San Francisco Bay Guardian | ENDORSEMENTS for the fall 2024 election

Nov. 5 will be a crucial, defining election on the national level—and to a lesser extent, on the local level. After months of concern that President Joe Biden would not be able to defeat Donald Trump (or even, some worried, finish his term), the Democratic Party has new life and new energy with Vice President Kamala Harris now atop the ticket. Harris chose a fairly progressive governor, Tim Walz of Minnesota, as her running mate.

Her platform is still vague, and so far, not terribly different from that of the Biden Administration (which is not all bad). She has moved to the center since her initial run for president in 2019; she supports a terrible border bill, she came out against a ban on fracking, she’s supported the terrible bloody Israeli war on Gaza, and the YIMBYs, perhaps without clear evidence, are claiming her as their own.

But none of that matters.

Progressive voters have no choice here: The election of Donald Trump for another term in the White House is as clear and present a danger to American democracy as anything we’ve ever experienced. Trump, whatever incoherent and rambling positions he takes on issues, doesn’t want to be president: He wants to be a dictator. He has vowed to take vengeance on his political foes, using the Justice Department and his far-right Supreme Court majority to put people who have stood up to him in prison. He has no interest in following the laws of the land, and might very well seek to remain in office beyond the legally mandated two terms.

He’s unstable, has in the past discussed openly using nuclear weapons, and has befriended international tyrants.

It’s pointless to argue about the details of Harris’s record or platform; everyone with any sense in this country needs to vote against Trump and for a candidate who could lead with competence and balance. We strongly endorse Kamala Harris and Tim Walz.

SAN FRANCISCO RACES

This is the year the billionaires have gone all out to take over San Francisco. A small handful of people with excessive real estate and tech wealth have formed a series of political front groups that have in essence unlimited funding. They recruited and funded a slate of candidates to take over the Democratic County Central Committee and spent an unprecedented sum to get a majority of them elected in what is typically a low-profile race. That gave them the power to put the Democratic Party behind another slate, this time for the Board of Supervisors.

They have a powerful, right-wing agenda that rests on tax cuts, more police, treating homelessness and substance abuse as criminal issues, deregulating land-use (allowing for massive demolitions of existing neighborhoods), and allowing corporations to use San Francisco as a testing lab for all sorts of new, potentially dangerous technology.

It won’t be easy to stop them; again, their political money has no limits, and they will spend whatever they need in their political coup. But if progressives turn out in large numbers to vote for Harris and Walz, and they can ignore the lies and propaganda from the right wing, there’s a path to victory.

Our endorsements reflect the political reality of 2024: Not every candidate we are backing is a solid progressive. But as the great local author Rebecca Solnit is fond of saying, sometimes a vote is a chess move, not a love letter. The goal here is to block the billionaire takeover, and in some cases that means supporting candidates who are more centrist that we would like—but are far better than the alternatives.

Mayor

Aaron Peskin

Let’s start with the basics. Mayor London Breed has been a failure, taking the city entirely in the wrong direction. During the pandemic she resisted using empty hotel rooms to get vulnerable people into shelter. She has opposed every ballot measure to raise taxes on big corporations to help fund affordable housing—and when they passed, she refused to spend the money.

Her administration faced, and is still facing, a massive corruption scandal, with five senior officials, including two department heads, sentenced to prison terms for participating in bribery schemes.

In the past year, she’s moved even further to the right, pouring money into the Police Department while other crucial parts of the public safety infrastructure, including the 911 center, SF General Hospital, and homeless outreach programs suffered from cuts and understaffing.

She urged the Supreme Court to gut the rights of the unhoused, and has been brutally sweeping thousands off the streets, seizing their possessions, when most have no offer of acceptable shelter and nowhere to go. (Her most recent idea: Send them on a bus somewhere else.)

She has completely bought into the YIMBY narrative that allowing developers to build more market-rate housing will bring prices down, and despite a total lack of evidence for that theory, she is now proposing to upzone neighborhood commercial districts to eight stories. That would instantly threaten the survival of hundreds of neighborhood-serving small businesses, as their storefronts would be demolished to make room for new taller buildings.

