(Oakland checking in! – promoted by Dante Atkins (hekebolos))

(Cross-posted at Living in the O.)

This morning, after some bus mishaps (omg, I can’t wait for BRT!), my girlfriend and I arrived in front of Oakland City Hall for the Join the Impact rally for equal rights. It was a beautiful sunny day, and it was great to see thousands of advocates gathered in Frank Ogawa Plaza.

The crowd was incredibly diverse – filled with people of every age, gender, race, and sexual orientation. And there were so many families – kids everywhere! It was great to run into so many people I know and to see so many others I’d never met before. Serendipitously, one of the first people I ran into was Matthew, my precinct walking partner on election day. We formed a special bond that day, a bond that can only be formed by going door to door in a hilly precinct where most doors were up several flights of stairs. It was so great to see that the election results hadn’t gotten him down too much and that he was still working towards marriage equality.

Several LGBT leaders gave moving speeches throughout the day, but the star of the show was Coby, a boy whose parents started an LGBT family coalition. He started off saying that for many years he didn’t know that there were people who didn’t approve of his parents’ union. He didn’t realize that his family was different from others because, well, they’re his family. Coby went on to explain that when he heard kids at his school make fun of gay people, he thought it was because they didn’t understand what it meant to be gay. His mothers then made an effort to educate the students at his school, and ultimately, he thought that kids understood this issue more than many adults and should have more say in our society.

After him and his mother spoke, the rally organizer introduced Rebecca Kaplan, Oakland Council Member-elect who is the first out lesbian to be elected to the city council. She talked about how strange election night was, and her story closely mirrored my own election night emotional roller coaster ride. At 8:00pm, Rebecca found out that Obama had been elected president, and shortly after that she found out that she had won her council seat with 62% of the vote. So for the next three hours, she celebrated, joining hundreds of people spontaneously partying in the streets of downtown Oakland. But then she started to face the fact that Prop 8 was going to pass. Rebecca spent the next day crying, wondering at the irony that she was just elected to the council but was also stripped of her human rights. She ended her speech by saying that this fight for equality is not about fighting against faith. After all, her own faith tells her not to eat pork, but she’s not forcing that rule onto others. After speaking, she lifted her shofar (a ram’s horn) and blew loudly, as the crowd erupted into cheers.

Sean Sullivan, who ran for an Oakland City Council seat in June and who currently is the development director for Equality California, was up next. He started off talking about the myth that has been spread around that Prop 8 was about blacks vs whites. Sean reminded us that Fox News had started spreading this myth, but that it is not the case. All you had to do was look around the diverse crowd in Oakland this morning to see how right he was about this. Sean then delved into the history of this fight, explaining that Equality California has been working for years to secure the right for same-sex couples to marry. He  said that the fight is not over – they’re currently taking this fight to the California Supreme Court and preparing to put an initiative on the ballot in 2010. Sean implored all of us to join this fight because it won’t be an easy one – we’ll need everyone who cares working hard to help make marriage equality a reality.

It was a very inspiring day for me and helped bring some amount of closure to the mixed emotions I’ve been feeling since election night. After seeing such energy in Oakland, and reading about incredible rallies throughout the country, I feel confident that we will overturn Proposition 8 and restore equality in California and beyond.

My girlfriend and I took hundreds of photos, but here are some of my favorites:

For a bunch more incredible photos of the Oakland Join the Impact rally, check out The Inadvertent Gardener’s Flickr page.

DAN KALB’S NOV. ’08 BALLOT RECOMMENDATIONS

PRESIDENT \ V.P. – BARACK OBAMA \ Joe Biden

This will be a close race!  Phone-banking to swing states-including Colorado-continues at your local Obama or United Democratic Campaign headquarters.  Go to http://my.barackobama.com/page… to find the Obama office near you.  

U.S. Congress – C.D. #s 1-53 – Vote for the Democrat in your district!  

IF you live in one of these two districts, please volunteer/contribute to your candidate’s campaign:

 ~  C.D.  #4 – Charlie Brown  [www.charliebrownforcongress.org] – This district is our best chance to turn a red district blue in California this year.  He is running against Tom McClintock, the most ideologically conservative legislator in the state and a carpetbagger from Southern California.  Charlie Brown, he’s “a good man.”

 ~  C.D. #11 – Jerry McNerney  [www.jerrymcnerney.org] – The Democrats, with tremendous grassroots activism, took this seat two years ago, but the Republicans are spending huge amounts of money to take it back.  Let’s make sure we send Mr. McNerney, a leader in renewable energy, back to Congress.  

California State Senate:

~ S.D.  #3 – Mark Leno

~ S.D.  #5 – Lois Wolk [www.loiswolk.com] – This is an open seat that we must keep in the Democratic column.

