Endorsements
Alioto for mayor, Hallinan for D.A., Yes, Yes, Yes on Props. H and L, and No, No, No on Prop. M – our complete recommendations for the Nov. 4 San Francisco election

FOR MONTHS, while the entire world watched the state of California go through the recall election, most of the news media have ignored the fact that San Francisco also has a high-stakes election coming up. And now that the recall is over and the local election is just three weeks away, candidates and supporters and foes of the 14 ballot measures are scrambling to get attention.

We've spent the past six weeks interviewing the candidates and analyzing the measures for what may go down as the first post-Willie Brown-era election. It's a critical time for the city, and the outcome will set the tone for years to come. Our recommendations follow.

Mayor

Angela Alioto

This is a tough choice for us, one of the most difficult in 37 years of endorsing candidates for local office. And it's not the kind of problem we're used to: there are actually three good choices, three strong progressive candidates, any of whom would be far better than the front-runner, Sup. Gavin Newsom. On balance, we're endorsing Angela Alioto.

This is a crucial race, not only because it will determine who will lead San Francisco through the tough, possibly ugly days ahead – a time when, thanks to a recession that shows no end and a president and governor-elect who are very unlikely to provide significant financial aid to cities, San Francisco's already serious budget problems are likely to become catastrophic. The race also marks the effective end of the Brown-Burton machine: Mayor Willie Brown will be out of office, probably for good, and state senator John Burton's last term ends a year from now. So the next mayor will be the first postmachine mayor, the one who will help set the tone not only for public policy but also for the state of local politics. After eight years of the most corrupt administration in modern history, it's essential that San Francisco get a real change.

Newsom, sadly, does not represent that change. He's not precisely a machine politician (although he was first appointed by Brown and has been a loyal Brown vote on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors) – in fact, by almost all accounts, Brown is less than thrilled by Newsom, and some of Brown's cronies are worried the young restaurateur (who has the backing of one of the world's richest families, the Gettys, and thus doesn't need as much lobbyist cash) won't play their game. But on the real issues, the ones that will determine the city's future, he's very much in sync with the politics of the past.

Newsom opposes balancing the city budget with new taxes on big business. He told us he wants to cut spending – and although he was alarmingly vague about how he'd accomplish that, the kind of reductions needed to cover a huge and growing deficit will only come from significant service cuts. He has strong support from landlords and opposes increased tenant protections. He wants to leave the city's housing future primarily in the hands of the private sector (which has never built, and will never build, a significant amount of affordable housing). And his signature issue, the one he's basing his entire campaign on, is an attack on homeless people.

In his interview with our editorial board, Newsom repeatedly sought to defend Care Not Cash and his new anti-panhandling measure – but was unable to explain how his plan will translate into new services for the needy (especially when he won't set aside any new money for what even the city's budget analyst, Harvey Rose, says will be an expensive proposition). When you get right down to it, what Newsom wants is to make life hard enough on the city's most vulnerable residents that they'll leave town and go somewhere else. That's a cruel and inhuman approach that has no place in San Francisco.

So the number-one priority for progressives in this city has to be defeating Newsom. That will be tough: he's already far ahead in the polls (close to 20 points ahead of the closest challengers), and because it's unlikely anyone will finish with more than 50 percent of the vote Nov. 4, Newsom will go into a runoff (three short weeks later) with a huge pile of campaign cash. The three progressives who are fighting for the right to take him on all have obvious strengths and weaknesses.

Sup. Matt Gonzalez, the newcomer to the race, entered just shortly before the August filing deadline. He's president of the Board of Supervisors, a Green Party member, and a smart, committed progressive. Although he's only been on the board since 2001, he's proved he can form alliances (an unusual left-right coalition gave him the surprising victory in the board president race) and can take on tough issues (he's been willing to challenge Brown on everything from the cost of mayoral "special assistants" to business taxes to the quality of some commission nominees, even when few other progressives on the board would go along with him). He's also shown he can govern: under his leadership the board engineered a remarkably painless budget in a terrible financial situation.

By far the best debater in the field, the former defense lawyer argues he would be able to expose Newsom as an intellectual lightweight. And his entry into the race has generated a lot of energy, especially on the east side of town. In a sense, Gonzalez's campaign represents the passing of the political torch to the next generation of progressives: as the machine dies out, San Francisco has a wealth of bright young political leaders emerging, and that's one of the most hopeful signs in local politics.

But after less than three years in office, Gonzalez lacks the political and policy-making experience needed to run a city as complex as San Francisco (and lead a political culture as complex as the one we have). We're passing on him this time, with the hope that it won't be our last chance to back him for higher office.

