archival recommendation for a previous election. formatting might be weird. guides may not reflect my current views.
California State Ballot Measures
Proposition 2: Authorize Bonds for Public School and Community College Facilities. Legislative Statute.
Vote: Yes
California, unusually, forces any new bond allocation measures passed by the legislature to go before the voters. This is, in my opinion, a mistake; legislatures spend far more time studying and drafting these resolutions than the citizenry will ever have a chance to.
Regardless, more funding for schools is good. This also received almost unanimous support.
Proposition 3: Amend the California constitution, recognizing the fundamental right to marry, regardless of sex or race.
Vote: Yes
Kinda surprising that “marriage is between a man and a woman” was in the California constitution and was added so recently (like 16 years ago?).
Proposition 4: Authorization of Bonds for Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, and Climate Risk Prevention
Vote: Yes
More bonds passed almost unanimously to help fight climate change.
Proposition 5: Lowers percentage requirements to pass bonds for affordable housing from 2/3rds to 55%.
Vote: Yes
We need more funding spent towards creating affordable housing. The current restrictions are absurd and onerous and are a notable part of why it’s so hard to build non-single family housing in California.
The only reservation I have about supporting this is that it includes a ban on local governments using bond money to buy single family homes to convert them to affordable units. This was a political move to convince the California Association of Realtors to not oppose the measure. I consider this sort of political gamesmanship to be disgusting, but housing is severe enough of a problem in California that we should take what we can get.
Proposition 6: Eliminates the constitutional provision allowing for involuntary servitude for incarcerated people.
Vote: Yes
Anyone who argues “no” is honestly just morally bankrupt. Abolish prisoner slavery.
Proposition 32: Increase the minimum wage from $16 an hour to $18 an hour.
Vote: Yes
This is a notable bump for real wages above inflation, and our last increase to 16 an hour happened just this year. Regardless, the cost of living in California is still extremely high. MIT’s living wage average in California for 1 adult and no children is $27.32 an hour.
In my opinion, this is a bandaid to real solutions to addressing the cost of living. As always, the problem is housing supply. But this would still represent a notable increase in the quality of life for those most impacted by our failure to enact reasonable housing policy. We could honestly go higher.
Proposition 33: Repeal Costa-Hawkins and thus allow rent control.
Vote: NO.
If there is anything you should vote on, if there is anything you should take from this, it is to vote no on this.
The evidence on this is overwhelming. It is long standing, with data going back to the 40s. It is agreed upon by experts, from economists to urban planners to housing activists. It has been studied. I’d argue that there are few things more studied in the field of urban planning and housing markets than the impact of rent control.
In the long term, rent control increases prices, decreases tenant freedom, decreases supply, decreases incentives to build new housing supply, and increases inequality and gentrification by rewarding those with longer lasting historical ties to a region.
The evidence is overwhelming.
The Brookings Institute (https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-does-economic-evidence-tell-us-about-the-effects-of-rent-control/):
A substantial body of economic research has used theoretical arguments to highlight the potential negative efficiency consequences to keeping rents below market rates, going back to Friedman and Stigler (1946). They argued that a cap on rents would lead landlords to sell their rental properties to owner occupants so that landlords could still earn the market price for their real estate. Rent control can also lead to “mis-match” between tenants and rental units. Once a tenant has secured a rent-controlled apartment, he may not choose to move in the future and give up his rent control, even if his housing needs change (Suen 1980, Glaeser and Luttmer 2003, Sims 2011, Bulow and Klemperer 2012). This mis-allocation can lead to empty-nest households living in family-sized apartments and young families crammed into small studios, clearly an inefficient allocation. Similarly, if rental rates are below market rates, renters may choose to consume excessive quantities of housing (Olsen 1972, Gyourko and Linneman 1989). Rent control can also lead to decay of the rental housing stock; landlords may not invest in maintenance because they can’t recoup these investment by raising rents. (Downs 1988, Sims 2007).
The Urban Institute (https://www.urban.org/research/publication/rent-control-and-supply-affordable-housing):
We find that rent control is associated with a reduction in the total number of units in a city. This confirms theoretical expectations regarding the impact of rent control on total supply. We are also able to determine whether all income levels are affected uniformly by focusing on the number of rental units affordable at different area median incomes. We find that rent control is associated with statistically significant increases in units affordable to extremely low-income households (those making less than 30 percent of area median income) and decreases in the number of units affordable to people with incomes above 120 percent of area median income.
Schapiro, R., Blankenship, K., Rosenberg, A., & Keene, D. (2022) (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9173361/):
We find that participants receiving rental assistance had lower odds of reporting housing instability, low quality housing, lack of autonomy related to housing, and some measures of housing unaffordability compared to those not receiving assistance. The large and highly significant effects remain after adjusting for demographic variables and factors that can impact access to rental assistance.
Diamond, Rebecca, Tim McQuade, and Franklin Qian. 2019. “The Effects of Rent Control Expansion on Tenants, Landlords, and Inequality: Evidence from San Francisco.” (https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257%2Faer.20181289&ref=mainstreem-dotcom):
Using a 1994 law change, we exploit quasi-experimental variation in the assignment of rent control in San Francisco to study its impacts on tenants and landlords. Leveraging new data tracking individuals’ migration, we find rent control limits renters’ mobility by 20 percent and lowers displacement from San Francisco. Landlords treated by rent control reduce rental housing supplies by 15 percent by selling to owner-occupants and redeveloping buildings. Thus, while rent control prevents displacement of incumbent renters in the short run, the lost rental housing supply likely drove up market rents in the long run, ultimately undermining the goals of the law.
Proposition 34: Requires certain providers to use prescription drug revenue for patients
Vote: No
To quote Calmatters (https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2024/propositions/prop-34-patient-spending/):
Proposition 34 would require some California providers to spend at least 98% of that net drug sale revenue on “direct patient care.” Providers that don’t risk having their state license and tax-exempt status revoked and losing out on government contracts.
But the proposition doesn’t apply to all providers — only those that spend at least $100 million on expenses other than direct care, that also own and operate apartment buildings and that have racked up at least 500 severe health and safety violations in the last decade.
As far as anyone can tell, that only applies to one organization: The AIDS Healthcare Foundation.
This reveals the actual intents of this proposal. The Los Angeles based AIDS Healthcare Foundation has put forward proposal after proposal to relegalize rent control measures. This proposal is a political hit to remove its ability to argue for rent control and to save the real estate lobby money from lobbying.
I’m almost forced to respect the raw hater energy, but this is a perfect example of how California’s ballot initiative system is fundamentally undemocratic due to how easy it is to get a measure on the ballot. Money talks, and this is honestly an impressive way to try to use it to silence.
Proposition 35: Permanent approval of existing MCO tax, additional regulations.
Vote: No
While the part of this legislation that makes the existing MCO tax permanent seems reasonable, this bill also codifies into law specific kinds of health service spending in Medi-Cal and forces a 3/4th vote in the legislature or another expensive ballot initiative to change.
I echo the San Francisco Chronicle, who states (https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/endorsement-california-proposition-35-medical-19758410.php):
[This] would require the state to spend MCO tax revenue on specified Medi-Cal services. This would undo a thoughtful health spending plan recently reached by Newsom and the state Legislature and establish in perpetuity funding winners and losers. Among the winners: primary and specialty care, emergency services, family planning, mental health and prescription drugs. Among the losers: community health workers, private duty nurses and continuous Medi-Cal coverage for eligible kids up to age 5.
Second, it blocks the state from using MCO tax revenue to replace existing Medi-Cal funding. These restrictions would inhibit the ability of lawmakers to adjust spending plans based on the state’s financial outlook, which is especially dangerous given that deficits are projected for the next few years.
“This initiative hamstrings our ability to have the kind of flexibility that’s required at the moment we’re living in,” Newsom said at a recent press conference.
This should be the job of the legislature.
Proposition 36: Felony charges for certain drug and theft crimes.
Vote: No
The war on drugs has been a disaster. This increases penalties for possession and sale of illicit drugs. It also includes some, uh, insane details.
Proposition 36 requires courts to warn people that they could be charged with murder if they sell or provide illegal drugs that kill someone. This warning would be given to people convicted of selling or providing certain drugs (such as fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine). This could make it more likely for them to be convicted of murder if they later sell or provide illegal drugs to someone who dies.
What the fuck?
