Endorsements for the November 2024 election in San Francisco, California

I resent the length of this ballot. I spent many hours on this, reading up on the 25 ballot measures (!) and candidates. I don't think many voters will. This is why we pass a lot of crappy ballot measures, often with unforeseen consequences (see prop 36, which would fix one of our worst mistakes.) It's also why we keep re-electing incumbents even if they're incompetent or corrupt, or, like the mayors of San Francisco and Oakland, both.

Sorry, but we voters have to work harder. We have to fix this city. It's not just crime, homelessness and the open-air fentanyl markets. Sales tax revenue in the city is down 34% compared to pre-pandemic because visitors aren't coming.

We have gotten away with incompetent and corrupt government for years because everybody wanted to live and work in San Francisco so money was pouring in. Not anymore.

We have a budget crunch, but we're still paying $1 billion a year to nonprofits to carry out things like homeless services without any accountability. We have to spend less and accomplish more, and that means streamlining commissions (prop D), closing schools because enrollment is down (school board), and ending the culture of corruption in city hall (mayor). And though I am nearly a socialist, we have to stop making the city so unfriendly to small businesses (prop M). If you don't agree, go walk around Union Square and Maiden Lane, count all the empty storefronts, and get back to me.

It doesn't help that our local media is worthless for endorsements. I miss sensible endorsements from the Chronicle, which hasn't been sensible in about 5 years. I miss well-researched endorsements from the defunct San Francisco Bay Guardian; its former editor now just suggests the person who sounds the most left-wing, regardless of their competence.

The nonprofit journalism website Mission Local had a great idea, asking supervisor candidates questions. I thought I would rely heavily on this. But when it came time to decide, I looked up the most recent question they asked of District 9 candidates, my district, and it was ... would they make information available in less-spoken languages like Mayan? Sigh. It's unfortunately typical of political discourse here. This is how we end up with a useless board of supes: electing lefties who give the proper lipservice on things that do not matter. Google Translate has 243 languages, but not Mayan, so Google must be racist. ("You don't want to speak Mayan to your constituents? You incredibly racist racist!!")

Two techbro sites, GrowSF and TogetherSF Action, do the best organized, most sensible endorsements in San Francisco. I'm a media guy, not a techbro. I wish this weren't true. But props to both of them, and if you want a different take than mine, read theirs.

Here are my endorsements.

Federal offices

President

Kamala Harris

See separate editorial

US Senate

Adam Schiff

This is a no-brainer: we can have our first good Senator since Kamala Harris, or we can have an ex baseball player who was only famous because he played before advanced statistics. You have to vote for Schiff twice; once to fill the final two months of this term (which was Dianne Feinstein's), and once for the next six-year term.

House District 11

Nancy Pelosi

Has Nancy Pelosi ever done a greater service to this country than helping to push Joe Biden out of the race? She's not Speaker anymore, but she's clearly still playing an important role in Washington.  

California offices

State Senate District 11

Scott Wiener

Wiener has been on the wrong side of some criminal justice legislation lately, and I'll talk about that when he runs for Nancy Pelosi's seat. But his Republican opponent is an "aesthetic nurse" at a spa and anti-vaxxer who apparently wants cannabis illegal again.

State Assembly District 17

Matt Haney

I don't trust Haney, who's a chameleon. But his Republican opponent is a deli owner who doesn't seem to be taking the election seriously, and why should he? No Republican is going to win an assembly seat in San Francisco in 2024.

Local offices

Mayor (Pick up to 3)
No. 1: Mark Farrell
No. 2 Ahsha Safaí
No. 3 (reluctantly) Aaron Peskin

Incumbent mayor  London Breed has presided over the most corrupt administration in San Francisco this century. Breed's Department of Public Works head pled guilty to fraud. The chief of the Public Utilities Commission was found guilty of fraud. These were Breed's close allies. In 2020 Breed took funds from the police department and created the Dream Keeper Initiative, a nonprofit to help the black community. She put her friend Sheryl Davis in charge. Now we know Davis spent $1.5 million on contracts for the guy she lives with, and Davis was forced to resign from being Breed's head of the Human Rights Commission.

If you vote for Breed, you are condoning her helping her pals stuff their pockets with taxpayer money.

I see a lot of moderates talking about a strategic ranked-choice ballot. I disagree. I'm on record as not wanting a progressive mayor while we have a (worthless) progressive board of supervisors. But I'd rather see an honest progressive than the most corrupt mayor San Francisco has seen.

The clear best candidate is Mark Farrell. He is the only sensible moderate who understands that the city needs fixing and that continuing to demonize the DA and the police department is not the way to do it. He's a problem solver, not an ideologue. And we have problems to solve.

I want Farrell to be mayor MUCH more than anyone else, but I'll play the ranked-choice game. There's some noise around inherited-money billionaire Daniel Lurie, who has no government experience, and in fact has never had a real job. Imagine putting the owner of the Oakland A's in charge of the city; there's no real difference between him and Lurie. No thank you.

Ahsha Safaí jumped in the race when it seemed that Breed would run unopposed. He doesn't have much chance of winning but he's a moderate and unlike Lurie he has actually done things in his life. I'll pick him second.

And I'm going to cross moderate-progressive lines and pick Aaron Peskin third. I don't agree with Peskin on much ideologically, but he is by far the best candidate the left can put forward. He's a policy wonk, which I respect, and unlike too many of his colleagues on the board of supervisors, he seems to realize crime is bad. A lot of moderates would rather have Breed or Lurie for philosophical reasons. But Peskin is a more honest, more experienced candidate.

School board (4 seats)
Supryia Ray, Ann Hsu, Parag Gupta, Jaime Huling

Before Chesa Boudin made San Francisco shoplifting videos famous, the main reason people laughed at us nationally was our far-left school board, last seen spending the pandemic trying to rename schools that had been named after racists like Abraham Lincoln (seriously). We took action on these crazy lefties in the last election, but the work is not done and the folks who are against teaching algebra want to take the board back. (Progressives hate algebra because they can't do math themselves.)

The big issue for the board is the budget and school closures. San Francisco has declining enrollment, both because of population loss and because parents who have alternatives to our school system (i.e., private schools) have taken them. We can't maintain the number of schools we have now and there's already a huge war over which ones must close. It appears that the current board may punt the decision to the incoming board.