This city needs a new mayor.

Breed has four serious challengers: Sup. Aaron Peskin, Sup. Ahsha Safai, former Interim Mayor Mark Farrell, and billionaire nonprofit administrator Daniel Lurie.

Peskin is the only one that has no billionaire backers, the only one they all oppose—and the clear and only choice.

Peskin has extensive experience at City Hall, more by far than any other candidate. We’ll put it simply: He knows how to run a city. After years of incompetence and corruption in the Mayor’s Office, he can offer a strong hand to clean up what is a lingering political and financial mess.

We haven’t always agreed with Peskin, and we don’t always agree with him now. But on the big, critical, defining issues, he’s the only candidate who offers anything close to a progressive platform.

Peskin has long argued that allowing developers free rein to build anything they want is no solution to the affordable housing crisis. He is the only candidate who seems to understand the immediate costs of  upzoning commercial corridors. He’s the only candidate who has demonstrated a serious commitment to affordable housing. (Breed and Peskin co-sponsored the affordable housing bond in March, but Peskin was the only one who raised money and organized to help it win.)

He supported the taxes on big business to fund affordable housing. He supported budget measures that would spend that money on housing, which Breed opposed. He’s the only candidate who has any history of caring about and working with the neighborhoods. He has the endorsement of every major progressive leader and organization in the city.

Breed talks about how she supports municipalizing PG&E and bringing lucrative, sustainable public power, with lower rates, to San Francisco; Peskin would actually get it done.

Safai has been a decent supervisor, has sided with the progressives a lot of the time, and has the support of some labor groups. But he’s gained very little traction and has not shown the leadership skills the next mayor needs.

Lurie is the heir to the Levi Strauss fortune, and has poured personal millions into the race. He’s the founder of Tipping Point, a foundation that does good work. But this is a political job, and he has no experience in local politics.

Farrell is running so far to the right he might as well be a Republican.

We know that Peskin has not always sided with every progressive position. He’s been too ready to back more spending for cops (although he’s also the only candidate who represents a district with effective foot patrols, which most progressives agree are a good idea, and he says he will push citywide). Like Harris, he’s not perfect. But this is no time for progressives to demand perfection: The billionaires want to control this city, and in the mayor’s race, Peskin is the only one standing in their way.

Board of Supervisors, District 1

Connie Chan

Chan won this district, which is mostly the Richmond, by a narrow margin four years ago, and Marjan Philhour, who came in second, is challenging her again. It’s one of the key races on the right-wing billionaire agenda. It’s critical that Chan win re-election.

Chan chaired the Budget Committee and fought to turn a really bad Breed budget into something tolerable. She’s worked to hold department heads accountable (even when the head of Rec-Park worked with a private group to try to punish her by eliminating new park funding in her district). She has been with the progressive on every issue, every vote. Philhour is the candidate of Breed and the billionaires. That’s all you need to know. Vote for Connie Chan.

Board of Supervisors, District 3

1. Sharon Lai

2. Moe Jamil

None of the candidates running to replace termed-out Sup. Peskin have his skills, and none of them are as progressive in their politics. D3 is going to have a more centrist supervisor for the next four years. If Danny Sauter, the billionaire candidate, wins, it could have a right-wing supervisor.

We’re not thrilled with any of the candidates, but Lai and Jamil are the best of the lot.

Lai grew up in public housing, and is an advocate for more affordability. She also says that government should “get out of the way” of market-rate housing. She supports hiring 500 more cops. But she also argues that local government should have final authority over land use, putting her at odds with the YIMBYs and State Sen. Scott Wiener.

Moe Jamil, a deputy city attorney, has long been a neighborhood advocate and organizer. He argues that it’s important to protect existing tenants and small businesses from displacement driven by development. He’s also more than a bit harsh on the unhoused, saying at one campaign event that D3 needs to keep out encampments, even if it means (metaphorically) “building a wall.” Gack.

Again: Far from our ideal candidates. But they have the best chance, running with a ranked-choice voting strategy, of keeping the billionaire-backed right-wing Danny Sauter off the board.

