info@sftu.org 415-282-6622

Endorsements for 2017 and 2016 Elections

January 8, 2017, Assembly District 17 Delegates for Reform Democrats

Realtor influence at the California state level produced mass displacement through Costa Hawkins and the Ellis Act. The association of realtors’ continued influence, along with big money donors continue to keep us from being able to fight these laws at the state AND local level.

The Tenants Union endorsed the Reform Democrat slate of delegates in Assembly District 17 in order to fight for tenant rights in this city and across the state.

November 8, 2016 Election

Click here to get a printable PDF of our local choices

California State Senate, District 11
Jane Kim

jane-kim

District 1 Supervisor
Sandra Lee Fewer

1slf-sandra-lee-fewer-300x300

District 3 Supervisor
Aaron Peskin

peskin

District 5 Supervisor
Dean Preston

Dean-Preston

District 7 Supervisor
Norman Yee

norman-yee

District 9 Supervisor
Hillary Ronen

ronen

District 11 Supervisor
Kimberly Alvarenga

Kimberly-Alvarenga

Superior Court Judge, Office No. 7
Victor Hwang

hwang

City College Board
Shanell Williams

shanell

City College Board
Tom Temprano

temprano

City College Board
Rafael Mandelman

rafael_mandelman_hs

Board of Education
Stevon Cook

stevon-cook

Board of Education
Matt Haney

haney

SAN FRANCISCO BALLOT MEASURES

VOTE NO on O, P & U – NO TO DEVELOPER GIVEAWAY$
VOTE NO on Q & R – NO TO CRIMINALIZING OUR POOR

tu-color-150

A: School Bonds – YES

B: City College Parcel Tax – YES

C: Loans to Finance Acquisition and Rehabilitation of Affordable Housing – YES!!!

This taps an unused city fund to allow the purchase and rehabilitation of apartment buildings. This will save many rent-controlled tenants their homes.

D: End Vacancy Appointments – YES!!!

Let’s elect our electeds. No more mayoral appointees when a Supervisor moves on mid-term. No more Julie Christensens or Katy Tangs foisted on us by moderate mayors.

E: Responsibility for the Maintenance of Street Trees – YES

F: Youth Voting in Local Elections – YES!

G: Police Oversight – No Position

We need real solutions that work towards defunding, disarming, and disbanding the SFPD all together. “Police reform” is not enough.

H: Public Advocate – YES!!

I: Funding for Seniors and Adults with Disabilities – YES

J: Funding for Homelessness and Transit – YES

K: General Sales Tax – No Position

L: MTA Appointments and Budget – YES!

M: Housing and Development Commission – YES!!!

Prop M lessens the mayor’s power over housing and economic development and hands it to a seven member commission. The mayor appoints only three.

N: Non-Citizen Voting in School Board Elections – YES

O: Office Development in Candlestick Point and Hunters Point – NO!!

The Lennar Prop M Exemption Initiative is a bad idea and will encourage speculation and gentrification in Bayview / Hunter’s Point. This last minute initiative continues a legacy of broken promises for jobs, housing and parks and will exacerbate the jobs/housing balance. There is nothing in Proposition O that makes sure new promises are achieved and will encourage other developers to seek more exemptions.

READ MORE ABOUT PROP O HERE

P: Less Affordable Housing Production on City-Owned Projects – NO!!!

Prop P creates no new housing. Instead, according to an objective analysis by the Mayor’s Office of Housing, this measure could “delay or forego much-needed affordable housing”through a complicated bidding process. This and Prop U are solely sponsored by the Real Estate Association–Vote NO on both!!

Q: Prohibiting Tents on Public Sidewalks – NO!!!

Are we to believe that people camp on streets by choice? This is a mean-spirited election season ploy which criminalizes being poor during a housing crisis. The houseless need access to real homes to leave the streets, not harassment and political grandstanding!

R: Neighborhood Crime Unit – NO!!!

S: Allocation of Hotel Tax Fund – YES

The hotel tax is already collected and remains the same with this proposition. This will simply set aside some of the revenue to support our endangered arts spaces and help homeless families find shelter.