Board chairman Matt Alexander must take responsibility for that. His proudest achievement, he said at a September debate, was guaranteeing that immigrant parents would get an interpreter when they visit school. He also bragged about shutting down the school closure plan that the superintendent brought to him. "We're not ready," he bragged, despite having years of warning. We need better leadership than that.

Ann Hsu was originally appointed to the board as one of the replacements to the recalled far-left trio in 2022. But she lost her election when her attempt to show interest in the educational needs of non-white students was spun by angry lefties as racism (in their circles, you're either a righteous progressive or a white supremacist, even if you're not white). Hsu is campaigning on the idea of using metrics to measure school performance. Underperforming schools should have metrics, but the left hates metrics because progressives struggle with math. She also wants police "resource officers" back in schools. We need that because even our teachers are becoming victims of assault. Ask them.

To elevate Hsu, I have to not vote for one of the four candidates endorsed by GrowSF and TogetherSF Action. I like their endorsees in general, as these organizations have focused on candidates who pledge fiscal responsibility, which is badly needed on the school board. (ANY kind of responsibility is badly needed from our school board.)

I rank them in this order:

Supryia Ray, who tried in vain to convince the pre-recall school board to focus on opening schools with outdoor classes. Subsequent studies have shown that the education loss in the second year of the pandemic was awful for students, and unnecessary after vaccines were available. She also pushed for 8th grade algebra. I like her even more than Hsu.

Ann Hsu.

Parag Gupta, the chief program officer at an affordable housing nonprofit.

Jaime Huling, a former deputy city attorney. I read that as a grownup who understands the city's strengths, limitations and responsibilities.

To include Hsu, I am leaving off John Jersin, a former LinkedIn executive who will probably win because he has raised the most money. His platform pushes him as an expert in hiring, which is funny to anyone who has tried to use LinkedIn. We need good teachers, not algorithm-friendly teachers.

City Attorney

David Chiu

Say what you want about the incumbent Chiu; his opponent is a nut whose proudest achievement was going unmasked about town before the Covid vaccine was introduced, though to be fair, on his website he lists that below handing out ice cream at Burning Man.

Community college board (4 seats)

Heather McCarty, Ruth Ferguson, Aliya Chisti, Luis Zamora

I hate this election more than any on the ballot, and have for years. It's always a bad choice between unqualified people, most of whom win election by promising voters more without paying any attention to the budget. That's probably going to happen again, which is how city college nearly lost its accreditation a few years ago. I'm unimpressed by a couple of these folks, but GrowSF thinks these four will be better than the others. I hope they're right.

District Attorney

Brooke Jenkins

Recalling Chesa Boudin and voting in Brooke Jenkins started the turnaround in San Francisco. Jenkins' opponent is a Boudin acolyte, another criminal sympathizer who belongs in the public defender's office, not as a DA. We don't need to return to the Boudin era, when he considered drug dealers to be victims and refused to prosecute them. If people outside SF think that's too ridiculous to be true, there are still people here who believe it, and we have to outvote them. We're not going back.

Sheriff

Paul Miyamoto

The main job of San Francisco's sheriff is to run the jail. I don't have a strong feeling about Miyamoto or his opponent, a cop who works for UCSF. I just don't see a compelling reason to make a change, and it creeps me out that the first thing on his opponent's website is a huge quote saying God told him to do this job.

Treasurer

José Cisneros

He's running unopposed.

Board of Supervisors

I'm in district 9, and I usually only recommend candidates I'm voting for, but this time I'm going to endorse across the city because it's time to fix this dysfunctional board.

Two years after his recall as DA, Chesa Boudin remains a good way to judge a candidate. If they think Boudin's philosophy of not prosecuting criminals was a good idea, vote for anybody else.

Because of ranked-choice voting, I will vote for 2 candidates in most races, and recommend that you do the same.

District 9: Trevor Chandler

Would you believe he is the only candidate in this district who thinks fentanyl dealers should be arrested and prosecuted? His main progressive opponent, Jackie Fielder, supports defunding the police. Her supporters are bullies: the worst progressives we have (if I am in physical danger for any endorsement, it is this one.) My district has a lot of anarchists but the rest of us need to vote for a grownup. He's the only one on the ballot in this district. There is no good second choice.

District 1: Marjan Philhour
(2nd: Jeremiah Boehner)

Philhour lost this seat by just 125 votes in 2020. Hopefully the last four years have convinced District 1 residents that incumbent Connie Chan is worthless. Chan supports defunding the police and does not support arresting fentanyl dealers. Chan won't show up for debates, no wonder when her history is of supporting intentionally misleading legislation and creating oversight boards (like one on graffiti) that increase bureaucracy without actually doing anything. This is an easy choice. Philhour is a better candidate than Boehner but mainly we have to get Chan out of office.

District 3: Moe Jamil
(2nd: Matt Susk)

GrowSF and TogetherSF Action are supporting Danny Sauter, even though he called for defunding the police in 2020 and refused to answer a question this year about the topic. I don't see how we can fix this city by electing more cop defunders like Sauter. Jamil is deputy city attorney and he wins my heart by saying the city needs to try staying within its budget. Few of our candidates are talking about fiscal responsibility yet we have a budget crisis and nonprofits spending hundreds of millions of dollars of city money with no accountability. I also like Susk, a local businessman and political novice.

District 5: Autumn Looijen
(2nd: Bilal Mahmood)

Ugh, the worst district. Mahmood hasn't even won office yet but he has already changed his positions from two years ago to try to win this very progressive district. The incumbent, Dean Preston, is a Democratic Socialist and multimillionaire landlord who sees no hypocrisy there, even as he votes down every competing proposal for rental housing. Looijen is an activist who helped spearhead the school-board recall. She's on the right side of issues. The two tech-bro endorsement sites I favor didn't choose her because Mahmood is a fellow tech bro, but she's the best candidate.

District 7: Matt Boschetto
(2nd: Stephen Martin-Pinto)

Incumbent Myrna Melgar supports defunding the police. Boschetto, a local small business owner and political novice, does not. This is an easy choice. It's not like Melgar has accomplished anything in office, either. I like Boschetto most but Martin-Pinto, a firefighter who emphasizes public safety, would also be fine.

