SFBG Election Endorsements

San Francisco races and propositionsAssessor-recorder

PHIL TING

After two scandal-plagued assessors in a row, Phil Ting is a breath of fresh air. He was appointed last year by Mayor Gavin Newsom after Mabel Teng abruptly resigned, and he was elected to the post in the fall, beating back a challenge from Sup. Gerardo Sandoval, who had the support of many progressive leaders. Ting is running unopposed this time, but he likely would have won our endorsement anyway because of the quiet professionalism that he has brought to this office.

Ting has diligently gone about hiring competent professionals to chip away at a years-long backlog, bringing millions more dollars into city coffers than we would have otherwise had. He’s also overcome our concerns that he might be too easy on big downtown property owners by taking a tough line with the San Francisco Giants and other powerful entities that have sought to reduce their property taxes and thus hurt the city financially.

Public Defender

JEFF ADACHI

No one’s even bothering to mount a challenge against San Francisco’s popular public defender, Jeff Adachi. A deputy public defender for 15 years, Adachi was first elected to the top position in 2002.

His office won awards in late 2005 from the state bar association for its percentage of women and minorities who advanced to management positions. After he entered office, Adachi created a team of paralegals and expanded his staff of lawyers, which led to lowered caseloads and improved the office’s ability to aggressively advocate for defendants.

Adachi’s major achievements include extending vital social resources to the children of incarcerated parents and developing a clean-slate program that helps convicts overcome hurdles associated with their criminal records. He’s also taken the lead in the drive to stop sending young inmates to facilities maintained by the scandal-plagued California Youth Authority. We’re happy to support his reelection.

BART Board of Directors, District 8

EMILY DRENNAN

James Fang, a Republican whose family once owned the San Francisco Examiner, has held this seat for 16 years. He’s done a few good things — he was supportive of bringing public power to BART, saving millions of dollars — but overall his record is far from distinguished. Among other things, he’s completely ducked the issue of civilian oversight for the BART police, a serious problem that’s been around since he first joined the board.

He’s facing a strong challenge this time from Emily Drennan, an environmentalist (and director of Walk San Francisco) who is full of good ideas and energy. She’s talking about bringing BART to the Geary Street corridor (where more than 65,000 people a day take public transportation) and pushing the board to put more money into improving existing stations, like the one at 16th and Mission streets, instead of wasting millions on new stations with very low ridership. She wants BART to work more closely with Muni (perhaps reducing the amount Muni has to pay for every fast-pass rider who gets on BART). She vowed to push for a civilian oversight agency for the BART police.

Drennan is just the kind of new energy the BART board needs. We’re happy to endorse her.

Board of Supervisors, District 2

DAVE KIDDOO (WRITE-IN)

Just as we were prepared to give no endorsement in this dismal race (and we hate to do that when there’s an actual contest and someone’s going to win), along comes a bona fide progressive, Dave Kiddoo, with an intriguing write-in campaign.

Kiddoo is a project manager for EAH, a nonprofit developer of affordable housing, who holds solidly progressive views on a wide range of issues and was encouraged to run by the League of Pissed Off Voters. He pulled candidacy papers Sept. 27 and has until Oct. 24 to turn them in and qualify as an official write-in candidate. It’s likely he’ll qualify.

Kiddoo should have jumped into the race earlier, just like the rest of the candidates. But he told us that he didn’t “realize what the situation was until it was too late.... There are enough progressives in the district that they deserve a choice.”

The “situation” that he refers to is having two truly unpalatable choices.

We know little about challenger Vilma Guinto Peoro, but we do know a little something about incumbent supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier, who has been one of the worst board members in recent memory.

Alioto-Pier has only sporadically attended board meetings over the past year. And when she is there, she contributes little to the discussion except mindless platitudes on behalf of her downtown sponsors. The most notable legislation she has sponsored was an alternative to a landmark measure limiting downtown parking structures. Her proposal had actually been written by development attorneys and went nowhere.

The one bright spot in her record is that she has repeatedly injected disability issues into various policy discussions. Yet even when she does, it is sometimes done in the service of other, hidden agendas, as when she stalled the Healthy Saturdays measure at the last minute, raising concerns about access to the park concourse area for those with disabilities, even though the bill sponsor had already accepted every amendment offered by the Mayor’s Office on Disabilities and the disabled community.

Kiddoo and his supporters say they plan to run an aggressive grassroots campaign — relying on the Internet, word of mouth, and walking precincts — stressing issues of economic justice: poverty reduction, affordable housing, public power, civil rights, improved mass transit, and basic human rights for the homeless. We wish them luck in giving District 2 voters a real choice.

Board of Supervisors, District 4

JAYNRY MAK

District 4 will never be represented by someone like Chris Daly. It’s a relatively conservative area for San Francisco, and all of the six candidates favor property owners over renters and expect taxes to be low and government activity limited mostly to economic development, police protection, and pothole repairs.

But this race is about more than clear ideology: the incumbent, Fiona Ma, who is leaving to run for the State Assembly, was allied with the mayor and the downtown power structure almost 100 percent of the time — and those forces are strongly lining up behind former police commissioner Doug Chan.

Chan would be a disaster. He was a rubber stamp for the cowboy cops, opposing basic transparency and accountability measures and countenancing the abusive tactics of a handful of bad officers.

Since he was effectively ousted from that job by a voter-backed reform measure, Chan has been a political mercenary for conservative groups such as SFSOS and the Republicans who sponsor it, repeatedly throwing rhetorical gasoline on the divisive politics within the school district and supporting an overly generous payout to departing superintendent Arlene Ackerman. Chan’s personal style and political loyalties would leave him alienated on the Board of Supervisors.

In an odd twist, the person most likely to stop Chan is Jaynry Mak — who got her political experience as an aide to Ma.

