Reminder: vote in the U.S. Midterm Election on November 6th (or go early vote, or mail in your absentee ballot ASAP!), if you’re registered to vote in the U.S. See https://www.vote.org/ for your early voting option(s) if any, polling locations, etc. California & SF Propositions at permalink below. Unsure who to vote for? NO GOP. Whoever you vote for, DO NOT vote Republican. The GOP has clearly demonstrated over the past year that it has no principles other than power and expediency for their own existence. Children (still) in cages, climate/science denialism, "both side-ism" apologisms for hate groups, disregard for women’s safety and voices, etc. California proposition suggestions: Yes: 1, 2, 4, 5*, 7, 11*, 12 No: 3*, 6, 8*, 10* San Francisco measures suggestions: Yes: A, C, D No: B*, E *Details for few of these: CA 5 YES: From the rough calculations that a few of us made at an election discussion salon, proposition 5 could increase the number of housing units in SF by 50,000 (based on demographic estimates of number of 55+ year-old SF homeowners with larger housing than they need, who would likely move). CA 11 YES: Only a mild Yes on this one. Appears to be a net positive, but skeptical about the AMR-only aspect. CA 3 NO: Appears to only benefit special interests. CA 8 NO: May harm dialysis patients more than help. Counter-arguments: * https://twitter.com/mfcrawford/status/1057784006786265089 * https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/amp/Vote-yes-on-California-Proposition-8-to-13306261.php Media analysis (nearly all OPPOSED to 8) : * https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_8,_Limits_on_Dialysis_Clinics'_Revenue_and_Required_Refunds_Initiative_(2018)#Media_editorials CA 10 NO: Badly written proposition, does too much, allows cities to be hyper-NIMBY and set rentals policy that effectively disincentivizes any rental housing development. See thread at https://twitter.com/graue/status/1052669954556719104 for more details. SF B NO: Though seemingly focuses on privacy, actual measure may do more harm in practice than good. Skeptical enough about it to vote no.

Reminder: vote in the U.S. Midterm Election on November 6th (or go early vote, or mail in your absentee ballot ASAP!), if you’re registered to vote in the U.S.

See https://www.vote.org/ for your early voting option(s) if any, polling locations, etc.

California & SF Propositions at permalink below.

Unsure who to vote for? NO GOP. Whoever you vote for, DO NOT vote Republican. The GOP has clearly demonstrated over the past year that it has no principles other than power and expediency for their own existence. Children (still) in cages, climate/science denialism, "both side-ism" apologisms for hate groups, disregard for women’s safety and voices, etc.

California proposition suggestions:
Yes: 1, 2, 4, 5*, 7, 11*, 12
No: 3*, 6, 8*, 10*

San Francisco measures suggestions:
Yes: A, C, D
No: B*, E

*Details for few of these:

CA 5 YES: From the rough calculations that a few of us made at an election discussion salon, proposition 5 could increase the number of housing units in SF by 50,000 (based on demographic estimates of number of 55+ year-old SF homeowners with larger housing than they need, who would likely move).

CA 11 YES: Only a mild Yes on this one. Appears to be a net positive, but skeptical about the AMR-only aspect.

CA 3 NO: Appears to only benefit special interests.

CA 8 NO: May harm dialysis patients more than help.
Counter-arguments:
* https://twitter.com/mfcrawford/status/1057784006786265089
* https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/amp/Vote-yes-on-California-Proposition-8-to-13306261.php
Media analysis (nearly all OPPOSED to 8) :
* https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_8,_Limits_on_Dialysis_Clinics'_Revenue_and_Required_Refunds_Initiative_(2018)#Media_editorials

CA 10 NO: Badly written proposition, does too much, allows cities to be hyper-NIMBY and set rentals policy that effectively disincentivizes any rental housing development.
See thread at https://twitter.com/graue/status/1052669954556719104 for more details.

SF B NO: Though seemingly focuses on privacy, actual measure may do more harm in practice than good. Skeptical enough about it to vote no.