Board of Supervisors, District 5

Dean Preston

This one’s easy. Preston has been the standard bearer, the leader, and one of the most important progressive politicians in San Francisco for the past four years. He’s the sponsor of every key measure to raise taxes on the rich to pay for affordable housing. He was among the most vocal and effective advocates of moving vulnerable unhoused people into hotel rooms during the pandemic.

He forced the Mayor’s Office to apply for federal money that will house 750 people (after they ignored the opportunity). He led the battle for a rent-relief program that the data shows kept 20,000 people off the streets during COVID. He found a way to bring rent control to a housing complex in the Western Addition where tenants faced eviction. He’s called out the Police Department over military gear and killer robots.

And he’s the number one target of the billionaire right. Elon Musk at one point said Preston should go to jail (for what?) and vowed to give $100,000 to defeat him. Their candidate is Bilal Mahmood, who can’t even keep his own record straight—he claimed he was a “neuroscientist,” until actual neuroscientists forced him to back off—and wants to allow more demolitions, more displacement, more cops, and less protections for tenants. Vote for Preston.

Board of Supervisors, District 7

NO ENDORSEMENT

Myrna Melgar has been the most progressive supervisor to represent this conservative West Side district since the return of district elections. She’s voted with the progressives fairly often, and is doing a great job pushing the city to back off from a dangerous court case against the EPA. She has the support of progressives like Sups. Hillary Ronen and Connie Chan. But she also worked with the Mayor’s Office to evict unhoused mostly Latinx families from Winston Drive when there was nowhere else for them to go. Besides, she doesn’t seem to need our endorsement: She has Mayor Breed, Sen. Scott Wiener, DA Brooke Jenkins, SF YIMBY, and Democratic Party Chair Nancy Tung, who was a leader in the billionaire slate. We aren’t going to be in that company.

Board of Supervisors, District 9

1. Jackie Fielder

2. Stephen Torres

For decades, since the return of district elections in 2000, D9 has been represented by some of the city’s most important and effective progressives. Tom Ammiano held the seat for eight years, then David Campos held it for another eight, followed by Sup. Hillary Ronen, who has been on the job since 2016. The billionaires want to change that, and they have a candidate, Trevor Chandler, who, like Mahmood, has some issues with honesty about his record.

Jackie Fielder is our first choice. She entered the political scene as the only progressive willing to take on incumbent state Sen. Scott Wiener, and without anywhere near his money or clout, won 40 percent of the vote. She’s been a member of the Local Agency Formation Commission, which is working for public power, and has been a leader in the move to create a public bank. She would be a worthy successor to Ammiano, Campos, and Ronen, all of whom are strongly supporting her.

Torres has been active in the nightlife and entertainment world, and was a leader in the battle to protect the legacy of the Castro Theater. He’s been a member of the Entertainment Commission and the Castro LGBTQ Cultural District. He has some creative ideas about protecting small businesses, including working to build large-scale public markets for local merchants and street vendors.

Chandler is a terrible candidate. He opposes district elections, which should disqualify him instantly. He opposed the Gaza ceasefire resolution and has tried to hide the fact that he spent five years working for AIPAC, which supports right-wing Republicans if they are allies of Israel. He’s a fraud who is nothing but a front for the billionaires.

Vote for Fielder and Torres.

Board of Supervisors, District 11

1. Chyanne Chen

2. Ernest “EJ” Jones

D11 has been a swing district; John Avalos, one of the most progressive members of the board, represented the area for eight years, then it shifted to Ahsha Safai. This time around, two progressive candidates are up against Michael Lai, who is backed by Wiener, Sup. Matt Dorsey, and the representatives of the billionaires on the DCCC.

Chen has a history of progressive organizing, with  SEIU and the Chinese Progressive Association. She’s a strong supporter of affordable housing (but also “midrise” buildings in commercial corridors, which carries the risk of displacing existing small businesses). Jones is a former aide to Safai, but he’s also worked for the Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center. He’s the only candidate who talks openly about restorative justice and alternatives to law enforcement.

Michael Lai is the billionaire-backed candidate who supported the School Board recall, supported the pro-police Prop. E in March (Jones and Chen opposed it) and was part of the right-wing slate for Democratic County Central Committee.

