Guardian endorsements - Page 5

Campos for Assembly, Yes on Props. B and 42, re-elect Gov. Jerry Brown — our recommendations for the June 2014 primary election

|
(139)
The SFBG endorses David Campos for a state Assembly seat.
Guardian photo by Mike Koozmin

Since then, he's been a reliable vote for legislation supported by most San Franciscans, and he's sponsoring some good bills that break new ground, including his current AB 1193, which would make it easier to build cycletracks, or bike lanes physically separated from cars, all over the state. He also called a much-needed Assembly committee hearing in November calling out BART for its lax safety culture, and we hope he continues to push for reforms at that agency.

 

PROPOSITION 41: YES

Over a decade ago, Californians voted to use hundreds of millions of our dollars to create the CalVet Home and Farm Loan Program to help veterans purchase housing. But a reduction in federal home loan dollars, the housing crisis, and a plummeting economy hurt the program.

Prop. 41 would repurpose $600 million of those bond funds and raise new money to create affordable housing rental units for some of California's 15,000 homeless veterans. This would cost Californians $50 million a year, which, as proponents remind us, is one-tenth of 1 percent of the state budget. Why let hundreds of millions of dollars languish unused? We need to reprioritize this money to make good on our unfulfilled promises to homeless veterans.

 

PROPOSITION 42: YES

This one's important. Last year, Gov. Jerry Brown sought to gut the California Public Records Act by making it optional for government agencies to comply with many of the requirements built into this important transparency law. The CPRA and the Ralph M. Brown Act require government agencies to make records of their activities available for public scrutiny, and to provide for adequate notice of public meetings. Had the bill weakening these laws not been defeated, it would have removed an important defense against shadowy government dealings, leaving ordinary citizens and journalists in the dark.

Prop. 42 is a bid to eliminate any future threats against California's important government transparency laws, by expressly requiring local government agencies — including cities, counties, and school districts — to comply with all aspects of the CPRA and the Brown Act. It also seeks to prevent local agencies from denying public records requests based on cost, by eliminating the state's responsibility to reimburse local agencies for cost compliance (the state has repeatedly failed to do so, and local bureaucracies have used this as an excuse not to comply).

 

SF'S PROPOSITION A: YES

Prop. A is a $400 million general obligation bond measure that would cover seismic retrofits and improvements to the city's emergency infrastructure, including upgrades to the city's Emergency Firefighting Water System, neighborhood police and fire stations, a new facility for the Medical Examiner, and seismically secure new structures to house the police crime lab and motorcycle unit.

The Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to place Prop. A on the ballot, and a two-thirds majority vote is needed for it to pass. Given that San Franciscans can expect to be hit by a major earthquake in the years to come, upgrading emergency infrastructure, especially the high-pressure water system that will aid the Fire Department in the event of a major blaze, is a high priority.

 

SF'S PROPOSITION B: YES

As we report in this issue (see "Two views of the waterfront"), San Francisco's waterfront is a valuable place targeted by some ambitious development schemes. That's a good thing, particularly given the need that the Port of San Francisco has for money to renovate or remove crumbling piers, but it needs to be carefully regulated to maximize public benefits and minimize private profit-taking.

Comments

How many of your endorsed candidates have won their races over the decades?

Posted by Guest on Apr. 29, 2014 @ 10:18 pm
Posted by Guest on Apr. 29, 2014 @ 10:45 pm

yes Leland Yee is running for Secretary of State UNOPPOSED! so what does that mean, that he wins? I thought he withdrew from the race, so does that mean we won't have a Secretary of State for the next four years?

Write in Shrimp Boy for attorney general!!

Posted by Guest on May. 30, 2014 @ 5:10 pm

SECRETARY OF STATE
Derek Kressman

What do you mean Lee's running unopposed??

Posted by Guest on Jun. 02, 2014 @ 10:48 pm

popular, successful, winning candidate.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 12:20 am

On Earth Day, I stood on stage, next to Bill McKibben, when he ask, "Why doesn't Mayor Ed Lee endorse CleanPower SF?"

That got me to thinking about this whole global climate collapse issue.
What is the biggest problem the world faces today?
Is it global climate collapse?

