San Francisco’s Asian Pacific American community makes up more than one-third of the city’s 776,000 residents. Unfortunately, political campaigns overlook our numbers and recognize that APAs represent only one-sixth of the electorate. Since no single voter group in San Francisco comprises a majority, voters must build coalitions and forge compromises with the APA community. When other communities fail to partner with our community, the political left will eventually be left out, and the political right will always be in the wrong.Our community is more than ideology. APAs make up half of the public school district students and a significant segment of our local colleges and universities.
With so many kids, APA households tend to be larger than the average citywide household and APAs will more likely own a home.
Our small businesses are also the underpinnings of the San Francisco economy. Without our mom-and-pop grocery stores, motels, restaurants or retailers, the city will not recover from our current economic doldrums.
Based on who we are, and not ideology, AsianWeek recommends the following candidates and propositions for the Nov. 4 election.
Newsom for Mayor
Although Supervisor Newsom’s Care Not Cash (last year’s Proposition N) is still in court, the seven-year veteran legislator set the tone in 2002, driving homelessness to the top of the agenda in the minds of voters. At the same time, Newsom and voter support forced two mayoral candidates and a supervisor to come up with their own homeless reform measures. Well before the alternative measures emerged, the Board of Supervisors had repulsed his efforts to reform homeless policies and programs. As a result, Newsom turned to San Franciscans with, Care Not Cash (CNC), and won a 60 percent mandate to convert cash benefits into in-kind services. Backed by the medical and public health community, Newsom contended that insufficient cash benefits didn’t help the homeless. Instead, benefits were abused for substance abuse and thereby killing the homeless.
In this year’s November elections, following CNC, Newsom qualified Proposition M to humanely ban aggressive panhandling — a symptom of the city’s growing homeless problem. Instead of jail time, violators could seek mental health or substance abuse screening from the city.
Homelessness has defined Newsom’s mayoral candidacy, but there is more to the supervisor’s qualifications.
Newsom was a major leader in 1999 to reform public transit through Proposition E. That’s why Rescue Muni — a major rider’s group and force behind Prop. E — has endorsed Newsom for mayor.
In 2000, Newsom was behind a major renewal of city parks and open space.
More than his many accomplishments, the supervisor has drawn from his business background a new independent thinking that sets him apart from ideologues or the status quo. That was evident in Newsom’s Customer Service Plan in 1998, mandating that City Hall departments define their success and customer service by measurable goals.
In tough budget times, Newsom’s thinking is needed when government agencies must streamline themselves while still provide the same level of services to San Franciscans. At the same time, a successful small businessman like Newsom is needed to invigorate economic growth in a time when unemployment has doubled in three years, nearly 26,000 jobs have disappeared and one-fifth of office space stands idle.
Given these times, Supervisor Gavin Newsom is best suited to be mayor.
Fazio for District Attorney
In a time of socioeconomic stress in San Francisco, we must change how we view the chief law enforcement office. This time, weíre choosing a competent, local nuts-and-bolts prosecutor in Bill Fazio over the incumbent.
Both San Francisco’s district attorney and police departments have been the targets of enormous criticism for internal management problems and their abilities to enforce the law. Adding to the ridicule, both departments have been antagonistic towards each other, rather than working together to fight crime.
Changes are in store. By next January, the mayor will appoint a new police chief.
On Nov. 4, we should elect a new DA.
In his eight years as a criminal defense attorney after 20 years as a prosecutor in the DA’s office, Bill Fazio’s thinking has evolved. For example, while Fazio supports life in prison for capital crimes, he opposes the death penalty.
His changes in thinking have demonstrated the independence and professionalism needed to overhaul a highly politicized DA’s office.
In his 1995 and 1999 runs for DA, Fazio was supported by the powerful police officer’s union. This spring, he defended one commander whom the DA indicted for allegedly covering up “Fajitagate” — an off-duty brawl between patrol officers and civilians. The indictment was eventually dropped by the incumbent DA.