T: Restricting Gifts and Campaign Contributions from Lobbyists Lobbyist Contributions and Bundling -
No Position

U: Developer Giveaway Requirements for Market Rate Development Projects – NO!!!

This item was put on the ballot by the real estate industry in order to co-opt “affordable housing.” It will double the income levels of those who qualify for inclusionary units to 110% Area Median Income who will compete for the same housing as low-income tenants. Evictions hit the low-income the hardest. A survey by the Tenants Unions found that of those who have ever faced eviction 69 percent earn less than $50,000 and 87 percent of respondents make less than the Area Median Income. By increasing the income levels, those who have the fewest options economically will have to wait even longer for help.

V: Tax on Distributing Sugar-Sweetened Beverages – NO

We believe this a regressive tax and not targeted enough to make a difference in soda consumption. As a TU collective member said: ” Poor people are punished for drinking soda. The rich can do what they want.” Besides economic justice, we are concerned that the revenue raised goes into the black hole of the General Fund, with no guarantee it will be spent on improving health.
If you truly want to curb consumption of sugar in society or combat disease, there are better ways: Regulate the manufacturers at the federal level, not the consumers who often have few nutritious options. Or pass single-payer healthcare. Or tax the One Percent and spend that money on education and increasing access to healthy food options in poorer neighborhoods. We understand the spirit here, but disagree on the tool.

W: Real Estate Transfer Tax on Properties Over $5 Million – Yes!!

The revenue raised will go toward making City College free like it once was.

X: Preserving Space for Neighborhood Arts, Small Businesses and Community Services in Certain Neighborhoods – YES

Preserve spaces for the arts and industrial jobs. No more luxury condos at the expense of spaces for the working class.

RR: BART Bond – No Position

STATE MEASURES

55: Extend Tax on the One Percent to Fund Education and Healthcare – YES

57: Parole for Non-Violent Criminals and Juveniles – YES

If passed, people in prison could earn credit toward their sentences by working on rehabilitation in education, vocational training, and treatment. It would also slow the flow of children into adult courts by taking away the authority of District Attorneys to decide the fate of a child, and instead having judges determine whether a youth gets the help available in the juvenile system or faces adult prison terms.

59: Overturn Citizens United – YES!!

62: Repeal California’s Death Penalty – YES

Recent concerns about Prop 62 raised by A Living Chance: a storytelling project of California Coalition for Women Prisoners (CCWP) make this addendum necessary to include. In brief, they caution the framing of Prop 62’s endorsement of life without parole (LWOP) as an “alternative” to the death penalty and Prop 66. They make clear LWOP is “the other death penalty.” Abolishing the death penalty is a necessary step towards freeing all prisoners, but it cannot be used to justify and strengthen other forms of slow death, which LWOP is. Both LWOP AND the death penalty must be abolished. We stand in solidarity with CCWP. Our “Yes” endorsement must be clarified given CCWP’s statement.

Their full statement can be read here.

66: Faster Death Penalty – NO!!!

Designed to speed up executions of inmates on death row. Proposition 66 limits the ability to present new evidence. 160 innocent Californians have been put to death and later exonerated; this will increase their numbers.

64: Decriminalizes the Growing and Sale of Marijuana – YES

NORML writes: “AUMA will not be the last word on marijuana reform; further changes in state and federal law will be needed to guarantee affordable medical access, protect employment and housing rights, facilitate banking and allow interstate commerce. Regardless of these problems, AUMA compares favorably to similar legalization measures in other states. If California voters approve AUMA, the pressure for federal marijuana law reform could finally become irresistible to politicians in Washington; if not, it will no doubt be interpreted as a major setback for marijuana reform at the national level.”


The SF Tenants Union is supported by your memberships and donations. If you find information on this web site useful, or if you want to support our work, please join or donate. Members get even more information via our Tenants Rights Handbook plus access to phone counseling.
Join or Donate By Credit or Debit Card