San Francisco Green Party Supervisor Candidate Questionnaire 2018

Due Date: Wednesday, Feb 21.


1. There are 10 sections to this questionnaire. Each section corresponds with the 10 Key Values of the Green Party.

2. Each section begins with a written question and ends with several multiple-choice questions. Please don't skip the written question.

3. The multiple-choice questions are answered by checking the box in the
appropriate column to indicate which is closest to your position: + = Support / Agree / Yes
- = Oppose / Disagree / No

: = Undecided / Don't know / No opinion

4. The world is too complex to always break down neatly into yes/no/maybe choices, so feel free to clarify any answers to multiple
choice questions with a few words.

Candidate Name: Adam Kim
Phone Number: TBD
Web site:
Name of Campaign Manager: N/A
Are you receiving public financing: Currently no, but will if qualified
Signed voluntary spending limit: Not currently
Campaign Manager: N/A

2nd, 3rd endorsements in District: Mike Murphy, 3rd is undecided (potentially Li Miao Lovett or Gordon Mar)
Major Endorsements: N/A
Incumbent Supervisor whose votes most reflect your values: strictly by the votes, Aaron Peskin
Incumbent whose votes least reflect your values: Mark Farrell though no longer a current supervisor, otherwise Katy Tang or Ahsha Safai
If the election were held today, who would you support as Board President: Jane Kim (though term-limited)
Who would be your second and third choices: Aaron Peskin and Hillary Ronen
Who are you endorsing for Mayor in 2018 (all 3 choices, if applicable): Amy Farah Weiss, Jane Kim, & Mark Leno
Who did you endorse for Mayor in 2015 (all 3 choices, if applicable): N/A
Who did you endorse for Sheriff in 2015: N/A

1) Grassroots Democracy: What are your thoughts on Instant Runoff Voting, and District Elections? How have they worked to date? What
would you change in the future?

I support Instant Runoff Voting, a.k.a. Ranked Choice Voting or RCV. It gives voters the chance to see their votes matter without being forced to vote in primaries or special runoff elections, which are proven to have lower voter turnout than general elections. It was utilized to great effect in the June election for Mayor, allowing Mark Leno to come within a hair's breadth of the mayoral office. In terms of technical changes, RCV would represent voters' interests better with more rankings. Currently, San Francisco only allows for three rankings, but there is existing technology for up to ten rankings which has not yet been adopted. There is also some ambiguity in voter understanding, where it's not clear on the ballot that one may choose to abstain on lower ranks and hence have voted for candidates one usually might not have desired in office.

I also support District Elections. Where at-large elections only represent the majority of the city/county, District Elections allow communities that would otherwise be underrepresented have a voice on the Board. This was illustrated most clearly in the election of Harvey Milk when District Elections were implemented after over 70 years of at-large voting.

+ - ?
[ + ] [ ] [ ? ] Sub-government such as Neighborhood Assemblies, Networks or District Councils
In general, I do support self-governance of neighborhoods and districts, especially for those communities that would otherwise go unnoticed or ignored by the city at large. I do have some concern, however, of the added bureaucratic slowdown this may cause. I would also be slightly worried about the potential lack of community involvement in such small-scale government, considering how little involvement there already is on the state and local levels, and that the sub-government would consequently fail to accurately represent the citizens.
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Some commissions should be democratically elected
[ ] [ - ] [ ] The Mayor should appoint all commissioners
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Voters' right to recall elected officials
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Residency requirements for elected officials should be strictly enforced
[ ] [ ] [ ? ] Ethics Commission should be disbanded
I'm not sure what the motivation is behind disbanding the Ethics Commission. As a candidate, I do find it convenient to have a local office that can assist with questions on campaign law without having to correspond with an office in Sacramento. On the other hand, the combination of policies coming from both the Ethics Commission and Department of Elections is a hindrance to those seeking office who otherwise have community support but do not have the financial means or knowledge resources to run without hardship. I would suggest possibly unifying the Ethics Commission and Department of Elections into a single office if this is a concern.
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Ethics Commission meetings should be televised
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Ethics Commission should prioritize investigating violations from well-funded campaigns
[ ] [ - ] [ ] My campaign accepts corporate contributions
[ ] [ - ] [ ] My campaign accepts contributions from paid lobbyists or related entities having any interest in City and County of San Francisco

2) Ecological Wisdom: Please outline your view of the major environmental and ecological issues facing San Francisco and your
proposed policies to address them.