City of San Francisco Ballot Measures
Proposition A: $790 million in bonds for San Francisco schools for infrastructure improvements
Vote: Yes
I know very little about school and education policy at the best of times, and know less about the state of the issue in San Francisco. That said, this is ultimately going to result in an annual $129.45 increase in property taxes on a $700,000 home. That’s basically nothing, and it’s for school improvements.
Proposition B: $390 million in bonds for community center, hospital, sidewalk, and homeless shelter repairs and construction
Vote: Yes
70 buck increase on a 700k home, proposed while similar bonds expire. This doesn’t raise taxes, and improves infrastructure. Sometimes, voting is easy.
Proposition C: Creation of an Inspector General to investigate complaints of fraud, waste, and abuse.
Vote: Yes
San Francisco genuinely has a corruption problem, with notable sums of money disappearing through embezzlement, money laundering, fraud, bribery, and mismanagement. This creates oversight via a non-elected office in SF’s Controller’s office.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/sf-safe-kyra-worthy-arrest-alleged-fraud-19606761.php
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Department_of_Public_Works_corruption_scandal
Proposition D: Reduce the number of commissions and advisory boards to a max of 65.
Vote: No.
Hidden in this mess of restructuring requirements is a provision that makes the police chief the sole authority to determine police officer conduct rules. It would also remove charter requirements for the Health Commission, which governs SF General Hospital. It would also remove the Library commission from the charter.
Proposition E: Create a task force to combine city commissions.
Vote: No recommendation, voting no.
Commissions to study the issue of there being too many commissions feels like a weird irony, and while I will be voting yes just due to how little this seems to actually do, I don’t know enough to make a strong recommendation.
Proposition F: Defines “full-duty sworn officer,” reduces frequency of mandatory police chief reports on staffing recommendations from every 2 to every 3 years, creates a deferred retirement program for older police officers to keep working while also dipping into pension
Vote: No.
This is a super weird way to try to increase SFPD staffing, and it’s apparently already been tried in 2008 in SF and San Diego, with bad results. Matt Dorsey put it on the ballot again. Fuck Matt Dorsey.
Proposition G: $8.25 million in rental subsidies for affordable housing developments.
Vote: Yes
This subsidizes rents for those who have the hardest time living in a very expensive city. It’s a band-aid solution, but still useful.
Proposition H: Lower age of pension eligibility for firefighters from 58 to 55
Vote: No recommendation, no vote.
I don’t know nearly enough about the state of SF’s pension system to make recommendations, so I’m taking this time to note that one of the main opponents is something named Starchild. In fact, this organization is the main opponent to the school proposition bond thing, too, which is pretty much an uncontroversial good.
So I looked them up.
and uh
i just thought that was neat
Proposition I: Allow nurses to purchase pension eligibility based on part time work, increase pension payouts for 911 operators
Vote: No recommendation, no vote.
Seems reasonable, but pensions are kinda hard to parse. For what it’s worth, the SF Chronicle recommends voting no, same with the one above.
Proposition J: Create an oversight commission to oversee the school district.
Vote: No recommendation, no vote.
I’m not affected by the school districts.
Proposition K: Close the Upper Great Highway to private vehicles and establish a recreation space there
Vote: Yes
This is the beltway highway that goes along the west side of the city. It was already closed to car traffic during the pandemic, and is currently only open on weekdays. This would close it permanently and spend some money to change it to a public route.
It’s right next to the beach.
Like, right next to the beach. And has local roads right next to it already.
Seems reasonable.
Proposition L: Increase taxes on autonomous rideshare companies to help fund MUNI
Vote: Yes
Echoing the SF Chronicle:
If a tax on ride-hailing companies sounds familiar, that’s because voters approved a 2019 measure that instituted a 3.25% tax on trips taken with ride-hailing companies. The editorial board supported this effort as a way to disincentivize car use, though we noted that “the tax might not be noticeable enough to have a substantial impact on congestion.”
Due to a 2019 California law, the city isn’t allowed to increase taxes on individual rides. Prop L offers a clever workaround by taxing gross revenue on rides. Taxis are excluded, which means this would affect ride-hailing giants Uber, Lyft and Waymo. As Amazon’s Zoox and the rest of the booming driverless ride-hailing industry enter the market, that list will expand.
