The other candidate, Rob Bernosky, has a platform with several euphemisms, including “cleaning California’s voter rolls.”
➡️ Lanhee Chen
Unfortunately, Ron Galperin (my preferred primary candidate) didn’t make it to the general election. The candidates are now:
Malia Cohen, who leans more left compared to most Californians
Lanhee Chen, who leans more right
Cohen’s platform contains several social policies around healthcare, minimum wages, and gun violence that are better addressed by the legislature.
I’ll vote for Chen because he seems more focused on the State Controller’s watchdog role. This is a weak endorsement because Chen’s top policy priority is reducing fraud in the application processes for public benefits, such as Medi-Cal. Depending on implementation, this may also lead to fewer qualified people receiving public benefits as well.
➡️ Fiona Ma
➡️ Rob Bonta
Bonta has been actively enforcing statewide housing production laws to ensure municipalities’ compliance.
Unfortunately, Marc Levine didn’t make it to the general election, leaving us with two less-then-ideal candidates:
The Chronicle notes incument Ricardo Lara’s ethical lapses while in office, including swaying decisions to favor campaign donors.
Like many other primary candidates, Robert Howell touts his background in cybersecurity rather than insurance. This should not be a selling point. It means he’s unlikely to have the domain knowledge needed to do the job effectively.
Board of Equalization, District 2
The Chronicle points out that the Board of Equalization doesn’t do much anymore. The vast majority of responsibilities have been moved to other bodies.
State Assembly, District 17
➡️ Matt Haney
Haney supports housing development. Many local governments in California
obstruct development, so it’s important to have housing advocates in the state
United States Senator
➡️ Alex Padilla (both terms)
Padilla performed well as California’s Secretary of State. His no-nonsense
approach to election trust included prosecuting those setting up fake ballot
United States Representative, District 11
➡️ Nancy Pelosi
It would be great to bring in some younger politicians so they can start
building their influence, etc. Unfortunately, Pelosi decided to run one more time.
California: Non-partisan Offices
➡️ Yes to all
Philosophically, I don’t think it makes sense to elect judges as they are supposed to be appointed by the executive. But given that this is the system we have in California, I treat these retention elections like recalls: keep the candidate in office except in cases of serious ethical lapses.
Superintendent of Public Education
➡️ Tony Thurmond
Thurmond’s track record isn’t great and he received endorsements from problematic Californian teachers’ unions. However, Lance Christensen supported school vouchers in a Chronicle endorsement interview. This position is far to the right of most Californians.
San Francisco: Education
Member, Board of Education
➡️ Ann Hsu
➡️ Lainie Motamedi
➡️ Lisa Weissman-Ward
In Feburary, San Francisco voted to recall several members from the school board in a landslide election. The interest group SF Guardians led the recall campaign. I consider them experts on the workings of the school board. They are now endorsing the interim, mayor-appointed candidates to be elected to the school board.
The candidates I didn’t select:
Gabriela López is running again in this election. Voters recalled her earlier this year with 72 percent of votes.
Karen Fleshman opposed the school board recall in an interview with GrowSF. On the bright side, she supports accelerated learning programs, such as reintroducing middle-school algebra.
Member, Community College Board (term ending 2027)
➡️ Jill Yee
➡️ Marie Hurabiell
➡️ John Rizzo
The City College of San Francisco continues to face a budget crisis, aging facilities, and low enrollment. It is also on verge of losing accreditation, which threatens to take away state funding and further decrease enrollment. My ideal board candidate would solve these problems by taking an analytical, detail-oriented approach and not being afraid to make big changes.
Making this determination isn’t easy because it’s hard to find details about the candidates’ platforms. The Chronicle hasn’t completed its endorsement interviews yet. Even the candidates’ own websites only have vague descriptions at best.
To choose these candidates, I read the entire GrowSF interview for each candidate. I didn’t consider anyone who declined to answer the questionnaire.
I decided to vote for these candidates:
Jill Yee is a former student, current professor, and dean at CCSF. The depth of her experience at CCSF, her analytical approach, and no-nonsense mindset shine in the interview. For example, she proposes addressing the college’s budget crisis by cutting low-enrollment programs to focus resources on in-demand vocational programs. Her methodology involved reading the course catalog to identify overlapping curriculum. She also understands the details of CCSF’s funding sources, which will help with the upcoming accreditation.
