VOTE!
My Voting Guide For SF and California!
On Tuesday, November 8th there is an election! Voting is exciting but doing research on confusing and manipulative propositions is not. So I have researched them for you and below are my conclusions. I implore you to just use this as a starting point. Below is how I will vote but not everything I concluded will be a good fit for you. But I think I explained each proposition and candidate well enough that at least you’ll have a starting point of knowing what they are generally about and then can go research each of them more thoroughly. Or just trust me and follow this because at least you are being a great American by voting.
The references that I use for this was the website sfpublicpress.org. I found their information to be straightforward and unbiased. I also used the website recallschoolboard.org to figure out who to vote for for the school board. I also read pamphlets that I got in the mail and read the info from the SF Chronicle website. Okay, let’s get started!
San Francisco Ballot
Propositions
YES on Prop A: A Raise for Retired City Workers
I voted yes on this because retired city workers that retired before 1996 have been struggling because their retirement packages don’t match up to the sky rocketing cost of living in San Francisco. This would affect only 4400 workers out of 74,000. The money to pay for this would come from the city’s general fund so it will not raise taxes.
NO on Prop B: Rehire the Public Works Dept
Anyone who knows me knows how much and how often I complain about how poopy and filthy and dirty San Francisco is. About 20 years ago they took the trashcans away from my corner and they never returned them resulting in literally bags of trash left on all four corners of my intersection. Twice I’ve had the opportunity to meet my supervisors to beg them for trash cans and can you believe the answer they gave me was “People were putting too much trash in the trash cans so they removed them.” What???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
For a green city SF sure does love having trash in the gutter that ultimately makes its way into the ocean and the bay.
Anyway, The Public Works Department has been in charge the whole time that SF has become a tornado of swirling trash so I’m not a fan. In fact, in 2020 the FBI opened up an investigation into the department and it resulted in the department’s director, Mohammed Nuru receiving a 7 year sentence in a federal prison. Five other department heads, some contractors and a restaurant owner also got busted. That’s how bad the Public Works Dept is here. Anyway, two years ago voters voted to replace them with something called the Sanitation and Streets Dept and Commission. Their job is to clean up the city and have oversight on their spending.
Supervisor Aaron Peskin freaked out over the extra cost of a none corrupt Dept costing an extra 6 million dollars out of the 14 BILLION dollar budget of SF so he was like, “Bring back the corrupt Public Works Department that stole our money and did not clean up anything!!!!!!” He sponsored this Proposition which you should absolutely vote NO on, meaning that SF would continue to have Sanitation and Streets Dept and Commission cleaning up instead of the Public Works Dept. If it costs a little extra to keep me from stepping in human feces then I am all for it!
YES on Prop C: Homeless Oversight Commission
Keeping with the theme of public corruption, it turns out that the Department of Homelessness and Support Housing has a budget of 672 million a year but currently HAS NO OVERSIGHT WHATSOEVER! I’m sorry to shout but WTF???? It seems to be really working (lol) and also like, what are they doing with all that money? No one knows without audits and oversight. (This is actually a theme through all of the propositions.)
Prop C would open its books for the public to review. The homeless services would be subject to audit by the Controller and spending will be monitored by a 7 person board. I am voting yes!
NO on Prop D: Affordable Housing Now (but not really)
Prop D and E are both really similar. I think are both are really crazy money grabs set up by unions and builders but D is way weirder and crazier than E. If they both pass then the one with the most votes gets passed. So the average time it takes to get a building permit in SF is 27 months which IS really bad and SF should probably hire more people to review permits and move things through faster but Prop D is not the solution.
A bunch of developers got together and wrote up this Prop that would result in making them millions and not actually create any affordable housing. It makes housing developments no longer subjected to any oversight whatsoever! No CEQA review, no approval from neighborhood boards, commissions or officials. The law would be written that all applications must be passed within 180 days. Oh, I’m sure that won’t create dangerous housing and building conditions. Not to mention these builders can literally build anything they want with no input from the public. Did you love having a sunny little patch that you could grow tomatoes in? Sorry, a developer just built a 12 story condo next door that blocks your light and your window and you get no say in it.
