San Francisco League of Pissed Off Voters

There’s a nasty fight going on at City Hall where tenants and working-class homeowners are being pitted against each other. It’s a complex, wonky issue about allowing Tenancies in Common (TICs) to convert to condominiums, but it has huge ramifications for renters in the City.

There are three sides to this issue: renters, TIC owners AND the real-estate industry.  It is apparent that something needs to be done to create more affordable housing in San Francisco, but while this legislation promises us some, it also means losing 2600 properties to condo conversions – and it’s a signal to the real estate industry that it’s open season on evicting more tenants to create more TICs. That’s not the right way to create new affordable housing.

For some background on this legislation, and on the League, see the end of this letter. Here, we’ll lay out the League’s position.

The cliff notes version:

The proposed compromise on TIC-condo conversions makes us nervous. We’d be more comfortable with voting this whole legislation down and keeping the current system. But we’re standing by our allies in the tenant groups who have lived and breathed this issue for years. We support the current compromise, but it can’t be watered down any further.

Why is this so important for renters?

State law basically says that once something is exempt from rent control, it is forever. The City exempts condos from rent control - so once it’s converted, that unit can never be regulated again. Right now, there are hundreds of tenants who are renting units in TIC buildings. This legislation would put them at risk of losing their rent control.

The original legislation was, frankly, pretty scary - but it might contain some benefits for tenants, in the form of proposed amendments that came out of months of negotiations. There are two big wins for tenants in the amendments submitted by Supervisors Chiu, Yee and Kim – the 10 year moratorium on the lottery and the exclusion of 5 and 6 unit buildings from the condo lottery going forward. This 10 years of breathing room, we are told, will give pro-tenant organizations time to tackle some state laws like the Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act and the Ellis Act. But not everyone is supporting this “win” for tenants, and we fear there are more changes on the way once this reaches the full Board of Supervisors. The expected efforts to change this legislation include taking away the language about the 10 year moratorium and eliminating the owner residence requirements.

So what’s the League all pissed about?

We don’t like legislation that moves the goal posts. TIC owners bought their TICs knowing the rules of the lottery. Changing the rules now – even with the 10 year moratorium – signals to the real estate industry that they might be able to change the rules again. We want to see the lottery go away altogether and stop TICs from being converted into condos.

In an ideal world, we would have added more amendments: We think the $4,000 to $20,000 fee for TICs to convert is too small. Ideally, the fee should cover the cost of building a replacement unit. Or at least, there shouldn’t be discounts below $20,000. We want to have an oversight agency to see the conversions through so that no “dirty” properties are able to convert. We also want to make sure that the lifetime leases can be enforced on a local and state level.

So we’re down to make this deal, but don’t fuck with us. No more giveaways to the real estate industry. It may not be a pro-tenant Board of Supervisors anymore, but it’s still a pro-tenant City. And if the Board gives in to the realtors, San Francisco renters will take this shit to the ballot.

What’s this all about anyway?

A Tenancy in Common (TIC) is basically a pseudo-condo where the residents in a building share joint ownership. They’re riskier than condos because if your neighbor defaults on his mortgage, it could mess you up too. Because they’re riskier, they’re cheaper than condos, which means that a lot of people who can’t afford condos roll the dice and buy TICs instead. Because their riskier, TIC owners pay higher interest rates than condo owners. Every year there’s a lottery to allow 200 TICs to convert to condos. When a TIC becomes a condo, the owners pay about $10,000 in fees, but they can get lower interest rates, and their home becomes instantly more valuable.

The good thing about TICs is they allow additional folks a chance to buy a home in the City. The down side, is that they’re usually created by landlords evicting or somehow displacing tenants and permanently removing rent-controlled apartments from the market. The TIC lottery is supposed to balance these competing interests. The reason we can’t allow all of the TICs to convert to condos is because that would create tremendous pressure for landlords to evict their tenants and convert their buildings into TICs.

Back in June of last year, Supervisors Mark Farrell and Scott Weiner introduced legislation so that TIC owners could bypass the lottery (where only 200 TICs are converted per year) and pay a one time conversion fee to convert their TICs into condos. The legislation was brought before the Board of Supervisors Land Use Committee in January, and that’s really when the shit hit the fan. In the past few months, there have been negotiations on all sides to try to find some compromise.

Who is the League of Pissed Off Voters?

We’re a bunch of political geeks in a torrid but troubled love affair with San Francisco. We’re blessed to live in America’s most progressive city, but we’re cursed to live in a city where way too many of the youth who grow up here won’t be able to afford to live here. Frisco has its own dark history of injustice: redevelopment, environmental racism, the “old boys” network. All of us lucky enough to enjoy the San Francisco magic owe it to our City to fight to keep it a diverse, just, and healthy City. We’ve published 15 consecutive voter guides to educate our friends and peers on the issues, excite pissed off progressive voters, and remind sellout politicians that we’re paying attention.