Marie Hurabiell has personal experience with CCSF’s problems from the students’ perspective. She also brings experience from nearly a decade on the Board of Regents for Georgetown.
John Rizzo is an incumbent board member with 15 years of experience. I believe this context will be useful to keep on the board. His top priority is accreditation.
These incumbents seem fine and could be substituted for John Rizzo, although they have less experience on the board:
Brigitte Davila is an incumbent board member with seven years of experience. Her top priority is accreditation.
Thea Selby is an incumbent board member with seven years of experience. Her top priority is accreditation.
I don’t believe these these candidates are qualified:
Jason Zeng’s responses sound good, but they’re too vague to predict his concrete actions if elected.
William Walker only has experience as a CCSF student. His policy positions are vague (“Identify areas where the college might be willing to shrink”). Other positions are impractical. His top priority is enrollment growth through community partnership, which can’t be achieved without accreditation.
Member, Community College Board (term ending 2025)
➡️ Murrell Green
No candidate responded to GrowSF’s survey. Green was recently appointed by London Breed.
➡️ Joaquín Torres
There are no other candidates.
➡️ Brooke Jenkins
I am generally okay with incumbent Brooke Jenkins’ policies.
In GrowSF interviews, challengers Maurice Chenier and Joe Alioto Veronese could have provided more thoughtful opinions instead of buzzwords. For example, Chenier repeats “victim-based administration” to nearly every question.
John Hamasaki supports concealed carry, which is a non-starter. He also conducts himself poorly on social media.
➡️ Mano Raju
Both candidates come with great qualifications and seem to have reasonable viewpoints. Raju has focused on activism outside the courtroom, while challenger Rebecca Susan Feng Young wants the office to focus on trials.
Board of Supervisors, District 10
➡️ Brian Sam Adam
Incumbent Shamann Walton is one of the worst supervisors in SF. He opposes housing development, which is a non-starter.
I don’t agree with these positions on education and housing:
Opposed the school board recall
Opposes accelerated learning programs
Doesn’t believe upzoning will significantly improve the housing crisis
Wants to limit upzoning to commercial and industrial areas
It is understandable that both SF YIMBY and GrowSF declined to provide an endorsement in this race. However, I’ll still vote for Adam as the candidate with more reasonable policies and public conduct.
California Ballot Measures
A note on navigating ballot propositions
California’s ballot proposition system requires voter approval in certain situations, such as issuing bonds or amending the state constitution. Voters can also introduce new laws and veto laws already passed by the legislature. Ballot measures can only be repealed by another ballot measure, unless otherwise specified.
The downside of direct democracy is that most voters are less informed than their representatives. Voters don’t spend time talking to constituents and can’t request analysis from staffers. As a result, the proposition section of the ballot has become a prime target of astroturfing campaigns and populist policies like Proposition 13.
Because of its tendency to produce bad ideas and make them hard to undo, my heuristic is to vote “no” by default. I’ll also watch out for propositions that could be passed as normal legislation. They tend to be put on the ballot by special interests or astroturf campaigns looking for hard-to-repeal regulatory capture.
1: Constitutional Right to Reproductive Freedom
This proposition would amend the state constitution to make the existing reproductive rights protection unambiguous. The existing language could be susceptible to future reinterpretation by the courts, similar to what happened in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
26: In-person Roulette, Dice Games, Sports Wagering on Tribal Lands
Sports gambling is fine, but this could have been submitted by the legislature, as SPUR and the Chronicle note. This proposition is written by industry players with large amounts of revenue at stake. It’s likely to lead to regulatory capture.
For example, the tax rate is fixed at 10 percent. A good-faith attempt at policymaking would have allowed the legislature to adjust the tax rates and other parameters.
I’d like the industry to try again in two years. Given the size of the gambling market in California, they’re all but guaranteed to submit another ballot proposition if this one does not pass.
27: Online Sports Gambling Outside Tribal Lands
Generally the same reason as 26.
This proposition is even more clearly trying to accelerate regulatory capture. Its primary sponsors are DraftKings and FanDuel. Gaming companies must be qualified to offer online sports betting in at least 10 states, or five states and operating 12 brick-and-mortar casinos.
