The Living Room Slate - November 2002 Edition

The Living Room Slate – November 2002

“Like having a Zagat’s guide for voting.” We invited insiders and watchers of all political stripes into the living room for pizza. We promised not to reveal names if they spoke honestly about how to vote. Then we tried to agree on the issues. When we didn’t, you can tell! Feel free to forward this to others who might like a little more information than we get from manipulative mailers and advertising. But please respect the integrity of this document and refrain from creative editing. Comment elsewhere, and have fun e-mailing your (polite) responses back to us: did this slate help you in voting?

Governor – Gray Davis is expected to win. Why help him? He is a spectacular example of Big Political Money Gone Horribly Bad. Meanwhile, Bill Simon has the kind of positions nobody can stand. Riordan is not going for the write-in campaign as hoped, so there’s really no better time to vote for an alternative candidate. The best one is Peter Camejo of the Green Party. We’ve met him: he’s smart, articulate, and he isn’t tainted with Big Donations. Why not?

Lieutenant Governor - Cruz Bustamante is expected to win. There’s no objection, but if you want to make your gesture of disgust with the big pols just a little stronger and counter the Gray Davis monolith, you could vote for Donna Warren, also of the Green Party, who is knowledgeable, approachable, and politically savvy. Or there’s Bruce McPherson, the essence of patient, liberal-from-way-back Republican.

Secretary of State – Kevin Shelley has the usual solid liberal record, and we can appreciate that, especially these days. But if his glide up the political ladder, his hideous tantrums, and his puerile sense of humor repel you, consider Larry Shoup (again of the Green Party!) You can be certain that he isn’t under the influence of Big Donations, and that’s really where the priority needs to be right now. Avoid a vote for Keith Olberg, who is unnecessarily reactionary.

Controller – Ah, Steve Westly. The Democrats ditched him. So he went off and started e-Bay. Now he’s back, still a Democrat, with plenty of his own loot, rather than someone else’s.

Treasurer – Phil Angelides has some novel ideas, and takes the job very seriously.

Attorney General – Those who know Bill Lockyer praise his honesty, fearlessness, and smarts. He’s also a strong advocate for consumers. We didn’t hear anything positive about Dick Ackerman, the Republican.

Insurance Commissioner – Remember former Insurance Commissioner Quackenbush? Do you recall the donations from insurance companies that went to Quack’s “charities?” John Garamendi is part of the move to stop all that nonsense. He’s another good advocate for consumers. He also has an amazing handshake, if that matters.

Board of Equalization – Again, we don’t like to reward divas or divos with bad tempers. But Carole Migden’s record is pretty good, and she’s certainly the best of the lot.

U.S. Representative to Congress – As usual, Nancy Pelosi courts gratitude for the usual solid liberal voting record. But her success is due in large part to the rivers of cash that she’s so good at generating for her party. If her refusal to meet with constituents and her shameless support of turning the Presidio National Park into Lucas’ private office center upset you, consider an alternative. Jay Pond of the Green Party is a nice, thoughtful guy but not someone you envision in Congress. G. Michael German doesn’t quite grasp the Presidio issue, but he’s one of the best dang Republicans we’ve met. Voting for him might slow Pelosi down for a tiny positive moment.

State Assembly, District 13 – Mark Leno, smart and dapper, has confused and disappointed us on occasion. But there’s no question he’s the best choice here.

Judicial/Supreme Court, Court of Appeal – Vote yes on all, and confirm these people.

Judge, Superior Court – Sean Connolly has experience, but he has shown himself to be temperamental and impulsive, and even too political in his decisions. We feel much better about Gail Dekreon, who has wide experience and the kind of temperament a judge requires.

State Superintendent of Public Instruction – Katherine Smith is a prototypical anti-gay crusader from Orange County. Jack O’Connell has already proven himself worthy in the field, and he’s accessible to boot.

Board of Education – pick up to 3

Playing the elimination game, you don’t want to vote for poor Bill Doherty, the safari guide, because he has died. Incumbents Dan Kelly and Eddie Chin have their supporters, but our mood is to do a little housecleaning on candidates who’ve overstayed their welcome on the board.

The favorites are Danny Guillory, who’s smart, educated, and sincere, despite having been appointed by the mayor. Then there’s Sarah Lipson, young mother and public school teacher, who is experienced and earnest. Whitney Leigh is bright and charismatic, though perhaps not as stuck on education as Guillory or Lipson. You’re third pick might be him, James Calloway, or Alexandra Pastine, whom we understand knows where all the skeletons lie from the dreaded Rojas era. Our main hope is that the winners of this race will support the efforts of the current superintendent, Arlene Ackerman.

