I’ve Read My Voter Guide so You Don’t Have To — November 2020

These views are mine, and mine alone. They do not represent the views of any organization I work for or am a member of. If you assume my spouse shares all these views, you are wrong and possibly very sexist.

Contents: About this guide | Values this guide is based on | My picks | My reasoning | Sources of information

About this guide

I began writing this guide when I realized some people I know weren’t voting because the ballot was too complicated. Now, I study the issues with dorky zeal and offer this guide to the public. Many of my friends trust my judgment and values and will just print or download my voter guide and use it as they vote. 

Below, I offer short explanations about my reasoning for every item on the ballot. I could go on for pages about any one of these issues, but nobody’s got time for that. Please let me know if you have questions about any of my recommendations.

• VOTE. Not voting is actually a vote for, “I don’t care, be corrupt, put money in your pockets and screw the people.” Make sure your friends will vote.

• PREPARE. Make your voting plan. You won’t be able to make choices based on what’s written on the ballot. Bring a trusted guide or cheat sheet with you to the polls.

• IGNORE the advertising. Paid political advertising will always be misleading, by design. Throw those mailers straight into the recycling bin. Ignore promoted posts on social media. Mute the TV commercials. Now local troll farms are using fake accounts to flood social media replies with conservative comments.

This year, there are many lies. Measures like CA Prop 15 and SF Props L and I very clearly exempt small businesses from taxes, but opponents will lie about that. Uber and Lyft are carpeting us with lies about their proposition to undermine worker rights. 

You will receive a stack of mailers right before election day. These will contain the worst lies — there will be no time for journalists to fact-check them.

Make sure everyone you know is ready to fill out their whole ballot.

This election is essential 

You know that this election is extremely important at the national level. There are equally consequential state measures in California and some local propositions that San Francisco needs to pass. 

The values this guide is based on

In the last few elections I have pushed the idea that police accountability is the most important issue to consider. The government can’t do its most basic job of keeping us safe when we can’t trust the police department to not be actively racist. We like to think that San Francisco and California are leaders in this area, but that’s really not the case. We do have several opportunities to push for reform in this election.

Have you read the 1619 project yet? Find the whole thing in a PDF here. 

These essays helped me better understand the history of America treating its workers as disposable. It draws lines from the systems of slavery to the present day when over 200,000 people have died from the coronavirus while billionaires increased their wealth by 29% (and counting). 

For our economy and society to recover from COVID-19, we’re going to need a massive investment in people and small business. There’s no help coming from the federal government anytime soon, so we’re going to need San Francisco and California governments to step in with increased revenue and spending — which requires voter approval. Fortunately, there were already some revenue-raising measures (CA Prop 15 and SF Props F, I, J, and L) in the process of getting on the ballot. We do get to vote for those!

More democracy from Democrats please

I want us to have more candidates and more debates. If a candidate refuses to debate their opponents that’s a big red flag. We should always be pushing for better representation for every seat and politicians should welcome the chance to talk about the issues.

Federal Races

• President of the United States: Joe Biden

• US Representative, District 12: Shahid Buttar or leave blank

• US Representative, District 14: Jackie Speier

State Races

• State Senate, District 11: Jackie Fielder

• State Assembly, District 17: Leave blank

• State Assembly, District 19: Leave blank

Local Races

• Board of Supervisors, District 1: Connie Chan

• Board of Supervisors, District 3: Aaron Peskin

• Board of Supervisors, District 5: #1 Dean Preston, #2 Nomvula O'Meara, #3 Daniel Landry

• Board of Supervisors, District 7: #1 Vilaska Nguyen, #2 Myrna Melgar

• Board of Supervisors, District 9: Hillary Ronen

• Board of Supervisors, District 11: John Avalos

• Board of Education (4 seats): Jenny Lam, Kevine Boggess, Mark Sanchez, Alida Fisher

• Community College Board (4 seats): Anita Martinez, Aliya Chisti, Geramye Teeter, Jeanette Quick

• BART Board, District 7: Lateefah Simon

• BART Board, District 9: Bevan Dufty

State Propositions

• Proposition 14 — Authorizes Bonds To Continue Funding Stem Cell And Other Medical Research: NO

• Proposition 15 — Increases Funding For Public Schools, Community Colleges, And Local Government Services By Changing Tax Assessment Of Commercial And Industrial Property: YES!

