November 2018 SF/CA Voting Guide

Damn it’s a lot of work to be an informed voter in California! Here are my choices for the November 2018 ballot. It starts with a cheat sheet summary at the top, then has a race-by-race breakdown and explanation of those choices (including links to editorials & endorsements) below. Hopefully even where you disagree with my selections the analysis makes it easier to reason to your own choices. Feel free to leave comments, especially if you have something to contribute that it doesn’t look like I’m aware of and should be taking into account!

You might also like my friend Steven Buss’s excellent guide if that fits you better ideologically (though it’s not all that far off from mine). Also check out SPUR’s 2018 guide and the SF Chronicle’s 2018 guide (which provided many of the summaries I put in italics). I leaned heavily on these for background on the issues, which often are not what they appear.

Cheat Sheet

California Statewide Races

US Senator → Dianne Feinstein
Governor → Gavin Newsom
Lieutenant Governor → Ed Hernandez
Insurance Commissioner → Steve Poizner
Treasurer → Fiona Ma
Superintendent of Public Instruction → Marshall Tuck!
Community College Board → Victor Olivieri
Board of Equalization → Malia Cohen
Secretary of State → Alex Padilla
Controller → Betty Yee
Attorney General → Xavier Becerra

San Francisco City Races

US House → Nancy Pelosi
State Assembly Member, District 17 → David Chiu
State Assembly Member, District 19 → Phil Ting!
Supervisor, District 2 → Nick Josefowitz!
Supervisor, District 4 → Trevor McNeil #1!, Jessica Ho #2!
Supervisor, District 6 → Christine Johnson #1!, Sonja Trauss #2!
Supervisor, District 8 → Rafael Mandelman
Supervisor, District 10 → Ellington #1!, Walton #2!
School Board → Phil Kim!, Michelle Parker
BART Board, District 8 → Janice Li
Judges → Yes on all

California State Propositions

Prop 1 (Housing Assistance Bonds) → Yes
Prop 2 (Allow Use of Existing Tax for Homelessness Bonds) → Yes
Prop 3 (California Water Infrastructure Bonds) → No
Prop 4 (Hospital Construction Bonds) → No
Prop 5 (Prop 13 Tax Portability for Older Homeowners) → No!
Prop 6 (SB1 Driving Tax Repeal) → No!
Prop 7 (Daylight Savings) → Yes
Prop 8 (Dialysis Clinic Labor Dispute) → No!
Prop 10 (Repeal State-Level Restrictions on Rent Control) → No!
Prop 11 (Ambulance Labor Dispute) → No
Prop 12 (Farm Animal Conditions) → Yes

San Francisco City Propositions

Prop A (Embarcadero Seawall Earthquake Safety Bond) → Yes!
Prop B (City Privacy Guidelines) → No
Prop C (Homelessness Corporate Tax aka Our City Our Home) → No
Prop D (Additional Tax on Cannabis Businesses) → No
Prop E (Use of Hotel Tax for Arts & Culture) → No

California State Offices

US Senator → Dianne Feinstein

Dianne Feinstein, a former San Francisco mayor, was first elected to the Senate in 1992. Her opponent is a fellow Democrat — state Sen. Kevin de León, author of California’s main sanctuary state law. Chronicle: Feinstein.

I’m not particularly in love with Dianne Feinstein, and the Democrats could use new blood in the Senate, but Feinstein is a pragmatist and a centrist, and de León definitely is not. The kind of thoughtless policy stridency exemplified by the following example is concerning to me from either party, and represents the worst impulses of the Democratic party today: “de León’s state Senate passed universal health care without bothering to explain how the state would pay for it, leaving the Assembly to kill the bill” (via the Chronicle).

Governor → Gavin Newsom

Democratic Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom and John Cox, a Republican businessman, are running to succeed the termed-out Gov. Jerry Brown. Chronicle: Newsom.

