Endorsements 2011 - Page 8

Avalos for mayor. Mirkarimi for sheriff. Onek for district attorney. Yes on C, No on D, E, and F ... complete endorsements for the San Francisco election

|
(110)
The Guardian endorses Ross Mirkarimi for San Francisco County Sheriff
GUARDIAN PHOTO BY KEENEY + LAW


STREET REPAVING BOND

There are few more basic functions of government than maintaining the streets. This $248 million general obligation bond would fund improvements to benefit drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transit users. And if San Francisco doesn't make this investment now, it will cost even more later to fix the roads once they've begun to degrade, so this really is a no-brainer. Some — particularly the right-wing, anti-tax scolds — might argue that keeping the roads in good shape should be part of the city's annual budget rather than being paid for with borrowed money repaid by increased property taxes and rents. We might even agree, if the wealthy were being fairly taxed and the city was bringing in at least $248 million in additional annual revenue. But in this era of declining government resources, this bond is desperately needed. Most of it, almost $150 million, goes to resurfacing the streets, while $50 million goes to new improvements (including improved bike lanes) and $22 million each go to signal upgrades and sidewalk and ramp improvements. Leaders from across the political spectrum support it. Vote yes on B.

 

PROPOSITION C

 

PENSION REFORM

 

YES

 

PROPOSITION D

 

PENSION REFORM

 

NO

We'll admit to a bit of political crankiness on this one: Our initial instinct was to oppose both of these measures. Sure, there are abuses in the city's pension system (particularly among public safety employees). Sure, since the stock market crash, the cost to the city of funding the pension system has risen to levels unsustainable in our current fiscal environment. And at some point, the supervisors were going to have to deal with it.

But there's a basic unfairness about all of this that bothers us: The city workers are being asked to give up part of their pay — but the wealthiest individuals and big corporations in San Francisco are giving up nothing. It's part of the national trend — the poor and middle class are shouldering the entire burden of the economic crisis, and the rich aren't suffering a bit.

That said, there's political reality here — both of the pension reform measures will probably pass, and the one that gets more votes will take effect. And there's really no choice between them — Prop. C, the measure written with the input and support of the mayor, the supervisors and labor, is the better option.

The two proposals are complicated. Both would reduce the city's obligation to pay into the employee pension plan, particularly in years when the economy is bad, the stock market is down and the pension fund portfolio is shrinking. Both require city employees to work longer for lower pensions. Both have complex formulas for how that would happen.

Prop. D, written by Public Defender Jeff Adachi, has a slightly better formula for allocating the pain: Under his plan, employees making lower salaries would pay less than employees at the high end of the scale. His is also stronger on pension "spiking" — pensions would be based on the average pay of an employees last five years. Under the City Hall plan, that would be a three-year average.

But overall, Prop. C is a better measure — in large part because it reflects a legitimate process of collective bargaining. Adachi did his plan all by himself, with no input from labor or others at City Hall. Prop. C was hammered out in a series of meetings with members of the board, the mayor, and representatives of the city employee unions that will actually pay for the changes. That, generally, is how the process ought to work.

We would have demanded tax reform before we supported any pension reform, but given the options facing us, we're going Yes on C and No on D.

 

PROPOSITION E

 

NO

 

Comments

i'm white from another country. i agree. this is an extremely exclusive and individualist city. what is true is that this is a new age city, so you'll see some hipsters yuppie doing some yoga, that's what they call being open-minded. just like the burning man community (an icon of SF culture), it's a big joke, it's all about an exclusive club of neo-hippie new age rich and/or young AND white, the open-mindedness is all about being able to wear any kind of costume you want, while saying it's open-minded.

nevertheless, John Avalos is the guy for SF. But we need to help him go in the right direction. He's ready to listen. None of the others are.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 4:21 pm

No idea where you're from or how long you have been 'here', but as a honky originally from another country (been here for over 40 years) I have to say that you have pretty much nailed the yuppie/hipster/trust fund/1% arrivistas who have been steadily homogenizing San Francisco for the past 10+ years. Enjoy what's left while you can, before they turn it into the wasteland they deserted.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Nov. 08, 2011 @ 7:17 pm

Avalos short Documentary. You should post this with the endorsement under his name:
http://vimeo.com/30533608

Posted by Guest on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 4:14 pm

It is a weird position: I am for the purposes of the bonds, but when I read how they will be funded I got nervous. They are funded in installments with a presumed interest rate. Those installments are years apart. The statements are predicting the interest rate for these future times as a cost for these bonds.

No one can know the interest rates six months from now, much less years. Although rates are low now, there is a real possibility they could increase. The bonds could cost much more to fund than the statements say.

Better to have fixed costs.

Posted by Guest Mr. Cranky on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 9:33 am

I wish the hell SFBG would bring back their "Who's supporting Whom?" section, which laid out on a grid what groups and individuals of note were supporting which candidates/props. I guess they don't want us to have that info as it might conflict with the SFBG brass. Some alternative press.

Oh, and I agree with the earlier poster: Leland Yee?

Posted by Dana on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 3:43 pm

John Avalos spoke up loudly when the Israeli military attacked the Gaza peace flotilla
on the high seas, assassinating 9 passengers one of whom was an American citizen, like lawless pirates of a rogue nation and the putative Federal representatives of the American people said nothing against the actions of the murderous Israeli state but counted their
AIPAC sheckles and said Israel alone has the right to disregard law and life at will.

The S.F "Jewish community" made a pro-Israel allegiance a prerequisite for it's AIPAC like endorsement stressing antipathy for the boycott Israel movement sweeping the world.
Herrera, so quick to boycott the American State of Arizona committed publicly to
be against the boycott of thegenocidal rogue state of Israel. If Arizona was to change
it's law to gulag and gradually exterminate the putative objects of it's disapproval would
Herrera then condone Arizona? Or is it just a matter of shekles?
We are very fortunate to have the option of choosing a man of integrity: John Avalos,
for Mayor of San Francisco.

Apparently the two Jewiish Billionaires caused the city pension attack to be on the ballot.
Just as the Judaic Koch billionaires are meddling in Wisconsin's government.

How is it that there ar so may of these Billionaires and the public is ever more impoverished?
What we have is a pattern of billionaire oppression emerging from the purposeful destruction of the US economy. Do we want them to tell us what to do on the local level which is the level
we are most likely able to have a voice that competes with shekles?

Posted by Guest on Nov. 08, 2011 @ 1:03 pm

Just FYI.

Maybe shut the f*ck up next time, as opposed to spouting mass generalizations that do nothing to benefit your candidate?

Duh.

Posted by Guesty-Westy on Nov. 08, 2011 @ 5:09 pm

Given Yee's authorship of a bill that attempted to strip first amendment protections from video games, and Herrera's statement that there is nothing wrong with Proposition L, I'm altogether disturbed by the Guardian's endorsement of them. Is the rightward tilt of the media now infecting the once-progressive Guardian as well?

Posted by Deekoo on Nov. 08, 2011 @ 2:17 pm

Terrible web site! C'mon man! Get your typography and editorial design together. A reader can't put the proposition and its editorial together! Confusing. :(

Posted by Guest on Nov. 08, 2011 @ 4:21 pm
Posted by marke on Nov. 08, 2011 @ 4:55 pm

Related articles

  • Listen to the Guardian's endorsement interviews

  • Guardian endorsements for June 5 election

    Sure, the primaries are a joke -- but your vote still matters. Our take on the trash wars, the DCCC race, and more local elections

  • Campaign cash roundup and questions about our sleeping watchdog