• Proposition 16 — Allows Diversity as a Factor in Public Employment, Education, and Contracting Decisions: YES

• Proposition 17 — Restores Right to Vote After Completion of Prison Term: YES

• Proposition 18 — Amends California Constitution to Permit 17-Year-Olds to Vote in Primary and Special Elections if They Will Turn 18 by the Next General Election: YES

• Proposition 19 — Changes Certain Property Tax Rules: no

• Proposition 20 — Restricts Parole for Certain Offenses Currently Considered to be Non-Violent. Authorizes Felony Sentences For Certain Offenses Currently Treated Only As Misdemeanors: NO

• Proposition 21 — Expands Local Governments' Authority To Enact Rent Control On Residential Property: YES

• Proposition 22 — Exempts App-Based Transportation and Delivery Companies from Providing Employee Benefits to Certain Drivers: NO!

• Proposition 23 — Establishes State Requirements for Kidney Dialysis Clinics. Requires On-Site Medical Professionals: YES

• Proposition 24 — Amends Consumer Privacy Laws: NO

• Proposition 25 — Referendum on Law that Replaced Money Bail with System Based on Public Safety and Flight Risk: yes

San Francisco Propositions

• Proposition A — Health and Homelessness, Parks, and Streets Bond: YES

• Proposition B — Public Works Commission, Department of Sanitation and Streets, and Sanitation and Streets Commission: YES

• Proposition C — Removing Citizenship Requirements for Members of City Bodies: YES

• Proposition D — Sheriff’s Department Oversight Board and Inspector General: YES

• Proposition E — Police Department Staffing Levels: YES

• Proposition F — Business Tax Overhaul: YES

• Proposition G — Youth Voting in Local Elections: YES

• Proposition H — Neighborhood Commercial Districts and City Permitting: NO

• Proposition I — Real Estate Transfer Tax: YES

• Proposition J — Parcel Tax for San Francisco Unified School District: YES

• Proposition K — Affordable Housing Authorization: YES

• Proposition L — Business Tax Based on Comparison of Top Executive's Pay to Employees’ Pay: YES

District Proposition

• Proposition RR — Caltrain Sales Tax: YES

My reasoning

Federal Races

President of the United States: Joe Biden

I would have much preferred Elizabeth Warren, but obviously Biden will bring a basic level of competency and morality back to the office. And we really need to roundly reject Trump by as many votes as possible. In the past, I’ve voted for Ralph Nader (in states where the Democrat was sure to win) to protest problems with the two party system. Not this time. 

US Representative, District 12: Shahid Buttar or leave blank

Nancy Pelosi has been leader of the Democrats in the House of Representatives for a long time now. She failed to hold George W. Bush accountable for his lies and she continues to fail to hold Trump accountable. She occasionally lands a gratifying clap back or fat joke, but she has allowed Trump to trample the constitution and the law. It’s time for new leadership.

In 2019, Pelosi set a policy for the Democratic party that any consultants working on a campaign challenging an incumbent in a primary should be banned from future work. But it seems she only opposed progressive challengers, like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, because then she used her PAC to fund a campaign to unseat Ed Markey (the incumbent Democrat Massachusetts senator who co-sponsored the Green New Deal). California is burning, but Pelosi openly mocks attempts to treat climate change as an urgent problem.