Yes, this would likely lead to a rise in fares. The authors of Prop L predict that if companies decide to pass this tax down to riders, it would add 45 cents to a $10 fare.
This would still place San Francisco’s ride-hailing taxes below other cities; Chicago and New York City charge ride-hailing companies far more now than San Francisco would if this tax passes.
It may be uncomfortable, but a small fare increase is a smart way to incentivize people to take public transit and disincentivize the use of cars on city streets.
(https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/endorsement-prop-l-muni-rideshare-tax-19731225.php)
Proposition M: Changes to Business Taxes
Vote: Yes
Measure M is a complicated set of tax reforms whose impacts are subtle and nuanced, but the upshot, according to the SF controller and San Francisco nonprofit SPUR, who specializes in SF government recommendations, is that revenue will decrease by 40 million annually for two years, but increase by 2027, with a break even by 2030.
Additionally, the nature of these reforms reduces the tax burden for the majority of smaller businesses (i.e. restaurants) while increasing it on the highest-earning companies (i.e. Salesforce). This also simplifies the tax code by reducing the number of business categories from 14 to 7.
https://www.spur.org/voter-guide/2024-11/sf-prop-m-gross-receipts-tax-reform
Proposition N: 25k in student loan forgiveness for police, firefighters, paramedics, RNs, and 911 dispatchers
Vote: No
This is the sort of feel-good measure that would be pretty easy to vote for if it actually thought it through in any way. As written, this proposition sets aside no money and proposes no strategy for how to fund this, or even how much this will get funded. This provides a massive lever for political corruption if, as written, there are no mechanisms to determine which emergency workers actually get paid.
20 bucks says this all ends up funding cop student loans.
Student loan forgiveness is a valuable goal; the high cost of college is a burden on an entire generation’s ability to contribute to the economy and invest in their own futures. This is true for the entire country, not just San Francisco. The issue is not a local one, and should not be addressed on a local level.
Proposition O: Make abortion easier to access in SF
Vote: Yes
This creates a blank fund people can donate to to help support reproductive rights, reduces zoning restrictions on who can provide abortions, pledges to create websites and resources to help educate people on where to get abortions, and prohibits city employees from giving information on who has received an abortion to federal or state law enforcement.
This, in sum, works to help further cement SF as a safe harbor for abortion. Easy and uncontroversial yes.
Federal and State Elections
President and Vice President
Vote: Kamala D. Harris, Tim Waltz
While I would prefer a candidate more willing to stand up to Israel, Project 2025 is too much of a threat to democracy to entertain a protest vote.
Additionally, at least two supreme court justices, Thomas and Alito, are likely to retire if Trump is nominated, all but guaranteeing a conservative supermajority for a generation. Roberts may also retire. Securing these appointments, or at least denying Trump said appointments, is paramount.
United States Senate (Both elections)
Vote: Adam B. Schiff
We’re in the worse timeline with respect to this race. I was hoping to vote for Katie Porter or Barbara Lee, but both were soundly beat by “the guy with an R next to his name” Steve Garvey.
Garvey wants to end “housing first” efforts to help the unhoused and is arguing for stricter enforcement of crime on the unhoused. He is also a proponent of the absolutely insane Prop 36, which expands the war on drugs. He’s openly pro police, extremely anti-regulation, wants to expand school choice and charter schools, and increase spending on the military. He is a classic, old school, capital R republican, which makes him pretty horrible for the country.
Just about the only argument to vote for Garvey is a vote against Schiff on the grounds that Schiff is one of the most ardent supporters of Israel and its genocidal campaign in Gaza, and now invasion into Lebanon. But even this feels insufficient, as Garvey is trying to flank Schiff on the right about who supports Israel more.
If we had ranked choice voting, I’d be recommending Porter.
https://stevegarvey.com/steves-vision/
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article288719930.html
United States Representative, District 11
Vote: Nancy Pelosi
Pelosi can do all the insider trading she wants, she got Biden out of the race.
State Senator, District 11
Vote: Scott Wiener
I’m going to repeat what I said last time:
Most of the candidates are unelectable, save Weiner, the current incumbent. Jing Chao Xiong doesn’t seem to speak English, Cynthia Cravens is a terf, and Yvette Corkrean was against covid restrictions.
