These are the SF Green Party's final endorsements for the March 2024 election.

 

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

 

Local Offices:

• SF Superior Court Judge, seat 1: Michael Begert

 

Local Ballot Measures:

• NO on A: "Affordable" Housing Bond
• NO on B: More Police
• NO on C: Developer Tax Break
• YES on D: Ethics Reform
• NO on E: Let Cops Do Anything
• NO on F: Drug Test Poor People
• YES on G: Algebra

 

State Ballot Measures:

• NO on 1: Behavioral Health Facilities Bond

 

Click below to read our complete Green Voter Guide.

 

 

Local Offices:

 

SF Superior Court Judge, seat 1 - Michael Begert:

 

Two judges are currently being challenged by right-wing tech billionaires through a PAC called "Stop Crime SF." Michael Begert is one of the judges being challenged because he presided over several diversion programs that allow people convicted of minor crimes to seek treatment instead of going to jail. We interviewed Judge Begert, and are convinced that retaining him will improve public safety, so we strongly endorse retaining him.

 

Judge Begert is not as progressive on criminal justice issues as most members of the Green Party. He was originally appointed to office by Governor Schwarzenegger. However, Judge Begert has volunteered for years for groups such as the Asian Law Caucus and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, groups that share our values of social justice.

 

Right wing tech billionaires already have too much influence in the other branches of SF government; don't let them buy the courts as well. Please join us in voting to retain Judge Begert.

 

 

 

Local Props:

 

NO on Prop A:

 

Prop A is a $300 million bond to pay for the construction, acquisition, and repair of "affordable housing." The vast majority of the funding would subsidize private developers to build private housing. Only a fraction would actually be affordable to people who currently live in SF.

 

Prop A is a re-run of 2019's Prop A, a $600 million bond to do the same thing. In 2019, we opposed Prop A and wrote in our Voter Guide:

 

• Prop A pays private developers to build "affordable housing" at nearly the same price as it would cost to build new public or social housing ($600,000 - $700,000 per unit).

Housing bond money has traditionally been used by the Democratic Party Machine to award contracts to politically connected developers and nonprofits, including some of the worst developers in the City such as the John Stewart Co (https://sfbayview.com/2017/02/my-constitutional-and-tenants-rights-were-violated-in-john-stewart-co-s-subsidized-hud-housing-on-treasure-island/). Mayor Breed has also withheld funding to punish her political opponents, e.g., by refusing to move forward on development of affordable housing in Supervisor Dean Preston's neighborhood (https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/S-F-Supervisor-accuses-Mayor-Breed-of-17724203.php).

 

We also have concerns that the Mayor is not funding enough housing development and acquisition using "Our City Our Home" funds. Voters passed Prop C in 2018, providing a $300 million per year revenue stream, half of which is required to be spent on permanent housing. Given the major problems with bond funding (see our Statement on Bond Funding, below), we prefer funds for social housing come from corporate taxes such as Our City Our Home.

 

Greens recommend a NO vote on Prop A. We hope others will join us to insist City resources be directed towards real public investments such as social housing.

 

 

NO on Prop B:

 

Prop B would increase the minimum police staffing requirement in the City Charter. It would not directly increase the number of police officers, but it would increase political pressure to spend even more City funds on an ineffective police department.

 

As we wrote in opposition to a similar measure, Prop E in 2020:

 

• Greens support making large budget reductions (i.e., "defunding") to the SFPD. Although some trained officers are required to respond to serious or violent crimes, most of the duties currently performed by the SFPD can and should be taken over by civilians. That would both save the City enormous amounts of money, and also make our residents safer, as they would be at less risk of being harassed or shot by armed police.

In recent years, police have effectively been on strike, refusing to investigate even serious and violent crimes unless the victims are wealthy or influential. SF needs major police reform instead of continuing to throw money at a failed system.

 

 

NO on Prop C:

 

Prop C would waive the City real estate transfer tax for developers who convert large office buildings to residential use. Greens are opposed to giving away public money to increase developers' profits, so we strongly oppose Prop C.

 

Currently the real estate transfer tax ranges from 0.5% to 6%, depending on the value of the property. Since the pandemic, office space has become cheap, so in some cases, it can be profitable for developers to buy office buildings and convert them to condos. The construction work itself is very expensive, as most offices do not have the plumbing or access to light needed for residential living space. Proponents of Prop C claim that the tax break will make more of these conversions profitable.

 

Greens believe that there may be opportunities for the City to take over failing office buildings (including hotels and shopping malls) cheaply using eminent domain, then convert them to social housing. This would be a more appropriate use of public funds than subsidizing for-profit developers to build more market rate housing. And the resulting residential units would be available to current SF residents at affordable rents, rather than turning into more empty investment condos that SF already has too many of.

 

Prop C would give tax breaks to billionaires and not help our affordable housing crisis. Vote NO.

 

 

YES on Prop D:

 

Prop D would make minor reforms to SF's ethics rules. It would standardize rules about accepting gifts and other favors across City departments. It would also allow additional changes to ethics rules if supermajorities on both the Board of Supervisors and the Ethics Commission agree to the changes.

 

Greens' major concern with SF's current ethics rules is that they are usually only enforced against grassroots campaigns and candidates. Serious cases of corruption are ignored until the FBI steps in, and ethics rules are routinely broken by right-wing billionaire-backed candidates without consequence. Strengthening our ethics rules will not address this fundamental problem.

 

Nevertheless, Prop D is an improvement over the rules we have now, so the Green Party supports it.

 

 

NO on Prop E:

 

Prop E would reduce civilian oversight of the SF Police Department, allow police to engage in more high speed car chases, cover up cases of police violence, and allow warrantless spying on all San Franciscans.

