All posts by Brian Leubitz

The Disaster that is SF MTA

Today is November 18.  Exactly ten days after Prop D, which would alter the appointments to the MUNI board, was defeated.  The MTA has been operating without an Executive Director.  Apparently, there are still some people who want the job:

The general manager of Atlanta’s transit system is the front-runner to head The City’s transportation agency, city officials close to the decision said this week.

The Municipal Transportation Agency, which oversees Muni and the Department of Parking and Traffic and its $600 million annual budget, has been without a chief since Executive Director Michael Burns stepped down in July.

Nathaniel Ford Sr., formerly a midlevel manager at BART, is the lead candidate on a short list that includes acting Executive Director Stuart Sunshine. (SF Examiner 11/18/05)

Why anybody would want that job is beyond me, especially considering there is already(!) mud being flung.

Ken Rodriguez, president of the union representing Muni’s field managers, agreed with Sisk, saying it will be difficult for an outsider to navigate San Francisco’s tricky politics.

“Unless he’s a genius, I don’t believe he’ll be successful in San Francisco,” Rodriguez said, pointing out that Burns was also an outsider.

Personally, I don’t think the problems from “being an outsider” are really key here.  The problem is that service is atrocious.  And recent cuts in service (somehow timed at the same time as fare increases) have made the situation far worse.  I have waited for 10 minutes, IN A PACKED CAR, in the subway tunnels.  To say I felt like cattle would be an understatement.  And today this, from a letter written by Be_devine to Supervisor Dufty:

Today began as most days in the past few months.  Upon arrival at the Castro MUNI station at 7:20 a.m., the inbound platform was overflowing with people.  A few minutes later a one-car train arrived, but it was completely packed.  Perhaps two of the people from the Castro station were able to get on the train.  The computer voice from the sky promised the angry crowd that another one car train would arrive in five minutes.  Little solace.

Indeed, another one-car train did arrive five minutes later as promised.  This car, like the last, was completely full.  And so it went on.  A total of six trains passed by, all completely full.  Late for work, tired of being shoved by the crowd, and wondering why I didn’t drive to work, I was finally able to shove my way on the seventh train that arrived over 30 minutes after I arrived at the station.  I left behind a huge crowd of people still waiting on the platform for their chance to shove themselves onto a packed train.  It took me over an hour to travel the 4 miles to my office.

Since the service cuts and fare hikes, this is now business at usual at MUNI.  It seems the City is begging people to stop using this failed system and instead find another more reliable means of transportation.  It is working.  I no longer consider MUNI a reliable method of transportation.  If I need to be somewhere on time, I likely will look to another means of transportation – like a car.  It is a shame that San Francisco has created a system that encourages people to use cars instead of public transit.

What can be done?  Well, certainly shifting power from the mayor to the Board will have little power on the net result.  We need a leader who can look at the situation as a business, optimize ridership and  make this an effective transit system.  If that is raising the fares, so be it.  An ineffective system does nobody good.

Who’s Paying for this Junket?

( – promoted by SFBrianCL)

Image hosted by Photobucket.com Photo credit: Sacramento Bee/ Brian Baer

Arnold’s in a hurry to get somewhere, to get things done…in China.  Well, That’s all well and good, but who is paying for this little post-election duldrums trip to China?  Well, not the taxpayers, as you might expect.  Apparently, the “California Protocol Foundation” is paying for this little jaunt to the Reddest of Red States:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s office on Friday released the names of the business delegation traveling to China with him next month, but it’s still not clear how much the trip will cost taxpayers or anonymous donors being asked to help pay the bills.

Schwarzenegger, his wife, Maria Shriver, more than two dozen members of the governor’s administration and about 80 business leaders will travel to China for a weeklong trade mission that begins Nov. 14.

Many costs for Schwarzenegger and his aides will be paid by the tax-exempt California Protocol Foundation, which is soliciting contributions of up to $50,000 from business donors.

But the foundation, run under the auspices of the California Chamber of Commerce, isn’t legally required to disclose its donors and is keeping its contributor list secret. (Sac Bee 11/13/05)

$50,000! Without anybody knowing, without the ability to discuss this cash flow to the governor?  it is quite ridiculous for business special interests to have this type of access to the governor.  

