The SF League of Pissed Off Voters Pissed Off Voter Guide - November 5, 2013
The Bite-Sized Ballot
Prop A - Retiree Healthcare NothingBurger - No Endorsement
Prop B & C - Luxury Condos on the Embarcadero - Hell No!
Prop D - Clumsy Symbolic Well-Meaning Rx Drug Statement - No
Candidates without Competition :(
Assessor-Recorder - No Endorsement
City Attorney - No Endorsement
Treasurer-Tax Collector - No Endorsement
District 4 Supervisor - No Endorsement
Prop A - Complicated (and pointless?) health care finance rule changes
In 2008, voters approved the creation of a Retiree Health Care Trust Fund to put money aside for retired City workers’ health care. Prop A would add restrictions on when the City could dip into that before it’s fully funded. The idea is to leave that money alone so it can gather interest and become self-sustaining. All of the Supervisors & the Mayor agree on this--but here’s the thing. They could just decide not to touch the money, rather than passing this extra law. Prop A also has confusing provisions that would allow the City to use the fund if two-thirds of the Supes, the Mayor, Controller, and Trust Fund Board all agree. So what’s the point of this thing? We don’t think Prop A is evil or scary, but we couldn’t come to a consensus on it. Some of us trust the City bean counters who endorse it. Some of us suspect that Supe Mark Farrell--the lead sponsor--is just using this to pad his resume for future political adventures. No endorsement - you make the call.
Props B & C - We Don’t Need More $5 Million Condos!
Both B and C deal with the proposal to build 134 luxury condos at 8 Washington Street, just north of the Ferry Building. Average tag? $5 million!! The towers would be twelve stories high, even though the area’s only zoned for eight stories. The project also includes a 320-space garage...even though it’s surrounded by public transit. The Board of Supervisors approved this whack project, but neighborhood activists gathered signatures for Prop C, to shoot it down. Then the developers put Prop B on the ballot to try to make their lame condos sound awesome. We need housing for normal people, not millionaires. Say Hell No to both B and C, cause if either one passes, developers will make bank building condos for the 1%.
Prop D - Prescription drug policy statement
This is a symbolic policy statement (ie, it doesn’t actually do anything). It asks the City to try and lower its prescription drug costs by negotiating with drug companies and by asking state & federal reps to sponsor legislation to reduce drug prices. It’s an ok idea, but SF doesn’t buy enough drugs to negotiate wholesale prices. Maybe California could? Ideally, we wish drug prices were regulated on a federal level. This prop was put on the ballot by an LA org that marched into SF without buy-in from the SF AIDS advocacy groups who’ve been fighting this fight at home for decades. It’s not terrible, it just tries to tackle very complicated procedures with a broad statement and without the support of local orgs. We say no.
Candidates
All of the candidates running for office this year are unopposed incumbents (technically Katy Tang has an opponent, but he has no website, campaign, or platform). This is lame! We think it’s a sign of unhealthy democracy that we don’t even have a choice. So why isn’t anyone running? well, it’s insanely expensive…and challengers have a massive electoral disadvantage running against incumbents. The citywide races (non-Supervisor and non-Mayor) have no term limits and no public financing, so we’re stuck with these career politicians till they decide to bow out. Even if they’re ok at their jobs, that’s problematic.
Speaking of unhealthy democracy, we’ve noticed a troubling trend: the Mayor appoints politicians to elected offices, who then win the next election primarily because of the advantage of incumbency. In fact, wait...that’s how we got this Mayor! So how do we fix this? We think all appointees should be ‘seatwarmers’ - legally prohibited from running when their position opens up.
Since we don’t have a choice for these races, we’re not endorsing candidates. Instead we’re focusing on what we want to see. If we were in these offices, here’s what we’d do:
Assessor-Recorder: (Incumbent: Carmen Chu) They’re responsible for assessing property taxes. And most of that comes from big skyscrapers downtown. The Assessor should be all up in the business of the corporations that own those buildings, because every time a building changes hands, they owe Real Estate Transfer Tax. Instead, the (appointed) incumbent is buddy-buddy with the Building Owners and Managers Association. That sucks.
City Attorney: (Incumbent: Dennis Herrera) A progressive City Attorney would have more guts to stand up to the fat cat companies (like PG&E, AT&T and big banks) who get way too many breaks in this town. The incumbent has done good things like support gay marriage (but does that give you street cred in SF?), protect workers who were getting ripped off on health coverage, try to save City College, and go after Nevada for patient dumping. On the other hand, we’re hugely opposed to his use of gang injunctions, which disproportionately criminalize youth of color.
