SOCIAL: DETAILS: 'Deep Slate November 2008: VOTE TUESDAY NOVEMBER 4TH

[Amandeep Jawa]

Hey folks -

Helloooo from Ohiooooooo - where I'm volunteering for Obama.  I hope  
that while I'm away, you all get out and vote, because as big of a  
deal the national election is, there are some big things going on at  
the state & local level too!

On the state level, Prop 8 represents the all-too-common attempt to  
strip civil rights from gay people and in the end impoverishes us  
all.  And on the local level, numerous well-funded downtown interests  
are PLYING $$$$$ into a cavalcade of campaigns attacking more  
progressive candidates.  A loss of the progressive majority on the  
Board of Supes could really threaten a lot of good policy that most of  
us care about a great deal, things like rent control, minimum wage  
laws, transit-first policy, affordable housing, bicycle lanes, health  
care, chain store limitations and other similar goodness.  This is  
scary & ugly and really can't be allowed to happen.

SO PLEASE VOTE, AND NOT JUST FOR OBAMA!!!

Also with this SHOCKINGLY early 'Deep Slate, you all have a chance to  
send me better-informed emails on how poor some of my choices are, or  
debate as you see fit :-)

Anyway, rock on without me for the next 3 weeks & if you want to  
follow my campaign adventures in OH, just check my blog: www.deeptrouble.com 
  (.ps I love blog comments)

'deep

.ps
Jeez! All the way to Prop V!?  This has taken me FOREVER TO WRITE!   
UGH.  This is ridiculous!  The combination of "we know everyone is  
coming out to vote" & "political tit-for-tat" has made a ridiculously  
LARGE # of measures.

-----------------

(my apologies if you get this multiple times & if you don’t want to  
get this type of stuff from me, just let me know)

These are the details of my 'Deep Slate endorsements, to see it in  
simple list form see the other email entitled: "LIST:...".

Thanks again to the number of folks who have asked me for my opinions.  
I know I say it every time but it is quite true: I really am honored.   
Any questions or flames can, of course, be addressed to me....

Ok - so to figure out how to value (or devalue :-)) my opinions you  
should know the following:

• My opinions come from my experience in local politics over the past  
13 years & the tons of candidate interviews I've done with the San  
Francisco League of  Conservation Voters & the SF Bicycle Coalition &  
all the lobbying I've done at City Hall, etc etc.... As you know I  
don't get a dime for this, I'm a software engineer by day, and a  
political activist in my spare time.
• The 3 biggest "norths" of my political compass are environmentalism,  
social justice issues & good government (reform type) issues.
• I'm President of the San Francisco League of Conservation Voters &  
on the Board of Directors of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition.  
While my views are definitely shaped by my activities in these  
organizations, my endorsements do NOT represent their views.
• I'm basically an idealist, an optimist, and a humanist.
• In some of these races it is a matter of picking between flawed  
options....
• Ballot measures are REALLY a bad way to govern.  Most of the things  
done in ballot measures SHOULD be done in the normal legislature,  
where they are easier to fix if they turn out wrong.  Another problem  
is that you have to boil complex issues down to yes/no votes - which  
rarely is a good idea.  But this is what we have, so keep in mind that  
some good ideas make bad ballot propositions & a lot bad ideas can be  
made to be sound like good sense in ballot initiative form because the  
devil is often in the details. And also note that often, these  
measures are grey - there is often a lot of balancing going on.....
• 90% of my experience & knowledge is about local issues - so  
understand that state issues are a little greyer for me unless I say  
otherwise.  Thus, some of the endorsements (as marked) below are taken  
from compiling what the California League of Conservation Voters, the  
SF Bay Guardian, and the Sierra Club have had to say.


The key is as follows:
• the more UPPERCASE - the more strongly I feel
• exclamation = don't get me started!
• * = I don't know a lot about it & went with the Guardian or  
California League of Conservation Voters
-------------------------------------

President: Obama
If this is an open question for you, you are probably reading the  
wrong slate.