Community College Board – pick up to 3

The only two names we can recommend are Anita Grier and Johnnie L. Carter, Jr.

Board of Supervisors

District 2 – The residents themselves may not realize what’s at stake here. District 2 is the city’s proverbial dumb blonde: pretty but unaware. For those who don’t know much about politics but know a solid sound bite when they hear one, Gavin Newsom is their choice. They don’t seem to know that Newsom intends to turn right around and run for mayor. Newsom has stated on numerous occasions his dislike of being a district supervisor. He has recused himself frequently, quarreled with his colleagues, and he clearly anticipates being able to move on quickly. He very nearly didn’t run this race for re-election.

Lynne Newhouse Segal, his only legitimate competition, started from way behind. She has reached out only recently to District 2 activists who are bitterly disappointed by Newsom’s failure to take a stand against development in the Presidio; his inaction on cronyism and incompetence in City Hall and favoritism in City Planning; and for his grabbing credit for smaller district issues. One activist was so alarmed, he put Newsom’s voting record together. It bears studying, if only because of the astonishing political momentum here. Segal clearly has more to learn, but at least she will be there. We fear who Newsom would appoint to replace himself. He would be the heir apparent to Willie Brown, and has close ties to Joe O’Donoghue and myriad corporate interests. And if you don’t know who Joe O’Donoghue is, you don’t know who really runs this city.

District 4 – The biggest trouble here is that the candidates that “fit” this largely Asian district are not the best ones. Barry Hermanson or Joel Ventresca are best, and Joel Ventresca is probably somewhat better for this conservative district. He shouldn’t be penalized for his multiple efforts at gaining office nor his occasional long-windedness. Lee, in particular, simply is not supervisorial material, despite his mother’s political prominence and Gavin Newsom’s endorsement. Fiona Ma, albeit with her machine perspective to politics, is at least a patient consensus builder.

District 6 – We like statesmanship and maturity, but we like principles even better. The criticism of Chris Daly as a “trust fund baby” only adds to his luster: imagine a city official so committed to his cause that he ignores the high life! If only our mayor were thus. People who know Roger Gordon like him, and we’re extremely concerned about Joe O’Donoghue’s tentacles into the politics of District 6 and Chris Daly, but we aren’t confident that these other candidates are as able as Daly to stand up to the mayor.

District 8 – Both candidates Tom Radulovich and Eileen Hansen are smart and care deeply about what they do: a lovely dilemma. One transit specialist is so crazy about Radulovich that he won’t support him – only because he wants Radulovich to remain on the BART board. Many like Eileen Hansen for her take-no-prisoners approach, while others are uncomfortable with it, hoping for more peacemaking. Radulovich isn’t necessarily that peacemaker, though, being perceived as too decisive. Hansen, unfortunately, has had and courted the past support of Joe O’Donoghue. Bevan Dufty, despite what his supporters say, was hatched in the Mayor’s nest. Given the ardent support for both Radulovich and Hansen, we weren’t able to support one over the other.

District 10 – District 10 wishes their uncontested incumbent, Sophie Maxwell, had more of a voice, particularly when it comes to Planning issues. We can only imagine the political minefields that Maxwell has had to negotiate from her district, though, and we hope as a second-term supervisor she will be able to make some bolder moves against what is wrong at City Hall.

Assessor-Recorder – This run-off between the incumbent, Doris Ward, and the challenger, Mabel Teng, is a terrible choice. We voters needed to pay attention to more than just our manicures and realize neither was worth voting for. We should have supported Ron Chun, a highly competent guy who really cares about doing this critical job right.

Fortunately, we needn’t feel bad about reelecting Doris Ward, a lady who has been able to do little over the years with the Assessor’s office but let it accrue embarrassments and bureaucratic malaise. Why should we reelect her? 1) Because she did the smartest thing possible by hiring the aforementioned Ron Chun as deputy; he’s already making big, positive, service-friendly changes, and 2) Teng may be charming and lovely to look at, but she knows little about the job and cares less. Her political ambition is paramount, and her connections frightening to those who care about the health of this city. Few remember her declaring “Joe O’Donoghue Day” when she was a knife-in-the-back supervisor. We do, and we aren’t fooled for an instant by her declaration that she is no longer a part of “The Machine.”

BART Director – We don’t know enough about Vesko Marinov, a Libertarian, to recommend voting for him. But James Fang, the incumbent, draws no praise whatsoever, and seems to have garnered his multiple endorsements because his family owns and runs the Examiner and Independent. We have all seen what those newspapers can do to elected officials that dare to have their own good ideas. We recommend a non-vote.

State Propositions

Prop. 46 – If you really want to do something about homelessness, this is the way to do it. The last such bond created a huge shelter on Treasure Island which currently houses a whole lot of homeless -- who would otherwise be on the street.

