Early Voting starts tomorrow in San Francisco, so before I take my regular walk downtown to cast my vote at City Hall, I thought I’d share with our readers and friends my picks. As a registered Green, I only have a couple contested offices to vote on, but as always, we have some important Propositions and Measures to vote on.
State-wide Propositions
Prop 13: YES
I was glad to see that my Green Party mailer had at least a non-stance on this proposition. It’s a tough one. The simplified explanation is that this proposition will exclude retrofitting of housing from being an automatic reason for an audit of property value for tax purposes. This is a tough one, because most of our public school funding comes from Property Tax, yet we should also encourage property owners to secure their families and renters from earth-quake damage. I think it is the Green Party’s understanding that the original Prop 13 that was passed during the Brown Governorship is the real cause of our school funding problems (which our potential nominee Laura Wells has made one of her priorities to reform if elected this year). So, I am voting YES on Prop 13 this year, and hoping that Laura Wells can win, or at least bring attention to the previous Prop 13 that has caused us our funding problems.
Prop 14: NO
This one is important. Prop 14, or “Top-Two” must not pass. If this passes, citizens of California will have absolutely no choice in the General Elections for most offices. Third-Parties and Independents will be pushed aside during the “Open Primary” and incumbents will rarely face any serious threat to their established power. Even a majority of Democrats and Republicans oppose this proposition. Please, vote NO on Prop 14.
Prop 15: YES
This proposition establishes a much needed public financing system to our state’s elections. This proposition repeals a ban on public funding for elections and allows candidates for Secretary of State, the top ranking elections official, to receive public funds if they agree to limit spending and private contributions.
Prop 16: NO
This should be called the “PG&E for Life” proposition; it requires that city and county measures calling for a public energy system require a 2/3rds vote instead of a simple majority. Currently, public energy is the only competition available to the statewide monopoly known as PG&E. After what Enron did to our State, we should do whatever we can to challenge the control of any single energy company.
Prop 17: NO
This proposition would allow Auto Insurance companies to base their prices on the customer’s history of insurance. So if you haven’t had insurance, it will be more expensive for you to now get insurance. This is bad for multiple reasons, the most obvious should be that is discourages people driving without insurance to get insurance. This puts every driver on the road at risk.
San Francisco Propositions
Prop A: YES
This proposition will require that a portion of taxes already collected for schools be put aside for retrofitting schools. For the same reason I am voting YES on Prop 13, I am voting YES on Prop A. As well, despite my libertarian/fiscal-conservative leanings, if we are going to spend money I think it is better that we tax it rather than borrow it. I have a hard time support bond measures, as any economic instability will make the debts of the State that more dangerous, and having people relying on a repayment of said bonds can be harmful to our citizen’s person finances. If we are going to spend; tax. And while I actually agree with all the points made by the San Francisco Republican Party in opposition to this proposition, I feel that those curriculum issues need to be addressed separately from this proposition.
Prop B: NO
This is a soft no, as this is a bond measure to fund earth-quake response services. I don’t like the idea of borrowing money to provide any services, but this is a service that is important, so I can’t tell anyone to not vote YES, I am just voting NO.
Prop C: YES
This proposition changes our current Film Commission to being comprised of members appointed by both the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors; as it is now the Mayor appoints the entire Commission. Opponents argue that this is simply a power grab by the Board of Supervisors so they can use their interactions with Hollywood to gain attention for future campaigns and for local measures, and that if something goes wrong with a filming contract it is the Mayor that will always take the heat. I’d argue, that with the media attention from Hollywood party appearances, that our Supervisors might actually be more known by the city residents; and while this might help them in their personal ambitions, it will also make them more public for scrutiny.
Prop D: YES
Some progressives might disagree with this, but it is economically smart, as it will use the average monthly compensation for the last two years of employment for City employees rather than the last year, to determine their retirement benefits. Currently many employees exploit the last year of employment to up hours and compensation in order to secure a higher pension. This hurts our city budget.
Prop E: YES
This proposition requires a line item for security services provided to visiting dignitaries on the annual budget that the Police Department submits to the Mayor and Board of Supervisors for approval. This will insure accountability and prevent abuses by the Police Department under the guise of Diplomatic Protection.
Prop F: YES
Like the soft no I cast earlier, this is a soft YES. This proposition will limit rent increases on renters who have either lost their jobs or have not gotten raises to match the level of inflation. This proposition has the potential of hurting property owners if their residents become unemployed or don’t get raises while inflation puts stress on the property owner’s personal budget, however; the dangers of unemployment leading to more homelessness far outweigh the infringement on private business rights and potential hardships on property owners. I imagine my libertarian readers will want to vote NO on this proposition, and I can’t in good conscious tell them they are wrong, but I am going to vote YES.
Prop G: YES
This proposition will require that the northern-most stop on the California High-Speed Rail be at the downtown Transbay Transit Center instead of at a further south-of-Market/Mission center. The downtown center will bring together numerous public transportation systems into our city’s downtown area, making Bay Area transportation simpler and more accessible. Voters have already approved this upgrade to the Transbay Transit Center, and moving it to the Main and Beale St. location may prevent housing projects that have been scheduled for that area. Visitors and commuters to our City shouldn’t be dropped off in a non-central location, it just doesn’t make sense.
Partisan Office Nominees
Green Party
Governor: Laura Wells
Laura Wells has been working with the Green Party of California for years and has been featured on mainstream media outlets such as Fox Business. Her campaign has a great potential to bring attention to progressive issues in California.
All other Green Party candidates are without opponents for nomination. I’ll let voters of other parties make their own decisions.
Nonpartison Offices
Superintendent of Public Instruction: NO CHOICE
Of the candidates who have made their positions available, I can not confidently support any of them. The closest thing to addressing Curriculum Reform is the same rhetoric of “Vocational Training” coming from every single candidate. We need candidates for Education Positions that at least have strong ideas as to the direction our education needs to go. Until a candidate specifically calls out subjects like; Cooking, Gardening, Health, Budgeting, Investing, Inter-personal Relationships, Self-Defence, The U.S. Constitution, Voting, Travel, Language, and other specific items, I cannot strongly get behind any candidate. In a largely contested race, I would have expected at least one candidate to separate themselves with some strong solution based positions. I will most likely leave this spot blank tomorrow when I vote, if anyone has more information on any of the candidates, or has a candidate they strongly support, please leave a comment below for our readers, or send me an email: jack@freeindependentsun.com
Judge of the Superior Court, Seat #6: Robert Retana
Retana has actively worked for Civil Rights and Social Justice issues for years. He has experience and eduction that more than qualifies him for the position. He has worked with both Latino Groups and Gay-Lesbian Groups.
Judge of the Superior Court, Seat #15: Daniel Dean
Dean supports Gay-Marriage, and while he respects the responsibilities of the position to follow the law, he admits that there are probably better ways to deal with Drug and Prostitution problems.
Jack Wagner is the Editor of The Free Independent-Sun. Born in Sonoma, California and currently residing in San Francisco, Jack set up The Free Independent-Sun on July 4th, 2009, after sleeping in and not making his usual trip up north for his hometown festivities. He figured he'd do something revolutionary to make up for it. In the Summer of 2010 Jack registered Seraf Media with the City and County of San Francisco as a Sole-Proprietorship. He is dedicated to articulating the finer points of the Revolution in order to bring about a Global Renaissance and Abundant World Economy. He also isn't afraid to get his hands dirty transplanting succulents. 
I predict this can come out better in comparison with any are predicting. We don’t want to jinx it when you’re overly optimistic and the media prefer to lower our expectations so that they can suppress the vote.