We believe things should just be normal: the schools and the trains should be great, and their budgets should be balanced, the mentally ill drug addicts should be cared for in facilities safely removed from the public, the business climate should be open and free, it should be inexpensive to build in the city, anti-housing policies should be eradicated, and crime should be illegal.

If you also believe that things should just be normal, this is a voter guide for you — person who isn’t insane. Accept no substitutions.

Below, we’ll first provide you with a quick and helpful cheat sheet with all of our selections for the local candidates running, as well as propositions in the city, Bay Area, and state. But if you’re curious about our thinking (on a few of the candidate races, and any of the ballot props), go ahead and scroll down for further thoughts on most of these selections.

In politics, I think an outlet like ours is most useful when focused locally, which is why we leave you to decide on federal positions (the Congressional race between Wiener and Chan, for example), and mostly focus on city candidates. I did, however, throw in a choice for governor, because how could I not?

Onward.

Cheat Sheet //

SELECTED NOTES //

SAN FRANCISCO

Board of Supervisors, District 2 //

First choice: Stephen Sherrill

A moderate, sane Democrat. I’ve met with Stephen and like him. Pro-housing, pro-business permitting reform, pro-police, interested in government efficiency/technology. We’ve disagreed on a few things, notably a tax increase favored by the mayor, but he’s totally reasonable, has done a good job moderating the board, and works well with the mayor.

Second choice: Nicholas Berg

Chairs the GOP. In favor of school choice, doing something about the zombie-like drug addicts roving our streets, and fiscal responsibility.

Board of Supervisors, District 6 //

First choice: Matt Dorsey

A moderate Democrat, loosely abundance flavored. Dorsey is in favor of reducing business permit time/costs, fully staffing the police, prosecuting fentanyl dealers, and downtown economic recovery.

Note, Do Not Rank: Alex Behrend

A loser who introduces his greatest accomplishment on his own website — the very first thing he tells us! — as “surviving” the exploitation of his employers for the past couple decades. Kinda guy who squats in your apartment, and then sues you because the toilet isn’t working. If you want an angry barista sort of person who hates you and wants to make your life worse, this is your guy. Also has a stupid haircut.

Board of Supervisors, District 8 //

First choice: Emanuel “Manny” Yekutiel

So, Manny was a great moderate and local business owner who dropped out of the race following a local scandal in which he got too drunk and grabbed his ex-boyfriend’s boyfriend’s penis or something? And propositioned them to have sex? Anyway, the press went wild because I guess they don’t know any gay men, but you can’t make me care about this more than I care about a government that doesn’t hate me.

At this point, if Manny wins, the mayor will have to select his replacement, and we couldn’t ask for a better option than that. VOTE MANNY (AKA, VOTE MAYOR LURIE).

Second choice: Darshini Patel

Runs on competent government, building housing that actually gets constructed, safer streets, and making it easier for businesses to operate

Note, Do Not Rank - Gary McCoy

Sadly now a frontrunner. Supports supervised drug sites. Against conservatorship (locking up crazies). No meaningful housing plan.

San Francisco Board of Education //

Phil Kim

Cool guy, want to stress you should vote for him — under his tenure, SFUSD cut at least $113.8 million in spending, then adopted a three-year balanced budget for 2026-2027. He was one of the 4 votes to restore Algebra I to 8th graders (again, our bar in this city is low). He also created short-term performance metrics for the Superintendent.

Tim Tung

Another strong financial accountability type, focused on fixing SFUSD’s financing.

Then either:

Laurance Lee

Lee wants audits, KPI-based budgeting, public dashboards, academic rigor, science-of-reading instruction, and restructuring departments that cannot show results. I’m leaning with Laurance, but Autumn seems fine as well.

Autumn Brown Garibay

Wants simpler bureaucratic systems usable for parents. She wants district goals tied directly to school budgets, staffing, literacy/math outcomes and clearer data.

Note, Absolutely DO NOT VOTE: Brandee Marckmann

A crazy online troll who peddles conspiracy theories and supported banning middle school Algebra for equity purposes. This woman is a frothing-at-the-mouth lunatic. Should be institutionalized (which is why, again, you must NOT vote for Gary McCoy). Received the endorsement of millionaire Marxist Dean Preston, obviously, because all of the worst people in this city know and love each other. Fuck these crazy dirtbags.

SAN FRANCISCO PROPOSITIONS

My view of local government: public goods good, including schools and trains and law enforcement, and our beautiful parks and airports. No new funding for random bullshit. Certainly no funding for special interest grift. And no tax increases for anything a competent plan from our government could and should fix. The city budget is close to $17 billion. When I moved here in 2011 it was around $6.5 billion. Almost nothing has improved. Where did all of that money go?