US Congress 8: Nancy Pelosi
While some may argue that voting for Cindy Sheehan (as a protest vote,  
she has 0 chance of winning) is the thing to do & I do have misgivings  
and disagreements with Nancy, I just don't see the upside of  
undercutting a powerful local voice when she agrees with me 90% in a  
Congress that disagrees with me 50% of the time.

US Congress 12: Jackie Speier*
I don't know much about Jackie but the CA League of Conservation  
Voters likes her.

State Initiatives:
1A: YES  - HIGH SPEED RAIL
This much delayed bond measure will start the funding for California  
to build a new High Speed Rail system connecting SF to LA but  
eventually Sacramento to SF to LA to San Diego.  If I didn't love it  
because it was a great way to get people out of cars, or love it  
because it would represent a hugh Green House Gas emissions win (it  
will reduce instate plane flights DRAMATICALLY as well as reduce car  
trips), or love it because it represents a big investment in CAs  
decaying infrastructure & will dramatically improve service on our  
very own CalTrain, I'd vote for it because it will get me to LA in 2 &  
a 1/2 hours door to door (4 by air? 8 by car?) & I'll probably be able  
to bring my bike :-) YES YES YES

2: Yes - Standards for Confining Farm Animals*
This really seems to be a simple matter of allowing farm animals  
raised for food to stand up, turn around, basically MOVE in their  
pens. Decency.

3: No - Children's Hospital Bond Act*
Money for Children's Hospitals is a good thing, but according to the  
Guardian, too much of this goes to private hospitals that have big  
endowments & less goes to public institutions, due to the way this  
measure defines "children's hospitals"  Seems like a no to me.

4: NO - Waiting Period & Parental Notification for Abortion
More attempts to whittle away at abortion rights.  What about minors  
who have difficulties with their parents.

5: Yes - Nonviolent Drug Offenses Sentencing*
Expands treatment-over-incarceration options for drug sentencing.  Yes.

6: NO - Prison Funding
Mandates more general fun money for the prison system that is already  
too big  and way the hell too expensive (not to mention a political  
sacred cow)? Um. no. And we are broke as it is? Hell NO.

7: NO - Bad Renewable Energy Generation
The California League of Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club are  
dead set against this as a deeply flawed "renewable energy" measure  
which will really kill off small scale renewable companies and was put  
on the ballot as a cash grab in green clothing.  VOTE NO.

8: NO NO NO (.ps no!) - Eliminates Right of Same Sex Couples to Marry
Oh God.  We may very well lose this one & almost entirely because of  
funding.  I've chipped in a bit but will try to do more.  I doubt I  
need to convince any of you of how important this one is. Even if it  
didn't directly effect so many people I love dearly, I would be  
appalled at this one on basic human decency and civil rights grounds.   
The fact that it is a close race that we are losing because of heavy  
funding from Christian groups (esp. out of state Mormons) is such a  
huge slap in the face.  PLEASE consider giving money immediately to  
this one: http://www.eqcapac.org/

9: No - Limiting Parole Options and Lengthening Stays In Prison*
Put n by one So Cal Republican millionaire who wants to get tough on  
crime.  Duplicates some existing laws and limits parole option leading  
to more crowded prisons. Bleagh. No.

10: NO - Alternative Fuel Vehicles  & Renewable Energy Bonds
The California League of Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club are  
dead set against this scam in green clothing too.  This time it is T.  
Boone Pickens attempts to get CA to spend a LOT of money on natural  
gas in the name of clean energy vehicles.  Guess what business Pickens  
is in? NO

11: No - BAD Redistricting Measure*
This measure changes our broken redistricting system to one that  
unfairly favors Republicans: This line from the Guardian puts it well:  
"But as Assemblymember Mark Leno points out, the makeup of this  
incredibly powerful commission would be dependent only on party  
affiliation — five Democrats, five Republicans, and four independents.  
That's not an accurate reflection of California's population;  
Democrats far outnumber Republicans in this state. "

12: Yes - Veterans Bonds*
A $900 Million bond to help veterans buy farms and homes.  Given how  
poor our veterans services often seem to be. Yes.