Also, it eliminates SF’s rule of having to allow a few people in each building to pay for the housing based on earning 80% or less of the median salary. So it doesn’t actually create affordable housing.
NO on Prop D!
NO on Prop E!: Affordable Housing (also or whatever)
This is another weird, unmonitored building proposition that unions and builders have invented that seems very similar to Prop D but just not as severe. I guess if you want to choose one it should be Prop E, but they both seem like they will rush projects, disallow oversight by residents and not really make that much affordable housing. At least Prop E still follows the 80% rule but they don’t have to have to have that many affordable units. So I’m voting no on this one too.
YES on Prop F!: Support Libraries
I love libraries so much. Not everyone has wifi or can afford to just go buy a book. Libraries are safe spaces for kids that need somewhere to be after school. I love libraries! This will extend the Library Preservation Fund for 25 more years at no extra cost to taxpayers.
YES on Prop G: Student Success Fund
I’m voting yes on this because instead of spending money on unmarked islands in the middle of roads that people crash into, I think the city should spend its money on reducing public school class sizes, increasing teacher pay and promoting tech and trade schools.
YES on Prop H: City Elections in Even Numbered Years
This is great for local democracy! Nearly twice as many people vote in SF elections during even years (like presidential elections and midterms). Prop H would put our Mayor, Controller, DA, City Attorney and Sherriff on the ballot when people are actually paying attention. This would reduce the chances of slimy little worms and shitty propositions slipping through when voters aren’t paying attention. Vote yes on this please!
NO on Prop I: Vehicles on JFK and Great Highway
So Prop I and Prop J are similar so don’t get tricked by this one. Prop I is sponsored by a rich heiress that is also a Trumper which freaks me out. It would stop the current plan to remove the highway from the south end of Ocean Beach allowing enough space for future erosion to take place. Prop I wants to keep the highway by building a sea wall and it also calls to reopen the Great Highway on weekends and Week days AND it calls to reopen JFK drive in Golden Gate Park. It would cost at least 80 million dollars and a bunch of time.
I’m voting no because sea walls create even more erosion to beaches than just leaving them alone and anytime you build them they end up interfering with how waves break. So even though as a surfer I’m stressed about losing that strip of highway for my surfing convenience, I have to be the bigger person and realize that it is the best option for the future. Also there is a waste management plant there so keeping the highway and building a giant sea wall can potentially risk waste dumping into the ocean.
YES on Prop J: Recreational Use of JFK
I’m voting yes on this because there are still a lot of thoroughfares in the park to drive around in, shuttles to get everyone to museums, buses and underground tunnels leading to the DeYoung. It’s nice to let people rollerskate around JFK drive without getting runover. It also allows the Great Highway to be closed to cars on the weekends and allow them on the weekdays. This seems like a nice compromise.
YES on Prop L: Support Transportation Authority
For a half a cent sales tax we can keep public transportation running smoothly and I think that’s a good thing.
NO on Prop M: Tax on Keeping Residential Units Empty
This would charge landlords a tax on any units that they leave vacant for any reason. This is supposed to stop rich buyers from just buying up buildings and sitting on them to sell later without having to deal with tenants which are almost impossible to get rid of because of our renter protection laws. Believe it or not I’m voting no on this because people that are rich enough to own giant buildings in SF and just sit on them are so rich they really don’t give a shit about your taxes because fixing up a place and then trying to evict someone for no reason is even more expensive. But also, we’ve already gone over that it takes two years to get a building permit and there are a lot of old, moldy buildings in this city that need to get fixed up to be livable and I don’t think the city should force owners to do a shitty fix up job, rent it out and then give their tenant a disabling allergy to black mold. I’m voting no on this one.
YES on Prop N: Golden Gate Park Take Over Parking Facility
So speaking of public corruption, there’s an 800 space parking garage that has been run by a nonprofit for the past few years called the Golden Gate Park Concourse Authority that recently got busted for a 4 million dollar embezzlement scandal. So the city is like, “How about we just stop you from running this parking lot in our park and all the money you’re stealing can go back into the city.”