~ S.D.  #7 – Mark DeSaulnier

~ S.D.  #9 – Loni Hancock – Since I live in this district, I will take this opportunity to say that we are very fortunate to have Loni representing Oakland and other East Bay communities in the St. Senate.  Among her accomplishments, she was successful this year in getting passed and signed into law a ‘Clean Money’ pilot program.

~ S.D. #11 – Joe Simitian

~ S.D. #19 – Hannah-Beth Jackson [www.jackson4senate.com] – This district is our best hope at picking up a Democratic seat in the St. Senate.  Please do what you can to help her win against a very conservative opponent who is misleading voters about his own record.  

~ S.D. #23 – Fran Pavley

~ S.D. #27 – Alan Lowenthal

~ S.D. #39 – Christine Kehoe

California State Assembly – A.D. #s 1-80 – Vote for the Democrat in your district!  IF you live or work in one of the following districts, please volunteer/contribute to your candidate’s campaign.  These are expected to be very close races.  

~ A.D. #10 – Alyson Huber – www.alysonhuber.com

~ A.D. #15 – Joan Buchanan – www.joanbuchanan.com – If you live in the Bay Area and want to help the Democrats gain seats in our state legislature, please contact the Buchanan campaign and help in any way possible.  925-806-0560

~ A.D. #26 – John Eisenhut – www.johneisenhut.com

~ A.D. #65 – Carl Wood – www.wood4assembly.org

~ A.D. #78 – Marty Block – www.martyblock.com

~ A.D. #80 – Manuel V. Perez – www.manuelperezforassembly.com

LOCAL RACES:

Oakland City Council (at-large seat) – REBECCA KAPLAN –

Rebecca is exactly the type of person we need on the Oakland City Council.  She is smart, progressive, experienced and accomplished.  She will shake things up on the city council and move it in a more progress-oriented direction.  She is a former civil rights attorney, policy advocate, environmental activist, and yes, a ‘community organizer’.  She understands the array of issues facing Oakland residents and will work hard to make Oakland a more safe and livable city.  She is well-known for being able to work with a broad cross-section of people and personalities.  Currently, she’s an elected member of the A/C Transit Board of Directors.  She is endorsed by the Alameda County Democratic Party, the MGO Democratic Club, the Sierra Club, East Bay Young Dems, Assembly Member Sandre Swanson, Supervisors Keith Carson and Nate Miley, and a wide array of organizations, elected officials and community leaders.  www.kaplanforoakland.org

Mayor, City of Berkeley – TOM BATES – Mayor Bates has shown leadership and brought people together to get things done in Berkeley.  He’s endorsed by Congresswoman Barbara Lee, the Sierra Club, and a broad range of organizations, public officials and community leaders.  See www.tombates.org/index.htm for details on his priorities.  

Judge – Superior Court (Alameda County seat #9) – DENNIS HAYASHI –

Dennis, a public interest attorney, is highly qualified to be a superior court judge.  He is a former attorney with the Asian Law Caucus, and was director of the Office of Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under President Clinton.  He was also the director of the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing.  We desperately need more public interest attorneys as judges.  He is endorsed by the Sierra Club, the Alameda County Democratic Lawyers Club, former Attorney General Bill Lockyer, and numerous state and local elected officials, as well as several judges.  Dennis will make a superb Superior Court judge.   www.dennishayashi.com

San Francisco County Supervisors:

   District  #1 – ERIC MAR – Eric is an elected member of the S.F. Board of Education, a civil rights attorney, college lecturer, and long-time progressive political activist.  He’s been recognized for his civic involvement, leadership, and passionate advocate for human and civil rights.  He is committed to working at City Hall and in the Richmond district for working families, thriving neighborhoods, and responsive local government.  To volunteer on his campaign, go to www.ericmar.com.

   District  #3 – DAVID CHIU (rank #1) – As a former civil rights attorney, counsel to a U.S. Senate subcommittee, neighborhood activist and leader, former deputy district attorney, member of San Francisco’s Small Business Commission, affordable housing advocate, and Democratic Party activist, David has the breadth and depth of experience to be an excellent supervisor-responsive, innovative, smart ideas. http://votedavidchiu.org  

TONY GANTNER (rank #2) – Experienced neighborhood and environmental activist, Tony would also be a good Supervisor.  

   District  #4 – CARMEN CHU – She’s moderate-to-conservative by San Francisco standards, but this is the Sunset district and her principal opponent is even more conservative.  

   District  #5 – ROSS MIRKARIMI – Ross has been a very good supervisor for this district and he deserves reelection.  He reaches out to groups of people in his district and strives to develop and support innovative and compassionate ideas and proposals.  