District 11: Michael Lai
(2nd: Ernest Jones)

There's no incumbent here. Two of the four candidates support defunding the police. People outside San Francisco reading this -- you are so lucky that you don't have so many of these nutcases. Lai and Jones do not support defunding the police. Lai is focused on addressing the fentanyl crisis, which puts him ahead of Jones.

BART board district 9
Joe Sangirardi

The first thing both candidates for this job mention on their websites is that they are LGBT community organizers. That's nice, but what does it have to do with BART? They both have a fair amount of endorsements from prominent Democrats. Sangirardi got Grow SF's endorsement and his supporters among the Democratic Party seem more moderate as a group than Edward Wright's. I could live with either but I'll defer to GrowSF.

California propositions

2 School bond
Yes

School buildings around the state need repairs. We need to pay for that.

3 Marriage equality
Yes

This repeals proposition 8, which passed in 2008 and defined marriage as solely between a man and a woman. Doesn't that seem like a long time ago? Federal courts ruled prop 8 discriminatory. This just codifies what is already law.

4 Set-aside for equity-based "climate" plans
NO

In 2022, Gov. Newsom had to cut some of the state's climate agenda from the budget because he had to make cuts somewhere. Normally I would support this bond, because climate change is the greatest threat facing our future, and we have to pay up to prepare.
However, this was written so that 40% of the funds must benefit disadvantaged communities. It's typical progressive thinking but unnecessary when things like wildfire resilience, clean drinking water, and biodiversity protection should benefit us all. 40% is a HUGE number and that's going to lead to much of this money being misspent on programs that have nothing to do with the climate. Also, it's easy to foresee some of the money being wasted on defending lawsuits against programs that don't reach that 40% goal.
Vote no and let's hope for a better climate bill in the next cycle.

5 Easier housing bonds
Yes

Currently most local bond proposals require 2/3 approval. I don't understand why this is so, when bonds are the best way for a community to raise money. This would cut the vote threshold to 55 percent for bond measures for housing and infrastructure.

6 Prisoner work volunteer only
Yes

Currently state prisoners can be forced to work without pay. Setting aside whether forced labor should be part of punishment, it's not a good system for the issue nobody but Kamala Harris seems to care about: reducing recidivism. Prisoners benefit from working, earning job experience and a little commissary money, but not if they're forced into it: instead we'll reinforce to them that work is for suckers. Whatever pennies we save from not paying prisoners for their labor, we'll lose in law enforcement and theft costs when they get out.

32 Minimum wage increase to $18/hour
Yes

This won't affect San Francisco because our minimum wage is already $18.67 per hour (including tipped workers, which means there's no reason to tip for minimal service, like takeout sandwiches, despite those annoying suggested-tip screens.) The state's minimum wage is currently $16 an hour. I lived on minimum wage for a while in my 20s. You cannot believe how much of a difference an extra $80 per week will make for people who are just getting by. They won't have to skip meals. They might be able to do car repairs, or even go to the dentist. Ask someone who has lived on minimum wage what it's like. Then vote yes.

33/34 One man's crusade for rent control with other people's money
No on 33; Yes on 34

Currently cities can only impose rent control on older buildings, not new ones. 33 is the third attempt in 6 years by the head of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation to pass a bill that would allow unlimited rent control. I have rent control and love it -- I wouldn't still be in San Francisco otherwise. But realistically, in an anti-housing city like this, if we were allowed to impose rent control on brand new apartment buildings, there would be no brand new apartment buildings; building them wouldn't be profitable enough. Market rate housing is new housing and we need new housing. Vote NO on 33.
34 is a bill that would stop the AIDS Healthcare Foundation from spending money donated for -- let me guess, healthcare for AIDS patients? -- on ballot measures like 33. So far the foundation has spent $21.4 million on just this ballot measure this year. That could have bought a lot of protease inhibitors. Send the AIDS money where it belongs; vote YES on 34.

35 Free medical insurance for illegal immigrants
No

The California state legislature expanded Medi-Cal, our free insurance program, to allow illegal immigrants to take part. This bill would tax the paid insurance plans of citizens to pay for Medi-Cal.
I would support this bill if it were limited to farmworkers; we need more farmworkers regardless of their immigration status.
I also understand that illegal immigrants will go to emergency rooms when they're sick, and we have to pay for that somehow.
I'm just not willing to codify this into law.
Moreover, the legislature is trying to sneak a "no takebacks" into this by requiring at least 75% of the state assembly AND state senate to modify it in the future. It's very sneaky to put this nice-sounding bill in front of the public and try to make sure nobody can change their mind when they understand the repercussions.

36 Making crime illegal again
YES YES YES

This is the most important bill on the ballot.
In 2014, we passed Prop 47, with which we attempted to reduce prison overpopulation. The most significant aspect of the bill was that we made shoplifting of items under $950 a misdemeanor.
Fast forward six years. Now we have retail crime gangs throughout the state, because they know they face no real penalties.
In San Francisco, if you go to the Walgreens or Safeway in my neighborhood, almost every product is locked up in a plastic case and you have to ask an employee to unlock it. I had to wait 5 minutes to get a heavy $8 bottle of fluoride rinse -- one of the least likely items to be shoplifted.
This isn't normal, folks. It isn't the way stores are in the rest of the country. It's no wonder our stores keep closing. Macy's employees said they witnessed 20 thefts per day. So now we will have no more Macy's flagship downtown.
I'm as responsible as everyone else. I voted for Prop 47. I strongly favor prison reform and didn't want petty thieves and drug addicts in prison.
I was wrong. We were wrong. We must fix our mistake. Please vote yes, it's the most important bill on the ballot.

San Francisco propositions

A School bonds
Yes

The physical condition of our schools was neglected for years by the progressive school board, because building repairs aren't as much fun as deciding which historical figures were racist (Spoiler: All of them!) Now the schools are in bad shape and we don't have the money to fix them. We need to pass this bond.

B City buildings bonds
Yes

We have a number of important buildings that need repair and renovation, including hospitals and homeless shelters. Bonds are the best way to pay for it.