Sup. Tom Ammiano, whose write-in mayoral campaign four years ago electrified the city, has been active in local politics for more than a quarter century. From the days when he helped fight for the rights of openly gay teachers to his four years on the school board and his nearly nine years on the Board of Supervisors, Ammiano has been an outspoken, consistent champion of progressive causes and a foe of corruption and machine politics. For many years he was the only supervisor activists could count on to take up their causes, and his office was something of a haven for tenants, labor leaders, environmentalists, neighborhood advocates, foes of downtown, and supporters of public power.

Ammiano's been far more than a self-interested politician: he lead the movement to restore district elections and the political revolt that brought the current progressive board to power. A lot of the next generation that Gonzalez represents wouldn't be in office today if not for Ammiano. And he's responsible for a long list of key legislation, from domestic partners rights to tenant protections. He's experienced and talented, and he has a great sense of humor. We'd be more than happy to see him in the Mayor's Office.

But Ammiano has made some bad political mistakes in the past two years. He's tried (somewhat clumsily) to move to the political center, in the process angering key parts of his base – without picking up much support from moderates. That's hurt his ability to generate the massive amount of political energy he would need to pull off a long-shot upset of Newsom. His campaign was late getting started and hasn't raised nearly the amount of money it will take to mount a serious fight against Newsom.

That leaves Angela Alioto.

Alioto, like Ammiano, has a long record in local politics. She served eight years on the Board of Supervisors, where she was tireless in the defense of the downtrodden and a passionate, outspoken champion for public health, low-income people, the neighborhoods, and public power. In fact, she was one of the very few politicians in San Francisco who openly, aggressively pushed for public power and took on Pacific Gas and Electric Co. in the 1980s and early 1990s, before the deregulation disaster and rate hikes put the issue on the front pages of the daily papers. She created the first public power committee on the board and helped put one of the most important issues in the city's history on the top of the progressive agenda, where it belongs.

We have some real disagreements with Alioto: She's never been much of a supporter of district elections (although, to her credit, she told the Democratic County Central Committee she would support the current district system as mayor). She's far too reluctant to talk about raising taxes on business, and told us she'd balance the budget by eliminating 6,000 city jobs.

But we like her political courage, demonstrated by her willingness to take on issues like public power when nobody else would. And we like her passion and energy, her determination to root out corruption at city hall, and her genuine concern for the people Newsom is trying to demonize. And – perhaps most important for this race – Alioto has a real chance to defeat Newsom in a runoff. Her success as a civil rights lawyer has brought her considerable personal wealth, enough to finance a credible fight against Newsom's downtown-backed juggernaut in a citywide election. And she's demonstrated an ability to draw votes from across the city, not just from the more liberal east side. She's also the only woman among the four major contenders for the top spot (for better or for worse, we don't see City Treasurer Susan Leal finishing better than a weak fifth).

So, with a tip of the hat to a legend of the city's progressive past (Ammiano) and a nod of encouragement to a representative of the future (Gonzalez), we're endorsing Alioto – the one who can make sure, right here and now, that Gavin Newsom is not the next mayor of San Francisco.

A dissenting view: Tom Ammiano for mayor

Some Bay Guardian staffers disagreed with the decision to endorse Angela Alioto for mayor. This is their dissenting view.

We believe the right choice in this election is Tom Ammiano. After more than a quarter century in public life – as an activist, a school board member, and a supervisor – Ammiano has repeatedly demonstrated his integrity on progressive causes. His record is impressive: he pushed through district elections, which made it possible for independent and left candidates to win seats on the Board of Supervisors and broke Mayor Willie Brown's grip on board politics. On the board he championed domestic partner benefits and protections for tenants, and he led the move to provide a living wage for city and nonprofit workers. He has been a stalwart on public power and is responsible for strengthening the city's open-government, clean-election, conflict-of-interest, and lobbying laws.

And after all this time, Ammiano is still a quirky, sympathetic person who comes from working-class roots and remains committed to helping San Francisco's lower-income communities.

He has also demonstrated the kind of bravery we'd like to see in a mayor of San Francisco, coming out back in 1975 while he was still a public school teacher. Later, on the Board of Supervisors he fought for rights for queers, kids, tenants, and the rest of the city's everyday people. For many years Ammiano was the lone voice for change on fundamental structural issues this paper has always supported.

Even with his left leanings, in the past Ammiano has garnered citywide appeal. In 1998 he received more votes than any other candidate for the board. The next year he generated such hope across many sectors in the city that in his write-in campaign for mayor forced Brown into a runoff election. If it weren't for the unprecedented amount of soft money wielded by Brown's allies, the outcome of that race might have been much different. Ammiano went on in 2000 to support a crop of candidates for the first district-elected board who replaced nearly every one of Brown's picks for supervisor.

Since then Ammiano's critics on the left have charged that he has wavered, that in an effort to position himself for the mayor's race he has moved toward the political center. Meanwhile Matt Gonzalez has emerged as an exciting new leader during his first few years in office, and his campaign is generating energy citywide; with more political seasoning he will become the one to beat.

