3) San Francisco Ballot Measures
A veritable alphabet soup of propositions crowds the ballot of SF residents next week. Notable among the 26 (!!!) propositions on the ballot are those seeking to restrain the power of the Mayor (or increase bureaucracy), a measure to lower the voting age (or increase progressive turnout), and several that deal with the city’s persistent homeless issues (or persecute the self fortunate).
Propositions to Watch:
Prop D - Vacancy Appointments (50%+1 to pass)
Prop F - Youth Voting in Local Elections (50%+1 to pass)
Prop H - Public Advocate (50%+1 to pass)
Prop J - Funding for Homelessness and Transportation (50%+1 to pass)
Prop K - General Sales Tax (50%+1 to pass)
Prop L - MTA Appointments and Budget (50%+1 to pass)
Prop M - Housing and Development Commission (50%+1 to pass)
Prop Q - Prohibiting Tents on Public Sidewalks (50%+1 to pass)
Limiting of the Mayor’s Power
There are several propositions on November’s ballot in San Francisco that, depending on where you stand on the political spectrum, will either enhance accountability or unnecessarily create more bureaucracy.
Prop H
Proposition H would create a new elected Public Advocate position with a staff of at least 25 people to oversee how city departments interact with the public. The public advocate would investigate complaints from the public and whistleblower complaints, review city programs and practices and appoint the director of the Office of Citizen Complaints.
Proponents have described the office as "an independent watchdog -- with teeth."
"The Public Advocate's sole job will be to make sure San Franciscans are treated fairly by our government," the "Yes on H" campaign website states. They also point to several other cities that have similar positions: New York, Seattle, and Portland. It is estimated that New York’s P.A. “saved the city $163 million by investigating bad city contracts and cutting waste.” (Ballotpedia) Those that have publicly endorsed include SF Democratic Party, SF Tenants Union, SF Examiner and Supervisors David Campos, Aaron Peskin, Jane Kim, Eric Mar, Norman Yee, and John Avalos.
Opponents argue that, according to the City Controller, the new office would cost taxpayers an estimated $3.5 million per year and reproduce roles already played by other city agencies and officials. “We don’t need city government to grow any larger – we need city government to be more efficient and effective. And, we certainly don’t need yet another elected official when we are already paying for a Mayor, 11 Supervisors and their staffs, the Controller, City Attorney and Ethics Commission.” Opponents include former Mayors Dianne Feinstein, Frank Jordan, Willie Brown, and Gavin Newsome. (Ballotpedia)
Props D, L & M
Propositions D and L would place new limits on the mayor's ability to fill vacancies for elected offices including the Board of Supervisors and on the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency Board. Currently, when there is a vacancy in an elected office, the mayor is required to appoint someone to serve the remainder of the term, but there is no time limit for him to do so. The person appointed can then run for office in the next scheduled city election. (Ballotpedia)
Proposition D would require the mayor to make an appointment to fill a vacancy within 28 days and then require the city to hold an election to fill the vacancy within certain time limits. The person appointed would not be eligible to run for election. Proponents state that the proposition would empower voters and limit the power of incumbency. Opponents claim that the new rules that would be imposed would waste voters’ time and money by creating a series of special elections. (Ballotpedia)
Proposition L would change the way appointments are made to the seven-member SFMTA board, which are currently appointed by the mayor with the confirmation of the Board of Supervisors. It calls for the mayor to retain appointment authority over four members of the board while the city council would appoint the other three. (Ballotpedia)
Proposition M would create a new Housing and Development Commission to oversee two new city departments, the Department of Economic and Workforce Development and the Department of Housing and Community Development.
Proposition M would eliminate the existing Office of Economic and Workforce Development and the Mayor's Office of Housing, the heads of which are currently appointed by the mayor, in favor of two new city departments and a new Housing and Development Commission. The new commission would appoint the heads of the two new departments. The seven-member commission would have three nominees from the mayor, three appointees from the Board of Supervisors and one appointed by the City Controller. (Ballotpedia)
As with Proposition H, Senator Feinstein, and former Mayors Jordan, Brown, and Newsome have all come out against D, L, and M.
