Made Up Pasta #1

Originally uploaded by Ms. President

Chanterelles are in the farmer’s market now, abortion so I made up this pasta dish featuring them last night. Click on the photo for more pictures and the “recipe”.


Friends, Romans, Republicans:

Welcome to the Granick Slate Card for the November 3, 2009 San Francisco Citywide Election. I know, I know, you had no idea there was an election tomorrow, and neither did I. So without further ado, here is the lowdown on the 5 city ballot measures and the two city offices. (Apologies if you do not live in San Francisco, as this will not help you at all. You probably don’t even have an election to vote in.)

OFFICES: No Opposition Candidates

City Attorney: Dennis Herrera

Treasurer: José Cisneros


The propositions this year are about money, and ways the city can make some and plan to spend it, given the deep budget deficits as a result of the recession. My theory is that we should plan for the long run, and that informs my recommendations

PROPOSITION A: Two Year Budget Cycle: Yes
Should the City Charter be amended to require the City to develop binding long-range financial policies, to adopt a two-year budget cycle, and to create a five-year financial plan to forecast expenditures and revenues?

It’s a good idea to consider more than just the next year when budgeting.

PROPOSITION B: Board of Supervisor Aides: No

Should the City Charter be amended to allow members of the Board of Supervisors an unspecified number of aides?

We’re in a deficit. The Board of Supervisors should not now be authorized to hire more than the two aides they are currently allotted. If there is a need for more aides, we can find out what that need is and authorize that, not remove any limits.

PROPOSITION C: Candlestick Park Naming Rights: Yes

Should the City be allowed to enter into naming contracts for the stadium at Candlestick Point?

I have strong distaste for naming rights. However, the last naming contract for Candlestick was $700K a year from When that contract expired, the park reverted to its original name. This seems a low-impact way to bring in a lot of money in a budget cycle that requires more revenue.

PROPOSITION D: Mid-Market Special Sign District: No

This would create a special district allowing more signs and billboards along mid-Market Street, with some of the revenue earmarked for various beneficial services. Once these billboards are built, there’s no going back. The idea that more signs will revitalize the neighborhood seems a strange proposition. If we are going to look for ad revenue to help make up the budget shortfall, I’d rather something that doesn’t leave us with a lot of billboard infrastructure we’ll never stop using.

PROPOSITION E: Advertisements on City Property: No

Should the City prohibit any increase in advertising on any City owned property, such as buildings and street furniture (news racks, transit shelters etc.)?

I don’t like more advertising, but I don’t think that we should tie our hands now and vote to freeze advertising at current levels. This should be decided more flexibly. Some advertising is more pernicious than others.


SF Chronicle

Prop. A: YES
Prop. B: YES
Prop. C: YES
Prop. D: NO
Prop. E: NO

SF Bay Guardian

That all, Race Fans! See you at the ballot box.

To subscribe to the Granick Slate Card, visit http:// The Granick
Slate Card issues before every California election and may be copied and freely shared for any non-commercial purpose, with author attribution. Derivative works need not make any attribution.