June 2022 Endorsements

These are the SF Green Party's final endorsements for the June 2022 election. We have mailed a postcard with our endorsements to all our members. If you can donate to help cover our printing and mailing costs, please use the "donate" link to the left!


Our complete Green Voter Guide is now posted. Click "read more" to see full explanations of the reasons behind our endorsements.


Statewide Endorsements:


Local Ballot Measures:

  • NO on A: "Transit bond" that is not required to be spent on transit
  • YES on B: Building inspection commission reform
  • NO on C: Major restrictions on the recall process
  • NO on D: Mayoral takeover of victims' rights services
  • YES on E: Restrictions on behested payments
  • NO on F: New trash rates board run by the Mayor
  • YES on G: Public health emergency leave
  • NO on H: Republican-sponsored recall of DA Chesa Boudin


Click below to read our complete Green Voter Guide.



Statewide Endorsements:


Vote for the Left Unity Slate


This year, the Green Party and the Peace and Freedom Party are jointly fielding a "Left Unity Slate" in the statewide races.


This historic decision was based on the many shared values between these two socialist parties. Among these values are guaranteed access to healthcare, also known as expanded and improved Medicare For All, truly affordable housing, union-wage jobs, public ownership of energy, ending wars for profit, and a comprehensive climate plan, including a just transition to 100% renewables.


This cooperative strategy increases the likelihood that both parties will be able to reach 2% of the vote in at least one statewide race, which is the minimum threshold needed to retain ballot status.


The SF Green Party has endorsed this entire slate, along with several other statewide candidates who are not affiliated with either the Democratic or Republican Parties. For more, see our endorsements in each statewide contest, below. Thanks to the Alameda County Green Party for their work on drafting these analyses.



Governor - Luis Javier Rodriguez (Green Party):


Luis J. Rodriguez is the 2022 endorsed Green Party candidate for Governor. The author of 15 books of poetry, fiction and non-fiction, Rodriguez is recognized as a major figure in contemporary Chicano literature. He is a poet, novelist, journalist, columnist and critic. He was named the Poet Laureate of Los Angeles in 2014. His entire life has been in sharp contrast to the privileged existence of Gavin Newsom. Rodriguez has lived in accordance with his Green values. He is an authentic leader of the multinational California working class: he is of the people and for the people. He would make an excellent and inspirational governor.


Luis Rodriguez was born in El Paso, Texas of a Mexican father and an indigenous mother from the Raramuir/Tarahumara native group. He became a Chicano activist as a teen, and was arrested and brutalized with other peaceful protestors in the well-known 1970 Chicano Moratorium protest against the Vietnam War. Released after unjust charges were dropped, Rodriguez left high school and was for years employed in a series of working class jobs, including as a truck driver, carpenter, welder, and millwright as well as work in a paper mill, lead foundry, and chemical refinery. Later, he went to night school to work on developing his full potential as a human being -- and gradually became the inspirational writer and poet he is today. He has done successful work with youth and indigenous peoples and these community efforts together with his writing has resulted in a number of awards, including the Hispanic Heritage Award for Literature.


Rodriguez points out that there have always been two states of California, one for Newsom and his allies: the corporations, robber barons, developers and billionaires and another different state for the multinational working class and the poor. These are facts that we should not push aside and ignore. Rodriguez has a vision "towards beauty, truth and good" that offers wisdom for members of the working class: "engage in what speaks deeply and singularly to you... this is how you access vitality for the physical world with all its hardships... find your art, your passions, your innate purpose -- to live out the story written on your soul the day you were born... find a cause bigger than yourself... learn to own your life... once you take back responsibility, with codes and propriety tied to your own interests you become liberated."


We've written elsewhere about the many failures of Gavin Newsom. Fortunately, Californians have a far better choice this year in Luis Rodriguez.