How much longer do we have to hear him talk about cleaning up Sacramento and then watch him take special interest money while he thinks nobody is looking.  If he wants to make real reform in Sacramento, perhaps he should look in the mirror first.

The Future of Calitics, What I’d like for 2006

Coming off the defeating the terrible special election, I think Calitics is looking for a direction.  With that in mind, I thought I’d look into what sort of goals progressives have statewide.  I’ll do a post on more local issues soon.

If you know of any candidate that would like to be featured here, contact me ( brian (at) calitics (dot) com ).  I’ll do a FP article on them, and hopefully get the grassroots moving a little bit.

Check out the extended for some discussion of races of note, and please let me know about races that I missed.

In terms of Congress: We have few competitive races in 2006.  I will be focusing on those that are, with occasional peeks at other races which might not be competitive but would be interesting in for “principle” candidates.  I certainly want to closely track the Pombo race and the race to replace the DukeStir.  Please point out other races where we should be focusing.

State elections:
Governor: First, we have to get through the primary.  Personally, I haven’t gotten off my fence.  Both Angelides and Westly are good candidates, but not particularly thrilling.  While Reiner and Beatty are intriguing, personally, I’d prefer experience that the two announced candidates bring to the table.

Lt. Gov: I had a chance to meet Liz Figueroa for the first time last night.  She definitely brings a lot of enthusiasm to the equation.  However, Jackie Speier and John Garamendi are also great candidates.  I suppose it is one of the results of term limits that we have so many good candidates for one position.

Other Races:
There will be interesting primaries for other races as well.  Bill Lockyer seems to be the favorite for treasurer right now.  Insurance Commissioner will also be up for grabs.

I feel that Calitics is a great forum to focus on statewide and single district races.  If you know of anybody at any campaign, have them contact me.  I want to work to build the visibility of every progressive candidate in California, in as many races as possible.  Every position is important, from dog catcher to governor.  Let’s work to get our candidates elected next November!

Links to as many polls from the Special election as I can find

Field Poll

Arnold’s Props:
Field Poll for 74-77 (Nov 1)

Field Poll for 74-77 + 80 (Sep 5)

74, 76, 77 (June 21, 2005)

Special election in general (feb 24, 2005)

73, 78, 79

Field Poll for 73, 78, 79 (nov. 2)

Field Poll for 73, 78, 79 (sep. 6)

Field Poll for 73, 78, 79 +75 (June 22, 2005)

PPIC Polls

October 2005

September 2005

August 2005


LA Times Poll (Nov 1)

Polimetrix

November 6, 2005 Special election Poll

October 31, 2005 Special Election Poll

Validation (?) of Polimetrix techniques

Stanford/Knowledge Ventures Poll (Oct 18)

Survey USA

Nov. 6, 2005

First, Proposition 73. Proposition 73 requires that physicians notify the parent of a pregnant minor at least 48 hours before…

  Q
 Next, Proposition 74. Proposition 74 extends the probationary period for new teachers from 2 years to 5 years, and makes it easier to…

  Q
 Next, Proposition 75. Proposition 75 prohibits public employee unions from using union dues for political purposes without the written…

  Q
 Next, Proposition 76. Proposition 76 limits growth in state spending so that it does not exceed recent growth in state revenues.  The…

  Q
 Finally, Proposition 77. Proposition 77 changes the way California draws boundaries for Congressional and legislative districts….

Nov 1, 2005

First, Proposition 73. Proposition 73 requires that physicians notify the parent of a pregnant minor at least 48 hours before…

  Q
 Next, Proposition 74. Proposition 74 extends the probationary period for new teachers from 2 years to 5 years, and makes it easier to…

  Q
 Next, Proposition 75. Proposition 75 prohibits public employee unions from using union dues for political purposes without the written…

  Q
 (PROPOSITION 76 VERSION A, ORIGINAL SURVEYUSA SUMMARY, INCLUDES TRACKING GRAPHS FROM PREVIOUS RELEASES): Next, Proposition 76….

