Election Year 2020

Alright. We’re finally here. The 2020 election. This is a big one in an extraordinary year. We’ve all heard it, remember to vote. Vote like your life depends on it. VoteVoteVote.

But how? I’ve got you.

Federal:

President:

Biden/Harris. Are they perfect? No. Biden is a centrist and Harris is pro-cop. But do they believe in democracy? Yes. Do they believe in climate change? Yes. Will they appoint mostly competent people to their cabinet? Yes. Will they start a fucking war with China? No. Will they actually get a handle on COVID and actually try to help our collapsing economy? Yes.

If you vote for Trump, you are a fucking moron with no understanding of what authoritarianism is. If you vote for Trump, don’t ever tell me because I will NEVER forgive you, and honestly our relationship will likely never be repairable. That man is a monster, he’s a fatalist, and a sadist. He avidly does not care about anything but himself and gets off on watching the world burn.

I work in hospice care and the way he has fucked up EVERY aspect of the COVID response has made life an utter hell for so many people, and he does not give a SINGLE shit. Fuck him and fuck you if you vote for him.

State: California

CA has 12 Propositions on the ballot this year. That is the same number as numbers on a clock.

Prop 14: Authorizes $5.5 billion state bonds for stem cells and other medical research.

A Yes vote means that the state would be issuing $5.5 billion in obligation state bonds to fund stem cell research with an emphasis on treating brain diseases (Alzheimers, Parkinsons, etc.) The interest on this would be around $2.3 billion, so would cost $7.8 billion over 30 years to the state of CA. That’s around $260 million per year, which sounds like a buttload, but its actually less than 1% of the state general fund.

Interesting thing about this is that it would make some changes to CIRM with a focus on improving patient access to to stem cell treatments.

This proposition has a lot of support from prominent healthcare organizations too.

This sounds good on paper, but…

CIRM does not have any oversight by the state or federal government. It has had serious issues in the past with it’s 29 member Board of Directors and conflicts of interest. The whole reason CIRM was started in the first place was because back on the early 2000s, stem cell research was banned. It is no longer banned, and the federal government has been investing billions into research for stem cells ($2.3 billion just in 2019).

This bill is complicated because while it has good intentions, there are other pressing matters that money could be spent on.

Here’s a great source fro lots of info on this bill.

I am voting No on Prop 14, because while it has good intentions, I don’t like that some of it’s policy changes in regards to VROs (see here), and I don’t like that there is no government oversight. I want to like this proposition, but I don’t.

Prop 15: Increase funding sources for public schools, community colleges, and local gov services by changing the tax assessment of commercial/industrial property.

“Currently, business owners pay property taxes based on the price they originally paid for that real estate — typically a lot less than what it’s worth today. If this measure passes, property taxes for many large businesses would be elevated to the property’s current, probably higher, market value. That would net $6.5 to $11.5 billion — 60% for cities, counties and special districts, and 40% for schools and community colleges.” CalMatters

This is a BIG change. This prop fixes one of the loopholes that Prop 13 created 40 years ago. This proposition will mostly affect big businesses.

Here are some Pros and Cons according to SPUR:
”Pros-
-California’s ability to raise essential funds for public education, infrastructure and local services has been hobbled for four decades by the passage of Prop. 13. This measure takes an important step in addressing the fiscal challenges created by Prop. 13 and would provide significant revenue to schools and local governments.
-The current system benefits long-standing commercial property owners over the owners of new and growing businesses. There is no policy rationale for essentially subsidizing long-standing owners in the form of artificially low taxes while making new owners pay taxes on higher assessed values. Prop. 15 would level the playing field between older and newer businesses.
-Prop. 15 taxes vacant commercial and vacant residential land at market value, which could create an incentive for owners to develop the land with a mixture of uses, including housing.