It’s hard to love Newsom, but this isn’t much of contest. Cox is pro-gas tax repeal, anti-immigrant, pro-border wall, etc.

Lieutenant Governor → Ed Hernandez

Two Democrats, former U.S. Ambassador to Hungary Eleni Kounalakis and state Sen. Ed Hernandez, are on the ballot. The winner gets to sit on several state commissions for the next four years and take over if the governor is incapacitated. Kounalakis says she’ll work to block any tuition increases as a member of the University of California and California State University governing boards. Hernandez says he’ll use his legislative experience to expedite important bills as state Senate president. Chronicle: Ed Hernandez.

I don’t have much of an opinion on this one, but I’ve heard positive things on Ed Hernandez from multiple sources, including that he’s pro housing. (Seems that Kounalakis says she’s is too, but doesn’t have any actual positions on it.)

Insurance Commissioner → Steve Poizner

Steve Poizner, who once held the post as a Republican, is running for it again, this time as an independent. His opponent is a Democrat, state Sen. Ricardo Lara. Although the insurance commissioner’s job has little to do with immigration — the main duty is regulating the insurance industry — much of the campaign has revolved around Poizner’s previous hardline stances against undocumented immigrants. Chronicle: Steve Poizner.

My friend Max Ghenis wrote a good post on this race. I don’t agree that the very label “Republican” should be disqualifying (and it seems Poizner dropped it anyway), but I am sympathetic to those who feel Poizner’s divisive partisanship in the past should be. The point that Poizner is against single-payer healthcare while Lara is for it may help decide the race for some, since this seems to be an area where the insurance commissioner would actually be pretty important. But Poizner seems to have the experience and to have done the job well in the past.

Treasurer → Fiona Ma

Former San Francisco Supervisor Fiona Ma, a Democrat, and Republican Greg Conlon face off to succeed John Chiang. Ma is now on the state Board of Equalization, an agency that has lost most of its duties. Conlon, an Atherton resident, is making his second run for the job, having lost to Chiang in 2014. Chronicle: Fiona Ma.

I love a Democrat who pushes to abolish a useless government agency, as Ma did while leading the Board of Equalization. She also has a strong background in finance and politics. Though I agree with Conlon’s focus on unfunded pension liability, which is a looming fiscal disaster.

Superintendent of Public Instruction → Marshall Tuck!

Los Angeles school reform advocate Marshall Tuck and Bay Area Assemblyman Tony Thurmond compete to run the state Department of Education. Teachers unions are providing much of the money boosting Thurmond’s candidacy. EdVoice, a nonprofit advocacy group looking to remake the state’s public schools, is spending big for Tuck, whose resume includes a stint as president of a nonprofit chain of charter schools. Chronicle: Marshall Tuck.

Marshall Tuck is the voice for reform, and the one with a track record of putting students first. Chronicle: “Where Thurmond falls short, however, is evidence of his willingness to take on the status quo when its comfort zone conflicts with the interests of students.”

My friend Max Ghenis wrote a whole piece on this race that’s worth reading. His conclusion: “Thurmond’s reticence toward new ideas has won the support of teachers unions and the California Democratic Party — whose national arm receives tens of millions of dollars from teachers unions each election cycle. Tuck’s embrace of positive reform earned him the endorsement of Arne Duncan, Secretary of Education under President Obama, and bay area editorial boards.”

Community College Board → Victor Olivieri

Olivieri is challenging the three incumbents.

Olivieri “wants to build housing on City College land, while two of the incumbents, John Rizzo and Brigitte Davila have done what they can to block housing on school land. This housing would be for students and teachers.” -Steven Buss

Board of Equalization → Malia Cohen

San Francisco Board of Supervisors President Malia Cohen, a Democrat, and Republican real estate agent Mark Burns are running for a seat on a state agency that has lost most of its previous duties. Chronicle: Malia Cohen.