Unfortunately, Pelosi’s  opponent, Shahid Buttar seems to be a bit of a creep. The Intercept (and others) found that allegations of sexual harassment were pretty flimsy, but that Buttar has been a pretty lousy boss to his staff. His participation in a Burning Man party on Ocean Beach, where there were illegal bonfires during a very smoky weekend, has made me even less enthusiastic about his candidacy. Nevertheless, I do plan to vote for Buttar as the most effective way to register my dissatisfaction with Pelosi, but I’m not “endorsing” him.

In 2022, let’s insist on having competitive debates for the honor of being the representative for San Francisco.

US Representative, District 14: Jackie Speier

Speier is a relatively progressive Democrat. She is certainly way better than the Republican who opposes her. 

State Races

State Senate, District 11: Jackie Fielder

I wrote about this race in my guide for the primary in March, so I’ll offer a few different points here. 

Scott Weiner was a big defender of the Police Officer Association (POA) in the board of supervisors — arguing for more police and measures that criminalized homelessness, and supported the POA’s 2018 Taser initiative that would have allowed SF police to zap people for “bracing.” Imagine if the SFPD had that power during Black Lives Matter protests? 

Weiner has smartly given in to pressure and stopped taking donations from law enforcement, but he will continue to be a step behind in a movement for justice where Fielder is a leader.

Weiner continues to oppose taxes on the wealthiest in San Francisco. He opposed the 2018 “Our city, our home” proposition, and now he opposes Prop I which would tax real estate sales of over $10 million. This is why one of the wealthiest cities in the world lacks the funds to protect all of its citizens.

Meanwhile, Fielder has been spearheading an innovative long term campaign to establish a public bank that could allow the city to keep its investments more local and provide its own financing for affordable housing. She has plans.

If you’re not convinced, you can watch them debate here.

It is nice to see what an intelligent political discussion about the issues can look like.

State Assembly, District 17: Leave blank

State Assembly, District 19: Leave blank

Phil Ting and David Chiu are both pretty good on issues, but often just enough to placate critics while avoiding discussions of more systemic improvements. I think we would benefit from having competitive races for these seats where these incumbents would have to defend their records against more progressive challengers, so I leave this one blank.

Local Races

The San Francisco version of a city council is split between moderates and progressives. The progressives, including Matt Haney, Hilary Ronen, and Dean Preston, can be counted on to push for tenant protections, taxes on the wealthy, and strong police oversight. The moderates meanwhile are happy to continue with having the police and DPW keep shuffling homeless people around town and pretending that trickle-down housing policies will solve our housing crisis.

I’m particularly proud of my supervisor, Ronen (running unopposed), for rejecting nominees for the police commission who were not committed to police accountability. I also love the Mental Health SF initiative that she spent years developing with supervisor Haney to create teams of mental health professionals to replace police as first responders for people who need that help. This plan will go into effect if Prop F passes.

We’ve also seen the progressive supervisors push to get unhoused individuals into hotels to save lives and prevent the spread of COVID while the moderates at city hall allowed outbreaks to happen in overcrowded shelters and the city continues to take tents and other possessions away from our poorest and most vulnerable neighbors.

Let’s give these progressives more allies on the board to continue to come up with real solutions to the city's problems.

Board of Supervisors, District 1: Connie Chan

Chan has been working as a legislative aide for other supervisors for several years and has the endorsement of the outgoing D1 supervisor Sandra Fewer. 

Board of Supervisors, District 3: Aaron Peskin

Peskin gets a bit provincial in his North Beach district, but he is still the clear progressive choice.

Board of Supervisors, District 5: #1 Dean Preston, #2 Nomvula O'Meara, #3 Daniel Landry

We’re going to need Preston’s fierce tenant advocacy to avoid a wave of evictions as COVID destroys the bank accounts of working people. He is the one who got us a ban on evictions when COVID prevents tenants from paying rent and is pushing the state to allow similar protections for small businesses.

