Prop A:

The crux: Should the City/County of San Francisco borrow $310 million in order to build affordable housing for working families, veterans, seniors, disabled persons, prevent eviction of long-term renters, to fund a middle-income rental fund, repair public housing, and provide down payment assistance for middle-income workers and educators looking to purchase a home?

My jam: YES Abso-f*#$%ing-lutely. Yes, jes, yas. A no-brainer, this one. Glad we started with a softball. This measure enjoys broad support across the political spectrum, is entirely uncontentious, and if you vote no, you’re a miserly, stingy person who prefers blight and displacement to renewal and homeownership. But I still think you’re cool.

Prop B:

The nut: If two people are parents and both work for the city, should they get additional paid parental leave on top of their regular 40 hours of paid sick time?

IMHO: YES Again, really a common-sense measure. Many private-sector employees living and/or working in the city enjoy a far-better benefit with respect to parental leave. If we want a well-run city, let’s attract decent talent with decent benefits for employees that will foster human development and healthier families.

Prop C:

What it do: If you’re a lobbyist working in the city, this one kinda sucks. You’re required to register with the city’s Ethics Commission at a cost of $500 and file monthly disclosures of who you’re lobbying and who/what for.

My truth: YES I swear, we’re getting so close to the contentious initiatives that you may or may not have strong feelings about. This should not be one of them. Lobbyists by nature have a disproportionate influence on the legislative process, therefore their activities should be a closely monitored matter of public record. Five hundred dollars is less than they drop on lunch with a Supervisor when they need a favor.

Prop D:

Wtf is this: Should the city forgo height restrictions so that the Giants can develop their parking lot into some parks and housing (of which ⅓ will be for low-income residents)?

Feels: YES The city needs more housing. I’d like for more than ⅓ of this project to be for low-income residents, but I understand that in order to attract capital, one needs to show profit potential. I recommend a cautious “yes” vote on this one, but please do your own research.

Prop E:

Why do I care: Should SF broadcast all public meetings online and allow public input and participation via the WWW?

Obviously: YES It’s the '90s, for God’s sake people. Even my high school student government had a livestream.

Prop F:

Conflict!: Okay, this one has a lot of components. Essentially, some people blame Airbnb and their listers for the some of the rise in rents in recent years in San Francisco, or maybe they just don’t like tourists. I don’t know, I’m not judging. This measure would cap short-term rentals at 75 days per year, require the person(s) doing the renting to submit quarterly reports on how many days they lived in their domicile and how many days they rented it, prohibit the short-term rental of in-law units, provide a private right of action for “interested parties” (i.e. neighbors) to sue Airbnb and their ilk, and make it a crime for the same to “unlawfully” list a short-term rental.

Deep breaths: NO I get it. I really do. Your “neighbor” doesn’t live there. These people that are always coming and going, you don’t know them. Maybe you don’t like them. Meanwhile, you can’t move because you’re in the last affordable apartment in the city. Me too. However, this is not how we get to the top of the mountain. It’s rather convenient (and fun!) to point the finger of blame at Airbnb and their competitors (whoever the hell they are), but we can all agree that there exist numerous economic factors affecting rental pricing that have nothing at all to do with Airbnb. In other words, there’s plenty of blame to go around.

This ordinance will be challenged. Airbnb will find someone with standing who this law has deprived of rental income, and they will tie it up in state and/or federal court for a long time. The city will spend a lot to defend this ordinance. My guess is that Airbnb would win. I’m all for regulation, but this measure goes too far.

Props G and H:

Whatever: Requires CleanPowerSF to actually sell power generated from non-greenhouse gas emitting sources, and to tell their customers if they’re selling them something else. San Francisco adopts California definitions for renewable/green/clean energy. Requires CleanPowerSF to inform customers from what source energy is generated.

I guess: DOUBLE YES I’m not their customer as far as I know. I’m not sure why this is on the ballot. Seems sensible to me.

Prop I:

What the hell?: Suspend issuance of permits for the construction of market-rate housing in the Mission.

If I may: NO The city needs more housing, not less. It needs more low-income housing, but banning construction of market-rate housing is not going to spur a boom in the construction of low-income housing. It will however create more scarcity in the market-rate supply, thereby forcing some prospective buyers and renters to look elsewhere, including properties currently occupied by low-income workers and families.

Prop J:

Such as it were: Should the city create a grant fund for business owners and the folks they lease space from if the business has operated in San Francisco for more than 20 years, is at risk of displacement, and meets other eligibility requirements?

I like it: YES I’m probably the most nostalgic person I know. I like that the same family has owned the corner shop on my block for 20-some-odd years. I anticipate that upstart entrepreneurs might cry favoritism, but I see great value in the persistence of local shops, restaurants, and bars to the end of cultivating a unique and enduring identity for neighborhoods and the city.

Prop K:

So wonky: Should the city be allowed to develop surplus property for the purposes of building housing for the very poor, the middle class, the rich, and the very rich (only if the project is really big)?

I think so: Yes, I’m useless. I’m torn about this one because it’s somewhat sneakily worded. With the mayor we’ve got now, I doubt this ordinance will result in any low-income housing being constructed. Make your own call.

Hey! Thanks for reading. Now let’s fight about it. Tell me why I’m wrong, and where I should shove it. Stay tuned for endorsements of human bodies running for state and local office. Sneak preview: the mayor wears no clothes.

Cheers,

David