This may be Ammiano's last shot at the mayoralty, which is probably why he's tried to become a negotiator on the board. The decision to lean toward pragmatism has earned him his recent criticism from the left, but building coalitions that produce successful legislation (even if that legislation isn't perfect) may in fact be a worthwhile goal for a man who wants to be mayor. There's no sign Ammiano has let go of his core values.

Money is again a factor in this election. Ammiano so far has the least, and he has never been a strong fundraiser. But his candidacy represents the ideals and goals of the left, and in a runoff against Gavin Newsom, Ammiano – who still speaks with passion, conviction, and candor and would be the first openly gay mayor elected in a large U.S. city – would use the campaign trail to continue pushing forward those issues. For many, many years Ammiano was the public official – often the only public official – that progressives of all stripes could go to for help, and for many, many years he fought against the odds to champion their causes. He's earned our support.

District attorney

Terence Hallinan

When Terence Hallinan became district attorney in 1995, his supporters had high hopes that putting a leading progressive in the city's top criminal justice post would translate into throwing fewer small-time drug offenders in jail (and instead sending them to diversion programs) and more aggressive prosecutions of government corruption, landlords who abuse tenants, and big businesses that defraud customers.

Eight years later the record is decidedly mixed.

A longtime champion of medical marijuana rights, Hallinan has delivered well on the first count. And he's made moves to focus the District Attorney's Office more on violent crimes that affect the daily lives of San Franciscans, making major inroads, for example, in dealing with domestic violence.

On the other fronts, Hallinan was until recently largely a disappointment. When ballots mysteriously disappeared from City Hall on election night 2001 and a public power ballot measure went down by about 500 votes, Hallinan never seriously pursued charges that Pacific Gas and Electric Co. stole the election. When the Bay Guardian revealed that John J. Tennison and Antoine Goff had been improperly convicted by one of Hallinan's predecessors and were serving life in prison for a crime someone else confessed to, Hallinan refused to reopen the case. Even in 1999, when the Federal Bureau of Investigation was crawling all over city hall, Hallinan was largely missing in action.

But to his credit, his Office of Special Prosecutions has won some major consumer-fraud cases, including a $300 million one against Providian Bancorp. And in the past year Hallinan's dissociation from Mayor Willie Brown has finally grown to the point that he's been willing to go after a few big political cases.

Last November he succeeded in getting $500,000 returned to the San Francisco Unified School District and procuring an additional $500,000 in fines through his office's case against a former district employee for his alleged involvement in an illegal contracting scheme. Former facilities chief Tim Tronson (a Brown ally) is facing a 22-count criminal indictment. And Hallinan has filed criminal conflict-of-interest charges against the mayor's former Planning Commission president, Hector Chinchilla.

And, most famously, he indicted almost the entire command staff of the San Francisco Police Department this spring, alleging a cover-up after Alex Fagan Jr., son of the assistant chief, was charged with beating up two men outside a Union Street bar.

That case, which has come to be known as Fajitagate, demonstrates exactly why so many people are still frustrated with Hallinan. He had the courage to take on a major police-abuse case and pursue it all the way to the top – but he wound up losing the entire cover-up case, in part, critics say, through less-than-stellar prosecutorial work. That's Hallinan's major vulnerability: he's not a strong manager, and his office seems to lack direction.

Hallinan has two challengers. Bill Fazio, a defense lawyer and former prosecutor, is making his third run for the post. He has matured politically and now tells us, for example, that he doesn't support the death penalty and would never ask for it in a San Francisco case. He's even endorsed Proposition H, the police reform initiative, and has eschewed the open backing of the Police Officers Association. He has a professional campaign going and has raised more than $177,000.

Fazio is a decent person and an experienced trial lawyer. But he still wants to increase prosecutions for quality-of-life offenses and is a bit too conservative for our taste.

Kamala Harris, a former prosecutor now working for the City Attorney's Office, is a sharp lawyer with a solid (if somewhat exaggerated) court record. She has offered some credible ideas: she told us, for example, that she would use her office to conduct regular training for police officers to make sure they know the latest in legal rulings on civil rights, searches, etc., and would track officers who are repeatedly cited in court for breaking those rules.

But her support for Sup. Gavin Newsom's anti-panhandling initiative undercuts her claim to progressive values. And her flouting of the city's campaign-finance laws – and her disingenuous attempt to excuse it as simple confusion – deeply hurts her credibility.

More important, Harris has strong ties to Brown and his political machine. Brown helped her career by appointing her to two high-paying state commissions, and his wealthy allies are helping raise money for her. In her interview with our editorial board, she refused repeatedly to say a single word critical of the mayor's ethics or to even acknowledge that his administration has been riddled with corruption. If she can't find even a speck of dirt in one of the filthiest political operations in San Francisco history, we can't trust her to run the District Attorney's Office.