 

In 2003, Greens led the campaign to establish a civilian Police Commission to oversee the Police Department. We defeated the police union at the polls (https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/voters-support-major-police-reform-san-francisco-proposition-h-sets-standard-police). Although the Mayor appoints the majority of the members of the Police Commission, members cannot be removed arbitrarily, which gives them a small degree of independence.

 

The Police Commission currently requires police to file a report when they use violence, and only allows them to engage in high speed car chases if there is a public safety risk or if the person being chased is suspected of committing a violent felony. Prop E would allow police to engage in high speed car chases in almost any circumstance, and would not require police to file reports on use of violence unless the suspect is injured.

 

Worse, Prop E would open the door to warrantless spying on all San Franciscans, including the use of AI-based facial recognition technology and drones. Civil liberties organizations such as the ACLU and EFF strongly oppose Prop E for this reason.

 

If Prop E passes, instead of investigating serious and violent crimes, police could spend their working hours spying on San Franciscans using drones and other cameras, and joyriding around SF like they're re-enacting Bullitt.

 

Prop E is not even a serious policy proposal, but rather a way for tech billionaires to pour money into SF politics promoting authoritarian policies and right-wing candidates. Greens strongly oppose it.

 

 

NO on Prop F:

 

Prop F would require that people who receive welfare benefits from SF be screened for illegal drug use, and that drug users would be required to participate in a free treatment program in order to continue receiving benefits.

 

SF does not currently have enough free substance abuse treatment programs for people who want to participate. Greens support public spending on "Improved Medicare for All" (a.k.a. single payer health care), which would be free to everyone in the US and include mental health and substance abuse treatment. However, we do not support forcing health care on people without their informed consent, and Prop F would coerce people to participate in drug treatment programs they would otherwise be unwilling to participate in.

 

Prop F would also increase the number of homeless people forced to live on the street, as the additional requirement for drug testing would make it more difficult for poor people to access housing assistance programs. Currently, poor people with housing are entitled to $712 in cash assistance, while homeless people are only given $109 due to Newsom's "Care not Cash" program. If these funds are cut off due to the additional red tape of having to prove they are not using illegal drugs, many more people will be forced onto the streets or turn to crime in order to obtain money to survive.

 

If anybody should be tested for substance abuse, it should be the people who wrote and support Prop F. What are these people on? Greens strongly oppose it.

 

 

YES on Prop G:

 

Prop G is a non-binding measure that would encourage teaching algebra to public school students in the 8th grade. Greens recommend a YES vote.

 

In 2014, algebra was moved from the 8th grade curriculum to 9th grade due to concerns that many students were failing the class, and because making kids take a class they weren't prepared for exacerbated racial disparities in education. This change was part of a transition to Common Core Math, in which algebraic concepts such as variables are now introduced as part of the math curriculum in lower grades.

 

10 years later, it is now clear that delaying algebra had no effect on alleviating racial disparities, and many students now have to take multiple math classes simultaneously in high school in order to get an education that is comparable to their private school peers. As a result, SFUSD is already in the process of moving algebra back to 8th grade.

 

The politics of Prop G are tricky, because it was put on the ballot by the proponents of the 2022 school board recall. Major funders of the recall election had financial ties to the "EdTech" industry, and wanted the Mayor to appoint school board members who would spend scarce public resources on lucrative contracts with EdTech companies. These same groups are now championing Prop G as a wedge issue to tar future school board candidates who oppose Prop G as "anti-algebra." Candidates who oppose Prop G will be smeared as elitist and anti-parent, making it easier for right wing tech billionaires to take over the school board this November and steal as much public money as they can get their hands on.

 

Fortunately, Prop G doesn't contain any hidden provisions that will directly privatize education: it's totally advisory and non-binding. Greens recommend that voters take the proposal at face value and vote YES, while being wary of the plans of Prop G funders in the school board election this November.

 

 

 

State Props:

 

NO on Prop 1:

 

Prop 1 would amend 2004's Prop 63, the Mental Health Services Act. Prop 63, which Greens strongly endorsed, enacted a 1% tax on income above $1 million to pay for mental health services and programs. Prop 1 would change the current law in three ways. First, it would allow the tax to be spent on substance abuse programs in addition to mental health services. Second, 30% of the tax would be required to be spent on supportive housing for people needing services. Finally, the state would issue a $6.4 billion bond to build more facilities for mental health care and substance abuse treatment, as well as supportive housing.

 

Greens oppose Prop 1 for several reasons. First, Governor Newsom has a track record of supporting involuntary forced treatment for mental health and substance abuse problems. We have concerns that the programs funded by Prop 1 will mainly be used for this purpose, rather than for people who want to get treatment. We believe that the community-based programs that Prop 63 currently pays for are more effective than institutionalization.

 

Second, Prop 63 revenues are currently distributed to each county to fund local programs. One of our 10 Key Values is "Decentralization" - meaning that we support local elected officials prioritizing the needs of their local community. Prop 1 would mandate top-down changes to local funding priorities. Although the quality of services and programs currently varies by county, we don't believe that state mandates on how to spend funds will help.

 

Third, Prop 1 would authorize $6.3 billion in bond spending without any requirement that the funds go to publicly owned projects like public hospitals and public housing. Instead, the money will be sucked up by Democratic Party patronage networks and not help the intended recipients. Greens believe that bonds should be used almost exclusively for public projects (see our Statement on Bond Funding, below).

 

Finally, Prop 1 is too long and complex. Instead of making hard choices about funding priorities, Democrats in the state legislature threw a huge bond together with changes to spending rules that will benefit Democratic Party patronage networks. Prop 1 was designed to buy support from various special interest groups, but overall it's bad public policy.

 

Please join SF Greens in voting NO.

 

 

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).