  Q
 (PROPOSITION 76 VERSION B, EXPANDED SURVEYUSA SUMMARY, NO TRACKING DATA AVAILABLE):  Next, Proposition 76. Proposition 76 limits…

  Q
 (PROPOSITION 76 VERSION C: FURTHER EXPANDED SURVEYUSA SUMMARY, NO TRACKING DATA AVAILABLE): Next, Proposition 76. Proposition 76…

  Q
 Finally, Proposition 77. Proposition 77 changes the way California draws boundaries for Congressional and legislative districts….

October 18, 2005

First, Proposition 73. Proposition 73 requires that physicians notify the parent of a pregnant minor at least 48 hours before…

  Q
 Next, Proposition 74. Proposition 74 extends the probationary period for new teachers from 2 years to 5 years, and makes it easier to…

  Q
 Next, Proposition 75. Proposition 75 prohibits public employee unions from using union dues for political purposes without the written…

  Q
 Next, Proposition 76. Proposition 76 limits growth in state spending so that it does not exceed recent growth in state revenues. If…

  Q
 Finally, Proposition 77. Proposition 77 changes the way California draws boundaries for Congressional and legislative districts….

October 3, 2005

First, Proposition 73. Proposition 73 requires that physicians notify the parent of a pregnant minor at least 48 hours before…

  Q
 Next, Proposition 74. Proposition 74 extends the probationary period for new teachers from 2 years to 5 years, and makes it easier to…

  Q
 Next, Proposition 75. Proposition 75 prohibits public employee unions from using union dues for political purposes without the written…

  Q
 Next, Proposition 76. Proposition 76 limits growth in state spending so that it does not exceed recent growth in state revenues. If…

  Q
 Finally, Proposition 77. Proposition 77 changes the way California draws boundaries for Congressional and legislative districts….

Polling accuracy in general:

The Big Chart from SUSA

Dan Weintraub at Sac Bee:

Polling accuracy

These two charts are from SurveyUSA. I have not checked the math, but they purport to average the “error rate” by the six pollsters that surveyed the special election. The first chart looks at only the five props that SurveyUSA polled, and how all the pollsters did on those measures. The second chart looks at each outfit’s rate for all the props they polled. Note that many pollsters would quibble at the use of the word “error” since they consider their surveys to be snapshots in time which, unless taken on election day, can never be said to be wrong. Also note that the much maligned Field Poll does pretty well using either measure. And see my added note below regarding the PPIC.

PROPS 73-77 ONLY
POLLSTER AVG. ERROR

Field 3.36
SurveyUSA 5.32
PPIC 5.76
Stanford/KN 5.96
Polimetrix 6.24
LA Times 7.44

BY ALL PROPS POLLED
NO. POLLSTER ERROR

5 SurveyUSA 5.32
8 Field 6.05
7 Polimetrix 7.20
8 LA Times 7.85
8 Stanford/KN 8.80
7 PPIC 9.57

NOTE: Mark Baldassare at PPIC notes in an email that the poll used in this comparison for the first chart came out of the field 16 days before the election, and some of the results in the second chart reflct a poll that was completed 50 days before the election. He is right that it’s not fair to compare those results to polls that were done within days of the vote. But it’s also true that the media and political players cite his polls as reflecting the state of mind of the voters right up until Election Day, so it’s worth reminding folks that, in most cases, the data they are citing is quite old.

A new Redistricting plan?

Personally, I don’t think that we should redistrict until 2010 census data is released.  But some sort of redistring reform is going to happen:

LOS ANGELES (AP) – Despite voters’ rejection of Proposition 77, the Legislature’s top leaders are promising to try to get a new plan on the ballot as early as next June that would strip lawmakers of the powerful job of drawing legislative and congressional districts.

“I’m more than open to a redistricting effort which takes the power to draw boundaries from the Legislature and gives it to a truly independent group,” Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles, said Wednesday.

He wouldn’t discuss details but said a fresh proposal would be unveiled shortly.

