Endorsements 2011 - Page 9

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


CHANGING VOTER-APPROVED MEASURES

The right of the people to directly reform government laws when their elected representatives fail to do so is one of the most cherished and effective electoral reforms of the Progressive Era, when the initiative, recall, and referendum were established. But this measure would have the people voluntarily give up some of that power by allowing the Board of Supervisors to alter or repeal voter-approved ballot measures. Supervisor Scott Wiener, who pushed this measure with support from the big business community, never really explained why it was necessary or what legislation he was targeting — but among the potentially vulnerable measures are tenant protections and the city's transit-first policy.

Wiener argued that this was just about not cluttering up the ballots with minor administrative tweaks. Do you see anything like that on the ballot? No, neither do we, and we aren't buying that this is a problem in need of such a radical solution. The deck is already stacked against grassroots groups forced to resort to gathering signatures or persuading progressive supervisors to sponsor a ballot measure. Supervisors shouldn't be able to undo what voters decide, not with a simple majority vote (after seven years) or even a two-thirds vote (after three years), particularly when they have plenty of power to place new measures on the ballot to address problems unintentionally created by voters. Vote no on E.

 

PROPOSITION F

 

NO

 

CAMPAIGN CONSULTANT RULES

 

Proposition F contains some straightforward, housekeeping-style changes to the city's ethics rules governing the activities of campaign consultants. But it also includes a provision that's fundamentally disempowering to the voters.

On the positive side, the measure would allow the Ethics Commission to accept reports from political consultants electronically, which makes sense, and it would require reports to be filed monthly rather than quarterly. But this is one of those cases of the bad outweighing the good. The definition of a campaign consultant would change from an individual earning $1,000 per calendar year on campaign activities to an individual earning $5,000 per year, effectively dimming the concept of sunshine in open government and making it harder for members of the public to learn of activities that affect local government.

More importantly, F flunks the smell test when it comes to accountability to voters, since it would make it possible for politicians, not just voters, to change the law governing campaign consultant activity. This is a departure from the current system, which requires the voters to weigh in on any change to campaign consultant law. This effectively grants elected officials greater control over the rules their own political consultants must follow, eliminating an important safeguard. Vote no.

 

PROPOSITION G

 

YES

 

SALES TAX INCREASE

San Francisco desperately needs new tax revenue to slow the steady decline in government funding and services over the last 10 years. We'd like to see a variety of options for voters to choose from, particularly options that primarily hit the richest individuals and corporations in the city (such as a local income tax, a commercial rent tax, transit impact fees, etc.). And if there were better options, we might not support Mayor Ed Lee's plan to maintain the current sales tax rate rather than letting it drop by a half-percent as the state rate sunsets.

Sales taxes are regressive, hitting the poor harder than the rich, and not the best funding mechanism. We're also not fond of this measure's provisions to set that money aside to fund public safety programs and services to seniors and children, which is clearly a gimmick by tax-averse politicians to sell this measure to voters.

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