State Assembly Member, District 17
Vote: Matt Haney
Manuel Noris-Barrera is still a ghost. Here’s what I said during the primaries:
Matt Haney is also functionally running unopposed. Manuel Noris-Barrera is functionally a ghost and Otto Duke spends a notable amount of his website railing about marxism and… Kim Kardashian?
Local Elections: City of San Francisco
As a reminder, votes for the general elections of San Francisco are done via ranked choice ballot. I will be recommending not only a best candidate, but also a recommended order, where appropriate.
Member, Board of Supervisors, District 5
Vote: In order: Dean Preston, Bilal Mahmood, Autumn Hope Looijen, Scotty Jacobs
Mahmood and Preston can be interchanged.
A lot of this race has seemingly boiled down to two things; how do we deal with the ongoing fentanyl crisis, and how do we build more housing. After watching the League of Women’s Voter’s debate, you can pretty much divide candidates based on their positions on these metrics. Unfortunately, the breakdown isn’t great; no candidate is both sufficiently pro housing and against the expansion of police in District five, and voters are forced to choose between standing against a city that seems determined to increase police spending and evidence-based housing policy that increases supply and decreases the time it takes to get building permits.
District 5 is an area that represents a geographic heart of the city and what those who do not live in the city would consider its worst neighborhoods, as well as some otherwise extremely nice neighborhoods with borderline suburban housing. It includes are parts of the Tenderloin, Lower Haught, the Panhandle, and Japantown.
4 candidates are currently competing to unseat Socialist Democrat and incumbent Dean Preston, and it’s become the most expensive supervisor race this election season, with around 600k in campaign money supporting opposition moderate Bilal Mamood. As far as I can tell, it’s become a bit of a split in the Democratic party, with notable figures like Nancy Pelosi and Bernie Sanders supporting Preston, while the SF Democratic Party endorsing his main opponent.
Of the candidates, there are 4 serious considerations. There’s also Allen Jones, who supports putting up heat lamps on the street to discourage drug dealers, based on the evidence that when he was a drug dealer, he hated selling drugs when it was too hot.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1287229834979967066/1299857097302872064/image.png?ex=671f6282&is=671e1102&hm=1ec95c3ed2bde4f815473054440a6a2027668a35d13535c6db8b55d5ff971477&
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aynnW2CyIs8
Dean Preston
Preston is a leftie and he wears it on his sleeve. In his time as supervisor, he’s spent a lot of time working on compassionate, harm reduction based approaches to dealing with drug addiction. He’s been a vocal proponent of reducing overpolicing to help protect the most vulnerable members of our community, and he’s railed against outside interests that paint the area as substantially more dangerous than it actually is, including all of the other candidates in this race.
Preston’s also been determined to his on helping lower income residents get housing. To his major credit, he’s made his actual track record on affordable housing a center of his campaign; he’s been able to list off around 2000 units of housing he’s gotten approved in the last few years, 80% of which has been affordable (it is worth noting District 5 has a population of 60k). Sadly, his positions have also been tied with increasing rent control, a measure that have time and again been proven to be ineffective in reducing housing prices in the long term.
It’s worth noting that Preston is currently the only person in this campaign that has actually held elected office. This experience is ultimately my deciding factor.
Bilal Mahmood
A moderate in comparison to Preston, Mahmood is everything I want in a San Francisco housing advocate. He’s got a strong idea of what makes San Francisco uniquely bad about building new housing supply. In debates, he’s centered the legendary red tape and insane permit requirements needed to modify old and build new construction. He’s been endorsed by San Francisco YIMBY groups, having actively advocated for not spending council time on protecting minute parcels of land, such as Parcel K in Hayes Valley.
Unfortunately, Mahmood has also spent a notable amount of his campaign talking about how he wants to increase police spending, especially in the Tenderloin. Much of his campaign has attacked Preston for being soft on crime, as though this is a bad thing, and has advocated for changing the city charter to call a state of emergency to address the issue (https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/politics/bilal-mahmood-wants-sf-charter-change-for-fentanyl-crisis/article_a602100c-f785-11ee-ad28-bf8d440610a2.html).