Lieutenant Governor - Mohammad Arif (Peace and Freedom Party):


Mohammad Arif, 53, is the Kern County Chair of the Peace and Freedom Party. He and his wife are immigrants from the Punjab, in India. They have four children born in California. Arif earned a bachelor's degree from Hailey College and a master's degree in economics from Punjab University. After coming to California in 1991, he attended Abraham Lincoln Law College in Los Angeles. He has worked as a legal administrator for law firms to handle the legal needs of immigrants for many years. He speaks English, Punjabi, Urdu, and Hindi, plus some Arabic. He was the Peace and Freedom Party candidate for State Senate in the 2013 16th district special election.


Arif's occupation is oddly listed on the ballot as "businessman" - a default designation used after the Secretary of State rejected his chosen occupational description of "immigrant legal advocate." In fact, he earns his living by working for law firms, interviewing and filling out forms for immigrants seeking legal status in the United States. Some of his strongest supporters are new citizens, grateful for his assistance in winning that status. His basic campaign poster features the slogan "Immigrant Rights" in English, Spanish, Chinese, Punjabi, and Urdu.


The incumbent Democrat is Eleni Kounalakis, the daughter of a wealthy real estate developer who became active in politics in order to serve her family's interests in Sacramento. Mohammad Arif would be a far better choice, and the SF Green Party strongly endorses him.



Secretary of State - Gary Blenner (Green Party):


Gary Blenner is on a crusade. A Sacramento area high school social science teacher for 28 years, Blenner is not someone who believes in being a bystander to history or politics. "Activism is the key for change. Silence is equal to acceptance," Blenner often tells his students. Whether it is requiring his students to volunteer with a political campaign, or participate in a community service project through Civitas (his school's political science academy), Blenner has often been at the forefront of encouraging others to engage. But this isn't just empty rhetoric on his part. Blenner is a strong believer in modeling behavior for his students to follow. "I would be a hypocrite if I just said to my students 'become more active in your community' while I just stood by and did nothing." Rather than just talking about politics and the lack of change in our society, Blenner is doing something about it.


Blenner comes from a long family tree of activism and alternative party politics. His great-grandfather was a union organizer for the CPUSA in the 1920s and 30s. His grandparents were active in the American Labor Party of New York and in the 1948 campaign of former Vice-President Henry A. Wallace. A great uncle was a union organizer and active in the Brotherhood Party of New York. "I guess you could say trade unionism and activism is in my blood." That might explain his passion for progressive politics and involvement in the Green Party. Blenner describes his politics as democratic socialist. "I think democratic socialism has been misinterpreted as mild socialism. In fact, I am as socialistic as they come these days. I believe in workers controlling the means of production through democratic means, and the elimination of profit. I just believe it should be done through the electoral process." To Blenner, the Green Party's vision of grassroots government fits in exactly with his vision of a cooperative, decentralized, democratic society. Blenner is no newcomer to electoral politics. He got elected as a Green to the Center Joint Unified School District school board in 2006. He has run unsuccessfully for the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors in 2012 and 2016, challenging developer and real estate interests. This time, Blenner has his sights on becoming California Secretary of State. "I’m not just running as a protest candidate. I’m in it to win it." What is it that Blenner wants to change? And why is it that the current incumbent (Dr. Shirley Weber) is the wrong candidate for that position? "I think Dr. Weber is an amazing woman, and her achievements and life story should be celebrated by everyone. However, she is no friend to progressives, and is another corporate stooge like practically every other mainstream Democrat." Blenner points out that Weber opposes ranked choice voting and a single payer health care system. And we also note that her current campaign contributors include the likes of Chevron, Phillips 66, Facebook, Nike, Anheuser Busch, Lyft, Eli Lily, Mercury General, and AT&T.


SF Greens are happy to endorse Gary Blenner, a genuine, progressive, corporate-free candidate!



