Mitch’s March 2024 Primary Voting Guide
Hi folks,
It’s election season already! At least we only have 2 this year (instead of 4, like we did in 2022). This guide will be focused primarily on San Francisco but may be useful to people elsewhere in California as well.
If someone forwarded this to you and you don’t already know me, I’ll say a little bit about my perspective at the bottom of the guide, just above the cheatsheet. Otherwise, let’s jump right in!
For the cheatsheet with just the positions, scroll all the way to the bottom.
San Francisco
Prop A — Affordable Houisng Bond — YES!
If you take only one thing away from this guide, it should be to MAKE SURE to vote yes on Prop A. This is a $300 million dollar bond to fund the construction and preservation of affordable housing in San Francisco. It replaces the 2019 bond which is running out of funds, and as such it doesn’t result in any increase in taxes. This bond will be one of the main sources of funding for affordable housing in San Francisco over the next 4–5 years. The state is requiring San Francisco to plan for 46,000 new low and moderate income homes by 2030, or we will lose affordable housing and transportation funding from the state. If this doesn’t pass, the consequences will be dire. It needs a 2/3rds vote to pass, so please tell your friends and family to make sure to vote and to vote yes on Prop A.
Note: $300 million dollars is nowhere near enough funding. The pipeline of affordable housing developments that the city has identified as ready to go forward once funding is secured already has $900 million dollars in it. Luckily, there will probably be 2 bonds on the November ballot to make up some of the gap: a regional bond called the BAHFA bond and a statewide affordable housing bond. More on that later this year.
Prop B — Minimum Police Staffing, Conditional on Future Taxes — No
This is a weird one. This proposition requires a minimum staffing level for the SF Police Department, but only if taxes are raised to pay for it. It started out as a right wing attempt to grab even more money for the police department so that in this tough city budget year, they would be immune to cuts while social services are cut even more deeply. But Supervisor Ahsha Safai (who is running for mayor) inserted a provision to say that the minimum staffing only applies if additional taxes are raised to fund them. That’s a good addition, but…
I don’t think we should be setting police staffing levels by ballot measure at all. Policing needs change over time and should be set by city officials. A lot of the things we are currently asking police officers to do shouldn’t even be done by armed officers at all (outreach to homeless people, wellness checks, etc).
Prop C — Exempt Commercial Property from the Transfer Tax if it’s being converted to housing — No
I initially thought I would be supporting this one, until I read the fine print. The measure was marketed as a way to make it cheaper for downtown office buildings to be converted to housing, which I would probably be in favor of. However, the word downtown doesn’t appear anywhere in the measure, and it’s not limited to offices. It applies just as much to neighborhood shops as it does to downtown offices. To make things worse, the primary use of the transfer tax is to fund affordable housing, so exempting properties from it decreases the funds available for affordable housing. It also allows the board of supervisors to reduce or repeal the transfer tax entirely in the future, which would further cut affordable housing funding. Vote no.
Prop D — Ethics Laws — Sure
I’ll admit that I’m not an expert in this area of policy. It seems like a good measure to reduce corruption, and all the players in both the progressive and moderate camps appear to support it, but if there is harmful fine print I’m missing, please let me know.
Prop E — Expand Police Surveillance, Car Chases — No
This is a stupid and dangerous measure. Over a third of police car chases end in a crash, including recent high profile cases of police cars crashing into storefronts…. so we should encourage the police to do more car chases?? It also gives the police nearly unlimited ability to expand surveillance over San Franciscans, and exempts the police from oversight by the police commission and the board of supervisors. They can also use new, unvetted technologies in secret for up to a year. Apparently if it makes London Breed look “tough on crime” it doesn’t have to include any actual improvements to policing? No thanks.
Prop F — Drug Test Welfare Recipients — No
This is another terrible idea placed on the ballot by Mayor London Breed. It requires drug testing for any recipients of welfare in San Francisco, and kicks them off if they test positive. Great, just what we need — more people struggling with addiction who are put out on the street with no resources. Absolutely braindead. Vote no.
Prop G — Teach Algebra in 8th Grade (Non-Binding) — Yes*
This is a purely symbolic measure, the actual decisions on this are made by the school board. But sure, it’s good to let 8th graders have the opportunity to study algebra, it certainly helped me.