Cons-
-Prop. 15 could exacerbate the problem of commercial development being more lucrative for cities than housing, one of the factors in California’s chronic housing shortage. Because it would increase revenue from commercial property taxes, Prop. 15 could further incentivize local governments to zone for commercial development over housing. Some form of regional tax sharing should be considered in order to blunt this negative impact.
-This measure does not tackle the need for holistic tax reform at the state level. California’s tax system is so complex and cumbersome that a wholesale overhaul should be considered.
-This measure would be challenging to implement, particularly in the first several years. Prop. 15 requires that commercial properties be reassessed, which would significantly increase workload for county assessor’s offices. How that work would be funded is unclear.”

I am voting Yes because I think the positives outweigh the negatives, and I am biased in that I fucking hate Prop 13.

Prop 16: Reinstating Affirmative Action in California

Ah yes, the proposition decried by every right wing douchebag who believes that structural inequality doesn’t exist in the US. They have apparently never walked around my neighborhood where you can clearly see the effects of redlining, or my favorite, walking around my hometown growing up where it’s common to find spray painted swastikas and hear people using racial slurs. I look back at my 15 year old self and wish I knew half the shit I knew now and had been better at standing up to those fuckers.

So back in 1996, Prop 209 was put into place that banned the consideration of race/sex/color/ethnicity/national origin in public programs. This sounds good on paper right? Nobody wants to discriminate (well, nobody who isn’t a piece of shit). Newsflash, Prop 209 was not good. It really only works if you believe that systemic racism isn’t a thing, which is false. Anyway, since affirmative action was repealed, it has had the most impact on Black, Latino, and Native American college applicants. Their numbers have plunged, even though they make up 60% of high schoolers.

So wtf does Affirmative Action do? It means that universities and government offices could factor in someone’s race, gender or ethnicity in making hiring, spending and admissions decisions. Most of its measured impact is in higher education. ”One study of 700 Black students who were preferentially admitted to colleges in part due to their race found that 32% attained doctorate degrees or professional degrees, a similar rate to that of their white counterparts. Data from states like Michigan, which removed affirmative action policies in public colleges and universities in 2006, have shown a decrease in enrollment of students of color. “ SPUR

Unfortunately, Affirmative Action only goes so far. It’s not like increasing educational achievements has gotten rid of pay gaps or wealth disparities, so… honestly, Prop 16 feels functions more as an “it is unlikely to hurt” proposition.

What Prop 16 would likely do is increase college admission rates of Black/Latino/Native American students, and would make the state consider giving more contracts to minority/women owned businesses.

And just to cover this stupid fucking base, I know some of you have heard that if Affirmative Action (Prop 16) is reinstated, then schools will create race quotas. I am here to tell you that that is ABSOLUTE horseshit, as that has been banned by the Supreme Court since 1978.

Useful info: SPUR, CalMatters; It’s currently supported by the UC and Cal State college systems, the LA Chamber of Commerce, The League of Women Voters, and the ACLU of San Diego/Imperial Counties. Total spent on yes = $13,432,237. Opponents include the CA GOP, and the Chinese American Civic Action Alliance.

I am voting yes on 16.

Prop 17: Restores the right to vote after completion of prison term

This is a no brainer. Yes on Prop 17. You should not lose the goddamn right to vote if you’ve been to prison, and are on parole. You are still a citizen, you should be able to fucking vote.

Prop 18: Let 17 years olds vote in primary and special elections who will turn 18 by the next general election vote

YES. Here are some lovely worded pros to this measure:

• Legalizing voting at a younger age could improve turnout for younger voters and their families. 

• Voting earlier in life has been shown to lead to stronger voting engagement throughout a person’s lifetime.

• Research has shown that 17-year-olds are sufficiently developed in their analytical, independent, and empathetic cognitive abilities to make thoughtful voting decisions.6

• Young people are experiencing significant negative impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and the government’s response. Including 17-year-olds in the democratic process will provide them with greater agency over the systems and institutions that directly impact their lives. 

• By allowing this subset of the population to vote in California’s primary elections, the general election ballots will be more representative of the full electorate.” SPUR

If you read this and think “but young people are STUPID and will vote bad” then you need to re-examine your own biases, because people of all ages are fucking stupid and vote bad.