C Unaccountable Inspector General
No

The idea for creating an inspector general with more power than the mayor or board of supervisors came about because of city hall corruption. Supervisor Peskin proposed forgoing the usual checks and balances, like the Ethics Commission and City Attorney's office, and putting an appointed strongman in charge with unlimited power to investigate political opponents. It's a terrible idea, in a corrupt city, to give one unelected person that kind of power. When Chesa Boudin proved to be a disaster, we could recall him. But this czar would be beyond public accountability.

D and E Reforming City Commissions
YES on D, NO on E

Speaking of Peskin, these dueling ballot measures are a typical San Francisco trick. When voters get something on the ballot that we want, the board of supes comes up with a dummy measure that looks like it, but would actually invalidate the original idea.
Currently San Francisco wastes millions of dollars and man-hours of work on 130 commissions with 1200 appointed, not elected, members. It's ridiculous. Los Angeles, which has 4.5 times as many residents as SF, has 48 commissions. We have 5 commissions devoted to homelessness alone. Have you seen any of them making a difference? In fact, in most cases they prevent the mayor and board of supes from taking action. This is often the point; rather than make difficult choices, the board of supes can say, we have a commission for that.
Prop D would cap the number of commissions at 65, and would shift decision-making responsibility back where it belongs, to city hall. It restores the ability of the mayor to appoint and fire department heads. The mayor is accountable to voters; the commissions aren't.
Peskin put E on the ballot to neuter D. This kind of maneuver is why San Francisco's board of supes is so worthless. Don't fall for it. Yes on D, No on E.

F Deferred police retirement
Yes

This would allow cops to keep working past their retirement age. We need it because we haven't been able to bring the police department up to full staffing since Mayor Breed and the board of supes defunded it in 2020. Hiring and training new officers is far more expensive than keeping already-vetted officers for a few extra years. Maybe one day this won't be necessary but this year it is.

G Budget handicap for rental subsidies
NO

San Francisco is hundreds of millions of dollars over budget and every special interest group is trying to defend its turf. This bill would create additional subsidies for rent for seniors -- a nice idea, but it's not a bond measure; it's a set-aside from the budget. Money for this program should come out of the general fund and compete with every other nice idea like hiring teachers or nurses. If we pass this, the money will be taken away from something else we need.

H Early retirement for firefighters
No

This would reduce the retirement age for firefighters from 58 to 55. Everybody loves firefighters so it will probably pass. It's generous. But is this really a time to force the city to hire and train hundreds of new firefighters?

I More retirement benefits for nurses and 911 operators
No

Many cities are short of nurses. This is an attempt to get more nurses without paying up front; instead, the idea is that nurses will move here because of enhanced retirement benefits they might see in 20 years. I don't think it will work; nurses can write their own ticket and could be lured away by a city that simply pays more up front. There's a nationwide nurse shortage, and an acute shortage statewide. I'm not going to say we shouldn't compete for them, but a better solution would be to streamline the city's months-long hiring process. Or just pay more.

J Accountability for "Success Fund" for kids
Yes

Currently the city spends an estimated $200 million a year on kids and their families -- estimated because nobody is keeping track of how much is spent, or by which departments, and whether or not this spending is helping. This is exactly the kind of boondoggle that led to Mayor Breed's Dream Keepers spending money that was supposedly for the black community on expensive parties for the Dream Keepers. We need more accountability throughout our corrupt city government and this is as good a place to start as any.

K Closing the Great Highway
No

On weekends the Great Highway next to Ocean Beach is closed to cars, so people can walk on it. This proposal would close it permanently, pushing more traffic onto 19th Avenue. It's a stupid idea that might be appropriate for a retirement community, but not for a city where people still have to work.

Closing the road won't turn it into a park. It's just going to be a flat piece of concrete; a road will still be necessary there to reach the sewage plant. Proponents are talking about a park, but there is not, and will not be, a plan to actually tear up the road and make a park. We can't do it even if we close the road.

Nor is a park needed. The road already runs between the beach -- The Beach! Which is, you know, open for recreation -- and a long thin park.

I often go out to the ocean on hot days to escape the heat of my neighborhood, so you might think I would favor this. I don't. It's simply not necessary. On one hot weekday this year -- the perfect day to visit -- I hung out under a tree in the long thin park all afternoon, reading my Kindle and nursing a snowy plover coffee from Andytown. Very few people were in the space.

If the road is closed on weekdays, a dozen or so folks might come out and walk on it, rather than walking on -- The Beach! Which is, you know, open for recreation. But thousands of people will be delayed on their way to and from work at jobs. This isn't Carmel: Most San Franciscans still have to work. Traffic all through the outer avenues will be worse, for the sake of a dozen folks who want to have their beach but not actually walk on it.

L Uber/Lyft/Waymo tax
No

It's tempting to vote for this tax on rideshare passengers, which is supposed to be used to alleviate Muni's money troubles. Both the techbro endorsement sites say no because they think it's not enough money to make a difference, and unnecessarily complicates our city's already complex tax structure.
I'm voting no for a different reason. I don't think we're prioritizing tourism enough. Before the pandemic, tourism -- not tech -- was the city's No. 1 industry. We need reasons for people to visit.
I have come around on driverless Waymo taxis because they are clearly magnets for well-heeled tourists. Waymo is the cable car of the 21st century. They seem to be safer than their banished competitors, Cruise. And people around the world like posting videos of themselves riding in them, which is exactly the kind of advertisement for San Francisco that we need.
We need to promote Waymos, not punish them with extra taxes.

M Simplifying business taxes
Yes

San Francisco requires businesses to pay three separate taxes: gross receipts, homeless gross receipts, and annual registration fees. There are also numerous licensing and permit fees that businesses complain about all the time, less because of the money than because there is so much paperwork. Example: did you know the city charges restaurants a fee to have tables and chairs? This is all unnecessarily complicated, though it does mean full employment for accountants.
Proposition M would eliminate licensing and permit fees, which would be an ENORMOUS boon to entrepreneurs just starting out. Ask any food truck how they'd feel about that. It would also eliminate business taxes for businesses with less than $5 million in gross receipts: as many as 2,700 small businesses would benefit.
This is exactly the kind of idea we need to revitalize downtown with art and food pop-up stands, for example.
The measure was developed by the city controller so it's not supposed to cut business tax receipts overall. One type of company that would pay more is large companies with a lot of remote workers. City analysts believe that whatever negative feelings they might have about paying more taxes will be balanced out by the simplification of less paperwork and fewer things being taxed. We'll see, but there's no business opposition to this bill, and that seems significant.