At the same time, Fazio has prosecuted corrupt cops and defied the police officers union by supporting Proposition H to increase civilian oversight of the police department. While we disagree with Fazio’s position on H, we should acknowledge his courage to put principle above politics. For making a stand, Fazio lost the major endorsement of police officers in his third run for DA. Unlike his rivals in this election, Fazio doesn’t have the usual political endorsements except those of his clients he’s defended and victims he has represented.
His third run for DA has demonstrated his tenacity — a trait for which we endorse Bill Fazio for district attorney.
Michael Hennessey for Sheriff
In his two decades on the job, Sheriff Michael Hennessey transformed his department into the most diverse yet effective in the state. Notably, he has dedicated himself to recruiting, employing and retaining Asian Pacific Americans among his deputies. Though he has commendably carried his major responsibility to run the county’s jail system and protecting the courts and city government offices, the sheriff has also worked to ensure that inmates leave jails as reformed civilians. Addiction treatment and educational opportunities have become hallmarks of Hennessey’s tenure.
His work is so well respected that the Board of Supervisors contemplated making him police chief in a move to merge the sheriff and police departments.
Accordingly, we recommend Michael Hennessey for another term as sheriff and even as police chief, if the job becomes vacant.
Proposition A - YES, YES, YES!
School Bonds
Asian Pacific Americans representing half of the city’s 60,000 public school students would certainly benefit from this $295 million bond. Half of the dollars would go for major repairs to high schools like George Washington, Lincoln, Balboa and Galileo.
Already, one key issue related to the bond has been whether APA kids will be able to attend neighborhood schools under the student assignment lottery. This fall, the parents of more than 20 APA students were desperate enough to protest their childís assignment and boycott their new school for more than six weeks. After enormous community pressure threatened support for the bond, San Francisco United School District Superintendent Arlene Ackerman proposed to change the student assignment policy to increase the chances of students attending neighborhood schools. Meanwhile, school board member Eddie Chin proposed ending the assignment policy called the “diversity index.”
While proposals by Chin and Ackerman have not been formally adopted yet, we view their ideas as steps in the right direction. As a result, we will endorse Proposition A with some reservations.
Prop. A is a desperately needed measure ó the first installment of what will become a $1.7 billion package of needs to repair schools, increase safety of facilities and update buildings to meet disability requirements.
Ackerman came to the school district three years ago to clean house after one-fifth of a previous bond’s funds were used illegally to pay for salaries instead of building repairs. She should be credited for cleaning up after the scandal.
However, we have grave concerns about the governance of the school district. For one, an ideological minority of elected school board members has thought about firing Ackerman, even though she has stabilized the district. Further, we are concerned about veteran school board members who should have prevented — but failed to stop — the original bond scandal that led to jailings and firings.
The veteran school board members should be held accountable in next year’s elections for failing to supervise $337 million in tax increases and school bonds between 1988 and 1997.
Finally, we are concerned about sharing the burden of this school bond, considering that a higher proportion of APAs own homes compared to the citywide average. This bond benefits all San Franciscans, but it will cost homeowners and landlords $82.98 annually in property taxes for a property assessed at $300,000. However, renters — who could afford these taxes — would not pay.
Proposition B - YES
Retirement Benefits for Safety Employees
According to the city charter, voters are required to decide on retirement benefits for civil service employees. However, voters lack the information to evaluate the complexities of pensions and the long-term impact of these benefits. Proposition B would allow the Board of Supervisors to agree to any changes in retirement benefits for 442 public safety employees. If benefit costs increase, the employee must absorb the increase. There is “no net increase in cost” for the city. We, along with Supervisor Fiona Ma, Assemblyman Leland Yee and Public Defender Jeff Adachi urge a Yes vote for Prop. B.
Proposition C - YES YES YES!