SAN FRANCISCO BALLOT MEASURES

Prop. A

School infrastructure bond

YES

We completely agree that many SF schools are old and badly in need of maintenance and upgrades. We never have problems endorsing bond measures for valid public works projects. Our only concern: This bond money shouldn’t be used for closing schools.

Proposition B

Community health and parks bonds

YES

As is so often the case, Prop. B is a compromise. The mayor wants the money for improvements at SF General, Laguna Honda Hospital and the Chinatown Public Health Center, and upgrades to Hallidie Plaza and Harvey Milk Plaza.  She left the San Francisco City Clinic, which serves a primarily LGBTQ population in SoMa, off the list. The Harvey Milk Democratic Club objected, as did Sup. Aaron Peskin, who said that some of Breed’s priorities were less important than public health. In the end, the controller did some math and figured out how to get all of those priorities into the bond without raising taxes. It’s an example of Breed’s divisiveness. It’s also needed.

Prop. C

Inspector General

YES, YES, YES

This is the most important measure on the ballot. In a city awash in corruption, Prop. C would create an Office of The Inspector General in the Controller’s Office, with the power to subpoena records and witnesses and issue search warrants.

The office wouldn’t do criminal prosecutions; that authority by law lies with the district attorney. But it could expose graft and fraud, make public the secrets that public officials use to hide malfeasance, and increase overall faith in local government.

The cost would be fairly minor, no more than $775,000 a year—and an office that can stop waste and corruption will more than pay for itself. At some point, if this works out, the city could consider shifting enforcement of the Sunshine Ordinance to the inspector general, since the Ethics Commission has utterly failed in that duty.

Proposition D

City commissions and mayoral authority

NO

San Francisco already has one of the strongest mayors in the country, and the last thing the city needs is another measure eliminating accountability and public input and giving the chief executive more authority.

Prop. D, sponsored by Mayor Breed, would limit the number of city commissions to 65, immediately eliminating, according to the Department of Elections, the Public Health, Library, Human Rights, Human Services, Arts, Environment, Small Business and Juvenile Probation commissions.

Then a task force would move to eliminate even more.

In each case, the department heads would report directly to the mayor. Decisions would be made behind closed doors, with no community input. This is a terrible idea. Vote no.

Proposition E

Commission simplification task force

YES

Prop. E is Sup. Aaron Peskin’s response to Prop. D. It would create a task force to study the number and function of city commissions, but without a mandate to eliminate any specific number of them. We don’t see why any of this is necessary; the supes (not the mayor) ought to appoint a task force to meet openly and study overall City Charter reform instead of this piecemeal approach. But it’s a much better alternative to Prop. D.

Proposition F

Police deferred retirement

NO

Prop. F, by Sup. Matt Dorsey, would let cops who are eligible to retire remain on the force and also get their retirement pay. That means some police officers would be earning more than $500,000 a year. It’s not a new idea; the city tried it once before, in 2008, and it was a costly failure. Vote no.

Proposition G

Rental subsidies for low-income seniors

YES

Prop. G would create a modest city fund to subsidize rents in affordable housing developements for seniors and people with disabilities who make less than 35 percent of the Area Median Income. For these extremely low-income people, even the lower rents in affordable projects are out of reach. It has the unanimous support of the supes, the mayor, and the affordable housing developers. Vote yes.

Proposition H

Firefighter pensions

NO

Sponsored by Sup. Catherine Stefani, this measure would allow firefighters, who are now eligible to retire with full benefits (90 percent of base pay) at 58 to retire will full benefits at 55. The argument: Firefighters are exposed to dangerous chemicals and get cancer at higher rates than some other city workers. If they can retire early, that risk would be reduced. There are plenty of other public employees who face health risks (nurses, for example), and they don’t get this kind of benefit. Vote no.

Proposition I

Nurses and 911 operators pensions

YES

This one is far from a giveaway. It just corrects an injustice in the pension system: Per Diem nurses, who work for the city as needed, get no retirement credit at all. 911 operators, who are part of the public safety system, don’t get the same benefits as other safety employees. Nurses who worked an average of 35 hours a week could buy into the city’s retirement system. Dispatchers would pay more into the system, and get more out of it at the end. Vote yes.