My friend Steven Buss put it well in his voting guide: “This Board has no power anymore. Thinking about who to vote for for this race is a waste of your mental energy. It’s mired in scandal and was stripped of its authority to do anything. Vote for Malia Cohen to help dismantle it.”

Secretary of State → Alex Padilla

Alex Padilla, a Democrat running for a second term, is being challenged by Republican attorney Mark Meuser. Chronicle: Padilla.

Chronicle: “Padilla’s focus on expanding voting and registration is the right one, and his success so far in doing so has earned him another term.” Meuser buys into Trump’s massive voter fraud conspiracy theory.

Controller → Betty Yee

Democrat Betty Yee is running for re-election as the state’s chief financial officer, facing a Republican, Konstantinos Roditis, who is seeking public office for the first time. Chronicle: Yee.

Chronicle: “Yee, a Democrat who’s running for a second term, has been a thoughtful and responsible steward of California’s checkbook. Thanks to Yee’s leadership, along with the fiscal discipline of Gov. Jerry Brown and state legislators, the state’s credit rating for general obligations has ticked upward for nearly every year she’s been in office.” Roditis wants to gut the tax base.

Attorney General → Xavier Becerra

Xavier Becerra, a Democrat appointed to the post in 2015, faces a challenge from retired Judge Steven Bailey, a Republican. Becerra has used his job to pepper the federal government with more than 40 lawsuits challenging actions taken under President Trump since January 2017. Bailey is campaigning even as he faces disciplinary charges of judicial misconduct for having allegedly misused his post when he was a judge in El Dorado County. Chronicle: Becerra.

Becerra seems to be doing a good job. And we need an AG who will stand up to the Trump administration.

San Francisco City Races

US House → Nancy Pelosi

This isn’t a real contest.

As much as I wish we could elect someone other than Pelosi–the Democratic leadership is awful and needs new blood–the primary is past and the Republican (Lisa Remmer) isn’t going to win this contest. I often write someone in as a Pelosi protest vote, but the mid-terms are so important this year. I think I’ll actually pull the trigger for Pelosi, even if it’s just to feel like I’m sending a signal at the national level. [Update: I couldn’t pull the trigger. Left this one blank.]

State Assembly Member, District 17 → David Chiu

Incumbent David Chiu is being challenged by Alejandro Fernandez. Both are Democrats. Chiu beat Fernandez with 82% of the vote in the June primary.

I don’t know anything about Fernandez, but David Chiu is fantastic. He’s a pro-housing legislation machine, considered a moderate by San Francisco standards and a socialist by Sacramento standards. He pushed through AB 2923, the law passed this year to allow building up to 20,000 housing units on BART-owned land.

State Assembly Member, District 19 → Phil Ting

Incumbent Democrat Phil Ting is being challenged by Republican Keith Bogdon.

Phil Ting is pro-housing. Keith Bogdon is a dyed-in-the-wool NIMBY who wants to “fight to preserve the character of our residential neighborhoods” and promises to “fight against Manhattanization of the Westside”. Read as: Bogdon is for high housing prices. Vote for lower housing prices.

Supervisor, District 2 → Nick Josefowitz!

Nick Josefowitz, a BART board member who founded and ran a solar-energy company, takes on appointed incumbent Catherine Stefani. Chronicle: Josefowitz. YIMBY: Josefowitz.

I feel very strongly about this one. I’ve heard Nick speak and read all his stuff, and he’s legit. I wish he was in my district so I could vote for him! He’s pro-housing, against prop 10, and endorsed by Scott Wiener, David Chiu, Phil Ting. Awesome guy. Sharp, funny, no B.S. He’s big on government efficiency and driving results. He gets how things actually work, and he has actual proposals for making them better: homelessness, property crime, the waterfront, government performance. He was the driving force behind AB 2923, the law passed this year to allow building up to 20,000 housing units on BART-owned land. He has a serious strategy for dealing with homelessness that isn’t just throwing good money after bad.