City Services Auditor
Under this measure, the city would devote a small percentage of the budget to the city controller’s office to audit the city’s nearly $5 billion budget. After $347 million in budget cuts. During these tough economic times, the controller should periodically examine city government and identify abuses, like worker’s compensation claims, or help increase productivity of underperforming departments to save money. At the current rate, the controller would perform audits every 10 years. Under Proposition C, the controller would audit departments in much less time.
In addition, Prop. C would establish a whistleblower hotline and website for complaints about wasteful practices and fraud in city government. Specifically, the measure mandates that the city sets standards for street and park maintenance. Finally, Prop. C would reform contracting standards for sole-source bidders.
Interestingly, the only major group opposing this measure is the San Francisco Labor Council, which has a membership that includes civil service employees earning an average of $74,000 in salary and benefits.
The city employs more than 28,000 workers — with 4,000 added since 1996 along with $296 million in payroll costs to taxpayers.
While the Labor Council is the only significant opposition, the measure has brought together political odd couples for Prop. C — Supervisors Gavin Newsom and Tom Ammiano, the Chamber of Commerce, unions with the Building and Trades Council and the San Francisco Democratic, Republican and Green parties.
San Franciscans should get more bang for their buck by voting Yes for Prop. C.
Proposition D - NO
Small Business Commission
ìBigî business can afford to lobby City Hall. In contrast, small businesses deserve representation, but canít afford to employ firms to voice their issues in city government.
Yet, Proposition D is a token attempt to represent small business interests in City Hall. If the Board of Supervisors cared enough about small businesses, it would have increased the $400,000 commission budget. Further, the supervisors could have hashed out a reasonable exemption for small businesses from a minimum wage increase under Prop. L.
The other major problem is APA representation. Like Prop. H’s police commission changes, Prop. D would divide commission appointments between the mayor and supervisors. The supervisors would have the power to veto the mayor’s appointment of commissioners and an executive director. Thus, APAs, who own many small businesses in town, might not be assured of representation. We recommend a No vote on D.
Proposition E - NO
Ethics Reform
On individual points, Proposition E is common sense. The measure, for example, would bar a city employee who awards government contracts from working for the same contractor after the employee leaves government service.
However, Prop. E and the current code of ethics have become excessively complicated or vague and have gotten to a point where they could discourage people from public service. At the same time, the measure provides no additional funding to help current and future city employees, elected officials, appointed commissioners or contractors to understand these regulations.
City commissioners could inadvertently violate some regulation without realizing it. Such a violation could force a commissioner to hire a private attorney at his or her own expense. Further, these regulations could be manipulated for political abuse. Someone, for instance, could file and publicize an ethics complaint against a city commissioner even though the charge has no merit.
We recommend voting No on Prop. E.
Proposition F - YES
Targeted Early Retirement
Many of this year’s propositions are in response to the tightening economy and, as a result, the tightening city budget. To avoid layoffs Proposition F aims to target older civil service workers for voluntary retirement by accelerating their eligibility to retire. Subsequently, their positions would be removed from the city budget. Generally, older workers are paid higher salaries and benefits. At the same time, younger workers with lower salaries and benefits would be retained. Thus, the city could save an average of $85,000 per position in salary and benefits by eliminating the post for at least two years.
The measure also is “targeted,” meaning the city controller must certify jobs eligible for early retirement and elimination from the city budget. “Targeted” retirements will not include vital city positions that require considerable experience or expensive training like police officers and firefighters.
We recommend voting Yes on Prop. F.
Proposition G - YES
Rainy Day Fund
Because of the economic slowdown since 2000, tax revenues are down. In the last budget year, the city had to increase taxes and fees or cut services to make up a $347 million shortfall and approve a $4.9 billion budget. Muni fares, parking tickets and fees increased, while park maintenance and library services have been reduced.
Proposition G, authored by Supervisor Tom Ammiano, would ameliorate the jolting effects of fee increases and service cutbacks. A rainy day fund, if it was adopted, could have slowed city spending in four of the last seven years, while setting aside a $165 million cushion according to the city controller.
