The “No B.S.” Voter Guide
A Common (and C’mon!) Sense Voter’s Guide to the March 5th, 2024 Election
*We are all volunteers here, so we focus only on San Francisco and its local issues
Hello Voting Warriors, and welcome! We assume you’re here because you’re tired of being pissed off (wink, wink).
How do you know you’re in the right place and reading the most sensible voter guide? Here’s a quick check: After reading the day’s headlines “chronicling” the happenings at City Hall (specifically in the room where the Supervisors do all their…supervising?) or after innocently perusing the dregs of your neighborhood Nextdoor, do you find yourself silently weeping and thinking to yourself, “Oh, c’mon! It’s got to be better than this!”?
If your answer is even close to a “yes,” then welcome to your new favorite resource. To be a voter guide with integrity, we promise always to tell you the truth and stand by our principles of fairness to all San Franciscans.
As a common (and c’mon!) sense group, we know there’s no time to be angry; there’s too much to do. And by do, we mean undo: undo the extremist agenda that has stymied actual PROGRESS in this town. So instead, we aim to take a more rational and mindful approach to maintain San Francisco’s place as that shining beacon with the hills.
To start, here are three top-level things to keep in mind as you’re diligently going through your March 2024 ballot:
The City has a $14.6 billion budget. Why in the Hellman Hollow can’t they get everything done on this ballot with that kind of greenery at their disposal?
You’re not a bad person if you don’t vote yes on every “feel good” proposition. You’re a thinking person. (They throw the “feel good” in to manipulate you). So go forth and vote with your head.
If there’s one thing San Franciscans are very good at, it’s layering (don’t forget your fleece!), and so is our city government regarding taxes. Think about it: fewer taxes, more accountability, please.
Ready? Let’s go!
Our NO B.S. recommendations for the
March 5th, 2024 Ballot:
PROP A: NO
PROP B: NO, NO, NO
PROP C: CAUTIOUS YES
PROP D: YES, DEFINITELY YES
PROP E: HELL YES!
PROP F: YES
PROP G: YES+
CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENTS
DCCC ASSEMBLY DISTRICT 17:
Supervisor Matt Dorsey* , Nancy Tung, Laurance Lem Lee*, Peter Lee* ,
Trevor Chandler*, Lily Ho, Cedric Akbar*, Michael Lai*
DCCC ASSEMBLY DISTRICT 19:
Marjan Philhour*, Michela Alioto-Pier*, Lanier Coles*,
Supervisor Catherine Stefani*, Jade Tu*
RCCC ASSEMBLY DISTRICT 17:
Page Chamberlain, David Cuadro , Jennie Feldman, Christian Foster, Bill Jackson,
Christopher Lewis, William Shireman, Josh Wolff, Jamie Wong
RCCC ASSEMBLY DISTRICT 19:
Nick Berg, Jeremiah Boehner, Martha Conte, Jan Diamond, Jay Donde, Peter Elden,
Grazia Monares, Tom Rapkoch, Deah Williams, Jennifer Yan
SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES
Seat 1: Albert “Chip” Zecher* - Challenger
Seat 13: Jean Myungjin Roland* - Challenger
Continue scrolling for a full explanation of the propositions…
Prop A: Affordable Housing Bond
VOTE NO
A is a $300 Million Affordable Housing Bond that costs nearly double to repay.
Despite what our elected officials believe, we do not enjoy paying more in taxes for bad policy, and bonds are not somehow magically different from other types of debt. Debt is debt.
We know that a general obligation bond like this one, is secured by the issuing government’s pledge to use all available resources including tax revenue to repay it. We also remember that in 2015 we passed an almost identical Prop A which was also supposed to result in the creation of 30,000 new units, and so we find ourselves with that deja vu feeling…
Ever consider it might not be a funding problem but a zoning, permitting, bureaucratic red tape, political will problem instead? It’s clear our leaders have not figured out that inflation is an actual thing that exists. City Hall should consider whether this housing will actually ever get built, because from our calculations it isn’t a lack of money that is halting housing production.
This seems like yet another housing financial sinkhole for SF taxpayers destined to miss its mark but keep taxes high: $300 million in bonds with an estimated payback of $544 million…
Don’t be fooled by this house of cards.
Prop B: Police Officer Staffing Levels Conditioned on Amending Existing or Future Tax Funding (AKA The “Cop Tax” )
VOTE NO, NO, NO
B is just B.S. - NO. COP. TAX.
Voting NO on Prop B tells City Hall that fully staffing SFPD officers on our streets to improve safety IS a top priority, and that it should rightfully be funded by our EXISTING taxes, as it always has been.
We can’t afford to wait the 18 additional months Prop B requires to start fixing this shortage. Even starting now, it’ll take a few years for more than 600 needed cadets to get through the Academy.
We should NOT have to collect or pay any more taxes for SFPD’s fundamental, critical service. This “pay to play” sham sets a bad precedent: what other basic City service will they tax next?
Staffing shortages at SFPD are at an all-time high, and their response times are longer for 911 calls, and this situation is brought to you by: government ineptitude in long-term planning and leadership, a defund-the-police majority on the Board Of Supervisors, and an anti-police Police Commission.
Crimes in SF have been highly publicized in social media and news outlets worldwide. It’s tarnished SF’s reputation globally.and that has cost us dearly: harming San Franciscans and visitors alike.