The San Francisco League of Pissed Off Voters

http://theleague.com/sf

http://facebook.com/theleaguesf

http://twitter.com/theleaguesf

http://theleaguesf.tumblr.com

So, what happened?  How’d we do?  What’s the results?  

 Here’s one of our members perspectives: 

Waking up (a little groggy after the awesome party at El Rio last night), here’s what I see:

 First, let’s not breeze by the biggest victory this election — two leaders in the progressive movement, Supervisor David Campos (9) and Supervisor John Avalos (11) have built such a strong community of supporters and are so well-liked and clearly unbeatable that the downtown money didn’t even run a candidate against them. That, in itself, is a huge victory and it’s important we acknowledge that. Much of the rest of this couldn’t have happened if we volunteer energy was needed in these other neighborhoods.

Second, President David Chiu, while he’s occasionally voted against our stance, has been a pretty consistent leader and vote for many of the things we believe in. And, he, too, faced no serious challengers from the Downtown landlords.

 Now, onto the victory — $940,000 and counting was spent for David Lee(or against Eric Mar).  That’s more than any other Supervisor race in SF history — and keep in mind, Supervisors used to be city-wide, so they needed a heck of a lot more money!  But, thanks to the early, silent victory of Campos and Avalos running unopposed, people were able to focus their energy in this hugely important race.  The Mar campaign was run well and, I think Supervisor Mar said it best to the SF Weekly: “We’re going to show the big business groups that they cannot mess with our communities, and that we will kick their ass every single fucking time.”

 In District 1, we pulled out a huge victory — Richmond residents were being drowned in anti-Mar literature from the big landlords and moneyed interests, and, yet, with the League of Pissed Off Voters and hundreds of other volunteers, Eric Mar won. This decisive victory —14 points — sends a clear message that you can’t just buy an election in San Francisco. And we should all be damn proud of that.

 And, let’s not forget District 7 — the Westside — who knows how that will go. We’ll have to wait and see, but right now, whether it’s Mr. Yee or Mr. Crowley, it’s not Sean Elsbernd’s hand-picked crony, Mike Garcia. That, too, is a win for San Francisco’s young people, renters, and MUNI riders.

 Finally, the shit storm that was District 5… Christina Olague’s campaign just didn’t come together until about three weeks before election day. Simply, you can’t win an election in that short of time. Julian Davis had seemed hopeful, but after the response to allegations, most people were so turned off, he was dead in the water. John Rizzo actually started to pick up steam in the last two weeks, as well — but that just doesn’t work.  So, we’re left with London Breed. The good part, is that she’s spent all election cycle proclaiming she’s for rent control and that we all just had her wrong — let’s hope so.  London Breed is a young black woman who grew up in government housing in the Western Addition. She is a true homegrown SF leader, and that is cool! She was put into office by the community she was raised in and by and now we have to hope that her allegiance is to that same community and not the big money elite who gave her the $200,000+ to help her win

 And — let’s not forget the local ballot measures.  The SF League had a five out of six — that’s pretty huge, too.

 So, that’s one person’s opinion — what do you think?  What are you excited or heart broken about? 

Hey y’all, three things:
1. If you haven’t already, check out our voter guide below and VOTE!
2. Come party with us at El Rio tonight! Free drink with your ballot stub.
3. Please reblog this. 

Printable Voter Guide: http://bit.ly/sfvoterguide
Full unabridged voter guide: http://theballot.org/sf

Quick Ballot Rundown:

President - Barack Obama
U.S. Senate - No Endorsement
House of Representatives, District 12 - No Endorsement
House of Representatives, District 14 - Jackie Speier 
State Senate District 11 - Mark Leno
State Assembly District 19 - Phil Ting
State Assembly District 17 - Tom Ammiano

California Propositions
Prop 30 - Sales Tax & Progressive Income Tax for Schools - HELL YES!
Prop 31 - Two Year Budget + Sketchy Business - No
Prop 32 - Screw Unions and Protect Corporations - HELL NO! 
Prop 33 - Car Insurance Shadiness…Again - No
Prop 34 - Repeal the Death Penalty - HELL YES!
Prop 35 - Troubling Human Trafficking Bill - Reluctant No
Prop 36 - Reform the ‘Three Strikes’ Law -  HELL YES!
Prop 37 - Label Genetically Modified Foods - Yes 
Prop 38 - Tax the Rich for Schools - HELL YES!
Prop 39 - Close “Multistate” Corporate Tax Loophole - Yes
Prop 40 - Reaffirm the State Redistricting System - Yes