Hallinan isn't perfect – but at a time when the federal government is openly attacking civil liberties across the board (and cracking down on San Francisco's medical marijuana program), the state legislature continues to look for new ways to criminalize kids, immigrants, and political dissenters, and the leading candidate for mayor has hooked his political future on an attack on the poor and homeless, it's critical to have a district attorney in San Francisco who is willing to stand up for progressive values. Vote for Terence Hallinan.

Sheriff

Michael Hennessey

Mike Hennessey isn't your typical sheriff. He's a jailer who cares about prisoners, a law enforcement officer who's critical of much of the traditional law enforcement agenda.

Hennessey, whose background is in social work, has an unglamorous job. The cops collar rapists and robbers and homicidal maniacs. The District Attorney's Office goes to court and – at least occasionally – convicts them. And Hennessey, well, he runs the city's seven jails, home, at least temporarily, to more than 2,000 inmates.

He takes his job seriously, and he's become something of a national figure in the criminal justice reform movement by establishing a vast array of classes and services: acupuncture, drug counseling, yoga, meditation, art therapy, horticulture, and seminars tailored to batterers and johns and struggling mothers. At a time when the state and federal prison systems have abandoned the notion of rehabilitation, Hennessey is trying his best to extricate people from the clutches of the criminal justice machine.

His only opponent in the race is veteran deputy sheriff Tony Carrasco, an ex-Marine who promises to bring a more generic law enforcement style to the job. Carrasco, who's raised little money and less buzz, is unlikely to deny Hennessey a seventh term in office.

While we're happy to endorse Hennessey, we wish he'd use his safe sinecure and pulpit to speak out on more progressive causes. He ought to come out a little more visibly against the drug war. He should be leading the charge for local police reform. We'd like to see him push the state prison officials and jailers in other counties to emulate his approach to corrections. Hennessey could be a major national leader and spokesperson for a new approach to law enforcement, and he isn't living up to that potential.

Ballot measures

Proposition A

School bonds

YES The San Francisco Unified School District has been under fire for fiscal mismanagement for years, and the facilities department – the agency that manages capital projects like the ones this bond act would pay for – has received the bulk of the criticism. Much of it is well deserved: projects were started willy-nilly, money was transferred between accounts almost at whim, and inexcusable facility situations were far too often neglected.

But these are old problems. There's a new school chief in town, one whom everyone agrees runs a tight financial ship – in fact, Superintendent Arlene Ackerman is the one who brought in the Federal Bureau of Investigation to investigate problems that took place under her predecessor's regime.

The SFUSD has probably never been in better shape to take on facilities bonds. It has just completed a full assessment of facility resources and needs – the first ever of its kind. There are new systems to track finances and construction, as well as a new contract-compliance office. And for any doubters, Proposition A includes an extremely detailed spending plan with no room for unapproved projects.

Much of the work outlined in the $295 million bond act is needed to make the schools accessible to people with disabilities, which is both laudable and legally required. The rest of the money would go to equally necessary projects like revamping old plumbing and electrical wiring systems, replacing bungalows that date to World War II, and greening some of the schools. Prop. A would fund projects in every major high school (though the $15 million worth of bonds for School of the Arts won't be sold until $18.8 million in private capital has been raised). And it would allow the SFUSD to collect $40 million in matching funds from Sacramento.

The idea is to get the schools renovated so they can last another 50 to 100 years with just normal maintenance. According to Ackerman, the $295 million in bonds would only cover a portion of the facility work the school district believes is necessary in the long term. She says that she wants the district to demonstrate it can be trusted to spend public money efficiently and well – and that ultimately the district needs close to a billion dollars to catch up with deferred maintenance and necessary upgrades.

We're deeply troubled that Ackerman has instituted what amounts to a gag order on district employees and that the school board won't put itself under the Sunshine Ordinance (see Editorial, 10/8/03). When you're asking the public for the down payment on a billion dollars, you need to make it perfectly clear there are, and will be, no secrets, no backroom deals – and no constraints on whistle-blowers.

Still, these school bonds will also be subject to new state requirements for auditing and monitoring. In fact, a panel of state and local representatives and building experts will be charged with overseeing them step by step.

It's absolutely wrong to punish San Francisco schoolchildren for the sins of the old district bureaucrats who've recently been run out of town. Ackerman needs to rescind the gag order, but we'll support Prop. A.

Proposition B

Retirement benefits for safety employees

YES Proposition B would let about 440 city and community college employees – probation and airport police officers and district attorney, public defender, and medical examiner investigators, along with juvenile court counselors, some police and fire safety inspectors, and some fire protection engineers – negotiate with the Board of Supervisors or the Community College Board to get better retirement benefits so long as the workers pay for them. Essentially, the measure gives these "miscellaneous" public safety employees the same rights other peace officers employed by the city and the Community College District already have.

Since the matter involves a change in the section of the City Charter dealing with retirement benefits for city employees, it must go before voters. In 1996 a measure that would have allowed city officials to alter retirement benefits for employees without a vote of the people was defeated at the polls.