Prop 19: The Home Protection for Seniors, Severely Disabled, Families, and Victims of Wildfire or Natural Disaster Act

That’s a loaded ass title. This is a big complicated thing. I will do my best to break this down. I fucking HATE this measure.

Why do I hate this measure? This measure “would make it easier for some owners to transfer their property tax assessment anywhere in the state (current law only allows these transfers within a county). Eligible owners include those over 55, those who are severely disabled and those who are victims of wildfires or other natural disasters. If the market value of the new property that the owner purchases is greater than the market value of the old property, then the difference would be added on to the taxable assessed value of the old property. If the value of the new property is less, then the assessment for the old property would just be transferred to the new property. Prop. 19 would allow a property owner to transfer their low property tax up to three times.” SPUR

Wtf does that actually mean? It means it gives 55+ homeowners a big ass tax break when buying a new home.

This may sound familiar to some of you. That’s because in 2018, the CA Realtors Association tried to pass almost exactly this this bill (it failed, because it was bullshit). This time, they have changed it up with ~drumroll please~

Closing the Lebowski Loophole. What in God’s name is the Lebowski Loophole? It allows the transfer of low property tax assessments from deceased owners to their children or grandchildren REGARDLESS of whether they live on the property. So someone could inherit a penthouse in SF and rent it out on Airbnb and pay the same fucking property tax as their parents. Prop 19 would stop that.

In fancy eloquent words: “Under this measure, only heirs who use the home as a primary residence would be able to transfer a property tax assessment. And if the home’s market value exceeds the assessed value by more than $1 million, the heirs would only inherit the reduced property tax basis on the first $1 million.” So with that loophole closed Prop. 19 would take the revenues created by fully taxing intergenerational property transfers and use them to... (this is why I fucking Hate This Measure) fund fire reduction measures. That’s right. That’s how the CA Realtors Association are trying to sell this to us.

“The measure would establish a California Fire Response Fund, with 20% of funds allocated to the state Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and 80% to local special districts for fire suppression. This would likely benefit more rural areas, which have had to professionalize their volunteer fire services in the wake of the recent wildfires. If there is a strong spike in revenue generated by Prop. 19 (more than a 10% increase in revenue year over year), then the excess funds could be appropriated by the state legislature for other purposes besides fire suppression. The measure would also create a state County Revenue Protection Fund. If counties receive less revenue as a result of this measure, then the state would make up the difference through a distribution of these funds. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) estimates that Prop. 19 would generate tens of millions of dollars in local tax revenue by the increase in taxes collected on inherited properties that do not serve as a primary residence. Over time, this revenue could grow to several hundred million dollars a year.” SPUR

Okay, deep breath. Because Prop 19 does this, the biggest firefighters union in CA is endorsing it because they need funds. Some proponents of this bill say that “this measure could benefit low-income communities and communities of color by providing additional revenue to state and local government.” That is if you think state and local government will do much to help low-income/communities of color. Newsflash, they won’t unless forced.

Prop. 19 could also put financial pressure on low-income families seeking to transfer property to future generations in highly gentrified areas. A family home that was purchased in the 1970s in a low-income neighborhood by a low-income household would likely have a very low assessed value. But if that neighborhood has gotten hot, then the current value could be way higher than the original value, potentially beyond CA’s $1,000,000 threshold, which would trigger an another tax assessment that might be beyond the inheritor’s ability to pay. Which would fuck over the family living there.

So.

This proposition sucks. I really want to close the inheritance loophole, but I don’t want to give wealthy homeowners a goddamn tax break. This is all Prop 13’s fault YET AGAIN.

And so, I uh…ugh I’m gonna barf. I hate the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. My happy place is finding Howard Jarvis’ grave and spitting on it. But I might have to side with them on this measure.

Could go either way, I don’t know what I will do until I have to fill in that little circle on my ballot.

Prop 20: Restricts Parole for certain offenses currently considered to be non-violent and a bunch of other shit

Vote no. This is a tough-on-crime bill that helps ZERO people (sorry, it helps private prisons). There are no good sides to this bill. Fun things this bill can do: give people a felony charge for stealing something between $250-$950. Great. Cool. Awesome. Let’s RUIN people’s lives for stealing something worth less than $1000. Also, it would cost CA shitloads.

Here’s a few more things it would do: “Give prosecutors new flexibility to charge some property crimes of more than $250, such as “serial shoplifting” and car theft, as felonies rather than misdemeanors. Increase penalties for former inmates who violate the terms of their supervised release three times, making it more likely that they will be sent back to jail or prison. Require law enforcement to collect DNA samples from people convicted of certain misdemeanors — including shoplifting, forgery and illegal drug possession — to be stored in a state database. (This is me, not CalMatters, wtf then happens to this data once it is in this system?) Double the number of felonies that disqualify prison inmates from being able to apply for early parole consideration.” Calmatters
There is literally nothing good in the above. For a really good in-depth analysis, look here and here.

Prop 21: Expands local governments’ authority to enact rent control on residential property

You’d think that I would like this bill. I don’t. Rent control CAN be very good but CAN be implemented very badly. This is one of those times. I really want to like this bill.

Here’s why I don’t like it in way prettier words than my own, from SPUR:

• Allowing cities to apply rent control to newer buildings and limit the rent landlords could charge new tenants would likely lead to a significant reduction in the construction of new rental homes, as more rental housing projects would become unprofitable to build. Research from the Terner Center indicates that the 15-year rolling timeline is too short and would likely reduce housing production statewide. 

• Allowing vacancy control, even with limitations, would probably increase the number of rental units that are converted to condos. A 2017 study found that rent control caused San Francisco’s overall rents (including units not covered by rent control) to rise, because many landlords, when faced with the financial limitations of rent control, chose to convert rental units to condos or other owner-occupied housing. Collectively, these individual choices removed 15 percent of the rental stock from the San Francisco market between 1994 and 2012. This reduction in the rental housing stock drove up competition, increasing rents overall. 

• The “natural person” owner requirement means that single-family homes and condominiums owned by family trusts would not be exempt from local rent control laws.

• Rent control is an imperfect tool for stabilizing communities because it is not specifically targeted to help people of color, low-income households or other disadvantaged populations; the people who benefit most are those who have been in their rental units the longest, not necessarily those who need the most help. Some studies show benefits actually accruing more to whiter, wealthier households in some cases. Restricting rents that new tenants pay (vacancy control) would also not necessarily support low-income households, as many new tenants would not be low-income. Supporting low- and moderate-income affordable housing programs, especially those with right-of-return preferences for previous tenants, better targets people of color and lower income individuals. 

• If adopted by cities, the potential cost of vacancy control to landlords would be arbitrary and uneven. A unit that a new tenant occupied in 2020, for example, would forever after be rented out at a vastly higher rent than an identical unit where a tenant moved in in 1980.

• This measure does not need to be on the ballot. Amendments to Costa-Hawkins can and should be made through the legislative process, where the details can be better negotiated and policy changes can be made more easily in the future.

• The measure language that says cities and counties cannot limit a landlord’s right to a fair rate of return on property is ambiguous and would most likely lead to litigation and uncertainty. 

This bill is likely to actually antagonize the housing crisis rather than alleviate it, esp. over the long term, and that is B.A.D. The only way to deal with the housing crisis is to build more housing. That’s it. That’s the solution. This does not do that.

I’m so tired.

This is so fucking funny to me.

Prop 22: Changes Employment Classification Rules for App-Based Transportation and Delivery Drivers

Here’s the big one. This baby has had over $190,000,000 pumped into it. Them big funders include Doordash (who steals it’s delivery drivers wages), Uber (who sexually harasses its employees), Lyft (who does the same thing as Uber), and Instacart (who wouldn’t provide protections or wage increases to its delivery drivers in the midst of this pandemic until they threatened to unionize). Um. FUCK all those companies.