Local Ballot Measures 
Prop A - Parcel (a kind of Property) Tax to Save City College - Yes 
Prop B - Borrow Money for Park Construction & Repair - Reluctant No 
Prop C - Affordable Housing Trust Fund - HELL YES! 
Prop D - Consolidate Odd-Year Elections - No Endorsement
Prop E - Reform the City’s Business Tax - HELL YES!  
Prop F - Mula to Study Hetch Hetchy Tear Down - No
Prop G - Symbolic Stand Against Corporate Personhood - Yes

Board of Supervisors
District 1 (The Richmond)
Eric Mar

District 3 (Downtown)
David Chiu 

District 5 (Haight / Western Addition / Panhandle / Inner Sunset) 
No Endorsement

District 7 (The Westside) 
#1 Norman Yee 
#2 Francis Xavier Crowley

District 9 (Mission & Bernal) 
David Campos

District 11 (Excelsior / OMI) 
John Avalos

BART Director, District 7 
Margaret L. Gordon

BART Director, District 9 
Tom Radulovich

Board of Education (4 seats)
Shamann Walton 
Gladys Soto 
Sandra Lee Fewer
Kim Garcia-Meza

Printable Voter Guide: http://bit.ly/sfvoterguide

November 2012 elections are November 6th, 2012 and the SF League of Pissed Off Voters are back with another real-talk Voter Guide to help you know you’re best bets in the voting booth.  

Before we get started a few quick notes: 

• Election day is November 6th, 7am - 8pm. Call 311 to find your polling place or go to www.smartvoter.org Also, anyone can vote at City Hall.
• Early voting at City Hall: Weekdays from 8-5, weekends from 10-4!
• As long as you’re not on felony parole, you can vote. Even if you’ve committed a felony or you’re on probation, you can register & vote. Don’t let the Man disenfranchise you.
• Voter Fraud Hotline: See something shady on Election Day? (800) 345-VOTE
• Questions?  See http://sfelections.org/tools/voterkit/ or call 311!

Now, for the Quick Rundown:

President - Barack Obama
U.S. Senate - No Endorsement
House of Representatives, District 12 - No Endorsement
House of Representatives, District 14 - Jackie Speier
State Senate District 11 - Mark Leno
State Assembly District 19 - Phil Ting
State Assembly District 17 - Tom Ammiano

California Propositions
Prop 30 - Sales Tax & Progressive Income Tax for Schools - HELL YES!
Prop 31 - Two Year Budget + Sketchy Business - No
Prop 32 - Screw Unions and Protect Corporations - HELL NO!
Prop 33 - Car Insurance Shadiness…Again - No
Prop 34 - Repeal the Death Penalty - HELL YES!
Prop 35 - Troubling Human Trafficking Bill - Reluctant No
Prop 36 - Reform the ‘Three Strikes’ Law -  HELL YES!
Prop 37 - Label Genetically Modified Foods - Yes
Prop 38 - Tax the Rich for Schools - HELL YES!
Prop 39 - Close “Multistate” Corporate Tax Loophole - Yes
Prop 40 - Reaffirm the State Redistricting System - Yes

Local Ballot Measures
Prop A - Parcel (a kind of Property) Tax to Save City College - Yes
Prop B - Borrow Money for Park Construction & Repair - Reluctant No
Prop C - Affordable Housing Trust Fund - HELL YES!
Prop D - Consolidate Odd-Year Elections - No Endorsement
Prop E - Reform the City’s Business Tax - HELL YES!  
Prop F - Mula to Study Hetch Hetchy Tear Down - No
Prop G - Symbolic Stand Against Corporate Personhood - Yes

Board of Supervisors
District 1 (The Richmond)
Eric Mar

District 3 (Downtown)
David Chiu 

District 5 (Haight / Western Addition / Panhandle / Inner Sunset) 
No Endorsement

District 7 (The Westside) 
#1 Norman Yee
#2 Francis Xavier Crowley

District 9 (Mission & Bernal) 
David Campos

District 11 (Excelsior / OMI) 
John Avalos

BART Director, District 7 
Margaret L. Gordon

BART Director, District 9 
Tom Radulovich

Board of Education (4 seats)
Shamann Walton
Gladys Soto
Sandra Lee Fewer
Kim Garcia-Meza

Ready for the full breakdown of state propositions & local races? Keep reading! 

Statewide Ballot Measures

Props 30 & 38 - Temporary Taxes to Fund Education & Tax to Fund Education and Early Childhood Programs - Yes
These are both taxes on (mostly) the rich which will plug the gaping hole in CA’s education budget. If both pass, the one with the more votes wins — and they’re both pretty good.  We wish Sacramento would find a more consistent way to fund education (like repealing Prop 13!), but in the meantime vote ‘Yes’ to keep our schools above water. For the kids, yo!

Prop 31 Two Year Budget + Sketchy Business - No
So this calls itself a nonpolitical “good government” Prop - it changes timing on some State budget stuff, gives local governments that band together “authority to develop their own procedures for administering state programs” (including the opportunity to ignore state law, which is worrying) and a bunch of other misc stuff. Hidden in with the innocuous bits is a clause that gives the Governor power (in a “fiscal emergency”, which happens like every twenty minutes in CA) to “slash spending”, i.e. cut vital programs and services. Unilaterally. As much as s/he wants. This sounds like a right-wing Trojan Horse to us…vote No!

Prop 32 Screw Unions and Protect Corporations HELL NO!
This is the evil stepson of the terrible Citizens United Supreme Court decision that allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited $ in elections. Citizens United treated corporations & unions the same (gave them more rights to political speech) when they really aren’t (since when you give money to the political action committee of your union you’re trying to make a statement & you have a say in what it is, whereas when you buy groceries at Safeway you’re not & you don’t). This Prop plays a similar trick - it pretends to reduce the political power of both unions & businesses but really just hoses unions. It prevents either from taking contributions for political advocacy via payroll deduction. But corporations don’t do that - they just use money from their profits. Since unions have no profits, they ask members to contribute to their political work - and most members do so by deducting $ from their checks. Banning that cripples unions but allows corporations to continue to spend unlimited money to block safety & environmental laws, elect friendly politicians, & generally screw over people like you. We are the 99% - Hell No on 32!

Prop 33 - Auto Insurance Companies. Prices Based on Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage - No
This again? CA voted it down once in 2010 & the same insurance magnate paid for a signature drive to put it back on the ballot this year! This allows insurance companies to raise your car insurance rates if you have a gap in coverage…because, for instance, you decide to ride a bike instead for awhile, or have a financial crisis so sell your car & go without. Lamesauce. Vote No.

Prop 34 Repeal the Death Penalty! - HELL YES!
We’re not a fan of the f-ed up prison industrial complex, racial disparities in sentencing, or the systematic problems with our justice system. We’re also not a fan of killing people. Enough said.

Proposition 35 - Human Trafficking. Penalties - Reluctant No
So, um, this is awkward. We aren’t actually PRO human trafficking. Prop 35 would increase prison terms for human traffickers, require convicted sex traffickers to register as sex offenders for life and hand over the keys to all their internet accounts for life. While well-intended, Prop 35 doesn’t address behavioral problems, and it fuels the growth of the CA prison system. The wording is vague and has unintended consequences. It further criminalizes sex workers, most of whom are women, transgender and immigrant people. It will discourage sex workers from seeking help, and it channels money into victim’s services and non-profits that work hand-in-hand with law enforcement, ICE and Homeland Security (forget about safe harbor). We say, reluctantly, no.

Proposition 36 - Reform Three Strikes Law! -  HELL YES!
The messed up “three strikes” law mandates an automatic life sentence for your third felony…no matter what it is. This reforms the law to only impose a life sentence when the third felony conviction is for serious or violent crime. Our prison system is packed & unfair - we say hell yes!

Proposition 37 - Label Genetically Modified Foods - YES
GMOs? OMG! What are we eating? This would require all products that contain GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) to say so on the label. It’s not a warning label - just an FYI, to help keep people more educated about what they’re eating. Monsanto and all the huge food corporations are funding the campaign against it - big surprise. California is one of the largest consumer markets in the US, so if we start requiring labels identifying foods, the whole nation will benefit.  We say yes :)

Prop 39 - Close “Multistate” Corporate Tax Loophole - Yes
Right now, multi-state businesses (like Internet retailers or big chains) can pick how to pay CA’s corporate income tax, and so they may pick a formula that’s cheap for them. This prop would close the loophole, & would generate $1B a year! Some of that money’s promised for education and clean energy, which sounds good to us.

Prop 40 - Reaffirm the State Redistricting System
Ugh! Again? The voters first created the Citizens Redistricting Commission in 2008, and upheld it in 2010. Leave it alone, already. This prop basically just says it again, “Senators can’t cherry pick their districts.” Voting yes affirms the Commission’s borders. This is so old news that even the people who worked to get this on the ballot threw in the towel in mid-July, but the zombie proposition lives on. We say yes…. again. (Fun Fact: We actually opposed the 2008 proposition that created this Commission because it excludes anyone under the age of 23 and anyone who’s recently changed political parties.)

Local Ballot Measures

Prop A -  Parcel Tax to Save City College - Yes
This asks all property owners in SF to pay $79 a year to fund our (struggling but essential) community college. You or someone you know has probably taken classes at City, & it’s a lifeline for adult students, low income folks, & English language learners. Let’s save it!