Although Prop. B specifically states that all changes would have to be "cost-neutral" to the city, it is likely the legislation would still end up costing local government coffers more in the long run. That's because the amount involved in the salary-for-benefits swap can change when new contracts are negotiated. (The "cost-neutral" requirement only pertains to current contracts.)

Prop. B was put on the ballot by all 11 members of the Board of Supervisors and is supported by the San Francisco Democratic Party and key leaders in the law enforcement community including Public Defender Jeff Adachi, Sheriff Michael Hennessey, and District Attorney Terence Hallinan. Opposition is limited to a few members of the local Republican Party and the San Francisco Association of Realtors. We see no reason not to back it.

Proposition C

City services auditor

YES Proposition C would create an official auditing division for the city under the auspices of the Controller's Office. The idea is that this independent unit would make government more efficient and responsive by monitoring some key city services, auditing programs and investigating complaints. The proposal would also create a funding source for the work by setting aside 0.2 percent of the annual city budget. That means, for example, that the controller's budget would increase from $3.2 million to $8.5 million during fiscal year 2003-04.

Prop. C also sets up a whistle-blower hotline and a system (including a Web site) for handling citizen complaints related to "the quality and delivery of City services, and about government waste, fraud and inefficiency." Placed on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors (with only Chris Daly voting against it), Prop. C is supported by organizations representing progressive and downtown interests, including the Harvey Milk Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Democratic Club, the San Francisco Democratic Party, the San Francisco Labor Council, San Francisco Tomorrow, SFSOS, and the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association. Although this measure originated with the downtown-funded SFSOS, and although some say it still places too much emphasis on auditing street and sidewalk cleaning and maintenance of public parks over other concerns, it's squarely aimed at reforming government. It has no significant opposition. Vote Yes.

Proposition D

Small Business Commission

YES Unless you happen to be in City Hall in the evening on the second Monday of each month, there's a good chance you don't know San Francisco already has a Small Business Commission. It was formed in 1999, as part of the Department of Business and Economic Development, to advise the mayor and the Board of Supervisors on policy decisions that affect small businesses. It serves as a source of information for San Francisco merchants, publishing information about zoning, business permits, disaster preparedness, etc.

But in practice, the commission – whose members were all appointed by Mayor Willie Brown – deals most often with the isolated affairs of a few neighborhoods and routinely overlooks key issues affecting small-business employers and employees. It's effectively a subsidiary of the Mayor's Office.

Proposition D, authored by Sup. Chris Daly, would give the commission power to set policy, and it would split the commission appointments, with the mayor naming four and the supervisors three. It has garnered broad political support.

It took a privately financed report issued last month to show city hall that small business drives the local economy, accounting for 99 percent of all private-sector businesses. (Eighteen years ago the Bay Guardian commissioned a similar report and supported the creation of a small-business commission, but that measure was defeated by big-business interests and then-mayor Dianne Feinstein (see Neighborhood Business, 10/1/03).

An independent Small Business Commission could consider key issues like progressive business taxation and could take an independent look at issues like the minimum wage. And it could take the side of small businesses under attack by big developers and chain stores. Vote yes on D.

Proposition E

Ethics reform

YES Sponsored by Sup. Tom Ammiano at the request of the San Francisco Ethics Commission, Proposition E amounts to a cleaning up of existing laws governing the conduct of city officers and employees. Those include rules dealing with the acceptance of gifts, contracting with the city, lobbying other city officers, disclosing city information, making decisions in which they have a financial interest, and engaging in activities that are "incompatible" with their government work. (In other words, for example, if you're a city building inspector, you can't moonlight as a permit expediter.)

The measure would consolidate these laws (enforced by the Ethics Commission) into the Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code, amend some existing rules, and add some new ones. New provisions include prohibiting city officers and employees from hiring family members, requiring city officials to disclose their personal, professional, and business relationships, further restricting the acceptance of gifts and the activities of employees after they leave office, and requiring city department heads to identify for enforcement officials a list of the activities they consider incompatible with those of the agency.

Prop. E also allows the Ethics Commission – charged with regulating the activities of lobbyists and political consultants in an effort to keep local government clean – to bar from office for 10 years any official convicted of a felony violation.

The San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, the downtown group that opposed the commission's creation in 1993, is against this proposal, arguing it's too specific, clunky, and unwieldy. That's downtown rhetoric for "too likely to inhibit lobbyists." While we're concerned the Ethics Commission is already understaffed, underfunded, and too weak-kneed to handle its important existing duties, we're still backing Prop. E. Vote Yes.

Proposition F

Targeted early retirement

YES The continuing economic slump and a new governor who has pledged not to raise taxes mean that San Francisco is likely to be facing bleak budgets for the next couple of years. It's likely city employees will lose their jobs, and Proposition F would bring some compassion and rationality to that process.