O’Meara is a strong progressive with real plans to support Black lives and Daniel Landry expresses a commitment to social justice with a strong record of civic engagement.

Board of Supervisors, District 7: #1 Vilaska Nguyen, #2 Myrna Melgar

Nguyen comes out of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, which has been an important force in exposing corruption and wrong-doing in the police department. He has great endorsements and would be a terrific voice on the board.

Melgar was director of the Jamestown Community Center, one of my favorite after-school organizations, and has a mix of progressive and moderate endorsements.

Board of Supervisors, District 9: Hillary Ronen

Unopposed because she is doing a great job at representing the district. 

Board of Supervisors, District 11: John Avalos

Avalos is back. He was supervisor from 2008-2017 when his term ran out. Now he is eligible to run again to take the seat back. Avalos definitely has a record of supporting social justice values and will be a great leader on the board.

*I would prefer to see new faces running for seats instead of having dudes like Avalos and Peskin return, but their name recognition gives them the best chance of having progressive representation of those districts. 

Board of Education (4 seats):

There are 5 excellent candidates for 4 seats this election, so it’s a tough choice about who to leave off. I’ve been watching this body somewhat closely over the last few years, and they have really been doing good work bringing reforms to a very large school system with many strange bureaucratic intricacies, so I’m favoring incumbents in my decision-making.

Mark Sanchez will be the board’s longest serving member and continues to be a favorite.

Jenny Lam has been a tremendous advocate for your voice and wellness. She helped students create the “Our Healing, Our Hands” program so that young people could ease their peers into wellness programs and has continued to fight for wellness and justice in innovative ways. I think some progressives are withholding their endorsements because she is often allied with moderates in SF, but I’m going to vote to give her another term.

Kevine Boggess has been serving as the education policy director for Coleman Advocates for Youth, an organization of youth and families fighting for equity and justice, so he has been well-steeped in the mechanics of the school board and is as connected to the SFUSD’s constituency as anyone can be.

Alida Fisher has served on multiple advisory committees at the SFUSD, and has been an especially strong advocate for students with special needs,  who make up one-eighth of all San Francisco students. This representation is essential. When students with the most needs are served, then we know that every individual student is being seen and getting the education they deserve. This is especially important during coronavirus times.

I also like:

Matt Alexander helped found and lead the June Jordan School for Equity (JJSE), a high school where I’ve spent time as a teachinging artist. I love the community at that school. I could see that Alexander worked well with everyone there. His focus on economic justice for the district is a smart plan, but I think the other four are better choices. 

Community College Board (4 seats):

It’s difficult to keep track of politics at City College of San Francisco (CCSF). That’s how the CCSF board of trustees, which is elected by us, seems to serve as just a stepping stone for aspiring politicians. Some members and candidates have been great on local issues, but are not making the effort to connect with CCSF students and faculty.

In the past couple of years, CCSF has slashed art programs and courses for the elderly. The board is closing the Fort Mason campus and eliminatingCCSF’s unique arts infrastructure, such as kilns and printing presses. The board is also closing the Civic Center campus, which has provided vital services to new immigrants. This may all be part of a big push to move away from serving the community with cultural enrichment to developing more workers for software companies. Or to turn the college into a soulless transfer mill or something else. I’m not sure, but something really stinks at CCSF.

I do know that students have been organizing. The City College Student Collective held a forum and the Democratic Party-endorsed candidates did not show up — nor did they complete the students’ candidate questionnaire. If you can’t even pretend to care about what students have to say, how can we expect you to be accountable?  

The candidates who did show up demonstrated knowledge about the issues with thoughts on systemic changes for CCSF’s management. I will vote for:

Anita Martinez and Aliya Chisti, the two candidates who impressed me the most at the forum and who also have gotten the faculty union’s endorsement. Geramye Teeter and Jeanette Quick, who both also performed well at the forum and demonstrated a commitment to including students in the administrative process.