Prop B - Bond for Park Construction & Repair - Reluctant No
It makes us sad to vote ‘against parks,’ but we have three good reasons. First, Rec & Park needs money to hire more gardeners, rec directors, lifeguards, etc…but this $ is only for construction/repair. Second, we don’t like how Rec & Park prioritizes renting out parks and rec centers to private groups. Park advocates have been fighting for years to keep these facilities free and public. What good are fancy new parks if we’re going to lease them to private groups? Third, this was originally scheduled for 2014, and right now they still have money from the last bond. Let’s try again in two years.

Prop C - Affordable ‘Housing Trust Fund’ - HELL YES!
When redevelopment agencies were dissolved, everyone rallied to find a new source of income to build affordable housing. Prop C will recapture property tax $ meant for those agencies, plus some of the new cash from Prop E (see below). It’d guarantee $1.2 billion over 30 years for affordable housing - we say hell yes!

Prop D - Consolidate Odd-Year Elections - No endorsement
This was a tough one, so we’ll leave it up to you. Right now, the City Attorney and Treasurer are elected in odd years, but not the same one that the Mayor, District Attorney and Sherriff is. This prop changes the election cycle so they are all elected in the same years. To sync things up, it shortens the term of City Attorney and Treasurer to two years from 2013-2015, but then they go back to being four year terms again.
Some of us think it’s a great idea: electing the less-sexy City offices in the higher turnout Mayoral election years, save the City money, and save us all from election fatigue! But some of us also thought it was better to have City Attorney and Treasurer in their own election where the Mayor’s race wouldn’t distract from them. So, choose your own adventure!

Prop E - Reform the City’s Business Tax - HELL YES!
This would replace the City’s payroll tax (a tax on how much businesses pay their employees) with a tax on their gross receipts (how much money businesses make). This is has been in the works forever and we’re stoked it’s finally on the ballot. The payroll tax discourages businesses from hiring people. It’s also a flat (regressive) tax: small businesses pay the same rate as Wells Fargo and the Gap! And lots of fancy pants professionals (lawyers, architects, doctors, etc.) avoid the payroll tax because they’re considered “partners” not employees. The gross receipts tax will be progressive: big corporations pay a higher rate than Mom & Pops, and businesses that earn less than $1 million annually are exempt. Plus it’ll make SF $28M more a year, which we could seriously use for Muni or parks or other good stuff. Cool.

Prop F - $8M to Study Hetch Hetchy Tear Down - No
Right now, MUNI and all City-owned buildings get their power from the no-pollution-emitting O’Shaughnessy dam, which is awesome. Plus, the water is really tasty :) This Prop would allocate $8m to study what would happen if SF, which owns the dam, destroyed it and drained the Hetch Hetchy valley to have ‘a 2nd Yosemite.’ But actually doing that would cost billions, we’d lose green power, we’d have to spend more on electricity, and we’d use more energy pumping the water here. Plus the valley’s been submerged for nearly 100 years. We’d rather spend $8m on environmental priorities closer to home (like reducing asthma-causing pollution in poor neighborhoods) than on studying a plan to create a park for relatively wealthy hikers to enjoy decades from now.

Prop G -  Symbolic Stand Against Corporate Personhood - Yes
It’s really simple: corporations are not people, my friend. The idea of “Corporate Personhood” is a legal fiction that goes way, way back to scribbles in the margins of a note by Chief Justice Waite in 1886. If Prop G passes, it would be City sentiment that corporations do not have the same constitutional rights as real, alive, human people and should be subject to political spending limits. Of course, this wouldn’t be binding — it’s just a policy statement. Still, it’s nice to say how we feel, so we say vote yes.

Board of Supervisors, District 1: Eric Mar
Eric Mar is a thoughtful progressive whose presence on the Board of Supes ensures a slim majority for crucial stuff like rent control, clean energy, and Healthy SF. Downtown interests and real estate developers are pouring tons of cash into his opponent’s campaign, drooling at the chance to cash in on more condos. The City we love relies on Eric Mar - let’s keep him.

Board of Supervisors, District 3: David Chiu

Board of Supervisors, District 5: No Endorsement
In light of the recent political shit storm in D5, we have decided to not endorse a candidate. We won’t leave you completely hanging. Check it out — the District 5 Action group put together a helpful questionnaire and comparison of the candidates: http://www.d5action.org/election_resources

Although the League will not make an official D5 endorsement, we need to make it clear that we cannot stand behind the politics of London Breed. She supported the civil-liberties squashing Sit/Lie law, she supported the shady Lennar development deal in Bayview/Hunters Point, and she is receiving massive funding from big landlords. While we were conflicted about Julian Davis and other candidates — one thing we all agree on is: “Anybody but London Breed”.