But you’re here for in-depth, quality analysis right?

Here you go, don’t ever say I never gave you anything. The best thing you can do is Vote NO on Prop 22 simply because it would require a 7/8 majority and the Governor’s Signature to change it at all. That means it would basically never be able to changed. That’s insidious. There have been lots of changes to AB5 since it was put in place, and we should not cave to threats from companies who routinely treat their workers like garbage. We don’t negotiate with terrorists.

Just vote no. If you want a far more in-depth analysis, check here and here.

Prop 23: Establishes State Requirements for Kidney Dialysis Clinics. Requires On-site Medical Professional.

Fuck DaVita. The dialysis industry desperately needs to be regulated. The issues with this bill is whether it will improve patient care or not, and that’s debatable. Could this bill make it harder for low-income patients to get care? Maybe. Could it also improve services because these fucking asshole companies couldn’t just up and close a clinic whenever they want? Yes.

I um, am biased. I hate DaVita. If you ever want really really high blood pressure, look up the fucked-upness of dialysis in the first place. In my 2018 guide, I add in a lot more detail on the dialysis industry. I will likely vote Yes on Prop 23.

Prop 24: Establishes new consumer data privacy rights, amends current data privacy law and creates a new state enforcement agency.

I don’t actually like that this is on the ballot. This should be hashed out by our legislators. But here we fucking are.

I am all for consumer privacy. I firmly disagree with data collection and data selling. However, I don’t like that this is basically bankrolled by one guy, and there are no guides on how companies are supposed to handle obtaining permission from kids about collecting their info. If you are like me, then you will likely vote no because this shouldn’t be on the ballot to begin with, but if not, you could go either way. There are concerns that this could allow companies to charge people who opt out of data collection money or more money than those who don’t (though technically under current law, this could happen anyway?).

Here are some pros though (From SPUR):

• Consumer privacy can still be violated by the sharing of data, even if that data isn’t ultimately sold. This measure would establish further protection in that area. 

• This measure includes additional penalties for violating the data privacy of children and youth, who can be a particular target of these questionable business practices.

• Creating an agency, budget and staff dedicated to data privacy would likely lead to better regulations and enforcement. 

• Prop. 24 is intentionally written to create parity between California law and GDPR, which could simplify compliance for businesses that work globally.

I will probably Vote No.

THIS IS FUNNY.

Prop 25: End Cash Bail

A Yes vote upholds SB10 which ends cash bail. A No vote repeals SB10, which doesn’t end cash bail.

Vote Yes. The Cash Bail system is unfair, and penalizes the poor. It’s a horrible system that destroys peoples lives. It is predatory as fuck. If you’re reading this and have never heard of this. Start googling cash bail.

Is SB10 perfect? No. In fact, especially in conservative-leaning counties, it could lead to higher pre-trial incarceration rates and problems (due to changing to an algorithm based approach). However, the cash bail system is so SHIT that any reforms to it, especially reforms that can be changed and hashed out by the legislature, would likely be an improvement. There is very real fear that if SB10 is overturned, it will be nearly impossible to reform the cash bail system. So while I don’t like all of SB10, something is better than fucking nothing.

County: Alameda

Measure V: Extension of Alameda County Utility User Tax for Unincorporated Areas

What: This is asking if the current 6.5% utility tax on unincorporated areas stay in effect until 2033. This measure funds a lot of county services especially in the areas being taxed. There are a bunch of exemptions for farmland use, people on life support, and low-income folks.

Thoughts: This is a regressive tax, and I hate those, they unfairly punish the poor. The shitty thing about this tax is that it both doesn’t raise taxes on dirtier utility use but also that it exists in its current format at all. This tax has a harsher effect on low income people, and lots of poor people have been forced into unincorporated areas, therefore now being subject to this tax. However, the tax does fund services in the areas it taxes, so cutting it would gut those services by like $12 million a year.

I’m going to Vote No, but it will likely stay in place.