If that is true, why don't more people agree to work together on solving the problem?

Why do Psychologists ignore world climate collapse, and still just focus on sex? Maybe they have been convinced by the corporate media that there is nothing better they can do?

Why does Bill McKibben not focus on the need for a solar feed in tariff ( FiT) that requires PG&E to pay home owners $0.49 kwh, for feeding solar onto the grid? This most successful energy policy in the world, that has allowed Germany to shut down their nukes? Using the FiT, Germany is banning fracking & shutting down all their nukes.

Why does Bill McKibbren blame SF Mayor Ed Lee for the problem of world climate collapse ( WCC ), when Bill is not petitioning for a FiT? What if Ed Lee is on the right side, and McKibben is on the wrong side of the issue? What if CPSF is just a plain bad idea, that would cost SF tax payers $1 billion? And would not solve the problem?

Bankers are smart people about money & policy. Why are most financial people ignoring the great leaps forward with a FiT that are happening in Japan & Germany?
Why is Germany now the greenest nation on earth.

Posted by Paul Kangas on May. 05, 2014 @ 6:38 am

You say that as if it's a bad thing. Would you really want to be on record as supporting the likes of Willie Brown, Newsom, or Lee for mayor, for example?

Posted by Guest on May. 09, 2014 @ 9:04 pm

Is that the point here? To endorse the candidate most likely to win? They're not bookies.

Posted by Guest ethan davidson on May. 29, 2014 @ 5:40 pm

but the SFBG not very long ago endorsed the last place candidate for mayor, Angela Alioto

Posted by Guest on May. 30, 2014 @ 5:18 pm

they usually get about 57 votes, one of whom is their mom.

Posted by Guest on May. 30, 2014 @ 5:34 pm

For example Brown and Newsom will win this time. Their record with candidates that they really like is not so good (otherwise London Breed, Jane Kim, Malia Cohen and Mark Farrell would not be on the BOS). It's hard to point to a BOS race where the SFBG endorsement had a clear positive effect. Maybe Norman Yee, possibly.

With Tim Redmond it is possible that some people who valued thoughtful progressive reasoning might follow along. With Steven T Jones I think that the best that the endorsed candidates can hope for is for their SFBG endorsement to have no or little effect.

And I think that they will get what they wish for.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 9:14 am

and endorse a moderate. They get it wrong when they go with their idealism.

Says it all really.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 9:54 am

But wait. I thought the BG's politics are more in line with the majority of San Franciscans than is the Chronicle. It's not like there is any proof, in fact their choices for mayor are clearly proof to the contrary, but Steven and Greg said it was true. So it has to be true because they said it is, right?

Posted by Guest on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 12:51 pm

Or hopefully a negative one since I vote against any endorsement from the S.F.B.G. and many of my moderate friends do the same. a vote against your endorsements is usually a wise one.

Posted by Guest on May. 07, 2014 @ 7:05 pm

Does the SFBG have the Courage to share Congressional Candidate responses?

SFBG sent a set of good set of questions to the Candidates.
The Answers candidates provides should be valuable and enlightening to Voters.
Sharing the responses would empower the Voters to analyze the candidates themselves.

The SFBG conclusions did not include any information related to the questions.
The best thing about the questions is that they gave Candidates an Opportunity to share and discuss the Legislative Actions they would champion in Washington D.C.
And that's important. Some better ideas may come from one of the mentioned or unmentioned candidates.

-Thanks
David Peterson

Posted by David Peterson on May. 08, 2014 @ 7:36 am

i think he is running for everything and anything.

Posted by Guest on May. 28, 2014 @ 7:39 pm

my favorite endorsement was when both Tom Ammiano and Matt Gonzalez were running for Mayor against Gavin Useless and the Guardian endorsed Angela Alioto, who came in last and promptly joined the Useless administration as the commissioner of stumble bums or whatever job she managed to scrape up.

Posted by Guest on May. 30, 2014 @ 5:13 pm

And thanks for the memory.

Magic SFBG moments . .

Posted by Guest on May. 30, 2014 @ 5:33 pm

remembering her complaining that her children were forbidden from having their cell phones in school as per district policy... wanted to like her... but just had to stop trying.

