Keep thinking of things I left out! Updating to add guidance on Supervisor races, Oakland Mayor (for the possible Oaklanders reading this or those who have friends/family/roots in that city), and a few more local propositions.
Folks — here are my endorsements. Whether or not you agree, please vote. Turnout in San Francisco is expected to be very low — about 40 percent is what I’m hearing. As of late this week, only 58,000 absentee ballots had been returned. (Historical voter turnout figures are here). If you don’t vote, you don’t get to complain!
Closest to my heart, and I suspect to the hearts of readers of this blog, are the three seats up for the Board of Education. There is a very strong field of candidates this year, but these candidates rise to the top:
Mark Murphy: Mark is a dear friend of mine, but that’s not why I’m promoting his candidacy. I first met Mark in 2006, when as an elementary school parent I was struggling with some issues at our school. Mark is not a parent, but he is married to a 5th grade teacher who taught my children. Since he is a communications expert at his day job Mark attended a parent meeting and helped a group of us work through a difficult situation. He’s thoughtful, a great listener, and very interested and engaged in the issues that face our district. I was thrilled when he agreed to let me appoint him to the Public Education Enrichment Fund (Prop H) Advisory Committee, and was not at all surprised when he was elected co-Chair of the committee last year. I also deeply respect and support Mark’s commitment to the particular issues of LGBT youth — back in 2010 he worked closely with Commissioner Sandra Lee Fewer to pass and implement legislation increasing mental health and other supports for this particular group after we saw shocking data about the increased risks faced by this population in our schools. He will be an amazing, collegial and smart addition to the Board of Education and I support him unconditionally.
Shamann Walton: I am so excited at the prospect of serving on the Board with Shamann. I got to know him during the 2012 campaign, when he ran for school board the first time. Though he was not ultimately successful, I was very impressed with his low-key, easygoing style and deep engagement in making sure the schools are doing their best with all kids, particularly around job readiness and vocational skills. He’s got long experience working in government and the social service sector in San Francisco, and he is another candidate who will absolutely hit the ground running come January, when the new term begins.
I’m also endorsing my colleague Emily Murase for re-election. Emily has been a hard-worker and a solid vote on the Board. Last year we elected her into leadership as Vice President, and she’s done a good job in the often thankless role of making sure the work of the Board moves forward. As a Board member, she’s made particular effort to address bullying in schools, and is a strong advocate for more world language programs.
Propositions: I won’t bore you with all of my positions on local propositions, but I feel particularly strongly and well-informed about these three:
YES on Props A and B , which would work on improving transit in different ways. Prop A is a bond championed by the Mayor, Prop B was placed on the ballot by a majority of Supervisors to tie Muni’s operational funding to population growth. A has broad support, B is opposed by some as a ‘money grab’ by Muni. To me, tying Muni’s funding to growing population is a good thing. SF is pretty crowded these days and only getting more so. Investing in Muni to increase service seems crucial, and we haven’t seen much commitment to that coming out of City Hall.
YES on Prop C, the “Children and Families First” initiative. Prop. C is a charter amendment that changes the way the City administers the Children’s Fund and the Public Education Enrichment Fund. Both of these funds represent crucial support to kids, families and schools in San Francisco. Prop C will modestly increase revenues to these funds, and improve the administration of them. There is almost no opposition to this charter amendment.
YES on Prop E, the soda tax. Anyone who follows me on Twitter or Facebook knows clearly how strongly I feel about this one. It’s controversial, but a critical public health initiative. There is no longer any doubt about the fact that a tax on sugary beverages will reduce consumption, and that’s why Coca Cola and Pepsi have spent almost $10 million (that we know of — the full tally won’t be available until after the election) to defeat this initiative and a similar one in Berkeley. Do you really think they care about supporting your right to choose to drink diabetes in a bottle without paying a tax to do so? This is not a philosophical argument, friends — it’s about soda company profits vs. the health of our communities. The SF Chronicle editorial supporting Prop. E is the clearest, most cogent and factual argument I’ve seen. If you’re on the fence about Prop. E, read it.
YES on Prop F is a no-brainer. The plan for redeveloping Pier 70 is great, and has been constructed painstakingly with lots of community input. When this plan is completed, we will have a stunning new development on the waterfront with parks, space for local artists and makers, and housing.
YES on Prop I, the Beach Chalet Soccer Complex. As Recreation and Parks General Manager Phil Ginsburg likes to say, this is the most vetted soccer field in America. For years, the Recreation and Parks Department has been trying to upgrade the soccer fields at the Beach Chalet, out near Ocean Beach. Many months out of the year those fields must be closed due to poor drainage, and players cite ruts and gopher holes as constant hazards. The recent dustup at Mission Playground highlighted the overarching fact that there is huge and growing demand for soccer playfields in San Francisco, and we need more fields to meet the demand. The Beach Chalet project will address this. Let SF kids play and vote YES on Prop I. Correspondingly also vote NO on Prop H, which landed on the ballot as a last-ditch signature gathering effort to stop the project in its tracks. (Let me just be up front and say I am not going to post comments that contain screeds on artificial turf. I acknowledge there is controversy over whether artificial turf poses hazards to players but I have found the debate to be remarkably short on facts. This analysis of the existing scientific data is the most even-handed, up-to-date and factual article I have found on this issue, written by Andrew Maynard, the Director of the University of Michigan’s Center on Risk Science — someone with no dog in this fight.)
Assembly District 17: David Chiu is the clear choice. His collaborative style is what we need in Sacramento. David is a good listener and someone who has demonstrated his ability to reach across ideological differences and find consensus.
City College: Dr. Amy Bacharach for the two year seat. Rodrigo Santos for the four year seat.
State Superintendent for Public Instruction: No recommendation. I realize that doesn’t provide much guidance, but the fact is, I’m disappointed in both candidates. Tom Torlakson is well-meaning, and I supported him in 2010, but he has been completely ineffective in this role. I’m embarrassed for him that he is touting the Local Control Funding Formula as one of his achievements– the LCFF was entirely Governor Brown’s baby. Similarly, Marshall Tuck is appealing in some ways but he has been bankrolled and pushed hard by the charter school lobby. I am so tired of having my hands tied when it comes to charter schools — on everything from granting petitions to facilities. Not all charter schools are bad — I’ve voted for several new petitions since coming on to the Board, including Gateway MS and KIPP High School–but the Education Code with respect to charter schools really needs an overhaul.
So, it is galling to me that the my choices for this office amount to a tired political hack or a candidate whose chief experience in education comes from his time as a charter school executive. I’ve voted, but I’m purposefully not sharing who I voted for because I really have no idea if I made the right choice.
From your explanation, I’m wondering if you meant to say No on H, which would allow the soccer field project to continue. Proposition I goes further and gives the parks department the power to skip the community vetting process that the soccer field project went through.
I also would say that while Torlakson seems to be pretty ineffectual, putting Marshall Tuck in could be dangerous. He seems to be hostile to the idea of public education as well as bilingual programs and ethnic studies.
Yay for Mark Murphy. I like the way he has supported arts education.