N Student loan forgiveness for first responders
Yes

We don't have to pay for this. This measure would set up a fund of up to $25 million that philanthropists can donate to, that would be used to reimburse up to $25,000 in student loans for first responders. One can argue that it duplicates federal student-loan forgiveness programs. But it's not taxpayer money, so, why not?

O Reproductive rights
Yes

This measure would do more than just affirm that abortion is legal in San Francisco. It would ensure that abortion clinics cannot be zoned out of existence, as has happened in some states. And it would require signage at misleading anti-abortion "pregnancy crisis centers" informing young women that those places don't actually provide health care. These are San Francisco values.

Follow me on Twitter: @wblakegray and like The Gray Report on Facebook.
I cannot allow comments on endorsement posts, but I am happy to discuss any of these on The Gray Report Facebook page.

Why I am voting for Kamala Harris for a 4th time

I have always liked Kamala Harris. I voted for her for San Francisco DA, California Attorney General and US Senator. Now I will vote for her for President.

Plenty of people can make a case to vote against Donald Trump; I'll let them do it.

As a San Francisco resident, I have seen Kamala Harris' entire political career. So let me tell you why you should vote for her.

First, San Francisco progressives don't like her and never have. This is a good thing. Our lefties are left of your lefties. They are the ones who defunded our police department, horribly mismanaged the city's budget, and enabled a culture of corruption in City Hall.

All of this happened after Kamala Harris graduated from San Francisco DA to California Attorney General.

If Kamala Harris had stayed in office as our DA, San Francisco wouldn't be as messed up.

Of course, it's not clear that she could have continued to win election for San Francisco DA because she supports prosecuting criminals, and our lefties don't. (To be clear, I am a Democrat, but not a far-left one.)

In 2019, the city stupidly elected a far-left DA named Chesa Boudin who promised to go soft on criminals (his parents were convicted felons) and hard on cops. That's the core of the doom cycle that hit this city. Not only would he not prosecute shoplifters; Boudin considered drug dealers to be crime victims and refused to prosecute them either. You need to keep in mind that all of the chaotic videos you can find online about San Francisco crime -- people brazenly shoplifting into garbage bags; drug dealers ruling the streets around the federal building -- happened only after Harris left town.

You should also know that in each of her California elections, her opposition came from the left, not the right. Harris is a political moderate. Detractors are trying to paint her as excessively liberal, but it's not true: just ask some California lefties.

In 2004, Harris became the first woman AND the first non-white person elected DA in San Francisco. She was great in the job; we miss her. She oversaw a much higher conviction rate on serious crimes than we had seen in recent years, or have seen since. But she also created well-thought-out programs that successfully reduced recidivism, including a re-entry program for drug offenders.

Harris was the last good San Francisco DA we had until 2022, when we recalled Chesa Boudin and elected Brooke Jenkins. Jenkins is also a woman of color, also believes in prosecuting criminals, and the lefties here also hate her. Plus ça change ... (If you're wondering, San Francisco's most virulent lefties are white. They can't accept that people of color might have their own agenda.)

In 2010, Harris beat LA's district attorney in a statewide race, becoming the first woman AND the first non-white person to be elected California Attorney General.

Once again she became unpopular with our leftiest lefties, but she ended up on the right side of history. While launching a new program to research ways to cut down on recidivism, she unsuccessfully opposed efforts to do a mass early release of prisoners -- a release most of us came to regret. She created a cybercrime unit, necessary and ahead of its time. She required all cops to wear body cameras. She oversaw a major prosecution of international criminal gangs. She also refused to defend California's Proposition 8, which had outlawed gay marriage. She said, "It would be inappropriate for a state on the verge of bankruptcy to use all those resources to defend a law found to be unconstitutional." And she turned out to be right -- Proposition 8 was indeed ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court.

Harris and Gavin Newsom came up through San Francisco politics at the same time. They've never really been either allies or rivals. I wish I had been a fly on the wall when the jobs of Governor and Senator both came open. If you're wondering, though San Francisco lefties also dislike Newsom, Newsom is further left than Harris. I wonder how different the state would be if Harris was governor and Newsom was Senator. My guess is the state would be better run. (If you can't tell, I prefer Harris to Newsom.)

Harris only spent 4 years in the Senate before becoming vice president, but she distinguished herself with her tough questioning of members of the Trump administration. Jeff Sessions, Trump's first attorney general, said Harris' questioning "makes me nervous." That's what we like to hear!

Vice presidents don't do much and Harris hasn't been an exception; the job is a bit of a waste of her talents. But she'll be great in the top job. In every one of her elected positions, she has prepared, studied the issues, and taken smart steps to address them. World leaders will fear her like Jeff Sessions did. You can't go into a conversation with Kamala Harris unless you know what you're talking about.

If you want an example of Harris learning and improving, consider that her 2019 campaign for president wasn't great. A national campaign is a new skill and was held against her as a potential candidate. But this time around, she's doing great. She's disciplined, she's focused, she's smart and she has turned around the election, just in time to save the nation.

You can vote against Trump. That's fine. But me, I am proudly voting for Kamala Harris.

Endorsements for the San Francisco election of March 2024

It's time for me to tell you how I'm voting in March, a Gray Report tradition. But I dread writing this endorsement post. I have been thinking about how to phrase this for months. I fear I am going to lose friends for saying what I'm about to say.

Let me be very clear upfront. For national politics, Donald Trump is the greatest danger facing the United States today. We must do everything we can to keep him out of office. He has promised to be a "dictator for a day," and to encourage Russia to attack our NATO allies, among other things. It boggles my mind that he has the support that he does. I'm not going to belabor this point.

I also encourage people in other states not to send back to Congress the Republicans who have accomplished absolutely nothing this term, and who continue to support and protect their fascist leader.

What I am about to say applies only to San Francisco. I have thoughts on California politics in general that I will share in autumn, but the following statement does not apply to California, only San Francisco (and also Oakland, but I don't vote there).