If you’re really strapped for cash, just fire all of the people who clearly aren’t improving the city with all of the extra money you’re making, and fund the shit we want.

Prop A // Revise and Update Provisions of the City Charter Amendment

Yes. Prop A will remove redundant departments and commissions, including commissions for departments that no longer exist. This is, surprisingly, a thoughtful policy aimed at cleaning up our bureaucracy.

Prop B // Create a Municipal Banking Corporation and Public Bank Amendment

No. We do not need a public bank, and the only reason to build a public bank is to create a new class of financing for politically well-connected thugs. I don’t need our Marxist supervisors focused on a bank. I need our Marxist supervisors to do something about the drug addicts shitting on the sidewalk in the Mission.

Prop C // Revise Calculations of Contributions to the Housing Trust Fund Amendment

No. This would make sense if you bought into the actual concept of the Housing Trust Fund. I don’t. Therefore, no. We’re not giving you more money for the city’s Housing Trust Fund, which is already a $50 million+ a year fund to help non-profits acquire and develop “affordable housing,” which it grants to… who exactly? And why? The entire concept is unfair. Our representatives should focus on gutting regulations prohibiting or hindering development. (They won’t)

Prop D // Change Requirements for Placing a Referred or Initiated Measure on the Ballot Initiative

Yes. Prop D increases the number of signatures required to put a measure on the ballot. I have written this before (every year I think): the entire institution of direct democracy should be abolished. We vote for our representatives, and they pass laws. The notion that Betty Bobette from the local teacher’s union should also be allowed to pass a law like “free money for everyone who doesn’t work in tech,” with no recourse, is actually insane. Like, genuinely, in your heart, do you believe that makes any kind of sense? Sadly, this proposition won’t permanently end the malignant institution of the citizen ballot prop, but anything that makes this more difficult is a step in the right direction.

Prop D also eliminates the mayor’s ability to place a measure on the ballot. I don’t actually like that, as I prefer a more powerful executive. But we really need limits on the crazy ballot wars.

Prop E // Amend Rules for Contract Approvals and Alter Term and Responsibilities of City Administrator Initiative

Yes. Prop E will streamline and centralize the city’s procurement of goods and services. Preferable to bureaucratic chaos.

Prop F // Permit Mayoral Restructure of Executive Departments Initiative

Yes. Prop F will allow the mayor to reorganize most city departments, and hire and fire most department heads. It’s actually shocking that the mayor currently has no authority to fire most department heads in his own government. If we are voting for a man to run this city with the understanding he will then run this city, we have to empower him to actually… run this city.

Prop F empowers the mayor to circumvent the unelected commission that is insanely presently responsible for sourcing candidates to lead his departments. It’s time to lose the unaccountable politburo shit.

Prop G // Open Upper Great Highway to Private Vehicle Travel on Weekdays Initiative

Yes. I was on the fence here last time around, but ultimately decided to err on the side of what the people of the Sunset wanted, and following polling on the issue it seemed the people of the Sunset wanted to drive. GrowSF type YIMBY biker people who don’t live in the Sunset want to bike along the water, and while I think that sounds nice I just don’t think dramatically increasing the commutes for people in the community in order to make a lot of asshole biker people happy is a good, or fair, tradeoff.

If you are an asshole biker person yourself, however, you should vote “No.”

Prop H // Create 15-Year Property Tax to Fund Municipal Transportation Agency Initiative

No. Listen, I love buses and trains. I really love our trains specifically. Muni is clean, safe, and underrated. I take it every single week, multiple times a week, and dream of expanding the underground system. But I also take the F train to the pier almost every weekend, and a majority of people on that trip don’t pay. Totally normalized anti-social behavior that is directly impacting our ability, now, to keep the transit running. I genuinely don’t understand the concept of begging the city for more money to run a bunch of buses and trains while you aren’t collecting fares.

A promise: start forcing these asshole scrubs to pay when they hop on a bus or a train. In two years, if there’s still a crisis, I’ll entertain the tax.

Prop I // Dedicate Half of Revenue from the Real Estate Transfer Tax to Housing Programs Initiative

No. Prop I would divert half the revenue from our pre-existing property transfer tax to a nebulous homeless/low income housing initiative, with no coherent goals and zero accountability, to the benefit (always) of our grifting Non Profit Industrial class only. Absolutely not.