Democratic County Central Committee:
The big event with the DCCC election here is the slate of moderates calling themselves “Democrats for Change” who are trying to take control of the local democratic party from the progressives. The moderates tend to have more positive positions on building market rate housing, which I like. However, the San Francisco moderates also like to cut funding for social services, arrest homeless people rather than providing housing, weaken tenant protections, increase police staffing, lower taxes on large corporations… you see where I’m going with this.
I believe affordable housing is the most important issue in San Francisco, but the moderates only have part of the answer (allowing more market rate building) and not the rest (strong tenant protections, plentiful funding for affordable housing, compassionate, evidence-based homelessness policy).
It was a tough call picking which slate here. My recommendation is to vote for the labor/union slate comprised of San Francisco progressives.
DCCC Assembly District 19:
Mano Raju
Natalie Gee
Connie Chan
Sandra Lee Fewer
Gordon Mar
Leah LaCroix
Queena Chen
Hene Kelly
Greg Hardeman
Frances Hsieh
DCCC Assembly District 17:
John Avalos
Patrick Bell
Gloria Berry
Vick Chung
Peter Gallota
Kristin Hardy
Jane Kim
Jeremy Lee
Anita Martinez
Michael Nguyen
Joshua Rudy Ochoa
Sal Rosselli
Sydney Simpson
Adolfo Velasquez
https://www.laborandworkingfamilies.com/
US Senate — Katie Porter
Barbara Lee is the most progressive major candidate in the Senate race, and I was initially planning on voting for her. But she is not polling well, and this primary will result in a top 2 runoff election. Adam Schiff, a moderate to conservative democrat, is polling highest, and Democrat Katie Porter and Republican Steve Garvey are vying for second place. Katie Porter is a relatively progressive Democrat, and would be an improvement over Schiff.
US Representative, District 11 — no endorsement
Nancy Pelosi will win this race, but I’m not inclined to vote for her. She has been full-throated in her support for sending weapons to Israel to continue killing Palestinians. She hasn’t cared what San Franciscans think in at least 20 years. Vote for anyone else.
CA State Senate District 11 — Scott Wiener
Scott Wiener was not my favorite Supervisor — for example, he wrote a measure banning tents on the sidewalk with no funding attached to actually get people into housing — but as a state senator he’s been really good. He’s consistently authored bills that take huge strides toward building more housing in California. I may disagree with him on a number of issues (see: Gaza ceasefire), but on housing he has been one of the most active and impactful state senators.
California Assembly District 17 — Matt Haney
Matt Haney is a pro-housing progressive, a rare combo in San Francisco and one that we need more of. I actually worked with his office on a bill last year, AB 572, which limits homeowners association fees (HOA) on below market rate condos. He definitely deserves your vote!
California Assembly District 19— David Lee
I saw David Lee speak at a local democratic club, and I was impressed with his progressive positions. He supports Medicare for All and a Green New Deal. He has limited political experience and will probably not win, but he’s better than frontrunner Catherine Stefani, who as the supervisor for the Marina has consistently been one of the most conservative supervisors.
Judge of the Superior Court, Seat #1 — Michael Isaku Begert
Judge of the Superior Court, Seat #13 — Patrick S Thompson
These two incumbent judges are qualified and competent. Their challengers are backed by conservative billionaires, who want to make our judicial system more punitive and buy themselves two judges favorable to their interests. I don’t believe that judges should be elected at all, and this is exactly why. Judges should follow the law, not to advance a political position.
California
US Senate — Katie Porter
Barbara Lee is the most progressive major candidate in the Senate race, and I was initially planning on voting for her. But she is not polling well, and this primary will result in a top 2 runoff election. Adam Schiff, a moderate to conservative democrat, is polling highest, and Democrat Katie Porter and Republican Steve Garvey are vying for second place. Katie Porter is a relatively progressive Democrat, and would be an improvement over Schiff.
Prop 1 — Mental Health Services Bond — Yes
Prop 1 is a mental health and housing services bond placed on the ballot by Gavin Newsom et al. It unlocks funding to address our homelessness and mental health crises statewide. It does reapportion 5% of existing funding from the counties to the state, and I’m unsure of what impact that would have, but I think increasing the overall amount of money available by $6.4B is worth it.
