The Living Room Slate - March 2004 Edition

You poor, poor voter. Four elections in six months. Even the hard-core politicos are trying to catch up. We, gathered here in the Living Room, fortified with beer and pizza, have gone over the ballot so that you don't have to.

Who are we? People of various political backgrounds who attend endless campaign sessions and forums, who work inside and outside City Hall, and have heard sound bites aplenty. If we told you who sits in the Living Room and who calls in mysteriously over the speakerphone, our information would be sanitized and much less useful. So anonymous we shall remain.

Starting with the top of the ballot: (Those of you edgy enough to decline party affiliation may request a ballot that allows you to vote in the Democrat, Republican, and American Independent partisan primaries.)

Presidential primary - We note that there seem to be two top considerations in the Democratic primary: 1) level of opposition to the Iraq war and 2) who is most likely to defeat George W. Bush. We ask only that you refrain from casting any votes for La Rouche (vile bigot) or Sharpton (entertaining, yes, but does anybody remember the hideous Tawana Brawley case?) Those who lean Green might demonstrate independence and reject Nader's claim to the mantle in favor of David Cobb's realpolitik.

U.S. Senate - Forthright LGBT clubs will hope for an alternative to Barbara Boxer for her inability to cope with gay marriage. (Geez, it's been a huge windfall for restaurants near City Hall!) She's unopposed in this primary, and will likely get our support in November. Republicans must choose between the stalwart but boring Bill Jones, Toney Casey and Rosario Marin (all pro-choice) and Harold Kaloogian, who wants to recall Bill Lockyer for failing to enforce Prop 22 against gay marriage.

Congress, District 8 - Some of us see Nancy Pelosi as a nearly extinct creature: a strong, liberal Democrat during the reign of Bush II. Others are really tired of her brand of politics-by-fundraising, and we are agape at the monument to "privatization" called the Letterman Digital Arts Center that is currently being built, with her support, in the Presidio. It puts us off voting for her, even when she is unopposed.
Republicans should feel good about voting for Jennifer DePalma, a smart young attorney.

Congress, District 12 - We are happy that Ro Khanna is a smart and nicely educated alternative to Tom Lantos. We think that Barry Hermanson is the right choice for the Greens, and that Christopher Huskins is the right choice for Republicans.

State Senate - Carole Migden can be annoying and brusque, but she manages to represent this town pretty well.

Assembly, District 12 - This is just the primary, and the candidates are all unopposed. Democrats, ask Leland Yee where he keeps himself these days.

Assembly, District 13 - Mark Leno's voting record just gets better and better. He's smart and nice and we really can't quarrel with his effectiveness. Republicans should be sure to aim for Colin Gallagher, a workman's comp attorney.

And now, the fun begins - the Central Committees!

First, this is where we voters can see the shakeout from the switch in mayors. It's been a long, hard eight years with Willie L. Brown, Jr. If things seem different and a little lighter in the public arena, it might have to do more with the absence of the tough, preening opportunism that characterized so much of the Brown administration, and less with Gavin Newsom and his well thought-out early mayoral moves. Some of the committee candidates are feeling around for party-based opportunities in newly-formed alliances brought about by the regime change.

Second, the Central Committees are the proving ground for those who would set the course for our political parties. Do you think the Republicans are destroying the world along with the country? That Democrats are screwed-up scramblers? That the Greens need to quit with the negative, and the Libertarians look like long-shot losers who don't even have a central committee? That's when you realize change starts from below and you run for the local Central Committee to fix all that is wrong.

The fact that there are rafts of candidates is an excellent sign. It means we can weed out the unqualified and the crackpot. We can reject the brilliant but brutish; perky but vindictive; friendly but lazy; the fiefdom-builder, the slavish follower, the publicity-seeker and the say-anything slickster. We even found ourselves nixing beloved friends and honorable colleagues just because they were too busy for our taste, or maybe a touch too abrasive and doctrinaire. We settled on these sets of candidates by virtue of their energy, availability, talent in working with others, and ability to see beyond their own immediate interests.

Observation: candidates able to pay for street signs and mailers tended to be less popular with the Living Room gang than the other candidates without the goodies. Politicos who send out hit pieces slamming certain candidates should be warned that their good name is linked to such activities, and it only encourages us to reconsider the very candidates that are maligned.

Democrat, District 12 - Vote for Susan Hall, Richard Hansen, Amy Harrington, Mary Jung, Dan Kalb, Greg Kamin, Malik Looper, Jose Medina, Jane Morrison, Connie O'Connor, Julio Ramos, and Steve Williams.

Democrat, District 13 - Vote for Tracy Baxter, David Campos, Denise Castaneda, Gerry Crowley, Rick Galbreath, Michael Goldstein, Joe Julian, Bruce Lee Livingston, Rafael Mandelman, Catherine Markman, Greg Shaw and Scott Wiener.

Republican, District 13 - Vote for Chris Bowman, John Brunello, Thomas D'Amato, Jennifer DePalma, Carolyn Devine, Leslie Huang, Jenisel Jordan, Philip Jordan, Bob Lane, Darcy Linn, Jim Soderborg, and Dana Walsh.

Green County Council - Vote for Michael Alterman, John-Marc Chandonia, Maureen DeBoer, Micheas Herman, Sujung Kim, Susan King, Kimberley Knox, Paul Quick, and Marc Salomon.