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 30, 2014 @ 7:37 pm

trajectory, where "progressive" means liberal loyalty to the pro-capitalist, 1% dominated Democratic Party.

Vote Peace & Freedom or Green or leave it blank.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 7:49 am

wasting it on a fringe party with no hope of influence and power.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 8:30 am

has any effect? Good luck with that.

Money talks, voting is for show. I just do it because I can't transcend all the socialization I received as a child.

So I vote for what I want.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 8:40 am

The rest of us do, and I'm happy with the result more than I am not,

Posted by Guest on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 9:47 am

I am rewlly happpy to glance at this web site posts which
includes tons of helpful facts, thanks for providing such information.

Posted by Get info On Wikipedia on Aug. 04, 2014 @ 2:27 am

Most people just want to be "on the side that is winning.
Why vote for what you really don't want?

It is better to vote for what you really want, &
not get it,
than it is to vote for what you don't want
& get it.

I want a free education system, paid for by taxing
the largest corporations.
If anyone is campaigning for that,
I will tend to vote for them.
Cindy speaks up for free education every time she speaks.

Voting changes nothing. If it did, it would be illegal.
If the People ever elect a progressive,
the CIA will just kill them.
That is why the Bush CIA killed JFK, King & RFK.

Posted by Paul Kangas on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 8:04 pm

I really think you should start hanging out with that Jason Grant Garza guy. You two whackos deserve each other.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 8:53 pm

At least Paul's honest about his desire to vote for the person who will give him the most free shit. Usually, Progressives will cite a bunch of rationalizations on why their selfishness isn't really selfish. Paul has the balls to be totally upfront with his entitlement.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 9:36 pm

He's upfront with his conspiracy theories too. And he's Cindy Sheehan's number one fan. It's funny how they can't figure why they aren't more popular when this guy is the poster child for their candidate.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 9:55 pm

Free shit is shit you get without paying because you have mugged someone else for the money to pay for it

Posted by Guest on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 9:56 pm

Huh. I geass progressives and conseravatives are more alike than one would think.

Posted by Guest ethan davidson on May. 29, 2014 @ 6:21 pm

I heard that somewhere so it must be true.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 9:57 pm

There are no wasted votes, especially since only 1 in 3 people do vote. It is those who don't vote who deserve our condemnation.

Posted by Richmondman on Jun. 03, 2014 @ 3:02 pm

I can't wait until Campos is crushed in this election.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 7:52 am

Campos will win because he is out meeting people in his District every single day. He signed our petition for a solar feed in tariff (FiT) to require PG&E to pay home owners $0.49 kwh for feeding solar onto the grid.
Campos is cool.

Posted by Paul Kangas on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 8:17 pm

Note to self: obese, effeminate communists are now cool. Better order Das Kapital for Dummies from Amazon and start eating more pastries.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 8:54 pm

Nothing like a little old-fashioned homophobia. Why don't you say what you really mean by "effeminate": you hate The Gay. And you might want to make another note to yourself: I don't know if you've run into Campos lately, but he's anything but obese. He's actually rather trim, unlike that Pillsbury Dough Boy Farrell, or our mayor, who seems to have put on a good 40 pounds during his time in Room 200.

Oh, and for what it's worth, Campos is no communist, but I'm sure everyone to the left of Sean Hannity is a communist to you.

Posted by Greg on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 10:36 pm

Anyone to the right of Campos is....Hannity to you.

Posted by Richmondman on Jun. 03, 2014 @ 3:58 pm

Campos will win because Dianne Feinstein endorsed Chiu. :-)

Posted by Guest on May. 30, 2014 @ 5:20 pm

So I figure moderates win either way.

