San Francisco is having a special election on February 15 for the School Board Recall (aka Board of Education Recall), Assembly District 17, and San Francisco Assessor-Recorder.
If you’re a pissed off voter and want to vote for change, you have to vote for it. Don’t vote for the same people we’ve been electing for decades, vote against the incumbents and for newcomers and political outsiders.
Voting in the ADEM election will let you amplify your vote power by 100x. ADEM
sets the direction of the Democratic Party and controls who earns the
Democratic Party endorsement for State Assembly, State Senate, US House, and US
Voters trust and vote with the Democratic Party endorsements. The endorsements
can easily create a 12% vote margin (about 62,000 votes) in these high-stakes
elections that determine state and national policy.
You must register for ADEMs by January 11, 2021, and some of the prerequisite
steps can take several days, so DO THIS NOW!
If they are so pissed off with the state of the city, then why did they endorse nearly all of the incumbents running in the upcoming March 2020 election? I guess I’d be pissed off, too, if I kept voting for the same people misgoverning San Francisco year after year!
I’m running for the SF Democratic Party County Central Committee (DCCC) which means, among other things, that I get to fill out a bunch of candidate endorsement questionnaires sent by various local organizations. By far the worst one I saw was for the League of Pissed Off Voters. It’s 5 pages of yes/no questions and demands for loyalty to the NIMBY fauxgressive machine. You aren’t allowed to explain your answers. You aren’t allowed to provide evidence. You must toe the party line.
San Francisco just passed an increase to the fees on new office construction and it’s being sold as “$400 million for affordable housing.” In fact, of the $400 million, only $154 million is new revenue, and it’s spread out over20 years. That works out to only $8 million per year in new revenue (or about 30 units of subsidized housing1).
This comes at a cost of $300 million to GDP and over 1000 jobs lost over 20 years, and higher rents for nonprofits and businesses. We can build more low-income affordable housing by lowering barriers instead of killing the economy that employs San Franciscans and funds government services.
I have a general voting framework for ballot props which works most of the time. I’ve developed this framework over several elections and it is now fairly stable:
Prefer to vote for new taxes, preferably without a set-aside
Vote for groups that don’t have a strong lobby (youth, disabled, homeless, low-income people, the environment)
Vote for social policy change in ways that agree with my values
Vote for things that price externalities
Vote against things which increase needless or unhelpful bureaucracy
Vote against things which infringe upon rights of the people
Vote against things which undermine good government
Generally vote against budget set-asides, which limit the ability of representatives to budget effectively
Vote to liberate funds from budget set-asides, to be useful for other purposes (new this election)
Vote to fund infrastructure (new this election)
Don’t just vote NO on every ballot initiative. California’s broken tax system requires that way too many things go to the ballot because the legislature doesn’t have the constitutional authority to pass certain taxes and other laws. Voting NO for everything based on a principle of “we shouldn’t have to vote on so much” ensures the state is poorly run. My long term strategy with much of my political activism is to undo these rules and to bring California back to full representative democracy where ballot initiatives are rare.
This is my longest-ever voter guide. Not only do I justify my positions on propositions using my voting framework, I explain those choices in depth. Every ballot prop position is justified by some of my 10 voting principles, eg if you see (1, !2) that means the prop satisfies voting principle 1 and undermines principle 2. Here’s the tl;dr, scroll down for detailed explanations.
I think that the only candidate that deserves your vote is London Breed. She is good on housing and is running a positive campaign based on uniting San Francisco. She is smart, capable, has good policy advisers, and is the only candidate who will work with YIMBYs to build more housing.
Tell your friends: Don’t vote for Jane Kim. I prefer London Breed, but Mark Leno would be a fine alternative. Here’s why Jane Kim will be a disaster for our city: