Monthly Archives: October 2004

Remarkable Women Running in San Francisco

As we get to the end of this long and arduous election season I’m going to be posting as often as I can both short missives and links that seem relevant, as well as a few more articles about elections big and small in California. Today I’m focusing on two candidates in San Francisco who I think deserve a little bit of the spotlight in the crowded Supervisorial races this Tuesday.
Lately I’ve been traveling back and forth to San Francisco, helping out a candidate running under the City’s new Ranked Choice Voting system. It’s been an interesting experience, and I’ll be posting a more detailed pre-election analysis and a election post-mortem later on.
For now I’d like to focus attention on two candidates who I’d like to spotlight for their efforts. Both are friends of mine whom I believe would make great additions to the city’s Board of Supervisors (similar to a City Council in other major cities, but remember, San Francisco is a City and a county, hence the name difference) this year.
The other candidate who deserves some recognition in the blizzard of mailers, robo-calls, and election year hoopla is Christine Linnenbach who is running in San Francisco’s more conservative District 7. (Yes, you read that right – don’t believe FOX News’ BS – there are conservative and traditional areas of San Francisco, and Republicans have played major roles in City politics for years!)
I met Christine several years ago during a campaign for City office and found her to be one of the smartest people I’ve met when it comes to open-meeting laws, campaign finance disclosure, and neighborhood rights. During some of San Francisco’s most corrupt, special-interest policy-making years in the 1990s, Christine was a crusading attorney who successfully exposed sneaky deals surrounding the development of Sutro Tower.
Even though things got rather heated during that battle, she refused to give in to the pressures of powerful interests, and won significant battles on behalf of residents in the affected area. For her efforts, she was named a Local Hero by the Bay Guardian.
But it would be a mistake to try and pigeonhole Christine’s political agenda with standard political labels. Instead, it’d be more accurate to say that her ultimate goal is to ensure that the public’s interest comes first whenever legislation and regulations are considered at City Hall, instead of automatically defaulting to what well-paid lobbyists think should come first. That sounds simple, but any analysis of San Francisco decision-making in the last ten years indicates that it’s really a rather radical (in a good way) position, and one the City desperately needs in an era of difficult decisions regarding public policy and fiscal responsibility.
That’s why I’m urging people to send whatever support they can to Christine’s campaign in these last few days, so that again, no matter what happens, we’ll be sure to have her, like Susan, stay in the process and continue to move upward. That said, I think that there’s a chance Christine may surprise a lot of the political know-it-alls out there with the strength of her campaign’s message, and how it will play with District 7 voters.
Do your own reading on both candidates if you haven’t voted yet and I think you’ll find that both deserve your respect, if not your support. If you’re not from San Francisco, consider sending something in anyway, since our country needs young people, especially young women, who can start now at the local level so that one day they may be ready to compete for higher office. Either way, have fun with the election and be sure to vote on November 2nd.
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

What is Up on the Venice Beach Boardwalk??

They’re at it again – the “People Who Know Best” – the folks who know better than you and I how to live our lives – this time in my own backyard here in Venice Beach, California, a part of the great City of Los Angeles.
Although I go to the beach almost daily I hadn’t paid much attention to various petitions and signs regarding proposed ordinances that would over-regulate the assortment of artists, vendors, and oddball displays along the famous Venice Boardwalk. That is, until someone sent me an email over the weekend noting that the new rules would be voted on at the City Council on the 28th.
I’ve taken a look at the proposed changes, and while there is always room for improvement in the conditions of any public space, I don’t see how the new rules are really going to help.
You can read more about the proposed rules in one of the many local papers here and in the LA Times as well.
For views from those opposing the change, you can read this statement from the local Neighborhood Council as well. You know that there’s trouble if even a raucous, and often times loud group like the Venice Neighborhood Council can come together and agree on something important like this.
To better educate myself, I spoke with Sandy Kievman, a representative of my City Councilmember, on the proposed rules. It was an interesting conversation. I politely inquired about the proposed rules and how they’d work, and she was kind enough to give me a rundown of the program as planned.
(Oddly enough, when I asked why the Councilmember and her staff were taking the lead on this issue, she said unequivocally that “we don’t create this kind of thing, we respond” to the requests of the community. But the LA Times story said she was someone “who has helped lead the ordinance effort.” Hmm.)
What became clear is that while there may be some good intentions with the ordinance – the idea being that the area should be reserved for “true artists” and not just people selling “crap” – it’s also becoming clear that there’s really no way for these good intentions to be effectively carried out under the proposed system.
For example, Ms. Kievman made a point of repeating several times that “free speech does not give you the right to run a business or sell things” in asserting why it was necessary to add additional rules and permits to the Boardwalk. The point of the ordinance, she said, was to ensure that artists with City permits would have access to the Boardwalk.
That’s a nice thing to say, but of course, under this system is also not true. “Artists” and others won’t have guaranteed access to the Boardwalk – they’ll have to enter into a lottery to determine if they get to have space or not. That’s a key point, one which can’t be ignored. If something’s being sold to people as “guaranteed” when it is “not,” that’s a problem.
She also indicated that anyone who wanted to “sell things” should be pay ingrent and taxes and operate in a regular store like other stores in the area. But when I asked how the Parks & Rec department would distinguish between an artist, who’s selling their artwork, and a vendor, things got a bit murky.
Also, the definition of “art” was never really answered. Could one make artwork that’s wearable? Would that be allowed under the rules? What is “art” in a society where we commodify everything, including art, speech, and dissent? Who decides? And how does one appeal any decision made? Questions, questions.
You can see where this is going. Good Intentions, meet Road to Hell.
But there’s a bigger problem with the proposal as is – the fact that it is not fiscally responsible. Under this plan people wanting to sell (oops I mean share) their “art” will pay a onetime permit fee of $25 (for now) to have a permit for life to allow them participation in a lottery to determine if they’re going to be allowed on the Boardwalk in a given month.
Let’s assume that 200 people apply for these one time permits. The City of Los Angeles would get a whopping $5000, once, from the people who presumably would be participating over several years. Now let’s assume that for every year, an additional 100 people apply for permits. That means the city would get around $2500 in subsequent years.
Now let’s factor in the staff time to administer this program. Does anyone honestly believe, in an era when we cut budgets every year, that such a small amount of money would even begin to cover the costs of running this bureaucratized system? Raise your hand if you think that a few thousand a year can pay for this proposal. Hmm…I see no hands.
And what happens when we need to axe 30% from the Parks budget in the future, and we need to cut out some of these folks off the payroll? How smoothly will the “system” work then? (If you don’t think we won’t be taking a big piece out of the budget in the future, please, please, put down the pipe for a while!)
More to the point, what guarantee exists that the would not drive up the cost of permits in the future to say, $250? $500? $1000? Tell me with a straight face that the city, in future budget scrambles, won’t see this as Yet Another “Non Tax Revenue Stream” to jack up, after promising they won’t. Don’t believe me? How much are your parking tickets these days? You know, the ones with the $2/ticket tax the State of California levies on tickets now? What, you dont’ remember that Good Intention from the Pete Wilson era? Oh but I digress.
Put simply, the plan is one to make the process so unpredictable, and so difficult for most smalltime folks we find there every day, that they’ll give up and leave. What bothers me the most about these kinds of “rules” is that they don’t seem to be designed for the benefit of those who live here. The Good Intentions get left by the wayside in a program that doesn’t work, and nobody wins in the end.
I don’t pretend to be an expert of all things all the time, but what I do know is that there’s not a lot of reasons to come to Venice Beach, except for the beach, the oddball Boardwalk, and the unusual assortment of shops, artists, vendors and assorted folks by the beach.
People don’t come to Venice Beach to hang out at the Pottery Barn or Barnes and Noble – they can do that in Santa Monica, and frankly Santa Monica does it a hell of a lot better than Venice ever will. At a time when rapid gentrification is quickly making one of the last semi-affordable beach communities another overpriced burg with $3000/month rents, this is the kind of issue that can really stir up a hornet’s nest, and make it harder for other, positive changes, to happen in public policy.
I spoke with City Council Candidate Bill Rosendahl, who actually used to live not far from my place here in Venice, for his thoughts. He was kind enough to send me a short note which I’ll reprint here:
Dear Greg…Jerry Ruben just called me …I suggested he and the group meet with the Councilwomen tomorrow and see if they can continue the item for more discussion … there needs to be more roon for compromise where all sides win…as Venice approaches its 100th anniversary ..harmony among all groups is critical…Cindy has a reputation for finding consensus and I am confident there can be one on this issue…regards Bill Rosendahl

I tried to get a quote from others but they were not available as of press time.
For now, I think it’d be wise if our City Council took a nice deep breath and put this aside for a while. There is no need to rush into this right now – with the winter chill and all the rain out there, it’s not like there’s going to be a lot of folks out there soiling the beach with their presence right now anyway. Instead, let’s get some more creative thinking going on this one, and come up with something a little less Big Brother, and a little more realistic, in its place.
Los Angeles residents can reach their City Councilmember via the city’s website at www.lacity.org and let them know what they think of this, or any other issue. Word is that many Venice residents will be traveling to City Hall early in the morning for a demonstration at 8:30am – I’d attend but pressing obligations don’t allow me to do so.
UPDATE: Not much coverage of the vote or the proceedings, but at least we know that the LA City Council voted unanimously to support this brilliant idea.
Watch how fast I support any of these folks in the near future.
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Guest Blog: Favel Stoda in New Mexico- “Bush Made ME Political!”

In addition to short updates, I’ll be featuring “guest blogging” from my friend Favel Stoda, who has traveled from Los Angeles to New Mexico to work in these final days of the election in a “swing state.” She’ll be posting front-line commentary as she can while she’s busily assisting efforts in that state.
Ten days before the 2004 National Election, I find myself staying with some very nice people that I didn’t even know a week ago in Santa Fe, New Mexico.  I ask myself what brought me here?  The answer: George W Bush.
Two weeks after 9/11, I was having dinner with some close friends.  One of my friends was born in Baghdad but her family immigrated to the United States when she was a child.  She was telling us that within a year the US would be at war with Iraq.  She believed that President Bush would use the “terrorist excuse” to finish off what his father had started along with gaining control of the oil. I knew she was wrong.   After all, the terrorists were in Afghanistan and that was several countries away from Iraq and most strict Moslems despised Saddam.
Thirteen months later, there was a large peace rally in downtown Los Angeles.  I didn’t attend because I believe Bush was only posturing to get the UN inspectors back there and surely we weren’t going to war.  I celebrated the holidays hoping that we would find Osama.    My brother-in-law, is full time army and was on notice that his unit was going to be deployed for Iraq and he was to get them ready.  My hope for world peace was beginning to waiver and I was very worried about my sister and their kids but I was still hopeful.
In January 2003, I began to have some serious doubts about the posturing.  Our elected officials had already voted to give our President the authority to go to war with Iraq.  I attended a very large peace rally in Los Angeles and realized that I had been naïve for too long.  I bought myself a pair of Doc Martens and took a bus to San Francisco and joined over 400,000 protesters.  It felt great to be a part of such a big movement; surely the President would take notice.  My Doc’s gave me blisters and I attended two more rallies but it ended to be all for naught as all of us discovered on March 20th.
In April, my brother-in-law went to Baquabah, Iraq for a year.  I organized care packages for our troops at work and realized that I needed to learn more about how my government works and the Middle East.  I wanted to do more but  didn’t know what to do.
I started following politics and was quite pleased when Wesley Clark got into the race.  Finally, someone I believed in and felt like I could trust.  I
joined up with some other Hollywood supporters and worked on fundraisers for Clark.  I loved it but then Clark had to drop it.  I have no hard feelings, running a national campaign costs tons of money and he had entered a little too late.  I followed Clark’s lead and jumped on the Kerry bandwagon.  I gave money to almost every appeal that came my way (I had never given to anyone running for office before Clark!)
In April 2004, my brother-in-law returned safely from Iraq and I started
volunteering with the Veteran’s for Peace in Santa Monica.  A wonderful group of volunteers and on Sundays they put up “Arlington West” just north of the pier.  Arlington West is a temporary cemetery of three-foot high crosses and each cross represents a serviceperson who has died in Iraq since the war started.  We start at 7:00 am and have the 1,000+ crosses done around 10:00 am and then take them down at sunset.   I learned to wear gloves after the first time I volunteered and got blisters on my hands from raking the sand (more blisters for Bush-it kind of sounds like a country song).
Now, it’s October 24, 2004 and I’m in Santa Fe with over 500 volunteers from the Santa Fe area, California, New York, Texas, Arizona, DC, Virginia and numerous other locations.  I’ve met housewives, retirees, students, people like myself taking time off from their jobs to help in a swing state. On my first day as a volunteer with the New Mexico Victory 2004, I made 300 phone calls beside a retired 75 year old Methodist Minister (he’s amazing on the phone).  Later, I attended a rally in Espanola where a group of low riders (wearing “Vatos for Kerry” t-shirts and I really want one) escorted a bus carrying the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and a few other Hispanic leaders came to town.  I got to shake hands with Deloris Huerta and General Baca!
I spent today in Las Vegas (New Mexico, of course) phone banking and canvassing the town for potential volunteers and voters.  Although, I’ve had an altitude headache for two days I’ve never been more excited about this volunteer work.  It’s so important that Kerry wins this election but if there’s one thing I’ve learned in the last few years-what Margaret Mead said over 50 years ago is even more true today “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world-indeed it is the only thing that has.”
I’m feeling confident that Kerry is going to win on November 2nd but what’s equally  important is for all of us to decide what are we going to do on November 3rd.
Stay tuned for my next update on this novice’s grass roots campaign on probably the most important election of our lifetime…it really is.   (Yes, I sent in my absentee ballot before I hit the road.)
All my best,
Favel
PS (Californians don’t forget to vote yes on Prop 72!)
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Fun Website For the Last Ten Days of Election 2004

The American Museum of the Moving Image has a wonderful website where you can watch campaign commericals from 1952 to 2004. I found this site today and found it to be quite entertaining.
I especially liked the chance to watch some of the older commercials, some of which, like Lyndon Johnson’s famous “Daisy” ad, were so over the top hilarious, it was like watching an episode of the Simpsons. Brilliantly produced 40 years ago, it still shines as an example of over-the-top campaigning.
What’s more interesting is to compare election ads from say, 1992, to today. You’ll notice that thanks to changes in style, technology, and pop culture, the ads for Bush I and the ads for Bush II are very different in appearance and style. In fact ads for all the candidates in the early 90s have a distinct look – one I’m glad to say is long gone.
I was particularly amused by a Ross Perot 1992 commerical that warned that if Americans didn’t elect Perot, we’d have an $8 billion deficit by 2000.
Well people didn’t vote for him and guess what? We had to wait for big mega-billion deficits until 2004 – after we had surpluses by 2000. Guess he was off by a few years.
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

The Last Weeks of Political Fun In Los Angeles….

For me, one of the most fun parts of Campaign 2004 has been the explosion of social events revolving around the election. In years past political events were boring affairs, populated by the Usual Suspects, and tailored more towards the people already involved, instead of towards getting new people on board.
Here in Los Angeles, we’ve been treated to a number of groovy events for the cause. Most recently I attended an event hosted by Rock the Vote at the newly famous Esquire House in Hollywood which was entertaining. It was kind of funny to me that so many hipsters were coming to a “political” event. Wasn’t there a time when all of this was “uncool?”
I managed to run in to an old colleague of mine, Steve Barr, who ran RTV in 1992 and now runs Green Dot Public Schools, some of the most successful charter schools in the nation, as well as friends from all over LA. Although I’m not sure exactly what the event accomplished that night, it nice to check out the Esquire House and talk to some folks I hadn’t seen in ages.
Several events are coming up this week that you should check out if you’re in town during the last days of the campaign season. Yet another independent group has been formed to have a say this election – POP PAC, focused exclusively on the “swing state” of Ohio is having a party on Saturday, October 23, from 4-7 p.m.
Featured entertainment at the event will be the Goo Goo Dolls and the comedy/theater group Culture Clash. This should be a really fun event, but word is that space is limited. You can follow this link to buy a ticket – a bargain at a mere $100 – and be sure to tell them that Schadelmann.com sent you.
If “swing state” politics aren’t your gig, and you’re worried about the future of Medical Marijuana laws in California and around the country, the Medical Marijuana Project is co hosting a joint beneft comedy show on October 24th at the Comedy Store for the MMP, as well as several local service organizations, including Let’s Rap Brothers in Inglewood, and Sister Somayah’s Crescent Alliance Self Help for Sickle Cell.
Many popular comedians are due to appear at this event including Joe Rogan of “Fear Factor” (gotta love those reality shows!), Ngaio Bealum (I used to see this guy perform in SF and he’s hilarious!), Bil Dwyer of “Battlebots” fame, and Charlie Viracola (and most likely more). Best of all the show only costs $20 (although if you feeling like paying more I’m sure they won’t mind). Figure if you went to the Comedy Store anyway, you’d spend at least $20, you can go and support a groovy cause. You can contact Green Therapy for more information.
These are just a few events here in LA – but I’m going to be updating this as more people come out of the woodwork with fun events to attend in these last days of the campaign. Also coming up will be guest blogging live from the frontlines in “swing state” New Mexico in the last week of the campaign. For those of us who are stuck in a solidly Kerry or Bush state, it’ll be a chance to hear a live, firsthand account of what’s really going on in the Southwest!
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Crusader Update: No Final Ruling from the Ethics Commission

Loyal readers will recall that a mini-crusade started by me earlier this month began to take a life of its own when the New York Times picked up on the story, a tale of rules, ethics, and common sense in a time of change.
Savannah Blackwell’s latest column has an update including coverage of the Ethics Commission meeting last night, which gave us no final ruling on the issue at hand – that rules governing campaign conduct haven’t been updated to account for the new realities of Ranked Choice Voting.
Until then, we’re going forth with our campaign, determined to strike a blow for freedom of speech and cooperative campaigning. We probably won’t get a final ruling anytime soon – stay tuned!
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Quick Hit- We Made the New York Times

Loyal readers will recall a mini-crusade started earlier this month, when I noticed many of San Francisco’s elections laws had not caught up to the realities of Ranked Choice Voting this year.
Not only is the Ethics Commission meeting on October 18th to discuss the issue, we made the New York Times today as well.
Onward and upward!
UPDATE: Apparently the San Francisco Ethics and Elections Commission has sent me a letter in response to my query, in advance of their meeting on Monday. However, a careful check of my mailbox indicates I have not received it yet (although if they sent it via First Class Mail it will most likely arrive tomorrow).
This is sizing up to be a slightly bigger drama than I’d anticipated. Still, no one seems to have gotten the joke I inserted in my hypothetical situation which I wanted a ruling on. Can you find it?
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Schadelmann’s All-Star Guide To The 2004 Election!

Voting in California takes some effort. Not necessarily to drive to the polls, wait in line, or fill out the mail ballot and find the post office, but to simply wade through a pile of initiatives, everyone’s favorite tool of democracy, in a timely fashion.
Every year people call me and ask how to vote on these things – and every year it seems we not only get more of these initiatives, but we get dumber and dumber ones as well. So as a public service to my fellow Californians, here’s the Schadelmann.com All-Star No-Nonsense Guide to the 2004 Election, with notes as needed:’
President: John Kerry. Yes, I know he isn’t perfect. Guess what? I don’t care! At least he doesn’t think he’s perfect, like the guy in office does now. (I’m waiting for the press conference where Bush says he’s “better than Jesus” like John Lennon did…)
US Senate:Is there a race for Senate? Sure there is. I’m voting for Barbara Boxer, mostly because she autographed a newspaper I had from a rally I ran for her in Santa Cruz, and got her picture taken for free with my mom and dad when they visited Washington DC in 1994. What have you done for me lately, Mr. Jones?
US Congress:I can’t imagine there’s a district in Southern California where the person they drew the district for is going to lose. So you can pretty much vote for anyone and the “right” person will still win.
Rep. Jane Harman lives just a few blocks away from me, so I’m voting for her so I can tell people a Member of Congress lives just a few blocks away from me. And she seems nice. Her campaign is actually running a credible effort too, which is rare these days. Good job!
California State Legislature: The same reasoning applies here – the person they drew these districts for is going to win, barring some bizarre circumstances, so again, you can pretty much vote for whomever you want, and the “right” person will win. Have fun with it. Write in me for State Senate somewhere. Or your dog. Whatever.
Initiatives
Proposition 1A – Local Taxes and The State – NO: This is one of those initiatives I’d like to believe does what it says, since it’s in line with something I believe – that the State shouldn’t be taking locally collected property taxes away from local authorities. It’s wrong, and it denies local authorities, and the citizens who elect them, control over their own money.
That said, it’s unclear that this will accomplish a worthy goal: keeping local money local. After reading so many analyses that aren’t clear as to the details (where the Devil usually resides) I can’t really endorse this as a result. Which sucks, because I don’t know if anything better will come along, but I’m tired of voting for good-intentioned, hastily written laws that end up not working.
Proposition 59 – Open Government – YES: This is an easy call. When you pick up the newspaper and have to read yet another scandal involving Secretary of State Kevin Shelley, or another example of how people who work for the public want to keep the public uninformed as to what they’re doing, it’s clear that this law, which would clarify and codify the concept of open government, is needed.
Proposition 60 – Equal Ballot Access – YES: This is a simple law – it asserts the rights of people to nominate candidates of their party, and see the winner of the party’s primary appear on the fall ballot. This allows all parties to compete for your vote on the November ballot. You’d think such a simple, open, and small-d democratic concept would be a slam dunk for passage – but the People Who Know Best are slamming this concept with Proposition 62. Vote “yes” and stick it to The Man.
Proposition 61- Children’s Hospital Bonds – YES: Normally I despite “bonds” because they’re sold to the public as “more money for (fill in the blank here)” but no one ever talks about the huge interest payments that make these things cost way more than what they give to (fill in the blank here). At the same time it is really hard to say “no” to children’s hospitals, which serve anyone, and if you’ve ever met someone whose kid had heart trouble or leukemia, you know the work they do is great. So vote yes, despite the bond’s inherent weakness as a funding mechanism.
Proposition 62 – Special Interest Primary Elections – Hell NO: Longtime readers know full well what I think of this special-interest funded nonsense, designed to rig elections and allow political consultants and their pals in wealthy industries to play shenanigans with the political system.
Vote “no” and stick it to The Man. You can read back issues on this topic here, here, and here.
Proposition 63 – Funding for Mental Health – YES: The state of California, in one of its stupider moves, decided to dismantle our mental health system and devolve it back to the counties, and the effects are pretty clear.
We’ve traded any sort of system for getting people the help they need so they’re not shouting at a wall somewhere on the street for one that doesn’t work – in our state’s case, letting everyone loose on the street where many mentally ill people now live. This initiative, like most, isn’t perfect, but at least it tries to get some money where it’s needed, and help cut down the cost of other problems, like homelessness, and crime, in the process.
Proposition 64 – Make Large Companies Unaccountable for their Misdeeds – NO: This piece of special interest funded legalese portrays itself as something that will help small business defend itself from “frivolous” lawsuits. As a small business owner myself, I’m sure I could be persuaded to support such a concept.
Too bad this is just an attempted to weaken the laws in California that keep large companies accountable when they pull shenanigans. But rather than go on and on about this noise, check out this amusing video which does a far better job than I, mostly because they’re riffing on the old Schoolhouse Rock videos from the 1970s.
Proposition 65 – Local Taxes and The State II – YES: This was the initiative local authorities drafted before the compromise 1A was created. Just to have a little fun, vote “yes” and see what happens. Reading through the analysis is long, complicated and not a lot of fun. Don’t we pay people to do this for us in the Legislature?
Proposition 66 – Reform Three Strikes – YES: In the clamor for “tougher laws” California came up with the cutely named “Three Strikes and You’re Out” law. There wasn’t a whole lot of reasoning as to why three felonies merited life imprisonment, versus two, or four, or 3.1416. It polled well and we passed it.
Since then we’ve had plenty of violent felons go on to commit lots of crimes, while some idiot who shoplifts beef jerky at a 7-11 gets a life term. This law would fix some of the problems with the law so that it makes more sense and gets more real criminals behind bars.
Proposition 67 – Telephone Taxes for Emergency Care – NO: This is one of those laws I don’t like, since they’re taxing telephones to pay for emergency care service, when that should be paid for in a more sensible way, but when I read who’s opposing this, I don’t like them either. I’d rather vote “no” and force the Legislature and the Governor, who are paid to solve these problems, come up with a more stable plan.
Proposition 68 – The Larry Flynt Gambling Initiative – NO: The card clubs and racetracks who were paying for this campaign have pulled their support, since their own polling showed this poorly-created law going down to defeat.
Like good gamblers, they decided to leave the table and not keep putting their money down on a bad bet. California needs to realize that gambling money is not “free” money, and getting our government addicted to the expansion of gambling in the long run is a bad idea, especially since California has no law-enforcement system comprable to Nevada’s to police gaming in this state.
Proposition 69 – The DNA Database Act – NO: I’d like to believe that a massive database of every person who’s gotten a traffic ticket’s DNA would help law enforcement. But when you consider that this is the same government that finds new and exciting ways to screw up records and files, you have to wonder if this is such a great idea.
Proposition 70 – Yet Another Gaming Initiative – NO: Despite the fact that I’m generally very sympathetic to Indian gaming, I’m voting “no” on this one. The concept overall is very good – the tribes would voluntarily pay the same top tax rate California’s corporations pay, on their profits.
But until there’s a more sensible and powerful enforcement of gaming law on and off Indian lands, and until the State gets serious about being a gambling state and building up the infrastructure needed to keep gaming clean, like they do in Nevada, I’m not supporting this or any other initiative for a while.
Proposition 71 – That Stem Cell Thing – NO: Far be it from me to cast my lot with the Holier Than Thou crowd, or for being against research that would help people in the future. That said, I’m not wild about having a lot of money given to a few biotech companies who can spend this as they please, without a lot of oversight. Plus this uses the much-maligned “bonds” to fund this activity. We need a better way to fund real research in this state and this country, and this doesn’t fix the “big picture” problem we continue to have. Vote “no” and force them to come up with a better idea.
Proposition 72 – Health Care Reform, Part 1 – YES: We’ve given private business a chance to do things their way, and frankly it’s no longer working. More people pay a lot more and get a lot less for what they spend on health care. The Usual Suspects are trotting out tired catch-phrases like “rationed health care” and “bad for business” but we already have a system that’s doing both.
When people can’t afford to go to the doctor and let their problems get worse, that’s rationing. And how is it good for business when you have employees that have to take their kid to the emergency room instead of a regular doctor? It’s not perfect, but it’s a start. Vote “yes” and once again, stick it to The Man.
That’s all for now. Have fun!
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Paving the Road to Hell in Baghdad by the Bay

UPDATE: Read coverage at Savannah Blackwell’s column online which has new information from the SF Department of Elections regarding this issue. Looks like we may have made a difference on this one, gang!
The Road to Hell is not the only road paved with Good Intentions. The crazy-quilt of contradictory rules and regulations known as election “law” is paved with it too. How else to describe, or explain, how so many of these laws don’t make sense, or why every attempt to make things “better” ends up benefitting those with money and power, and disempowering anyone not on the inside.