Basically, the measure offers early-retirement incentives to longtime city employees whose departure would spare the job of a newer employee facing the budget axe. It's only a mild tweak to the current law – lowering the retirement threshold by three years and increasing retirement pay for those already eligible to retire who are in job classifications where positions are being cut – and it would expire at the end of June 2005 unless the Board of Supervisors extends it for two years.

It's a voluntary program, so the seasoned veterans who wanted to stay could, while newer, younger workers would be given a career opportunity that the current "last hired, first fired" dynamic wouldn't otherwise allow. Vote yes.

Proposition G

Rainy-day fund

YES One local political wag calls this the "eating your peas measure": you don't always want to do it, but you know it's good for you. Proposition G would take a small but significant step toward breaking the boom-and-bust cycle of the city budget. In a year of "extraordinary revenues" – that is, a year when the city's income rises by more than 5 percent – half of that new money would be deposited in a rainy-day fund. It could be withdrawn in bad years, when revenue is falling (up to half the money could be used in any one year, and another quarter could be shifted to the school district).

The plan, drafted by Supervisor Ammiano, makes so much sense that it's surprising nobody's done it before. If it had been in place during the dot-com boom years, Mayor Brown would have been unable to waste millions of dollars on new special assistants, and some of that money would be available today. Vote yes on G.

Proposition H

Police Commission/Office of Citizen Complaints

YES, YES, YES Only the deluded or comatose think everything's hunky-dory at the San Francisco Police Department these days. Over the past two and a half years, the department, once the best-trained, most respected police force in the Bay Area, has been embroiled in one scandal or mini-scandal after another. An abbreviated list of lowlights:

• In June 2001, cops shot and killed Idriss Stelley, a mentally ill African American man, in a Sony Metreon movie theater. The city eventually paid half a million dollars to settle a civil suit brought by Stelley's mother.

• A couple of weeks later, officers responding to a call in the Potrero Hill housing projects shot and wounded two bystanders.

• In August 2001 the department agreed to implement mandatory sensitivity training after a wave of complaints from transgendered people.

• In January 2002 four black teens in Hunters Point accused cops of severely beating and sexually groping them – and witnesses corroborated the allegations.

• The next month Officer Steven Lee, who had a history of discipline problems, shot to death Gregory Hooper, an unarmed African American man.

• In March 2002, cops shot and killed Richard Rim, who was allegedly waving a knife. A ricocheting bullet fired at Rim hit and seriously injured Vilda Curry, an elderly African American woman.

• The San Francisco Chronicle in May 2002 ran a three-part exposé revealing that the department ranks last among major U.S. cities when it comes to solving serious violent crimes.

• In October 2002 approximately 75 cops descended on Thurgood Marshall High School to quell a fistfight, prompting numerous reports of police brutality.

• During the same month, police shot and killed another mentally ill African American man, Jihad Akbar, in the Bagdad Cafe, a Castro District eatery.

• In November 2002 the Fajitagate debacle began, with officer Alex Fagan Jr., son of the assistant chief, and two other cops allegedly beating two men in front of a Union Street bar. The incident quickly became a scandal of epic proportions when it appeared top police brass sought to cover up the beating, and Fagan Jr.'s history of roughing up citizens came to light.

• This January police officials reassigned Lt. Joe Dutto, who was investigating the Union Street beat-down, spurring Dutto to suggest the probe was turning into a whitewash.

• Protesters with Gay Shame got mauled by officers at a demonstration against Gavin Newsom in February.

• The same month, Inspector James Zerga received a 45-day suspension for falsely arresting and intimidating an elderly neighbor with whom he was having a dispute over property lines.

• On Feb. 27 the district attorney indicted nearly the entire command structure of the SFPD for purported misconduct in the Fajitagate matter. Charges were later dropped against all but the three cops who allegedly started the brawl, but suspicions linger.

• In March 2003 the SFPD got caught violating its own rules by spying on antiwar protesters.

• Shortly thereafter, news leaked out that the SFPD was routinely withholding evidence from defense lawyers in criminal trials.

• In July charges that an SFPD officer may have been involved in a kidnapping attempt surface in the Chron.

• The same month federal Judge Claudia Wilken reversed the 1990 murder conviction of John J. Tennison, saying two famed police detectives – Napoleon Hendrix and Earl Sanders, who recently retired as chief – wrongly buried evidence exonerating Tennison.

So what has the San Francisco Police Commission, whose five members are charged with holding the SFPD accountable and disciplining rogue officers, done in response to this tsunami of scandal?

In a word, nothing. Time after time, the commissioners, who are all appointed by the mayor, have apologized for the amazingly bad behavior of the SFPD, brushed off charges of misconduct, offered nauseating pro-cop platitudes, and treated the citizenry with disdain. The general sense at the Hall of Justice is that the commissioners don't want to embarrass Mayor Brown by dogging the police chief and top brass he's installed at the department.