We have to vote all of the progressives out of office in San Francisco.

There, I said it. It feels good to get that out.

The reason is simple. San Francisco progressives simply do not see San Francisco's problems the way normal people do: crime, businesses leaving, and a drop in tourism. We can't solve our problems if we don't recognize what they actually are.

They believe San Francisco's biggest problems are Israel's invasion of Gaza, exorbitant CEO salaries, income inequality, and homeless people not being given free furnished apartments downtown. (It appears their proposal to pay black city residents $5 million cash in reparations, each, is dead, for now.)

For folks outside California, it's easiest to explain it this way. Our progressives are just like your MAGAs. They are extremists. They are obsessed with national issues, and ignore local issues. They are incapable of the basics of governing, like passing a budget. They are hate-filled people who shout down any attempt at conversation on issues. Instead they argue by personal insults and intimidation. They don't accept facts that don't fit their worldview. And they're often openly racist, though unlike MAGAs the people they openly disparage are Asians and Jews.

Longtime readers of this blog know that nationally, I could easily qualify as a progressive. I voted for Bernie Sanders in the presidential primary in both 2016 and 2020. As recently as 2018 I voted against the centrist mayoral candidate in favor of both of her left-wing opponents.

Let me be clear who San Francisco progressives are. They are not Nancy Pelosi, Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris. San Francisco progressives hate all three of them. Each of those politicians faced their fiercest opposition here from the left, not the right.

Instead, our local progressives are people whose goal, literally, is to cause problems for the city. Here's an example.

Courtesy KGO-TV

Blocking the Bay Bridge was their main accomplishment last year. Progressives planned for months to disrupt the city during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting, when the world's media came here and we could hope for positive coverage to help restart our tourism industry. What SF progressives came up with was well-coordinated. They stopped cars on the bridge in every westbound lane. They handcuffed themselves together and chained their cars together. Some of them threw their car keys off the bridge. It took police several hours to clear the bridge and restore the main traffic artery between Oakland and San Francisco.

They had great planning, coordination and secrecy, and tremendous local impact, as local police were helpless to stop them in their goal -- which was to make life more difficult in San Francisco. It reminded me of 9/11, and I don't say that lightly. At least they didn't kill anyone. But SF progressives put so much work into something that was intended to be bad for the city.

Nobody outside San Francisco noticed because progressives protest here about something every week; it's their favorite social activity. Blocking the Bay Bridge didn't end the war in Gaza, but it was a local pain in the ass, and that's San Francisco progressives' political goal in a nutshell.

This is why we have to work together to stop them. We can't fix this city if we keep in power people whose main goal is to be a pain in the ass.

I was attracted to progressive politics for a long time because I am at heart a pragmatist, and 20 years ago the progressive position was usually the practical one. Fighting global warming. Preserving the environment. Supporting mass transit. That sort of thing. San Francisco was once an attractive place to talk about issues because it wasn't politics as usual, and we could actually discuss, for example, whether it's a good idea to eliminate bail for people accused of a crime. (We're trying that, and it turns out to have problems. I think they are fixable; I don't think we should have a separate system of justice for rich people. But I also have learned many judges we have now won't address those problems.)

George Floyd's murder accelerated a trend here, not just of the left's move into identity politics, but into the behavior of the left becoming not just more aggressive, but more conformist. I am risking being doxxed, harassed on the street, and possibly even assaulted by writing the things I am now writing. I don't want to live in fear, so I'm writing this anyway. But I worry that I will pay a price, both personally and professionally.

That is the thesis statement. We need a sea change in San Francisco politics. We must vote out all of the progressives. I don't want Republicans running this city, though that's what the progressives will accuse me of. (To them, you're either righteous or an evil racist right-winger, like Nancy Pelosi.) I want this city run by the only politicians who ever accomplish anything in this country: Moderate Democrats.

Some of this problem is due to the decline in local media. The excellent progressive newspaper Bay Guardian is defunct; I really miss its well-researched endorsements. Instead, progressives now click on QR codes that lead to a list of "who is the most progressive" in each race, with no explanation. The Guardian cared about competence. Progressives here now do not.

The San Francisco Chronicle and the related website SFGate have openly abandoned covering news that progressives in the newsroom don't approve of; their executive editor told a journalism conference, "Objectivity is dead," and it's obvious from their coverage. Every time a business closes here and says crime is the reason, the Chronicle or SFGate publishes a piece saying that's not true. "Walgreen's is closing stores everywhere. Nordstrom's sales are down." Etc. Basically, according to the Chronicle, every single business owner who says they're leaving because of crime is lying. The Chronicle simply is not reliable anymore, not just for endorsements, but for news coverage.*

* (Because my main gig is wine journalism, let me be clear that my criticism of the Chron does not extend to its coverage of wine, which is excellent, especially now that Esther Mobley is back.)

Ten years ago, if you told me I would say the most reliable political endorsements in San Francisco would come from a bunch of tech guys, I would have laughed. But today it's true. GrowSF does the best voter guide in San Francisco; better than mine. Their main issue is building more housing. That's not my main issue, so I'm still doing my own endorsements. I care most about the general decline of the city.

I believe San Francisco will rebound. It will always have the advantages of geography and climate. But I want it to rebound in my lifetime, and that won't happen unless we vote all the progressives out of office.

If you think the true victims of crime are the shoplifters and "bippers," (car break-ins are so common here that they have a cute nickname), because of the many societal injustices they face, then keep voting progressive. If not, here's how to vote in March.

President: Joe Biden

Come on, man. I would vote for a can of tuna over Trump.

US Senator: Adam Schiff

I also like Katie Porter and hope these two end up in the runoff in the fall. But Schiff has been in Congress longer and has been very effective. Either would be good, but to me, Schiff has earned it.

Barbara Lee was right about opposing the war in Iraq in 2001. It is the only thing she has done in Congress in more than two decades. She's a fine representative for her Berkeley district, which likes protest votes and doesn't want to get its hands dirty by actually participating in crafting legislation. But California deserves more than that. We already have one Senator who does very little. As the largest state in the union, California should play a larger role in national legislation than it currently does.

You have to vote twice: once for Schiff to complete Dianne Feinstein's term (I told you in 2018 that she was too old), and once for him to get a new six-year term.

