerous problems, including a Board dominated
by YIMBY interests who are more interested in running a real estate
development scheme than a transit system.

Since COVID, BART has become increasingly hostile to its riders.  The
Board has spent scarce funds on "fare evasion" counter-measures such
as higher fences and expensive (but barely functional) new fare gates.
Maintenance of the system has deteriorated to the point where even a
hot day or light rain routinely cause lengthy delays.  The Board has
also hired expensive steroid-abusing fare enforcement teams to harass
riders.  Some stations (e.g., Powell St) are routinely sprayed with
noxious chemical agents in order to discourage people from loitering.

Several candidates sought our endorsement, but neither of them
convinced us that they would have the best interest of BART riders.
We therefore did not make an endorsement in this contest.

Joe Sangirardi is new to SF, and appears to have only a superficial
knowledge of previous BART debacles
(http://sfgreens.org/questionnaires/2024/sangirardi_bart.html).  He
wants to double down on rider-hostile measures such as fare
enforcement and policing.  He enthusiastically supports YIMBY
development scams on public land owned by the system.

Edward Wright
(https://sfgreens.org/questionnaires/2024/wright_bart.html) has many
of the drawbacks we associate with current BART director Janice Li.
Like Li, Wright rarely rides BART, and only recreationally as opposed
to relying on the system as a daily commuter.  He promises to be
accountable to the Milk Club and other identity-based affinity groups,
but (tellingly) not to the ridership at large.  He also supports
BART's land development schemes although not to the extent that
Sangirardi does.

We have now gone several elections without finding a worthy candidate
to endorse for BART.  We look forward to finding somebody who
recognizes the critical importance of public transit in the context of
climate emergency, and who also depends on the system to commute to
work - and therefore empathizes with the challenges faced by everyday
BART riders.


NO on Prop A

Prop A is a $790 million bond to help pay for construction and
renovation of SF public schools.  It requires 55% support to pass.
Greens are recommending a NO vote, due to lack of accountability in
how previous bonds were spent by the school district.

Greens supported the previous school bond, which passed in 2016.
However, the school district did not meet the legal requirements of
having a functioning citizens' bond oversight committee until 2021
(https://thefrisc.com/schools-eye-a-1-billion-bond-sfs-biggest-ever-while-questions-persist-about-the-last-one-7dbc1ea0b9bf/).
Some of the renovation projects that were promoted as reasons to
support the 2016 bond were ignored by the school district altogether,
until conditions got sufficiently bad that parents and teachers at
those schools could no longer be ignored
(https://missionlocal.org/2019/06/rat-droppings-crumbling-ceilings-and-broken-equipment-buena-vista-horace-mann-parents-say-district-allowing-school-to-fester/).
The school district actively covered up facilities problems, and
instead spent money on other projects such as a new elementary school
in Mission Bay
(https://www.sfusd.edu/about-sfusd/sfusd-news/press-releases/2024-07-24-sfusd-celebrates-milestone-construction-long-awaited-new-school-mission-bay-neighborhood).

Prop A has the same red flags that made us hesitant to support the
2016 bond.  As in 2016, the bond lists a number of proposed projects
the money will supposedly be spent on, but there is no legal
requirement to fund those projects (the language on spending says
"may" instead of "shall").  And with the district proposing to close
13 schools according to nebulous criteria
(https://missionlocal.org/2024/10/mission-local-obtains-list-of-13-sfusd-schools-to-potentially-merge-close/),
we are very pessimistic that spending will be prioritized according to
the needs of students and families.  We suspect this is why the final
announcement of which schools may close, and the Board of Education
vote on this, are both scheduled to take place after the November
election.

Greens are often hesitant to support bond funding (see our Statement
on Bonds at the end of this Voter Guide), but will make exceptions for
good public projects with appropriate oversight.  Unfortunately, the
current chaos in the school district, caused primarily by Mayor Breed's
disastrous School Board appointments following the 2022 recall election,
do not give us sufficient confidence at this time.

Please join us in voting NO on Prop A, and support our endorsed
school board candidates (see below) to help restore trust.