Treasurer-Tax Collector: (Incumbent: José Cisneros) Instead of putting the City’s money in crappy big banks, the Treasurer should be setting up a municipal bank (North Dakota has one! Supervisor John Avalos is working to make this happen in SF). The incumbent has done some good stuff (work against predatory payday lenders, enact financial literacy initiatives, even ask banks to improve their policies) but he doesn’t seem ready to take the big step of setting up our own bank to compete with the corporate goliaths.
Supervisor for District 4 (The Sunset): (Incumbent: Katy Tang) Before she was recently appointed by the Mayor, Tang was an aide for the previous D4 Supe, Carmen Chu -- who was just appointed Assessor. Before that they worked together in the Mayor’s budget office. We had hopes that Tang would be different than her conservative predecessor, but so far, no such luck. She opposes CleanPowerSF and she worked to weaken the Due Process for All ordinance, using fear-mongering language about SF becoming a “safe haven” for criminal immigrants. She’s also raised over $150,000--including a pile of money from developers & people with business with the city. What does she need all that cash for when she’s essentially running unopposed? We say “No Endorsement”.
UPDATE: Mike Murphy is a qualified write-in candidate for District 4 Supervisor. He’s running on a progressive platform focused on “stopping the revolving door” of unelected appointees in City Hall, opposing the privatization of our parks, and supporting sustainable development instead of condos for billionaires. He got into the race too late for our endorsement process, but if you live in the Sunset, check him out at murphy4supe.wordpress.com and decide for yourself if you want to write in his name on your ballot.
http://murphy4supe.wordpress.com/
----
Our City is Changing
Housing in San Francisco is out of control. Ellis Act evictions are up 81% in the past year. No one we know can afford to buy a home here (most of us can barely afford rent). Tech wealth, displacement, the shriveling of cultural diversity in our neighborhoods - even issues like the America’s Cup boondoggle or the sword hanging over City College. It all seems to be part of a trend. Well, fuck. What can we do about it?
RENT CONTROL!
If you live in a rent controlled unit, your landlord can only increase your rent once a year . The percentage varies depending on your move in date, but typically the increase is less than 3%. State law (Costa-Hawkins) limits rent controlled buildings to anything built before 1980. Costa-Hawkins also prevents commercial properties from being covered by rent control, which means there is no way to prevent businesses from being evicted.
If we have rent control, why are so many people getting evicted?
Not all units are covered by rent control. Units that aren’t covered (buildings constructed after 1980, dorms, residential hotels, subsidized housing) can have their rent raised by any amount at any time. The Ellis Act gives landlords the option to “go out of business.” This means they can evict all of the tenants in a building (they can’t single out just one), and take the units off the market. They can not rent them for 5 years after evictions, unless they are rented at the previous rental rate.
Policy Solutions
Increase the Affordable Housing Requirements - Currently, when developers build new market rate housing, they have to make 10% of the units affordable, or build the equivalent of 15% somewhere else in the City. That’s just not enough--especially for super-luxury projects like 8 Washington. The affordability requirement should have a progressive structure--the higher the price of the new housing, the more affordable units they should have to build. Remember, supervisors have power to change the planning code to add development perks (if they want to get more of something like parking or height, require they build more affordable units, or build units on site).
Linking Affordable & Market-Rate Housing - Right now, the affordable housing requirement is regressive: whether you're building $10 million penthouses or modest Bayview duplexes, you have to make 10% of them affordable. That's stupid, because the different projects have very different impacts on affordability.
The fancier a new building is, the more jobs appear to provide services to the new residents. But since those service industry jobs don’t pay enough to afford market rate housing, we need more affordable housing to keep the balance - and the developers should foot the bill.
Protect our Flavor - Rising rents push out non-profits and arts orgs. We need creative solutions to save the spirit of the City: new office buildings could be required to donate space to non-profits, or we could extend rent control to nonprofits.
Moratorium on New Market Rate Housing - The nuclear option. A lot of people argue that we have to live with this issue because of “supply and demand”. But because SF is so small and there’s so much demand, it’s not that simple. Yes, we need to build a lot more housing ‘to increase supply’, but if 90% of it is market rate, how many units do we have to build before rents come down? 10,000 units? 50k? 100k?
Legalize in-law units. Most ‘in-law’ units are attached to single family properties, and are unauthorized. The Asian Law Caucus estimates there are tens of thousands of these units, which are a significant source of low income housing. Each year 50-100 units are lost because they are not compliant. Why not bring the units up to code and convert them to legal housing? Then let homeowners create more in-law units to add to the mix!