Measure W: Alameda County Sales Tax Intended for Homelessness Programs

What: Establish a 0.5% sales tax for 10 years to fund County services, with a focus on homelessness, mental health services, job training, and social safety net services. Estimated $150,000,000/year, subject to annual audits and citizen oversight.

Thoughts: I am very conflicted on this one. It’s a sales tax, which is also a regressive tax and I hate those. However, they do raise a lot of money at a constant rate, which is kind of what you need to fund homelessness programs. Which leads me to the next point I don’t like. I don’t like this bill because the funds go to the General Fund, and while the money is supposed to go for certain services, and the citizen oversight board should help to do that, Alameda County is looking at a HUGE deficit from COVID so the money might go to other services instead, including paying pensions. At the risk of sounding like a right wing assclown, there is a huge problem with pensions in CA. Local governments literally go bankrupt from trying to pay them. It’s bad.

I could go either way on this one.

Congress 13th District: Barbara Lee

18th Assembly District: Rob Bonta

9th State Senate District: Nancy Skinner

Superior Court Judge, Office #2: Elena Condes- She runs the East Bay De La Raza Lawyers Association she has an amazing track record on criminal justice reform. A good pick.

City: Oakland

Measure Y: Oakland Unified School District Classroom Repair/Safety Improvement Measure

What: Issues $735,000,000 in bonds for the Oakland Unified School district to do safety and improvements.

Thoughts: The money from this would go towards construction improvements, which could be great as Oakland schools are uhh…outdated is the nice way to put it. However, by the time the district would pay back the debt from these bonds, it will have paid something around $1,400,000,000. That’s…a lot. Then there’s the issue that the OUSD just in 2019 asked for fuckloads of money with Measure Y and then utterly mismanaged those funds, so why the fuck would I trust them with even more money to fuck up managing?

I want to fund the schools in my neighborhood. I want earthquake safe(r) infrastructure. I want new classrooms, and I want better facilities. But I don’t want these huge amounts of money to blow the fuck up in everyone’s face like they already have. I don’t want the district to go into even greater debt. I don’t like any of this. I hate sounding like a nitpick-y anti-public schools shill, but I can’t give this one my blessing. And yes, I know the OUSD was absolutely shafted by charter schools and Jerry Brown. I know.

So what to do? Well, you could vote yes and hope (and likely be wrong) and still have bad infrastructure, or vote no and feel bad, and still have bad infrastructure. I sure do love capitalism.

Measure QQ: Lowers the voting age to 16 for Oakland Unified School District Board of Education elections.

What: Lets 16 and 17 year olds vote in Oakland Unified School District Board elections.

Thoughts: YES. Kids should have a god damn voice on something that impacts them directly. There are no downsides here.

Measure RR: Ends $1,000 limit on fines for violating city ordinances

What: Would remove the current limit of $1000 on fines and allow the city council to establish a new fine limit.

Thoughts:

Let’s start with some background, courtesy of SPUR:

“Oakland utilizes fines to enforce building, planning and other city codes as well as certain city ordinances (such as the Hazardous Tree ordinance). The Planning and Building Department’s code enforcement personnel, for example, respond to complaints of unsafe and unsanitary housing, illegal dumping, graffiti, vacant buildings and unlawful construction, among other issues. These officials provide written courtesy notices, and if those are ignored, they issue fines, which vary based on the violation but cannot exceed $1,000.”

That $1000 cap was set in 1968. It hasn’t been updated since. Which is shit. I believe the fine should be changed, as companies, landlords, and others who can easily afford the fine take blatant advantage of it and violate codes all the damn time.

The downsides are that the new fine could have a particularly harder impact on poor people (what fucking doesn’t?). However, I think making it more costly to be a piece of shit outweighs the risk here, and will make an actual difference.

This one gets a yes from me.

Measure S1: Expands the powers of the Oakland Police Commission and the Community Police Review Agency, and creates an Office of Inspector General.