NO on Prop B

Prop B is a $390 million bond to support a huge number of promised
projects, from homeless shelters to street repairs.  Greens are
strongly opposed.  Our concerns are identical to those we stated about
a very similar bond from 2020 (Prop A):

  We generally only support bonds for particular public works projects
  (see our Statement on Bond Funding, below).  This list of
  miscellaneous projects reads like a slush fund for Mayor Breed.  In
  fact, repeatedly replacing curb ramps was a well-known contracting
  scam under previous Mayors.  Most of the items supposedly funded by
  this bond are already covered by other funds, or (like street
  maintenance) should be paid for out of the regular budget.

Prop B doesn't meet either of our criteria for 1) specific earmarks
requiring where the money will be spent, or 2) filling a very serious
and urgent need that can't be funded through the City budget.

Until we get a new Mayor who isn't so rampantly corrupt, we won't
trust that the money will be well spent.  Vote NO.


YES on Prop C

Prop C would create a new appointed City position, the Inspector
General, to investigate corruption.  The Inspector General would
be nominated by the City Controller, subject to approval by
both the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor.  They would have the
powers to execute search warrants and issue subpoenas.  Greens
support a YES vote to create this position.

The City Controller is not an elected position, but rather a
Mayoral appointee who is subject to confirmation by the Board of
Supervisors.  However, they have some degree of independence from
the Mayor, because they serve a 10 year term and can only be
removed by the Mayor for cause, with a 2/3 vote of the Board.

The Inspector General would serve under the Controller, and so they
would be an appointee of a Mayoral appointee (likely from a prior
Mayor).  That's not as independent as we would like to see, and could
potentially lead to selective prosecution of corrupt contractors who
are politically opposed to the Mayor.

Despite these concerns, Prop C would be an improvement over the status
quo, where corruption is allowed to continue unabated until federal
prosecutors step in (generally based on the political bias of the
Federal government at the time more than the actual level of
corruption).  We recommend a YES vote.


NO on Prop D

Prop D would eliminate about half of the City's 115 commissions, where
citizens currently serve to advise or oversee various aspects of City
government.  Currently the Mayor and her allies appoint all or the
majority of the members of these commissions.  However, some seats are
also appointed by the Board of Supervisors or other City elected
officials who are nominally in opposition to the Mayor.  In addition
to eliminating commissions, Prop D would make more of the seats Mayor-
appointed, allow the Mayor to fire commissioners at will, and make
more of the commissions advisory instead of giving them real control
or oversight.  Prop D is therefore a Mayoral power grab, and Greens
are strongly opposed.

As proponents of grassroots democracy, Greens strongly support
citizens' right to participate in government at all levels, and
serving on a commission has provided many Greens with the ability to
change the City for the better.  Popular programs like "Sunday
Streets" and "Free Muni for Youth" were originally championed by Green
commissioners.  Prop D would make City power even more strongly
centered in the Mayor's office, leading to less oversight and therefore
even more corruption and influence by her billionaire friends who
sponsored this ballot measure.

Worse, Prop D is being used as a slush fund by Mayoral candidate Mark
Farrell to avoid limits on campaign donations.  Billionaires have been
donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to Prop D, which is then
spent to promote Farrell's Mayoral campaign
(https://missionlocal.org/2024/09/mark-farrell-ads-violate-campaign-law-opponents-say/).

Vote NO on this Mayoral power grab!


No consensus on Prop E

Prop E is a measure, competing with Prop D, which would create a task
force to study eliminating City commissions, and then come back to the
voters in two years with another ballot measure that would implement
their recommendations.  If Prop E gets more votes than Prop D, it
supersedes Prop D, and vice versa.  Greens did not reach consensus on
Prop E, so we have no position on the measure.

Green proponents of Prop E thought that some streamlining should be
done on City commissions, and also liked the possibility of blocking
Prop D.  Green opponents thought that the task force, which will be
composed primarily of Mayoral and Mayor-allied appointees, will probably
come up with a ballot measure almost as bad as Prop D, which we'll just
have to organize to oppose in two years.

We hope that Greens will consider both sides of the argument and
vote your conscience.