Also, while we are funding random ballot props, a suggestion: no more city funds to homeless and housing non profits. All of that work should be run by the government, centrally, where we can transparently measure the successes of our various programs and — key — watch out for fraud.

Prop J // Discontinue Real Estate Transfer Tax Exemptions for Foreclosures Measure

No. Best I can tell the justification for this measure is fairness, in that there is a loophole some developers are taking that gets them out of a transfer tax that shouldn’t exist. But 1) the tax shouldn’t exist, so I really don’t care about a loophole to avoid the tax, and 2) why are we doing anything that hinders development?

BAY AREA

REGIONAL BALLOT PROPOSITION

Proposition RTM, Create Sales Tax to Fund Regional Transportation Systems Initiative

Yes. A 1% sales tax increase to fund regional transit. This is going to be shocking maybe, given my aversion to new taxes, but while I believe San Francisco needs to figure out Muni — force people to actually pay, to start, but also consider firing a bunch of bureaucrats, defunding the city’s ocean of useless non-profits, and diverting those funds to local transit — I am really not sure what BART can manage on its own. It mostly survives on fares, and ridership has plummeted since Covid.

This one is tough. I don’t see a profitable path forward for regional transit, but I also don’t see the benefit of eliminating regional transit altogether. Probably, massively increasing the amount of available transit and heavily policing it would increase ridership. But we have a chicken and egg problem on our hands.

Maybe, if we ask him very nicely, Elon will help us build.

CALIFORNIA

Governor //

Steve Hilton

Listen, this is probably futile. But at the state level, where the option is available, I’m voting for Republicans this year.

Becerra is leading Hilton by 25 points because our state is filled with voters who think the concept of checking that “Republican” box is somehow more icky than Becerra facilitating child trafficking over the Mexican border. But here we are.

On housing, crime, drugs, and illegal immigration, Becerra is a standard One Party politician, which is to say he is nominally in favor of housing, and against crime and drugs. But as his actual policies differ not at all from the decades of DNC party policies that led our state to its present failures, we can expect only more of the same, which is killing us. Becerra is also, in keeping with his political species, promising a bunch of new benefits we can’t afford, which would be extended to illegal immigrants.

Hilton also isn’t perfect, which is to say: he’s British. But on policies, he is in favor of human civilization. He would cap building permits / government fees on new homes at $50,000, he is promising to gut CEQA (state environmental law that hamstrings building), and he says he’ll lower taxes for those making under $150,000 a year. He’s tough on crime, great on housing (truly — it’s very funny watching YIMBYs talk themselves in circles in a sad attempt to look away from this very obvious fact), and sane on immigration.

Silly organizations like GrowSF argue he was mean to Fauci on television, however, so we aren’t allowed to choose the obviously more intelligent guy with better ideas. I reject that premise. Housing is more important than Fauci’s feelings. And also, fuck Fauci.

CALIFORNIA PROPOSITIONS

Prop 1 // Veteran and Housing Assistance Programs Bond Measure

No. The state is going bankrupt. We do not need another $11 billion in debt. Yes, we have a housing crisis. But has any of the cash we’ve thrown at this problem actually done anything? No. In fact, most of the cash we’ve thrown at this problem, if not all of the cash we’ve thrown at this problem, has made the crisis worse. Fortunately, if we really want to lower the cost of construction, our One Party legislature are currently able to do that immediately.

Here’s what the Democratic Party, which maintains a political monopoly over the state and has for decades, would do if it actually cared about lowering the cost of housing: gut CEQA, force permit approval within 30 days (AI exists, people, fucking use it), eliminate the roughly $30,000 per unit in development fees, eliminate the prevailing wage rules, eliminate all affordable unit requirements, and legalize every form of housing that isn’t actually unsafe. Then (we’ll unfortunately need a ballot prop for this, because a ballot prop is how we got here) abolish Prop 13, which created a landed gentry class back in 1978.

There is a “fix everything easily” button. We should press it.

Prop 2 // Budget Stabilization Account Cap Increase and Gann Limit Changes Amendment

No. The concept of a rainy-day fund is actually great. The problem is it’s constantly abused, for example by Gavin Newsom, who drew billions from the fund twice during his tenure while state revenue was growing. He did this to account for an increase in spending which should never have happened. We are facing a generational crisis, both at the state level and the federal level. Someone, eventually, will have to exercise some fiscal sanity, or the lights are going out. Sure, it would have been fun to be a reckless Boomer. Sadly, that fantasy is not going to pay their bills.

