Sign in

Patrick Siegman – California issues

@patricksiegmanca.bsky.social
22 followers 1 following 86 posts

Transportation planner & economist. Founder, Siegman & Associates. LinkedIn: tinyurl.com/5cekhrjh. This is my account for issues primarily of interest to San Franciscans & Californians (e.g., local elections). My main account is @siegman.biz

PostsRepliesMedia
Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 20/09/2026
Prop A was put on the ballot by a 9-2 vote of the Board of Supes (a body not known for handing power to the mayor), including progressives like Chyanne Chen and Shamann Walton. It grew out of Prop E, authored by progressive Supe Peskin. It's a basic good government reform that deserves our support.
000
Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 20/09/2026
"Nearly 90% of city departments are embedded directly in the charter, an arrangement virtually unheard of among major cities. The result: Any change, even a small one, can require a ballot measure." After reading this, I'm pretty sure I'm voting "yes" on Prop A. Anybody disagree? If so, why?
001
Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 20/09/2026
"Small business owners face similar obstacles. Opening a neighborhood cafe can require navigating up to 11 different departments, each with its own rules, mandates and approval processes, many of them locked in place by the charter."
100
Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 20/09/2026
"This complicated system creates months of back and forth between departments and higher price tags. There is no clear central authority to coordinate across departments. This lack of cohesion extends to technology, real estate, capital programs and basic asset management."
100
Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 20/09/2026
"The charter requires the city administrator to oversee purchasing but doesn’t give authority to enforce consistent rules, so each department develops its own protocols. And the Board of Supervisors tries to fix problems it sees by adding new legislative requirements."
100
Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 20/09/2026
"The now-infamous $1.7 million public toilet was a symptom of a system that makes even small projects painfully complex. Due to charter-mandated procedural layers and scattered responsibility, costs ballooned and timelines stretched endlessly." 🎁link:
sfchronicle.com
There’s no fixing San Francisco without fixing its City Charter. Here’s how
OPINION: “Reforming the charter isn’t just bureaucratic housekeeping; it’s the first step toward a government that works for the people it serves,” Sean Elsbernd writes.
100
Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 29/08/2026
Do you think blocking bus lanes, bike/ped safety projects, and car-free parks makes our city better? I find it hard to understand why anyone who considers themselves progressive would support a politician whose positions on sustainable transportation projects often mirror the Trump administration.
000
Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 29/08/2026
That's certainly true of Connie Chan. I've followed her career pretty closely, but it was still a bit surprising to me to review all of the ways that she has tried to block transit, pedestrian, and bicycle improvements!
000
Reposted by Patrick Siegman – California issues
Patrick Siegman @siegman.biz · 26/08/2026
There's often little daylight between Trump's transportation chief, who works to block transit, bike, & pedestrian projects, and SF's own Connie Chan. "Chan was a leading critic of the city’s 2022 decision to permanently ban cars on a key stretch of Golden Gate Park’s John F. Kennedy Drive." 🎁link:
sfchronicle.com
Connie Chan’s critics call her a roadblock. She calls herself a voice for her S.F. community
Supervisor Connie Chan has often positioned herself as a tireless community advocate who tries to protect vulnerable residents from harm. Her critics say she’s an obstructionist.
1314
Reposted by Patrick Siegman – California issues
Warren Wells, AICP @warrenjwells.bsky.social · 21/08/2026
Former SF Supervisor Gordon Mar, who opposed the permanent car-free Great Highway measure Prop K in 2024 says he will be voting this November to *keep* Sunset Dunes a park. You love to see someone change their mind. Vote no on G. www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/open...
sfchronicle.com
I created the Great Highway compromise. Here’s why I’m voting against it in November
OPINION: “In a political culture that increasingly demands that we choose a side and never waver, I hope there is still room for another possibility,” Gordon Mar writes.
1549
Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 13/08/2026
Wiener has supported badly-needed new housing near transit, within existing cities: that is, where it has the least environmental impact. He's made it easier to build those homes. He's consistently opposed suburban sprawl & opposed weakening environmental protections for those kinds of projects.
000
Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 13/08/2026
Scott has also worked tirelessly to improve transit, walking, and bicycling networks. When it comes to housing and environmental protection...
100
Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 13/08/2026
Connie Chan is campaigning to convert a beautiful waterfront park, which provides important wildlife habitat, back into a high-speed highway. How does that protect the environment? Scott supports our park, so I'm with him.
100
Reposted by Patrick Siegman – California issues
Patrick Siegman @siegman.biz · 13/08/2026
"Making the road suitable for cars would 'significantly increase the cost of government by approximately $9.8 million in one-time capital costs and by approximately $500,000 to $1.9 million annually,'..." I'll be voting for the fiscally-conservative option: a beautiful park.😊
sfgate.com
Allowing cars back on Great Highway could cost over $10M, SF controller says
Prop. G will ask San Francisco voters if they want to allow vehicles back on the coastal road on weekdays.
191
Reposted by Patrick Siegman – California issues
Paul Semenza @paulsemenza.bsky.social · 13/08/2026
We have @conniechansf.bsky.social to thank for having to deal with this nonsense again
011
Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 12/08/2026
bsky.app/profile/patr...
050
Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 12/08/2026
How on earth did #SanFrancisco politics reach the point where Connie Chan is labeled a “progressive” candidate for Congress by so many reporters?
020
Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 12/08/2026
Call me radical, but I don’t think it’s progressive to spend $10M to convert a popular park into a high-speed highway.
120
Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 19/05/2026
“SMART ridership has grown consistently — including a 35% jump last year — and officials have sound plans to keep that momentum going.” I agree. Yes on B!
010
Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 19/05/2026
"Building infrastructure in California is notoriously difficult; trains are even more so. So why would anyone try to shut down a line that’s been operating for less than a decade?"
sfchronicle.com
Endorsement: Sonoma-Marin rail service is growing. It needs support. Yes on Measure B
OPINION: A yes vote would extend an existing ¼-cent sales tax to help keep the train running until 2059. A no vote would effectively kill the line, the editorial board writes.
110
Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 19/05/2026
...erratically and unpredictably changing SF's tax structure with every election. We need to let our newly-adopted tax structure work for long enough to fairly evaluate the results. We should go back to voters to change it only if necessary, and only after developing a measure with broad support.
000
Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 19/05/2026
My first reaction was to vote yes, to offset the damage done by Trump's cuts to social services. But sadly, Prop D is likely to do more harm than good. 2024's Prop M established a progressive business tax while reducing the burden on small businesses. We should leave it alone to work, instead of...
SPUR's Recommendation
Federal budget cuts could impact as many as 50,000 San Franciscans who rely on Medi-Cal and CalFresh to access health care and food. Developing sound fiscal strategies to mitigate those budget cuts is critical. However, Prop. D could undermine San Francisco’s ability to attract private investment at a time when the city’s economy is vulnerable. Some retailers, including grocery stores and pharmacies, have plans to close their San Francisco locations if the measure passes. Furthermore, Prop. D would increase risk to the city’s revenues by relying on a small number of companies for business tax revenues.