Stefani is also anti-prop 10, but she did not support SB 827, nor does she support by-right development outside of 100% below-market-rate housing. She is an advocate for the policies that drive our ever-worsening housing crisis.

Over the past 10 years, D2 has built a measly 800 units of housing! Nick Josefowitz is the most pro-housing candidate by a mile.

Supervisor, District 4 → Trevor McNeil #1!, Jessica Ho #2!

Supervisor Katy Tang’s surprise exit has led to a battle with 3 main candidates: Jessica Ho, an aide to Tang and her hand-picked successor, “progressive” candidate Gordon Mar, and Trevor McNeil, a public school teacher. Chronicle: Ho. YIMBY: McNeil.

Trevor McNeil is pro-housing and endorsed by Scott Wiener. I’ve met him, and I think he’d be a good supervisor, though I’m not sure he can win. Jessica Ho is the best alternative: still pretty pragmatic and a moderate on housing.

Gordon Mar is the NIMBY candidate in this race. He is against SB 827, against by-right development, and effectively against legalizing apartments in the Sunset. He is an advocate for the policies that drive our ever-worsening housing crisis.

Apartment buildings are illegal in most of the Sunset. We need to fix this.

Supervisor, District 6 → Christine Johnson #1!, Sonja Trauss #2!

The D6 winner will succeed Jane Kim as Supervisor for the Tenderloin, SOMA, and Mission Bay. The battle is between Christine Johnson, former planning commissioner and former SPUR Director, Sonja Trauss, housing activist and YIMBY founder, and Matt Haney, board of education member. Chronicle: Johnson. YIMBY: Trauss.

Christine Johnson, Sonja Trauss are both good, pro-housing candidates. Either would be a solid pro-housing vote, but Trauss is more of a single-issue shotgun blast aimed at SF Government (which I can get behind), whereas Johnson is more of a soft-spoken candidate who is thoughtful on a broad range of issues.

Haney is a classic fauxgressive, trying to coast in on some high-profile endorsements while offering generalities on many positions.. He is the most anti-housing candidate here, and declined to answer the YIMBY housing questionnaire. He is an advocate for the policies that drive our ever-worsening housing crisis.

Supervisor, District 8 → Rafael Mandelman

Rafael Mandelman was just elected as supervisor for Noe Valley, the Castro, and Glen Park in June. He does not have a serious challenger. Chronicle: Mandelman (from June). YIMBY: Mandelman.

Mandelman is not violently anti-housing, but not pro-SB 827 or by-right development. He’s at least said there is a need for all levels of housing. But it’s not a real race anyway.

Supervisor, District 10 → Ellington #1!, Walton #2!

District 8 includes Potrero, Hunters Point, and Bayview. Shamann Walton is president of the San Francisco Board of Education and the executive director for Young Community Developers, a workforce training nonprofit. Theo Ellington has held several governmental and nonprofit leadership roles. Chronicle: Walton. YIMBY: Ellington.

Ellington is the most pro-housing candidate here. I heard him interviewed and was pretty impressed. Walton also seems reasonable overall, though significantly less pro-housing.

I’m not sure if Tony Kelly considers himself a socialist, but he definitely sounds like one. He wrote an awful post on housing policy in August. He does not understand the housing crisis at all, and he would double down on the policies that got us into this mess.

School Board → Phil Kim!, Michelle Parker

There are 18 candidates on the ballot for the San Francisco Board of Education. Chronicle: Kim, Parker, Fisher.

I saw Phil Kim speak and thought he was awesome. He’s bright, thoughtful, no B.S., reform-minded, and very funny. His priorities include the achievement & opportunity gap, reducing teacher turnover and increasing wages, improving core teaching and learning, and improving the school assignment system. He stands out in the field as a clear-thinking, pragmatic reformer.