Make no mistake; homelessness and drug addiction in the Tenderloin is a legitimate issue. But a policy that centers more cops on the streets and more people in prison has been shown time and time again to be ineffective in actually solving problems (https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2018/03/more-imprisonment-does-not-reduce-state-drug-problems).
It is this policy that makes me so frustrated with the state of this race. I firmly believe that Mahmood’s proposals for reducing government bureocracy would help reduce crime and drug addiction issues in the Tenderloin in the long term. But to pair it with policies that have been proven ineffective is a tragedy.
Autumn Hope Looijen
Ultimately, Looijen is similar to Mahmood, if much more conservative. She has much of the same policies as Mahmood, but much less government experience.
Scotty Jacobs
This is about as close as I’m going to come to an anti-endorsement on this seat. While he’s got the right “build baby build” attitude that I want to see in a candidate, he’s actively against defunding the police, centering both increasing police funding and respect for police as part of his campaign. If you’d vote for Scotty, vote for Mahmood.
Mahmood has historically worked with political opponents after elections, so who knows, maybe his housing expertise will make its way to Preston’s office.
City Attorney
Vote: David Chiu
David Chiu is functionally running unopposed. Richard T. Woon seems to spend more time on his website talking about his love of football than his actual positions.
District Attorney
Vote: Ryan Khojasteh
Current incumbent Brooke Jenkins is a tough on crime district attorney that was elected after Chesa Boudin was recalled, an event that stains San Francisco’s history and probably marks a turning point in San Francisco’s ongoing turn towards increasing police funding. Khojasteh is firmly in Chesa’s camp, having been hired by his office, then fired by Jenkins after Boudin’s recall. He’s honest and unabashed about how “tough on crime” policies towards drug use is not effective in reducing issues related to drug addiction. It’s incredibly refreshing to see someone so open and unabashed about the position.
Sherriff
Vote: No recommendation.
The San Francisco Police Department is understaffed. There’s no way around that fact, with the most obvious evidence being the massive proliferation of overtime pay among existing members. As the man in charge of trying to hire more police officers, incumbent sheriff Miyamoto has ultimately not done an adequate job of this task, and it seems that he is going to be rewarded for this inadequate behavior by having more funding allocated to his police department. Unfortunately, Michael Juan has little experience running a police department of this size.
Ultimately, the number one thing we as voters can do to reign in this increasing emphasis on being “tough on crime” is to elect Ryan Khojasteh.
Treasurer
Vote: Jose Cisneros
Cisneros is unopposed.
School Board, both community college and board of education
Vote: No recommendation
I don’t do recommendations for school boards. I am woefully uninformed about education policy and I do not have children in the district. This ultimately doesn’t affect me enough for my opinion to be worth considering.
BART Board of Directors, District 9
Vote: Edward Wright
Ultimately, both candidates are pretty much in agreement about all of the issues, so the vote goes to the guy with more experience.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/bart-director-ninth-district-19769415.php
Mayor of San Francisco
Vote: In order: Ahsha Safai, London Breed, Daniel Lurie, Aaron Peskin, Mark Farrell.
What a mess.
Given that I’m short on time and the fact that San Francisco’s mayoral race has so many serious candidates, I’m going to limit my analysis to the 5 candidates most likely to be mayor, specifically current incumbent London Breed, philanthropist and Levi fortune heir Daniel Lurie, previous interim mayor and supervisor Mark Farrell, supervisor Ahsha Safai, and president of the SF supervisors Aaron Peskin.
In addition to the perennial issues of housing affordability and homelessness, San Francisco has been plagued with bribery scandals. Between the repeated arrests in the Public Utilities commissions, embezzlement charges of more than 700k from SF SAFE, alleged embezzlement of more than 1.5m in contracts and grants meant to go towards members of the black community. This backdrop has weakened the perception of the mayor’s office, causing the race to become one of pandering to base fears of the voters. More than any other race I’ve seen in recent times, the mayoral race has often become a competition to see who can appear toughest on crime while still maintaining liberal sensibilities.
Here’s who I dislike, from most distasteful to least distasteful.
Mark Farrell
Former mayor Mark Farrell has been a notable nimby in many parts of the city, having said in a debate that he does not believe that the sunset should be zoned in a similar way to downtown. The sunset is an area so fundamentally underconstructed that it could be considered a suburb. It must be built up, regardless of people’s artificial concerns about neighborhood preservation; housing is too important.