State Senate: MARK LENO
In addition to his great voting record as a progressive, Mark is a  
friend of mine who has been a great vote on environmental issues, and  
has actively pursued environmental and other progressive measures that  
have meant a lot to me.  Also I've always been impressed with his  
ability to talk to people he disagrees with.  Good stuff.

State Assembly 12: Fiona Ma
Fiona Ma, who was an AWFUL Supervisor on environmental issues esp. and  
progressive issues in general has been a surprisingly GOOD  
environmental  Assemblywoman.  She has hired some smart staff & has  
been pushing High Speed Rail & is generally doing good things.  Go fig.

State Assembly 13: TOM AMMIANO
What I said in the June Primary still goes:  wish I had more to say,  
Tom is a friend and a leader.  He has been a great progressive voice  
for a long time in SF, I could go on and on.  But even more fun is  
that he is running against a Republican woman who I went to high  
school with.  She was NOT a nice person then.  I'm skeptical she is  
one now.

BART Board: TOM RADULOVICH!!!!
It always is a big joy for me when I get to vote for one of my best  
friends, but it is an even sweeter joy when you know that that friend  
is the best politician you know and someone you look up to immensely.   
I love Tom and wish I was more like him in many ways. I should  
disclose that I'm his campaign treasurer.

Judge: Gerardo Sandoval
What I said in the June Primary still goes: He has been just an OK  
supervisor, but he will be a much better Judge than the Wilson  
appointee he is running against.

SF Initiatives:
A: Yes - San Francisco General Hospital Earthquake Safety Bonds
This bond would secure funding to rebuild SF General to modern seismic  
standards.  A failure to secure this funding would mean that we'd be  
forced by state law to close SF General since it doesn't meet seismic  
safety requirements. YES

B: YES - Establishing Affordable Housing Fund
Prop B is a set aside from property taxes (which fund the City's  
General Fund) to create an Affordable Housing fund to consistently  
build new affordable housing in San Francisco for the next fifteen  
years. That is a pretty serious thing to do, but the problem is very  
very acute and we as a City have consistently failed to do enough  
about.  Housing in SF is too expensive and the City is getting mor ena  
d more expensive for working families to live here.  This is a serious  
crisis and this is a necessary solution. YES.

C: No - Prohibiting City Employees on Commissions and Boards
This is badly formed legislation that would ban any City employee from  
serving on a City Commission or board even if it was unrlated to the  
area he/she works in. No

D: YES - Financing Pier 70 Waterfront District Development Plan
Proposition D will fund the restoration historic buildings at Pier 70,  
clean up 150 years of environmental contamination and create up to 20  
acres of open space overlooking San Francisco Bay. YES

E: yes - Changing the # of Signatures Required to Recall City Officals
This is a pretty straightforward measure in the sense that it will  
make the number of signatures  required to recall a city official  
based on the number of people in the official's jurisdiction which is  
how state law does it for other counties.  The political issue behind  
this is about the various attempts last year to recall Supervisors  
which were really mean political vendettas, but regardless, this is  
good policy. Yes.

F: Yes -  Holding All Scheduled City Elections Only in Even-Numbered  
Years
There are ups and downs with this one, but in the end, I feel that  
there are WAY too many local election cycles and turnout i pathetic  
for important issues as it is.  It would help things if we had to go  
to the polls less often.  And it would mkae my life MUCH easier :-)

G: yes - Allowing Retirement Credit for Unpaid Parental Leave*
This is a really boring measure to allow a small set  
of ...snoooooooore... city employees enjoy a retirement benefit that  
others ge...t. i don't care. Guardian says yes.

