D5 Action endorses the following choices for propositions in the November 2012 election.

* See why we recommend some key votes.

 Click here to find out where the candidates for supervisor stand on various issues.

NO on Proposition B.  It is hard to ask people to vote no on a proposition that provides funding for parks, but 49% of the 2008 Recreation and Parks Department bond hasn’t even been spent. In 2010, the department fired 166 recreation directors, whose programs provided activities for children. The department then hired high-paid staff in its Property Management Division. Clubhouses were renovated with money from previous bonds, and then some were leased to private organizations. These clubhouses are no longer open to the public.

Because bond funds can be used only for capital improvements, this measure will not meet our parks’ needs for recreation directors, gardeners, custodians and maintenance workers. We cannot vote to give more money to a department that consistently ignores the public’s concerns. This bond offers few guarantees about how the money will be spent. San Francisco’s public spaces should be open to all, not just to those who can afford to pay. A broad coalition of groups opposes proposition B. For more information, see http://www.stopthemismanagementofourmoney.com/.

No on Proposition F. Proposition F's "water sustainability" is a Trojan horse designed to tear down O'Shaughnessey dam. The SFPUC has already studied alternative water supplies, and is investing in water conservation, recycling, gray water use and rainwater harvesting. SF residents use less water than anywhere else in California. We wouldn't build the dam today, but its removal now would destroy our water and power systems, and would be prohibitively expensive and environmentally disastrous. The loss of clean public power would cost rate payers $40 million a year.

YES on Proposition 30. This proposition would annually raise $6 billion in additional state revenue until 2019 for education and social services. The money would be generated by taxes on individuals with incomes over $250,000 for all seven years, and a quarter-cent sales tax would be implemented for the first four years. Beginning in this fiscal year, Prop 30 would spare Californians from drastic cuts in services.

NO on Proposition 35. This proposition is a dangerously deceptive measure that does not address serious human trafficking violations. It threatens consensual sex workers with prison time for nonviolent offenses. It implicates people with any financial connection to sex workers as “traffickers,” including their children; sanctions against such “traffickers” include lengthy prison sentences. The actual perpetrators of human trafficking need to be the focus of an alternative approach.

YES on Proposition 40. This measure was put on the ballot by Republicans who wanted people to vote no on it. We should vote YES! Proposition 40 asks the public to vote YES to keep the new district lines drawn by the state’s citizens’ redistricting commission. Some Republicans oppose the new district lines and want you to vote no because a no vote rejects the work of the task force and allows the State Supreme Court to draw new lines. The Republican Party has since split from their conservative allies and joined the Democrats in supporting the “YES on 40” campaign.