Members, Democratic Central Committee, Assembly District 17

Let's start voting out the progressives here, as this committee steers issues the wrong way and supports the wrong candidates. You can basically take any progressive voting guide, and vote for everybody they don't recommend.

I will follow GrowSF's choices and vote for the following 14 people:

Emma Heiken
Lily Ho
Cedric G. Akbar
Nancy Tung
Michael Lai
Laurance Lem Lee
Peter Ho Lik Lee
Trevor Chandler
Carrie Barnes
Lyn Werbach
Joe Sangiradi

Luis A. Zamora
Matt Dorsey (one of the few good members of the Board of Supervisors)
Bilal Mahmood


If you're in Assembly District 19, I encourage you to read Grow SF's recommendations there. But I do want to put in a plug for Marjan Philhour (at left), who upsets progressives so much that a left-wing journalist stole her campaign signs, got caught, and was fired from her job. Philhour is running against Connie Chan for supervisor in the fall and we need Philhour to win that race.

US Representative, District 11: Nancy Pelosi

Or as San Francisco progressives like to say, radical right-wing warmonger Nancy Pelosi.

State Senator, District 11: Scott Wiener

We still have a few sensible moderate Democrats moving up in office and Wiener is one of them. I can imagine him as a mayoral candidate in the future, though he (and many others) might be hoping to take over Pelosi's seat when she retires.

State Assembly Member, District 17: Matt Haney

Haney is an opportunist. He spoke the progressive language of us vs. them, evil right-wing capitalist warmongers, etc., to get elected to the Board of Supervisors in a very progressive district, then tacked to the center to win the Assembly seat. I don't trust him. But the alternatives are simply inadequate.

Judge of the Superior Court, Seat #1: Chip Zecher

For years I have advocated retaining all judges so that the judicial process is not politicized. Well, too late for that, as incumbent Begert has been out campaigning with the progressive wing. That's not great. But it's not why we need to replace him.

Begert, and judges like him, are why eliminating bail isn't working. If you're going to let people out on their own recognizance, you have to be willing to keep dangerous violent multiple offenders in jail awaiting trial. Begert doesn't do that: he has released sex offenders into the community to offend again and again.

Progressive judges like this are one of our biggest problems. They refuse to accept that some people are career criminals. We have to change that if we want to solve this city's problems. Everyone is entitled to a vigorous defense, but the judicial system should also protect the public. Begert does not.

Zecher is a well-qualified attorney who is on the board of directors of UC Law. He says he's running because he believes judges like Begert are not holding drug dealers accountable. He's right.

Judge of the Superior Court, Seat #13: Jean Myungjin Roland 

Speaking of holding drug dealers accountable, incumbent Patrick Thompson released drug dealers on their own recognizance in 17 separate cases; 10 used their freedom to commit more felonies. One guy Thompson let out had 14 prior arrests for dealing drugs, and after Thompson freed him, the next time he was arrested, he had nearly a kilo of fentanyl on him. A federal judge made the rare move of overruling Thompson and ordering the dealer held without bail.

Thompson might be the single worst judge in Northern California. Almost anyone would be better.

Roland has spent 22 years in the San Francisco District Attorney's office. She managed to survive the Chesa Boudin regime, which should tell locals that she's obviously not a law-and-order extremist. This isn't a hard decision. She's competent; Thompson is not. This might be the most important choice on this March ballot.

Proposition A (affordable housing bond): Yes

To be honest, I don't believe San Francisco in its current politically dysfunctional state will be able to build the affordable housing that this bond is supposed to pay for.

But a bond doesn't cost the city all that much, and if we get a regime change on the Board of Supes that would allow housing to be built -- if we can vote out the multimillionaire "socialist" who votes down every housing project proposal because it keeps the value of his family's rental property high -- than we'll need the money on hand.

Proposition B (police staffing levels): No

This is a poorly written proposition put forward by a lousy mayoral candidate to get attention without doing anything to address our crime situation. The idea is that we would have minimum police staffing levels, but only IF voters later approve a new tax to pay for it. This is just politicking with the police. 

Proposition C (real estate transfer tax waiver): Yes

Currently, if you want to convert office space into rental housing, you have to pay a transfer tax. This is self-defeating. We have huge office vacancy rates and a shortage of housing. Converting some office space to housing is an elegant solution that might revitalize downtown.

Proposition D (changes to ethics laws): Yes

In addition to being inept, our leadership is corrupt, as a City Hall bribery scandal unfolded under the last few years. (The Chronicle either didn't know most contractors paid bribes to get permits, or did know and decided not to write about it; I'm not sure which is worse.)

This is a minor change that would put the Ethics Commission in charge of ethics training, rather than each individual city department. I'm not sure how much of a difference that will make, but we have seen that the departments cannot police themselves.

Proposition E (police procedures): YES YES YES

Do you think the true victims of crime are the people who shoplift, break into cars, and intimidate shopkeepers? If so, vote no on this. The rest of us need to outvote those pro-crime progressives and vote YES.

This would allow cops to use surveillance cameras and would restore their ability to chase violent criminals. Yes, San Francisco currently lets the crooks get away because progressives don't want them followed. That's why things are the way they are.

Proposition F (drug testing for services): Yes

Five years ago I might have voted against this. But now we have a fentanyl epidemic that killed more people in this city than Covid, and just continues to ramp up. We need this now.

Currently the city pays people up to $712 a month in cash assistance. This would require them to undergo drug testing to get the cash. (To be clear, cannabis is a legal drug and would not be tested for.) If they fail, they have to enter a drug treatment program. If they don't, their city cash is cut off.

A lot of that cash is going for drugs. People can keep getting the cash AND keep using it for fentanyl and meth AND keep testing positive, as long as they are participating in a drug treatment program. It's really not too much to ask. It's hard for me to believe other cities would be this generous.

Proposition G (algebra for 8th graders): Yes

Here's yet another annoying thing about San Francisco progressives: they want every kid in public schools to be taught at the level of the worst students. They think it's "elitist" to give smarter kids more advanced classes. This is not how we're going to educate the next generation of leaders.