28: Additional Funding for Arts and Music in Public Schools
❎ Weak No
This measure would reallocate existing public education funding so that at least 1 percent goes toward arts and music. While increasing funding and removing local school district control are generally good ideas, I think the legislature should have more flexibility to adjust the funding amount.
29: On-site Licensed Medical Professional at Kidney Dialysis Clinics
This measure is a rerun of 2020 Proposition 23, which was a rerun of 2018 Proposition 8. Every other year in California, we need to vote down another nonsense dialysis proposition. Sorry, I don’t make the rules…this is just how voting works now.
SEIU-UHW West, the union representing dialysis clinic workers, wants to increase minimum staffing levels. They have been unable to achieve this in negotiations.
It’s not appropriate to make these decisions through ballot propositions. The public shouldn’t be tiebreaking union negotiations. We’re also not qualified to decide whether there’s a medical reason to require a licensed professional at dialysis clinics.
30: Electric Vehicle Subsidies, Income Tax above $2M
✅ Weak Yes
I strongly support increasing electric vehicle incentives. The measure generally seems well designed too.
It explicitly allocates funds to low-income car owners.
It balances funding between at-home charging (30 percent) and public fast-chargers (10 percent), which avoids the misconception that fast chargers are a drop-in replacement for gas stations.
It provides general guidelines for programs and budget allocations, while delegating the specific implementation to public agencies.
However, I don’t think all provisions need to be done through ballot propositions. The EV market is changing rapidly, including key factors like battery mineral availability and consumer interest. We don’t know how our needs will change between now and the proposition’s expiration date in 2043. It’s also unclear how much value this mesure adds beyond the federal EV rebates that take effect next year and also target low-income drivers through used car subsidies.
I also want to correct two common misconceptions about this measure:
It’s fine that this measure is primarily funded by Lyft. Lyft is interested because they are required to serve 90 percent of its California mileage using electric vehicles by 2030. That doesn’t necessarily mean there is something nefarious going on. Any vehicle subsidy also indirectly subsidizes Lyft’s service. Plus, all internal combustion vehicles pollute the same air regardless of whether they are on Lyft’s platform.
This measure may not include e-bikes. Co-sponsor SPUR says it includes e-bike purchase subsidies, while the Chronicle says it doesn’t.
Programs eligible for funding pursuant to this chapter may include, but are not limited to, those that:
(b) Provide block grants, grants, loans, or other incentives for zero-emission transit buses so people get to where they need to go in ZEVs.
(c) Provide incentives, grants, and block grants for governments and businesses to buy medium-, heavy-duty, and off-road agricultural and construction ZEVs.
(d) Provide financing assistance to help those without access to capital or high credit acquire new and used ZEVs.
(e) Help people retire old polluting vehicles and replace them with new and used ZEVs or other zero-emission mobility options.
(h) Increase access to clean mobility options, including but not limited to:
(1) Electric bikes.
(3) Protected bike lanes.
(4) Transit passes.
Note the difference between (b) through (d), which explicitly call out financial incentives and assistance for ZEVs, which are defined as motor vehicles that also meet the zero-emissions requirements. On the other hand, e-bikes would fall into sections (d) and (e), which use weaker language. It’s not clear to me how this will be interpreted.
31: Flavored Tobacco Referendum
This proposition is a referendum of the legislature’s 2020 ban on flavored tobacco products, such as vape liquids. A yes vote will uphold the existing law and allow it to take effect.
This provides city retirees the same COLA treatment regardless of retirement date.
Also, it doesn’t make sense to have a hard requirement on whether the retirement system is fully funded. This changes depending on market conditions and isn’t the best indicator of system health.
B: Department of Sanitation and Streets
This measure would move the responsibilities of the Department of Sanitation and Streets back to the Department of Public Works, partially repealing 2020 Measure B. At the time, I opposed the measure because:
It’s not clear to me that this reorganization would fix San Francisco’s sanitation problems. For example, the argument in favor says that this will allow “data-driven cleaning.” But they haven’t shown why that practice is impossible to implement under the current organizational structure.
Since then, we’ve learned that duplicating administrative roles comes with significant cost. The Controller reports that recombining the departments will save $3.5 million in FY23 and $2.5 million in FY24.
