The San Francisco Women’s Political Committee has completed our endorsement recommendations for the November 8, 2022 election!
Over the past few weeks our PAC Committee has been reviewing ballot measures, tracking candidate filings and spent all of this past weekend interviewing candidates and measure representatives. We have recommendations for nearly all measures and candidates on the state and local level. Please read below for some of our thoughts for some of our PAC recommended candidates and measures.
SFWPC statement on District Attorney recommendation:
Jenkins’ subject matter expertise, recent agency managment experience and prosecutorial experience, specifically in cases of gender based and sexual violence, stood out to the Political Action Committee from the other candidates evaluated for District Attorney.
Additionally, in our interview, Jenkins affirmed her support of issues that are central to many of our policy positions: she stated she would uphold the policy of ending cash bail; she believes that DNA from crime victims should not be referenced or used outside of the specific case, let alone for criminal prosecution and would not prosecute cases based on any evidence gathered from a victim. She clearly acknowledged the challenges victims face and stated we should not erect additional barriers to folks reporting crimes.
As an organization that champions intersectional feminism, we recognize that the bar is often set higher for women of color. Additionally, the PAC’s experience with her was different from the impression given by the media coverage of her.
While we recognize there are questions surrounding Jenkins’ nonprofit work, we also know that Black and Brown women are often covered in media with a bias and level of scrutiny that white people and cis men are often privileged to be excluded from. Based on her qualifications and expertise among the field of candidates in this race, the PAC committee recommends Jenkins for San Francisco’s District Attorney.
SFWPC statement on Public Defender recommendation:
Incumbent Public Defender Mano Raju has made gender equity a priority in his office in a historically white male dominated field, and has elevated a number of amazing women leaders into senior roles within the office. We are supportive of his policies and long term vision to have the Public Defender’s office support all folks impacted by the criminal justice system, including the families of those within the system, and are recommending him for endorsement.
During the PAC process, however, concerns that women in senior roles occupy ‘Assistant Chief’ roles instead of ‘Chief’ roles, and that case loads were increasing to problematic levels, came to our attention. Broader efforts at policy reform should not come at the expense of robust representation for the people directly served by the office.
To further his commitment to elevating women leaders in an equitable manner, we would like to see Raju elevate women into Chief roles as soon as possible, and provide them, along with every lawyer in the Public Defender’s office, the tools they need to succeed.
Statement on District 4 Supervisor recommendation:
SFWPC PAC is recommending Supervisor Mar in District 4 given his experience, knowledge, time in the community, and commitment to policies that we support, including affordable housing, equity, and diversity in leadership.
We look forward to hearing more from Leanna Louie, an advocate with an impressive background, as she continues to work on issues in the district.
Statement on District 8 Supervisor recommendation:
Supervisor Mandelman brings a depth of knowledge and experience to District 8 that are hard to rival– our PAC committee was continually impressed by his in-depth knowledge of a range of issues from transit policy to the local response to Monkeypox. We recommend voting for Supervisor Mandelman for another term given those qualifications as well as his service to his District – you can almost always find him at community events or office hours.
We were very impressed by the passion and drive of Kate Stoia, who has a laser focus on problems like housing costs in San Francisco, public safety, good governance, accessibility and equity. While our committee felt that Mandelman is the best choice for his District, we hope and expect to see Stoia making an impact on the issues she is most passionate about in the public sphere.
Statement on City College of San Francisco Board of Directors and SF Board of Education recommendations:
San Francisco has both significant challenges in how we educate our youth, and a wealth of extremely qualified candidates for both the Board of Education and the Community College Board from which to choose. Our PAC is recommending candidates we feel have best demonstrated accountability for the outcomes in each agency and an understanding of the fiscal and service challenges that each district faces. San Francisco and the students in SFUSD and CCSF would be well served by these leaders.
Statement on recommendations on local housing measures:
SFWPC’s Political Action Committee recommends a Yes vote on Measure D and a No vote on Measure E.
SFWPC recognizes the urgent need to build more housing, and more affordable housing, in San Francisco. We are also aware of the deep divides in our city regarding land use and zoning, including objections within neighborhoods and communities to multi-unit housing development, and specifically development of affordable housing. To date, the lion’s share of housing development in the City has occurred in neighborhoods with larger concentrations of lower-income residents and communities of color. Due to the limited supply of housing and lack of sufficient development of affordable housing, individuals, workers and families in these communities are also the ones who have borne the greatest brunt of gentrification and displacement.
While we had concerns with both proposed housing measures, Measure D, also known as Affordable Homes Now and championed by Mayor Breed, goes further in streamlining approvals for housing in general, with specific streamlined approvals and funding processes for 100% affordable housing — provisions not included in Measure E. Our hope is that Measure D will make it easier for us to meet San Francisco’s housing goals.
San Francisco is required by the state to build 82,000 units of housing by 2032, a goal we are currently not on track to meet. To date, San Francisco is the slowest jurisdiction in California to move housing projects to construction and is currently under review by the CA Department of Housing and Community Development.
While Measure E has more stringent labor protections and specific requirements for affordable family housing, which we support, the potential loss of local control was extremely troubling.
Failure to meet our State goals has wide ranging implications and consequences, including state intervention over local land use decisions and affordable and inclusionary housing requirements. Additionally, SF could stand to lose hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for housing.
Given our concerns, we call on the Mayor and Board of Supervisors to increase requirements for multi-bedroom housing suitable for families in the local regulations to which Measure D must adhere, and recommend that our membership vote YES on D and NO on E.