Mak isn’t perfect, but she’s far better than the alternative — and in some ways better than her former boss. She talks about making San Francisco a place where working families can thrive. Even if that means she supports more home ownership opportunities (code words for tenant evictions and condo conversions), she, unlike Ma, is at least willing to discourage real estate speculators from doing Ellis Act evictions by supporting Assemblymember Mark Leno’s bill to create a waiting period before properties emptied of tenants can be flipped to condos.

Mak also differs from her opponents in her support for labor and opposition to privatizing essential government services, including her support of local Proposition F, which would give employees paid sick leave; her support for a local vehicle license fee; and her desire to legalize and regulate the many illegal secondary units in her district. She told us she thinks the community and police are both better served by good oversight of the department and policies that encourage more community policing.

We’re nervous about issues raised in San Francisco Chronicle stories that have attacked Mak, including the allegation that money may have been laundered into her campaign through low-wage workers who might not typically have the cash to give a politician $500. We're also worried about her failure to file in a timely fashion her financial interest statements when she was a board aide.

But we’re far more concerned about the downtown interests who have been orchestrating those attacks and who have lined up in support of Chan.

The only other candidate in the race with the temperament and community connections to represent the area well is Ron Dudum, a longtime small-business owner and activist who has lived in the Sunset all of his life. He’s a decent guy and a hard worker — but we were unable to get him to commit to any firm positions on issues.

This one’s pretty clear-cut. Vote for Mak.

Board of Supervisors, District 6

CHRIS DALY

Yeah, he can be abrasive at times (trust us, we’ve been there). Yeah, he has a style that some say is more suited to street fighting than the decorum of a legislative body. Yeah, he pisses off his colleagues more than he should. We know all that; we’ve heard it and more.

And we’re still very, very glad that Chris Daly is on the Board of Supervisors.

Daly’s an activist who happened to get into elective office. It was sort of an odd fit at first, but he’s made it work in a way that’s been great for his district and great for the city. He’s smart, engaged, hard working, full of ideas (six of the measures on the ballot this fall are his), and not afraid to take tough stands. His record is pretty much flawless on progressive issues (he scored 100 percent on the Guardian good-vote scorecard this year). He’s been the leading voice on the board for affordable housing — and has managed to squeeze more money out of developers than anyone who’s come along in years.

Daly is a loyal friend of the dispossessed. He walked the picket lines with walking strikers. He walked the picket line with queer activists fighting racism at SF Badlands. He takes risks — even personal risks — to push his agenda: when Hastings School of the Law tried to build a garage that would have destroyed low-income housing in the Tenderloin, Daly got arrested at a protest that put the issue on the front pages — and ultimately led to the demise of the project.

When then-mayor Willie Brown allowed him to serve as acting mayor while Brown was out of town, Daly tossed off the ceremonial role that others have played in that job and appointed two strong environmentalists to Brown’s anemic Public Utilities Commission, sending the mayor and much of official San Francisco into a tizzy. You have to admire his style.

Through it all, Daly has also learned to be an effective board member who does a lot more than push hopeless causes. As chair of the budget committee this past year, he helped turn Mayor Gavin Newsom’s initial budget — which cut a lot of social programs — into a document that progressives could largely be proud of. He’s a prodigious legislator who has introduced more bills than any other member of the board.

It’s both his passion and his effectiveness that have made him a target for downtown. The Committee on Jobs, SFSOS, Don Fisher, and the rest of the big-business power structure have made defeating Daly their top priority this year, and they’ve put up a lame hack named Rob Black to challenge him. Black claims he’s a liberal Democrat, but on the local issues that matter — particularly land use and tenant issues — he’s more of a property-rights conservative. Black won’t stand up against the wave of evictions (and gentrification) caused by the Ellis Act. He was an aide to Michela Alioto-Pier when the supervisor (with Black’s help) allowed a group of downtown developers to write legislation undermining widely accepted city planning policy on downtown parking. He claims he’s worried about crime but refused to support Proposition A, which would have put more money into violence prevention measures.

Black won’t even denounce the vicious, nasty, and dubiously legal anti-Daly attack ads that Republican Fisher and his pals have been financing.

This is one of the crucial races of the year, a test of whether the community-based progressive board members can survive a big-money onslaught in a district election. Support Daly, donate to Daly, walk precincts for Daly — and if you live in District 6, please vote for Chris Daly.

Board of Supervisors, District 8

ALIX ROSENTHAL

It’s hard not to like Sup. Bevan Dufty. He’s one of the nicest people in local politics. He’s every bit a district supervisor, someone who pays attention to every pothole in the Castro. He’s also a gay man in a district that has been represented by queer supervisors going back to Harvey Milk and Harry Britt. And here and there, he’s moving a bit to the left.

But for four years, on a long list of important issues that have come before the board, he’s been on the wrong side.

He was against requiring real estate agents to disclose to potential buyers when a building has been emptied by Ellis Act evictions (a key tenant measure). He was also against requiring public hearings for condo conversions. He was in favor of putting Home Depot on Bayshore Boulevard. He was against closing Golden Gate Park to cars on Saturdays. He’s been on the side of Mayor Newsom and against the progressives on the board over and over and over — and with the board one vote short of overriding Newsom’s vetoes, he’s been a crucial ally of the mayor, downtown, landlords, and developers.

His challenger in this district is a straight woman who is a bit short on experience and lacking in a grassroots core constituency. But Alix Rosenthal, a lawyer and former chair of the city’s Elections Commission, is well informed on the issues and takes solid progressive stands.

Rosenthal told us that she supports tough measures to block Ellis Act evictions, including a ban on condo conversions for any building emptied of tenants with that law. She supports road closures in Golden Gate Park on Saturdays. She wants to substantially increase the fees and affordable housing requirements on market-rate development projects.