Proposition H would help solve that problem. It would expand the commission to seven members, give the Board of Supervisors the power to appoint three commissioners, and allow the supes to veto the mayor's appointees. Prop. H would also significantly beef up the Office of Citizen Complaints, the city's police watchdog, which is currently stymied by the foot-dragging tactics of the SFPD. If Prop. H passes, the OCC would be able to compel the force to turn over evidence of misconduct in a timely fashion and would allow the civilian agency to take cases directly to the commission, bypassing the chief, who tends to stonewall on officer misconduct.

In the past year four credible studies – by the OCC, American Civil Liberties Union, the San Francisco Controller's Office, and the city's Civil Grand Jury – have called for reforming the city's dysfunctional police accountability system. Prop. H is a big step toward doing that. Vote yes.

Proposition I

Child care for low-income families

YES Affordable, quality child care and preschool is tough to find almost anywhere, but the struggle is particularly intense in San Francisco. The state has committed to subsidizing costs for some low-income families – those that make less than 75 percent of the state's median income and have children between three and five years old. But not enough money is directed to the program, and an estimated 1,650 of the city's kids fall through the cracks. Proposition I would create a new subsidy program specifically for those children.

On a human level, it's a no-brainer: these kids deserve a safe and enriching place to spend the day, and low-income parents deserve help in trying to juggle the demands of work and raising children. But Prop. I is also smart public policy. Good preschool programs lay the foundation for educational success and are therefore one of the best ways of addressing the educational-achievement gaps that persist across race and income brackets. They also make fiscal sense in the long term. Studies show that every dollar invested in preschool eventually saves seven dollars that would otherwise have to be spent on things like prisons and remedial education. That's one reason Prop. I, also called the Smart Start Initiative, has no real opposition.

Prop. I doesn't designate funding for these subsidies, and that's a problem. It means the mayor and the supervisors will have to find money – either from new revenue sources or from other programs – to fund them each year. We'd have much preferred a designated funding source.

But passing Prop. I will give the city a mandate to make sure each kid gets the preschool opportunities he or she deserves. Vote yes.

Proposition J

Facilities for the homeless

YES Advocates for the homeless will tell you San Francisco's shelter system can be rough for anyone. Many homeless clients say they feel unsafe, particularly those who are disabled or very old and need help with basic functions. It seems pretty obvious the city needs to find ways to improve shelter conditions for all homeless people, and the disabled and the elderly are particularly vulnerable. With homelessness on the forefront of politicians' minds this season, a measure like Proposition J was bound to come up.

Put on the ballot as a part of Angela Alioto's campaign for mayor, Prop. J has been presented as an essential element of implementing her comprehensive homeless plan. And just like that document, Prop. J is a statement of worthy concern for the street population. But like her larger plan, Alioto's ballot measure lacks detail. Prop. J is only a policy recommendation, doesn't create a new source of revenue to pay for homeless services, and won't necessarily lead to major changes.

On the other hand, it's a worthy policy statement, which would put the city on record as supporting special care for the most vulnerable of the homeless population. And unlike some other homeless ballot measures we can think of, it won't hurt the people it purports to help. Vote yes.

Proposition K

Sales tax for transportation

YES Proposition K doesn't raise taxes; it just keeps in place an existing half-cent sales tax to fund varied and valuable transportation projects in San Francisco. It needs a two-thirds vote to pass.

We're not big fans of sales taxes, which hit hardest on the poor. But state law severely limits the ability of cities to raise taxes, and this one would pay for a list of projects that would benefit almost everyone in town. The projects aren't overwhelmingly roads-and-cars-dependent – there's money for bicycle- and pedestrian-safety projects all over the city; construction of an underground Muni connection to Chinatown; bus, ferry, and BART system upgrades; transportation for the elderly and disabled; a Caltrain extension to the new Transbay Terminal; and for drivers, street maintenance and a replaced Doyle Drive to the Golden Gate Bridge.

There's little organized opposition to this plan, and environmental, bicycle, and pedestrian groups all back it, and we support it, too.

Proposition L

Minimum wage

YES, YES, YES Do you remember the last time you worked for minimum wage? For some of us, it was the high school job that pulled in extra spending money, or the college-era work for paychecks that went for beer and books. That may be the story for some of the approximately 27,000 workers who make less than $8 an hour in San Francisco. But the vast majority are adults, many with kids to support, and they're simply trying to make a living in the nation's most expensive city. If they're earning the state minimum wage (which is still $6.75 an hour) and working full time, they're pulling in around $14,040 a year, before taxes. Meanwhile, housing costs continue to climb. A two-bedroom apartment these days can cost $2,000 or more. Do the math – that's $24,000 for rent alone. Even with two full-time workers chipping in, there's not enough for survival, much less a decent quality of life, for people earning minimum wage.

It's not surprising that it's so hard to live on the state minimum: the wage has lost 23 percent of its purchasing power since 1967.

