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.
I cannot allow comments on endorsement posts, but I am happy to discuss any of these on The Gray Report Facebook page.