Her presence in the race has already forced Dufty into the progressive camp on some key issues, particularly Sup. Tom Ammiano’s health care plan. Perhaps most important, Rosenthal would be an eighth vote on the progressive side of the board — enough to overturn Mayor Newsom’s vetoes.

Rosenthal has a solid political future, and we’re happy to endorse her.

Alix Rosenthal is the domestic partner of Guardian city editor Steven T. Jones. Jones played no role in this endorsement, did not participate in any of the District 8 candidate interviews, was not involved in the editorial board discussions, and didn't write or edit this piece.

Board of Supervisors, District 10

1. SOPHIE MAXWELL

2. MARIE HARRISON

We’ve had problems with Sup. Sophie Maxwell. She’s not always accessible, she’s been weak on some key issues, and she has a mixed voting record. She supported the Home Depot project on Bayshore Boulevard, bringing another chain merchant in to her district, based on a dubious promise of a few jobs. She voted in favor of a bad Comcast franchise deal that got the city few new benefits. She supported a Muni budget that included fare hikes and service cuts. We worry about how strong she’ll be on protecting the southeast neighborhoods from developers.

She’s the prime sponsor of the highly controversial redevelopment plan for her district, and while there are credible arguments on both sides of that issue, we don’t like the way she demonized her opponents, particularly Sup. Tom Ammiano, who was raising legitimate questions.

But she’s been good on tenant issues and affordable housing and has worked with Sup. Ross Mirkarimi on developing a progressive approach to the homicide problem that’s plaguing their two districts. She wasn’t exactly a dynamic leader in the fight to close down Pacific Gas and Electric Co.’s Bayview–Hunters Point power plant, but in the end, she did the right thing.

Then there’s Marie Harrison.

We endorsed Harrison, Maxwell’s chief opponent, in her first campaign for this seat. We love her passion, her knowledge of the neighborhood, and her fiery activism. We love the way she worked tirelessly to shut down the power plant. We appreciate her unwavering support for public power. She’s aggressive in demanding that jobs from all the public projects in the district go to district residents and that the community controls its own economic development. She didn’t support Home Depot or buy the false promise of jobs from a big chain.

But we started to get nervous when Harrison came out strongly in recent weeks in favor of Proposition 90.

Prop. 90 is quite possibly the scariest ballot measure to hit California since Prop. 13 in 1978. It’s disguised as an anti-eminent-domain measure, but it’s not hard to figure out what it’s actually about. It’s a plan to halt almost all new government regulation of private property. Prop. 90 would, among other things, halt any new zoning laws in the southeast part of the city that restrict the ability of private developers to build the largest and most profitable projects possible. It would severely limit the state’s ability to pass new environmental laws. It’s a radical property-rights nightmare — and Harrison has gone way out front to convince Bayview residents to support it. In fact, when we discussed it with her, she seemed utterly unaware of the terrible problems it would cause. She didn’t seem to care that every significant environmental group in California is against it, that every tenant group is against it, that every labor organization in the state is against it. And that really made us question her political judgment.

Harrison is the second-best candidate in the field, but at this point we can’t put her at the top of the list. By default, we’re going with Maxwell.

San Francisco Board of Education

JANE KIM

ROBERT TWOMEY

KIM-SHREE MAUFAS

It's a particularly important election year for the San Francisco public schools: the next board will choose a new superintendent, deal with the fractious issue of future school closings, make adjustments to the student assignment process, and try to bring some functionality and peace to the disorder that has been board politics of late.

The public schools are improving, especially at the elementary and high school level. But achievement gaps between ethnic and socioeconomic groups are appalling. Some schools have far more resources than others, some are completely failing — and the district continues to lose 1,000 students a year. Part of that is beyond the board's control: housing has become too expensive for San Francisco families, so they're fleeing in droves to cheaper suburbs. But part of it is a lingering perception that the public schools are inadequate, which drives far too many middle-class families into private education.

These are huge challenges — and frankly, the roster of candidates this fall is not all that inspiring. Sarah Lipson, one of the most cogent and credible voices of progressive reason on the bickering panel, has decided not to run again, in part because the demands of the job are too much for a parent who isn't rich to handle on what amounts to a volunteer basis. Her departure makes a strong case for paying board members enough to make what is really a full-time job financially feasible.

Incumbent Eddie Chin, who has been a disappointment, isn't running again either. And the remaining incumbent, Dan Kelly, has been so bad on so many issues over the past two years that even some of his close friends in the progressive community aren't supporting him for reelection. We can’t support him either — although we appreciate his unwavering opposition to the Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC).

The board has been bitterly divided, mostly because of former superintendent Arlene Ackerman, who encouraged needless political enmity. Things are looking a bit better with Ackerman gone and the steady hand of acting superintendent Gwen Chan at the helm. But the board badly needs new members who understand the issues, have a proven commitment to kids and public education, and are capable of working well with people who may not share their views.

Fifteen challengers are on the ballot. By many accounts, the front-runner is Hydra Mendoza, Mayor Gavin Newsom's education policy adviser and liaison to the schools. She has the mayor, the money, and the connections that come from her current job and her past position as a very successful director of Parents for Public Schools. She is by far the best informed of the candidates and has some good ideas. But she has no plans to quit her day job, and she refuses to recognize that there's an inherent conflict of interest in working for the mayor and serving on the school board. It's an obvious problem, both of reality and perception — and yet even over the course of a 90-minute interview with us, she was unwilling to admit that there might be a time when her dual role would be a problem. Sorry: that just won't work.

Our three choices — Jane Kim, Robert Twomey, and Kim-Shree Maufas — are not perfect. All of them bring some drawbacks to the job. But they are clearly the best qualified and the most likely to help bring an institution with plenty of challenges — and tremendous promise — into the future.