NO on Prop F

Prop F would create a new program for police officers who are at least
50 years old and ready to retire to stay on the job for up to 5 years.
During those 5 years, they would earn both their ordinary salary, as
well as their pension.  In effect, this would let older cops collect
double pay as an incentive to not retire.  Greens are extremely
skeptical that San Franciscans are getting enough value from the SFPD
for the amount of money we spend now, so we are strongly opposed to
Prop F.

We noted earlier this year that the SFPD have have effectively been on
strike, refusing to investigate even serious and violent crimes unless
the victims are wealthy or influential.  We need serious police reform
instead of continuing to throw money at a failed system.

Prop F is pandering to the police union, and would pay cops double to
perform duties few San Franciscans support, such as harassing
skateboarders.  Just say NO.


YES on Prop G

Prop G would provide some minimal but badly needed rent subsidies for
low income seniors, families, and people with disabilities, and would
help directly prevent further evictions and homelessness in the City.

Prop G unfortunately only puts forward $12 million for this purpose,
when the need is much greater.  San Francisco should be providing far
more support, and should pass laws establish Housing as Right so that
no tenants in San Francisco can ever be evicted from their homes.

Furthermore, Greens have correctly observed that such subsidies don't
fundamentally solve the housing affordability crisis because they just
subsidize existing high rents that private landlords, and even private
housing nonprofits charge.  Instead, we should focus on directly
lowering the price of housing by expanding rent control, outlawing the
owning and selling of housing for profit, and using Public Banks to
transition all homes into not-for-profit social and co-op housing.

But our immediate post-pandemic reality is an all out housing
emergency in which tenants in San Francisco have dramatically lost
income, rent and housing prices continue to skyrocket, and tenants are
being evicted *right now* and need immediate assistance.

Prop G is a safety net to prevent many evictions from happening now,
until stronger laws like Prop 33 can be passed to permanently protect
tenants and low income homeowners.  We urge a Yes vote.


No position on Prop H

Prop H would lower the retirement age for firefighters
from 58 to 55.  It would reverse 2011's Prop C, which had increased
the retirement age.  The Green Party did not take a position
on Prop H.

Greens noted that firefighting is a dangerous and essential job, and
we strongly opposed Prop C back in 2011.  Prop C was a case of class
warfare, where billionaires took advantage of a recession caused by
President Obama's Wall Street bailout to enforce "austerity" for
ordinary people.  Prop C raised retirement ages for City workers
by 3 years across the board.

Since Prop H reverses Prop C, but only for firefighters, we question
why other City workers were not included.  And COVID has caused the
City's financial situation to be even more precarious than it was in
2011.  Therefore, we passed on Prop H, and would like to see a
proposal that benefits all City workers instead of putting one
powerful public employee union ahead of everybody else.


YES on Prop I

Prop I would improve retirement benefits for registered nurses and 911
operators who work for the City.  Nurses who previously worked as "per
diem" nurses (part-time workers with worse benefits) would get to buy
service credit for up to 3 years that they previously worked "per
diem", giving them a higher pension when they retire.  911 operators
would be moved from the City's normal retirement plan into a better
plan provided to "safety" employees (but still not as good as the
plans given to police and firefighters).  Greens support a YES vote on
Prop I.

The City has severe shortages of both nurses and 911 operators, so
giving them better benefits would encourage more people to apply for
these positions.  However, we also recognize that the main bottleneck
to hiring are the inefficient hiring practices of Mayor Breed's HR
department
(https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/sf-grand-jury-report-slams-city-hiring-process-unfilled-jobs/).
We hope Prop I will improve shortages in critical areas, but the real
solution that is needed is a new Mayor (see Mayoral endorsement, above).

We would like to see improved retirement benefits for all City
workers, but nurses and 911 operators are especially critical right
now.  Please join us in voting Yes on I.


NO on Prop J

Prop J would give the Mayor and Board of Supervisors more control
over the "Public Education Enrichment Fund" that is given to SFUSD
by the City to supplement the too-small allocation from the State.
Greens trust the elected Board of Education more than we trust
the Mayor and Board of Supervisors to protect public school students
and families' interests, so we are urging a NO vote on Prop J.

