The BAS 2015 Election Guide
photo: Quincy Cardinale. Model: Ruby.
Quick Guide
Mayor: Stuart Schuffman, Amy Weiss, Francisco Herrera (you get three votes!)
District 3 Supervisor (Chinatown/North Beach/Polk Street): Aaron Peskin
City College Board: Tom Temprano
Prop A: Yes
Prop B: Yes
Prop C: Yes
Prop D: Yes
Prop E: No
Prop F: HELL YES!
Prop G: No
Prop H: Yes
Prop I: HELL YES!
Prop J: Yes
Prop K: Yes
Longer Explanations
Obviously, our readership is well informed about our good man Stuart and his crusade towards 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, but the editorial staff thought you might also like to know what else is on the ballot and which things we think make the most sense…and which things sound like monkeyshine.
Therefore, we at Broke-Ass Stuart’s Goddamn Website proudly present our official BAS 2015 San Francisco Election Endorsements! Take a look and whatever you do, DON’T FORGET TO VOTE TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3RD! And if you absolutely, positively cannot make it that day- you can vote any time between now and then in the basement of City Hall.
ALSO: IF YOU HAVE NOT REGISTERED, YOU STILL HAVE UNTIL THE 19TH! GO DO IT NOW!!! NO EXCUSES, SWEETHEARTS!!!
AND stay tuned for all our official Election Night hijinx!
BAS 2015 SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL ELECTION ENDORSEMENTS
MAYOR: Vote 1-2-3 TO BEAT ED LEE!!!
You were expecting someone else perhaps? But, of course, among us staff, STUART SCHUFFMAN is the man for the job in position No. 1 of this holy trinity of hope. Stuart, like many of us, came here as a youngin’ and fell in love with a city that even then was in peril. The stakes have been raised in the past few years, though, and this boychickie, like many of us got tired of just sitting back and watching as Mayor Monopo-Lee sliced off piece after piece of this fantastic planet for Ron Conway and his golden horde. Whatever you do this November, we implore you, take the first three steps to getting that clown out of here. Vote for Stuart, and vote Amy Weiss and Francisco Herrera as your other two choices.
DISTRICT THREE: AARON PESKIN
We cannot emphasize more how important this seat is to the welfare of the city as a whole, so if you live in District 3, please, for the love of god, vote for Aaron. The district supervisor at the crescendo and subsequent crash of the last tech induced disaster, Peskin was one of the good guys who stood up to Emperor Brown’s city hall stranglehold. While President of the Board of Supervisors, he pushed housing reform, curbing Ellis Act flagrancies; protected the bay from more landfilling and women from harassment at Planned Parenthood clinics.
The consummate designer, current Supervisor Christensen, is polished and well-displayed, but is nothing but a mouthpiece for Lee and the financial interests of the corporate tech angels who endorse her.
By becoming District 3 supe once more, Pesking will not only be able to prevent further disasters for that constituency, but also shift the control of the Board of Supervisors back to the progressives so the “moderate” ghouls who like to rag on the homeless and would prefer a sanitized corporate sponsored San Francisco can finally take a seat.
SHERIFF: NO ENDORSEMENT
CITY ATTORNEY: DENNIS J. HERRERA
He’s running uncontested and the guy has stepped up to the plate on a lot whether it was battling for City College or gay marriage.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY: GEORGE GASCON
It’s weird, when Newsom decided to bring a cop from the LA and SFPD, and plunk him in the role of D.A., I don’t think anyone was thrilled with possible exception of the police. Over the years, however, Gascón has proven to be decidedly un-cop like and even endorsed Prop. 47 last year. We’re gonna say yes to Gascón.
TREASURER: JOSE CISNEROS
José Cisneros has been pretty good at his job for the most part. Mostly, though, he’s worked against those crummy payday advance loan sharks and broadening financial literacy among the city’s lower income residents.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE BOARD: TOM TEMPRANO
Vote for Tom!