Kim, who runs a nonprofit after-school youth leadership program, is on the top of almost every progressive's list for the board and for good reason: she's bright and articulate, has a vision for public education, and appears to have a real political future. When she ran two years ago, we found her a bit unprepared, but this time around she's done her homework and not only understands the problems facing the district but has some real solutions. She told us up front that the middle schools are the weak link at the district right now and suggested pushing for more K–8 programs. She talks about capping enrollment at overenrolled schools and holding off on any more school closures until there's a long-term plan created with real community input. She wants the board to hire an independent auditor who reports to the board, not the superintendent. She thinks the district's public relations staff should be promoting the schools to prospective parents, not ballyhooing the goals or policies of the person in charge. She's in favor of phasing out the JROTC.

Twomey was a refreshing surprise. We knew he had a labor background and was supported by the unions, but in his interview he showed a commitment to the public schools, experience in the district both as a parent and a volunteer coach, and a nuanced understanding of the issues. He says that race should be part of the school-assignment criteria (while acknowledging that the issue is still tied up in the courts). He supports more K–8 programs and wants to work with other city departments, such as Recreation and Parks, on collaborative programs that better use the school sites. He's big on bringing local unions into the schools for vocational education and apprenticeship programs. He told us that the JROTC was "a tough issue" — but in the end, he was on the right side.

Maufas is a parent who was deeply involved in the battle with Ackerman over changing the standards at Thurgood Marshall High School, where she was a volunteer track coach and Parent Teacher Student Association president. Her daughter was at the school during the police riot, and she understands what it's like to be an African American parent fighting the district. She pointed out that a big problem with the student assignment process is the fact that so many parents of color don't understand how it works and is pushing for better parent outreach. She told us that her daughter was in the JROTC — and while Maufas loved the leadership programs, she hated the connection to the military and the incessant recruiting that came with it and wants to get rid of the program.

Unfortunately, in a lot of areas she was far too vague. She didn't really seem to understand the current politics of the board and wasn't clear how she would fit in. She spent a lot of time talking about "love of learning" but was weak on the actual details of improving the schools. But overall, she merits a chance.

We also like Mauricio Vela, a longtime youth advocate who simply got into the race too late to mount a credible campaign, and Kim Knox, a Green Party activist who doesn't strike us as the sort of mediator the board needs at this moment.

So we'll go with Kim, Twomey, and Maufas — and we'll be pushing to pay the board better so that the best members can actually stay around and do their jobs.

San Francisco Community College District Board of Trustees

JOHN RIZZO

BRUCE WOLFE

ANITA GRIER

Finally, some good candidates are running for the board that oversees San Francisco's tarnished gem of a community college system. It's about time. The district serves 100,000 students, provides junior college degrees, adult education, and a path to the California State University and University of California systems — and has been a godawful mess for years.

The City College administration is arrogant and unaccountable, and so are most of the board members. Money that's earmarked in a bond act for an arts center gets shifted over to a gym, which is then leased out to a private school because there’s no money in the budget to operate it. Community members who ask for a performance audit on the college's bond money are told to take a hike. In fact, it's hard for anyone to find out anything about what's going on with the district's money — and the chancellor, Phil Day, and the board continue to refuse to accept a real sunshine ordinance.

Three incumbents are running for reelection. They've all been around for what seems like aeons, and the problems have festered on their watch. The best of the lot is Anita Grier, who at least is open to accepting a strong sunshine law and has some concerns about where the money goes. She's not known as a strong critic of the administration but on a better board might be counted in the progressive camp. The other two, Lawrence Wong and Johnnie Carter, are part of the problem, will never be part of the solution, and need to be tossed out of office summarily.

There are two strong challengers, John Rizzo and Bruce Wolfe. If both are elected, they could shift the balance on the seven-member board. Right now, there are only two members who regularly question the direction of the district, Julio Ramos and Milton Marks III. With Rizzo and Wolfe on board and Grier winning to side with that bloc, there's a real chance to start cleaning the place up.

Rizzo is a veteran environmentalist and Sierra Club staffer who got involved in the college district when Marks brought him in to fight for environmental mitigation on development projects. He tried to get the college to adopt a sustainability plan, but it didn't go anywhere. Now he's on the bond oversight committee — and is deeply frustrated by his inability to track millions of dollars in spending. He's calling for a more flexible curriculum, a real transit plan to discourage students from driving, and a program to build affordable student housing. Mostly though, he says the board needs activist members who will raise questions and demand answers from the administration. He's right; we're glad to endorse him.

Wolfe was a City College student in the 1990s and learned the ugly side of district politics when the administration tried to steal student trust fund money. He's currently a member of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force and has been fighting to get the college to accept stronger open-government requirements. He argues that the district should put a halt to all new projects until there's been a thorough accounting for every dollar. He'd be a great addition to the board.

The college district flies beneath most of San Francisco's political radar — but it's a crucial civic institution, and it needs a lot of help. Vote for Rizzo, Wolfe, and Grier.

Proposition A

SCHOOL BONDS

YES

This is the second part of a long-term bond program to upgrade old and deteriorating school facilities. Money approved in 2003 is being used to upgrade facilities at a third of the district schools. Proposition A would add $450 million to that program for the remaining 64 schools in the district, which are overdue for basic improvements like Americans with Disabilities Act compliance, seismic upgrades, and fire, health, and safety improvements, including hazardous waste removal. Beyond those essentials, some of the money will be used for updating science and computer labs, replacing portable trailers with permanent classrooms, sprucing up the school yards, and investing in the School of the Arts.

The San Francisco Unified School District has had problems with bond money in the past, but one of the good things former superintendent Arlene Ackerman did was clean up the corruption in the district and get the fiscal house in order. A community-based Bond Oversight Committee will monitor the spending.

The 2003 bond received overwhelming support, and the lone dissent this time seems to be from the Republican Party. Vote yes.

