The November 4 San Francisco Municipal Election comes less than a month after voters statewide recalled Governor Gray Davis and selected "Terminator" Arnold Schwarzenegger to replace him. In that rebuke of the status quo, the electorate also overwhelmingly rejected racist Proposition 54, which sought to forbid collecting of racial and ethnic data for almost any purpose. Please see our enclosed statement for an analysis of the recall vote.
San Franciscans in November have the opportunity to replace the corrupt and pro-business Democratic Party machine of outgoing Mayor Willie Brown with Socialist Workers Party candidate Deborah Liatos. Forced to give up the mayoralty by term limits, Brown leaves the City in an economic shambles, with homelessness as bad as ever, and a police department that kills mentally-disabled Black men like Idriss Stelley and Jihad Akbar while brutalizing anti-war protesters as well as youth in poor neighborhoods.
Along with the election to replace Mayor Brown, San Francisco voters are being asked to choose a district attorney and sheriff and to decide on fourteen ballot measures. All of the mayoral candidates printed on your ballot would have to squeeze workers harder, both in the workplace, and through reductions in services, to make up for the corporate thievery of Enron, Bechtel, Halliburton, and others. Although some on the Left endorse Green candidate Matt Gonzalez, the Greens are not anti-capitalist. Because they believe that reforms can bring about a kindler, gentler capitalism, they do not provide a real alternative to the twin parties of big business. We support the write-in campaign of Socialist Workers Party (SWP) candidate Deborah Liatos. We wish the SWP would make a stronger effort to bring the ideas of socialism to the voters instead of running limited write-in campaigns. But Liatos and SWP district attorney candidate Ryan Scott definitely have a platform worth voting for. They call for nationalization of the energy and power industry and cancellation of the Third world debt. Please write them in on your ballot to show your endorsement of socialism and rejection of business-as-usual politics.
Our positions on most of the ballot measures appear below. You may wish to take the attached summary of our recommendations with you to the voting booth. If you’d like to discuss them, or if you’re interested in working with us to build a united left electoral coalition, please call me at New Valencia Hall, 415-864-1278.
Promises, promises: Measures that look good, but won’t deliver
Several measures (E, G, I, and J) offer seemingly good solutions to problems of concern to most voters. However, on close reading, they have flaws which would render them ineffective. Obviously these measures were put on the ballot by liberal politicians who want the appearance of addressing difficult issues, but who don’t want to take the necessary responsibility to see that they are effectively dealt with.
Measure E (Ethics Reform) – VOTE NO
This charter amendment consolidates all of the City’s ethics laws in one code, amends some ethics laws, and creates new ones. Though the new laws and amendments are generally good, Measure E takes away the right of the voters to approve any future changes. The supervisors would be free to change any of the laws without voter approval. We see this as a power grab by the board of supervisors and a lessening of democracy.
Measure G (Rainy Day Fund) – VOTE NO
Measure I claims to set up a fund that would put aside money during years of budget surplus to be used in years of budget deficit. There is already a means of saving money left over at the end of a fiscal year in the Cash Reserve Fund. The Rainy Day Reserve would replace this fund. Up to half of the new Rainy Day Reserve could be spent, without repaying, to make up for budget shortfalls in years when the controller projects a reduction in revenues compared to previous years. During a recession lasting more than two years (like the current one!), the balance in the Rainy Day Fund could fall below the balance currently mandated for the Cash Reserve Fund. In other words, the City could easily end up with almost no reserve under this measure. And budget surpluses and shortfalls would be based on projections by the controller, rather than actual end-of-year figures. There are too many uncertainties to give support to this plan, which seems to be designed as a smoke-and-mirrors attempt to bolster the popularity of the Board of Supervisors, who put it on the ballot.