We can’t help but love this guy. Tom grew up experiencing the benefits of community college not just for him, but also through those closest to him. Ever since he moved to San Francisco, he has jumped in as an enthusiastic resident of a town that he sincerely loves as his home. That enthusiasm led to his involvement with the Harvey Milk Club, which led to his advocacy for CCSF, which is far from being out of the woods. Tom mirrors the way that students feel about CCSF: an invaluable resource that we cannot afford to lose, not as an administrator sent over the hill by the mayor.
PROPOSITIONS
PROPOSITION A – THE SAN FRANCISCO AFFORDABLE HOUSING BONDS: YES
This sets aside money that can be used either to construct affordable housing or buy up existing stock before it goes up. We definitely need a strong vote on this one because it requires a two-thirds majority to pass and we have already seen similar measures fail because they didn’t get that. Hopefully with unanimous support from everyone at City Hall, we can do it.
PROPOSITION B – ENHANCEMENT OF PAID PARENTAL LEAVE: YES
This is pretty straightforward: it basically fixes a weird flaw in the sick/ parental leave that city workers get. Currently, if two people work for the city and have kids together, instead of both getting the three months awarded to any worker, they have to split in half between them. Also, your sick leave doesn’t roll over. This would fix all that.
PROPOSITION C: YES
Basically, if you are spending money to print slate cards or reach people/ electeds and it amounts to $2,500.00 in month, then this will require you to register with the city as a lobbyist and pay a $500.00 fee. It’s basically billed as an attempt reign in corporate slush funds and all the evil empires that influence City Hall behind the scenes.
The downside is that it affects unions and non-profits as well, which could put them in a sticky position with the feds when they don’t have to register as lobbyists federally, but now do on a city level. Understandably unions aren’t keen on this one.
The League and 48 Hills seem to feel as though there are enough protections though, and this is really what it’s being billed as.
PROPOSITION D: YES
What?? Development? High rises?? Booo!
Yes, supporting a major development plan being pushed by the Giants may seem odd, but it is probably the best-conceived plan in years thanks to amazing allies like Supervisors Jane Kim and John Avalos.
40% of the housing will be mandatory affordable and low income and the plans have been redrawn to lower the height of the towers that are planned.
Granted, there is come concern here. As anyone who lives in Dogpatch, Bayview, Hunter’s Point and Vistitacíon Valley know, the corridor is already a mess with barely existent service extending beyond the nightmare that is A.T. & T. Park on most days after 8 p.m. and the fact that Mission Bay and China Basin are to be the first hoods to go with sea level rise.
That said, the subway will be completed well before the completion of the project, which will considerably alleviate the madness that is 4th and King at present, and this project is one of the few that is actually building with the sea level rise in mind. UCSF didn’t seem to think it was an issue. Yikes!
PROPOSITION E – REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC MEETINGS OF LOCAL POLICY BODIES: NO, NO, NO!
It supposed to be this great thing where, finally everyone is allowed their say when it come to committee meetings et al downtown.
Yes, elderly and disabled folks would be able to send in a video comment where they can comment on whatever item is up for discussion, but so can ANYONE. News pundits, the Westboro Baptist Church, you name it..everyone. AND, they have to show every single one. Have you been to a well-attended board meeting? They can last hours as it is; with this people could skeletons covered in cobwebs by the end. Plus it would make certain items have to be at set times, which means the clerks have to notice the public way in advance and then what exactly happens when you still have 400 videos streaming in from Ann Coulter from the last item. Please, this sounds like insanity.
PROPOSITION F – SHORT TERM RESIDENTIAL RENTALS: YES, YES, YES!!
In case you haven’t been alive for the past few years, basically AirBnB has allowed nefarious landlords to pull rental units off the market and turn them into miniature hotels, thusly spiking the cost of rent and gutting what little rentals we have.
Last year, David Chiu, who pretty much won his seat in the Assembly on money from AirBnB, drew up an ordinance to reign in AirBnB, but was pretty much a suggestion for how they might do things if they felt like it.