H: YES YES YES - Setting Clean Energy Deadlines; Studying Options for  
Providing Energy; Changing Revenue Bond Authority to Pay for Public  
Utility Facilities
Prop H sets a clear mandate for the City to phase out fossil fuels for  
energy production in about 30 years.  THAT IS GROUNDBREAKING IN THE  
WORLD'S FIGHT AGAINST GLOBAL WARMING.  Hells yeah!
In addition, to reach that end, the SFPUC is ordered to study how to  
achieve these goals & to include in this study expanding on the  
current Community Choice Aggregation program, contracting out energy  
production to a new utility, or creating a municipal utility district  
(MUD) like the highly successful and green one in Sacramento.  This  
makes PG&E angry and even though they have failed to meet their  
required MINIMAL clean energy targets they have the gall to say this  
is the coming of Satan and have spent literally millions against the  
effort. They also raise the false specter of "bonds without a vote" -  
but many city agencies already have this power & on some level PG&E  
already has more power to write blank checks in that it just passes  
its bad investments on to us, the consumers.  SERIOUSLY VOTE YES -  
Sierra Club, Guardian, SFLCV and all other serious enviro  
organizations say YES>

I: no - Creating the Office of an Independent Rate Payer Advocate
Hmmm - Ok I'm a little confused on this one.  Basically this creates  
an Office of Rate Payer Advocate to advise the SF Public Utilities  
Commission.  The SFPUC manages our power, water & sewer systems.  The  
Rate Payer Advocate would advocate on behalf of consumers  and  
generally keep an eye on the PUC.  The Guardian says no because this  
is superfluous if H passes (H creates a similar position) & thus to  
vote No.  But what if H loses?  The other argument to be made is  
possibly that the very job of the PUC Board is to do this stuff & thus  
this is duplicative.  But The PUC board is often a bunch of political  
employees (and usually LAME ones) at that.  This was put on by the  
style-over-brain-cell Alioto-Pier so I can't imagine it to be useful,  
but it sounds OK to me now in hindsight (I voted no already).  Does  
anyone have a better line on this?

J: Yes - Creating a Historic Preservation Commission
I'm surprised we don't have one already given how many historic  
buildings we have in our historic city.  As an aside, it is good for  
the environment because up to 30% of landfill comes from destroying  
buildings - who knew?!

K: YES -Decriminalizing Prostitution
A simple common sense question is: Is prostitution ever going away?  I  
think that answer is no.  So then the next question is what can we do  
to reduce the negatives associated with prostitution.  The biggest  
step we can do would be to decriminalize it so as to be able to  
protect the women (& men) involved and mitigate health risks. YES.

L: No - Funding the Community Justice Center*
Near as I can tell, this measure is just grandstanding by Newsom.  The  
CJC has already been created.  It has already been funded.  Newsom  
just wants to get points for creating it and "fighting for the people  
against the Supes" so he put this on the ballot and tinkered with the  
funding. Lame. No.

M: Yes - Prohibiting Specific Acts of Harassment of Tenants By Landlords
Current rental law prohibits a landlord from just kicking someone out  
without cause, however there is no protection against a landlord just  
intimidating or harassing a tenant until the tenant "decides" to  
leave.  This stuff happens. Ugh. This will improve the situation. Yes

N: yes  -  Progressive Property Transfer Taxes*
This measure will increase the property transfer tax (when a building  
is bought or sold) on properties that are worth $5 million or more.   
Thus this will only effect larger corporations who traditionally use  
all kinds of accounting gimmicks to weasel out of taxes anyway.  Yes.

O: Yes - Administrative Change To Fix 911 Funding
As far as I understand it, this is a pretty arcane "technicality-fix"  
that will preserve 911 service in the face of some legal challenges to  
the way it is funded.  It won't cost us anything new & is needed.  And  
boring as hell.  Just do it. Yes.

P: No - Political Appointees to Transportation Authority
This would remove the Transportation Authority (TA - which controls  
spending of state mandated transportation funds in SF) from Board of  
Supervisors oversight & instead place it under control of the Mayor  
and the President of the Board of Supes .  The problem is that as it  
is now, the TA often acts as a check against misguided transportation  
policies coming out of the mayorally controlled Municipal  
Transportation Agency (MTA - which runs Muni & the Dept of Parking and  
Traffic).  By handing the Mayor more control over the TA, this system  
of checks and balances will collapse.  To be sure, this system of  
checks and balances has its flaws, but this alternative is worse.  So  
NO.