Measure I (Childcare for Low Income Families) – VOTE NO
This proposal has an admirable goal, to provide additional subsidies to low-income families for childcare and preschool for children aged 3 to 5. The problem is, there’s no funding for it! The measure inexplicably prohibits funding from the City’s Children’s Fund. Without any funding requirement this is a hollow promise. We in the Freedom Socialist Party have always demanded free childcare for all! It’s a necessity for working women. Don’t play games with children’s lives! Fund childcare and preschool by taxing Bechtel, Old Navy, PG&E, Levi Strauss and other San Francisco corporations!
Help for the homeless? Alioto falls short and Newsom scapegoats
Measure J (Facilities for the Homeless) – VOTE NO
Mayoral candidate Angela Alioto’s Measure J is another empty promise made by a politician who wants to appear compassionate. As a policy statement with no teeth or funding, Measure J seeks to provide "separate safe, decent, and sanitary" temporary shelter for "homeless seniors, homeless families with children, and physically challenged homeless individuals." Such shelter must be separate from the facilities provided for the general homeless population. We understand the special needs of the target groups, but we’re concerned that this measure seems to pit the homeless against each other. Don’t all of the homeless need "safe, decent, and sanitary" facilities? Without specific rules and funding, many homeless people will not get the necessary provisions. Proposition J’s first line says that it shall be City policy "to protect homeless seniors, families, youth and disabled people from homelessness and poverty." But separate, unequal facilities won’t do this—ending homelessness through socialism will! In the meantime, San Francisco’s homeless should have permanent homes paid for through corporate taxes.
Measure M (Aggressive Solicitation Ban) – VOTE NO
After the courts threw out his "Care, Not Cash" measure of last November, Mayoral Candidate Gavin Newsom brings us this proposed ban on "aggressive solicitation." The deceptive ads around town claim that Measure M would do the homeless a favor—when they're arrested for panhandling, the City will track them into the public health system for substance abuse and mental health treatment. How kind! Doesn't Newsom know that criminalization of speech is a potential violation of the First Amendment? Our main reason for opposing this one, however, is the implied notion that the homeless are responsible for San Francisco's lagging economy when we know that homeless people are the symptom, not the cause. We join the Coalition on Homelessness, the San Francisco Labor Council, ACLU, Eviction Defense Collaborative and many others in opposing this punitive proposal.
NO to funding basic services through taxes on workers!
Two measures (A and K) fund sorely-needed improvements in education and transportation through regressive direct and indirect taxes on working and poor San Franciscans. We support the improvements, but they should be paid for by taxing the huge profits of Bank of America, Chevron and other local corporations, who pay little in taxes and benefit greatly from government subsidization of infrastructure and education, and cash bailouts at times of business crises.
Measure A (School Bonds) – VOTE NO
The Board of Education placed Proposition A on the ballot to raise $295 million in general obligation bonds for building renovations and repairs. Over the thirty-year term of the bonds, this will cost about $510 million to pay off through property taxes. We usually oppose general obligation bonds because of the disproportionate burden they place on working homeowners and renters. Homeowners are directly taxed, and renters face an indirect tax as landlords pass on the increased tax though rent hikes. We have no disagreement with the need to repair and improve under-funded and neglected schools. But why should underemployed, economically squeezed workers pay, when companies like Enron admitted to raking in $500 million per day during the manufactured California "energy crisis?" It’s time for the corporations to pay back what they take off the backs of working people and from the planet’s natural resources!
Measure K (Sales Tax for Transportation) – VOTE NO
This measure extends the current half-cent local sales tax, due to expire in 2010, until 2034, to pay for projects in a new, 30-year transportation plan. The proposed improvements will definitely improve mass transit, and the biggest beneficiaries will be big corporate employers, who won’t need to worry about the parking and transit needs of their employees, and the tourism industry. The projected 30-year revenue from the tax will be $2.5 billion, an amount generated in less than a year by the biggest corporations, so let them pay the bill!