The resulting loss of our sense of safety, stores and companies leaving and taking their jobs and taxes with them, fewer tourists, and conventions have had a truly significant impact on The City, and its budget. The crime has to stop. That takes MORE SFPD Officers.
The fastest way to staff SFPD is to VOTE NO on B: NO to an 18 month wait and extra taxes.
Prop C: Real Estate Transfer Tax Exemption and Office Space Allocation
VOTE CAUTIOUS YES
C Could make a difference…
We have a better chance of predicting whether this tax transfer reduction will or will not be effective by using a vintage magic 8 ball than we do by reading the details of Proposition C.
The idea of converting unused office space into residential space to address both the decrease in office use as well as the need for housing seems too efficient to be true. The idea of waiving a tax when the cost benefit to The City can’t be reliably assessed makes us queasy. Taking power away from voters and letting this Board of Supervisors amend this tax makes us queasier.
We here at the No B.S. Voter Guide are not the gambling type when it comes to our hard earned tax dollars and wishful thinking. While it sounds like a great idea in theory, the real world implications have not been fully vetted. We’d never bet on this Board of Supervisors doing anything effective or smart for the City, so allowing voters to retain their power in this scenario, tracks. But we are also wide-eyed optimists so, while we usually limit our use of the magic eight ball to fantasy football and what to wear on a first date, we are going to give this a try and hope for a “all signs point to yes!”
Prop D: Changes to Local Ethics Laws
VOTE YES, DEFINITELY YES
Much-needed Changes to Local Ethics Laws
Anything that nudges the moral compass of our elected officials in the right direction is a net positive in our estimation.
The best thing about this measure (besides reminding our City officials to follow laws and behave themselves) is that it centralizes the ethics training and auditing in the actual Ethics Department instead of allowing each City department to decide how to watchdog themselves. That’s right, that is how it is right now. And clearly, that needs to change.
This prop is pretty tame and it is not going to change the world, but if it makes an elected official think twice before stealing from the cookie jar, or handing cookie jars to the cronies, then we salute it.
Prop E: Police Department Policies and Procedures
VOTE HELL YES!
E is Excellent - that’s a YES!
If a typewriter from the ’70s was producing this voter guide and you needed this information fast, you wouldn’t want us to keep hunting and pecking unless you intended to make it ten times harderAND slower to do the job. You’d just hand us a laptop, tablet, or smartphone so we could both get what we need more efficiently and move on. Easy peasy, right? Welcome to the tech usage war between SFPD and the anti-police Police Commission.
Drones? Don’t be silly! How could drones possibly ever help SFPD chase and capture criminals?
Automated License Plate Readers? That are FREE because of a State grant? How ridiculous!
Only SFMTA parking lots and meterpeople can be trusted with that kind of cool, useful technology! USING TECHNOLOGY will allow SFPD to spend more time on street patrol and fighting crime. Prop E will make SFPD more efficient and add transparency to important decision-making processes at the Police Commission. It restores crucial decision-making ability to SFPD Officers.
These technology usage expansions DO NOT INCLUDE FACIAL RECOGNITION.
Prop E will improve how SFPD does the job they were rigorously trained for by adding technology to maximize the time spent on the most important parts of their job: patrol and investigation. Just like most of us use technology in our lives.
Let’s get SFPD 21st Century tools to be more efficient and effective, and let’s get more of the officers we DO have back on the streets protecting our public safety.
An emphatic YES on long overdue Prop E!
“We need to give our officers the tools necessary to keep our communities safe and not leave them stuck behind a desk when they can be out on the street helping people. There has been too much focus on adding bureaucracy to the work our officers do and putting up barriers to new technologies that can help improve policing in San Francisco. It’s time to change that.”
Mayor London Breed
Prop F: Illegal Substance Dependence Screening and Treatment for Recipients of City Public Assistance
VOTE YES
F is needed, quite frankly.
This proposition was a tough one for us because, while the optics are great and the intention seems reasonable, the execution is a risk. Ever the optimists, and wanting to see some real attention paid to the serious drug crisis on our streets, we cautiously support this effort.
Requiring individuals who receive cash assistance to participate in drug screening and substance abuse treatment in order to continue receiving cash assistance might be the carrot/stick combination to finally help folks get the treatment they need.
This measure won’t impact housing assistance funding and will only suspend general assistance funding for 30 days if someone screens positive and bails on treatment.
The City budget for homeless services is about $1 billion per year so the $4 million to get this up and running the first year, and the up to $ 2 million per year after that is worth trying, as a tiny fraction of what we’re paying for the overpriced tents and open-air drug markets we somehow are supporting now.
Cross your fingers, hope for actual positive impact, and vote YES on F.
Prop G: Offering Algebra 1 to Eighth Graders
VOTE YES+
G is just Good math for ALL.
Should it even be questioned that giving all public school students the educational options they deserve to keep competitive with other Bay Area students is the ethical, reasonable, necessary thing to do?
Math is useful, important and is a building block to ruling the world.
Here is our equation: Children in all schools at all levels PLUS learning to their highest math potential EQUALS positive outcomes for ALL the children and The City. Who says math isn’t fun?!
Only people who are DIVISIVE…see what we did there?
This measure is only a non-binding resolution to ensure that the SF Unified School District understands how SF voters feel, ADDING yet another reason for you to vote for it.