Michelle Parker also seems to be well-regarded for a mix of experience and advocacy for school quality. Her priorities include reinstating 8th grade algebra (she fought against it’s 2014 removal), expanding Career Technical Education (CTE) in schools, attracting and retaining teachers, and improving the school assignment system. I am concerned about her support for occupation-specific housing policies: we need to do much better by our teachers, but the answer is paying teachers more while bringing housing prices down by building more housing overall, not starting down the road of byzantine government policies that discriminate by occupation.

I don’t know a ton about other candidates. Max Ghenis supports John Trasviña, but I’ve heard mixed things. Since school board is not ranked choice, you may actually be better off leaving your third choice blank if you don’t have a preference (bullet voting). I’m voting for Lex Leifheit, though I think she’s a long shot.

Max does a great job summarizing what separates out the other candidates. In particular, Monica Chinchilla’s support of 40% below-market-rate housing requirements is woefully misguided, as it will effectively kill all affordable housing production, and several of the candidates including Alida Fisher support nativist policies.

BART Board, District 8 → Janice Li

Janice supported AB 2923 and will work on the BART Board to turn some of BART’s 250 acres of surface parking into housing or commercial centers. I saw her speak and she seems excellent.

Judges → Yes on all

I’m not aware of any scandals or other situations where we should vote against any of these judges. General voting for judges doesn’t seem like a great idea to me, anyway.

California State Propositions

Prop 1 (Housing Assistance Bonds) → Yes

Issues $4 billion in bonds: $3B for housing programs and $1B for veterans’ home loans. Ballotpedia. Chronicle: Yes. SPUR: Yes.

I have mixed feelings about price controls on housing–I would prefer to steer public investment towards housing vouchers/individual subsidies, which are better targeted to those who need the help the most and distort the housing market less. But a lot of this spending sounds like infrastructure or grants for good causes, including multifamily apartments, infill infrastructure and transit-oriented development. Most of the below-market-rate housing is targeted at the poor (<60% median income, whereas sometimes you see up to 120%). It’ll increase the state bond debt by 5% and the annual budget by 0.1%. It was part of the overall package that included SB 35.

Still, you have to wonder if it’s the best use of funds. Per the San Diego Tribune: “Currently, it costs an average of over $300,000 to build a unit of affordable housing in California. At that rate, less than 15,000 units will be built as a result of Proposition 1… Ultimately, legislators decided simply to throw more money at a serious problem instead of engaging in structural reform and asking a common-sense question: why does it cost $300,000 to build an affordable housing unit when it costs half that in other states?”

Overall I have mixed feelings, but I’m leaning yes.

Prop 2 (Allow Use of Existing Tax for Homelessness Bonds) → Yes

Authorizes state to use revenue from millionaire’s tax for $2 billion in bonds for homelessness prevention housing. Ballotpedia. Chronicle: Yes. SPUR: Yes.

This is not a new tax, and normally it wouldn’t require a ballot prop. It’s only here since the original tax was passed via ballot prop, so it requires another one to expand the use of funds. This gives the state legislature more flexibility in spending. The essence of it has already been passed by state legislature.

Prop 3 (California Water Infrastructure Bonds) → No

Issues $8.877 billion in bonds for water-related infrastructure and environmental projects. Ballotpedia. Chronicle: No. SPUR: Yes.

I’m happy to vote for needed funding for infrastructure, like the $4B in water bonds in June. But it sounds like this bypassed the legislature and was put on the ballot by special interests. It’ll cost $430M a year for the next 4 decades. That’s a lot of money for something that didn’t go through elected officials.

Prop 4 (Hospital Construction Bonds) → No

Issues $1.5 billion in bonds for children’s hospitals. Ballotpedia. Chronicle: Yes.

Sounds like this bypassed the legislature as well, and was put on the ballot by the California Children’s Hospital Association. They were successful this way in 2004 and 2008. Generally I like the idea of supporting children’s hospitals as much as the next person, but there’s no reason that can’t happen through normal state budget processes rather than direct ballot props meant to circumvent our elected officials.

