Living Room Slate for November 2, 2004

      So you can't think past the presidential race, yet you know the rest of the ballot is important. Even we had a tough time focusing on some of these races. This expanded version of the Living Room Slate is for those of us who weren't quite caught up on the rest of the news.
      Who are we? We represent major and minor parties, or no party at all. Our information comes from as many informed sources as we have time to collect. We talk to candidates, commissioners, advocates, aides, and officials who know policy and city budget intimately and don't mind talking freely if we keep their names unknown. We read a lot and sit through meetings. Then, with pizza and beer, we hash it out in the living room. It's grueling but fun. Best of all, money has no effect on our opinions.

Starting from the top of the ballot and going in order of appearance:

President/Vice President - John Kerry & John Edwards
      Are you one of those rare, undecided voters? Let no one say that the Living Room Slate failed to help.
      Even GOP faithful admit George W. Bush's record is unmatched for dismantling our civil rights and our environment. The economy is sputtering along with record deficits. Foreign policy isn't a joke, it's a terrifying global disaster. We certainly don't feel safer with a president who ignores facts in favor of convenient interpretations of God's instructions.
      One anecdote: a close friend, an eminent economist, was in a receiving line at the White House, and said politely to Mr. Bush that it would be good to have just a moment to express concern about current economic policies. The president answered brusquely that he really didn't care what his guest thought. Mrs. Bush stepped in and tried to smooth over the shock. The scene sounds sickening.
      The fact that John Kerry is smart makes him double the candidate Bush could ever be. Please, please, let's put an end to the worst presidency in the country's history.

U.S. Senate - Barbara Boxer
      Boxer has been awfully good on her positions. She has consistently found ways to expand health care opportunities even in the Republican controlled congress. Still, this might have been a good opportunity to hear more from the Libertarians. We think they can stimulate some Republican soul-searching just as, perhaps, the Greens have done for the Democrats. If you need a conservative alternative, here's Judge Jim Gray, Libertarian candidate - he won't take on the President, preferring to lay blame at the feet of Congress - but he is a far better choice than Bill Jones, an angry and out-of-touch Republican. http://judgegray2004.com/index.php?menuID=Page&pid=4.

U.S. Representative - no clear recommendation
      Yes, Pelosi's going to win. She's the top Democrat in Congress, after all, though her time as minority whip isn't terribly successful. She gets our basic positions. But her constant hewing to the fundraising circuit and her heavy hand in the mayor's race are repulsive. We resent her every time we pass by the gargantuan Letterman-Lucas office park that she made possible. Protest voters can either write in Terry Baum of the Green Party, or vote for Republican Jennifer DePalma www.depalmaforcongress.com. She clicks her heels much too obediently at the sound of the President's band, but she has some reasonable positions.

State Senator - Carole Migden
      She is the best fit for our district. We like her fearless stands. We just wish she would learn some manners.

State Assembly - Mark Leno
      Even our Republican friends have more confidence in Leno than in his Republican challenger. Leno is one of those rare politicians that broke free from the obligations of those who brought him to the scene, and he continues to improve as a statesman. Again, the Libertarians haven't come up with a credible campaign here: http://www.ca.lp.org/. We find the Libertarian Party similar to the pre-Reagan Republicans - when they aren't bogged down by nutty candidates.

SF Community College Board - Milton Marks III
      Do you think these officials debate class schedules? Ha. This is about land use, baby! As City College grows (10 campuses! 100 other class sites!) this board has become more and more about real estate. Making sure growth - as in acquisitions, deals, and building - happens in synch with its neighbors and communities takes a sensitive touch. That's hard, when there is none of the usual oversight from the Planning or Building Departments.
      Consider that incumbent Natalie Berg works for the developers who claim they were allowed to demolish nearly all of the old Emporium -- after they knocked it down. Then there was the bitter fight regarding turning the historic and beautiful New Mission theater into another college site. City College claimed they were "working with" historic preservationists, who were very surprised to hear it.
      The vice president of the board is Milton Marks III, an undisputed nice guy and committed environmentalist who is always hoping for harmony. We have far more confidence in him than in the others, who can be described as either developer-driven, hot-headed, or unqualified. With enough votes, he will be President of the board, and perhaps then he will find a stronger voice for doing the right thing. Julio Ramos is our recommended number two, and we don't intend to vote for any others.