Get creative. Luxury high-rises aren’t the only way to build more units. What about unused commercial spaces? Parking lots? This would create housing without displacing residents or businesses.
Adjust parking limits: Developers try to include as many parking spots as possible but ⅓ of homes in SF do not own cars. Parking takes up space that could be used for more units - plus it creates more traffic, impacts transit, and changes the demographics of the city.
Prioritize the people who already live here: The City could invest in loans and grants to help everyday San Franciscans stay in their homes or become homeowners. LA has city-funded short term rental assistance! It costs less than finding replacement housing once the renter is evicted, or than providing the services needed when people are homeless.
We also need stabilization of existing housing. If there is a bad history of Ellis evictions or TIC conversions by a particular landlord or developer, we could make it more difficult to merge units, demolish, or convert properties.
Real estate speculators who buy a property but let current residents stay could get a tax break. And what about roommate legislation? That way, if the tenant who’s on the lease moves out but their roommates stay, the unit would still be considered occupied and rent increases would not apply.
Adjust Relocation Fees
Tim Redmond, formerly of the Guardian, suggested a strategy on his new blog. The Ellis Act is state law, so it’s hard to fight, but the SF BoS controls the size of the relocation fees developers pay to evicted tenants when they use the Ellis Act within the City. Why not drastically up the fee so it provides tenants a realistic chance of buying a home here, and simultaneously squashes the landlord’s financial reward for turfing out our neightbors?
Eat the rich - SF is an incredibly desirable place to live and do business, and it’s the diverse neighborhoods, immigrants, artists, do-gooders, and dreamers who make it that way - not the millionaires. If corporations and rich people want a slice of our awesome, they should pay their fair share; progressive taxes & fees can fund housing and services to keep the city affordable.
Get Involved - This city is still 70% tenants. If we stick together and have each other’s backs we have a ton of power. Landlords and developers can only get away with quietly evicting our neighbors for so long. Politicians running for office in a city full of renters need to be reminded that they cannot be elected (or reelected) without the support of renters. You can help - check out these organizations working against displacement and economic injustice in the City:
Direct Action for the 99%
These folks are all doing badass work in SF. If you like us, you’ll love them.
Causa Justa Just Cause - cjjc.org
Eviction Free Summer - evictionfreesummer.wordpress.com/
POWER - peopleorganized.org
SF Rising - sfrising.org
Tenants Together - tenantstogether.org
SF Tenant’s Union - sftu.org
Eviction Defense Collaborative - evictiondefense.org
Legal Assistance to the Elderly - laesf.org
Legal Text:
We fundraise for and make this guide in SF, but we’re part of a national org, so we have to say this: Paid for by the League of Young Voters PAC, 540 President St., Third Floor; Brooklyn, NY 11215 347.464.8683. Robert Baker, Treasurer.
Who is the League of Pissed Off Voters?
We're a bunch of political geeks in a torrid but troubled love affair with San Francisco. We’re blessed to live in America’s most progressive city, but we’re cursed to live in a city where most of the youth who grow up here can’t afford to live here. Frisco has its own dark history of injustice: redevelopment, environmental racism, the "old boys" network. All of us lucky enough to enjoy the San Francisco magic owe it to our City to fight to keep it diverse, just, and healthy. What are you doing to make a difference?
This voter guide (our 16th in SF!) is how we educate our friends and peers on the issues, excite pissed off progressive voters, and remind sellout politicians that we’re paying attention.
We’re into
affordable housing not luxury condos
CleanPowerSF not dirty PG&E power
progressive taxation not budget cuts
equal rights not immigration raids
diverse neighborhoods not downtown interests
Know Your Voting Rights
October 21, 2013 is the deadline to register to vote. Online Voter registration is finally here! Register to vote online: http://RegisterToVote.ca.gov
Election day is November 5th, 7am - 8pm. Call 311 to find your polling place or go to www.smartvoter.org Also, anyone can vote at City Hall.
Early voting at City Hall: Weekdays from 8-5 starting on October 7th; then, starting the 26th, 10-4 on weekends too!
As long as you're not on felony parole, you can vote. Even if you've committed a felony or you're on probation, you can register & vote. Don’t let the Man disenfranchise you.
Voter Fraud Hotline: See something shady on Election Day? (800) 345-VOTE
Questions? See http://sfelections.org/tools/voterkit/ or call 311!
Hang Out with the League!
Want to get involved, got a question about this stuff, or just wanna have a drink with us? Come to our monthly Happy Hour (Third Mondays) & come party on Election Night! Stay up to date on all our events and local news at:
