View other events for the week of 11/ 3/2015
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
|SF Election to Save Rent Control|
|Date||Tuesday November 03|
|Time||7:00 AM - 7:00 PM|
|Import this event into your personal calendar.|
|City Hall, Registrar, basement, Van Ness side, San Francisco|
TODAY IS ELECTION DAY from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. GET UP RIGHT NOW, grab your voter handbook and RUN to your polling place, listed on the front cover of your voter handbook and at http://www.sfelections.org/tools/pollsite/. If neither works, go to City Hall, basement on Van Ness side and vote at the Registrar’s office. If there is any question about your registration, demand a provisional ballot. IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO BE HOMELESS, YOU MUST VOTE IN THIS ELECTION to save rent control and all rental housing in San Francisco.
You can deliver your vote-by-mail ballot on election day to any polling place or to the County Registrar before 8 p.m. IT MUST BE RECEIVED by the County Registrar on election day; mailing is not sufficient on election day.
In Supervisorial District 3 (Nob Hill, Russian Hill and Telegraph Hill), the San Francisco Police Officers Association is walking precincts, distributing door hangers for anti-rent control supervisorial candidate Julie Christensen.
The entire ballot is dominated by the housing crisis more fully described below.
Vote Yes on A,B,F, H, I,K.
Vote No on C,D,E,G,J
As a protest, vote Green for mayor, Francisco Herrera. See http://www.peoplescampaign.net/platform
The San Francisco Elections Department provides a lot of information online at http://www.sfgov2.org/index.aspx?page=599 To see who is funding each campaign and how much is being spent, go to http://www.sfethics.org/ethics/2015/08/campaign-finance-dashboards-november-3-2015-election.html. The current reports are to October 17, 2015; the final reports should be online by November 25, 2015.
Some comments on the propositions. The housing crisis epitomizes the bankruptcy of capitalism that puts profits before people. It should be illegal to maximize profits with housing; all housing should be non-profit and no speculation should be allowed. This is only possible in a socialist society, which we can only obtain when labor has the strength to carry out a general strike to put an end to capitalism. Some 75% of San Francisco residents now cannot afford to buy or rent housing at current market rates. Since all rich people have at least 1 home, and often more, there is NO NEED FOR ANY LUXURY HOUSING WHATSOEVER.
Proposition A: Yes. A bond that the sponsors state will not cost more in taxes so the landlords cannot ask the tenants to pay for it and will not pay for luxury housing. The best thing about this bond is that it makes possible federal funding in addition to bond funding for workingclass housing, for those of us who cannot afford to pay more than $1,000 a month and for those who cannot afford to pay more than $500 a month. All of the ballot arguments for all of the housing propositions ignore one of the largest, if not the largest sector of the labor force in San Francisco: OFFICE WORKERS. There are literally tens of thousands of offices in San Francisco where secretaries, word processors, bookkeepers, receptionists, mail clerks, janitors, stationary engineers and computer technicians work who cannot afford so-called “market rate” rental housing and certainly cannot afford to buy a home. The same is true for all restaurant and hotel workers, teachers, nurses and all other medical staff who earn less than medical doctors. This is the overwhelming majority of the labor force in San Francisco. If you make less than $120,000 a year, you do not need and cannot afford to buy a tax shelter called a home in San Francisco.
Proposition B: Yes. Paid parental leave for all City employees. This basic labor benefit is common in most of the industrialized world, but not in the backward USA.
Proposition C: No. This is phony ethics reform that stifles organizing against the Democratic Party machine.
Proposition D: No. This Mission Rock racket is luxury housing near the baseball stadium swindle with funding from the multi-millionaire dollar fixed gambling racket business called the SF Giants baseball team and proposes promoting a brewery as industry. Alcohol is poison; ask your doctor.
Proposition E: No. This phony change to the open government law is a means of packing public comment by anti-labor corporations.
Proposition F: Yes. This urgently need reform to the current law to stop the hotelization of San Francisco must pass. The most notorious destroyer of our homes is Airbnb, but it is not alone. If you are registered to vote at your current address, you have received at least 6 Yes on F mailers and 7 No on F mailers. You can see the real estate profiteers are funding the No on F mailers and the Yes on F campaign is clearly a grassroots campaign. See http://www.sharebettersf.com/
Proposition G: No. This clean energy proposition by PG&E, a private profit company illegally allowed to provide gas and electricity to San Francisco residents and businesses while City offices have public power, has been superseded by a better one, Proposition H.
Proposition H: Yes. This mandates CleanPowerSF to use electricity generated in California and San Francisco when possible.
Proposition I: Yes. This is a temporary moratorium on luxury housing construction in the Mission District. It is a good start. THERE IS NO NEED FOR ANY LUXURY HOUSING WHATSOEVER.
Proposition J. No. This is an outrageous, unconscionable gift by the taxpayers to private profit businesses in the name of so-called legacy. The older you are, the more businesses you have seen come and go. That is the risk of private profit businesses. There is no reason for the taxpayers to pay the rent of any private profit business. All non-profits that are providing public services should be taken over by the City which should be providing all public services. It is our labor that is the legacy that we pass from generation to generation and provides for the character of our City.
Proposition K. Expands the use of the City’s surplus property for affordable housing from the homeless who have no income to those with a workingclass income, less than $80,000 a year. IN SAN FRANCISCO, WE NOW HAVE 2,352 HOMELESS CHILDREN, AND IT IS INCREASING GEOMETRICALLY, ANNUALLY. We have had a homeless crisis since 1980 when Democrat Carter was president. THE TOP PRIORITY OF OUR CITY GOVERNMENT MUST BE TO HOUSE THE HOMELESS TODAY.