The comprehensive reform under 2024’s Prop. M maintained a progressive tax policy that reduced the tax burden on small businesses while protecting the city and taxpayers from volatility and unpredictability. It was developed with rigorous policy analysis and won strong support from a broad coalition. Because the new tax structure only became effective in January 2025, it’s too soon to know what its impacts will be. SPUR believes that the efficacy of the newly adopted tax structure should be thoroughly evaluated, and further analysis should be conducted in partnership with business and labor before returning to the voters with a new revenue proposal.

Vote NO on Prop D - Business Tax Increase
240
Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 19/05/2026
Prop. C would reduce our ability to maintain basic services, like transit, at a time when Trump's budget cuts have already done serious damage to #SanFrancisco. It also does nothing to close loopholes or simplify our tax structure, so it will do little or nothing to spur economic growth. No on C.
SPUR's Recommendation
The comprehensive business tax reform under 2024’s Prop. M was developed after months of policy analysis and engagement and has broad support from business, labor, and other stakeholders. Prop. C would not make significant structural changes that warrant another voter measure. It was placed on the ballot primarily to defeat Prop. D, a competing tax measure to increase business taxes. Significantly, it would have a negative net impact on San Francisco’s budget, reducing revenues by an estimated $30 million to $40 million per year at a time when the city is already scrambling to fill a $169 million budget gap for the next fiscal year.