Prop. 47 – Yes. This is what we should be doing with our money: fixing our schools, pure and simple.

Prop. 48 – Court Consolidation: a technicality. Vote yes.

Prop. 49 – The Schwarzenegger Statute - Does the name “Ronald Reagan” ring a bell? Arnold the movie actor wants to be your governor, and he’s using this feel-good measure to make his mark. This sort of legislation, though, is called “ballot-box budgeting,” and it’s a practice which needs to stop. Say no: good legislators can’t budget appropriately if we keep forcing slices of the budget into our pet projects, even when they are for causes like these we utterly believe in (like education).

Prop. 50 – No recommendation yet. Sorry.

Prop. 51 – No, don’t do it. It sounds good, but it’s another example of “ballot-box budgeting” (see Prop. 49 above), only this time with pet projects earmarked for big supporters of the campaign.

Prop. 52 – Election Day Voter Registration – On the one hand, we will vote for anything that helps increase voter participation. On the other, we have real fears about how little progress has been made in improving voting practices (see Prop G). We wish the gentleman putting his fortune behind this effort had chosen instead to clean up post-Florida elections across the country (see page 1, New York Times, 10/28/02). Were we not still in the era of hanging chads, we would vote for this, and happily. But no, modernization must come first.

City Initiatives

Note: Unfortunately, many of these propositions have noble intentions but have fatal flaws. One common theme is money, either in taxes or in bonds, making it difficult to take firm positions with the local economy the way it is. Many of us who might normally favor social spending are feeling like we’re married to a spendthrift: we can scrimp and save all we want, but our Mayor will keep spending on fun treats like special assistants. Now, how many bond measures could we afford if we had a mayor who could tighten up the bloat at City Hall?

Prop. A – Hetch Hetchy? Our fabulous city water, endangered? That’s why we were tempted to vote yes. But our PUC watcher, who runs around town clutching the PUC documents pertaining to this issue, says no. The Sierra Club points out that three-quarters of this record-breakingly massive bond measure goes towards expansion of the water delivery system to the suburbs. A better version, for seismic retrofit without the pork, is already being put together by Supervisor Tony Hall, with support from Matt Gonzalez and Leland Yee.

Prop. B – Affordable Housing Bond - Nobody can deny that adding affordable housing is one thing San Francisco needs. Just think of the social problems here we could solve with some more housing for the regular Joes. That might certainly be worth a couple hundred mil in bonds, which translates to only a tiny increase in taxes. The selling point here is that funds are leveraged, so we receive federal and state monies, plus tax breaks. The last such bond didn’t do as well as hoped, but did manage to do an awful lot of good. A growing number of fiscal conservatives are understandably alarmed by the state of our city’s finances, and are in no mood to raise taxes or spend money. A yes vote here shouldn’t alarm them.

Prop. C – War Memorial Retrofit - Who knew there were so many veterans in San Francisco? They’re everywhere, suddenly, furious about the idea of the seismic upgrade at the War Memorial building. Preservationists and arts supporters alike are caught flat-footed by the outcry. What could be simpler than saving a beloved building or helping the arts? Veterans claim we can retrofit for less money, and that they need all the space they currently have in the building. See if that sounds reasonable to you.

Prop. D – Public Power - A rock and a hard place: rotten corporations or rotten government? You choose: 1) you despise PG&E so much, with their horrible ways and their sneaky boardroom pay raises to themselves, that you will vote yes to take public power any way you can and as quickly as possible. Or, 2) panic-stricken at the thought of another public agency with commissioners appointed by the kinds of mayors we tend to elect, you vote no, hoping desperately that next time will bring a perfect solution.

Prop. E – Public Utilities Commission directives – Our PUC watcher says to vote “yes.”

Prop. F – Appointments to the new Entertainment Commission – You don’t get to decide about the new commission; it already exists. You just get to say whether you think Willie Brown has grown up enough to work WITH the Board of Supervisors in making these appointments. Last time, the Mayor was such a brat, he decided the city would just have to do without a Planning Commission and Board of Appeals, mainly because he didn’t like sharing appointments. Vote yes if you think the Mayor should have to share the sandbox.

Prop. G – Fix the Repair Job on Elections – No. Sure the new restrictions are onerous, but with our history of funny elections, we shouldn’t loosen them.

Prop. H – Increased Retirements Benefits for Police/Fire – We won’t pay for this for 10 years, and it goes to our revered heroes. Then again, we will indeed pay for this in 10 years, and our revered heroes are already well cared for. Also, agreeing to increase benefits for some only leads to charges of “unfair!” by others who will want their fair share. We are the only ones who will say no to this post-Sept. 11 appeal to our heartstrings; others are too fearful of being called un-American.