Board of Supervisors, District 7
#1 Norman Yee
Current Prez of the Board of Education, Norman’s been an active proponent for early childhood education, pedestrian safety, local hire and keeping families in SF.  He won’t be leading the charge on the left, but he’ll be a stark improvement on the Board.

#2 Francis Xavier Crowley
A middle of the road candidate, he’s competent and has a lot of union support.

Board of Supervisors, District 9: David Campos
We didn’t endorse Campos the first time around, but he’s been a solid ally and has stood up for things we care about, including progressive taxation, clean municipal power, immigrant and worker rights, free MUNI for youth, and healthcare for all. He’s also running unopposed, so…four more years!

Board of Supervisors, District 11: John Avalos
He coulda been our Mayor - damn!  But he’s repping the Excelsior, OMI, and the progressive movement and we love us some Avalos, so we’ll take what we can get. He’s also running without an opponent - auto-win!

BART Director, District 7: Margaret L. Gordon
She served as Oakland Port Commission for five years after being a leader in the anti-idling efforts in West Oakland (trucks keeping their engines on while waiting at the Port is a huge smog & asthma creator). She’s a no holds-barred activist…let’s get her in there to shake up the sleepy-headed BART Board of Directors meetings. We sure wish she’d been on the BART Board during the Oscar Grant shooting aftermath…

BART Director, District 9: Tom Radulovich
He’s the head of Livable City and has been a consistent voice for smart investments to make BART better for everyone. From making sure the agency is properly pricing parking, to more reasonable bicycle rules, he’s looking out for the riders.

Member, Board of Education (4 seats) 
Sandra Lee Fewer (Incumbent) - Sandy is holding it down! We need to re-elect her fierceness to the Board of Ed.  A former community organizer, she is the Board’s no-nonsense mama bear, pushing through A-G requirements and working like a mo-fo to close the achievement gap.
Gladys Soto - We liked that Gladys (a mother of 2) is focused on bringing more diversity, equity and parent representation to the Board.
Shamann Walton - A challenger with the right priorities: the achievement gap, equity, & finding more funds for our schools.
Kim Garcia-Meza - Kim has deep roots in the classroom and in the community.  When she’s not running her own school, she’s fighting for equity and access on the SFUSD’s Bilingual Community Council.  And she’s the pick of Teachers 4 Social Justice!

Member, Community College Board  (4 seats)
William L. Walker - He’s a longtime youth activist, and the current Student Trustee on the Board (ie, he’s currently repping the students but has no vote). Queer, African-American and passionate as hell, we need more representation like this on the Board.
Steve Ngo - Not an original fave of ours, Steve has earned our respect with his intelligent debate on tough issues and his commitment to protecting ESL and ethnic studies courses.
Chris Jackson - From kickstarting Gateway to College to securing funding for green jobs for CCSF students, Chris has been solidly repping the southeast side of town.
Rafael Mandelman - A queer activist lawyer, Rafael is the former president of the Harvey Milk Democratic Club (the progressive GLBT political org in the City) and member of the Board of Appeals. He’s smart, committed, and a great guy.

Now, get out there and vote! Early Voting has started, and you can find your polling place at:  http://sfelections.org/tools/voterkit/ or call 311! 

This letter is the first official statement of the League of Pissed-Off Voters regarding our endorsement in District 5. We’ve been credited with both maintaining our original endorsement — and for pulling it — even though no members have spoken directly with candidates or the press about a final decision. So, listen up, people because this is it.

We are committed to making San Francisco a livable city with a heart. A model city for the rest of the country, one that will do what’s right in spite of a toxic political climate: empower women and people of color, legalize gay marriage, reform campaign finance, create a sanctuary city, give school board voting rights to immigrant parents so they can make decisions that affect their children, uphold rent control and policies that prioritize small businesses over corporations, and reject BS policies like stop and frisk and voter suppression that are trending nationally. This is why we need progressives in this town.

In light of recent events, the League of Pissed-Off Voters has reevaluated our endorsement and decided to not make any official endorsement for District 5 Supervisor. The voting process to change our endorsement was difficult, emotional, and frankly, really trying on everyone. Our bylaws weren’t designed to respond to a political shit-storm as crazy as this one (we’ll revisit our bylaws after the election). Some of us are standing by Julian Davis, some of us believe we should pull our endorsement, and some of us are really having trouble wrapping their heads around this tough issue. It’s hard and complicated and emotional — but we won’t let that fuck up the League and all that we’ve built and all that we believe in.

What we can all agree on, is that politicians are whole people. When we vote to endorse candidates, it is with the understanding that people are flawed. People fuck up. People grow. People change. We stake our reputation on progressive values like restorative justice that invests in this process of healing people instead of locking them up and throwing away the key. When we invest in people, we hold them accountable and don’t throw them away with yesterday’s scandal-packed newspaper when there is an opportunity for growth and healing.