State Propositions

55 - Public Schools Bond - Many of us will vote yes simply because we are so alarmed at the state of school buildings. Others of us will vote no because there seems to be little political will when it comes to improving schools: just requests for money. Why is it that no other class of building seems to crumble so consistently? We challenge our elected officials to pay attention.

56 - Changes to Make Passing a State Budget Easier - Our state budget is rarely on time, and that costs money and efficiency. Why is it so hard to pass a budget? Because of short term limits, a huge deficit, an extremely partisan legislature, and a two-thirds voting requirement. Among other things, this would help the last problem. Maybe the next open primary will also help reduce the crippling partisanship. Vote YES.

57 " Economic Recovery Bond" & 58 Balanced Budget Act (58 only goes into effect if 57 passes) These two measures refinance the critical loan from last year at lower interest, but still create billions in debt service as an obligation for about another five years. Otherwise, taxes would have to be raised and services cut. Still, that's going to have to happen sometime - putting it off will make it no easier, and the surgery should probably take place while the current legislators are around to take responsibility. Let's avoid a ballooning state deficit along the lines of our federal deficit. Vote NO on both, and demand that our elected leaders roll up their sleeves and do the hard work.

Regional Measure 2 - Traffic Relief Plan
Most of our transit wonks are uncomfortable with this. We're happy to reduce congestion, but RM2 is too heavy on ferries and tunnels and other questionable transit projects. It's too rigid; it can't be massaged after the fact for better transit solutions. We aren't troubled by the toll increase, but we would prefer to wait for a better version of this measure. No.

San Francisco Propositions

A - Deferment of Vacation Time and Sick Leave for City Employees. Yes. It saves money.

B - Retirement Benefits for District Attorneys and Public Defenders. No. Here they say that this won't cost the City any money. Right - we've heard that before, and even now we are confronted with (surprise!) underfunded retirement coffers that have been depleted by early retirements and changing actuarial studies. Are the D.A.s and P.D.s moaning about their benefits? Yeah, well, so are we…

C - Police Staffing With Civilians. Yes. We'll jump on this bandwagon. Have you ever stood in line at the local precinct, waiting for the uniformed officer to take down your missing property report? And then thought to yourself that any mid-level, less costly receptionist could do the same? That's what we're thinking.

D - Domestic Partners Treated as Spouses by City for Retirement. Yes. Any cost issue is far, far outweighed by the fairness and decency issue.

E - Requests for Private City Records. Yes. Old "Dragnet" re-runs typify government as efficient, orderly, fair and courteous, (and maybe a little repressed something-or-other). The rest of us outside of the Dragnet world are content to have the Board of Supervisors gallantly step in should the Feds start asking why we checked out those library books of questionable taste. Even if you're the sort that loves to hate the supervisors, you should put aside your concerns based on the constitution and grab whatever extra privacy protection you can.

F - That Deputy Sheriffs Negotiate the Same as Police and Fire. No. What we ought to do is have the police and fire departments negotiate the same as everyone else, rather than start changing one labor group at a time to join the advantageous bargaining position the police and fire departments now enjoy. Can we instead see a measure next time to bring those two exalted departments back in line, please?

G - Extra Pay for City Employees on Military Duty. No. We feel for lots of people, employed in the military and otherwise. We would love to contribute to strapped military families, but until we have gleaming schools, detoxed addicts and a Muni bus on every corner, we'll have to point the finger of financial responsibility solely at the Federal government.

H - City Funds for City Schools. Yes. We have a really good superintendent of schools now and we feel confident she will put this money to good use. You know how cranky we are about spending, but the state of our city's schools is causing multiple problems, not least of which is an abysmal quality of life for some of our littlest San Franciscans. One fiscal consideration: as parents move out of the city to find better schools, our tax base declines further. As our never-spend right-winger put it: "you know, this is the best set-aside legislation I've seen. I might have to change my mind on this!"

I - Replace Muni's Old Diesel Buses. No, though Prop I is likely to pass anyway. We consulted with every transit wonk we could think of, and all but one said "no." Don't let that fool you into thinking that we are in favor of smelly, particulate-laden exhaust and childhood asthma. Really, this measure is here because Muni should have been able to finish all their studies and their testing by now, and people are frustrated with the endless delays. This is a kick at Muni's rump, but it will happen regardless of Prop I, just not in a rushed and possibly wasteful way.

J - Incentives to Build Below-Market-Rate Housing. NO. Sounds nice, doesn't it? "Workforce Housing" campaign efforts include a logo with a firefighter and a teacher, as if they would get first shot at buying these apartments. Not true. They probably couldn't even qualify because their incomes are too low. The Chronicle trusts the Chamber of Commerce when they point out that building here is tough. But whether you're a developer or a housing advocate, the way to fix a problem isn't by setting up your own streamlined path for extra-big and extra-tall buildings, and not even allowing the Planning Department any say in what you're doing. You shouldn't hire pros to collect signatures and then falsely claim to have neighborhoods and environmentalists as part of your "coalition," when they are in truth furious with your proposal. We suggest doing it the old-fashioned way: working with the people and the government and the preservationists of San Francisco to fix what's wrong with city planning. If you're too impatient for that, you might consider the strip-mall business instead.

Did the Slate help? We adore polite feedback. In the meantime, prepare for the November election.

Posted by kbaum at February 27, 2004 11:17 PM | TrackBack