Well, nothing in there as to an actual plan, but Arnold’s team already gets snippy about it:

“We hope he’s sincere about it,” said Rob Stutzman, a spokesman for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. “We hope it doesn’t include him maintaining control over how districts are drawn.”

I guess what really disappoints me about this crap is the tone.  I thought the Gov was going to try to be more contrite, and not try to bully people anymore. (That is kinda mandatory now as he realizes that he can’t run to the voters everytime he’s disappointed with the legislatures).  But the rehtoric is still there I suppose.  Some things never die.

However, there does seem to be one plan that is actually on the table.  

That measure could be a constitutional amendment by state Sen. Alan Lowenthal, D-Long Beach, that’s awaiting a vote next year in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

In its current form, it would create a seven-member commission to draw new districts after each census, starting in 2010. The governor, the Legislature’s top four leaders, the California Judicial Council and University of California president would each appoint one commission member.

It passed the Senate elections committee in July but then stalled when Democrats and Schwarzenegger couldn’t work out compromises on redistricting and the other ballot measures pushed by the Republican governor.

If approved by lawmakers, it would go on the ballot next June or November.

Any deal on a redistricting measure could include an agreement that would liberalize lawmakers’ term limits, which now allow senators to serve no more than 8 years, and Assembly members no more than 6 years.

Now, I’m not sure about this plan.  It does seem a little strange.  The Prez of Cal?  Why not Cal State? Or the Secretary of State? Or the Insurance Commissioner.  All in all though, I think it is a reasonable plan.  

My problem with it is the term limits that they want to loosen.  Now, I’m actually for a loosening  in term limits.  I think it creates an atmosphere where taking a stand is more valued than compromise to get things done.  It doesn’t allow the maturation of legislators into legislative leaders. But, what do term limits have to do with redistricting?  In order for a redistricting measure to pass, it needs to be simple.  I don’t know if somebody wants to sink redistricting by adding term limit reform, but that would be my hunch.

I’ll have to look at Lowenthal’s plan in more detail, but it sounds promising.

Why 73 Failed (in response to redstate)

I wrote this in response to this diary reflecting on the loss of 73 at redstate, but I think it stands on its own well enough.

1) The Special election itself was a bad forum for any proposition.  Normally, special elections get low turnout, but because of the way Arnold handled himself, there was high turnout. 6.6 million was way too high for any of the conservative props to pass.  People were motivated to make sure props didn’t pass.  Heck, both 78 & 79 failed.  You would figure that at least one of those would have pass.  There was a presumption towards no on tuesday.

Conservatives are outnumbered in the state.  If 73 was going to pass it needed to have people who came in to vote for just it.  If that were the case, 73 would have at least slightly more votes.  That was not the case:

Prop  #votes
73  6595691
74  6649942
75  6643506
76  6637715
77  6594017
78  6541956
79  6474566
80  6371500

2) Arnold was not going to help anybody.  Arnold didn’t appear on commercials for his own propositions.  He had several other speakers arguing for his propositions, 1 by 1.  But the only ad he did himself in the weeks leading up to the election was one timed to pull news away from a bad poll.

California is a pro-choice state. It would be near impossible for a true pro-life governor to be elected.  Arnold isn’t a social conservative himself, and one shouldn’t expect there to be a social conservative gov in CA for a while.

But I have one larger problem with your post:

 Contrast with Governor Schwarzenegger, who has more or less abandoned California conservatives wholesale. He is a leftist on the environment. He is a leftist on life issues. And he resolutely refuses to empower, appoint, or consistently consult with California conservatives in the course of his governance. The inevitable result is Tuesday’s debacle.

Perhaps Arnold truely is a leftist(?) on those issues (note that Arnold did officialy endorse 73 though). Your statement that “moderation” is killing the GOP seems a bit harsh, to say the least. We have seen what happens when strict conservatives run in California:

Boxer (D) 6,955,728 57.8%
Jones (R) 4,555,922 37.8%

If parental notification is to pass, try just adding parental notification without all the strings that were in 73.  Now, I am pro-choice, and a “liberal”, but I actually think it would have had a chance if given better circumstances.