Background on Mitch
I grew up in San Francisco, so I’ve been affected by the decisions of local political bodies since I started school in kindergarten. I started working in affordable housing advocacy right after college, and I’ve been in the field for 7 years now, so that’s my main lens on the ballot. As a volunteer I’ve been involved with organizations like the Democratic Socialists of America, YIMBY (Yes In My Back Yard), and various affordable housing and transit advocacy groups. I believe that we need to build more housing, both affordable and market rate, while also maintaining strong protections for tenants and preserving the affordable housing we already have. I think we should follow evidence-based approaches on addiction and crime to reduce their incidence in a sustainable and long term fashion. That means making sure that all the necessary services are available, and pursuing rehabilitation where possible. It does not mean locking up people for being homeless or doing drugs, but it does mean arresting drug dealers, especially anyone dealing fentanyl.
This combination leaves me at odds with both sides of the political spectrum in San Francisco. On the one hand we have progressives who have all the right positions when it comes to crime, addiction, and affordable housing, but think that market rate housing is bad and we should preserve the city’s restrictive zoning and onerous application processes. On the other hand we have moderates who would like to build more market rate housing, but strip away tenant protections, give nearly unlimited surveillance authority to the police, and arrest homeless people and drug users instead of treating them or giving them housing. So in this guide, I will be attempting to choose the best option among choices that are often not ideal. In general, I’ve gone with the progressives in this guide, with a couple exceptions.
Context of the election
I also want to say a bit about the context that this election is taking place in. The big story in local politics is the emergence of several billionaire-funded organizations aiming to make the city’s policies more conservative, punitive, and friendlier to corporate interests. A few of the largest ones are Grow SF, Together SF, Stop Crime SF, and Neighbors for a Better San Francisco. You might have seen their voter guides and ads that they have been sending. They aren’t wrong 100% of the time, but it is close to 90%.
The funders of these groups include various tech millionaires and billionaires like Kris Larsen and venture capitalist Garry Tan, who is on the board of Grow SF and recently tweeted a death threat to the progressive members of the board of supervisors. These are people who want to remake San Francisco in their draconian image, and you should mostly not listen to them (though they are right on needing more housing construction, in line with other moderates). If you want to know more about all that, here is an article that dives in deeper.
At the same time, we’re in yet another news cycle where it is very popular to bash San Francisco, especially in conservative circles. The grittiest blocks of the city are constantly shown on national TV so that Republicans can point to San Francisco as a failed example of Democratic policies.
We do have a lot of challenges to address as a city: homelessness, addiction, the hollowed-out office-dependent downtown, severe dips in transit ridership and funding. The state is requiring the city to zone for 82,000 new homes, 33,000 of which need to be affordable to low income San Franciscans and 13,000 of them which need to be affordable to moderate income San Franciscans.
However, most of the solutions being proposed will not help, and are likely to cause serious harm to our city. Fueled by huge sums of corporate money, conservative Democrats are aiming to bring back the war on drugs, raid social services budgets to hire more police, and generally take us backwards riding a wave of anti-government sentiment.
Some things I think actually would help: Funding affordable housing at higher levels. Streamlining housing permitting so that it is simple, based on objective standards, and free of opportunities for corruption. Expanding treatment for mental health and addiction, including not just more treatment beds but the workers to staff the centers. Moving some police functions to nonviolent, unarmed groups instead. And, crucial to achieving most of those, removing the loopholes that allow billionaires to dominate the spending in our elections.
Unfortunately only one of those things is on the ballot this March (vote yes on Prop A!), so this guide is more about preventing bad things than advancing good things.
Thanks for coming to my TED Talk.
Cheatsheet:
California
US Senate — Katie Porter
Prop 1 — Yes
San Francisco
Prop A — YES
Prop B — No
Prop C — No
Prop D — Yes
Prop E — No
Prop F — No
Prop G — Yes
DCCC Assembly District 19:
Mano Raju
Natalie Gee
Connie Chan
Sandra Lee Fewer
Gordon Mar
Leah LaCroix
Queena Chen
Hene Kelly
Greg Hardeman
Frances Hsieh
DCCC Assembly District 17:
John Avalos
Patrick Bell
Gloria Berry
Vick Chung
Peter Gallota
Kristin Hardy
Jane Kim
Jeremy Lee
Anita Martinez
Michael Nguyen
Joshua Rudy Ochoa
Sal Rosselli
Sydney Simpson
Adolfo Velasquez
US Representative, District 11 — no endorsement
CA State Senate District 11 — Scott Wiener
California Assembly District 17 — Matt Haney
California Assembly District 19— David Lee
Judge of the Superior Court, Seat #1 — Michael Isaku Begert
Judge of the Superior Court, Seat #13 — Patrick S Thompson