SF Board of Education - in alphabetical order: Calloway, Mar, Wynns, Yee.
      This is long and tricky but very important. Listen first to the tale of Arlene Ackerman, who rode into San Francisco as the first solid superintendent of schools we have had in recent memory. She began cleaning up theft and corruption so thoroughly she called in the FBI. Because testing was the big measuring stick for students, she decided students should test well. Scores have indeed risen, though unevenly. Unfortunately, Arlene is not an easy personality. She does not like to spend time with people if they are going to complain! That's where the current trouble begins.
      Newer members of the Board of Education, either from or associated with the Green Party, feel compelled to agitate about the slow and uneven improvements. Their sword-brandishing only causes Arlene to become more prickly. The young board members have responded with angry words to the press, and threats to fire her. Arlene could have used helpful input regarding the shutting down of schools and pursuing her Dream Schools agenda. Now she avoids even teachers and parents with sincere grievances.
      What to do? Well, working backwards, we can't ditch Arlene. We need her competence and stability desperately. But she will continue to alienate huge numbers of vital customers unless she has a team she can work with. Board members must:

1. Help create an atmosphere of cooperation with Arlene and each other,


2. Work to improve schools very genuinely,


3. Mend relations and look out for parent and teacher communities. This is time-consuming but critical because San Francisco's schools cannot afford to alienate them. New private schools are opening up all the time, and those who can't afford them simply leave town. The state of the schools really affects the kind of city we live in.


4. Already have put in a lot of time on the political educational scene and can step in right away.

      Most of the challengers are eliminated just by requirement 4. This requirement can't be met by volunteering, or getting dozens of loving students to pose with you, or listing yourself as an exotic dancer after your stint as a satanic goat slayer(!). Two challengers meet all four criteria: Norman Yee and James Calloway.
      Incumbents must meet the same criteria. Mark Sanchez, despite his talent and passion, has made it clear he will not rest until he sees Arlene marched out of her office. That negative commitment won't work. Besides, he makes cruel public statements ("We're not here to help rich kids!") without thinking of how harmful those comments are to the entire educational environment. His dynamism affects his colleagues, such as Eric Mar, also up for re-election.
      Mar, too, is passionate and wants to keep pushing for change. We like both those qualities, but our fear is that he lacks the essential quality number 1. Without Sanchez, however, we're willing to take a risk and keep Mar in there, seeking solutions.
      There are two other two incumbents, Jill Wynns and Heather Hiles, who are weak on criterion number 3. Wynns was the original voice for reason during many long years of bleakness. She's the only board member footnoted in the book Fast Food Nation for having stood up to corporate interests who pressure our schools to turn students into hostage fast-food consumers. Her absolute and unquestioning allegiance to Arlene, though, serves neither her, Arlene, nor the schools and neglected communities of teachers and parents. We expect Wynns to respond favorably with a less contentious board, and to be more empathetic and responsive to parents and teachers.
      Heather Hiles, the other incumbent on the ballot, has been enormously impressive on the campaign circuit. But her history on criterion number 3 still worries us. We aren't singling Hiles out, but couldn't she, for example, have paid some sincere attention to the hard-working Citizens' Committee on Student Assignment? It only burnishes the suspicion regarding her huge campaign funds that this is a stepping stone office as she prepares for other races.

STATE PROPOSITIONS

Prop 1A - Protection of Local Government Revenues. No.
      Can't we have better fiscal reform than this? Prop 1A locks in spending priorities today, undone only with another constitutional amendment on the ballot in the future. In an emergency, a 2/3 vote is required for any changes - a near impossibility. Generally speaking, both state AND local governments need funds because of anti-tax crusades like Prop 13. We've cut various taxes all through the 1990s. Think of the cuts to the University of California system, which had been one of our main economic engines for the state's future. This prop wouldn't help our tax mess.