Results with Comparision to Polls

I’ll work on this more later today.  But for right now, here’s the data. Something is whack with the software, it doesn’t like the table or something.  Scroll down!fixed by Soapy (The Software is great! )


                 

                   

                   

                   

                   

                   

                   

                   

                 

Proposition Yes Votes yes % No Votes No % Field Poll (Oct 05) Stanford (Oct 05) PPIC (Oct 05) SUSA (Nov 05)
 73 N Minor’s Pregnancy312934047.4346514652.641/4954/4642/4851/47
 74 N Teacher Tenure 298628744.9366242955.144/50 49/5146/4848/51
 75 N Public Union Dues309171346.5355056353.540/5070/3046/4645/54
 76 N Spending/Funding252170937.9 411478762.132/6030/7030/6239/59
 77 N Redistricting 267288240.5 391991959.535/51 50/5036/5041/56
 78 N Rx Drug Discounts 271937541.5 382138358.536/4559/41n/an/a
 79 N Rx Drug Rebates 252341938.9 394994261.137/4358/42n/an/a
 80 N Electric Regulation  218878634.3 418153665.733/33 (Sep’05)37/63n/an/a

Results…And Poll Comparisons

From about 10:15, Kos is apparently able to get through to the Statewide resuls:


For comparison’s sake, I’m putting in some poll numbers here with the current numbers.  First the Field Poll, then the Stanford/Hoover Institute:
Precincts: 48.9% reporting

Proposition 73: Minor’s pregnancy

Yes 49.4
No 50.5
Field: 41/49
Stanford: 54/46

Proposition 74: Teacher’s tenure

Yes 47.6
No 52.4

Field:44/50
Stanford: 49/51
PPIC: 46/48

Proposition 75: Public union dues

Yes 50.5
No 49.5

Field: 40/50
Stanford: 70/30
PPIC: 46/46

Proposition 76: Spending limits

Yes 40.3
No 59.7

Field: 32/60
Stanford: 30/70
PPIC: 30/62

Proposition 77: Redistricting

Yes 43.3
No 56.7

Field: 35/51
Stanford: 50/50
PPIC: 36/50

Proposition 78: Drug discounts (Rx industry backed)

Yes 41.9
No 58.1

Field: 36/45
Stanford: 59/41

Proposition 79: Drug discounts (consumer groups backed)

Yes 38.9
No 61.1

Field: 37/43
Stanford: 58/42

I’ll try to get some more info as soon as I can, but it appears that the California Secretary of State website is being overloaded.  


SF Results


Alameda County (PDF)

LA County Results

Statewide (Was down as of 9:30pm)

UPDATE: AP Called No on 79 and 80 at 9:15


UPDATEProp 74 and 75 are slightly towards yes, but without the liberal strongholds.  75 was at 55% yes.  Willie Brown (he’s on KRON4 in SF) says that we’ll have to wait until LA and SF are in though to call anything.  

6.8 Million Expected to vote, Record Absentee turnout expected

I won’t spend too much time on this Field Poll on Turnout for the special election, as I need to get back into the field for more GOTV precinct walking.  It’s all over the news, including the cover of the San Francisco Chronicle:

An estimated 6.8 million Californians are expected to go to the polls today despite early concerns — and Republican hopes — that the all-initiative special election would be largely ignored by voters.

Voters will decide statewide measures on issues ranging from teacher tenure to the costs of prescription drugs in an election that already has generated spending of more than $300 million and is among the most expensive campaigns in California history.

You heard that right.  $300 million for this stupid election.  They could have just given every voter $25 and saved the change for education. Or not, I guess Arnold’s priorities are different than ours.  All the more reason to ensure that we defeat the props today and Arnold in 2006.

Also, I’m not sure what to make of the absentee turnout numbers, which may rise to as high as 40%.  In theory absentee votes trend a little more on the conservative side, soo it does seem a little scary.  However, in this election, I don’t think you can apply the conventional wisdom.  I will be disecting the numbers after the election.  Hopefully, I’ll be able to provide a full roundup of trends, turnout, voting patterns, etc.