Ineffective proposals for oversight of city departments and the police
Measures C and H are two more charter amendments from the Board of Supervisors that purport to improve the functioning of city departments and the police commission, but we can’t find any real, beneficial changes that will result from their passage.
Measure C (City Services Auditor) – VOTE NO
With this measure, the supervisors want to add the duty of City Services Auditor to the responsibilities of the Controller. The Auditor is expected to monitor a multitude of City services, from the performance of departments, the condition of streets, parks and recreational facilities, to contracting procedures and effectiveness of emergency services, among other things. To us, it’s unlikely that one official, already responsible for the city’s financial functioning, can do all of this effectively. We’re also concerned that this is being placed in the hands of the Controller, who is appointed by the Mayor for a term of ten years. The Controller could be pressured to crack down on or eliminate departments who have lost the Mayor’s favor. A provision authorizing the Controller to hire "outside, independent experts" to assist with monitoring raises the specter of producing audits that justify the contracting out and privatization of city services. Along with the San Francisco Labor Council, we urge you to vote NO!
Measure H (Police Commission/Office of Citizen Complaints) – VOTE NO
With all of the publicized cases of police misconduct in the past few years, and with few convictions or suspensions of errant cops, something must be done to rein in the police department. Unfortunately, Measure H is not the solution. This proposition adds two more members to the Police Commission, to bring the total to seven. It also gives the Board of Supervisors the power to appoint three of the members, with the Mayor appointing the other four. Currently, the Mayor appoints all five Commissioners. The other main feature is that the measure gives the Office of Citizen Complaints (OCC), the agency responsible for investigating complaints of police misconduct, the ability to file charges against officers after conferring with the Police Chief. This falls far short of what's really needed, an elected, community-controlled, independent police review board with the power to hold trials and discipline officers found guilty of misconduct. The current structure produces a Police Commission that apologizes for cop misdeeds and dismisses charges to avoid embarrassing the Mayor who appoints the Police Chief and top officials. We don't see that changing significantly with Measure H.
Don’t be fooled into backing disparate treatment among taxi drivers!
Measure N (Taxi Permit Holder Disability) – VOTE NO
This plan allows permit-holding taxi drivers to keep their permits if they become disabled. Less than 20% of taxi drivers hold permits. As long as they drive a minimum amount of time each year, they may let other taxi drivers use their permits for a fee during the hours when they themselves are not driving. If they cannot drive the minimum number of hours, the City revokes the permit and gives it to a non-permit driver on the waiting list. So why not let them keep the permit, and income, if they become disabled? As the United Taxicab Workers/CWA states, this measure is one-sided and does nothing for the more than 80% of drivers who don't have permits. The permit system creates great inequities among drivers, and this would be one more. All drivers deserve disability protection, not just privileged permit-holders. Along with the drivers union, we urge a NO vote.
Summary of Ballot Recommendations
November 4, 2003 Municipal Election
(You may take this summary with you into the voting booth.)
Candidates
Mayor Deborah Liatos, Socialist Workers Party (write-in)
District Attorney Ryan Scott, Socialist Workers Party (write-in)
Measures
Measure A (School Bonds) VOTE NO
Measure B (Retirement Benefits for Safety Employees) VOTE NO
Measure C (City Services Auditor) VOTE NO
Measure D (Small Business Commission) VOTE NO
Measure E (Ethics Reform) VOTE NO
Measure F (Targeted Early Retirement) VOTE YES
Measure G (Rainy Day Fund) VOTE NO
Measure H (Police Commission/Office of Citizen Complaints) VOTE NO
Measure I (Child Care for Low Income Families
with no Funding Provision) VOTE NO
Measure J (Facilities for the Homeless Empty Policy Statement) VOTE NO
Measure K (Sales Tax for Transportation) VOTE NO
Measure L (Minimum Wage) VOTE YES
Measure M (Aggressive Solicitation Ban) VOTE NO
Measure N (Taxi Permit Holder Disability) VOTE NO