Controller - Laura Wells (Green Party):


Alameda Green Party stalwart Laura Wells is a founder of the "No Corporate Money" Campaign, in which candidates pledge to take no corporate money and a critical mass of voters declare their intention to vote for no-corporate-money candidates. Wells's focus is on solutions, such as implementing public banking at local and state levels to save money on interest and to invest in California, not Wall Street. She would tax the super-rich the way they were taxed decades ago, when California had greater opportunity and quality of life for everyone, and even the rich could still get richer. She would push for an oil severance tax which every oil-producing state except California already has, and push to use water wisely, and never for fracking.


Wells graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Wayne State University in Detroit, and earned a Masters degree from Antioch University. She worked in information technology in the financial industry for twenty years. She then served in a range of volunteer and professional capacities for community and labor organizations, including Pesticide Action Network, Women's Economic Agenda Project, and SEIU United Healthcare Workers.


Laura Wells has previously competed as the Green Party's candidate in several high profile races, doing quite well for a person representing a third party. She earned 5.7% of the vote in her 2014 run for Controller. She also won nearly 12% of the votes in her 2018 run for Congress, a one-on-one contest against incumbent Barbara Lee.


Incumbent Malia Cohen has taken corporate donations from Clear Channel, Liberty Mutual, Union Pacific Railroad, Comcast, California Cattlemen's Association PAC, Blue Shield, and the Real Estate Law Group, LLP.


We're happy to see Laura Wells running again, and we award her our enthusiastic endorsement.



Attorney General - Dan Kapelovitz (Green Party):


Dan Kapelovitz ran for Governor last year in the Newsom Recall election, and earned our endorsement.


Kapelovitz is an attorney who also teaches law at the People's College of Law in Los Angeles. His clients are mainly poor people caught up in the criminal justice system, as well as defenders of animal rights. Therefore, he is a great candidate to represent the Green Party in the race for Attorney General.


Kapelovitz' main opponent is the Democratic Party incumbent, Rob Bonta. Bonta served on the Alameda City Council and in the State Assembly from 2012 to 2021 before his appointment as Attorney General by Governor Newsom last year. He must have impressed people in high places, because as of December 31, 2021, he had $5 million in his campaign war chest: over 4000 donations, 200 of which were more than $8,000. General Motors PAC made 4 donations totaling $8100. Anheuser Busch gave $16,200. Airbnb made seven donations (including employees) totaling $5,500. Also conspicuous on Mr. Bonta's donors list are a number of casinos and gaming establishments, corporations that will benefit from Bonta's decisions if he is reelected to another term.


SF Greens are pleased to endorse Kapelovitz once again.



Treasurer - Meghann Adams (Peace and Freedom Party):


Meghann Adams has been a tireless organizer of anti-war and anti-racist actions in the Bay area for fifteen years. She has been a school bus driver for seven years, active in SMART 1741, the union representing school bus drivers in San Francisco and San Mateo Counties. She was elected president of the union last year. Active in many community organizations over the years, she has served as treasurer of campaigns, and is now running for California Treasurer to represent working people. Her campaign slogan, "End Poverty in California," hearkens back to the Upton Sinclair campaign of 1934. Sadly, the slogan is as appropriate today as it was 88 years ago. Meghann Adams considers capitalism the reason why poverty is still so common today.


Adams has twice served as a Peace and Freedom Party candidate for Presidential Elector, and is an elected member of the Peace and Freedom Party California State Central Committee, as well as the State Executive Committee. Her opponent is Fiona Ma, who is well known in San Francisco for misrepresenting District 4 from 2002 to 2006, before moving up the corporate Democratic Party political ladder. Adams would be a huge improvement.



Insurance Commissioner - Nathalie Hrizi (Peace and Freedom Party):


Nathalie Hrizi is a SF teacher who has been the Peace and Freedom Party Party's candidate for Insurance Commissioner in 2014, 2018, and now in 2022. Hrizi is the recently elected head of the substitute teacher's unit within the SFUSD teacher's union. She has been active in SF politics for years.