I went to a public school in a working-class neighborhood in Baltimore and I could take algebra in 8th grade because I could handle it. A lot of times I really don't understand progressives, and this is one. Nobody is going to force the worst students into algebra. But let's stop holding back the best students.

State proposition 1 (mental health bond): Yes

Crazy homeless people screaming into the sky have become one of the most memorable features of visiting San Francisco. Ask any tourist. Drugs are a large part of the problem, but if you live here, you know that there are some street people who don't seem in control of their own actions. Los Angeles and Sacramento have the same problem.

The U.S. used to have a nationwide system of mental hospitals to which people could be committed. President Ronald Reagan shut that down. I have read a lot about this issue from all sides, and have come to the conclusion that Reagan wasn't wrong. State mental hospitals were basically warehouses for crazy people where the staff abused them. It was a bad system. Unfortunately, Reagan didn't have a better solution than letting them live on the streets. If you have seen One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, you might understand when I say I'm not sure it's worse now, for the crazy homeless people. It's definitely worse for the rest of us.

This is an attempt to create a more compassionate system of mental treatment. It's a $6.38 billion bond measure that would build more facilities and set up treatment programs. Here's the rare issue where progressives and normal people probably agree: Ignoring crazy homeless people, until we arrest them and then let them out again, isn't working, and also isn't humane. Let's see if we can do better.

Follow me on Twitter: @wblakegray and Mastodon: @wblakegray and like The Gray Report on Facebook. I like discussing issues but I can't allow comments on endorsement posts because in the past, people have simply cut-and-paste statements from their preferred candidates. If you want to talk about this one, The Gray Report Facebook page is the place. Thanks.

Vote!

Google censors a blog post of mine ... from 2010!

On Sunday I got the following notice from Google, which runs the Blogger software that I use on this blog:

Your post titled "The Prisoner, bondage and niche marketing" has been put behind a warning for readers

How about that! I published the post on Dec. 8, 2010, and only now has Google saved young impressionable people from its nefarious mind-warping. If a teenager read the post on its day of publication, she has now graduated from college and might already have two kids -- with her morals corrupted by my blogging!

Here's a quick primer on the world of December 2010:

* Two months earlier, a new app called Instagram was launched

* The Walking Dead TV series had just started, as had Justified and Downton Abbey. Breaking Bad fans were wondering if Jesse had really shot Gale.

* "Tangled" was the top movie at the box office

* "Tik Tok" was a single by Kesha, and it topped the pop charts. Remember that?

* The Republicans had just taken the House, thwarting Barack Obama's hopes of accomplishing anything after health-care reform (some things never change)

* Steak salesman Donald Trump said Julian Assange should get the death penalty for Wikileaks

* Kobe Bryant and Phil Jackson had led the Lakers to the NBA title, while Draymond Green and Klay Thompson were in college. Nikola Jokić was in high school in Serbia. Jordan Poole was 11 years old. (Maybe Poole's problem in this year's playoffs was that in 2010 he saw my blog post.)

* Tim Lincecum was the best pitcher in baseball, while Josh Hamilton was AL MVP. The post references SF Giants reliever Brian Wilson: he was a guy with a big beard and a sense of humor.

It's terrible to think of how many young minds may have been warped by this blog post. I'm going to link to it here, but I want to warn you: no matter how old you are, you should get your parents' approval to see it, even if you have become their legal guardian.

Here it is, folks. You have been warned!

Follow me on these new-fangled sites: Mastodon: @wblakegray Twitter: @wblakegray Instagram: @wblakegray and like The Gray Report on Facebook.

Water barons move into Napa, and Supreme Court considers wine shipping again

The property now owned by Wonderful. Photo courtesy Visit Napa Valley

According to Mother Jones, the owners of Fiji Water use "more water than every home in Los Angeles combined." Now, after buying a Napa wine brand last year, they are buying up a property right on Silverado Trail. But they won't take possession right away -- showing just how valuable Napa winery buildings are now.

Details in this story for Wine-Searcher. 

Also, your humble correspondent has somehow carved out an extremely infinitesimal niche as the leading journalist on issues relating to wine and the U.S. Supreme Court. Next month the Court will meet in its chambers to discuss whether or not it wants to hear a case on retailers shipping wine from one state to another. Here's the analysis I wrote about that.

By the way, I'm trying to avoid conversations on the Musk site, so if you want to chat with me the way we used to there, I'm tooting like I used to on Mastodon. So check it out.

Have a great holiday season -- and open the best bottles of wine you have in the house! Life expectancy is dropping in the US and you never know. There's no better time to open a great bottle than the present. Stay healthy, and Merry Christmas!

Follow me on Mastodon: @wblakegray and Instagram @wblakegray and like The Gray Report on Facebook.

If you like Chianti Classico, you'll like Chianti Rufina

 

Chianti Rufina makes good wines, the equal of Chianti Classico in quality but with a more rugged, savory character, the product of its cooler, mountainous terrain. But it's not in Chianti Classico, which makes nearly 12 times as many wines per year.

In October I visited the region for the first time to write about its new higher-end classification, TerraElectae. I was impressed by the wines. If you like cool-climate Sangiovese, you'll like these: more red fruit than black; savoriness more than fruitiness; good freshness and structure.

Here's the article I wrote for Wine-Searcher. Cheers.

Follow me on Mastodon: @wblakegray and Instagram @wblakegray and like The Gray Report on Facebook.

Herbicide overkill and a story about Mexican enology

Photo courtesy iStock

Hey friends. I'm still trying to figure out how to deal with the unpleasant Musky aroma of Twitter, which I used to frequent both for fun and professionally. I haven't deleted my account, but I don't like giving Musk free content either. 

Until some other social media site pops up to fill the sparrow-sized hole in my day, I'm going to try to fill in at least the professional gap by touting my new stories here. 

Herbicide the Star of New Napa Movie: A new documentary set in Napa examines the omnipresence and danger of Roundup and its active ingredient glyphosate. 

Mexican Wine Gets Its First University: Mexican wine country is unique -- a desert close to an ocean. Cooling winds make fine-wine possible, but water is precious. The region really needed a university program in viticulture and enology, and now it finally has one.

Please follow the links to read the stories. See you here again soon!

Follow me on Instagram @wblakegray and like The Gray Report on Facebook.