BART Board

BART Board, District 7: Lateefah Simon

BART Board, District 9: Bevan Dufty

These two incumbents are smart and committed. I hope we see Simon running for high offices in the future.

State Propositions

Proposition 14 — Authorizes Bonds To Continue Funding Stem Cell And Other Medical Research: NO 

California voters approved a big bond in 2004 to fund stem cell research because such research was being blocked at the federal level. That’s not the case anymore, so it doesn’t make sense for California to support a $5.5B bond for research that can be funded in other ways.

Proposition 15 — Increases Funding For Public Schools, Community Colleges, And Local Government Services By Changing Tax Assessment Of Commercial And Industrial Property: YES!

This is the Schools and Communities First initiative that will close the corporate loophole on the old 1978 “Prop 13” property tax freeze that turned California from one of the top education states to one of the worst. Hell yes, Disney and Chevron should have their property taxes go up!

Because this affects so many big corporations, there are a lot of lies going around about what this Prop 15 will do. Please, make sure all of your elderly aunts in Pasadena know the truth. Prop 15 specifically does not apply to small businesses or apartment buildings. It also will NOT affect property taxes for residential homes.

Proposition 16 — Allows Diversity as a Factor in Public Employment, Education, and Contracting Decisions: YES

If you believe that racism exists, then you should also believe that public institutions should take racism into account. Prop 209 was racist in 1996, and it’s still racist today. Now, we can repeal it.

Proposition 17 — Restores Right to Vote After Completion of Prison Term: YES

Even if we were to accept that our criminal justice system is fair (it’s not, it’s racist at every level), we would want people on parole to become responsible citizens. Voting is an investment in community that promotes feelings of belonging and responsibility.

Proposition 18 — Amends California Constitution to Permit 17-Year-Olds to Vote in Primary and Special Elections if They Will Turn 18 by the Next General Election: YES

More people voting is good. This would make it so that anyone who will be 18 in time for the general election in November would be allowed to vote in the primary in March, even if they are still just 17 at the time. If you are going to vote in the general election, you should be able to vote in the primary. 

Proposition 19 — Changes Certain Property Tax Rules: no

This has a mix of changes to the 1978 Prop 13 rules that are tough to parse. It unfreezes property tax for inherited vacation homes, but also allows seniors to take their reduced property taxes with them when they move, even if they are moving to a more expensive house. The confusion seems to be intentional.

Newspapers across the state are finding that this year’s Prop 19 would benefit wealthy seniors and the real estate industry at the expense of younger home buyers and school districts who rely on property tax. There are good reforms mixed with bad, so I’m giving this a lower-case “no”.

Proposition 20 — Restricts Parole for Certain Offenses Currently Considered to be Non-Violent. Authorizes Felony Sentences For Certain Offenses Currently Treated Only As Misdemeanors: NO

Prop 20 aims to keep more people in already overcrowded prisons and would require DNA collection for certain misdemeanors. Even as the mainstream conversation has finally realized how ridiculous and ineffective “tough on crime” policies are, Prop 20 wants to double down on the police state and add some dystopian DNA tracking. No way.

Proposition 21 — Expands Local Governments' Authority To Enact Rent Control On Residential Property: YES

Rent control is the only thing allowing most teachers, nonprofit workers, and other valuable community members to stay in San Francisco. But the number of rent control units is constantly diminishing through TIC conversions, owner move-in and Ellis Act evictions, and so on. 

Prop 21 would allow local governments to apply rent control to any apartment that has been occupied for over 15 years. This means more people (and the neighborhoods they live in) will benefit from the stability of rent control but would avoid the weird distorting effect that rent control might have on housing construction.

Proposition 22 — Exempts App-Based Transportation and Delivery Companies from Providing Employee Benefits to Certain Drivers: NO!

Without even getting into the content of this proposition, we should firmly reject this proposition on principal. This is on the ballot because some companies are abusing our state’s initiative process to try to write their own regulations. 