There are many examples, big and small. Today, however, I’m going to share with you a medium-sized example that I’ve decided to take some direct action on in the hopes of illuminating the hazards of change when we don’t think it through. In this case, it’s the laws regulating campaign activity in San Francisco.
As I’ve indicated before, San Francisco is beginning a bold experiment in local elections using Ranked Choice Voting. (For a detailed explanation of the process, check out this excellent resource online).
More than one media report has commented on the new cooperative style of campaigning such a system allows. It’s definitely an interesting situation, one which no one really knows what the final outcome will be. We can make educated guesses, but that’s about it.
Today’s San Francisco Chronicle reports that many voters are still having a hard time adjusting to the new system, and realizing that they no longer just have one choice (i.e. who to vote for) but they now have the opportunity to indicate a “second” and “third” choice.
The city has spent a small amount of money doing some educational outreach, but it is becoming more and more clear it’s not enough. If this system is going to work, people need to know how to use it. Otherwise the point of spending the time and money to create and administer such a system will be wasted.
And now, the Road to Hell Paving Crew makes its appearance!
How so? Because no one thought to update election laws to accommodate the new system, specifically for the changes that have come about in how candidates are conducting themselves in their races for Supervisor, creating a situation that doesn’t allow candidates to fully engage the electorate under the new rules.
Whereas in the past, such elections were money-fueled death matches, with campaign conduct more like Mortal Kombat than anything resembling a civilized debate, now candidates are realizing that, if properly used, a ranked-choice voting system doesn’t reward such behavior.
Instead candidates are telling voters to not only support them for office, but to also support other candidates for the second and third spots on the ballot for the same office. Candidates are free to do so in public, when talking to a voter, and when speaking to the press or at a public debate.
The Paving Crew gets involved when a candidate tries to tell anyone that same information in a printed piece, a television ad, a radio ad, or a prepaid phone call. Currently, San Francisco law seems to indicate that such activity would be deemed “illegal” under current statute.
This makes no sense. Why would doing something be legal in once context, and totally illegal in another? More to the point, given that voters are clearly having trouble figuring out how to mark their ballots under the new system, why is the City preventing candidates from explaining the system and how to mark their ballots?
It didn’t make any sense to me, so I decided to take some action. While this would benefit the candidate I’ve been working with, progressive activist and leader Susan King, ultimately this isn’t about just helping “my” candidate or “my” side – it is about what makes the process fair to all, and about common sense.
I spoke with Mabel Ng, the director of San Francisco’s Ethics Commission and asked if it would be possible to indicate a candidate’s choice for second and third spot on the ballot in printed materials. Her answer, (which, as oral advice can’t be used as a shield should a campaign get into trouble), was “no”. However, she indicated that I should ask for a formal written ruling to best clarify the issue.
Today I sent off this letter to the Ethics Commission requesting a formal opinion on this issue. I’m hoping that by bringing this issue to the attention of the Ethics Commission, the City Attorney, and the District Attorney of San Francisco, that if nothing else, someone will acknowledge that we’ve got a situation where the rules regulating campaign conduct once again haven’t been updated to accommodate the new system voters approved in 2002.
In the grand scheme of things, this is not the biggest issue facing voters, elected officials and city bureaucrats. But it is important that the City at least acknowledge that it had two years to plan for this election and somehow managed to forget to take a look at existing election law and realize that some of those laws may not make as much sense as they do now.
In this case, not only is this restricting the First Amendment rights of candidates to indicate how they would want people to vote under this new system – it also denies them a chance to effectively explain to voters how this new system works. Given that there seems to be enough people confused by the system currently, why deny those putting themselves up for office a chance to help explain this to the voters on the candidate’s dime?
It’s time for those who call themselves “reformers” to spend the nickel, hire the Smart People, and start making laws that make sense for everybody. Right now no one’s interests are being served – except for the expensive lawyers and accountants one has to hire to avoid going to jail for elections law violations. It may be great for them – but ultimately it’s the public that loses in the end.
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com