Brian’s Endorsements

These endorsements represent nothing but my own views.  Take them for what it’s worth.

For some other recommendations see:

LA Times Survey of Newspaper Endorsements

SF Chronicle

LA Weekly (also, Ezra Klein)

SF Bay Guardian

Alice B. Toklas LGBT Club (w/ SF recommendations)

Plan C SF (SF Moderates) (PDF) (SF-related only)

California Propositions

Prop  73 – Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy: No

73 defines a fetus as a person and allows for the prosecution of an illegally preformed abortion.  It sets a bad precedent in the battles to come. No on 73.

Prop 74: Public School Teachers. Waiting Period for Permanent Status. Dismissal. : NO

Teachers work very hard.  Tenure provides only due process, not the guarantee of a job.  We owe at least that much to teachers.  Vote NO on 74.

Prop 75: Public Employee Union Dues. Restrictions on Political Contributions. Employee Consent Requirement. NO

There are several reasons that I don’t like 75.  First, it weakens unions unnecssarily.  Union members already have the easy option to opt-out of political spending.  Also, 75 only addresses unions.  If this was truly about transparency, corporate donations would also be addressed. You can’t take the voice away from workers and leave corporate voices to scream in Sacramento.  No on 75.

Prop 76: State Spending and School Funding Limits. NO

The Governor, especially this governor, does not need these additional powers.  It makes the governor far more powerful than California’s founding fathers envisioned, to the detriment of the seperation of powers between the legislature and the governor. No on 76.

Prop 77: Redistricting: NO

We need redistricting reform.  However, 77 is not the way to do it.  It is an unclear and bizarre means of redistricting.  We need fair redistricting, with time for public input.  No on 77.

Prop 78: Discounts on Prescription Drugs. NO

Big Pharma’s response to what they say as the danger of Prop 79.  79 is a better plan.  Vote No on 78.

Prop 79: Prescription Drug Discounts. State-Negotiated Rebates.Yes.

79 gives real teeth to the prescription drug discounts by requiring the companies to deal with the State’s large bargaining power.  There are also good enforcement provisions to make sure the drug companies follow the law.  Vote YES on 79.

Prop 80: Electric Service Providers. Regulation: No Recommendation

I know many progressives are in support of 80, but I cannot endorse it myself.  It seems hastily assembled and too complicated for most voters.  I think this is an issue that is best dealt with in the legislature.

San Francisco City Officials

San Francisco Treasurer: Jose Cisneros ~ A highly qualified treasurer with the added benefits of being an openly gay city official.

San Francisco Assessor:
1st Choice: Phil Ting ~ A good manager.  Very supportive of LGBT rights.

2nd Choice: Ron Chun ~ A skilled tax attorney

San Francisco City Attorney: Dennis Herera: Has fought hard for the rights of the city and its citizens.  He deserves re-election.

San Francisco Initiatives

More information from the City

A – Community College District General Obligation Bonds  Yes

CCSF needs additional funding to help train the city’s workforce.

B – Street and Sidewalk Improvement Bond  No.  Reform the Department of Public Works and its funding first.  Then, if we still need more money, we can talk.

C – Ethics Commission Budget and Outside Counsel. No, This is a decision for the Board of Supervisors.  Stop bothering the voters with these issues.

D – Appointment of Municipal Transportation Agency Board of Directors  No.  This just shifts power to the Board of Supervisors.  It is nothing more than a power grab by the Supes.

E – Election Date of the Assessor – Recorder and Public Defender  Yes.  Common sense adjustment to conform with ranked choice voting.

F – Neighborhood Firehouses. No.  The Board and Mayor have already reviewed the issue.  It should remain in their hands.

G – Access to Underground Parking at Golden Gate Park  Yes, I would love to be able to park at the Park finally.  This is a reasonable accomadation of all sides.

H – Firearm Ban  No. Constitutionally questionable and ineffective.  It will end up costing us money in legal bills.

I – No Military Recruiters in Public Schools, Scholarships for Education and Job Training.

No Recommendation: Military Recruiters shouldn’t be in our schools, but this proposal risks No Child Left Behind Funding.  How much is it worth to you?