Prop 5 (Prop 13 Tax Portability for Older Homeowners) → No!

Allows homeowners who are 55 or older to bring their tax assessments with them when they move. Ballotpedia. Chronicle: No.

This measure allows older people who bought their homes years ago–thus generating significant wealth as housing prices have skyrocketed–to keep the unreasonably low tax base granted to them by Proposition 13 (the one that allows older homeowners to pay a tiny fraction of the taxes that new homeowners – the young, immigrants, etc. – pay). It would cost $1B a year in lost revenue to local governments and schools, per the California Legislative Analyst’s Office. The LAO also found that the vast majority of people who would benefit from it would have moved anyway. Those who would get the new benefits are much wealthier and whiter than the average Californian. It was put on the ballot by the California Association of Realtors. It would make an inequitable system even worse.

Prop 6 (SB1 Driving Tax Repeal) → No!

Repeals 2017’s fuel tax and vehicle fee increases and requires public vote on future increases. Ballotpedia. Chronicle: No. SPUR: No.

This is on the ballot as a cynical effort to get anti-tax conservatives out to vote in order to help save marginal districts for the US House of Representatives.

We just passed the SB1 gas tax increase in 2017, which funds infrastructure, means-tested BART fares, and many other progressive programs. It makes sense, and we have to go much farther to build the societal cost of driving into the price of driving itself. Prop 6 would repeal SB1, stopping all the projects that have been funded and just gotten underway.

Prop 7 (Daylight Savings) → Yes

Authorizes legislature to provide for permanent daylight saving time if federal government allows. Ballotpedia. Chronicle: No.

I’d be happy to be rid of time changes. But even if we don’t change it, CA is divergent from federal daylight savings time law, and that was passed via ballot measure, so a ballot measure is necessary to put control back in the hands of the legislature, where it belongs.

Prop 8 (Dialysis Clinic Labor Dispute) → No!

Requires dialysis clinics to issue refunds for revenue above a certain amount. Ballotpedia. Chronicle: No.

Chronicle: “an example of a special interest trying to obtain from the ballot box what it could not achieve through other processes.” … “does not belong on the state ballot.”

Prop 10 (Repeal State-Level Restrictions on Rent Control) → No!

Allows local governments to regulate rent, including vacancy controls, rent controls on new building, and decreasing real rents over time. Repeals Costa-Hawkins. Ballotpedia. Chronicle: No. SPUR: No.

I’m in favor of addressing the housing crisis and mitigating displacement due to the rise in housing prices. We know the solution: building more housing in the almost 75% of San Francisco where apartments are currently illegal (similar for the East Bay and beyond). We’ve seen in Portland and Seattle how quickly actually building more rental housing can help abate price increases.

In contrast, rent control reduces the supply of housing and raises the cost for those not directly covered. It encourages landlords to leave the rental market, and it discourages developers from building new rental housing. The benefits flow disproportionately to the already-advantaged.

Worst of all, this is not a rent control bill itself. I would support reasonable, state-level policy prohibiting price gauging (e.g. the Terner Center’s proposal). But at heart, this is a local control law. Local control over zoning has led to the disastrous supply constraints and sky-high prices we have now. Cities have proven that they cannot be trusted to make local housing decisions. Yet prop 10 gives cities unlimited and unreviewable authority to abuse rent and vacancy control to restrict housing.

SPUR: “Rent control makes housing cost more.” … “Unregulated rent control can be used to stop rental housing production altogether.” … “While imperfect, Costa-Hawkins sets reasonable safeguards to ensure that local rent control rules do not inhibit the creation of new housing.” … “The biggest impact of this measure in the long run would be to exacerbate the housing shortage in California.” … “Addressing housing affordability for everyone requires a different solution.”

Chronicle: “By suppressing the supply of homes through restrictive zoning and other means, local government officials have done more than most to plunge California into the current housing crisis. Proposition 10 would entrust another vast swath of housing policy to the very same officials — and probably yield similar results.”

