Each year I prepare a slate card for my friends so we can debate how to vote here in San Francisco (and beyond). Here’s what I have so far… I’d love your input (update: see comments people submitted below)–

San Francisco Offices

Assessor-Recorder: Carmen Chu (only candidate)

City Attorney: Dennis Herrera (only candidate)

Treasurer: Jose Cisneros (only candidate)

San Francisco Propositions

Proposition A: Yes (Retiree Health Care Trust Fund)

Proposition B: No (Waterfront development for luxury condominiums that block public land use and views)

Proposition C: No (Waterfront development for luxury condominiums that block public land use and views)

Proposition D: Yes (Fair Drug Pricing)

——-
I strongly agree with your NO on B and C endorsements . 8 Washington sets a horrible precedent by raising heights on the northern waterfront for the first time in 50 years just to let a developer build $3 million to $5 million condos that will serve as 2nd and 3rd homes for millionaires. This just encourages more of the same. But there’s an even better reason to oppose it.

One of the biggest financial beneficiaries of 8 Washington is the owner of the 1,200 rent controlled units at the Golden Gateway Apartments. He owns 80% of the 8 Washington site, keeps a third of it after the project is built and makes a $12-$15 million profit out of the deal. This is the same guy who has converted 100+ rent controlled apartments to hotel use at his Golden Gateway and used a loophole in state tax law to stiff San Francisco out of $25 million in property taxes, money that could have funded affordable housing, schools, teachers, etc.

Voting NO on B and C sends a message to our elected officials that they must stop bending the rules for people who build second homes for millionaires, destroy rent controlled apartments the city needs and use questionable tax loopholes to cheat the city out of millions in tax dollars they rightfully owe.

Vote NO on B and C and tell your friends.

Thanks for your help,

Brad
——-
…not all groups are in favor of Prop A, there is some sneaky language embedded there that could allow the City to get a hold of the funds. I know some politicians came out for it but they thought every one was for it and didn’t learn about the opposition’s positions until after they came out in favor. The fact that so many business interests support it should raise some red flags. Many people I know are voting no or not voting at all on this issue. I also just didn’t vote for Carmen Chu, since she is the only candidate it is mostly a protest vote. Linda