   District  #7 – SEAN ELSBERND – Has only token opposition and will be reelected easily in this relatively moderate-to-conservative district.

   District  #9 – no recommendation – Many good progressive candidates in this district, including David Campos and Mark Sanchez.

   District #11 – JULIO RAMOS (rank #1) – Julio is an attorney, elected member of the San Francisco Community College Bd. of Trustees, an experienced trial lawyer, and former Coro Fellow.  I’ve known Julio for nearly 10 years and I’m confident that he would be an excellent county supervisor.  He’s progressive, compassionate, and is committed to focusing his energy on crime prevention, services to seniors, helping at-risk youth, improving neighborhoods and creating clean streets, and expanding educational opportunities for local residents. www.julioramos.org

JOHN AVALOS (rank #2) – Former supervisorial aide, Avalos would also be a good county supervisor.  

BART Bd. of Directors

   Tom Radulovich (district 9) – Smart environmental leader.  He’s been a very good BART director.  

A.C. Transit Bd. of Directors

   Chris Peeples (at-large)

   Greg Harper (ward 2)

East Bay Municipal Utility District Bd. of Directors

   Doug Linney (ward 5) – Environmental leader on the EBMUD Board.  Certainly deserves reelection.  

East Bay Regional Parks District Bd. of Directors

   Norman LaForce (ward 1) – Norman has shown important leadership as a long-time advocate for parks.  He is currently the chapter chair of the Sierra Club and an experienced attorney for environmental causes.  He will be an excellent EBRPD board member.  

Trustee, Peralta Community College District

   Marlon McWilson (area 2)

San Francisco Community College District –

Several good candidates.  I recommend the following four candidates:

   Natalie Berg

   Milton Marks

   Chris Jackson

   Rodel Rodis

San Francisco Board of Education:

Several good candidates.  I recommend the following four candidates:

   Norman Yee

   Sandra L. Fewer

   Kimberly Wicoff

   Jill Wynns

City Council, Daly City – Judith Christensen – She’s a teacher, is supported by the environmental community, and she’s been a breath of fresh air on a stale city council.  She deserves re-election.  

Mayor, City of Fremont – Gus Morrison – Former Mayor Morrison would do a far better job as mayor once again than either the incumbent or his other opponent.  Vote to put Gus back in the Mayor’s office.  

City Council, Orinda – Victoria Smith – She’s done a good job on the Orinda City Council and deserves re-election.  Go to www.voteforvictoria.com for more information.  

Mayor, City of Sacramento – Heather Fargo – Mayor Fargo is running against a former Pro Basketball player who has no experience in government.  Her opponent is being put forth as a candidate by development interests who do not like Ms. Fargo’s policies.  She’ll do a better job than her challenger.  Vote to re-elect her.  For info on her priorities, experience and endorsements, or to volunteer, go to www.fargoformayor.com

Los Angeles County Bd. of Supervisors (2nd district) – Mark Ridley-Thomas –

Ridley-Thomas is the more progressive of the two candidates.  He is a former L.A. City Councilman and a current State Senator.  We will miss him in Sacramento, but he will make an excellent County Supervisor.  He is endorsed by the L.A. County Democratic Party, Sierra Club, Members of Congress Jane Harmon, Brad Sherman, Howard Berman, Hilda Solis, Planned Parenthood, and dozens of other elected officials and community leaders.  Go to www.ridley-thomas.com to learn more.  

Santa Clara County Bd. of Supervisors (2nd district) – Richard Hobbs – Endorsed by the Santa Clara County League of Conservation Voters and the local Sierra Club chapter.  That’s good enough for me.    

…Propositions follow…

 STATE PROPOSITIONS

1A – YES – High-Speed Train System for California.  $9.95 billion bond measure to fund construction of a long overdue high-speed rail system in California.  Additional monies would come from federal and private sources.  Once in operation, this will help reduce traffic on north-south major highways, reduce the need to expand airports, and help reduce the total output of greenhouse gases that might otherwise occur without such a train system.  You’ll be able to get from the L.A. area to San Francisco in about 2-¾ hours.  This expensive capital project that will be in existence for several decades or longer is just the type of project that bond measures were made for.  This has broad support from business leaders to the environmental community.  Go to www.californiahighspeedtrains.com for more information and please vote YES on 1A.  

2 – YES – Confined Farm Animals.  This initiative will ban some of the worst confinement practices of polluting confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), and is an important step in promoting a modern approach to agriculture that is productive, humane, and more healthful.  www.yesonprop2.com

3 – YES – Children’s Hospitals Bond.  $980 million bond measure to assist with construction and modernization of nonprofit children’s hospitals in California.  Up to 20% of the funds would go to University of California teaching hospitals throughout the state.  