Yes, this should happen.
YES on Prop O: Support City College with a Parcel Tax
I love community colleges. They really lift up communities. This would be a small parcel tax, about $75 a year extra but it would increase our City College programs. It would fund English and technology programs, equity programs, job placement and trade schools.
Elected Officials in SF
School Board:
Lisa Weissman-Ward
Lainie Motamedi
Ann Hsu
District Attorney:
Brooke Jenkins
Public Defender:
Mano Raju
Superintendent of Public Instruction
Tony Thrumond
State Assembly Member, District 17
Matt Haney
Community College Board:
I skipped this. I feel like I’m not going to be able to figure out the differences of each candidate so I’ll leave it up to people really involved in City College.
State of California
I’m voting Democratic on every candidate because I don’t vote for a political party that wants to strip me of my bodily rights. I don’t care if it’s for the City Dog Catcher, I will never vote for a Republican because their party does not care about my human rights. So I filled out D for every candidate. I voted yes on all the listed judges because those are appointed by Gavin Newsome, a Democrat.
Propositions
YES on Prop 1: Constitutional Right to Reproductive Freedom Constitutional Amendment
The title says it all. Vote yes to preserve human rights and bodily autonomy for women by enshrining abortion rights into our state constitution. Thanks!
NO on Prop 26: Allows in person gambling on tribal lands
Prop 26 and Prop 27 are both confusing but I’m voting no on both. The number one reason I’m voting no on Prop 26 is it gives a boost to horse racing facilities which will keep their cruelty going for a few more years still. 1600 horses have died in horse racing in the past ten years. For this reason I am voting no.
NO on Prop 27: Allows online Gambling outside Tribal lands blah blah blah
This is the second unclear and shady gambling initiative that I don’t really care about except it’s sponsored by out of state online gambling companies and just seems like a weird money grab. They’re like, “Let’s say it helps homeless people so Californians will vote on it.” Whatever guys, 90% of profits will go to out of state gambling companies and is opposed by over 50 California Tribes. It’s a no from me.
YES on Prop 28: Provides additional funding for Arts and Music in Public Schools
Yes, fucking awesome. Bring art and music back to California’s kids. The arts grow kids’ brains, turns them into innovative thinkers and improves their ability to learn. Not to mention art and music changes the world. Barely one out of five schools have art and music programs. Let’s change that. Vote YES!
NO on Prop 29: Requires on site licensed medical professionals at kidney dialysis clinics
Here’s a hot tip about how to decide how to vote on Propositions. Always find out who is sponsoring them and who threw money at them to get them into existence. Oh wow, look, this one is sponsored by International Union-United Healthcare Workers. Hmmm, why would they want to force kidney dialysis clinics to have nurses? $$$$$$$ Kidney dialysis clinics have been doing just fine without this law. If it passes a bunch of clinics that literally save lives with their care will be shut down. Vote no on this to keep these clinics open.
YES on Prop 30: Provides funding for programs to reduce Air pollution and prevent wildfires with tax on incomes over 2 million
Anyone that makes over 2 million a year most likely has a giant lawn that stays green year round because they don’t give a shit about lawns being the number one thing that wastes California’s water. While the rest of us are taking 3 minute showers they’re watering their sprawling lawns every day at noon. So I’m voting yes on this to help with our wild fire response and prevention.
NO on Prop 31: Referendum on 2020 law that prohibits retail sale of candy flavored tobacco products
Vaping is disgusting and actually way worse than smoking. I don’t care about supporting it in the least and I don’t care if you vote yes on this. I’m voting no on the principle that I don’t like government and fellow citizens telling businesses what they can and cannot invent or what they are offended by. If the public hates something and thinks it’s bad they just won’t buy it. Cigarette sales have consistently fallen over the past twenty years. Anyway, it’s already illegal to sell these products to minors. If you fail as a parent and your kid hates you enough to go illegally purchase candy flavored vaping products then you have bigger problems, actually. I’m voting no but you should do whatever you want.
Thanks for reading this and thank you for voting!!!!!!