Currently, the City provides about $185 million to SFUSD, which has
been badly run by a majority Mayoral-appointed school board in recent
years since the 2022 recall election.  We see the problem as
corrupt Mayoral appointees, some of whom are openly working to
promote school privatization.  Giving the Mayor more control over
the public schools' budget is a step in the wrong direction.

Please vote NO on Prop J, and help Greens elect better School Board
members to properly oversee these funds (see endorsement above).


NO on Prop K

Since COVID, the Upper Great Highway has been closed to cars on
weekends (open to bikes and pedestrians), and open to cars on
weekdays.  Prop K will close the Highway to cars permanently with no
restrictions on what the SF Department Recreation and Parks
(#WreckInPark) does with the area.  Greens support a NO vote on Prop
K, because (ironically) continuing to allow cars on the road on
weekdays would be less environmentally destructive that turning the
land over to #WreckInPark director Phil Ginsburg to create a
playground for YIMBYs.

Although a new park sounds great, Greens have serious concerns about
putting #WreckInPark in charge of running it.  Phil Ginsburg has badly
mismanaged the crown jewel of SF Parks, the nearby Golden Gate Park.
In every single past situation, Ginsburg has prioritized monetization
over nature and habitat protection:

* Paved the western end of the Polo Field for concert equipment and in
  2024 increased the number of mass concerts for more concert revenue.

* Installed 7 acres of toxic artificial turf and 150,000 watts of
  stadium lighting on the West side of the park, near the ocean
  (Greens ran a ballot measure to prevent this, but we were massively
  outspent by billionaires and lost the election).

* Placed a revenue-generating ferris wheel with a diesel generator in
  the East side of the park (since moved to near Fisherman's Wharf).

With no funding to develop a new park, Ginsburg will be under serious
pressure to bring in revenue-generating activities to build this out
to YIMBY expectations.  Do we really need another Outside Lands-style
situation with gated access to areas right next to Ocean Beach and the
Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA)?

Large, environmentally damaging events are not just fearmongering -
they're featured prominently on the Yes on K website.  During COVID
closures, #WreckInPark hosted 10,000-person events in which sensitive
dune habitat was destroyed by crowds.  The Yes on K website promises
"playgrounds, dog runs, and anything else San Franciscans imagine."
There's no mention of protecting nature or allowing people to
experience nature in peace.

Prop K will not get rid of cars, just move them into other, more
environmentally sensitive areas.  Chain of Lakes Drive in Golden Gate
Park is already a parking lot on weekends, and it will become one on
weekdays as well if Prop K passes.

Finally, Scott Wiener's SB 951 tried to remove the Coastal
Commission's jurisdiction over San Francisco's coastline, allowing
more intense development along the coast.  He and his real estate
developer buddies have not given up on trying to turn Ocean Beach into
Miami Beach.  By closing the Great Highway, Prop K makes coastal
development more feasible, attractive, and profitable!

Voting NO on K means protecting the environment now and envisioning a
better park in the future.  Voting NO on K does not mean there can
never be a great park along San Francisco’s western shores.  However,
for this area to become a beautiful, windswept coastal park with
healthy dunes, vibrant wildlife habitat, and nature as the prime
attraction, we first need:

* Scientifically based studies of the environmental impacts on Golden
  Gate Park, on the Highway, and on Ocean Beach,

* A clear plan for how the area will be used, with guardrails on what
  #WreckInPark can do in this area

By voting NO on K now, we protect the environment and allow for a
better, more environmental park (run by the GGNRA, not #WreckInPark)
to to be created in the future.


YES on Prop L

Prop L would levy a 1% to 4.5% tax on ride-hail and robotaxi companies
such as Waymo, Lyft, and Uber.  The money would be used to run buses,
trains and paratransit, and provide fare discounts.  Greens strongly
support Prop L, and in fact helped gather signatures to put it on the
ballot!

Currently, city taxes and fees on Uber and Lyft are $0.33 per ride;
passage of Prop L would increase this to just $0.78 per ride.  The tax
would generate $25 million annually for Muni.  This additional tax
would not be charged to the rider or driver, but rather to the
ride-hail companies, which already make obscene profits.  The price
charged to the rider is already far above the company's cost, as
drivers are squeezed with sub-minimum wages and no benefits.