4 – NO – Parental Notification and Waiting Period for Abortions by Minors.  This Constitutional Amendment would mandate that doctors deny an abortion to teenagers until the parent is notified and a waiting period has gone by. This measure creates onerous procedures for minors, including those in troubled families, to obtain a lawful abortion.  This election is the third time that this measure is on the ballot.  We defeated the previous two, and we need to defeat this one as well.  Vote No!

5 – YES – Nonviolent Drug Offenses and Rehabilitation.  This measure expands drug treatment diversion programs for criminal offenders, expands prison and parole anti-recidivism programs, and reduces certain penalties for marijuana possession.  It also creates a separate state cabinet level position in charge of rehabilitation (separate from the current Corrections department).  Also reduces parole time for certain nonviolent drug offenses and expands parole time for serious and violent felons.  This is an important initiative if we’re ever going to deal with overcrowded prisons and take meaningful steps to move people away from a life of crime.  Most crimes are committed by people who have committed crimes before.  If we can reduce the number of repeat offenders, we will be making great strides in reducing crime overall.  Vote Yes!

6 – NO – Law Enforcement Funding and Penalties.  Substantially increases state funding for law enforcement activities without identifying where that money will come from, which means it will require additional cuts in other services such as higher education, medi-cal and state parks.  Increases penalties for specified crimes, and allows hearsay testimony to be used more freely.  This initiative requires all public housing residents to have criminal background checks done on them annually.  It also changes the composition of the existing juvenile justice coordinating councils in each county by eliminating the requirement that the councils include representatives of community-based substance abuse treatment programs.   This proposition does many things and a few of them may seem appealing.  But overall, the initiative goes overboard and would be very costly to the state.  It would increase crowding in our prisons and jails, require cuts in other discretionary spending at a time when the budget has already been cut to the bone, and incarcerate juvenile offenders at a time when what we need more of is treatment and rehabilitation programs.  Most of this initiative takes us in the wrong direction.  The ACLU, Center for Juvenile and Criminal Justice, the Youth Law Center, the California Democratic Party, the L.A. City Council, the League of Women Voters and over 25 newspapers, among many others, urge a NO vote on Prop. 6. www.votenoprop6.com

7 – NO – Renewable Energy Statutory Changes.  This proposition purports to increase the generation of electricity from renewable resources, such as solar and wind.  However, this initiative was so poorly drafted and vetted that every major environmental group and virtually all of the renewable energy industry companies and associations in California are opposing it.  Prop. 7 put loopholes into the renewable energy statute for the first time-something the Legislature had rejected on more than one occasion.  It creates problems with the transmission siting process and creates a counter-productive cost policy that could actually discourage the development of large-scale solar projects.  It also has a provision that could shut out the small renewable energy company from being part of the solution.  Overall, it creates uncertainty at a tine when the renewable energy industry needs clarity.  There are too many flaws to list here.  Please join with the Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, Environment California, the CA League of Conservation Voters, the California Wind Energy Association, the Calif. Democratic Party, and over three dozen newspapers in opposing this well-intentioned, but wrong-headed initiative.  Vote NO! www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/no_on_prop_7.pdf

8 – NO – Elimination of Right to Marry for Same-sex Couples.  This proposed constitutional amendment would very simply take away the rights of some adults in our state to marry.  This is a question of fundamental fairness and equal protection under the law.  Do get fooled by the misleading ads by the proponents.  Proudly vote NO to keep same-gender marriage legal in our state.  

9 – NO – Parole and Victims’ Rights (Constitutional Amendment).  Appears to give additional benefits/rights to victims of crimes.  However, California already requires that crime victims receive several specified rights, some of which are duplicated here.  Says that restitution payments to victims come first before any other debts that the criminal already owes.  Allows victims to withhold information from the accused during pre-trial proceedings.  Severely reduces the ability of the state or of judges to provide early release to inmates at state prisons.  Reduces the number of parole hearings (and lengthens the time between parole hearings) to which inmates are entitled.  There are a number of constitutional questions raised by this initiative.  Overall, this would be an expensive initiative to implement without any proven gain in public safety.  Please join with the ACLU, the CA Democratic Party, over three dozen newspapers, the League of Women Voters, and the former warden of San Quentin State Prison in opposing Prop. 9.  Vote No. www.votenoprop9.com