What:

From SPUR: “The measure would establish the Police Commission as a body independent of the city administration and allow the commission to hire its own attorneys. The commission could require that the chief of police respond to its requests for information. Measure S1 would also clarify that the commission cannot issue subpoenas for city employees who are not police officers. Measure S1 would extend the time when the CPRA must complete its investigations from 180 days to 250 days. It would also allow the CPRA to hire its own attorneys. The measure also clarifies that CPRA staff are authorized to access Police Department policies, records related to sworn officers and disciplinary history. Additionally, it would place the director of the CPRA under the Police Commission instead of the city administrator. Finally, Measure S1 would create an independent Office of Inspector General (OIG) to review cases of police misconduct and the CPRA’s investigations and provide reports to the Police Commission and the Oakland City Council. The Police Commission would hire and oversee the inspector general. The OIG would also oversee the city’s compliance with requirements of the settlement agreement for a prior lawsuit (see the Backstory section).”

Thoughts: This does A LOT. The Oakland Police are shit (like all cops, fuck the police). We desperately need to establish an independent Inspector General office. We need access to police disciplinary history. We need the Police Commission to be able to hire its own attorneys, and have the funding for it.

Yes on Measure S1. We need to be able to watch the cops. Maybe they’ll be less likely to fucking kill people if they know they can’t get away with it.

AC Transit Director At-Large:

Honestly, vote for either Peeples or Fierce. Peeples doesn’t drive (that actually means something when you run a major public transit agency) and has a decent track record and a lot of experience. Fierce started East Bay for Everyone, and has done good work with the CA Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund. She may not have direct transportation experience, but she would bring a lot of community organizing experience to the table and is very dedicated to helping the people who tend to need it most.

Oakland City Council:

Rebecca Kaplan is the best option for At-Large. DO NOT VOTE for Derreck Johnson, he’s a god damn fake progressive. He makes it out like he’s supported so many of his formerly incarcerated employees, and yet he got sued in 2019 for not paying workers comp, and he is against raising the minimum wage. He’s also currently backed by Lyft who has donated an ABSURD amount of money ($100,000+) towards him in an attempt to oust Kaplan.

Oakland City Attorney:

Barbara Parker is the better option. I don’t like her that much, but she’s better than Ferran who doesn’t really have the experience needed for this job. He’s worked for 12 years in the City attorney’s Office, but never branched outside “nuisance” crimes. That’s not good enough.

Sources:

CalMatters

SPUR

CA Fair Political Practices Commission

Oakland Rising

Trash Night Heron (independent reporter on all the goings-on in Oakland, this dude is rad.)

California Voting on Super Tuesday, 2020

Let’s just jump right in here, Super Tuesday is March 3rd, 2020. California is voting early this year, so your vote matters! (wow, novel concept.)

Federal:

President:

Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. My main beef with Sanders is that he’s been hanging out with a bunch of leftist NIMBYs and is against housing developers which does not solve the problem of NEEDING MORE PHYSICAL HOUSING, and he tends to support local control which I see as a huge part of the reason we are in a housing crisis in the first place. He’s a big proponent of social/public housing, which yes, is part of the solution, but that doesn’t make it easier to build OTHER types of housing or say upzone places like Marin County, or Beverley Hills. Warren has the best actual housing plan out of all the candidates, which includes a plan to tackle historical housing discrimination. My own personal beef with Warren is her track record of flip flopping on Medicare for All, and her foreign policy leaves much to be desired. There is no perfect candidate for foreign policy, so if that’s your thing, Sanders might be your best bet as he has voted the least often to bomb the shit out of people (also, he hates AIPAC, so he gets bonus points for that). My original pick was Julian Castro, I am genuinely sad that he didn’t get farther on the campaign trail. He had the best policy for police reform, wanted to classify homeless people as a protected class, and actually gave a shit about indigenous people’s rights. He’s backing Warren now. If she takes the nomination and doesn’t pick him or Bernie as her VP then I will be severely disappointed.