We know that Julian Davis shares the same political goals of the League, and he’s been a member for many years — but allegations of sexual harassment need to be taken seriously. Attempting to silence those who speak out is never, ever okay. We believe that a true progressive leader should work to find understanding. His public statements since these allegations show that he’s not qualified to be a leader in District 5. We have voted to withdraw our #1 endorsement of Julian Davis.

We think that regardless if Davis wins, loses, or drops out of the race, he needs to do some serious soul searching over this and make amends—both with the women he has offended and with all of us who have spent too many tough hours agonizing over this. We haven’t seen any indication that he’s doing that yet.

We have voted to not endorse any candidate for District 5 Supervisor. In our original vote, Christina Olague and John Rizzo tied for 2nd. Their responses to our questionnaire show they share our values, and they have impressive histories of good work in the City. But Rizzo doesn’t seem to be generating much excitement, and Olague turned a bunch of us off when she endorsed Ed Lee for mayor. We urge District 5 voters to do their own research to find candidates that they feel comfortable ranking in this race and serving the residents of District 5.

The District 5 Action group put together a helpful questionnaire and comparison of the candidates: http://www.d5action.org/election_resources

Although the League will not make an official D5 endorsement, we need to make it clear that we cannot stand behind the politics of London Breed. We respect the work she’s done in the Fillmore and Western Addition, and we think she is sincere in wanting to help the District as Supervisor, but her responses to our questionnaire show major disagreements with the League, and with the other major candidates in the race: she supported the civil-liberties squashing Sit/Lie law, she supported the shady Lennar development deal in Bayview/Hunters Point, and she is receiving massive funding from big landlords. While we were conflicted about Julian Davis and other candidates — one thing we all agree on is: “Anybody but London Breed”.

Signed,
The League of Pissed-Off Voters

Here are the San Francisco League’s endorsements for the November 2012 election. We’ll update this with our thoughts about all this stuff soon. Check back later this week!

President - Barack Obama
U.S. Senate - No Endorsement
House of Representatives, District 12 - No Endorsement
House of Representatives, District 14 - Jackie Speier
State Senate District 11 - Mark Leno
State Assembly District 19 - Phil Ting
State Assembly District 17 - Tom Ammiano

California Propositions
Prop 30 - Sales Tax & Progressive Income Tax for Schools - HELL YES!
Prop 31 - Two Year Budget + Sketchy Business - No
Prop 32 - Screw Unions and Protect Corporations - HELL NO!
Prop 33 - Car Insurance Shadiness…Again - No
Prop 34 - Repeal the Death Penalty - HELL YES!
Prop 35 - Troubling Human Trafficking Bill - Reluctant No
Prop 36 - Reform the ‘Three Strikes’ Law -  HELL YES!
Prop 37 - Label Genetically Modified Foods - Yes
Prop 38 - Tax the Rich for Schools - HELL YES!
Prop 39 - Close “Multistate” Corporate Tax Loophole - Yes
Prop 40 - Reaffirm the State Redistricting System - Yes

Local Ballot Measures
Prop A - Parcel (a kind of Property) Tax to Save City College - Yes
Prop B - Borrow Money for Park Construction & Repair - Reluctant No
Prop C - Affordable Housing Trust Fund - HELL YES!
Prop D - Consolidate Odd-Year Elections - No Endorsement
Prop E - Reform the City’s Business Tax - HELL YES!  
Prop F - Mula to Study Hetch Hetchy Tear Down - No
Prop G - Symbolic Stand Against Corporate Personhood - Yes

Board of Supervisors
District 1 - Eric Mar
District 3 - David Chiu
District 5 - #1 Julian Davis <—League member!
#2 John Rizzo   
#2 Christina Olague
District 7 
#1 Norman Yee
#2 Francis Xavier Crowley
District 9 
David Campos
District 11 
John Avalos

BART Director, District 7 
Margaret L. Gordon
BART Director, District 9 
Tom Radulovich

Board of Education
Shamann Walton
Gladys Soto
Sandra Lee Fewer
Kim Garcia-Meza

Community College Board
William L. Walker
Steve Ngo
Chris Jackson
Rafael Mandelman

OFFICIAL LEAGUE-APPROVED POST

Over a couple weeks of discussion among our steering committee members, we wrote this letter which we sent to the SF Ethics Commission asking them to reinstate Ross Mirkarimi as sheriff. We know this is a sensitive andemotionally charged issue, but we ask y’all to be respectful about it. We felt it was important to articulate our position about this case.