Vote NO on Prop C - Small Business Tax Cuts
110
Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 19/05/2026
For more info, see: www.spur.org/voter-guide/...
spur.org
San Francisco Prop B - Lifetime Term Limits
Amends the city charter so that members of the Board of Supervisors and the mayor cannot serve for more than two four-year terms over their lifetimes.
100
Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 19/05/2026
"Frequent turnover among elected officials can increase reliance on lobbyists, consultants, and long-tenured staff" who know how the system works, but aren't directly accountable to voters. As a longtime consultant myself, I've seen this happen and I agree: the effects are bad. Vote no on B.
SPUR's Recommendation
San Francisco already has term limits. The existing limits balance the goals of reducing incumbency advantage and preserving voter choice. Lifetime bans permanently remove voter choice to elect representatives, and stripping that choice should require a more deliberate and robust process, which this measure did not undergo.

While term limits can increase competition and reduce incumbent power, this measure is unlikely to achieve these objectives on its own and may produce unintended negative consequences. Term limits alone do not fully address the structural factors that shape political power and electoral outcomes.

Additionally, while regular turnover can promote competition, it may limit elected officials’ ability to build long-term expertise, particularly in a city with a complex governance structure like San Francisco. The rarity of political candidates returning after a break in service suggests this measure is designed to address a problem that barely exists.

For these reasons, this measure is not a comprehensive solution to the challenges of incumbency power, electoral competitiveness, and equitable representation. Achieving the desired outcomes of generating new ideas and leaders requires reform related to campaign finance and pathways for political leadership development.