Proposition J

NO ENDORSEMENT

We’re a little dubious about this one. Sponsored by Sup. Myrna Melgar, the measure would give the mayor and the superintendent of schools more power to oversee the spending of the Children’s Fund, which pays for services for children and youth. But it has the support of all of the progressive supes and no opposition.

Proposition K

Great Highway closures

NO

We’re going to get some serious flak for this position; all of the environmental groups, the bicyclists, and Sups. Hillary Ronen and Dean Preston support the idea of closing the Great Highway to cars and creating a new public park. It makes a lot of sense: The southern part of the highway had to be closed because of erosion and sea-level rise, and thousands of people enjoyed the use of the closed roadway during the pandemic. We have always taken the position that San Francisco should make policies that emphasize transit, walking, and biking, and not cars.

And yet: Sup. Joel Engardio, the SFMTA, and the Rec-Park Department came up with this plan without any adequate input from the people who live in the outer Richmond and Outer Sunset. The neighborhoods are overwhelmingly opposed, and for good reason: The highway, which carries thousands of cars a day, would shut down—with no concurrent increase in public transit. So those cars would wind up on neighborhood streets. Oh, and since population density is far lower around the Great Highway than in the parts of Golden Gate Park that are closed to cars, and since transit from much of the city to the West Side is slow and inefficient, many of the new park users will… drive there, and try to find parking in the neighborhoods. That’s more traffic, more congestion, and more pollution.

We’d be all in favor of turning the Great Highway into a park, and it’s going to have to close at some point anyway because of flooding (eventually, it may be more of a swimming pool than a park), but first create the transit infrastructure that’s needed to get people out of their cars, instead of sending those cars onto neighborhood streets.

Proposition L

Uber, Lyft, and Waymo tax to fund Muni

YES

Muni is facing a massive budget shortfall, in part because, as a new study from UC Davis shows, people are using so-called Transportation Network Companies—Uber and Lyft, and now Waymo—not as an alternative to their cars but as an alternative to public transit. So it makes perfect sense to tax these companies to help make up a little bit of the shortfall. Vote Yes.

Proposition M

Business tax changes

YES

Prop. M is a consensus measure to change the city’s business tax structure in the wake of the pandemic. It’s generally progressive—most small businesses would be exempt from taxes, and the biggest would pay more. The single biggest loser (thanks to reporting by Joe Eskenazi at Mission Local): PG&E. That alone is good reason to vote for it. There’s some concern that language in this measure would block any other tax measure on the November 5 ballot that gets fewer votes (part of a complicated effort to keep a bad alternative off the ballot), and potentially that could hurt Prop. L. But we support both.

Proposition N

First responder student loan reimbursement

YES

This one’s a tough call. The measure, sponsored by Sup. Ahsha Safai, stems from the problems the city is having hiring cops and sheriffs, and some other public safety staff. It would create a city fund, that could be filled with private donations, to reimburse cops, sheriffs, nurses, paramedics, and 911 dispatchers for up to $25,000 in student loans or training costs. It’s part of a larger conversation—rather, for example, than giving cops eligible for retirement huge bonuses to keep working, should the city work with local colleges to pay tuition for people willing to work as first responders? Who (beyond cops) should be eligible? We’re not sure, but this seems like a modest way to test out the idea.

Proposition O

Reproductive rights

YES

Prop. O does more than put the city on record defending reproductive rights. It’s a pretty extensive measure that would create a reproductive rights fund, that could include private donations, to support abortion rights and services and expand zoning laws to allow reproductive services clinics in more parts of town. It would also allow the Department of Public Health to post warning signs in front of the proliferating fake reproductive rights centers that are really just anti-abortion operations—and would forbid local law enforcement from providing information to law enforcement from other states about people’s reproductive health care decisions and services in this city. In essence, San Francisco would become a sanctuary city for reproductive freedom. Vote yes.

OTHER LOCAL RACES

San Francisco School Board

Matt Alexander, Virginia Cheung, Jaime Huling

First: The School Board race is taking place with very little public discussion about school closures. Closing schools won’t save that much money, but might save on facilities upgrades; at any rate, all of the candidates should be talking about it more than they are.