10 – NO – Alternative Fuel Vehicles Bond.   Prop. 10 is an inefficient use of public dollars at a time when our state budget is in crisis.  This is a $5 billion mostly self-serving initiative where nearly three-quarters of the money would likely go to subsidize the natural gas vehicle industry.  This measure is being bankrolled by T.Boone Pickens, the Texas oil and natural gas tycoon.  While the rebates in the initiative sound attractive, they are not based on a consistent environmental metric and they do not require any improvement in smog emissions as a result of how the money is spent.  There are better solutions available that would get us more environmental benefits for less money.  Don’t be fooled.  Join with the Consumer Federation of California, the Sierra Club and several other environmental groups, along with the League of Women Voters, Latino Issues Forum, and over 30 newspapers in opposing the Prop. 10 giveaway.  Vote No.   www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_vehicles/no_on_prop_10.pdf  

11 – ? – Redistricting Commission.  This is a difficult one.  I’m leaning ever so slightly toward voting No.  Here are a few pros and cons along with some of the key supporters/opponents.  On the Yes side, it certainly makes sense to have a relatively independent commission, not legislators themselves, draw the district lines for legislators every 10 years.  If the result of this measure is the creation of a larger number of so-called competitive districts, that could lead to making a larger number of our elected representatives more responsive and accountable to the voters in their districts.  From a purely good government point of view, creating a redistricting commission is long overdue.  And this proposal is more logical than previous ones because it excludes Congressional districts (including them would be unfair because other states, such as Texas, don’t have similar commissions).  On the No side, from a purely partisan point of view, this could lead to either more Republicans being elected, or more likely, the same number of Dems and Reps being elected, but more of the Dems would be the so-called moderate, business-oriented Democrats-often the ones who don’t support environmental legislation.  Also, if the Commission becomes deadlocked on approving a plan, it would be kicked to the state supreme court to appoint a so-called special master.  Supporters of 11 include the League of Women Voters, Common Cause, AARP, NAACP, Governor Schwarzenegger, Silicon Valley Leadership Group, Steve Westly, Gray Davis, Leon Panetta, California Democratic Council, numerous Republican clubs.   Opponents of Prop. 11 include the California Democratic Party, California League of Conservation Voters, MALDEF, California Federation of Teachers, Senator Barbara Boxer, AFSCME, Asian Law Caucus, and many, many Democratic clubs around the state.

12 – YES – Veterans’ Bond Act.  This is a $900,000,000 bond measure to provide home and farm aid to California veterans.  The monies would be spent on loans to veterans that they would have to pay back with interest.  Veterans often get the short end of the stick from the federal government.  Regardless of what we may think of the current war in the Middle East, our veterans deserve our thanks along with modest financial assistance.  Vote Yes.

LOCAL BALLOT MEASURES

  ALAMEDA COUNTY:

N (OUSD) – NO – This is a $120/year parcel tax to fund teacher salaries for the stated purpose of attracting and retaining qualified teachers in Oakland’s public schools, with 15% of these funds going to Oakland’s charter schools.  We already pay $195/year parcel tax for Oakland’s public schools.  This proposed additional parcel tax does not have the support of the local teachers’ union-the group of people that purportedly would benefit the most.  Apparently, this was put on the ballot with virtually no input from the various stakeholders that should have been involved.  While it’s not easy to oppose a tax increase for public schools, this one appears to have very little support.

KK (Berkeley) – NO – Passage of this measure would require that the voters of Berkeley approve the creation of any transit-only traffic lanes, such as Bus Rapid Transit lanes, in Berkeley.  This would hinder efforts to promote more effective transit options in Berkeley and be a set-back for environmentally oriented transportation planning in the East Bay.  We elect representatives to make these decisions for us based on a deliberative process.  Let’s allow them to do their job.  The Sierra Club urges a No on measure KK.  

NN (Oakland) – YES – This measure would authorize the City of Oakland to levy a parcel tax for the express purposes of adding 105 police officers (on top of the 803 required by Measure Y passed in 2004) AND 75 crime investigation technicians to the Oakland police force, as well as to purchase a computerized crime data management system.  Virtually everyone agrees that we need more police and crime investigators in Oakland to help combat, deter and solve crimes.  The question is will we try to pay for this within our existing city budget, or will we find a new funding source for this vital service.  I say the responsible thing is to raise additional revenue so it won’t come out of other vital city services.  The parcel tax would start at less than $9.50 per month, but could rise as high as $23/month a few years from now.  Nevertheless, this is an essential service.  I strongly recommend a YES vote!

OO (Oakland) – NO – This measure would dramatically increase the already-existing “Kids First” fund in the City of Oakland.  The measure specifies that at least 2.5% of the entire Oakland city budget must be spent on the specified children’s programs.  Currently, the city must spend at least 1.5% of the City’s discretionary funds on these kids programs.  This measure does not specify where the money would come from other than the city’s general fund.  If the city didn’t have any ‘kids’ fund today, I would probably support this; but at a time of severe budget problems and significant cutbacks, we can’t afford this budget set-aside without identifying a new funding source at the same time.  These additional funds would have to come from cuts in other existing programs (senior services, parks, libraries, fire, etc.).  I recommend a NO vote.  