He says this while also supporting a massive expansion to high enforcement of anti-camping laws.
This alone would not be disqualifying on its own, but Mark Farrell has also sat at a heart of political corruption. Between campaign finance violations and a 675k undisclosed loan for an off market home purchase, and allegations that Mark Farrell tried to call in city favors to expedite permit requests (https://sfstandard.com/2024/09/19/mark-farrell-home-permits-san-francisco/)
Unfortunately, this allegation is also being pushed primarily by his political opponent. Mark Farrell and London Breed have a long history of absolutely hating each other (https://sfstandard.com/2024/10/07/the-nasty-decade-long-feud-making-the-mayors-race-a-grudge-match/). The veracity of these allegations are ultimately shaky, although Farrell does have ties to the bribery scandal related to Recology (https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/three-san-francisco-garbage-companies-admit-bribery-and-pay-36-million-resolve-federal).
Nonetheless, a NIMBY that is corrupt and also supports wider police use does not pass my test.
** Aaron Peskin**
An enormous progressive, but nonetheless, takes pride in his position as being the only candidate in this race to support expansions of rent control. However, Peskin is the most aggressive NIMBY on the ballot, pulling support of moderates in the Sunset that are aggressively anti-construction, to the detriment of all San Franciscans. There’s really not a lot else to say about this; he’s pro rent control and anti development in critical districts. His progressive views on police reform and crime make me want to vote for him, but he’s so anti-housing that I can’t support it.
As an aside, he’s also got the most “fun” scandal in a very dirty election; he’s been known to spend a lot of time drunk dialing city officials to berate them for how they’re destroying the city, which is honestly kind of charming as scandals go.
https://sfstandard.com/2024/06/28/san-francisco-mayors-race-westside-housing-aaron-peskin/
Daniel Lurie
While Lurie says all the right things and has all the connections expected of old money billionaires, he’s unproven. His single claim to fame seems to be is his time as a nonprofit director, in which he’s produced what he claims is a model for cheaper housing in San Francisco. That property, 833 Bryant Street, is a 146 unit affordable housing site that he has built for “$377,000 a unit, versus an average of seven years and up to $1.2 million per unit for city-led projects” (https://sfstandard.com/2024/09/24/daniel-lurie-833-bryant-campaign/).
That’s not enough. While it’s heartening that he’s been able to do it (although with serious concerns about the quality of the prefabricated construction he’s produced), it’s been argued that this construction is not replicable.
“One of the many things that kept costs down for that project was the use of modular housing, which no one else has even attempted in San Francisco since,” said Jane Natoli, YIMBY Action’s San Francisco organizing director. “Unless and until someone has a concrete plan to navigate that, we won’t see any other projects built like that.”
While I admire much of his vision on housing, I also find his stances on how to deal with homelessness to be extremely similar to London Breed’s stances. It’s hard to see Lurie as anything other than unproven old money. At best, I see a Lurie administration as replacing of one kind of city hall corruption with another kind, and one that has significantly less experience.
London Breed
To her major credit, Breed led the city through coronavirus lockdowns, and to her additional credit, Breed is a staunch building advocate. She’s said that “as much as I want the inclusionary funds for affordable housing, I want housing, period” (https://www.kqed.org/news/11993902/san-francisco-mayoral-candidates-agree-bold-action-is-needed-on-housing-what-are-their-proposals). Unfortunately, her administration has also been plagued by fraud. Multiple members of commissions under her watch have been indicted for fraud and bribery, and her “homeless must go into shelters or they will be arrested” stance is disgusting.
The buck stops at the mayor’s office. It is the combination of serious scandal and inhumane policing that makes me reluctant to support Breed’s reelection.
Ahsha Safai
Congratulations, Safai, you win by elimination.
Safai has major downsides. He wrote and supported the byzantine “cop tax,” a series of reforms designed to help support an increase in staffing measures that, as I wrote in March, creates broken incentives for staffing that seem to run counter to the goal of increasing staffing. He’s also explicitly pro-union and pro-onsite construction for new housing stock, which I have serious reservations about; for all the problems Lurie has as a candidate, being open to building offsite is a benefit to keeping costs down.