Second: The number of progressive candidates in this race is fairly limited—but there are plenty of conservative candidates.

The teachers’ union, UESF, worked with incumbent Matt Alexander to identify the best alternatives, and most progressive groups are going with Virginia Cheung and Jaime Huling. They are going to have a huge job ahead, with a massive budget deficit and the closures issue, but they all have the support of the Harvey Milk Club, the League of Pissed Off Voters, and most of the progressive supes.

Community College Board

Alan Wong

Four seats are up this year, and progressives are going to lose three of them. It’s a critical time for City College—budgets are tight, the school has cut so many classes that students can’t get their degrees (not to mention non-credit classes like English as a Second Language). The state wants community colleges to be nothing but two-year steps to a four-year degree, but City College has always been so much more.

The only progressive on the board seeking re-election is Alan Wong—and unlike the 2022 election, there are no other progressive candidates. Since the election is at-large, meaning the top four win, we are endorsing only Wong, in the hope that he gets enough votes to finish in the running.

BART Board director, District 9

Edward Wright

Another easy call. Wright, a former chief of staff for Sup. Gordon Mar, is a transit policy expert working for Muni, a former president of the Milk Club, and has a long history of working on progressive causes.

District Attorney

Ryan Khojasteh

San Francisco’s had some pretty progressive district attorneys, from Terence Hallinan to George Gascon and then reformer Chesa Boudin. The Boudin recall was a watershed moment in local politics, as Mayor London Breed and the billionaires worked a warped and disgraceful media narrative to create the impression that Boudin was allowing criminals to run rampant in the city. (The fact is that cops, angry that Boudin was prosecuting one of their own for homicide, essentially went on a working strike by not arresting anyone didn’t help).

When Boudin was forced out of office, Breed appointed Brooke Jenkins, who was paid by the groups that helped oust the incumbent. She’s been part of a terrible approach to law enforcement, pushing people who are high on drugs (not high level dealers) and the unhoused mentally ill into a county jail that can’t handle that population. She’s turning the clock way back, away from reform, and allowing the cops free rein to abuse people with no accountability. It’s an embarrassment for this city.

Ryan Khojasteh, who has worked as a prosecutor, is the only one willing to challenger her. He has little chance; his record is very thin, since he’s only been a lawyer for five years. But at least he’s talking about the right issues, and we’re willing to endorse him.

State Assembly, District 17

NO ENDORSEMENT

Incumbent Matt Haney will get re-elected to this seat, and the one-time self-identified progressive will continue to work with the real-estate industry and state Sen. Scott Wiener to deregulate housing and follow the YIMBY agenda. We can’t support him.

State Assembly, District 19

NO ENDORSEMENT

For the past 12 years, the West Side seat in the state Assembly was held by Phil Ting, who was hardly a radical leftist but sided with progressives on a lot of issues and endorsements (but also sided with Wiener and the YIMBYs on housing). He’s termed out, and Sup. Catherine Stefani, one of the most conservative members of the board, probably has a lock on this seat. We can’t support her.

There’s some support for David Lee, a Laney College professor who is the only one with the courage to take on Stefani, and we applaud his willingness to run. But Lee has never been there on progressive issues and candidates in the past, and while he’s probably a better alternative to Stefani, we’re reluctant to endorse someone who only recently moved to the left side of city politics.

STATE PROPOSITIONS

Proposition 2

Education facilities bonds

YES

The big problem with state bonds is that they don’t come with a tax source to pay for them. Local bonds are paid with local property taxes; state bonds come out of the general fund, and this $10 billion bond to pay for upgrades to admittedly crumbling schools and community colleges will be a $500 million annual hit to the state budget. Still, it’s a necessary investment.

Proposition 3

Marriage equality

YES

Prop. 3 amends the state Constitution (which still, in very old language, defines marriage as between a man and a woman) to enshrine a right to marriage equality. That seems like a simple idea, since the US Supreme Court has ruled that marriage equality is the law of the land, but it’s actually pretty important: The ruling overturning Roe v. Wade could be (and Justice Clarence Thomas says it should be) grounds to overturn the same-sex marriage decision. This would make sure California is a sanctuary for same-sex couples.