VV (AC Transit) – YES – This is a parcel tax to support AC Transit operations and bus maintenance.  The measure would double the existing parcel tax to a total of $96/year, with the tax expiring in 2019.  The purpose of this increase is to avoid fare increases and make sure transit services affordable and attractive.  I urge a Yes vote.  

WW (E.B.R.P.D.) – YES – Measure WW is the East Bay Regional Park District’s Bond extension to protect wildlife, purchase open space, and acquire and improve our regional parks and trails.  The current bond measure will be expiring soon.  This measure merely puts out a new bond to continue with the same level of funding.  In other words, your property taxes will not increase because of this measure.  Please vote YES on WW.  

 SAN FRANCISCO local ballot measures:

  A – Yes – This is a much-needed bond measure to re-build San Francisco General Hospital.  This is a no-brainer.  SFGH, which serves as the primary trauma center in San Francisco, does not meet seismic safety standards.  This bond measure is long overdue.  Vote Yes!

  B – Yes – The city is in dire need of more affordable housing.  While budget set-asides are not usually the best way to determine policy priorities, this one seems important enough to justify using this mechanism.  Vote Yes for more affordable housing in San Francisco.

  C – No – Prop. C uses a chainsaw approach in a situation that calls for a scalpel.  Top management should not be allowed on city commissions and no employee should be on a commission for the department in which they work; but Prop. C bans all city employees from serving on virtually all city commissions.  This overly broad measure is unnecessary and would prevent some good people from volunteering their service as a city commissioner.  Vote No.  

  D – Yes – This sounds like a smart plan for the Port of San Francisco’s Pier 70, and it’s really something that the Board of Supervisors should have the authority to do on their own through the annual budget process.  But it appears that a vote of the public is necessary to make this happen, so vote Yes.  

  E – Yes – This measure would increase the number of signatures required to recall a district level elected city official in San Francisco.  Recall petitions should not be easy, and this measure would make the city more consistent with existing state law.  A Yes vote makes sense to me.  

  F – Yes – Voter participation increases in even-numbered years, and the more people who participate in a local election, the more representative the result would be.  This is a good government.  On top of that, the city would also save some money that could be used for other essential services.  I urge a Yes vote.  

  G – Yes – This seems like a modest effort to make sure city employees have an opportunity to not lose any of their retirement benefits due to having to take parental leave in the past.  Vote Yes.  

  H – Yes – This is a local clean energy initiative that primarily deals with (a) setting aggressive goals for using clean sources of electricity (including Hetch Hetchy electricity), (b) requiring the San Francisco’s PUC to conduct electricity resource planning, including the development of a comprehensive plan to move San Francisco toward clean and efficient electricity generation and use, and (c) potentially moving toward a public power system of electricity distribution.  PG&E is understandably spending several million dollars to defeat it.  Don’t be fooled by the ads.  Prop. H includes a provision that simply adds one additional purpose for which a vote of the public is not required for the issuance of revenue bonds.  There is already in the City Charter eight situations when a vote is not required.  Revenue bonds are different from general obligation bonds.  Revenue bonds are paid back through income and savings from using the facilities that are built, not from property taxes.  Remember, Vote NO on 7, but YES on measure H.  Go to www.sfcleanenergy.com/about-the-clean-energy-act/frequently-asked-questions to find out the facts on this measure.  

  I –  ? – Not sure if this is necessary or even a good idea, and it essentially duplicates a provision in Prop. H anyway.  No recommendation.

  J – Yes – I’m generally leery of giving unelected commissions the authority to designate buildings as historic landmarks.  However, this measure does not do that.  It still retains final decisions on new historic building designations with the elected Board of Supervisors.  But this measure does allow this new commission to decide on permits once building are already designated as landmarks or deemed historic.  Overall, this seems like a well-crafted and balanced measure in terms of authority and oversight.  I recommend a Yes vote.  

  K – No – This measure does not appear to be well thought out.  While it may make sense to decriminalize prostitution and prioritize police investigations toward more serious crimes, this measure goes overboard.  I suggest voting No.  

  L – Yes – This appears to duplicate what was already approved by the Board of Supervisors regarding the funding for a Community Justice Center court.  Nevertheless, the services that will be provided by this CJC court are a big step in implementing valuable anti-recidivism programs.  It’s worth reaffirming this and putting it into statute so the initial funds can’t be decreased.  Vote Yes.  

  M – Yes – This measure provides additional protections and recourse for renters who are harassed by their landlord.  I recommend a Yes vote.  