Prop. I – Paid Leave for City Employees with New Children – Like the death penalty, this is one of those issues that proves that we here New World are still barbarians. It’s time to civilize ourselves this tiny bit. The financial cost to the city is minuscule. If you voted yes on H, you really ought to vote yes on I and be consistent.

Prop. J – Supervisors Full-Time and at Full-Time Pay? – Perhaps you feel great pity for your hard-working, much-maligned supervisors, struggling along with only two aides and a crush of district demands. Or, perhaps, you despise your supervisors and want to make sure they get not a penny more than the measly $37,000 and change they currently get.

Either way, you need to vote yes. Even if you love to stick it to the supes, there won’t likely be much change in who decides to run unless we change who can afford the job. Some real talent goes to waste every election cycle, because would-be candidates can’t afford to run and certainly can’t afford to live on peanuts. The current system favors the independently wealthy, and tempts the weak who need to supplement a meager income with kickbacks and the like. That the civil service commission is involved doesn’t strike us as reason enough to be against this measure, and compared to the average massive bond measure, this is peanuts.

Prop. K – Public Notices in Newspapers Out to Bid -We have fond memories of the ol’ Independent. Some of us delivered it as kids when it was still the “Progress.” We supported the original idea of having all the city notices published by this little paper in order to keep it going. And what has that gotten us? An editorial policy of providing a forum for one-sided and careless coverage, where Willie Brown Knows Best. Where being Irish is a license to find mellifluous ways of calling critics poo-poo-head – ceaselessly and in print, no less!

Our soft-heartedness is setting us back, because there are people who will read anything if it’s free. Let’s not support this abuse of public trust, and open up the competition again to all the other papers who might like to bid on running the lucrative city notices. Vote yes.

Prop. L – Increase Luxury Real Estate Tax -Unless taxes cause you to break out in boils, you should vote yes, especially if you voted for any city bond measure. It’s a painless way to get some badly needed funds into our city coffers. The next step will be to get a fearless mayor next year who will slash the bloated payroll.

Prop. M – Funds for Mayor’s Office of Economic Development - No. This is the mayor shuffling funds around, and earmarking money for his pet Office of Economic Development. It makes us wonder whose salary would benefit first.

Prop. N – No. This “Care Not Cash” measure is not really about helping the homeless. It's Gavin Newsom’s face, after all, that appears in all the publicity. So give this the Shaggy Test: would he have captured as much support for this had he campaigned in shabby overalls? Probably not; the reason has to do with a finely-tuned message that appeals to so many of us who have had enough of panhandlers. It reminds us of the old Willie Horton ad.

But looking more dispassionately at the actual homeless issue, maybe it would have been more productive for Newsom to work with the other supervisors and department heads in moving forward on the much-vaunted Continuum of Care plan. Most homeless are not addicts, and are not on General Assistance. GA is now workfare. Do we really want to slash the salary for workfare? Would anybody continue with the program for $59 per month?There’s no “Care” in this plan, but a vague idea of what could be done with the relatively meager savings. We know people who have recently become homeless. They're good people, they're not addicts, and we want their bad situation to be temporary only.

Prop. O – No. “Exits From Homelessness” differs from Prop. N mainly in that it guarantees actual services, or “Care.” Prop. 46 is more useful and effective in solving the immediate problem than either N or O, but won’t sell as well because it costs money.

Prop. P – Utility Bond Oversight - No recommendation. Sorry.

Prop. Q – Prohibit City Funds for Politics - No. This is unnecessary. The Mayor is grandstanding, here, and duplicating what already exists.

Prop. R – H.O.P.E. - We would like to help people become homeowners. But this is the creation of a monster loophole for landlords, who will invoke the dreaded Ellis Act and evict people. Being “Ellised out” has become a common verb in this town, and it’s terrifying. It’s certainly tough being a landlord, though usually not quite as tough as being a tenant. If you want to help landlords and soften rent control, please do so. But we're leaning towards a no on this.

Prop. S – Consider Marijuana - Yes. Why not? This will not result in pot farms growing on every roof, nor an outbreak of drug-crazed riots.

Prop. BB – Bart bonds – What wouldn’t you pay to ensure that you or anyone else doesn’t get trapped in a seismically unsafe BART tunnel? The federal money we expected went to the energy crisis instead. Previous funds for have gone to BART expansions, and not upgrading this 30 year-old system. We should probably vote yes on this huge bond. One of our trusted transit watchers thinks that BART should be able to handle its needs by rearranging its priorities. But most watchers say this bond measure is surprisingly sound, and to vote yes.

Posted by kbaum at October 30, 2002 10:36 PM | TrackBack