Proposition B

TELECONFERENCE MEETINGS BECAUSE OF PREGNANCY

YES

This charter amendment, brought to the board by Michela Alioto-Pier, would authorize supervisors and members of city commissions to participate in meetings by teleconference when they’re physically unable to attend because of childbirth or pregnancy. We’re all for parental bonding, and if this makes it possible for pregnant women to more actively participate in government, it’s a great thing.

The Senior Action Network has penned a salient argument against this, saying it puts the needs of a pregnancy above other reasons to skip a meeting, such as disability and disease. The group also makes the point that the public needs to be able to see people officiating to be assured they aren’t being unduly influenced by a lobbyist or other interest in a way that wouldn’t be discernable in a teleconference.

Still, we see no reason not to use the technology that exists to help sitting officials deal with short-term health issues. This shouldn’t be a license to push the issue further and allow a long list of additional reasons to skip meetings that could turn the Board of Supervisors into nothing but a virtual body made up of TV screens talking to each other. But for now, we’ll go with Proposition B.

Proposition C

CITY OFFICIAL SALARIES

YES

Proposition C would change the formula for how salaries are set for six elected officials: the mayor, city attorney, public defender, assessor-recorder, treasurer, and sheriff. These salaries were frozen for two years in 1992, with only modest annual adjustments of 1 to 2 percent for the last 14 years.

That’s created a strange imbalance: many of the people who work for City Attorney Dennis Herrera, for example, make more than he does. Sheriff Mike Hennessey reminded us that he makes less than the dogcatcher (well, the director of animal control).

Under this proposal, the Civil Service Commission would be charged with polling other counties in the Bay Area for a new average base for these officials and then adjusting from there every five years. That makes perfect sense, and it’s how a lot of other top salaries in the city are set. Vote yes.

Proposition D

DISCLOSURE OF PRIVATE INFORMATION

NO

We’re convinced that Sup. Chris Daly, who authored this measure, had nothing but the best intentions. In the wake of a civil grand jury report warning that the city’s repositories of information are at risk for identity theft, Daly put this forward as a way to protect confidential information from being handed out or sold. We have no problem with the concept: the city has all kinds of stuff in various files and computer databases that ought to be protected, from San Francisco General Hospital patient records to business tax records to the Social Security numbers of city employees.

But Proposition D is written very broadly — and every media law expert we contacted agreed that it has the potential to conflict with the Sunshine Ordinance and could be interpreted by a judge to bar the public disclosure of information that ought to be public. For one thing, "private information" is defined in such a way that the law could potentially block the release of city employee salaries and other compensation. It could also allow corporations that do business with the city to demand confidentiality in payment records.

And frankly, we’re not convinced that Prop. D is going to protect anything that isn’t already covered by state and federal laws.

This legislation needs to be vetted in public hearings and rewritten to make certain that it doesn’t create additional secrecy in government. For now, vote no.

Proposition E

PARKING TAX

YES

This measure accomplishes two important goals: giving the city a little more money to help provide vital public services and offering a mild disincentive for people to drive their cars downtown. By increasing the current parking tax of 25 percent to 35 percent and including certain valet parking services that are now excluded, the measure is expected to generate about $20 million.

That’s money that could be used to improve Muni service and roll back the fare hikes, thus improving people’s transportation options and clearing the air. It’s a small piece of a much bigger picture: we can either continue to subsidize the car culture or we can have those who use cars, particularly for traveling into congested areas, subsidize the improvements San Francisco needs to make to become a real green city. Vote yes.

Proposition F

PAID SICK LEAVE

YES

About 116,000 workers in San Francisco — mostly women and people of color in low-wage jobs — don’t get paid for sick time. That means they work sick and send their sick kids to school, don’t go to the doctor to get the preventive care they need, or stay home without getting paid. None of these are good options from either an economic or public health perspective.

Proposition F requires employers to offer some paid time off when workers or their dependents are sick. That’s something most businesses already do. It’s more than just good employment policy; it’s actually a public health issue (just consider that many of the businesses that don’t now offer sick leave — and thus encourage employees who are carrying communicable diseases to go to work — are restaurants).

The measure caps the sick days that small business employees accumulate at five days per year, while workers at bigger businesses can get up to nine days a year. That’s a modest acknowledgement that a lot of small businesses in this city are barely surviving as it is and that the legislation will put an additional financial burden on those operations.

It’s too bad the city keeps finding ways to add to the costs of running a small business in San Francisco without doing anything to help shift the tax burden upward. Small, locally owned, independent businesses provide the vast majority of the jobs in the city, are more likely to hire local people, and keep their profits in town. They are by any account the backbone of the local economy.

And yet, small businesses pay the same tax rate as giant multinationals that demand more in city services and provide less to the economy. That’s unacceptable and has to change. In fact, the supervisors ought to accept as policy that no more fees, taxes, or requirements will be placed on small businesses until the tax structure is changed so that the folks at the top pay their fair share.

But we’ll support Prop. F.

Proposition G

LIMITATIONS ON FORMULA RETAIL STORES

YES

Dubbed by its authors on the Board of Supervisors “the Small Business Protection Act,” this measure ensures that corporate behemoths like Wal-Mart and Target go through a public hearing before they’re allowed to move into a neighborhood commercial district and displace small, locally owned businesses.

It’s already a big issue in town: several commercial districts have outright bans on formula retail businesses, which are defined as outlets of larger chains that are homogeneous in design and offerings. This measure simply gives all the business districts the right to resist invasion by chains that kill individuality and ship profits out of the city.

By requiring chains to attain a conditional use permit, the city can set standards and retain local control, which can still be used to decide that some chain stores might actually be welcome in a neighborhood. Vote yes.

Proposition H

RELOCATION ASSISTANCE FOR TENANTS

YES

This measure would increase the amount of money landlords are required to pay tenants when they’re forced to move out through no fault of their own. It would also expand the category of “no-fault tenant evictions” to include circumstances such as building demolitions, condo conversions, lead remediation, and substandard rehabilitation (which is a common trick some landlords will use to get rent-controlled tenants out of a building).