Proposition 4

Bonds for drinking water and climate protection

YES

Again, nothing wrong with this important measure—except that the Legislature doesn’t seem interested in raising taxes on the rich to pay for it.

Proposition 5

Affordable housing bond threshold

YES, YES, YES

Prop. 5 was part of a deal that could have been a total game changer for housing in the Bay Area. A $20 billion housing bond should have been on the ballot, and if Prop. 5 also passed, that bond could have taken effect with just 55 percent of the vote. But the MTC and ABAG folks who were coordinating the bond pulled it at the last minute, for reasons that made no sense then and make no sense now. This was the year to create massive amounts of affordable housing in the Bay Area, and we lost the opportunity which may not return for a decade.

Still, it’s critical to pass Prop. 5, which will lower the threshold for housing bonds from 67 percent to 55 percent. The two-thirds bond threshold is a hangover from Prop. 13 in 1978, and continues to deeply damage the state of California. Vote yes on Prop. 5

Proposition 6

Prison slavery

YES

Prop. 6 would end the practice of forcing inmates in state prisons to work without pay as a punishment for crimes. That’s an easy call.

Proposition 32

Minimum wage

YES

Prop. 32 raises the minimum wage in California for most jobs to $17 an hour now and $18 for 2026. It’s radically overdue.

Proposition 33

Rent control

YES, YES, YES

This is a critical measure during a massive affordability crisis.

Since 1995, the state of California has limited the ability of local government to enact meaningful rent control. It’s a long saga that shows how entirely the state Legislature is controlled by the real estate industry.

In the 1980s, three cities—Berkeley, Santa Monica, and West Hollywood—passed laws that imposed rent controls on vacant apartments. That is: Once a landlord set a rent for a place, that was the rent, except for modest annual increases, even after a tenant moved out. San Francisco could have had that law; the supes approved it 7-4 in the early 1980s, but then-Mayor Dianne Feinstein vetoed it.

Landlords sued, and the case went all the way to the US Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of Berkeley’s law.

So then the landlords went to the state Legislature, where they have immense clout, and got a law called Costa-Hawkins passed, which bans local government from imposing rent controls on vacant apartments and on any housing built after 1979. (Then-Speaker Willie Brown could have blocked that bill but didn’t.)

Prop. 33 doesn’t impose any new rent controls. It simply repeals Costa-Hawkins and allows local governments to set their own rules, as they could until 1995. It’s likely that, at least in the short term, only a small number of communities would impose rent controls on vacant apartments. Remember, when Costa-Hawkins passed, there were only three, all of them relatively small cities.

Opponents, including the SF Chronicle, argue that allowing expanded rent control would discourage new housing. That’s an old, old argument that landlords have raised against all forms of rent control for decades. There’s no evidence that it’s true.

Vote yes.

Proposition 34

Revenge for Prop. 33

NO, NO, NO

Prop. 34 is nothing more than a landlord attack on the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which is sponsoring and funding Prop. 33. We haven’t always agreed with or supported AHF, which often wades into housing and other policy debates, but it’s the rare deep-pocketed organization that spends money on progressive housing issues. The measure has nothing to do with patient rights or health-care costs; it would simply bar this one organization from spending money on politics. Vote No.

Proposition 35

Funding for Medi-Cal

YES

This measure would simply extend an existing, modest tax on managed-care health insurance plans to fund healthcare for low-income people. It’s backed by Planned Parenthood and the California Medical Association. Vote yes.

Proposition 36

NO, NO, NO

Prop. 36 would repeal a reform law passed in 2014 that prevented district attorneys from charging low-level non-violent crimes as felonies. It’s kept thousands of people out of state prison, saved the state hundreds of millions of dollars—and helped people who commit minor crimes, like shoplifting, from heading into a life in the criminal justice system.

Supporters of Prop. 36 say it’s going to help fight crime, by allowing thefts of less than $950 be charged as felonies. We’ve tried to fight crime by locking more people up since the 1980s; it’s been a total failure.

Vote No.