I believe one of the biggest fallacies we have here in San Francisco is that despite the city's reputation for promoting clean power, our city funds still have not divested from fossil fuels. And while it's excellent that solar farms and household solar panels have proliferated, it's surprising that there is little promotion for wind power despite the strong sea breeze we experience here, especially in the Sunset and Richmond neighborhoods. Of greater concern, though, is how few water usage restrictions we have, despite the delicate balance we must maintain in the Bay Area. This became particularly evident during the recent drought, which in the long term might not yet be over. We must ramp up water usage controls, especially for commercial properties like golf courses. Finally, the Bayview-Hunters Point cleanup snafu is unbelievable. We can't let slip-ups like this happen right in our own backyard without any oversight.

+ - ?
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Phasing out all diesel buses (e.g., Muni, tour, shuttles)
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Public Power
[ + ] [ ] [ ? ] Community Choice Energy should be rolled out to all SF customers this year
I absolutely support Community Choice Energy, but without better insight into the logistics of such, I would question the feasibility of rolling it out in a single year. I think it's a great goal if it can be achieved, however.
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Install local/regional clean energy, efficiency, and battery storage to supply 50% of our electricity by 2030
In contrast to the previous question, I believe 50% by 2030 is a modest goal, and we can be more aggressive.
[ ] [ ] [ ? ] Reducing or eliminating parking minimums in new housing and commercial developments
While I agree that fossil fuel powered vehicles should be phased out, and that parking space is of minimal concern compared to the need for more affordable housing, it's also true that many displaced individuals do require cars and therefore parking space to commute into the city, and that public transit fails to be an adequate solution for many. In addition, the growing number of electric vehicles is a decidedly greener approach to private vehicles. This strikes me as a question of environment and housing versus regressive policies, and I can't make a blanket statement to either agree or disagree.
[ + ] [ ] [ ] As in Bayview, halt all US Navy Treasure Island transfers of lands tested by Tetra Tech, to private developers
If I understand the wording of this correctly, I agree that we should halt any transfer of Tetra Tech tested land, which may still be contaminated, and further, proven cleaned up land should be considered for public usage rather than private development.
[ ] [ ] [ ? ] Natural Areas Program
Official literature seems to indicate the NAP is environmentally and ecologically beneficial. But further reading of third party evaluation is that it uses harmful pesticides and herbicides, and that it's actually reducing the quantity of trees in the city. I therefore have doubts about NAP, but can't definitively oppose it without further evaluation.

[ ] [ - ] [ ] Tree Removals
[ ] [ - ] [ ] Use of Tier One herbicides in public parks
[ ] [ - ] [ ? ] Addition of SF Groundwater to City's potable
This seems like a good way to stretch our limited supply available in Hetch
Hetchy Reservoir, particularly in drought periods, but I've learned about
the potential that this will, instead, deplete our aquifers and actually
reduce our ability to cope with drought. I'm not certain on this, but given
the latter knowledge, I'm leaning against it.
[ ] [ ] [ ? ] Artificial turf on City-owned athletic fields
I would support chemically stable and environmentally safe artificial turf,
otherwise the ecological benefits of drought-proof turf are nullified. It
seems that current options are not safe, but I would like to explore
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Managed retreat and Coastal Zone protection in
response to Global Warming

3) Social Justice:
A) What is your assessment of homelessness in San Francisco, and what solutions do you propose?

The easy answer is to increase the amount of shelters, navigation centers, and available health care for homeless. But this evades the more sinister issues at stake. Criminalization of homelessness, clearing encampments, and busing them out-of-district and out-of-city are no solution; they fail to help the homeless, do nothing but maintain a fake aesthetic of the city, and they should be halted immediately. The issues our homeless face require more resources, but it's more than just throwing money at the existing institution and expecting them to go away. We need to ensure that workers in shelters and navigation centers receive the training they need to adequately and compassionately help the homeless and accommodate the variety of issues they may face. We must proactively seek out new sites for shelters; a limited supply of beds do nothing no matter how much funding they get. Law enforcement must be involved in discussions of compassion and de-escalation; homeless are not criminals, but residents and victims of political injustice.

+ - ?
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Project Homeless Connect
[ ] [ - ] [ ] Care Not Cash
[ ] [ - ] [ ? ] Community courts
Community courts are an unfamiliar concept to me. On the surface, they seem to provide access to due process where a higher court's legal fees might make it financially inaccessible. However, deeper research indicates that these courts are focused on “quality-of-life” crimes, of which homeless individuals are disproportionately accused. So I have my doubts on the motivation behind community courts, but as a concept I do not have a strong opinion.
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Healthy SF
[ + ] [ ] [ ] SF's sick leave requirements
[ ] [ - ] [ ] Law against sitting down on SF sidewalks
[ + ] [ ] [ ] I support more homeless navigation centers in my district

B) What are your views on housing affordability, what public sector strategies have worked, which have failed, and what are your proposals?

It's clear that housing affordability, along with homelessness, are the two major crises we currently face in San Francisco. It's clear that the current strategy of handouts to corporate interests in the name of improved economy has only served corporations and the most wealthy echelons of the city, who tend to also have stakes in those companies. Meanwhile, the resulting gentrification has impoverished the middle class and displaced the lowest classes. Like homeless shelters, we have below market rate “affordable” housing, but not enough, and not at the levels where it's most needed. We must tackle this problem from multiple fronts, including higher mandates of affordable housing from developers, more subsidies for below market rate housing, increased rent control, disincentivization of vacancies and properties as investments, and publicly owned housing.

+ - ?
[ ] [ - ] [ ] Building more market rate housing will lower housing costs for current SF residents
Given unlimited land and sufficient time, I could see the laws of supply and demand eventually lowering housing costs for all residents. Unfortunately, San Francisco does not have the luxury of space, and our continuously displaced residents don't have the time to wait. We need solutions now, solutions that will work within the limits of our 47 square miles and that will circumvent the corporate greed that seeks only to maximize profits with luxury units.
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Impacts of all new development should be paid for in advance by fees on developers
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Community Land Trusts
[ ] [ - ] [ ] Rent Control is too strong
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Elected Rent Board
[ ] [ ] [ ? ] HOME-SF (density bonus program)
I support incentivizing affordable housing, and I'm also supportive of increased density so long as it's done without displacing existing residents and with environmentally sound means. However, I'm wary of this legislation which is tied to lawmakers with historically corporate interests. I believe we can do better, requiring a higher percentage of below market rate housing for bonuses, particularly for the lowest income tiers.
[ + ] [ ] [ ? ] Ban on Airbnb and other short term rentals
I believe we should ban the use of any property aside from hotels exclusively for short term rentals. These are the units that stand vacant for large amounts of time and do not provide anything to residents seeking homes. However, I do not believe in a complete ban on Airbnb. I believe residents who wish to rent out part or all of the home in which they reside should be allowed to do so, for example, if they were to be traveling for several days or weeks.
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Require full disclosure of all corporate/speculative interests in parties purchasing/developing property
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Vacancy tax on empty homes
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Pied-a-terre Tax on residential property owners who do not reside in SF
[ ] [ - ] [ ] Condo conversion is currently too difficult
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Social Housing (similar to
I am strongly in support of this. I have supported the SF Community Housing
Act since its inception, including sitting in on a few planning meetings
and helping collect signatures for its first ballot attempt.

4) Nonviolence: What are your solutions for SFPD accountability while making the streets safer?

Police are an indispensable component of any thriving community. The problem is not in the concept of police, but in the threats of violence and biases that have become institutionalized in police officer culture nationwide. We must re-align the role of police as compassionate public servants of the community, as opposed to enforcers of authority upon communities. Priority resourcing must be given to de-escalation tactics, not to the latest technology for debilitating humans. And despite the culture of compassion I am advocating for, we must enforce concrete penalties for excessive brutality and abuse of authority; inversely, examples of de-escalation and community service should be incentivized, which could include monetary bonuses.

+ - ?
[ ] [ ] [ ? ] Prioritize SFPD enforcement of moving violations
For sure, enforcement of moving violations isn't a top priority by any means, but it should certainly be a higher priority than other victimless criminalized activity, particularly those associated with lower income and marginalized demographics and homelessness.
[ ] [ ] [ ? ] Support expansion of foot patrols
It's not the presence of police that is problematic, but in their behavior and the association of police to violence. Police presence should be a deterrent to crime and reassurance to communities, not a threat of brutality.
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Demand stricter accountability in future MOUs with the SFPD
[ + ] [ ] [ ] The Board of Supervisors should be able to set policies and priorities for the SFPD through legislation
[ ] [ - ] [ ] Support a public safety program modeled after NYC's "Stop and Frisk."
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Prosecution of SFPD Officers involved in fatal
shooting deaths of San Francisco residents

5) Decentralization: What are your thoughts on the Kaufman Charter of 1996? Does it need revisiting?

I wasn't involved in San Francisco politics in the 1990s, but in looking at the history of the Charter, I see that some of the changes were necessary at the time. The consolidation of city administration and its processes was necessary to reel in a bloated government with little accountability. But some of the same changes have lent directly to the problems we face today, particularly when that consolidation gives corporate and special interests a single point of focus to achieve their goals. Now our city administrators and department heads are shielded by the Mayor from the public scrutiny that commissions would have faced. Fortunately, our Charter is a living document, and like its predecessors, it can be amended and replaced, and a Charter of the people must be constantly revisited to ensure it is relevant to the ever-changing needs of the public.

+ - ?
[ ] [ ] [ ? ] Bring the Housing Authority under the Board of Supervisors
I see some merit to doing this, particularly since its commissioners are appointed exclusively by one person: the Mayor. Shifting some of their appointments to the Board would help keep them more accountable to the people. It might be a better option, however, to elect the commissioners to make them truly accountable.
[ ] [ ] [ ? ] Will you create formal district councils to advise you?
I wasn't aware that district councils were a formal entity utilized by the city, but I can appreciate their benefits, and I believe fully in having increased avenues toward accountability to the public.
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Charter amendment allowing voters to choose the replacement of an elected official being recalled on the same ballot as the recall vote
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Immediately implement open-source voting system on the local level

6) Community Based Economics: What economic policies, including taxation and land use, would you propose that would drive capital into
our communities and keep that capital here for residents?

Much in the same way that corporate gentrification displaces marginalized communities, tax cuts for large corporations headquartering massive office spaces in the city displaces our locally owned small businesses that have grown up alongside the communities. It's time to tax large corporations for inefficient use of land, being cut off from the communities that they occupy, and the increased load they place on transportation infrastructure. We must also push the minimum wage higher so that it constitutes a living wage for San Francisco; it's not enough to merely follow the national average since living expenses are far greater in our city. This may even require subsidizing living wages for small business employees to keep the businesses afloat.

+ - ?
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Legislation limiting formula retail outlets/chain stores
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Conditional Use permit required for big box stores
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Municipal broadband as a public utility
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Neighborhood cooperatives prioritized as a local supply chain for legalized marijuana
[ + ] [ ] [ ] I support recreational marijuana stores opening in my district
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Local hiring requirements should be enforced and expanded to include private projects
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Conversion of some golf courses into soccer fields
[ ] [ ] [ ? ] Prop 13 limits on tax increases should apply only to residential properties
I definitely agree that Prop 13 limits should be repealed for a majority of commercial properties. But certainly there are cases of corporation-owned residential properties that profit exponentially off Prop 13 by continuing to increase their market-rate rental prices while locked in on decades-old taxation rates. On the flip side, I can think of plenty of locally owned small retail shops and restaurants that would not be able to afford modern tax rates on their property. Prop 13 should be repealed in full but replaced by progressive protections for low and middle income homeowners and small businesses.
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Commercial Rent Control

7) Feminism: Do you believe women are underrepresented in city government? If so, why do you believe this is the case? Is this a
bad thing, and if so, what would you do to remedy the situation?

I'm happy to see a majority of women on the Board of Supervisors. But fair representation in one government entity does not imply that it exists in all positions. No matter how much progress we make in representation, we can always do more. I believe that not only should we always advocate for more women in government, but we should seek out those who would push public policy that paves the way for women to fill underrepresented offices. It's not enough to merely elect women to office, but to elect officials who would champion other and future generations of women to follow in their footsteps.

+ - ?
[ + ] [ ] [ ] The City should help SFUSD provide child care for children of working parents
[ + ] [ ] [ ] The DPH should provide reproductive health services
[ ] [ - ] [ ] Require parental consent for minors seeking an abortion
[ ] [ - ] [ ] Require parental notification for minors seeking an abortion

8) Respect for Diversity: Tell us what you believe are the best and the worst aspects of San Francisco's diversity. How would you try to
protect the best while trying to change the worst?