The Prop. G reserve would be also set aside for capital and school expenditures, and decrease the need to pass city or school bonds. In particular, the measure would help with education — a high priority for Ammiano, a former teacher who has proposed guaranteeing a portion of the city budget for schools.
Ammiano’s rainy day fund could help many APA school kids and provide some relief to property owners, especially in the APA community where homeowner rates are higher than the city average. In San Francisco, tenants outnumber homeowners by a 2-to-1 margin. We recommend a Yes vote on Prop. G.
Proposition H - NO NO NO!
Police Commission/Office of Citizen Complaints
In a political showdown last year, San Francisco’s planning process slowed to a crawl for four months, while delaying 125 applications for commercial and housing development. The city’s supervisors, despite having three planning commission appointments, were threatening to veto any of the mayor’s personal four panel selections. In response, the mayor withdrew his appointees and left the commission without a quorum. Unlike the supervisors, the mayor had no power to nix any of the supervisor selections.
Chaos could repeat itself if voters pass Proposition H.
Supervisors are ostensibly asking voters to increase civilian oversight and discipline over the police department. While the goals have value, the measure has a fatal flaw — Prop. H splits seven appointments to a revamped police commission. Supervisors would anoint three and would have power to veto the mayor’s four nominees. But the next elected mayor would be powerless to stop the supervisor’s appointments.
Prop. H upsets the checks and balances between the cityís executive (mayor) and legislative (supervisors) branches. The supervisors’ greater powers could undermine the mayorís ability to appoint and direct the next police chief and police department.
Splitting commission appointments for the past two years also has resulted in a spotty record in representing diverse communities of interest.
For example, last year the supervisors and the mayor were castigated for not appointing a neighborhood activist for the planning commission. With fewer appointments, the mayor and supervisors did not cooperate in appointing a commission that reflected the city.
For the election commission, not one APA was appointed. In fact, today only one election commissioner is a person of color, yet the city charter mandates that commissions reflect the cityís diversity.
The current mayor and police commission appointed Fred Lau, who became the second-longest serving police chief before he retired in 2002. Deputy Chief Heather Fong briefly became police chief this year.
Prop. H could undermine APA representation in the police commission and the department. Thatís why we urge a No vote on Prop. H.
Proposition I - NO RECOMMENDATION
Child Care for Low Income Families
Policy statements like Proposition I remain empty promises if proponents lack the political will to ask the Board of Supervisors to pass them and the mayor to sign and fund them.
Prop. I aims to provide pre-kindergarten education for 1,650 kids not covered by state subsidies.
While Prop. Iís intent is noble, Treasurer-Tax Collector Susan Leal and the four sponsoring supervisors should have passed this measure at the board rather than submitting this last-minute, undebated measure to vote. As a result, Leal and the supervisors failed to identify the $16.3 million in revenues needed to fund Prop. I and two additional supervisors to pass it at the board.
Ironically, mayoral aspirant Leal has criticized other mayoral candidates for using the ballot box to pass measures.
In times of budget austerity, proponents of measures must have the courage to identify where the money will come from. Someone in turn has to sacrifice for Prop. I through taxes or budget cuts. On Prop. I, we do not make any recommendation.
Proposition J - NO
Facilities for the Homeless
Like Proposition I, this measure is more a policy statement with empty promises. Former Supervisor Angela Aliotoís aims have merit — providing separate homeless shelters for seniors, families and the disabled. However, the Board of Supervisors ó each with $112,000 annual salaries — should take responsibility and legislate this measure instead of placing it on the ballot. By going through the board, the supervisors could have held hearings to find the initial $5 million to start these shelters and $9 million annually to operate them according to the S.F. Planning and Urban Research (SPUR) association. The controller estimated most costs could ìrange from minimal to significant amounts.î The board could have answered the question whether the city can legally separate the disabled involuntarily from the homeless population. Alioto failed a major test in her pursuit to become mayor. As the cityís chief executive, she will have to lead by proposing, passing and funding legislation.
Therefore, we urge a No vote on Prop. J.