Federal emergency funding for public transit is about to run out, and
Muni is facing a large budget shortfall.  Without more money, bus
lines would be cut, service hours would be reduced, and waits would be
longer for buses and trains.  Prop L alone could prevent 10 bus lines
from being cut.

Muni is absolutely crucial for the working class in San Francisco.
Greens have long campaigned to make Muni free to all riders, and
more sources of funding (like Prop L) are crucial to eventually
achieve this.

Uber and Lyft are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to oppose
the effort, making it the second-most expensive opposition campaign to
a proposition this year
(https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/politics/uber-lyft-spend-big-to-beat-sf-muni-funding-ballot-measure/article_f8bd7026-859b-11ef-866e-3f4b44e0aeff.html).

The SF Greens were an early endorser of Prop L, as it clearly aligns
with Green values.  Funding for public transportation is desperately
needed to address the climate emergency and ensure that working class
people have mobility.  Please join us in voting YES.


NO on Prop M

Prop M is an extremely complicated update to our business tax policy.
Overall, it would lower taxes and fees on small businesses, give even
larger tax breaks to the biggest corporations in SF, while raising
taxes on the businesses in the middle.  But more importantly, Prop M
has a "poison pill" that would invalidate Prop L (Muni funding) if
Prop M gets more votes than Prop L.  For that reason, Greens strongly
oppose Prop M.

A good Mission Local article goes into additional details of Prop M,
which would lower taxes on big businesses such as Google and Uber
<https://missionlocal.org/2024/09/san-francisco-tax-proposition-m/>,
while hurting mid-size businesses by increasing their tax burden.

Although Greens might support another effort to simplify and
streamline the tax code, the poison pill in Prop M, along with tax
breaks for big business, led us to endorse a NO vote on Prop M.


NO on Prop N

Prop N would create a fund to pay off the student loans of First
Responders (police, firefighters, sheriffs, paramedics, nurses, and
911 operators) employed by the City.  Greens urge a NO vote.

Greens are strong supporters of free public education, and of
forgiving all student loans across the board.  But Prop N just pits
some City employees against others, and doesn't help the ordinary San
Franciscans who are suffering under high student debt burdens.

In addition, Prop N was put on the ballot as a booster for Ahsha
Safai's failing Mayoral campaign, just as Prop D was put on to boost
Mark Farrell.  There is no need for this to be on the ballot, as it's
an issue that unions should negotiate with the City.

Join us in voting NO on N.


YES on Prop O

Prop O would strengthen abortion rights in SF, and protect patients
who travel here to obtain an abortion.  It's one of the most
thoughtful pieces of legislation to ever come out of Mayor Breed's
administration, and Greens are pleased to support it!

Prop O would require fake crisis pregnancy centers to post signs
saying they do not provide abortion services.  It would also prohibit
City-funded health care providers from establishing additional
barriers to any reproductive health services.  City employees and
officers would be prohibited from cooperating with federal or state
prosecution of doctors, clinics, or patients.  Finally, Prop O would
establish a fund to support reproductive rights, and direct City
departments to monitor legal changes that might interfere with
patients' rights.

Greens have always been strongly in support of abortion rights, and
there were many years when we were the only counter-protestors at huge
anti-choice rallies in SF.  It's good to see Democrats actually doing
something besides fundraising off of the issue.  Prop L is a very
comprehensive and thorough attempt to protect patients' rights, and
Greens are strongly in support.


NO on Prop 2

Prop 2 is a $10 billion bond for facility improvements to schools.
$8.5 billion would go to public and charter K-12 schools, and $1.5
billion would go to community colleges.  Funding would be distributed
as matching funds: local school districts would be required to raise
as much money as granted by the state.  Greens are opposed to Prop 2,
and think that money to fund schools should instead come directly from
the State budget.

We have serious concerns about bonds, like Prop 2, that don't have
specific earmarks on how the money will be spent, and that don't
explicitly fill a very serious and urgent need that can't be funded
through the normal budget.  School maintenance can and should be
funded through the State budget, without giving tax breaks and pork
profits to billionaires and banks (see our Statement on Bonds, below),
and without funding charter schools.