  N – Yes – This measure does two things.  First, it doubles the real estate transfer tax for properties that sell for more than $5 million.  Second, it would reduce, but not eliminate, the tax for properties where the seller had installed a solar energy system or made seismic safety improvements.  This would incentivize homeowners to make needed seismic retrofit improvements as well as encourage them to install solar panels on their roofs.  The increase in the transfer tax for upper end properties would essentially pay for the tax losses on the other properties that have their transfer tax reduced.  Sounds like a great idea.  I urge a Yes vote.  

  O – Yes – This merely modernizes the city’s telephone user tax and modifies the fee that is used to fund local 911 services.  These changes are due to recent court rulings.  Vote Yes.  

  P – No – This removes almost all the members of the Board of Supervisors from the existing County Transportation Authority.  While adding the Mayor to this authority makes sense, taking away a majority of the board does not.  This is a power grab that should be rejected-I urge a No vote.  

  Q – Yes – This measure closes a loophole in the city’s payroll tax for businesses and increases the dollar threshold for the small business exemption, so a larger number of small businesses would be exempt from this tax.  This makes sense to me.  Vote Yes.  

 R – No – We all despise George W. Bush, so who would want to name anything-even a sewage treatment plant-after him in San Francisco.  This is a silly measure that should not be on the ballot.  Let’s not encourage these types of things.  Vote No.  

  S – Yes – This is merely a policy statement dealing with budget set-asides that voters can choose to ignore at any time in the future.  Nevertheless, it makes sense to ask elected officials and voters to consider the points outlined in this policy statement.  Might as well vote Yes.  

  T – Yes – This prioritizes substance abuse treatment and calls upon the city’s Department of Public Health (DPH) to implement a plan to make sure that sufficient treatment services to meet demand.  The city would be required to provide sufficient funding to allow DPH to meet expected demand.  Drug treatment is an important part of helping homeless and other people improve their lives.  Vote Yes.  

  U – Yes – This is merely a declaration of policy urging California senators and local members of Congress to stop funding the Iraq war.  The measure carries no force of law.  It does suggest that funds to facilitate a safe and orderly withdrawal would be acceptable.  Might as well vote Yes as a way of expressing your opposition to the war.    

  V – No – This is an unenforceable policy statement urging the SF School Board to reinstate Junior ROTC programs at some district high schools.  After extensive debate, the school board voted to phase out JROTC programs in San Francisco public schools.  Even though this is only an advisory measure, I would recommend reading the pro and con ballot arguments.  It seems on balance that those against the JROTC programs have stronger arguments, especially since some students are enrolled in this program by their parents against their will.  Neither this measure nor the action taken by the school board has or will have any impact on ROTC programs at public universities and colleges.  I respectfully urge a No vote.  

 LOS ANGELES:

   A – YES – A parcel tax of $3 per month to fund anti-gang and violence prevention programs, including after-school programs and mentoring, as well as graffiti removal.  

   B – YES – A measure to remove some height restrictions on affordable housing in order to be eligible for certain pots of state and federal monies.  

   J – YES – $3.5 billion bond measure for community college construction, classroom repair, nursing and apprenticeship training, and earthquake safety.

   R – YES – Metropolitan Transportation Authority 1/2-cent sales tax to fund rail extentions, repair potholes, and relieve traffic congestion.  

(Cross-posted at Living in the O.)

Last night, I couldn’t sleep. Out of nowhere, I had started to feel really sad, and at first I couldn’t figure out why. Then I realized that I was worrying about the passage of Prop 8, which would take away my right to marry the woman I love.

When the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, I couldn’t have been much happier. It was inspiring to watch some of the first same-sex marriages happen at Oakland City Hall. It gave me so much hope for the future of our state, and for the first time, my girlfriend and I started to think seriously about the possibility of marriage.

But now I’m facing the reality that this right could be ripped away from me. A few months ago, I thought Prop 8 was sure to go down. The polling looked good, and I thought that the thousands of same sex couples who were getting married would shift this debate forever. Didn’t everyone at least peripherally know one same sex couple who had gotten married?

Now I think my assumptions may have been off. The Mormon church has dumped millions of dollars into passing Prop 8 and has run extremely misleading ads that seem to have been very effective. The polling is far too close for comfort.

But all of this was still very far removed from my own life. That changed on Saturday, when I took the bus down to Lakeshore in Oakland, as I got off the bus, I saw a large group of Yes on 8 protesters shouting and waving their signs. They were mostly kids, with a few adults. And they seemed very, very angry. There was a small contingent of No on 8 people across the street, who were standing quietly with their signs and passing out fliers.