Hrizi's main opponent is Ricardo Lara, the Democratic Party incumbent who is in bed with major insurance companies. Hrizi is an outstanding champion for the campaign to replace those insurance companies with "expanded and improved Medicare for All." The SF Green Party is pleased to endorse her.



State Superintendent of Public Instruction - Marco Amaral (No Party Preference):


Marco Amaral is a working teacher and currently President of the South Bay Union School District, near San Diego. Amaral holds a degree from UC Berkeley and a graduate degree from the University of San Diego. He was born in Escondido, California. His family background is working class and Latinx.


When asked about his campaign issues, he talks about making systemic changes in our schools, especially for Latinx students. He also prioritizes holding politicians accountable for the serious problems in our schools. He wants to spend more money in our schools and favors raising teacher salaries to retain teachers and to attract good students to teaching careers. Regarding accountability, he blames both the Democratic and Republican parties for the state of our schools. He also sees the Superintendent position as a bully pulpit to promote the ideals of public education.


Although he is registered "Decline to State" and thus not formally part of the Left Unity Slate, Marco Amaral's platform shows that his values are very well aligned with the 10 Key Values of the Green Party. The SF Green Party awarded him our enthusiastic endorsement.



US Senate - John Parker (Peace and Freedom Party):


John Thompson Parker, a community organizer in Los Angeles, is running his third campaign for Senator, having received substantial Green Party support as well as Peace and Freedom Party support in previous elections. To the confusion of some voters, the same Senate seat appears twice on the June ballot. The full six-year term starting in January, 2023 has 23 candidates, and the short remnant of the present term (this July through the end of 2022) has eight candidates on the ballot. Parker appears on the ballot for the full term, and he is also asking that voters write in his name for the partial (short) term as well.


Parker is a longtime member of the Peace and Freedom Party, the coordinator of the Harriet Tubman Center for Social Justice, and a leading member of the Socialist Unity Party. He accompanied now deceased former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark on many anti-war delegations abroad. Parker was only 18 when he organized his first union election -- at a small steel plant in New Jersey. Parker sparked the minimum wage increase proposals in Los Angeles, being the first to author the Los Angeles $15 minimum wage ballot initiative in 2013. Parker recently attended the inauguration of socialist President Xiomara Castro in Honduras at the invitation of her Libre Party, due to his solidarity work with Honduras.


Parker's main opponent is Alex Padilla, the incumbent Democrat who is favored to get the most votes in this primary election. The candidate who comes in second will go on to the runoff in November with Padilla. Depending on how things go, if the Republicans split their vote ten ways, an outsider from the Peace and Freedom Party with the endorsement of the Green Party could have a real chance.


Although two members of the Green Party also are running in this contest, the SF Green Party endorsed the entire Left Unity Slate, including Parker, as part of a strategy to maintain ballot access for both parties. We hope that all SF Greens will join us in supporting John Parker.



Local Endorsements:


NO on Prop A:


Prop A is a $400 million bond that is being sold to voters as being for "Muni Reliability and Street Safety." Unfortunately, none of the money would actually be required to be spent on public transit. The Green Party is strongly recommending a NO vote.


The legal text of the bond lists a number of projects that the bond money "may be" spent on. Several of them are projects that were already promised to voters as part of the Prop A "Transportation and Road Improvement" bond that passed back in 2014. Because none of the spending proposals contain the legally binding phrase "shall be", the Mayor could spend the $400 million any way she wants.


In the current climate emergency, convincing people to switch from private cars (including Uber and Lyft) to public transit should be a top priority at all levels of government. Public transit should be such a compelling option that everybody would actually want to use it! To convince people not to drive, Muni needs to be convenient, fast, reliable, safe, and free of charge to the passengers. Even if all of Prop A's money were actually spent on the projects that it "may be" spent on, the money wouldn't go nearly far enough towards the urgent transit needs of San Franciscans.