Part of what makes San Francisco feel like the home that I've never had before is that we have such a diverse mosaic of culture and people from all walks of life. You're never too far from someone with whom you can identify some aspect of life, and yet we're surrounded by countless others from whom we can learn and share new experiences. The problem with this diversity is not in the diversity itself, but that we are at risk of losing it. Already corporate gentrification has displaced entire black and Latinx communities, replacing them with offices full of the same kind of workers with similarly high salaries which are spent on the same high-priced goods and services. This serves only to price out and displace more marginalized residents and the businesses they own. We obviously must champion rights for those deprived rights at higher levels of government and by society that would seek to strip them off. But we must also seek out the cause of why our diversity is at stake, and nip that cause right at the bud.

+ - ?
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Multilingual government and public education
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Undocumented immigrants should have equal access to education and health care
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Non-citizen residents should be able to vote in all local elections
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Full rights for transgender persons
[ ] [ - ] [ ] Boards and commissions now reflect the ethnic diversity of San Francisco
[ ] [ - ] [ ] Boards and commissions now reflect the political diversity of San Francisco
[ + ] [ ] [ ] My campaign reflects the diversity of San Francisco

9) Global and Personal Responsibility:
A) What are your thoughts on the Board of Supervisors taking positions on state, national and
international issues?

I believe that now more than ever, our Board of Supervisors must take positions on issues larger than just our city. From the state level, where Prop 13 has a greater effect on San Francisco than many other municipalities, to the national level, where we need to take a stand against the injustices perpetrated by the federal government, to the global level, taking positions on issues that our federal government will not. We can't turn a blind eye and focus only on our city; what we do here has the potential to create a ripple effect, and it's important to be mindful of the problem of without so that we can proactively address them starting from within.

+ - ?
[ ] [ - ] [ ] City government cooperating with the PATRIOT Act
[ ] [ - ] [ ] City government cooperating with ICE/Secure Communities
[ ] [ ] [ ? ] City government should boycott Israel until it complies with UN resolutions
I'm a little unsure of where to stand on Israel's interactions with its neighbors. Surely, it's important to support that all countries follow UN resolutions, but I'm concerned about the need to single Israel out. Its government has definitely not been the best at human rights compliance, but I fear that targeting it specifically would endanger their residents in a region where its neighbors maintain little friendliness.
[ + ] [ ] [ ] SF supervisors should take a position on offshore oil drilling outside CA

B) Please describe how you make your political decisions. What is the main basis for your decision making (e.g., consultation with your
constituents, political consultants, colleagues, unions, businesses,
donors, or your gut feelings)?

My stand on political issues is, at its core, derived from my values: the importance of all life. From there, basic rights like universal health care and education, which ensure quality of life for all individuals and not just the privileged, are the logical and moral conclusion, and they fuel my decision making. But to get there, the path isn't always clearly straightforward. Instead, societal and political complexities require consulting with those who know the subject matter better. And for this, I turn to community and club members who have better insight into the political landscape, local businesses, public officials with like-minded goals, but most importantly the constituents themselves. After all, if I am to represent my district, I must understand them to accurately and transparently represent them.

+ - ?
[ ] [ ] [ ? ] Fleet Week and the Blue Angels flyover
I'm not sure why this is in contention. To my knowledge, the activities of Fleet Week pose no harm to the public, and has none of the deleterious effects of, for example, corporate involvement in public policy, nor is it driven by special interests. Although we have no shortage of nationalism in our country today, Fleet Week does help connect local residents to the world beyond California. Of all the gratuitous expenditures made by our bloated military budget, Fleet Week is probably the most innocuous.
[ ] [ - ] [ ] In a severe recession, environmental regulations should be suspended to create jobs
[ ] [ - ] [ ] Business taxes are too high

10) Sustainability: What does the Transit First City Charter provision mean to you? How has Transit First fared in recent years, and how would
you enforce that Charter Provision if elected?

Transit First seems to be largely ignored by my assessment. For a city as small as San Francisco with limited density, we still have a surprisingly amount of traffic congestion. This means we have a serious lack of reliable public transit if people are choosing driving or ride-hailing services over Muni and BART. I see SFMTA funding projects that are outdated before they're even approved, and we have too much reactive city planning as opposed to proactive. We need to plan out infrastructure to handle population growth for the next century. The Board of Supervisors can do little currently to appoint SFMTA board members, but if elected, I would definitely use my influence to effect progressive changes in SFMTA decision making.