Prop 59 - Amendment: Public Records and Open Meetings. Yes.
      This extends open government to the state level. It updates the Brown Act and puts more teeth into the public's right to know.

Prop 60 - Amendment: Political Party Election Rights. Yes.
   A chance for all parties that have primaries to move up to the general election. Lovely. Nobody in the state seems to be against it, either. Look at this with Prop 62, for which you will want to vote no.

Prop 60A - Amendment: Surplus Property. No.
      It sounds sensible, yes. But let's quit tying up money so that it goes to only one spot. Look: this doesn't fix the general indebtedness of the state, but fixes only a particular set of bonds which were previously passed by the governor to balance a previous budget. At a certain point the state, taxpayers, Arnold, and all, will have to have a day of reckoning, and this won't ease that pain.

Prop 61 - Bonds and Grants for Children's Hospitals. Yes.
      Children's hospitals do need to be updated. This is California; we would be shocked if we didn't have top hospitals, especially for children, and these funds go to public hospitals. There shouldn't be anything wrong with earmarking funds for construction to upgrade facilities. We prefer airtight accountability for how the money is used. We will settle for the hope that better facilities will attract better providers and treatment.

Prop 62 - Amendment: Elections and Primaries. No.
      One of us called this a "Louisiana Style Primary," which hurts the parties right where they are most vulnerable. It would dumb down a lot of districts: a candidate with strong views would be eliminated by opponents from other parties, who have fun making chaos by voting for the weaker candidate in the opposing party.

Prop 63 - Millionaire Tax for Mental Health Services. Yes.
      You know that long ago, Governor Reagan cut mental health service funding, dumping patients in the streets. We're figuring that those of us with personal incomes of over $1 million a year won't mind getting a less-than 1% net tax on anything over that lofty amount to put some of that funding back. Let's get these poor people the services they need.

Prop 64 - Limits on Private Enforcement of Unfair Business Competition Laws. No.
      If government agencies always acted on behalf of the public, we might feel differently. Usually you have to go to your personal lawyer for enforcement, and that's no good because some of these attorneys go too far. This fixes the going-too-far part, but goes too far itself by making it harder to sue for unfair business practices than for a simple fender-bender. Funny how big corporations have poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into this effort. Yuck.

Prop 65 - Amendment: Local Government Funds, Revenues. No.
      This is an orphan measure that nobody now wants.

Prop 66 - Limitations on "Three Strikes" Law. Yes.
      If you like how 3 Strikes has worked out, you probably aren't familiar enough with the daily workings of criminal justice. The whole point of having judges is to make sure "the time fits the crime." Our prisons are crowded, at taxpayer expense, with non-violent offenders who got caught in the 3 Strikes net. This refines concept so that you don't catch the minnows along with the sharks.

Prop 67 - Amendment: Telephone Surcharge for Emergency Medical Services. Yes.
      First we said no, partly because we've reached our limit on telephone taxes and surcharges. We didn't like how this would send public money to large for-profit institutions. Then we considered how critical emergency rooms are to the well-being of millions of people, including those who wish they had health coverage. If some funds wind up being diverted elsewhere, then the institution in question has its future funds cut accordingly.

Prop 68 - Amendment: Non-Tribal Commercial Gambling Expansion. No.
      Ah, gambling. The fine print in this terrible thing is actually entertaining; it gives you that old West feeling. Try page 55 of the California Voter Information Guide for some nice details on racetracks, card rooms, and 30,000 slot machines.

Prop 69 - DNA Samples and Database. No.
      Would you like to be arrested and have your DNA taken as a matter of course, even if it turns out you are not guilty of any crime? This is a horrible invasion of privacy. Save this sort of thing for big criminal cases. It's expensive, too.