Greens often oppose bonds (see our Statement on Bond Funding, below) and request that City officials consider other, more progressive, means of raising funds. A progressive parcel tax (i.e., one based on a property's size or value), a financial transactions tax, or higher taxes on flipped properties would all fall mainly on large corporations, and could raise enough money to increase overall Muni funding while eliminating fares.


To convince voters to approve the large revenue stream needed to turn Muni into a world-class transit system, City officials should not only release a detailed report on what previous "transit" funding was actually spent on, but also create a detailed budget on what specific projects and ongoing costs would be paid for by new revenue. A list of "may be" projects, most of which we've been promised before, simply doesn't cut it.


This bait and switch Prop is insulting to voters who have endured decades of Machine promises to "fix Muni," dating back to 1973 when the Supervisors unveiled the City's Transit First Policy. Greens urge a NO vote on this $400 million Mayoral slush fund.



YES on Prop B:


Prop B would make minor changes to the rules governing the Building Inspection Commission, which oversees SF's massively corrupt Department of Building Inspection (DBI). Greens support these changes and recommend a YES vote. Currently, this Commission consists of 4 seats appointed by the Mayor and 3 by the President of the Board of Supervisors. The commission can appoint and remove the director of DBI as well as 2 top assistants.


Prop B would not change the 4-3 appointment split, but would give both the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors more flexibility in the qualifications of the people they appoint. With Prop B, Mayoral appointments would also need to be approved by the Board of Supervisors. And instead of directly appointing the DBI chief, the Commission would forward 3 candidates to the Mayor to choose from - the same way the process works on most other commissions that oversee City departments.


Prop B would be a slight decentralization of power away from the Mayor, and provide a bit more public oversight. Greens would prefer that each Supervisor appoint one member of the Commission, as that would provide even more grassroots oversight. However, Prop B is a step in the right direction and would probably reduce corruption somewhat, so we urge voters to support it.



NO on Prop C:


Prop C would create new restrictions on the right of voters to recall elected officials in SF. It would also prevent Mayoral appointees who replace recalled office-holders (as well as interim Mayors) from running in the subsequent election. There are serious problems with they way recall elections in SF work now, but disempowering voters is not the right solution. Greens are therefore strongly opposed to Prop C.


The ability to recall elected officials is a critical right in a representative democracy, because politicians who disregard the wishes of those who put them in office know they are always at risk of being fired. Current law gives elected officials a "grace period" in which they cannot be recalled -- during the first 6 months and the last 6 months of each term (i.e., a total of 1 year out of a typical 4 year term). In practice, this period can be even longer, due to the time required to gather signatures, and political roadblocks raised by the Department of Elections if an attempt is made to recall officials allied with the Mayor. Prop C would expand the official period in which recalls cannot be initiated to the first 12 months as well as the last 18 months (i.e., a total of 2.5 years out of a 4 year term). This gives elected officials an extra 1.5 years in which they can ignore the concerns of their constituents without consequences.


Greens believe that our current recall system is broken in two ways: first, if voters recall an elected official in SF, only the Mayor has the power to choose a replacement. Voters who the Mayor does not listen to cannot meaningfully exercise our constitutional right to recall elected officials, because if we recall a Mayoral ally, the Mayor can just replace that person with a different sock puppet. Second, there are no meaningful campaign finance laws that apply to recall elections, as there are for regular elections, so wealthy people and corporations have far too much influence. This leads to even more corruption in our local government.


Greens have long called for giving voters (not the Mayor) the right to choose the replacement for recalled elected officials. Recall elections could be done as a "vote of confidence" in the politician, who would appear on a single ranked choice ballot along with all the candidates hoping to replace them. The person with majority support in the final ranked choice tally would win: either the original official would survive the recall, or the voters would choose a more popular candidate to serve the remainder of the term.