Each eligible tenant would receive two payments totaling $4,500 when they’re told to vacate. That’s up from $1,000, which wouldn’t even cover the security deposit on a new place. Vulnerable elderly and disabled residents would get $3,000 extra.

One of the measure’s most noted features is the additional $3,000 it extends to renters for each child they have living with them. There are two advantages to the plan: it would help tenants facing evictions put together enough capital to relocate in the city, and it would make evicting tenants more expensive. Both would do at least a little to help stem the tide of families and working-class people who are being forced to leave San Francisco. Vote yes.

Proposition I

MAYORAL APPEARANCE AT SUPERVISORS’ MEETINGS

YES

This is a wonderful idea, something that will be good for the city, good for public debate — and ultimately, we suspect, good for Mayor Gavin Newsom.

Sponsored by Sup. Chris Daly, Proposition I simply requires the mayor to appear once a month at a Board of Supervisors meeting to answer questions. It’s modeled on the long tradition of "question time" in the United Kingdom: the British prime minister appears regularly before Parliament, where members of the opposition party can pepper him with questions about programs, policies, and plans. It’s a great exercise in democracy and does a lot to reduce the imperial trappings of the chief executive.

It’s also a great way to promote sunshine and challenge government secrecy — if the supervisors can publicly demand information in this sort of forum, either the mayor has to be forthcoming or has to justify before the press and public why records are secret or unavailable.

This kind of free-form questioning also gives the public a clear, unscripted view of how policy makers are thinking — and how well-informed they are on the facts and issues. Newsom hasn’t had to face many situations lately where he isn’t protected by his press crew — but if he wants to run for higher office someday, he has to learn to deal with lively debates. Facing question time could be an excellent learning experience.

Besides, won’t it be fun?

Proposition J

IMPEACHMENT OF BUSH AND CHENEY

YES

The voters of San Francisco can’t impeach the president and vice-president of the United States, and on that level, Proposition J is just an empty statement, a declaration that it’s city policy to call for the impeachment of George Bush and Dick Cheney. But for all the sniping from detractors, these sorts of resolutions can be important as a gauge of public opinion: during the Vietnam war, communities all around the country passed antiwar resolutions — and that helped solidify the public opposition that ended the war.

In this case, Prop. J would mark an official recognition by the voters of a major city that Bush and Cheney have violated the Constitution and deserve to be removed from office. It might even help push Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who could be the next House speaker, to allow a serious inquiry into impeachable offenses.

When a group of prominent journalists recently visited Bush in the Oval Office for an on-the-record interview, the first thing he said when they entered the room was, "I've never been more convinced that the decisions I made are the right decisions."

It’s time for Congress to start telling him otherwise — and Prop. J is a small but important start. Vote yes.

Proposition K

HOUSING NEEDS OF SENIORS AND DISABLED ADULTS

YES

It’s tough enough for the young and resilient to get by in San Francisco these days. It can be brutal for seniors and disabled residents. Proposition K won’t have any immediate legal impact, but it declares that the city and county of San Francisco need to work harder to make life easier for a particularly vulnerable population.

The measure proposes grants and other financial incentives for the development of senior housing in the future and also suggests using the city’s Inclusionary Housing Program as one option for getting the disabled and seniors into affordable housing.

Prop. K sets the goal of lowering housing allotments from income to 30 percent and strives to come up with new plans for easing the burden on the city’s poor, disabled, and elderly. Vote yes. SFBG

http://www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=1769&catid=&volume_id=254&issue_id=255&volume_num=41&issue_num=01

SENATE

TODD CHRETIEN

Senator Dianne Feinstein is very much a part of the pro-war, pro–death penalty wing of the Democratic Party. She supported the invasion of Iraq and the USA PATRIOT Act; she publicly opposed same-sex marriage. If a Golden State version of Ned Lamont had stepped forward a year ago and mounted a real, well-funded primary challenge, it could have been an interesting campaign. As it is, Feinstein has gobs of money, the Republicans have essentially written the race off, and there's absolutely no question about who will be representing California in the United States Senate next term along with Barbara Boxer.

But we're supporting her Green Party foe, Todd Chretien. Chretien's an articulate activist who is running on a platform of opposing the Iraq war (and beginning an immediate withdrawal), repealing the PATRIOT Act, ending the death penalty, and creating a national health system. Sure, it's a protest vote, but it's a good one.

Congress, District 6

LYNN WOOLSEY

Lynn Woolsey's one of the progressive Democrats who will be in a position of significant clout — perhaps even a subcommittee chair — if Democrats regain the house. She's been a strong voice against the war, and we're happy to endorse her.

Congress, District 7

GEORGE MILLER

George Miller's going to win a 16th term and will continue to be a reasonably solid environmental voice on the Resources Committee, which he will probably chair if the Democrats win in November. We didn't like his friendly relationship with the Bush administration over the No Child Left Behind Act, but we'll endorse him for another term.

Congress, District 8

KRISSY KEEFER

Let's be serious here: Nancy Pelosi will win reelection to this seat and may very well be the first female speaker of the House next year. That's a huge step and would dramatically change the direction of Congress during the next term. But the compromises she's made to reach that position of power are disturbing: she's essentially abandoned San Francisco and her constituency. She's weak on same-sex marriage, fearing that an honest, principled position would offend moderate Democrats in other states. She was late in opposing the war. She privatized the Presidio. She's going to win easily — so easily that she's not even campaigning much at home. But we can't endorse her.

Our nod goes to Keefer, a longtime artist and activist who wants a quick withdrawal of troops from Iraq and more human federal policies at home. Again: a protest vote, but it's worth sending a message — particularly if the Democrats win — that Pelosi can't forget she actually represents San Francisco.