Join us in voting NO on Prop 2.


YES on Prop 3

Prop 3 would repeal 2008's Prop 8, the State constitutional amendment
that defined marriage as only between a man and a woman.  Greens are
strongly in favor.

After Prop 8 passed in 2008, Greens joined statewide efforts to put a
repeal on the ballot in 2010.  However, our "partners" in Democratic
Party nonprofits gave up on the effort after becoming worried that it
might embarrass the Obama administration.  Although marriage equality
was eventually affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2015, a more conservative
Court may overturn that.  Therefore, it's important to clean Prop 8
out of the CA constitution before that happens by voting YES on Prop 8.


NO on Prop 4

Prop 4 is another $10 billion bond to fund a variety of water projects
around the state.  Although this bond would fund some extremely
important programs, it would also fund logging in the guise of
"wildfire management", bad dam projects, so-called 'regenerative'
ranching/grazing (a sham funded by the factory beef industry) and
polluting biofuels/biomass projects.  All of these would increase
greenhouse gas emissions and accelerate the climate crisis.  Greens
urge a NO vote.

We are running out of time to meaningfully and effectively respond to
the climate crisis.  The time to begin a rapid, orderly, and
equity-centered phase-out of fossil fuels was yesterday!  Prop 4
addresses some of the symptoms of the climate crisis, while making the
underlying problems worse.

Worse, Prop 4 is a bond (see our Statement on Bond Funding, below),
which means this will be paid for by borrowing money from billionaires,
rather than by taxing the fossil fuel companies and other corporations
most responsible for the climate crisis.

What is needed instead is a Green New Deal for California, as often
promoted by our State candidates
(https://www.cagreens.org/real-green-new-deal).  Vote NO on Prop 4.


NO on Prop 5

Prop 5 would lower the threshold for passing what it calls local
"affordable" housing bonds from 2/3 to 55%.  But its deceptive
definition of "affordable" pulls the rug out from under housing for
lower income and working class people, and promotes luxury housing
gentrification.  Greens urge a NO vote on Prop 5.

Prop 5 is backed by the Real Estate billionaire front group YIMBY to
make it easier for speculators to force cities to build gentrifying
and high greenhouse gas-emitting luxury housing construction.  The
so-called "affordable" housing requirement would call housing for
families making over $200,000 per year "affordable."  For details on
YIMBY see: "California YIMBY, Scott Wiener, and Big Tech’s Troubling
Housing Push"
(https://housingisahumanright.org/inside-game-california-yimby-scott-wiener-and-big-tech-troubling-housing-push).

Greens generally support lowering supermajority requirements to pass
urgently needed public spending.  But carving out an exception for
just one YIMBY priority (luxury housing construction) earns a strong
NO vote from us.


YES on Prop 6

Prop 6 would amend the State constitution to prohibit slavery and
involuntary servitude, including in prisons.  Slavery is prohibited
by the US Constitution's 13th Amendment "except as a punishment for crime."
Although Prop 6 doesn't go as far as Greens would like, we recommend
a YES vote.

Many states require prisoners to do all sorts of labor, from "chain
gangs" to serving in call centers for large corporations.  In
California, 30% of the people who fight our wildfires are prison
inmates, paid just a few dollars per day
(https://truthout.org/articles/california-is-dependent-on-prison-labor-for-fighting-fires-this-must-end/).  This service is voluntary, and inmates
can reduce their sentence by two days for every day spent fighting
fires.  Prop 6 would not end this practice.

Prop 6 prohibits the State from disciplining any prisoner for refusing
a work assignment, but it still would allow credits to inmates who
voluntarily participate in work assignments.  To Greens, this seems
like a distinction without a difference.  A prison sentence in itself
is a form of discipline, and long prison sentences that are out of
proportion to the severity of the crime should be prohibited as "cruel
and unusual."  Serving a nonviolent offender a long prison sentence,
and then offering them "credits" for dangerous and low-paid work like
firefighting may not technically be "coerced labor" under the terms of
Prop 6, but since the alternative is more time in prison, it seems
coerced.

Greens support a YES vote on Prop 6, as it may reduce prison slavery
in California even if it does not end it.