Raising the minimum to $8.50 in San Francisco, as Proposition L would do, won't solve the economic problems of low-wage workers, but it's an important start. Some 54,000 people would get a raise – either because they currently earn the minimum or because they earn just above and are likely to get a boost when the bottom of the pay scale is lifted, according to UC Berkeley professor and labor economist Michael Reich, who headed up a minimum-wage study for the Board of Supervisors. Also key: about 16,000 minimum-wage workers are parents with children, according to an analysis of census data by Prop. L proponents.

And while some business groups are arguing that the boost will hurt small business, studies over the years have consistently found that hikes in the minimum wage don't hurt businesses or lead to long-term reductions in the workforce.

If voters approve Prop. L, San Francisco would become the first major city to take this important step – which is especially important now that Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has vowed to reduce worker-protection requirements on businesses, is headed for the Governor's Office. There will likely be litigation by opponents to stop it, as has happened in other cities, but it's an important precedent to set as a part of the larger fight for worker rights and decent wages.

Proposition M

Aggressive-solicitation ban

NO, NO, NO First there was Care Not Cash, the vicious attack on homeless people that was thrown out by the courts. Now, supervisor and mayoral hopeful Gavin Newsom brings us the son of Care Not Cash: Proposition M. It's another terrible idea that deserves resounding defeat.

Signs all over town declare that 169 homeless people died on the streets last year and that Prop. M will help by directing the city to arrest "aggressive" panhandlers – that is, potentially, almost anyone asking for money on the streets. In theory the city would then assess them for mental health problems, alcoholism, and drug addiction.

What will Prop. M really do?

First of all, in possible violation of the First Amendment, it would criminalize speech, and a report by the state's legislative analyst suggests key portions of it won't hold up to a constitutional test. It's also likely to cost a fortune. According to the city controller, San Francisco will have to spend as much as $900,000 a year on arrests and Department of Public Health assessments. As state senator John Burton points out in his ballot-handbook argument against Prop. M, the police have better things to do.

We don't oppose spending money on homeless services. But Newsom's plan is a mean-spirited, unfunded mandate that will only make life worse for the homeless.

Prop. M also would open the door to a host of other problems. For example, it leaves open to interpretation what an aggressive panhandler is. Will people soon be charged with the equivalent of "panhandling while black?"

Prop. M offers another opportunity for Newsom to appear caring while in fact promoting policy that doesn't make sense. Vote no.

Proposition N

Taxi-permit holder disability

NO This is the latest chapter in a bitter and hard-fought struggle over the fate of 1978's Proposition K, the law that broke up the city's taxicab monopoly. Almost everyone agrees Prop. K needs reform. And this measure is aimed at a real problem that ought to be fixed. But Proposition N isn't the way to do it.

A little history: Prop. K, authored by then-supervisor Quentin Kopp, opened the playing field by taking taxi medallions, the city permits to operate a cab, away from cab companies and handing them over to drivers, allowing the people who actually work on the streets to earn a decent living. This was a major shift: up until that time, medallion holders were more like landlords, earning money off the rent paid by working cabbies.

The key to the change was a simple rule: permits are issued to individual drivers, based on a waiting list (that now runs as long as 15 years). In order to qualify for a medallion, you have to actually drive a cab several shifts a month. Medallion holders can still charge other drivers for the right to use the permit the rest of the time.

But taxi drivers in San Francisco (as in every other major U.S. city) are still independent contractors, which means they work without employer-sponsored health, disability, or retirement benefits. So when a driver who has worked for years gets sick or old, there's very little safety net. That's a source of concern for 912 permit holders, just as it's a problem for the approximately 5,000 drivers without permits who work for them.

Prop. N tries to remedy this, by allowing permit holders who become disabled to keep their permits and continue to earn rental income while others drive their cabs. Proponents charge that taxi drivers who no longer belong behind the wheel are still driving – because they have no other choice. With guaranteed disability payments, they contend, unsafe drivers would get off the road.

That sounds fine. But the way Prop. N, sponsored by the permit-holders association, is written, it only offers such protections to medallion holders – and those benefits would be paid for by the cab drivers who rent from them. Meanwhile, that second class of drivers, that vast majority still on the waiting list for a permit, gets no new protections.

Besides, there's obvious potential for abuse: because the measure never defines "disabled," a permit holder whose disability means he or she can no longer drive might find another career that provides a sound living and still keep the extra cash from the taxi permit for years and years, while some working driver waits that much longer for a permit to become available.

That's not the way to do it. All drivers need disability protections and health care and retirement plans. Because the city regulates medallions, it also has a responsibility to facilitate these benefits for all drivers. Talks have been underway for more than a year, involving several supervisors and drivers and permit holders, to make that happen. Those talks should be accelerated, so that by the time the next mayor is considering his or her first annual budget, taxi driver benefits, including disability, can be factored in. In the meantime, vote no on Prop. N.