Dear SF: Please go vote. You still have time. #1 issue is housing. YES: B C D K NO: A E F G H I J More: Measures in San Francisco this election year are very much dominated by various (mostly well intentioned but misguided to counter-rational) attempts to improve our city's housing situation (too few housing units for the growing number of people who are moving to San Francisco). Yes we need to make changes. The key changes are about enabling the development of more housing as soon as possible in the areas of town that can accomodate it, like the SOMA and China Basin / Mission Rock districts. There is precisely one local measure that will help this situation: YES on D: Increase the height limits for 10 of 28 acres in Mission Rock. Here is a summary of my conclusions on all the measures & offices: NO on A: A is a very expensive housing bond that will benefit very few people. The cost/benefit ratio is poor, and will put unnecessary faith/weight/stress on a lottery system. Lottery systems for housing are not the answer, encouraging more market-competitive housing developments by the private sector is the answer. YES on B: This is a simple bugfix to city employee parental leave benefits. YES on C: This makes lobbyists/activits more transparent, which seems like a relatively obviously good thing. YES on D: Increase the height limit for 10 of 28 acres in Mission Rock. Honestly this should be something the city government could do on its own, but due to a height-limit micromanagement measure that unfortunately passed in a previous election, we have to vote on these one at a time, on the annual election cycle (thus effectively slowing housing development at best, putting it at risk at worst). NO on E: Horribly written and ill-thought out measure that shows a complete lack of understanding of how about open comments via the internet are and will be. NO on F: This is a hotel lobby sponsored measure that is basically Anti-AirBnB, and has been deceptively marketed/packaged as a fairness measure. It is the opposite. If anything we need to do *more* to encourage a variety of income sources for independents and individuals, not ban the few successful such income innovations. No on G: This measure seems unnecessary, though I don’t have a strong opinion on it. Still, law is (like) code, if it does not seem necessary, it is better to vote against it. If it’s truly worthy, it can be brought up again. No on H: Similarly. NO on I: This is the absolutely worst written measure I have seen in my time living in San Francisco. With the intention of "helping" the housing situation, it does exactly the opposite. Slowing housing development will only cause rental/housing prices to go up faster. No on J: Seems unnecessary. YES on K: This measure has the potential of expanding the amount of housing in the city using existing buildings. For MAYOR, there is a lot of frustration with our current (incumbent) mayor Ed Lee for various reasons. He has however done enough things right (his statement / record speaks for itself) that people are more likely to support / vote for him as the "safe" vote than vote for any of the alternatives, which, ironically means that you can "safely" vote for all alternatives for your three choices, as a "protest" vote. For SHERIFF, there is MUCH more frustration with the incumbent, for reasons well documented even on Wikipedia, and here it is more likely (and thus more important) to ranked vote for both challengers (either order 1 and 2), and not the incumbent. If you feel obligated to vote for a third non-incumbent choice I suggest you write-in Yosemite Sam. City Attorney, District Attorney, and Treasurer are running unopposed.

Dear SF: Please go vote. You still have time.
#1 issue is housing.

YES: B C D K
NO: A E F G H I J

More: Measures in San Francisco this election year are very much dominated by various (mostly well intentioned but misguided to counter-rational) attempts to improve our city's housing situation (too few housing units for the growing number of people who are moving to San Francisco).

Yes we need to make changes. The key changes are about enabling the development of more housing as soon as possible in the areas of town that can accomodate it, like the SOMA and China Basin / Mission Rock districts.

There is precisely one local measure that will help this situation:

YES on D: Increase the height limits for 10 of 28 acres in Mission Rock.

Here is a summary of my conclusions on all the measures & offices:

NO on A: A is a very expensive housing bond that will benefit very few people. The cost/benefit ratio is poor, and will put unnecessary faith/weight/stress on a lottery system. Lottery systems for housing are not the answer, encouraging more market-competitive housing developments by the private sector is the answer.

YES on B: This is a simple bugfix to city employee parental leave benefits.

YES on C: This makes lobbyists/activits more transparent, which seems like a relatively obviously good thing.

YES on D: Increase the height limit for 10 of 28 acres in Mission Rock. Honestly this should be something the city government could do on its own, but due to a height-limit micromanagement measure that unfortunately passed in a previous election, we have to vote on these one at a time, on the annual election cycle (thus effectively slowing housing development at best, putting it at risk at worst).

NO on E: Horribly written and ill-thought out measure that shows a complete lack of understanding of how about open comments via the internet are and will be.

NO on F: This is a hotel lobby sponsored measure that is basically Anti-AirBnB, and has been deceptively marketed/packaged as a fairness measure. It is the opposite. If anything we need to do *more* to encourage a variety of income sources for independents and individuals, not ban the few successful such income innovations.

No on G: This measure seems unnecessary, though I don’t have a strong opinion on it. Still, law is (like) code, if it does not seem necessary, it is better to vote against it. If it’s truly worthy, it can be brought up again.

No on H: Similarly.

NO on I: This is the absolutely worst written measure I have seen in my time living in San Francisco. With the intention of "helping" the housing situation, it does exactly the opposite. Slowing housing development will only cause rental/housing prices to go up faster.

No on J: Seems unnecessary.

YES on K: This measure has the potential of expanding the amount of housing in the city using existing buildings.

For MAYOR, there is a lot of frustration with our current (incumbent) mayor Ed Lee for various reasons. He has however done enough things right (his statement / record speaks for itself) that people are more likely to support / vote for him as the "safe" vote than vote for any of the alternatives, which, ironically means that you can "safely" vote for all alternatives for your three choices, as a "protest" vote.

For SHERIFF, there is MUCH more frustration with the incumbent, for reasons well documented even on Wikipedia, and here it is more likely (and thus more important) to ranked vote for both challengers (either order 1 and 2), and not the incumbent. If you feel obligated to vote for a third non-incumbent choice I suggest you write-in Yosemite Sam.

City Attorney, District Attorney, and Treasurer are running unopposed.