The SFist Guide To Election 2005: The Local Stuff
Wait, what's that you say? There's lots of political bickering in San Francisco? Well blow us down! We'd never have guessed. As usual, this year's local ballot features some posturing, some confusing language, and some claims that aren't NECESSARILY lies, per se, depending on how you squint at things. You don't want to get involved in all that, do you? Feh! Here's what it boils down to for SF's three major voting blocs:
Pure-hearted Idealists: Yes to issuing more bonds, and giving the Supes more power, and rainbows.
Stingy Realists: No to unrestrained spending, and counterproductive oversight, and silliness.
Your Mom: Come in out of the cold right this minute young lady and put on your raincoat. I don't care that it itches; it's damp and windy out there and I didn't raise you just to catch pneumonia every time there's a drizzle. What would the neighbors say if they saw you cavorting around out there in the rain like a sea lion?
After the jump: slightly more relevance, hopefully.
Only a few folks are running for office this year; for Assessor-Recorder, there's Ronald Chun, Supervisor Sandoval, and Phil Ting. We don't care who gets the job, just as long as we don't have to do it. Ronald Chun is an experienced Accountant; Gerardo Sandoval has kept pretty busy as budget chair of the Board of Supes; and Phil Ting is the incumbent who brags about not being a politician like it's his only qualification. ALso running as a write-in guy: Anthony Faber. Good luck with that.
For Treasurer, we've got José Cisneros, Calvin Louie, Manuel Valle, and Isaac Wang. José Cisneros had plenty of good things to say when SFist Rita interviewed him; none of the other guys seems particularly offensive and frankly we have no idea what would make a good or bad treasurer so you're on you own with this one.
Dennis Herrera is the only guy running for City Attorney, so be sure to write-in "Ficus Plant."
Prop A: Do you want the city to take out loans for $246.3 million on behalf of the City College of San Francisco? Argument for: Man, the CCSF sure is looking dingy these days. Argument against: That sure is a lot of money, and how do we know it'll be spent wisely?
Prop B: Do you want the city to take out up to $208 million in loans to fix up the streets with better paving, traffic signals, curb cuts, and so forth? Argument for: Man, SF streets are crap. I wanted to vote yes on this measure, but I can't because my car fell into a pothole and I was transported through a wormhole to the Land of the Lost. Argument against: That sure is a lot of money, and how do we know it'll be spent wisely? Also, what's with this prop only throwing some chump change at bike lanes and pedestrian stuff? It all seems kinda motorist-friendly.
Prop C: We are shocked, SHOCKED to learn that the Board of Supes likes this Prop, which would put the Ethics Commission's budget more completely under their control. Argument for: the Ethics Commission needs more money, and since the Mayor hasn't been giving it enough, the Supes need to step in and take control. Argument against: the Ethics Commission needs more money, and the Mayor ought to continue regulating their budget just as he does for most other city departments.
Prop D: ARE YOU f**KING KIDDING US WITH THIS ONE. Oh whoops, we mean, our impartial reading of this Prop seems to indicate that it would give the board of Supes unchecked power to appoint folks to the MTA board, which oversees MUNI and the DPT. Currently, the Mayor nominates people to the board, and the Supes can veto anyone they don't like. Also, this Prop would mandate that at least one member of the board have a physical disability; that way, we'll be able to tell which applicants REALLY want the job because they'll be breaking their own legs or poking their eyes out. Argument for: Getting the Supes involved is a simply SPLENDID way to keep things from getting political. Argument against: I am not a member of the Board of Supes.
Prop E: After that patently unprofessional analysis of Prop D, we're trying hard to remain fair and balanced when it comes to Prop E ... but we honestly can't think of a reason why certain officials should have to run for office in June instead of November. Why not consolidate elections? Who the hell votes in June, anyway? Argument for: It's just easier this way. Argument against: Voting in June is fun!
Prop F: F stands for Firehouses! Wheeeeoooooooo, sirens and lights, hooray! Should the city lock itself into the levels of service from January 1, 2004? Right now, service is a bit reduced, though there's no evidence that that's hurt anyone. Prop F would make sure that there's lots of firefighters and lots of trucks and big hats and ladders and dalmations. Argument for: Fire bad. How is there an argument on this point? It's just BAD. Argument against: Prop F's too inflexible, and current service levels are working just fine.
Prop G: We've all learned from Matt Smith that the whole Golden Gate parking garage thing has been a big freaking mess. Now there's very little than can be done about it, except to decide whether we want an entrance to the garage inside the park, which would also mean that there'd be two lanes of traffic, instead of four, on MLK Jr Drive. Argument for: Studies show that reducing lanes would not result in congestion, and would mean less cars. Argument against: More vehicular traffic is just what Golden Gate Park needs.
Prop H: Fourth Amendment be damned (or was that one the third? Eh, who cares), guns are freaking scary. Prop H would make any gun ownership here in freedom-loving San Francisco illegal. Argument for: I don't want to get shot! Argument against: Whaddya going to do, ban every tool capable of killing someone? I better throw out my kitchen knives.
Prop I: Do you want SF to make a nonbinding statement of opposition to military recruiters in schools? Or, to put it perhaps more accurately, ARE YOU A FLAMING PSYCHOPATHIC PRO-TERROR COMMUNIST? On its face, Prop I is about military recruiters in schools; yes, it's a thorny issue because recruiters seem to target minorities, use scary-aggressive pitches, and totally pee all over nondiscrimination policies. But, wouldn't you know, it's more complicated than that. A lot of folks supporting Prop I aren't talking about schools; they're talking about Iraq. Some people (such as those in the SF Weekly's cover story this week) see this as a way to undermine -- in a good way, they say -- the war in Iraq. And a lot of folks opposing Prop I aren't talking about schools, either; they're talking about crazy liberals and ungrateful Democracy-saboteurs. It seems like schools just happened to get in the way of these two sparring groups. There's also another aspect to Prop I: it would encourage education and training as alternatives to military service, although there's no indication how this would actually be accomplished in practical terms. It's hard to vote on this one without being aligned with at least a couple of crazies. But then, that's what made you move to SF in the first place, isn't it? Argument for: Blah blah blah war for oil blah blah GI bill blah 2,000 dead blah blah college. Argument against: Blah blah delusional hippies blah blah blah cowardly left-wing blah anarchists blah blah blah hide the children.
We tried, oh man did we ever try, to make all that as un-boring as possible for you; probably at the expense of our credibility. If this isn't enough local-politics-talk for you, check out what some other blogs are saying, such as the lovely and talented Rangelife.
Voting happens November 8, Tuesday, and you get an "I VOTED" lollipop if you show up early. Lots of folks think it's a sticker, but oh man do they ever get embarassed when we start licking ours. Chumps!