We should all be doing our civic duty today and voting in the city's municipal election, but we're going to wager that a lot of you either didn't know it was happening — because you, like us, refuse to read classic mail — or your level of engagement with this particular set of (unopposed) candidates and propositions is at historic lows. Also, the most meaningful thing you have to vote on today is a single development project near the waterfront that was already approved by the Board of Supervisors last year. Will that project still happen whether or not you vote today? Probably. But the decision by the voters — which is likely going to be convoluted by two dueling, similar propositions, B and C — has to do with raising the height limit for just this block to allow half of this development to be 136 feet high.

Proposition C is the one you should be focused on if you do, in fact, think that 8 Washington is fine, and 134 new residential units and some retail on the inner side of the Embarcadero is just swell. Prop C is the referendum required after the Board of Supervisor's vote in order to raise the building height limit for just this project from 84 feet, as it stands on that block, to 92 and 136 feet. The developer is also building a new park and kicking in $4.8 million in transit-impact funds and $11 million for affordable housing, so that's nice. Rec & Parks, Mayor Lee, former Mayor Newsom, and Supervisors Wiener, Farrell, and Tang are all in support of Prop C.

The SF Bay Guardian has been characteristically anti-developer with this, and they oppose both B and C, but you'll note in their clean slate, they say "No, no, no!" — that's three No's plus exclamation — to Prop B, because Prop B was, confusingly, added to the ballot later as a way for the developer to create a special use district for the project and, according to the SFBG and other opponents in your voting pamphlet, "write his own rules" and set a dangerous precedent for waterfront development.

So, you can still support 8 Washington by voting Yes on C, but you might want to vote No on B if you're on board with these arguments. But if you disagree that we should even be voting on individual developments like this, you'll have to take that up with your Supervisor, or your therapist.

There's another argument, however, relating to a major sewer line that runs near the building and out under the Bay, and that argument is that building so close to the line will create a major hazard in the event of an earthquake. As former City Attorney Louise Renne says in the voter information packet, "Independent experts report that both during construction and in a major earthquake, this enormous luxury condo tower could rupture a major sewer line... that carries 20 million gallons of sewage per day." This may be a concern, however the building itself has already been approved. We think the worst that happens for the developer here, if both Props fail, is that the building gets shorter.

Then what else is left? Prop A is about protecting healthcare for retired city workers. The whole Board is unanimously behind it.

Prop D is virtually meaningless, but provides "a mandate" for the city to approach federal sources to attempt to lower the cost of prescription drugs.

And the following candidates will appear on your ballot, (virtually) unopposed.

Carmen Chu, Assessor-Recorder
Dennis Herrera, City Attorney
Jose Cisneros, Treasurer
Katy Tang, District 4 Supervisor (if you live there you know she's been in office by Mayoral appointment all year)
Ivan Seredni, District 4 Supervisor (read more about him, and write-in candidate Mike Murphy, here.)

Feel free to provide fun write-in candidates for your first and second choices, because this will be ranked-choice.