YES on Prop 32

The minimum wage in California is currently $15/hour.  Prop 32 would
increase this wage in stages until it reaches $18/hour, with annual
increases for inflation afterwards.

Greens support a "living wage" - meaning that a person who works full
time should be able to have a decent standard of living and support
their families.  To that end, Greens recently called for a national
$25/hour minimum wage
(https://www.gp.org/green_party_calls_for_a_25_minimum_wage).  Note
that the minimum wage in SF is currently $18.67/hour, so Prop 32
wouldn't make much difference locally, but a $25/hour minimum would.

Although $18/hour is far too low to live on in most parts of
California, it's a step in the right direction.  Vote YES on 32.


YES on Prop 33

Prop 33 would repeal the Costa-Hawkins Rental Act of 1995, a
landlord-friendly state law that restricts which types of units are
eligible for rent control.  Greens strongly support Prop 33.

Costa-Hawkins prohibits single-family homes and newer apartment
buildings from having rent control in California, even if local
governments want to allow it.  Currently cities can't apply rent
control to any apartments built after 1995, or whatever year the city
first passed rent control (1979 in SF).

Prop 33 would also allow "vacancy control": limiting rent increases
when a tenant moves out and a new one moves in.  This is designed to
reduce the incentive landlords currently have to harass long-time
rent-controlled tenants, since currently they are able to raise rents
to market rate once a tenant leaves.

Prop 33 would allow each locality in California to enact their own
laws around rent control.  This is in keeping with the Green Party's
value of Decentralization: what's good for a small conservative town
is usually not what's best for SF.

We strongly urge voters to support Prop 33!


NO on Prop 34

Prop 34 bans a single healthcare organization (the AIDS Foundation)
from funding ballot measures.  It was retaliation for the AIDS Foundation
supporting Prop 33.  The Green Party strongly opposes Prop 34.

Prop 34 was written by the California Apartment Association, a
landlord lobby, to punish the AIDS Foundation for supporting Prop 33.
We don't always agree with the positions of the AIDS Foundation, but
Prop 34 would tie their hands without affecting similar political
contributions by many other more conservative foundations.  Vote NO.


YES on Prop 35

Prop 35 would make the Medi-Cal tax, which HMOs and other insurance
companies pay, permanent.  This tax is currently set to expire in two
more years.  Greens support a YES vote.

Greens support public spending on "Improved Medicare for All"
(a.k.a. single payer health care), which would be free to everyone in
the US and include mental health and substance abuse treatment.
Current programs like Medi-Cal are just a band-aid on a severely
problematic for-profit healthcare system.  However, because Medi-Cal
serves as a last resort for low-income residents, we need to keep
funding it until we can replace the whole system with something better.

We have concerns that Prop 35 locks in some funding priorities at
current levels, preventing flexibility in how money is allocated in
the future.  And we think for-profit insurance companies should be
taxed at a much higher level than Prop 35 specifies, as long as they
exist.  Prop 35 also prevents the Governor from "raiding" Medi-Cal
funds to pay for other priorities, even if that money is sometimes
spent well.

On balance, Greens support a YES vote on Prop 35.


NO on Prop 36

Prop 36 is a partial repeal of 2014's Prop 47, which turned some
nonviolent felonies into misdemeanors.  Prop 36 would bring back
"three strikes" felonies for shoplifting and possession of some drugs
(cocaine, heroin, meth, and fentanyl).  Greens strongly supported Prop
47, and strongly oppose Prop 36.

Prop 47 successfully helped to reduce prison overcrowding in
California, without worsening crime or hurting public safety.

The way to deal with the fentanyl crisis is to focus on treatment, not
incarceration, similar to Portugal
(https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/what-should-us-learn-new-yorks-and-portugals-approaches-opioid-crisis/2024-07).
And shoplifting is already a crime; the blatant examples of retail
smash-and-grab, with stolen goods being sold openly on City streets,
is a result of SFPD effectively going on strike for the past 5+ years.
We don't need to bring back "three strikes" which put people in prison
for life for minor shoplifting.

Bringing back "three strikes" and the "war on drugs" would double down
on strategies that we already know are failures.  Vote NO on Prop 36.


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.