Prop 3 // Renew State Income Tax Increase for Education Funding Initiative

No. High-income earners already pay the most aggressive tax in the country. Why do we keep fleecing them? My prescription for solvency in our schools and healthcare is the same it’s been for years: target the fraud, waste, and abuse. Healthcare is especially easy — guess how much we spend every year on free medical benefits for illegal immigrants? A cool $12.5 billion, minimum.

As ever, the solution to all of our problems is to do the not stupid thing. I hereby formally endorse the concept of not doing the stupid thing.

Prop 4 // Allow Public Financing of Election Campaigns Measure

No. At the moment, only charter cities — for example San Francisco and Los Angeles — are permitted to match campaign funds. In other words: if you are a taxpayer, you are literally forced to fund lunatics running for local office. Arguably, the upside here is “regular people” will be able to run. I don’t see evidence this has helped “regular people” run. In San Francisco and Los Angeles, for example, we get the same thing we get everywhere else in the state: machine politicians and the craziest activists alive. I don’t want to pay for that, and I don’t think you do either.

Prop 5 // Eliminate State Officer Recall Successor Elections Amendment

Yes. Currently, if voters get a governor recall on the ballot (as last seen in the drama of Gavin Newsom vs. every crazy person in the state who felt like running), they’re faced with two questions: first, do you want to recall whoever-it-is, and second, who do you want to replace him? Here, the governor can’t be listed himself, and whoever gets a majority (if even only a fraction of the vote) becomes governor.

Prop 5 would replace the governor with the lieutenant governor. I’ve seen others (left-wing GrowSF, right-wing Briones Society) come out in favor of the change, which is currently how we run things in SF. They argue this will either not hinder or increase the likelihood of successful recalls. I am not really sure that I agree with that. The reason I think we should vote “yes” here is I still do believe in the concept of representative democracy, I think the statewide recall feels a bit too easy, and the time for something so important as a governor’s election is not a special election, but the actual election. Perhaps another surprising opinion from the scourge of Bay Area communists. But what can I say? I’m a bit of a lib.

Prop 37 // Second Mortgage Homebuyer Program and Revenue Bond Initiative

No. Prop 37 would allow the California Housing Finance Agency to issue eligible buyers (“middle class,” they say, which in this state also includes illegal immigrants) a second mortgage, on top of their home loan, to cover as much as 17% of the home’s purchase price. In other words, now, with as little as 3% down, qualified buyers can take on a massive loan they can’t afford.

I don’t know folks, should we encourage people who can’t afford real estate to take on a shit ton of real estate debt? Why, it’s not as if we’ve already infamously run this experiment. Right?

Anyone?

First of all, the government should not be in the business of lending money to citizens at all — starting with student loans, where government involvement has led to a generational crisis. Then, making it easier for people to assume debt on as much as 97% the cost of an exorbitantly overpriced home is just obviously going to end in disaster. In the first place, I don’t understand how limiting this to new construction is going to prevent a spike in the cost of housing. In the second, this is still debt. The problem we’re facing isn’t a lot of people not being able to take on enormous lifelong crippling debt. The problem we’re facing is a crippling cost to build.

Once again:

“Here’s what the Democratic Party, which maintains a political monopoly over the state and has for decades, would do if it actually cared about lowering the cost of housing: gut CEQA, force permit approval within 30 days (AI exists, people, fucking use it), eliminate the roughly $30,000 per unit in development fees, eliminate the prevailing wage rules, eliminate all affordable unit requirements, and legalize every form of housing that isn’t actually unsafe. Then (we’ll unfortunately need a ballot prop for this, because a ballot prop is how we got here) abolish Prop 13, which created a landed gentry class back in 1978.

There is a “fix everything easily” button. We should press it.”

Prop 38 // Immunology and Immunotherapy Research Funding Initiative

No. An $8.4B bond for research in immunology and immunotherapy. I can’t even begin to understand why anyone thinks the state of California, from a General Fund that is already running an imbalance, should be paying for shit like this.

Immunologists don’t need San Francisco. There is ample private and even federal funding for immunology! Please stop being crazy!

Prop 39 // Voter Identification, Citizenship Verification, and Registered Voter List Administration Initiative

Yes. Like honestly, people, what are we doing here? This one is really simple. If you vote “no” you are in favor of election fraud. Your local chapter of the DSA is in favor of election fraud. Your favorite “centrist” organizations, including GrowSF, are in favor of election fraud. If you lean left, I understand this is difficult for you, because the fraud in this state all favors Democrats, but it is wrong to support election fraud, even when the election fraud favors Democrats.