Prop 70 - Amendment: Tribal Gaming Compacts. No.
      The arguments in this thing are riddled with spit-flecked outrageousness. But the legislation itself is reason enough to strap on a couple of six-shooters. If this passes, we get more games, lower payments, fewer regulations, and longer-lasting compacts.

Prop 71 - Amendment: Bonds and Funding for Stem Cell Research. No.
   The ONLY reason to vote no is because our state is in financial peril. We want this so badly, and there are so many good reasons to vote FOR this. (By the way, our heavy research scientist doesn't buy the "cloning" argument.) This is the gamble: If Kerry wins, the NIH will take this over and we will have an astonishing $3 billion in wasted funds. If Bush wins, California could be the only place anywhere developing this very lucrative and morally important science. This is like an investment in a risky IPO, with a potential payback from some amazing breakthrough in as little as five years. California would be just the place to guide the progress of such a sensitive science with global implications. But we're flat broke, our house is already fully mortgaged, so how lucky do we feel? Maybe we'll have to leave this shiny sports car in the showroom.

Prop 72 - Health Care Coverage Requirements. Yes.
      We think big employers are in better shape than the state to take this preliminary step in offering health care coverage. We are the only major industrial nation that doesn't automatically provide health care for its citizens. Individuals without healthcare end up costing us far more than if we had just paid for proper care in the first place. Those costs are borne by the state and by individuals who are already insured, as their premiums and charges go up more than necessary.

SAN FRANCISCO PROPOSITIONS

Prop A - Supportive & Affordable Housing Bonds. Yes.
      Normally, we like bonds that go towards infrastructure. Uncharacteristically, we're supporting this despite the fact that there is no urban planning behind this and nothing that will go towards basics like schools and sewers which must accompany new housing. Also, purists among us usually don't care for solutions that don't attack the problem itself (of homelessness, poor planning, and concentration of wealth). Still, it's well thought out and very necessary at a time when the feds and the state have turned their backs on the cities' needs. As for the money it would take to pay for it, we feel that homeowners would rather pay under $10 - $100 per year in property taxes, leveraging funds from other sources, than continue to complain about homelessness and a lack of affordable and supportive housing so critical to fixing our city. Finally, the main arguments opposing this are based on "accountability" and "choice," and are unconvincing.

Prop B - Historic Preservation Bonds. Yes.
      It's hard to get these bond measures passed, and we realize this is unlikely to make it. So our "yes" vote is mainly a message that our city MUST wake up and take care of its patrimony. Though this is a very small bond measure, we feel obligated to point out that there's some messiness in this measure. Mainly, the city must come up with additional funds to make this happen. Is that likely?

Prop C - Changes to Health Service Board; New Health Services Department. No.
      By saying "no," we aren't defending the current system. Not by a long shot. But there must be a better way than creating an entirely new department.

Prop D - Changes to City Charter. Yes.
      Nobody likes hodge-podge propositions. But these changes are all truly useful. The only fear is that the Board of Supervisors might transform into a hard-partying bunch who will hire dozens of aides during drunken binges. Don't buy it. Compared to the cramped, over-worked supes' offices, the mayor's office is like a Broadway musical with a cast of thousands! Anyway, Ken Garcia would never let the supervisors get away with it - he's probably cackling now, writing another column about their profligacy, idiocy, or poor posture.

Prop E - Police and Fire Survivor Benefits. No.
      Do our police and fire departments already have everything they need? Are they hurting? They may say they are impoverished. Because we don't reveal ourselves, we can state without hesitation that these are very sleek, well-cared for departments. How is your pension? Your benefits? They're unlikely to be close to what these guys get. This is written so that even if a guy falls off a ladder, the spouse gets to cash in at full retail price. Once the other departments see what these guys get, they'll be coming around, asking for their share, too - they always do. We cut funding to our hospitals, pharmacies for the indigent and mentally ill, roads, parks and schools, but these two departments never face cuts. We're not interested in giving them even more.