I left this scene feeling upset – sad, angry, and afraid. I could not believe I had just seen people expressing such hatred in the heart of Oakland. These feelings grew in me all weekend, and I realized that I needed to do something about it. I’ve been so engrossed in Rebecca Kaplan’s campaign for Oakland City Council and the No on Measure KK campaign in Berkeley, that I’ve done almost nothing for No on 8.

Well, that’s going to change. I’m going to dedicate most of my energy this week to No on 8, and I hope you will join me. Here’s what we can do to make sure that one day I can marry the woman I love and that all Californians have the right to marry whomever they love, regardless of gender:

1. Donate! Like I said, the Mormon church has raised a ton of money for Yes on 8. We need to counter that with funds of our own. Do not wait another day – give generously today.
2. Volunteer: I’ll be phoning at the Oakland United Democratic Campaign office at 1915 Broadway in downtown Oakland several nights this week (I’m headed there right now). The great thing about this office is that you can phone for various campaigns at once – I’ll be phoning for No on 8 and Rebecca Kaplan. Join me any night from 5-9pm. If you’re not in Oakland, you can find your local No on 8 office here.
3. Do Personal GOTV: Don’t assume all your friends are going to vote. Call, email, or bang down their doors – just make sure everyone you know is voting No on 8. The California Democratic Party has set up this great tool that allows you to text your friends for free. Check it out and personalize the message to remind your friends to vote No on 8.

 (Cross posted at Living in the O.)

Though much of the city was difficult (or at least very time consuming) to navigate by public transit, there is a trolley system that covers the downtown area and a few of the surrounding areas. So if you live in one of these areas, it does seem like you wouldn’t need to use a car very much. Considering that we’re having trouble even implementing bus rapid transit in Oakland, I’m a bit jealous that central San Diego is way ahead of us with rail.

Also, many San Diegans commute to Los Angeles, and unless they like sitting in traffic for 3 or 4 hours, many of them use the Metrolink train, much as some Oaklanders commute by Amtrak to Sacramento. So though there’s still tons of driving that’s symptomatic of southern California sprawl, I learned that there are alternatives to driving in San Diego that are fairly widely used.

Another thing that surprised me was the walkability of individual neighborhoods. Though it’s mostly inconvenient to walk between neighborhoods, there are several neighborhoods in San Diego where it’s possible to walk to just about everything (markets, shopping, parks or the beach, restaurants, bars, etc.). In fact, my friend’s apartment in Ocean Beach has the same walk score as my apartment in Oakland (88). On Sunday, we went to a friend’s house that is in between neighborhoods (near Hillcrest) and I was a bit shocked when we did not get back into the car and instead walked a few blocks to a restaurant (her house’s walk score is 89). It really seemed to me that it was just as easy to find a walkable neighborhood in San Diego as it is to find one in Oakland. This surprised me because I always had assumed that San Diego was much like LA in that respect, and though there are a few walkable neighborhoods in LA, it’s usually not so easy to find a walkable neighborhood that’s affordable to live in.

It was nice to clear up some of my misconceptions and to find out that San Diego isn’t quite as car-centric as I had assumed. But don’t worry, I’m not planning to move to San Diego anytime soon. I still think it’s a whole lot easier to be carless in Oakland than it is to be carless in San Diego.

(Cross posted at Living in the O.)

I was feeling a bit guilty today for not making it out to the May Day march, as I’ve done in years past, but I got lucky because just as I left work and crossed the street at 14th and Webster, two cops on motorcycles parked in the middle of the crosswalk. I looked east and saw a huge group of people walking towards me and could hear the chanting. They were led by a Teamsters truck:

There were literally thousands of people following, chanting in English and Spanish about worker and immigrant rights.

I followed as the crowd moved down 14th toward Broadway, until I got distracted by a few people with cases of water bottles handing water to the crowd. Then I saw that the water was coming from this van:

I have to say, I think this was a smart campaign move by Mario Juarez, who’s running against De La Fuente for Oakland City Council. I was surprised not to see a presence by any of the other city council candidates, though there were thousands of people there so I could have missed someone.

When we reached the corner of Broadway and 14th, I stepped up to the platform near the BART stairs and finally saw that the crowd reached on and on, for several blocks. My cell phone photos don’t do justice to the overwhelming size of the crowd, but it’ll give you some idea of what it was like…

Several police cars had blocked off the intersection at 14th and Broadway, which at 6pm caused quite a back up in traffic. The intersection must have been closed for about 15 minutes, as the crowd moved towards City Hall:

At that point, I stopped taking pictures, but I did get to enjoy the music of the Extra Action Marching Band and a group of native American dancers and drummers that rounded off the end of the march.

I hopped on my bus to get home a few minutes later and left feeling inspired and at least a little less guilty.