This would severely curb bad landlords from turning into well-moneyed inn keepers by actually mandating caps on stays (hosted and unhosted) to 75 days and giving the jurisdiction to the planning department to enforce this plus prohibiting unregistered hosts. None of these things would prevent someone who needed to make some extra cash from doing so, as AirBnB has spent 8 million dollars and had multiple commercials of a rather unfortunate looking Gavin Newsom to have you believe.
PROPOSITION G – DISCLOSURE REGARDING RENEWABLE ENERGY: NO
This is P.G. & E’s double speak that they used to try and make it seem like the new Clean Power SF was lying to people about what was green and what was not when they offered resident the ability to choose their power provider. Basically they are trying to cut the legs off the competition before they are out of the gate. Vote No.
PRPOSITION H – CLEAN ENERGY RIGHT TO KNOW ACT: YES
Now this is very important: No on G, Yes on H. Basically after P.G. & E. did their little astroturf jig with G, London Breed and John Avalos wrote this to defang it. This would allow Clean Power SF to fairly offer their alternative to P.G. & E. long held monopoly without the latter making it seem like they are nothing but a bunch of coal burning litterbugs. Still, there’s still a danger even if you vote Yes on H and enough people get duped into G and it gets more votes, it will trump H. so remember: No on G; Yes on H!!
PROPOSITION I – Mission District Housing Moratorium: YES, YES, YES!!!!
On the fact alone that every long-term resident, cultural and advocacy group in the neighbourhood it affects wants this, should be reason alone.
Despite, the contention by many these days that simply building more market rate housing will trickle down to opening up housing for people in lower income brackets, it simply isn’t true. Trickling down didn’t work for the national economy of the eighties, it didn’t work here during the dot com, and it isn’t working now.
Building more “market rate” (read: luxury housing) serves to only house those who can afford it and spikes the rents of the housing surrounding it. Older homes and less attractive homes don’t simply become undesirable and tossed into a pile for the people getting booted out of their Victorian their landlord neglected for forty years, but now suddenly wants to turn over.
It isn’t permanent, and it won’t cause businesses to run screaming in terror. It will simply provide the city and its oldest neighbourhood with a much-needed breather before it’s too late.
For more information on this issue check out all the facts here: Vote Yes on Prop I : Ask A Tenants Rights Attorney
PROPOSITION J – ESTABLISHING THE LEGACY BUSINESS HISTORIC PRESRVATION FUND: YES
Right now, if you are a business or organization more than thirty years old, you can register as a legacy business with the city.
What this would do is provide financial incentive to both the businesses and the landlords of the buildings that contain them to prevent their closure.
Already, we’ve seen places, we thought would last forever shutter or get bulldozed: The Lexington Club, The Gold Dust Lounge, Capp’s Corner, Esta Noche…you get the picture. I’d go on, but it’s too depressing. I mean, it sounds ridiculous, but honestly how long before the Tadich Grill, El Río, El Farolito, or the Bus Stop join that list? Think about it, youngins.
PROPOSITION K: SURLPUS CITY PROPERT ORDINANCE: YES
So, right now, the city can use any property it has that isn’t being used either for housing or sell it and use the money to build housing.
There’s a lot here, but in short, what this does is just broaden the possibility of affordability in said housing and institute more check and balances to make sure opportunities aren’t missed or sales go unnoticed. It’s a good one.
Whew! Well, that’s the lot of ‘em San Panchitos! We know it’s not a big, glam, bells and whistles sort of election, but believe it or not this one matters a whole hell of a lot.
We have the chance not just to stop the bleeding with a lot of really amazing props, but also tell Willie Brown and his little wooden friend, Edwin, that we are done. Done just letting them hop around on their little silver thimbles and Yorkshire terriers while the rest of us go to jail. This city belongs to us, not them. So let’s say we do a little “owner move-in” action of our own. We’re pulling it off the market, boys! Sorry, not sorry- BAS Staff
Author’s Note: At press time, our endorsement of Aaron Peskin for District 3 supervisor was unintentionally omitted. This content has also been edited since its original publication.
You Might Also Like