Prop F - Non-citizen Voting in School Board Elections. No.
      We admit that if there's one place where non-citizens might reasonably have some say, it's in the school district. It's happened in other districts. And one doesn't have to expand it to other races, though the phrase "slippery slope" comes to mind. But we don't care about being politically incorrect by asking: how would this be implemented? It could create a minefield of difficulty with more costs attached. Our elections department has its hands full as it is. Let's fix the schools and fix the INS, but not monkey around with voting rights.

Prop G - Health Plans for City Residents. Yes.
      Despite the title, this isn't free health care. This just allows the city to figure out how to buy into health care that it could then offer to us residents. Too many of us have no place to go to find it, even if we can afford it. Even if you don't quite trust this rushed measure, it won't do any harm.

Prop H - Naming Candlestick Park. No recommendation.
      Most of us see this as an easy way to get some money for the city, and are opposed to this measure which would stop that from happening. Who cares what you call a stadium? Maybe we would really care if we liked the place more. But there are purists among us who like this measure. City residents would want to weigh in if this were a more emotional issue. We worry about what else might get a new moniker in the name of the city budget. Modern life is commercial enough! If only we could solve our budget woes the old-fashioned way. Ultimately, it's not likely to matter, as a naming deal is likely done before this gets to the polls.

Prop I - Hiring Economists for Economic Analysis of Legislation. No.
      Here's where you spend up to half a mil a year in the name of saving it. That's a leap of either faith or logic. Already we have experts in City Hall, like the City Budget Analyst, toiling away on this stuff. If this measure passes, we would instead have an entire office created to come up with information we can have already, any time our officials decide they want to create an economic plan. We would like to be sympathetic to a young supervisor trying to make a name for herself by championing economic ideas she gets from the Committee on Jobs, but on this we have to stay sensible.

Prop J - Local Sales Tax Increase. Yes.
      Actually, we would like to emulate Oregon, and have no sales tax at all. Unfortunately, we're trying to recover from some very long years of destructive mayoring. Unless you can honestly say you pick up every penny you see on the sidewalk, you won't even notice this miniscule rise in taxes. This is one-quarter of one percent, which will come to less than an extra $100 per household per year. This won't apply to necessities like groceries or prescriptions. Yes, the city is desperately in need of the money. Let's at least keep up the pressure for good fiscal management and see where that gets us. Now that our mayor has 82% public approval, he's popular enough to trim that still-huge city payroll - that ought to cut costs nicely.

Prop K - Temporary Gross Receipts Tax. Yes.
      We consider ourselves the shining knights of small businesses. If they hate a tax, we hate it, too. Then we realize that we're talking about a tiny one-tenth of one percent of gross receipts over $500,000 for four years only. A lately added incentive by the mayor would make this over $2,000,000, which means just 4000 of the largest businesses would be affected. Law and accounting firms that have been tax exempt would finally have to pay, too. If we don't like tax increases, we MUST convince our department heads to cut some more nephews off the city payroll (Hi, Mabel!). Until then, we'll have to have some creative taxation.

Prop L - Use of Hotel Tax to Preserve Movie Theaters. No.
      We heave with sobs with the destruction of every treasured neighborhood theater. But this is destructive, too. It attempts to scoop up and set aside about $10 million in hotel taxes to preserve theaters and support local filmmakers. What's wrong with that? Well, all the money goes to one group. That group is more or less one guy. That guy has no experience restoring theaters, and we don't really know about his taste in local filmmaking. In the process of getting this on the ballot, he has alienated every other movie theater enthusiast in town and terrified other arts groups that already jostle for those hotel tax funds. Aaron Peskin finally took a first step by calling for a halt to the destruction of these theaters. Let's hope the other theater groups can get their act together and really do something about saving these theaters.

Prop M - This measure doesn't exist anymore! (But the story behind it is fascinating. Maybe we'll talk about it over coffee sometime.)

Prop N - Policy Statement: City Must Urge Troop Withdrawal From Iraq. No recommendation.
      Either you despise policy statements as non-binding ballot cluttering devices, or you're so furious about what's going on in Iraq that you will seize this as an opportunity to declare your feelings. We understand both attitudes; just know that we have a big mess to clean up before we yank home the troops.