Proposition K - YES
Sales Tax for Transportation
Proposition K would extend the half-cent sales tax and generate $2.6 billion over a 30-year period for transportation projects. By raising the local funds, San Francisco could receive nearly $10 billion in additional matching federal and state funds. While 60 percent of funds would go to maintaining current infrastructure and operations, a portion of the remaining funds would go to a new central subway between Chinatown and SOMA, rebuilding Doyle Drive — a major artery between APA neighborhoods of the Richmond and North Beach/Chinatown — and creation of a “Bus Rapid Transit” along Geary Boulevard. Given the benefits that Prop. K would provide for APA neighborhoods, we recommend a Yes vote.
Proposition L - NO
Minimum Wage
Proposition L would mean a 30 percent increase of the hourly wage from the current state minimum of $6.75 to a city-required minimum of $8.50.
Like employees, businesses must deal with the high costs of San Francisco. The measure has an enormous impact on APAs, who make up far more than one-third of small businesses in San Francisco.
Small businesses with 10 or more employees would have to find a way to absorb the $4,000 annual increase for each employee going from the state minimum to the city minimum. That could mean as much as $40,000 annually for 10 employees.
So, how does a business pay for that raise? A restaurant, for example, could raise prices. The same business could increase productivity of employees and generate more sales volume. Or, other employees could be laid off. The other alternative is to relocate across county lines.
Board of Supervisors President Matt Gonzalez’s heart is in the right place. However, we felt that Gonzalez could have exempted more small businesses during these tough economic times. We urge a No vote on Prop. L.
Proposition M - YES YES YES!
Aggressive Solicitation Ban
For more than 20 years, San Franciscans have expressed a deep frustration with panhandling, one of many symptoms of homelessness.
Supervisor Gavin Newsom has proposed a humane and enforceable policy to deal with aggressive panhandling near ATMs, traffic or on a public transit. The measure defines “aggressive panhandling” to include unwanted and intentional touching of people, unsafe blocking of sidewalks or roadways, making violent or threatening gestures or stalking of people.
Current anti-solicitation laws only allow the homeless to be arrested, to be fined or to do community service.
Newsomís measure would require the police to warn violators before citing or arresting them. Further, Proposition M would allow panhandlers to seek substance abuse or mental health help from the city.
This measure could have been legislated by S.F. supervisors. However, Newsom’s package of homeless reform measures, including last year’s Care Not Cash to convert cash benefits to in-kind services, have been stymied by a recalcitrant board. Last year, the same board struggled to decide whether to ban public urination and defecation.
As a result, Newsom went to the ballot in 2002 and received 60 percent voter support for Care Not Cash. By taking the lead on homelessness, Newsom drove homelessness to the top of voter concerns.
Reacting to Newsomís leadership, Board of Supervisors President Tom Ammiano rushed his own homeless measure that was defeated last year. This summer, Supervisor Chris Daly passed housing legislation, while former Supervisor Angela Alioto has qualified Prop. J on the ballot.
We urge a Yes vote on Prop. M to address aggressive panhandling. At the same time, we support the continuing public mandate that city leaders reform homeless programs and policies.
Proposition N - YES
Taxi Permit Holder Disability
Proposition N provides some financial security for taxi drivers risking disability. At the same time, a disabled taxi driver would not risk passenger safety by unnecessarily driving under Prop. N.
Prop. N would exempt a disabled taxicab driver from a minimum driving requirement. Under current law, a disabled driver could lose a permit if he fails to make the driving requirement even if the disability was an on-the-job injury.
For a taxicab industry suffering from the tourist and business slowdown, a Yes vote on Prop. N would provide some measure of safety, security and comfort.
We join Supervisor Fiona Ma, Assessor-Recorder Mabel Teng, Asian Taxi Drivers Association, Jim Nakamura of S.F. Taxi Permit Holders and Drivers, Westside Chinese Democratic Club and Asian Pacific Democratic Club in supporting Prop. N.