Congress, District 9

BARBARA LEE

No question here: Barbara Lee is one of the best members of Congress, a courageous lone voice against the invasion of Iraq and a strong progressive across the board.

Congress, District 12

NO ENDORSEMENT

Tom Lantos is a foreign-policy hawk who doesn't represent the overwhelmingly antiwar sentiment in this San Francisco–Peninsula district. It's tough to challenge a 12-term incumbent, but the time for Lantos to retire is long past. Some strong Democrat needs to take him on in 2008.

Congress, District 13

PETE STARK

Pete Stark pulls no punches, and at times even Democrats are amazed by his harsh attacks on the Bush administration. He's a member of the Out of Iraq caucus and favors immediate withdrawal. SFBG

http://www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=1770&catid=&volume_id=254&issue_id=255&volume_num=41&issue_num=01

Oakland City Auditor

COURTNEY RUBY

Incumbent Roland Smith has to go. He's been accused of harassing and verbally abusing his staff and using audits as a political weapon against his enemies. The county supervisors have had to reassign his staff to keep him from making further trouble. And yet somehow he survived the primary with 32 percent of the vote, putting him in a November runoff against Courtney Ruby, who led the field with 37 percent. Ruby, an experienced financial analyst, would bring some credibility back to the office.

Peralta Community College Board, District 7

ABEL GUILLEN

Challenger Abel Guillen has extensive knowledge of public school financing and a proven commitment to consensus building and government accountability. In the last six years Guillen, who was raised in a working-class community and was the first in his family to go to college, has raised $2.2 billion in bond money to construct and repair facilities in school districts and at community colleges. Incumbent Alona Clifton has been accused of not being responsive to teachers' concerns about the board's spending priorities and openness.

Berkeley mayor

TOM BATES

This race has progressives tearing at each other's throats, particularly since they spent a ton of cash last time around to oust former mayor Shirley Dean and replace her with Tom Bates, who used to be known as a reliable progressive voice.

Bates's reputation has shifted since he became mayor, and his record is a mixed bag. This time around, he stands accused of setting up a shadow government (via task forces that duplicate existing commissions but don't include enough community representatives), of giving developers too many special favors instead of fighting for more community benefits, and of increasingly siding with conservative and pro-landlord city council member Gordon Wozniak.

The problem is that none of Bates's opponents look like they would be effective as mayor. So lacking any credible alternative, we'll go with Bates.

Berkeley City Council, District 1

LINDA MAIO

Incumbent Linda Maio's voting record has been wimpy at times, but she is a strong proponent of affordable housing, and her sole challenger, Merrilie Mitchell, isn't a terribly serious candidate. Vote for Maio.

Berkeley City Council, District 2

DONA SPRING

A valiant champion of every progressive cause, incumbent Dona Spring is one of the unsung heroes of Berkeley. Using a wheelchair, she puts in the energy equivalent of two or three council members and always remains on the visionary cutting edge. If that weren't enough, her sole challenger, Latino businessman and zoning commissioner Raudel Wilson, has the endorsement of the Berkeley Chamber of Commerce. Vote for Spring.

Berkeley City Council, District 7

KRISS WORTHINGTON

Incumbent Kriss Worthington is an undisputed champion of progressive causes and a courageous voice who isn't afraid to take criticism in an age of duck and run, including the fallout he's been experiencing following the closure of Cody's on Telegraph Avenue, something conservatives have tried to link to his support for the homeless. His sole challenger is the evidently deep-pocketed George Beier, who describes himself as a community volunteer but has the support of landlords and the Berkeley Chamber of Commerce and has managed to blanket District 7 with signage and literature, possibly making his one of the most tree-unfriendly campaigns in Berkeley's electoral history. Keep Berkeley progressive and vote for Worthington.

Berkeley City Council, District 8

JASON OVERMAN

Incumbent Gordon Wozniak postures as if he is going to be mayor one day, and he's definitely the most conservative member of the council. During his tenure, Wozniak has come up with seven different ways to raise rents on tenants in Berkeley, and he didn't even vote against Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's special election last year. Challenger Jason Overman may be only 20 years old, but he's already a seasoned political veteran, having been elected to the Rent Stabilization Board two years ago. Vote for Overman.

Berkeley city auditor

ANN-MARIE HOGAN

Ann-Marie Hogan is running unopposed for this nonpartisan post, which is hardly surprising since she's done a great job so far and has widespread support.

Berkeley school director

KAREN HEMPHILL, NANCY RIDDLE, NORMA HARRISON

With five candidates in the running and only three seats open, some are suggesting progressives cast only one vote — for Karen Hemphill — to ensure she becomes board president in two years, since the job goes to the person with the most votes in the previous election.

Hemphill has done a great job and has the support of Latino and African American parent groups, so a vote for her is a no-brainer.

So is any vote that helps make sure that incumbents Shirley Issel and David Baggins don't get reelected.

Nancy Riddle isn't a hardcore liberal, but she's a certified public accountant, so she has number-crunching skills in her favor. Our third pick is Norma Harrison, although her superradical talk about capitalism being horrible and schools being like prisons needs to be matched with some concrete and doable suggestions.

Rent Stabilization Board

DAVE BLAKE, HOWARD CHONG, CHRIS KAVANAGH, LISA STEPHENS, PAM WEBSTER

If it weren't for the nine-member elected Rent Stabilization Board, Berkeley would have long since been taken over by the landlords and the wealthy. This powerful agency has been controlled by progressives most of the time, and this year there are five strong progressives running unopposed for five seats on the board. We recommend voting for all of them.

Oakland City Council

AIMEE ALLISON

When we endorsed Aimee Allison in the primary in June, we pointed out that this was a crucial race: incumbent Patrician Kernighan has been a staunch ally of outgoing mayor Jerry Brown and Councilmember Ignacio de La Fuente — and now that Ron Dellums is taking over the Mayor's Office and a new political era could be dawning in Oakland, it's crucial that the old prodevelopment types don't control the council.