Q: Yes - Close Payroll Expense Tax Loophole & Reform*
Currently firms with partners (like large law firms) avoid the payroll  
tax for their highest paid employees since they are "partners" not  
"employees" - this closes that loophole.  It also exempts more small  
businesses from having to pay the payroll tax which I have mixed  
feelings about, but in general am supportive of.  Vote Yes.

R: No - Renaming the Oceanside Water Treatment Plant
I originally signed to put this on th ballot, but since then I've  
reconsidered and wish I hadn't.  God knows I hate G.W.'s Presidency,  
perhaps even more so than the next guy.   But does our City's  
infrastructur eand its employees deserve to take the venting of that  
rage?  The water treatment plan in question is one of our better  
operating ones, and it IS a very important facility - is that how we  
show our respect?  Also what of the employees who have to go to work  
there every day? I'm sure many of them are good dedicated workers -  
what does this say to them about how we value there jobs? NO.

S: no - Budget Set Aside Policy Statement
This is kinda a tough call.  This measure will possibly make budget  
set asides harder to create."  Budget set asides due suck.  A set  
aside says "regardless of what else, we will spend some percentage of  
the City's General Fund on whatever".  That sucks because it means  
everything else automatically gets less & that our elected  
representatives have less ability to dynamically make decisions -  
a.k.a do their jobs.  But as heinous as they are they are sometimes  
very necessary (see Prop B above) & moreover this measure is more  
about political fighting between Newsom (slapping at Daly's Prop B)  
than real policy.  This measure is a statement of policy & has no real  
teeth.  In the end I say No.

T: Yes - Free and Low Cost Substance Abuse Programs*
This measure requires the City to expand its successful substance  
abuse programs which currently are underfunded and have a long waiting  
list.  Yes.

U: no - Policy Against Funding US Forces in Iraq
I'm sure this will win resoundingly, and since it does nothing, it is  
an easy vote either way, but I'm still against it.  I hate the fact  
that we are in Iraq, but I don't just want to "pack up the tents and  
head home", we have a moral obligation to pull out in a responsible  
fashion only once the safety of the Iraqi people can reasonable be  
assured.  If we can not assure that safety due to our continuing  
presence (as some argue), absolutely we should leave, but not abruptly.

V: No - Policy Against JROTC in SF Schools
This much ballyhooed issue would be a bigger question mark for me if  
not for the fact that the US Military discriminates against gays.   
Allowing such a group to discriminate against gays in schools is  
really problematic.

Supervisor D1: ERIC MAR!
This one is an easy call - Eric is a longtime progressive leader on  
the School Board where he has proven his ability to push a smart  
progressive agenda while working with people he disagrees with & in  
contentious situations.  He is by far the best progressive candidate  
in District 1 & will make a GREAT Supervisor.

Supervisor D3:
1) DAVID CHIU
2) Denise McCarthy
3) Tony Gantner
I strongly recommend David Chiu in District 3 and REALLY REALLY hope  
you don't spend ANY VOTES on Joe Alioto.  David is a friend and a  
really good guy.  He has strong enviro & bike credentials and is a  
smart policy person. Given the nature of his competition and the way  
Ranked Choice Voting works, I highly recommend voting for someone else  
for 2 and 3 so that downtown -puppet Joe "elect-me-for-my-name"  
Alioto  doesn't get the nod.  He is spending HUGE amounts of money  
from downtown interests to win this race  &it might just work.  This  
is part of a remarkable effort by downtown interests to elect a series  
of pro-downtown Newsom types to the Board.

  I'd vote 2nd for Denise McCarthy, who I know little about but have  
heard good things & third for Tony Gantner who frankly isn't great,  
but will never win & will also provide a bulwark against Alioto  
getting more votes.

Supervisor D5: ROSS MIRKARIMI!!!
Ross has been a fantastic supervisor, championing great environmental  
votes (plastic bag ban), great transportation stuff, & really good  
safety and crime work.  He's a smart and saavy leader & is really  
doing good work at City Hall.  I really really hope you vote for Ross  
in D5!  None f the challengers really matter.