I also don’t love that he’s entered a ranked choice agreement with Mark Farrell. Farrell is by far the worst choice in the field, and Ahsha teaming up with him seems unwise.
Safai passes the apparently difficult bar of publicly stating that you cannot arrest your way out of the drugs and homelessness crisis. I don’t love that he’s big on arresting fentanyl dealers (research has shown that this does not improve outcomes), but at least he’s not so aggressive about it compared to the rest of the field.
At the end of the day, though, this urban planning specialist is closest to who we need in San Francisco. He’s kept his nose (relatively) clean, so he gets my distinguished “not as bad as you could be” vote.
After like two weeks of research, I’ve finally finished my voting recommendations for the state of California.
Final recommendations
Federal and State Elections
President and Vice President: Vote: Kamala D. Harris, Tim Walz
United States Senate (Both Elections): Adam B. Schiff
United States Representative, District 11: Nancy Pelosi
State Senator, District 11: Scott Wiener
State Assembly Member, District 17: Matt Haney
Local Elections: City of San Francisco
As a reminder, San Francisco has a ranked choice ballot.
Mayor of San Francisco: In order: Ahsha Safai, London Breed, Daniel Lurie, Aaron Peskin, Mark Farrell.
Member, Board of Supervisors, District 5: In order: Dean Preston, Bilal Mahmood, Autumn Hope Looijen, Scotty Jacobs
City Attorney: David Chiu
District Attorney: Ryan Khojasteh
Sherrif: No recommendation
Treasurer: Jose Cisneros
School Board, both community college and board of education: No recommendation
BART Board of Directors, District 9: Edward Wright
California State Ballot Propositions
Proposition 2: Authorize Bonds for Public School and Community College Facilities. Legislative Statute: Yes
Proposition 3: Amend the California constitution, recognizing the fundamental right to marry, regardless of sex or race: Yes
Proposition 4: Authorization of Bonds for Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, and Climate Risk Prevention: Yes
Proposition 5: Lowers percentage requirements to pass bonds for affordable housing from 2/3rds to 55%: Yes
Proposition 6: Eliminates the constitutional provision allowing for involuntary servitude for incarcerated people: Yes
Proposition 32: Increase the minimum wage from $16 an hour to $18 an hour: Yes
Proposition 33: Repeal Costa-Hawkins and thus expand rent control: No
Proposition 34: Requires certain providers to use prescription drug revenue for patients: No
Proposition 35: Permanent approval of existing MCO tax, additional regulations: No
Proposition 36: Felony charges for certain drug and theft crimes: No
San Francisco City Ballot Propositions
Proposition A: $790 million in bonds for San Francisco schools for infrastructure improvements: Yes
Proposition B: $390 million in bonds for community center, hospital, sidewalk, and homeless shelter repairs and construction: Yes
Proposition C: Creation of an Inspector General to investigate complaints of fraud, waste, and abuse: Yes
Proposition D: Reduce the number of commissions and advisory boards to a max of 65: No
Proposition E: Create a task force to combine city commissions: No recommendation, voting no
Proposition F: Defines “full-duty sworn officer,” reduces frequency of mandatory police chief reports on staffing recommendations from every 2 to every 3 years, creates a deferred retirement program for older police officers to keep working while also dipping into pension: No
Proposition G: $8.25 million in rental subsidies for affordable housing developments: Yes
Proposition H: Lower age of pension eligibility for firefighters from 58 to 55: No recommendation, no vote.
Proposition I: Allow nurses to purchase pension eligibility based on part time work, increase pension payouts for 911 operators: No recommendation, no vote.
Proposition J: Create an oversight commission to oversee the school district: No recommendation, no vote.
Proposition K: Close the Upper Great Highway to private vehicles and establish a recreation space there: Yes
Proposition L: Increase taxes on autonomous rideshare companies to help fund MUNI: Yes
Proposition M: Changes to Business Taxes: Yes
Proposition N: 25k in student loan forgiveness for police, firefighters, paramedics, RNs, and 911 dispatchers: No
Proposition O: Make abortion easier to access in SF: Yes
permalink: https://viviansvoterguide.com/2024-11-05-General-Election/