Prop 11 (Ambulance Labor Dispute) → No

Allow ambulance providers to require workers to remain on-call during paid breaks. Ballotpedia. Chronicle: No.

Another labor dispute, over whether ambulance workers can be required to remain on-call during paid breaks. Apparently ambulance companies and labor unions agree on the need for a fix, including the need for employees to answer emergency calls during breaks. The fix stalled out over minor issues in the state senate.

Chronicle: “Those workers should not be denied their day in court. This issue should be resolved in the Legislature, with all parties at the table to negotiate and compromise. Vote no on Prop. 11.”

Prop 12 (Farm Animal Conditions) → Yes

Bans sale of meat from animals confined in spaces below specific sizes. Ballotpedia. Chronicle: No.

The Chronicle recommends a “no” vote on the basis that “the ballot box is not the place to regulate this aspect of California agriculture.” I tend to agree. Also, I would vastly prefer that the specific details of how many square feet per each animal not be fixed via ballot measure. But while they may not be exactly right, this seems to be only a positive direction, and there don’t seem to be negative side effects.

San Francisco City Propositions

Prop A (Embarcadero Seawall Earthquake Safety Bond) → Yes

Asks voters if they want the city to issue $425 million in bond debt to pay for major repairs and upgrades to the crumbling Embarcadero seawall. The seawall underpins and protects an estimated $100 billion in property and infrastructure that would be at risk in a major earthquake. As general obligation bonds, requires a ⅔ majority. Chronicle: Yes. SPUR: Yes.

An infrastructure necessity. Classic use of general obligation bonds.

Prop B (City Privacy Guidelines) → No

The Privacy First Policy, sponsored by Supervisor Aaron Peskin, lays out a number of personal-data-protection protocols that businesses would have to abide by to get a permit from the city or do business with it. Under the policy, businesses would have to agree to, among other things, allowing individuals to access the personal information about them that companies collect. Chronicle: No. SPUR: No.

While the goals are good, this is pure virtue signaling. These are guidelines only, not requirements. These things need to be done at the state or federal level, not the city level — and in fact California just passed the strongest data privacy law in the United States, inspired by the EU’s GDPR, this year. Even more annoyingly, there is no need for this to be on the ballot (the Board of Supervisors could simply set the policies).

Prop C (Homelessness Corporate Tax aka Our City Our Home) → No

Known as the Our City, Our Home initiative, the measure would levy an additional tax of about 0.5% percent on gross receipts (around 5% on earnings) on corporate revenues above $50 million. The estimated $300 million raised would be used to fund homelessness services, primarily programs that help people access permanent, supportive housing. Due to ongoing litigation over the CA Supreme Court’s Upland decision, it is still unclear whether this measures will require a simple majority or ⅔ support to pass. City Controller Economic Impact Report. Scott Wiener’s post against, London Breed’s post against. Chronicle: No. SPUR: Yes.

This is a tough one, as I am supportive of taking aggressive measures to solve the homelessness crisis and raising whatever taxes are necessary to pay for them. This measure would roughly double spending on homelessness in San Francisco. However, after learning a lot about Prop C, and seeing our mayor–who is heavily prioritizing solving the homelessness crisis, just added $60M to our homelessness budget, and plans to add 1,000 shelter beds next year–urge us to reject it, I believe Prop C is the wrong way to go.