Uber and Lyft have acted in bad faith at every step of the legal process in their campaign to pay their drivers less than minimum wage.

I am very familiar with AB5. I organized several panel discussions and roundtables about the impact of AB5 on arts education organizations. When the California legislature created rules to comply with the Dynamex decision about who is an employee, they got some things wrong with respect to how it applies to writers and musicians — but that has nothing to do with Prop 22. 

There’s a reason we have labor laws: corporations will steal wages from their workers any chance they get. Hell no on Prop 22.

Proposition 23 — Establishes State Requirements for Kidney Dialysis Clinics. Requires On-Site Medical Professionals: YES

John Oliver had a whole episode about how slimy and corrupt the dialysis industry is. It definitely needs these basic regulations.

Proposition 24 — Amends Consumer Privacy Laws: NO

This proposition, put on the ballot by one wealthy developer, provides some privacy rights while creating other loopholes. ACLU finds that Prop 24 is “full of giveaways to social media and tech giants.” Meanwhile, there’s enough good stuff that the Electronic Frontier Foundation is not endorsing or opposing it. I’m going to vote no and hope that the legislature acts on the good parts in coming years, which is what we’ve elected them to do.

Proposition 25 — Referendum on Law that Replaced Money Bail with System Based on Public Safety and Flight Risk: yes

The California legislature passed SB10 in 2018 to transition away from cash bail and instead use a flawed risk assessment system to decide if someone should be allowed out of jail while waiting for trial. If Prop 25 doesn’t pass, SB10 will be repealed and the racist, classist cash bail system will be reinstated. 

Your access to cash has nothing to do with whether you are a danger to society. The cash bail system is wrong.

SB10 is absolutely not good enough. Risk assessment systems based on racist data sets are not good and the legislature needs to do more work - but the initiative process doesn’t allow for that nuance. Voting “yes” communicates approval of reform, so this measure is getting my lower case endorsement.

San Francisco Propositions

Proposition A — Health and Homelessness, Parks, and Streets Bond: YES

This measure became a bit of a pork barrel hodge podge as the prop’s backers worked to win the support of all the supervisors by funding pet projects in every district. But, maybe that’s the system working to make sure the benefits are spread all over town. Pork barrel or not,  this is an investment in people and city infrastructure and makes a lot of sense right now.

Proposition B — Department of Sanitation and Streets, Sanitation and Streets Commission, and Public Works Commission: YES

Have you been following the corruption scandals that have been unfolding in San Francisco? They are wild. Do you know the story about “RoDBIgo Santos’” trick for cashing checks to the Department of Building Inspection (DBI)? Do you know about the tractor bribe? How about the discrimination settlement fraud mass email? You really can’t  make this stuff up.

These stories will help you understand why Supervisor Matt Haney got so frustrated when he couldn’t get the Department of Public Works to simply be transparent about its trash can contracts and street cleaning in the Tenderloin and SOMA. So, Haney put this measure on the ballot to split public works into two more manageable departments and add much-needed oversight. 

This is a step toward better governance and cleaner streets.

Proposition C — Removing Citizenship Requirements for Members of City Bodies: YES

Everyone who lives in San Francisco should have the right to volunteer their time to help figure out policy. Obviously.

Proposition D — Sheriff’s Department Oversight Board and Inspector General: YES

The current mediocre oversight system led to charges being dropped against deputies who staged gladiator fights between inmates. Vote yes to create an oversight body without conflicts of interest.

Proposition E — Police Department Staffing Levels: YES

In 1994, SF voted to have at least 1,971 full-time police officers on staff. This means that we have police responding to issues that could be better handled by social workers and mental health professionals. We need to pass Prop E to get rid of the police staffing requirement so the city can invest in the services that will really keep us safe and protected.