Until we find a way to seriously redistribute wealth in the United States, the problem of money in politics can only be solved by imposing strict campaign finance laws, along with public financing of our elections. This includes recall elections. Both the candidate facing recall and potential challengers should be able to obtain enough public financing to be competitive, if they demonstrate a sufficient level of support from their constituents. And current limits on contributing to local candidates should also apply to candidates in a recall election.


Prop C would provide one limit on the Mayor's current appointment powers: any appointee who replaced a recalled official would be ineligible to run in the subsequent election. This limit would also apply to "interim Mayor" appointees chosen by the Board of Supervisors to replace a recalled Mayor. However, this restriction is inadequate and easily sidestepped, because it only applies to vacancies that result from a recall vote and not other reasons, such as resignation. Mayoral allies facing defeat in an upcoming recall election could just step down prior to the vote, allowing the Mayor to choose a replacement who is not restricted by this rule.


Greens favor more restrictions on the executive power of the Mayor, so we might support new rules that apply to all vacancy appointments. However, we strongly oppose Prop C's diminishing the power of ordinary voters, and endorse a NO vote on Prop C.



NO on Prop D:


Prop D would create an Office of Victims and Witness Rights, centralizing City services that are mostly provided by the District Attorney (but also by the police, Sheriff, and several other departments) into a new City department run by the Mayor. It would also provide a City-funded lawyer to anyone alleging that they are a victim of domestic abuse. Currently, the District Attorney provides services to crime victims, and we see no reason other than politics (drumming up opposition to Chesa Boudin) to move that service under the control of our corrupt Mayor. Greens endorse a NO vote on Prop D.


We also believe that the plan to provide free attorneys is not well thought out. We strongly support domestic violence victims, but Prop D looks like nothing more than a performative campaign vehicle for Catherine Stefani, who wants to replace Chesa Boudin as District Attorney. Prop D will provide Stefani publicity and name recognition without actually helping anybody, just as "Care not Cash" and "Sit/Lie" gave Gavin Newsom the notoriety he needed to get promoted to Governor. If Prop D passes, domestic violence victims will continue to rely on the help of non-profit legal services, as Prop D does not provide any new funding for services.


Prop D is a poorly written political tool of the City's "moderate" (i.e., conservative) Democrats. Just say NO.



YES on Prop E:


Prop E would ban behested payments from contractors seeking approval of their projects. This is a means of reducing corruption in SF government, so the Green Party supports it.


A "behested payment" is a donation made by somebody at the request of an elected official, typically to a charity. It's a legal form of bribery, because the payment does not go directly to the elected official, but instead to a charity that the elected official has some connection to. For example, the charity could be run by a relative, business partner, or friend of the elected official.


Behested payments are just one of the ways that corrupt politicians in SF receive bribes, but cutting them off might reduce the problem. We therefore endorse a YES vote.



NO on Prop F:


Prop F would create a new "Refuse Rate Board" controlled by the Mayor to set commercial trash rates in SF. The Green Party opposes it.


Proposition F masquerades as reform while actually making the problem worse. The reason that San Francisco ended up with such a corrupt, price gouging, garbage contract with Recology, is that appointees of the corporate-influenced Mayor's office were in charge of the contract, and in charge of the Refuse Rate Board.


Prop F leaves the Mayor's office completely in charge of the process, only applying the weak fig leaf of making one of three members of the "Refuse Rate Board" a "public ratepayer advocate" who would be appointed by the Mayor. So the rate board would still be made up up three people chosen by the Mayor! That's not progress. It's a recipe for another failed contract.


Real reform of our garbage contract process would be to take the power over the contract out of the Mayor's office and either set up a publicly elected board to oversee the contract, or at the very least, create a Rate Board made up of a majority of appointees who are chosen by the consistently progressive San Francisco Board of Supervisors, and require those appointees to each be truly independent ratepayer, environmental, and social justice advocates.


Passing Prop F would dangerously create the illusion of reform, while leaving the same corporate-leaning bureaucrats in charge of our garbage contract. Vote NO.