Sanders and Warren both have good environmental policies, and Sanders supports The Green New Deal (though GND doesn’t mention fucking land use/sprawl and therefore won’t do nearly as much good as it could but that’s a topic for a whole other fucking day). If you’re just looking for someone to beat Trump, then Sanders is your best bet. He has the biggest base of supporters across the nation and offers an actual vision of what America could be instead of just “Trump sucks” as a platform. Warren from a policy perspective probably has the better plan to actually getting to a nationalized health care system, but either her of Sanders would be better than what we have currently.

GRANTED, TAKE ALL THIS SHIT WITH A GRAIN OF SALT because if the Dems don’t take back the goddamn Senate, everything will be stalled/a giant fight for the next 4 years.

Here’s some shit to learn more:

https://www.curbed.com/2019/6/19/18644798/democratic-primary-housing-policy-2020-president

https://www.nhpr.org/post/where-they-stand-comparing-2020-democrats-affordable-housing-plans#stream/0

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/19/21005124/2020-presidential-candidates-health-care-democratic-debate

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/10/758172208/health-care-see-where-the-2020-democratic-candidates-stand

Oh, if you vote for Bloomberg, please never talk to me again. That guy is a legit monster. Google the shit he’s said about women and minorities. He’s a piece of shit. He broke up Occupy Wall Street and enacted the disastrous policy of Stop-and-Frisk in New York. He’s garbage, and that’s where he needs to be thrown.

State: California

Prop 13: Yes. Our schools desperately need funding to make them less terrible. Do you know how expensive construction is in CA? It’s horrific. Our school infrastructure is old, crumbling, and in poor neighborhoods, has lead in the water and asbestos. We need this bill.

County: Alameda

Measure C: Yes. It requires an independent audit every few years, and the board running it would have a decent number of diverse voices. It’s also not a huge tax increase, and the money is going to have to come from somewhere. It’s a step in the right direction to providing child care workers a living wage too.

Congress 13th District: Barbara Lee

18th Assembly District: Rob Bonta

9th State Senate District: Nancy Skinner

Supieror Court Judge, Office #2: Elena Condes- She run the East Bay De La Raza Lawyers Association she has an amazing track record on criminal justice reform. A good pick.

Supervisor, District 4: Nate Miley, because his competition is…a total unknown.

18th Assembly District County Central Committee:

• Victor Aguilar

• Andrea Luna Bocanegra

• Howard Egerman

• Henry Gage III

• Iris Merriouns

• Jose Carlos Moreno

• Pamela Price

• Royl Roberts

• Austin Tam

• Marchon Tatmon

And go ahead and throw in Corina Lopez too.

City: Oakland

Measure Q: This one is a doozy. I’m really torn on this one. On one hand, yes I want to support our parks and recreation facilities. This measure has clear deliverables and expenditures for this purpose. The problem is that they tacked on a bunch of buzzword filled unclear deliverables to tackle homelessness as well. Oaklnad has a trash record of handling homelessness, and I don’t know if this bill would even get the 2/3rds majority it needs in order to pass anyway. If it doesn’t the city might be looking at the same fucking shit that went down with Measure AA and then nothing good happens. I want to support our parks, and help folks with homelessness, but I don’t think this bill is the right one for it, despite a lot of good people and organizations backing it. Vote either Y or N, they both suck.

Measure R: Yes, it’s nice to see a law trying to actually keep up with the changing media landscape. None of our local newspapers meet the current requirements, so shit needs to adjust.

Measure S: Yes, for fucks sake YES the City should be able to spend the goddamn money it gets from tax measures that have been approved by voters!!!! HOW FUCKING STUPID IS THE WORLD WE LIVE IN???? This is the stupidest fucking thing! “Oh no, we made more money from taxes than the Appropriations Limit says we can spend, guess we just…won’t fund the services the money is supposed to go towards funding???” WTF, who the fuck even voted for Prop 4 and Prop 111 back in 1979/1986??? Jesus H Christ this is why people hate Government. Please vote Yes on S so Oakland can spend the fucking money it gets from taxes on the fucking services it is supposed to be spent on.