Proposition F — Business Tax Overhaul: YES

The mayor and board of supervisors worked this proposition out to adjust business tax law in San Francisco, raising the small business revenue exemption to $2 million and converting to gross receipts taxing, all complicated—wonky stuff. Importantly, this proposition would free up tax money that had been approved by voters but held up in courts that will help pay teachers in San Francisco. This one is uncontroversial and essential.

Proposition G — Youth Voting in Local Elections: YES

More voting is good. This will allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote in local elections. San Francisco is full of people who live here for a few years, then leave. Meanwhile, SF teenagers will always be “from San Francisco,” but may not be able to afford to live here after they graduate high school. They hella deserve to have a say in local government! 

Proposition H — Neighborhood Commercial Districts and City Permitting: NO

This is the only local proposition that’s really tricky. Allowing more flexibility and easing permitting for small businesses is a great idea. It turns out the board of supervisors has been busy doing just that without this proposition. 

But this proposition includes a long list of changes to the planning code that gets very suspicious. It’s good to allow nonprofits more flexibility, but why are you saying that for profit “philanthropic” companies can benefit from that? The city can streamline the inspection process without taking away people’s right to be notified about businesses that will be their new neighbors.

This proposition was written by the conservative Golden Gate Restaurant Association and the mayor’s office without input from neighborhood and small business groups. This makes it highly suspect.

Is this part of a strategy to bring chain restaurants in? To push tenants out of 2nd-floor apartments in commercial districts? What are they trying to sneak through in this massive 98-page list of specific planning code changes? 

Proposition I — Real Estate Transfer Tax: YES

This will raise taxes on high-priced property sales. It only affects sales of over $10 million. This is a small but sensible step toward correcting the massive wealth divide in the city.

Proposition J — Parcel Tax for San Francisco Unified School District: YES

We already approved this parcel tax with 2018 Prop G, but it’s been held up in court (because it got 61%, not 67% of the vote), so it was rewritten and put on the ballot again. San Francisco schools have been providing many basic services, such as getting food to families, while trying to provide education during a pandemic. The schools and teachers need this money.

Proposition K — Affordable Housing Authorization: YES

The state requires local voter approval to allow the city to build and maintain affordable housing — and to keep people in their homes. Obviously this is a major need in San Francisco. 

Proposition L — Business Tax Based on Comparison of Top Executive's Pay to Employees’ Pay: YES

If a CEO makes more than 100x what one of their employees makes, their company should pay a higher tax rate. Some quick math based on San Francisco’s minimum wage, is that this will only affect companies that pay their top executives over $3.3 million a year. I’m going to enjoy voting yes on this one.

District Proposition

Proposition RR — Caltrain Sales Tax: YES

This is a rare regional vote including all counties served by Caltrain. There was a bit of a kerfuffle as San Francisco supervisors almost didn’t vote to put this on the ballot. Caltrain will need this ⅛-cent sales tax to balance its budget. Yes, we do need to keep our transit alive.

There is great local reporting happening by Mission Local, The SF Examiner, and SF Weekly. I also find stories from KQED to be illuminating. El Tecolote provides more depth at a very local level and SF Public Press does exemplary deep dives on important issues. The San Francisco Chronicle will have some good stories but continues to be oddly deferential to the “City Family” — the city hall insiders who have been in control of the mayor’s office since Willie Brown was in charge. Willie Brown continues to be a columnist for the paper while also working as a lobbyist for corporate interests. I also learn about local and California issues via KQED and KALW radio shows and podcasts. I follow a lot of local journalists on Twitter, which is where I end up getting breaking news and try to ignore the conservative sock puppet accounts.

I generally agree with endorsements and arguments from the League of Pissed Off Voters, the SF Tenants Union, Broke-Ass Stuart, and the SF Bay Guardian — but I’ve written most of my guide before their arguments came out. The League of Women Voters has a very helpful pros and cons guide and some recorded candidate forums on their site. IndivisibleSF.org also has a useful run-down on each ballot measure.