My final slate for SF

“Is that your final answer?” “Final answer.”

Citywide offices:

Mayor and DA – Blank ballot, or write in Emperor Norton.  Both are ineffective and have no real opposition from right or left.  I want no part in this farce.

City Attorney: Dennis Herrera, though I am not crazy about his self-promotional streak

Treasurer: Jose Cisneros because he’s awesome

Sheriff: Vicki Hennessy because Ross is NOT

Community College Board: Alex Randolph (per Bernalwood recommendation:

Supervisor, District 3: Julie Christensen (seriously we do NOT need Peskin back, I do not need to explain why)


A, B, D, K: Yes (No brainers)

C: No (infringes free speech. See SPUR’s comment:

E: YES because all the activists hate it but people with kids and jobs who are today left out of the process love it and the EFF supports it (

F: NO because we shouldn’t be writing regulations at the ballot that cannot be overturned by the Supervisors, and because the private right of action (lawsuit provision) will certainly lead to endless litigation.  

I must admire whoever came up with this provision, however.  I suspect it was a poison pill added by someone who didn’t really want the measure to pass.  (City attorney?  Private attorney?  There’s a story there.)

I will note that UNLIKE Prop F, Prop E has a measure allowing it to be modified by the Supervisors in the interest of achieving its general aims.  That would have been good here. 

G: No (pulled by sponsors)

H: YES because it is common sense, but why is this even on the ballot?

I: NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO (how many more characters do I have in this post?)  We need MORE housing in the Mission (and citywide), not historic parking lots.  If you only cast one vote this year, this is the one.

J: No (I love legacy businesses!  I hate the idea of City Hall insiders having the ability to hand out taxpayer money to them.  Corruption on a silver platter.)

*No lobbying please, I am reading the initiative and will decide on my own.

Leave a Reply