Our criminal justice system is broken

The main flaw in our criminal justice system is the ingrained idea that when someone commits a crime, we have to lock them up and throw away the key. It’s this idea that has led to the U.S. having the highest incarceration rate in the world.  

We supported Sheriff Mirkarimi because he is committed to changing that
Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi has shown a commitment to reforming the criminal justice system to focus it on rehabilitating offenders and reintegrating them into society. That’s the main reason we supported him for Sheriff.

So it’s been a brutal irony to watch this flawed ‘zero tolerance’ idea being applied to Mirkarimi’s domestic violence case and leading to his removal from office. We think the Mayor’s attempt to remove Mirkarimi from office is misguided, and we’re very uncomfortable with a democratically elected official being unilaterally ousted by his political opponents.

It’s been a challenge for us to navigate the nuances of the issues raised by this case. We stand against domestic violence, yet we simultaneously believe in rehabilitation and in restorative justice. We abhor our society’s failure to address violence against women, yet we believe that in this case, the punitive response was politically fueled. Neither an average citizen in San Francisco nor a Sheriff aligned with the Mayor would have been targeted in the way Mirkarimi has been.

The effect on Theo and Eliana
The most painful part of this whole situation has been watching Mirkarimi’s family be torn apart. Lost in all the drama is the fact that a little boy has been kept away from his father for over six months. We think everyone who considers this issue should read Myrna Melgar’s Op-Ed “Domestic violence, a Latina feminist perspective,” which considers “the [implications] of the criminalization of low-level, first offenses of domestic violence on … immigrant women and other women of color.”

Melgar concludes that “a more progressive approach … would be to work on emphasizing early, non-law enforcement intervention and the prevention of violence against women in addition to the necessary work of extricating women from dangerous situations.”

You can’t ignore the politics of the situation              
It’s impossible to separate Mirkarimi’s removal from office from the dynamics of San Francisco politics. For as long as any of us have been involved, San Francisco politics has been sharply divided between progressive and moderate factions. For more than twenty years, Mirkarimi has been one of the strongest and most effective leaders of the opposition to the interconnected Willie Brown-Gavin Newsom-Ed Lee administrations. Mirkarimi strongly opposed the appointment of Ed Lee as Mayor.

On the Board of Supervisors, Mirkarimi was a vocal critic of then-police chief George Gascon on a number of issues. Mirkarimi led the fight against the Sit Lie Law; Gascon was one of the main supporters. Gascon opposed Mirkarimi’s attempts to mandate police foot patrols and require the SFPD to disclose their budget for security for elected officials.

Mayor Lee needs to get off his high horse
We’re disturbed by the reports that Mayor Lee committed perjury in his testimony at the Ethics Commission (in denying that he spoke to Supervisor Christina Olague about the case and denying that he offered Mirkarimi a job if he would resign). And we’re disappointed in the Mayor’s borderline-belligerent reaction to these accusations. The Mayor acts like his word is unassailable and that we should all just “take his word for it” that he didn’t commit perjury.

The only reason he is Mayor is because he broke his promise to the people of San Francisco that he wouldn’t run for Mayor after he was appointed!

Lee came into office with serious trust issues, and his attempt to dismiss these accusations from respected San Franciscans only makes us less likely to trust him. Mirkarimi has done something that we’re still waiting for Mayor Lee to do: apologize and take responsibility for his actions.

When we compare the severity of the response to Mirkarimi’s case with the lack of any investigation into the accusations of the Mayor’s perjury, as well as the lack of consequences for the apparent voter fraud committed by the Mayor’s supporters last year, we’re left with the impression that the Mayor and his allies are not held to the same standards as the rest of us.

The media fails us again
The local media has been fascinated with the tornado of scandal that has surrounded these events. Instead of investigative, balanced reporting, we’re left with storm chasing that reads more like gossip rags. We want to see more focus on testimony and context and less of the media assuming the role of judge and jury.

What we want
So here’s what we want to see happen:

• The Ethics Commission to recommend that Mirkarimi be reinstated as Sheriff. We don’t believe Mirkarimi’s misdemeanor rises to the level of official misconduct, and we’re uncomfortable with him being removed from office by his political opponents.
• The Ethics Commission and/or District Attorney to fully investigate the allegations of the Mayor’s perjury.
• The members of the Board of Supervisors to come clean about any conversations they had with the Mayor on this issue.
• And lastly, we want Mirkarimi to take advantage of this second chance. We’re painfully disappointed in his actions, which set off this shit storm in the first place, but we’re encouraged by how this ordeal has made him more humble and open. If he is reinstated as Sheriff, Mirkarimi needs to continue to own up to his actions and use his experience to lead the effort to reform how we treat domestic violence in San Francisco. The City voters elected Mirkarimi and they should have the final decision on whether he remains as Sheriff.