Prop O - Use of New Sales Tax Funds (if Prop J passes). No recommendation.
      Again, a non-binding measure. Feel fine voting either way. You may detest earmarking funds, but this is a set aside that sets nothing aside! Vote yes if you are keen on sending a message that new tax funds from Prop J should go straight to funding services and programs for our least fortunate.

Prop AA - BART Earthquake Safety Bond. Yes.
      We bow down before the great god of infrastructure investment. When that earthquake hits, you'll be glad you invested the $40 a year (on average) to make this happen. Deferred maintenance is more expensive in the long run, so don't fear these bonds.

SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT SUPERVISORS

      What makes a good supervisor, anyway? According to the Kaufman principle, you want supervisors (and commissioners and department heads) who will bark and vote the mayor's way like good doggies. We strongly disagree. Even if you think Newsom has grown wings and a halo, we believe that smart, independent supervisors provide good, old-fashioned checks and balances. What could be more representative than district elections and supervisors?
      Chronicle columnists should see that a mayor reaching out to the supervisors works better than one who just belittles them all the time. Now, with decent supervisorial salaries, we should have a more qualified pool to select from.
      We're looking for candidates with personalities and perspectives that fit their respective districts. We're looking for brains, certainly, and some long, hands-on experience. Ambition isn't a plus: seeking higher office is a huge distraction from the gritty details of daily supervisoring. We're trying to avoid candidates whose platforms are mostly quick, unsubstantiated promises to appeal to a particular voter base, such as to "stop rent control" or "fix the parking problem." What have the various candidates done on these problems until now? How have they worked with the constituents on the other side?
      Finally, we try to be aware of candidates with big war chests. Who's really paying for those glossy signs and mailers? What kinds of groups are putting out those vicious attack ads? Let's not encourage them by falling for their nasty tricks.
      Note: Do not be pressured into voting for three choices! If you feel strongly about one candidate only, then it's most effective to vote only for that candidate.

District 1 - Jake McGoldrick.
      It's no secret that the mayor and his supporters have targeted incumbent Jake McGoldrick. That's not fair. The residents of any district should have the right to select their supervisor without interference. One active voter said that as an Asian, she knows she's expected to vote for an Asian candidate. But this seems simplistic to her, as the Richmond is about all kinds of people, not just Asian. Jake's never a smooth speaker, and his office could use a little smoothing out as well. But, as our voter said, Jake's integrity and accessibility have united the district behind someone who is truly a good guy, ready to listen to all the neighbors. Hit pieces don't mention that, preferring to mock him for his attendance and votes when his record is one of the best.
      If you must have an alternative, Dawydiak or Tuchow are imperfect but seem to mean well, and don't have big scary campaign coffers.

District 2 - See below.
      The republic of District 2 doesn't have a reputation for producing lots of learned legislators. This crop of candidates is typically disappointing. Not one has a solid history of working on district issues.
      The incumbent, Alioto-Pier, seems happy merely to follow the mayor's orders. Until the last few weeks, both she and the challengers have been invisible on the big issues, be it chain stores or the Presidio. Alioto-Pier, in fact, voted against her constituents on chain store legislation. She also bestirs resentment because her name, money, and obedience to the mayor got her appointed as supervisor in the first place. She may be likable, but she is having trouble proving herself solid and knowledgeable in the long-term.
      Our recommendation: given the choices, we're ready to gamble with either of two challengers. One, Steve Braccini, is a Republican who is terribly young but a quick learner. He has attained the pinnacle of speaking to both tenants and property owners in the same breath. There is also David Pascal: more progressive and determined to stay independent of mayoral interests above all.

District 3 - Aaron Peskin
      If there's one smart statesperson currently on the Board of Supervisors, it's Aaron Peskin. He is focused, productive, and an excellent speaker. He is simply an excellent legislator. Even his office is run tighter than a steel drum. Sure, he could be less abrasive, but it's good that he has reached out to the mayor.