Prop F - Youth Voting
Here is one to talk over with your unruly teenager at the dinner table: Proposition F seeks to lower San Francisco’s voting age to 16. If approved, the voting age would be lowered for local candidate races and local measures. San Francisco would be the first major city in the U.S. to lower the voting age. (SF Examiner) A clear attempt to take advantage of more impressionable minds, opponents point out that “voting is also considered a privilege of adulthood.” (SF Chron) Not surprisingly, the measures support is dependent on age of the resident. For example, a recent poll found that 71% of 18 to 24 year olds support Prop. F. Only 30% of voters older than 65 favored the measure.
One advantage for supporters is that there is no organized opposition to the measure and support is trending just below the 50% marker for adoption.
Homeless Measures
Props J & K:
While progressives have led the campaigns for governmental reform and accountability, the propositions dealing with the city’s homeless problem have generally drawn their ire.
Prop. J would set aside $101.6 million per year for transit improvements and $50 million per year for homeless services, including more housing and Navigation Centers. Prop. K would pay for it by raising the city’s sales tax 0.75 percent, to a total of 9.25 percent. The two are essentially tied together. Eight members of the Board of Supervisors, as well as Mayor Ed Lee support the measures. Even the ardently liberal SF Bay Guardian stated: “…in the end, the city needs the money, the services are critical, and the tax hike is the only way to pay for the (dubious) set-aside. Hold your nose and vote Yes." (SFG)
“This is saying that the poorest people in our society should disproportionately bear the burden of dealing with the ills of our society,” Supervisor Aaron Peskin said. Supervisors Jane Kim and Norman Yee have joined Peskin in opposition claiming that the city-with a $250 million budget for homelessness and supportive housing-has enough funding.
Supervisor Mark Farrell, a supporter of the sales-tax increase, countered, “The reality is making a serious dent in our homeless issue in San Francisco is a very expensive proposition.” (SF Chron)
Propostion Q:
That bring us to perhaps the most contentious measure on the ballot, Proposition Q: “Prohibiting Tents on Public Sidewalks.” There is perhaps no issue that better showcases the friction between San Francisco’s center-left and the progressive-left than that of how the city manages its persistent homeless problem. The debate over Proposition Q is a fine of example of this divide. Proposition Q is authored by Supervisor Farrell (a rumored future candidate for mayor) with the stated intent of getting “the homeless into housing, not tents.” (SF Chron) The law would ban sidewalk tent camps and require the city to either provide a shelter bed or a bus ticket out of town before getting the go-ahead to confiscate a person's belongings. Farrell said the city can’t continue to let its hundreds of encampments remain, especially since many of them are hotbeds of crime.
Opponents have called Proposition Q cruel and not feasible since there aren’t enough shelter beds for the city’s homeless population as it stands. In addition, opponents point out that existing laws surrounding tent dismantling and temporary displacement of the homeless have only led to an increase in the population and what is needed is a strategy to get people off the streets through permanent housing. The San Francisco Guardian was less than diplomatic in it’s editorial advocating against the measure: “This is one of the most ridiculous, mean-spirited measures to make the city ballot in years. It’s nothing but a pointless way to stir up sentiment against homeless people for political points.” (SFG)
What is the most illuminating part about the Proposition Q debate is the source of the funding for the campaign to pass the measure. Total contributions in support total $680,000 versus a measly $5,500 for the campaign against. (Ballotpedia) The majority of the funding comes from an independent organization called “Committee on Jobs Government Reform Fund” ($355,000) and three Pacific Heights residents-hedge fund manager William Oberndorf, Sequoia Capital partner Michael Moritz, and Silicon Valley investor Ronald Conway (each gave $50,000). (SF Chron) It comes as no surprise that Supervisor Farrell’s district encompasses Pacific Heights and the Marina, where, last we checked, there were a grand total of zero shelters.