C: Establish Homelessness Oversight Commission
❎ Weak No
The city spends over $700 million per year to reduce homelessness. I agree that this spending needs oversight to ensure effectiveness. However, the board needs the right background to oversee the budget.
Based on the legal text, the commission members are:
Four seats appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the Board of Supervisors, with these profiles:
Person who has personally experienced homelessness
Service provider or advocate
Mental health or substance abuse expert
Neighborhood or small business association member
Three seats appointed by the Board of Supervisors:
Person who has personally experienced homelessness
Service provider or advocate
Social worker for homeless families with children or homeless youth
The commission isn’t required to have any members with experience in government or managing a $700 million budget. The current composition represents the stakeholders well, so would be more suitable for an advisory board rather than approving budgets.
San Francisco’s long lead times for building permit approval are well known. It makes sense to streamline the approval process and protect the projects from objections through abuse of the California Environmental Quality Act review process.
E: Streamline Affordable Housing Approval (Board of Supervisors)
This is a weaker version of Proposition D placed on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors so they can retain the ability to deny new housing. If both D and E pass, the proposition with the most votes will take effect.
F: Renew Library Preservation Fund
The fund provides nearly all of the library’s budget. Renewing the fund maintains the status quo of public library funding.
G: Establish Student Success Fund
❎ Weak No
I generally support using excess property taxes to fund public schools. I’m not sure this measure is the best way to increase funding.
The three minimum criteria are: that the school has a school council composed of administration, students, parents and other key stakeholders to support grant implementation, that the school has or hires a full-time community school coordinator and that the school agrees to coordinate its services with the city and school district.
Schools that meet the requirements can apply for grants up to $1 million per school. It’s not clear that this will make a difference, given the high overhead for implementation. The alternative is keeping the money in the General Fund.
H: City Elections in Even-numbered Years
I: Allow Motor Vehicles on JFK Drive, Great Highway
JFK Drive and the Great Highway have been SF’s most successful slow streets. I bike on these streets multiple times per week. The Board of Supervisors even voted to make them permanent. This measure would return these streets to the pre-pandemic status quo.
Additionally, the Chronicle points out that Proposition I would require the city to maintain indefinitely the Great Highway between Sloat and Skyline Boulevards. This segment was already scheduled to be closed next year because of natural erosion and sea level rise.
For more details, I found these endorsements helpful and I completely agree with them:
This measure will reaffirm the Board of Supervisors’ decisions on JFK Drive, keeping the status quo. If both Propositions I and J pass, we need more votes on J to keep JFK Drive closed to motor vehicles.
L: Reauthorize Sales Tax for Public Transportation
This measure reauthorizes the existing sales tax until 2053. I’m always supportive of funding transit because it’s important for a healthy city.
M: Vacancy Tax
This measure would impose a tax on unoccupied apartments, but exempts single-family homes and duplexes for some reason. I generally support vacancy taxes to discourage homeowners withholding investment properties from the market. This implementation seems ineffective.
N: Golden Gate Park Underground Parking
The parking garage is currently operated by a private entity, which has decided to repay the construction costs by setting high prices. It currently costs $6.25 per hour on weekends, which is similar to other private lots in SF but may be prohibitively high for low-income visitors.
The proposition would allow the city to acquire the garage, set or subsidize parking rates, while not obligating any action.
O: City College Parcel Tax
While CCSF needs more funding, this parcel tax is unlikely to help in the long term. The tax is expected to raise $37 million per year. For comparison, CCSF’s anticipates $316 million in revenue for 2022–2023.
Another budget risk a transition in the state’s apportionment formula, which will require big changes at CCSF regardless of whether Proposition O passes.
(1) a base allocation linked to enrollment, (2) a supplemental allocation linked to low‑income student counts, and (3) a student success allocation linked to specified student outcomes.
The new funding formula included a temporary “hold harmless” provision for those districts that would have received more funding under the former apportionment formula. The intent of the hold harmless protection was to provide time for those districts to ramp down their budgets…
CCSF enrollment has been declining since 2018–2019 which should decrease funding from the SCFF’s enrollment component. The “hold harmless” grace period delays this decline until 2024–2025.