District 5 - See below.
      Bonanza! Like being in a candy store, with 22 candy-dates to pick from! Let's see, shall we pick Bill Barnes, with his rapid-fire brilliance? Lisa Feldstein, the most thorough and articulate human on the continent? How about getting the passion and long, hard work of Robert Haaland? For sheer integrity and committed environmentalism, there's Dan Kalb, who doesn't even know how to lie - or even exaggerate. There's a whole raft of moderate candidates, too. Who can step into Matt Gonzalez' shoes? Can someone surpass his legacy?
   Yes, we think so. As charismatic - and enigmatic - as Matt may have been to his supporters, his term had definite weak spots. Mainly, he was interested in city-wide abstractions surrounding legislation, and he simply tuned out the nitty-gritty pothole-level concerns of his district. While any of the candidates we've mentioned above are deserving, Ross Mirkarimi deserves special mention. He seems to have the gravitas necessary to handle all levels of the job, from pothole to press to mayoral pressure. He also seems comfortable with all kinds of people, which is saying a lot in District 5.
      We see how the Residential Builders Association, Labor, and Housing activists are all playing a role in this race, and Mirkarimi seems at ease with all and beholden to none. Democrats, still quivering from the trauma of the last mayoral election, are hoping they can stamp out this upstart Green nonsense, and they aren't anxious to see Mirkarimi, a Green, succeed. With all the party politics at the state and national level, we aim to follow the candidates' lead, and keep our criteria non-partisan.
      Here, finally, are our top three favorites amongst all that talent: Mirkarimi, Barnes, Kalb. Pick the order you prefer.

District 7 - Christine Linnenbach
      This is the race that started with a wacky shell game: Tony Hall out of his office to take AnneMarie's place at Treasure Island. Then Sean Elsbernd from the mayor's office grabs Hall's empty seat in time for the deadline to enter this race. Whew! If you don't like this kind of thing - we don't; it's about consolidating mayoral power and acquiring a stable of compliant supervisors a la Willie Brown - then consider the alternatives. Unfortunately, the choices are mostly not-terribly-qualified challengers with one signature issue and some puffed-up credentials.
      One candidate stands out: attorney Christine Linnenbach. She is, perhaps, the most fearless female in the city. She's an excellent fit for this conservative district, holds deal-making in contempt, and has already spent years ferreting out corruption in our departments and Sutro Tower scandals in her district.

District 9 - Tom Ammiano
      There was a time when Tom Ammiano would drive you crazy and then crack you up laughing. He still does, but this is now the mature, worldly supervisor with a commanding wealth of background. His casual detractors are detracting far less these days. Maybe they have grown comfortable, for the most part, with his Eminence. Possibly, the mayoral run had a lot to do with it; his composure was absolute throughout.
      As for the challengers: Renee Saucedo would be hard-pressed to live down her reputation for staging sit-ins at the Board of Supervisors, holding up the creaky wheels of democracy. Miguel Bustos is a favorite of the more conservative side, but his well-funded efforts, with glorious promotional materials and star-studded fundraisers (Rita Moreno! James Hormel!) create the fear that he will be less than independent, and too eager to make influential friends and connections.

District 11 - Gerardo Sandoval
      Any of us who have sat, white-knuckled, watching Gerardo Sandoval through a bad day at the board didn't imagine we would recommend his reelection. Frankly, if we had better choices, we might look elsewhere. We know it's unlikely he will develop into a thundering orator full of vision and forthrightliness, but he's likeable, with none of the bile of so many of his challengers, and we trust him to be on the right side, listening to the little guy, most of the time.

Thank you for caring enough about voting carefully to look at the Living Room Slate. We are eager to know how you liked it, and if and how it was useful for you. We also welcome polite suggestions on how the Slate can be improved.

Please e-mail kbaum88@gmail.com.

Posted by kbaum at October 21, 2004 09:10 PM | TrackBack