Kernighan's vision of Oakland has always included extensive new commercial and luxury housing development, and like De La Fuente, she's shown little concern for gentrification and displacement. Allison, a Green Party member, is the kind of progressive who could make a huge difference in Oakland, and she's our clear and unequivocal choice for this seat.

From crime to city finance, Allison is well-informed and has cogent, practical proposals. She favors community policing and programs to help the 10,000 parolees in Oakland. She wants the city to collect an annual fee from the port, which brings in huge amounts of money and puts very little into the General Fund. She wants to promote environmentally sound development, eviction protections, and a stronger sunshine ordinance. Vote for Allison.

East Bay Municipal Utility District director, Ward 4

ANDY KATZ

Environmental planner Andy Katz is running unopposed. Despite his relative youth, he's been an energetic and committed board member and deserves another term.

AC Transit director at large

REBECCA KAPLAN

Incumbent Rebecca Kaplan is a fixture on the East Bay progressive political scene and has been a strong advocate of free bus-pass programs and environmentally sound policies over the years. A former public interest lawyer, Kaplan's only challenger is paralegal James K. Muhammad.

Berkeley measures

Measure A

BERKELEY PUBLIC SCHOOLS TAX

YES

This measure takes two existing taxes and combines them into one but without increasing existing rates. Since 30 percent of local teachers will get paid out of the revenue from this measure, a no vote could devastate the quality of education in the city. Vote yes.

Measure E

RENT STABILIZATION BOARD VACANCY

YES

Measure E seeks to eliminate the need to have a citywide special election every time a vacancy occurs on the Rent Stabilization Board, a process that currently costs about $400,000 and consumes huge amounts of time and energy. The proposal would require that vacancies be filled at November general elections instead, since that ballot attracts a wider and more representative group of voters. In the interim, the board would fill its own vacancies.

Measure F

GILMAN STREET PLAYING FIELDS

YES

Measure F follows the council’s October 2005 adoption of amendments that establish the proper use for public and commercial recreation sports facilities, thereby allowing development of the proposed Gilman Street fields. Vote yes.

Measure G

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

YES

Measure G is a nice, feel-good advisory measure that expresses Berkeley’s opinion about the dangers of greenhouse gas emissions to the global climate and advises the mayor to work with the community to come up with a plan that would significantly reduce such emissions, with a target of an 80 percent reduction by 2050. Vote yes.

Measure H

IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH AND VICE-PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY

YES

In left-leaning Berkeley this is probably the least controversial measure on the ballot. Do we really need to spell out all over again the many reasons why you should vote yes on this issue?

If this measure passes, both Berkeley and San Francisco will have taken public stands in favor of impeachment, which won’t by itself do much to force Congress to act but will start the national ball rolling. Vote yes.

Measure I

AMENDING CONDO CONVERSION ORDINANCE

NO, NO, NO

Measure I is a really bad idea, one that links the creation of home ownership opportunities to the eviction of families from their homes. It was clearly cooked up by landlord groups that are unhappy with Berkeley’s current condo conversion ordinance, which allows for 100 conversions a year. Measure I proposes increasing that limit to 500 conversions a year, which could translate into more than 1,000 people facing evictions. Those evictions will hit hardest on the most financially vulnerable — seniors, the disabled, low- and moderate-income families, and children. With less than 15 percent of current Berkeley tenants earning enough to purchase their units, this measure decreases the overall supply of rentals, eliminates requirements to disclose seismic conditions to prospective buyers, and violates the city’s stated commitment to fairness, compassion, and economic diversity. Vote no.

Measure J

AMENDING LANDMARK PRESERVATION ORDINANCES

YES

A well-meaning measure that’s opposed by developers, Measure J earns a lukewarm yes. It establishes a nine-member Landmarks Preservation Commission; designates landmarks, structures of merit, and historic districts; and may approve or deny alteration of such historic resources but may not deny their demolition. It’s worth noting that if Proposition 90 passes, the city could face liability for damages if Measure J is found to result in substantial economic loss to property — all of which gives us yet another reason to say "vote no" on the horribly flawed Prop. 90 while you’re voting yes on Measure J.

Oakland Measures

Measure M

POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT BOARD INVESTMENTS

YES

Measure M would amend the City Charter to allow the board that oversees the Oakland Police and Fire Retirement System (PFRS) slightly more leeway in making investment decisions. The board claims that its current requirements — which bar investment in stocks that don’t pay dividends — are hampering returns. That’s an issue: between July 2002 and July 2005, the unfunded liability of the PFRS grew from $200 million to $268 million — a liability for which the city of Oakland is responsible. We’re always nervous about giving investment managers the ability to use public money without close oversight, but the new rules would be the same as ones currently in place in San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Measure N

LIBRARY IMPROVEMENT AND EXPANSION BONDS

YES

Oakland wants to improve and expand all library branch facilities, construct a new main library at the Henry J. Kaiser Convention Center, and buy land for and construct two new library facilities in the Laurel and 81st Avenue communities. The upgrades and construction plans come in response to residents’ insistence that they need more space for studying and meeting, increased library programs and services, tutoring and homework assistance for children, increased literacy programs, and greater access to current technology and locations that offer wi-fi.

This $148 million bond would cost only $40 a year for every $100,000 of assessed property. Vote yes.

Measure O

INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING

Ranked-choice voting, or instant runoff voting, is a great concept. The city of Oakland is using it to elect officials in the November election without holding a prior June election. There’s only one problem: so far, Alameda County hasn’t invested in voting equipment that could make implementing this measure possible. Voting yes is a first step in forcing the county’s hand in the right direction. SFBG

http://www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=1813&catid=4&volume_id=254&issue_id=256&volume_num=41&issue_num=02