Prop 40 // One-Time Wealth Tax for State-Funded Healthcare, Education, and Food Assistance Programs Initiative

No. Well, it’s time to talk about the “wealth tax.” Look, I’m not going to mince words here, if this thing passes it will be the end of our state. The “wealth tax” is my AI apocalypse, I think. This is my Doom.

I’ve been writing about this thing for a year now. Selected reading for folks just catching up: California’s Tech Industry Kill Switch (I was the first person to write about the issue, which I immediately considered existential), Exodus: The Largest Wealth Flight in California History (in which I source a piece with more billionaires than has any other journalist in human history, I am genuinely pretty sure), Wealth Tax Counterstrike (on the mobilization against the ballot measure), Theory of Power (my theory on why the hard left is pushing for legislation that would obviously destroy tech and hurt the state). My colleague Blake profiled the architects of the wealth tax, which is also worth checking out.

A very, very, very long story short: the state’s largest healthcare union wants to launch a new kind of tax, which we have never before seen in the history of this country, which would assess the total net worth of all billionaires in the state, and then seize five percent.

This is not an income tax. This is not a tax on an opt-in purchase of a finite resource (land) used to service that purchase with public resources. This is an inescapable, unavoidable seizing of property unlike anything we have ever seen. If this passes, and the courts uphold the concept, the Democrats will absolutely mainstream a tax like this on all of us — it is already very popular on the Luigi left, which they need to win elections.

I am against this tax on principle, sure, whatever. But if billionaires were suddenly targeted with a higher capital gains tax or something, I would not have spent the last year begging people to pay attention to this ballot initiative. A “wealth tax” would permanently alter the citizen’s relationship to the state in such a way that private property is de facto abolished. You will no longer really own anything if the government can legally seize it at any time. Everything we “own” will just be temporarily on loan from the state. It is really a horrifying dystopian scenario. End game for the market. If you don’t vote for anything else this year, vote “no” on communism.

Prop 40 would have dismantled the state’s tech industry even if it weren’t written in such a way as it was apparently designed to disproportionately target young founders with no liquid net worth. But of course it was designed, intentionally, to force tech out of the state. How will the state, which survives on capital gains, keep the lights on in an exodus of that kind? Well, the proposed solution will of course be more communism. But the answer is: it won’t. Things will just get much, much worse.

Vote no. Vote no as if your life depended on it. This is not a simple matter of disagreement. If you meet someone in the real world supporting this, they are a bad person. Please tell them.

Prop 41 // Prohibit Excluding New State Taxes from Spending Limit and Require Special Tax Audits Initiative

Yes. A counter ballot prop. In the first place, this would force the State Auditor to audit any entity or program receiving money from a special new tax (like Prop 40, for example (which is, again, an evil proposition supported by evil people)). Then, it would close the loophole that exempts new state taxes from the Gann Limit, a voter-approved cap on state spending.

These are great measures. And if it receives more votes than Prop 40, a successful Prop 41 would also invalidate a successful Prop 40.

Prop 42 // Prohibit New Taxes on Retirement Holdings, Personal Assets, and Savings and Limit Retroactive Taxes Initiative

Yes. Prop 42 bans taxes on retirement holdings and other personal savings — property that hasn’t yet been sold, or a prohibition on seizing assets in other words — as well as retroactive taxation (which only a terrorist could conceive of).

This is another counter ballot prop, which, if it gets more votes than Prop 40, would invalidate Prop 40, while also fucking the people who proposed it.

Prop 43 // Two-Thirds Vote Requirement for Local Special Tax Initiatives and Property Tax Initiative Prohibition Amendment

Yes. Prop 43 raises the bar for special taxes from a simple majority to a two-thirds vote. We love this. Thank you, next.

Prop 44 // Spending Requirements for Federally Qualified Health Centers Initiative

No. Another proposed ballot prop from SEIU-UHW, the people responsible for this year’s attempt at abolishing the concept of private property. In the first place, fuck them, fuck their three attempts at forcing us all to vote on kidney dialysis, I hope this cost them a lot of money and fails. But also, we shouldn’t be micromanaging to this degree. This is exactly the kind of thing the public should just really not be voting on, given… I mean can I really say with confidence 20% spending on administrative work is too high?

I’ve never run an organization like this and I’m not about to vote on how they should run themselves today.

Prop 45 // Changes to Environmental Review Process for Certain Projects Initiative

Yes. CEQA should really just be abolished. This won’t do that, but it will speed up the review process.

—Solana