+ - ?
[ + ] [ ] [ ? ] Muni should be funded sufficiently to replace most car use, and be free to the rider
I agree with funding Muni to replace the necessity to use cars, but I don't think it needs to be free to everyone. Students and seniors, perhaps those in shelters and below market rate housing, should be able to ride free. But business commuters and tourists should be paying something back into the system for sure.
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Downtown Transit Assessment Tax to support Muni
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Citywide Transit Assessment Tax to support Muni
[ ] [ ] [ ? ] More weekend closures of streets in/near my district to cars (e.g., Car-Free GGP)
I appreciate the environmental and community driven reasoning to close streets to cars, but given how many lower-income residents rely on weekend work and their vehicles, this is probably slightly regressive in nature.
[ ] [ ] [ ? ] State law change that lets bicycles treat stop signs as yield signs and red lights as stop signs
I'm not sure that this needs to be a state law, and it leaves a grey area for motor-powered cycles, scooters, and skateboards. If we are to implement a law like this for bicycles, I believe we should give similar consideration to other foot-powered transit such as skateboards, roller skates, and pedestrians.
[ + ] [ ] [ ] I ride Muni, bicycle and/or walk instead of driving on a regular basis
[ ] [ ] [ ? ] Bus Rapid Transit expanded to all major transit corridors in SF
I see the need, but I believe BRT is a wasteful stopgap for a problem that requires a far more advanced solution, such as a subway. Furthermore, until the buses are fully electric, I have concerns with a solution that maintains or increases greenhouse gas emissions.
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Car hailing services like Uber and Lyft should be regulated as taxis, or banned
Perhaps not banned or regulated exactly like taxis, but they should definitely be regulated more than they are now, and their parent companies should be paying back into the public transit infrastructure.
[ ] [ - ] [ ] Allow residents to park on the sidewalk without getting a ticket, unless their neighbors complain
As both a frequent pedestrian and a car owner, I do not see the benefits of allowing this.
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Congestion pricing for parking
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Power more City vehicles using biofuels (e.g., corn-based ethanol)
I support any divestiture from fossil fuels, though I would push more for electric vehicles.
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Residents should be allowed to park in the street in front of their own driveway for free
[ ] [ - ] [ ] Support expanding parking meter hours to include later evening hours and weekends
I see this as problematic for residents and potentially regressive for minimal additional public revenue.
[ ] [ ] [ ? ] Remove parking spots and car lanes to create dedicated bike and bus lanes or wider sidewalks
I believe replacing car lanes with bike and bus lanes would increase safety, but removal of parking spots would cause issues for residents and small business owners, particularly those with customers who can only drive. I also believe adding wider sidewalks at the cost of removing parking or car lanes to be slightly regressive and more associated with aesthetic than providing any public service.

Your positions on selected current and past Propositions:

+ - ?
[ + ] [ ] [ ] June 2018 Eviction Defense
[ ] [ - ] [ ] June 2018 Tasers for SFPD

[ ] [ - ] [ ] Nov 2016 Prohibiting tents on public sidewalks
[ ] [ - ] [ ] Nov 2016 Neighborhood crime unit
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Nov 2016 Vacancy appointments
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Nov 2016 16-17 y.o. voting, local elections
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Nov 2016 Non-citizen voting, school board
[ + ] [ ] [ ] Nov 2016 Prop 62 (Ending Death Penalty)

[ ] [ - ] [ ] June 2016 Prop B (Rec and Park legislation)

[ + ] [ ] [ ] 2015 Prop F (Short Term Rental Regulation)
[ + ] [ ] [ ] 2015 Prop I (Mission Luxury Housing Moratorium)

[ ] [ ] [ ? ] Nov 2014 Prop H (Natural Grass in Parks)
[ + ] [ ] [ ] June 2014 Prop B (Waterfront Height Limits)

[ ] [ ] [ ? ] 2011 Prop C (Mayor's Pension measure)
[ ] [ ] [ ? ] 2011 Prop D (Adachi's Pension measure)

[ ] [ - ] [ ] 2010 Prop L (Ban on Sitting on Sidewalks)
[ + ] [ ] [ ] 2010 Prop M (Foot Patrols)