Our existing homelessness strategy has failed, but not because of a lack of funding. San Francisco spends 3.4% of the city budget ($380M) on homelessness, more than New York City, which spends 2%. SF spends around 65% more per capita, and SF and NYC spend roughly the same amount annually per homeless person (about $17k). But SF has 11 times the rate of unsheltered homelessness as NYC. The difference between cities with homelessness crises like SF, LA, and Seattle and cities without crises like NYC or Boston is not aggregate funding. It’s shelter beds. NYC has one shelter bed for every homeless person, zero shelter waitlist, and 95% of homeless people sheltered. SF has one shelter bed for every three homeless people, a 1000-person (month+) waitlist, and 42% of homeless people sheltered. The funds raised by Prop C are restricted so that shelters can account for no more than 10% of spending. But either way, we could build enough shelter beds for every homeless person easily with our existing budget. Currently, we’re doing the opposite–SF reduced the number of shelter beds available for single adults by a third, from 1,910 in 2004 to 1,203 today.

(By the way, what do we actually underspend on? Public schools. NYC spends $20,226 per public school student. Boston spends $19,720. San Francisco spends $9,842. Now that’s an area where the aggregate funding level is off. The $300 million raised by Prop C could increase the spending on every single public school student in San Francisco by 33%!)

I’m also concerned about the tax side of this (though I could get over this if I thought raising the funds was actually the way to solve the crisis). “0.5% tax increase for big companies” doesn’t sound like a big deal. But don’t be mistaken, Scott Wiener is right to call this “massive,” “the largest tax increase in San Francisco history.” This measure increases corporate taxes in SF by 33%, by more than doubling the tax rates on a small number of large companies. For example, top-tier construction companies pay 0.45% gross receipts tax now, and would pay 0.925% under prop C. At an industry average 18% profit margin, that’s an increase from a 2.5% tax on earnings (how we usually talk about tax rates) to 5.1%. One might think, “well, we just passed a massive federal corporate tax cut; they can afford it,” and I would be fully in favor of repealing that tax cut, but unfortunately municipal and federal taxes are not equivalent. Cities don’t typically tax businesses, because it’s so easy to avoid it. Don’t like paying an extra 5% of profits in taxes? You can literally locate 5 miles away to South SF and pay 0%. The economic impact report shows a loss to city GDP of up to $240M annually, and they didn’t even include the effects from businesses relocating or expanding in other cities. As I understand it, these decisions are actually quite elastic. If Prop C passes, 3% of the city’s tax-paying businesses would pay 67% of the city’s business tax revenue. That feels like a tenuous situation.

If we need to spend more to solve our homelessness crisis, I’m for it, but let’s start with the right strategy, then fully fund that. If we need to increase our country-leading government spending by 3%, fine, but let’s do it for something we actually underspend on. If we need to raise taxes, let’s do it with sound tax policy.

Prop D (Additional Tax on Cannabis Businesses) → No

Sponsored by Supervisor Malia Cohen, the measure would place a gross receipts tax on cannabis businesses. The money collected from the tax would go into the general fund. The tax would kick in beginning in 2021. For retail cannabis shops, the tax would be 2.5% on the first $1 million in revenue and 5% on additional revenues. Non-retail cannabis businesses would be taxed 1% on revenues up to $1 million and 1.5% on additional revenues. Chronicle: No. SPUR: No recommendation.

This is a 10x tax on a fledgling industry. California already has some of the highest taxes on cannabis businesses, e.g. 15% on retail. May be a good way to kill the cannabis business, especially when it’s so new.

SPUR: “This measure would both lower the threshold at which retail cannabis businesses would be subject to taxation and significantly increase their gross receipts tax rate — which could push them back into the black market.”

Prop E (Use of Hotel Tax for Arts & Culture) → No

Reallocates about $32 million generated by the existing hotel tax to arts and cultural organizations and projects in the city. The city already levies a 14% tax on hotel rentals, the proceeds from which are deposited into the general fund. Prop E would direct a portion of those proceeds to the arts and to cultural initiatives. Chronicle: Yes. SPUR: No recommendation.

Arts and culture are great, but tax set asides are bad, and this isn’t a good enough reason to tie the hands of the government.

SPUR: “this measure would restrict city revenue and tie the hands of the Board of Supervisors, who will at some point in the future face an economic downturn and a number of competing needs with limited resources.”