Posted by Guest on May. 30, 2014 @ 5:34 pm

"He signed our petition for a solar feed in tariff (FiT) to require PG&E to pay home owners $0.49 [per] kwh for feeding solar onto the grid." That's at least four times what it is worth. I know you don't like PG&E, but I don't think that justifies robbing them. Are you volunteering yourself to pay a dollar per kWh, when transmission, distribution, and 24x7 availability are factored in?
This is so unrealistic, it would be reason enough to vote against Campos.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 02, 2014 @ 1:55 pm

your paper is giving the CA-12 endorsement to someone you don't necessarily agree with, and criticize her actions, namely: "economic policies that have consolidated wealth in ever fewer hands and dismantled the social safety net, environmental policies that have ignored global warming... and military policies that expanded the war machine and overreaching surveillance state.", and then proceed to give honorable mentions to three others - two of whom have failed FEC filing requirements - without any mention of any others? Desmond Thorsson, for example? Guy seems pretty in line against all the things you decry about Pelosi.

SFBG is perfectly at liberty to grant endorsements as it sees fit, but I was expecting a bit better of a deliberative process, and putting good faith behind candidates that actually reflect the values of the paper.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 8:01 am

Your endorsement of Torlkakson for State Superintendent of Schools, while predictable, is horrible. Torlakson is just a puppet for the California Teachers Association, an organization that puts adult privileges over kids' education. He is a joke in that position.

Tuck is a reformer and god knows the California education system needs reform. Characterizing him as an investment banker is totally stupid and repeats the union talking points. He worked for a bank for like one year. He has been in the education space for most of his career.

Do you guys just get emailed the union talking points and repeat them?

Posted by The Commish on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 8:09 am

"Do you guys just get emailed the union talking points and repeat them?" Who revealed to you the BG's endorsement process???

Posted by Guest on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 12:53 pm

Interesting accusation from an apparent bot whose anti-union talking points are just random irrelevant sentence-generator output.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 1:16 pm

Can't think of anything worse than having a union hack like Torlakson in charge of our schools when they so desperately need reform.

How about we deal with education inequality - the actual cause of income inequality instead of whining about it....??

Posted by Guest on May. 05, 2014 @ 8:36 am

Just an FYI, the SF State Assembly Districts are 17 and 19.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 8:49 am

How does someone who cut a deal with Larry Ellison to give him prime waterfront property for 66 years with no compensation to the city, then let the America’s Cup run into the red, let himself be named “World Ambassador” to bring people and money to the event and then did neither (records show zero fundraising from Newsom to cover the city’s deficit), delayed being sworn into office so that his handpicked choice Ed Lee would be the mayor to continue the cronyism of the past ten years, even calling Dufty out of the Board vote to turn him around, end up getting anything but the back of the Guardian’s hand.
As Lt. Gov he has done far less than his predecessors, other than positioning himself in polls. Leo McCarthy revamped the state’s oversight of nursing homes. Others took up issues of equity and equality.
Newsom didn’t even have the class to resign from the DCCC after moving out of SF until he was forced to resign as a non-resident as Peskin pushed the issue.
Sorry, but the job of the media is to hold people accountable, not laud them for doing what anyone with political ambitions would do -- play to the crowd.
Don’t you get it? We are not his crowd.
A no endorsement would have been in keeping with your values. This does not.

Posted by CitiReport on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 8:50 am

Is it merely incompetence, the Stockholm Syndrome of identifying with one's oppressor so much one wishes to befriend him, or is it maliciousness, progressives are infected with political spies, that causes these liberals to give free stuff to the conservatives who are gunning for their political extinction?

Photos of David Chiu, endorsements of Newsom and Harris, raging against political opponents for bumping your people from commissions, I mean, what planet are you all living on where you all expect to prevail by carrying water for your opponents more so than your allies?

Posted by marcos on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 9:30 am

Purity leads to ostracism and irrelevance, as you have discovered.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 9:48 am

Capitulation is what got progressives down to two and a half votes on the Board of Supervisors. Had progressive electeds compromised, which means splitting the difference instead of capitulated, then they might not have shed so much of their coalition so as to be politically ostracized as in being bitch slapped at the Police Commission yesterday.

It was the capitulationists who were bitch slapped and ostracized from the Police Commission, not me.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 10:13 am

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Also from this author

  • Arguments against minimum wage increase are out of touch

  • Housing ballot measures would weaken city policy

    With market-rate housing construction booming, Kim abandons effort to balance it with more affordability 

  • Appealing to San Francisco values