Supervisor D7: sean elsbernd
I hope none of you live in 7.  None of the candidates are particularly  
good enviros.  Sean Elsbernd will win, regardless.  I don't actually  
dislike him even though I disagree with him on many many votes, I  
think he is principled and smart.

Supervisor D9:
ummm.... CAMPOQUEZANCHEZ?

Ugh.  Multiple really Good Candidates SUCK!  No seriously, this is a  
good thing.  If any of the front running candidates win, we in D9 (my  
home & a significant chunk of 'Deepistan!) will get a great district  
Supervisor.  I've been trying for weeks and weeks to figure out how  
I'd pick between them & tell you guys my thoughts.  I can't.  In the  
end, I'll tell you my order, but really I think you should make up  
your own mind.  All 3 of them are great and I'm not sure you can make  
a poor choice.

Notes (alphabetically):
David Campos is a smart attorney whose legal training would probably  
serve him very well on the board.  His commitment to the under-served  
in D9 is very very very real - this Ivy League & Stanford lawyer came  
to the US as an undocumented immigrant and is deeply personally  
committed to giving back.  He strikes me as very smart and very even  
tempered.

Eric Quezada is a great community organizer and street fighter who has  
lived and worked pretty much all his life in District 9 fighting for  
neighborhood groups and causes - especially affordable housing and   
anti-gentrification issues.  He has more experience in land use and  
planning (critical in the Mission) than either of the other two.  He  
is soft-spoken but steely and I respect him a great deal.  He is also  
my neighbor in that he runs Dolores Street Community Services across  
the street.

Mark Sanchez has been a great member of the School Board, very  
progressive and very capable.  He has impressed be by being aware of  
his own failings as a politician and fixing them as well as being  
really earnestly excited about being D9's supervisor.  Like Mar above,  
I think he is very good at working with people he disagrees with as  
well as holding strong to his beliefs.

Endorsements:      Guardian       SFLCV    Sierra Club   SF Bike  
Coalition

David Campos         #1                    #2

Eric Quezada          #2

Mark Sanchez        #3                      #1             #1  
(only)         #1 (only)


So, my vote (sorry for people I'll offend) was Sanchez, Campos,  
Quezada.  But I strongly recommend any order of the 3.  And second &  
third votes will become important on this one I'm sure so I hope you  
vote for these 3 guys in some order.

Supervisor  D11:
1) JOHN AVALOS
2) Randy Knox
3) Julio Ramos
I don't know John personally, but he was strongly recommended by many  
people whose opinion I hold in high regard, and as a long time  
assistant to Chris Daly, I know he is well versed at City Hall and is  
very smart.  He has also been endorsed by all the major progressive  
organizations.  This races is much like District 3 with a downtown/ 
Newsom backed candidate (Safai) who probably would be a big loss  
relative to a real progressive like Avalos.  Like 3, the #2 & #3 votes  
will also be important.  I recommend Knox & Ramos for 2 & 3.

Board of Education:
Sandra Fewer
Bobbie Lopez
Rachel Norton
Norman Yee
I don't have lots to say about the School Board other than I  
interviewed many of the candidates with the SFLCV and these are the  
ones who most impressed me.

Community College Board:
Mary Hernandez
Chris Jackson
MILTON MARKS
Bruce Wolfe
I don't have lots to say about the College Board other than I  
interviewed many of the candidates with the SFLCV and these are the  
ones who most impressed me.  I will add that the incumbent, Milton  
Marks, is a friend and a really good environmentalist who I trust a  
great deal on College Board issues & I strongly support him.



----------------------------------
Amandeep Jawa
----------------------------------
deep AT deeptrouble DOT com
937 Valencia St.
San Francisco, CA 94110-2320

personal: http://www.deeptrouble.com
political: http://www.sflcv.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deeptrouble.com/pipermail/social-deeptrouble.com/attachments/20081020/533dccc4/attachment-0001.htm>