YES on Prop G:


Prop G requires large employers to provide "public health emergency leave" to their employees. It would require that employers provide some paid time off for employees to do things like quarantine in response to COVID or other public health emergencies. Prop G would apply only to private businesses and governments with 100 or more employees, but would not include small businesses or non-profits. The Green Party supports it.


Prop G sets a new standard for the minimum amount of paid leave employers must provide. Under current law, employers are required to provide employees with paid sick leave based on hours worked, but they are not required to provide paid time off for public health emergencies. If Prop G passes, the minimum amount of paid leave per year will be twice the average number of hours worked in a week. For example, full time employees would receive 2 weeks of paid public health emergency leave per year, but half time employees would only receive 1 week. Employers who already meet this minimum standard would not be required to provide additional paid time off, but they would be required to let workers use their current paid leave for public health emergencies.


Greens would prefer much higher labor standards, with additional paid leave for everybody as is common in European democracies. We also want universal health care (i.e., "Improved Medicare for all"), which would prevent people from worrying about losing their health insurance by not working enough hours at a job.


Prop G is an incremental improvement to the status quo. It also would give the Board of Supervisors the ability to pass laws that improve these minimum standards in the future. The Green Party therefore endorses a YES vote on Prop G.



NO on Prop H:


Prop H would recall our incumbent District Attorney, Chesa Boudin, and allow the Mayor to choose his replacement. Greens think Boudin has done a great job as DA, living up to his campaign promises, and we therefore strongly oppose Prop H.


Boudin has done great work in focusing DA resources on serious and violent crimes, where he has a higher prosecution rate than any of his predecessors. He has fulfilled his campaign promise to prosecute police officers who engage in criminal acts such as assaulting civilians - one reason the SFPD is so strongly in favor of his recall. And Boudin has pioneered a local version of the "innocence project," which recently led to the release of a wrongly convicted man who had been imprisoned for 30 years.


It is because of Boudin's enthusiasm for prosecuting corporate criminals and bad cops that conservatives are pushing for his recall. If Boudin is recalled, the Mayor would presumably replace him with a traditional "law and order" candidate who ignores these crimes in favor of focusing DA resources on nonviolent crimes such as drug use. Mayor Breed's previous appointee was Suzy Loftus, who allegedly helped the SFPD conceal their failure to test rape kits.


Due to 2 years of COVID, Boudin has barely had a chance to show that his approach can generate the results he was elected to produce. Greens strongly believe that he should have a chance to finish his term. Vote NO on Prop H!



SF Green Party Statement on Bond Funding


The SF Green Party has often been hesitant to embrace bond financing. In addition to being environmentally and socially responsible, we are also fiscally responsible. Bond funding requires payments totaling about twice the actual cost of whatever improvements are made, and passes costs on to future generations. Because people who buy bonds are almost exclusively the wealthy, as investors are paid back over the 20-30 year life of the bond, wealth is transferred from middle and low income taxpayers to rich bondholders.


Bond funding also helps rich people avoid paying their fair share of taxes, since interest on municipal bonds is exempt from both state and federal tax. As noted in the California Voter Guide in 1992, over 35,000 U.S. millionaires supplemented their income with tax exempt state and local bond checks averaging over $2,500 per week (that's over $130,000 per year tax free). They avoided paying federal and state taxes on over $5 billion, which must be made up by the rest of us. The SF Green Party calls on the public to join us in working to phase out this regressive and unfair subsidy of the rich and their investment bankers (who take millions of dollars off the top when the bonds are issued).


There are a few cases in which Greens have supported bond measures. In general, we are willing to support bonds that are issued to in order to build urgently needed, publicly-owned infrastructure, such as a public hospital or high speed rail. We generally oppose bonds that fund ongoing maintenance projects; these should be paid for using City revenues (which should be increased by raising taxes on the wealthy).