Vote NO on Prop B - Lifetime Term Limits
100
Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 19/05/2026
For more info, see: www.spur.org/voter-guide/...
100
Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 19/05/2026
This "bond would ensure that the city’s first responders are prepared to save lives, would help keep residents safely housed and public transportation infrastructure running, and would limit the social and economic burden of disasters on households and public institutions." True! Yes on A.
SPUR's Recommendation
The seismic resilience of public safety infrastructure deserves continued public investment because it’s critical to disaster response. That’s why SPUR supported the 2010, 2014, and 2020 ESER bonds, which have already invested $1.4 billion in earthquake safety. The proposed 2026 ESER bond would ensure that the city’s first responders are prepared to save lives, would help keep residents safely housed and public transportation infrastructure running, and would limit the social and economic burden of disasters on households and public institutions.
Vote YES on Prop A - Earthquake Bond
100
Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 19/05/2026
“While choosing between these strong candidates is difficult, the editorial board is endorsing Maffei based on her passion to seek justice for the victims of crime, her empathy for those who stand accused and the breadth of her experience.” I am, too.
sfchronicle.com
Endorsement: Two outstanding candidates are running for S.F. Superior Court judge. Here’s our pick
OPINION: Reducing the Seat 16 race to an ideological proxy war between the DA and public defender’s offices does both candidates a disservice, the Chronicle editorial board writes.
100
Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 19/05/2026
Kim “has the care, intellectual rigor and attention to detail that the position demands. A former educator who has spent 12 years in kindergarten through 12th-grade education, he was unanimously elected board president in 2025.” He's clearly qualified and has earned the respect of his colleagues.
sfchronicle.com
Endorsement: Phil Kim for San Francisco school board
Chronicle editorial board: San Francisco school board President Phil Kim has the care, intellectual rigor and attention to detail that the SFUSD position demands.
110
Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 19/05/2026
Voters "must decide if they want the most relentless and effective legislator in California zeroing in on universal healthcare, cheaper housing options, humane immigration policies...and preserving democracy from Donald Trump — or if they want vibes" I'll take the former! Vote for Wiener.
sfchronicle.com
Endorsement: There’s only one candidate capable of filling Pelosi’s shoes in Congress. That’s Scott Wiener
OPINION: Do you want California's most relentless legislator zeroing in on universal healthcare, housing, immigrant and LGBTQ protections? Or do you want vibes?
120
Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 19/05/2026
“John Pimentel, a Democratic elected trustee of the San Mateo County Community College District & renewable energy executive, is no novice. He’s open to dissolving the board & has the political sophistication to make such a case to the Legislature...” Let's hope he wins & dissolves this dumb Board😊
130
Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 19/05/2026
“At this point, the whittled-down agency is little more than a cushy political jobs program — with a commensurately cushy salary. A Board of Equalization member earns $184,447 annually — the same as California’s lieutenant governor and secretary of state.” I agree. This Board shouldn't exist.
sfchronicle.com
Endorsement: The Board of Equalization shouldn’t exist. This candidate is willing to finally get rid of it
OPINION: For his willingness to eliminate his own job, John Pimentel is the best candidate for the Board of Equalization District 2 seat, argues the Chronicle’s Editorial Board.
130
Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 19/05/2026
“With nearly two decades of experience governing California’s second-largest school district, Barrera has an encyclopedic knowledge of education policy and a track record and obvious passion for helping students succeed.” Of all the candidates, Barrera sounds like the best choice for the job.
sfchronicle.com
Endorsement: California needs a school superintendent who puts kids first. Here’s our pick
OPINION: There’s no denying the positive results Richard Barrera has helped achieve in San Diego, writes the Chronicle editorial board.
110
Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 19/05/2026
...fairly, not another political climber who makes every decision with an eye toward winning higher office.
140
Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 19/05/2026
“While Wolff doesn’t have prior political experience, we’re convinced his deep understanding of insurance and financial markets, as well as his evident passion for the work, will go a long way toward getting stakeholders on board.” I agree. For this job, we need a technocrat who will price risk...
sfchronicle.com
Endorsement: Patrick Wolff for California insurance commissioner
OPINION: “California needs someone to do the hard work of competently regulating the insurance system before we can fully solve its shortcomings,” the Chronicle editorial board writes.
250
Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 19/05/2026
“With her thorough grasp of the treasurer’s complex duties and the political gravitas to get things done, Kounalakis deserves your vote.” Makes sense to me!
sfchronicle.com
Endorsement: Eleni Kounalakis for California treasurer
Chronicle Editorial Board: With her thorough grasp of the treasurer’s complex duties and the political gravitas to get things done, Eleni Kounalakis deserves your vote.
130
Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 19/05/2026
As Controller, Malia Cohen has done a fine job. She also deserves to be reelected.
maliacohenforca.com
Accomplishments — Malia Cohen For California
Democrat Malia Cohen is running for California State Controller 2026. Learn about her vision, priorities, and how you can support the campaign.
140
Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 19/05/2026
“Shirley Weber’s breadth of experience, willingness to do the right thing and fierce advocacy for voting rights make her the strongest candidate in the race. She deserves to be reelected.” I agree. Vote for Weber.
sfchronicle.com
Endorsement: Shirley Weber for California secretary of state
OPINION: California is no ocean of calm when it comes to elections. The need for steady and trustworthy leadership from our secretary of state cannot be understated, the editorial board writes.
140
Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 19/05/2026
Support Michael Tubbs for Lt. Gov. He fights to make housing affordable, even when it might cost him his career: “Against the advice of several mentors who warned that it could cost him politically, Tubbs testified in the Legislature in support of SB79.”
sfchronicle.com
SF Chronicle Endorsement: Michael Tubbs for California lieutenant governor
S.F. Chronicle editorial board endorsement: Ambitious and clear-eyed about the limitations and opportunities of the lieutenant governor role, Tubbs deserves your vote.
180
Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 19/05/2026
As Streets for All puts it, "Steyer is an outsider who appears willing to challenge the transportation status quo by tackling the highway lobby and fossil-fuel industry. He has a strong climate record and his takes on housing and transportation align with Streets For All’s values and policy goals."
180
Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 19/05/2026
I'm supporting Tom Steyer for Governor. Tom has campaigned for years to give people more affordable, efficient, and climate-friendly transportation choices. He's supported bills like SB79, to make housing abundant and affordable. He has a proven track record on these issues, so he's earned my vote.
tomsteyer.com
Streets for All Endorses Tom Steyer
We are endorsing Steyer because his stated policy values and campaign focus are most clearly aligned with Streets For All’s vision for the future of California: more efficient, affordable, and climate
1323
Reposted by Patrick Siegman – California issues
Ben Passino (MURP) @benpassino.bsky.social · 01/01/2026
Richard Nixon's influence falters within property line. The @Nixonlibrary is expanding without their desired visitor cafe. Instead, per City of Yorba Linda, they'll be installing 13 additional underground parking stalls. 🍋
111
Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 31/10/2024
Correction: I meant, "Prop C is exactly…", not "Prop A".
000
Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 31/10/2024
"Prop O will not provide San Franciscans with complete reproductive immunity should Project 2025’s plans become realized — there is no such protection — but it’s an incremental step toward shielding our rights from such an assault." Yes on Prop O. www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/edit...
sfchronicle.com
Endorsement: With Project 2025 threats looming, Prop O boosts S.F.’s commitment to reproductive rights
Proposition O adds safeguards to reproductive health in San Francisco should national threats reach our borders.
000
Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 31/10/2024
“This measure promises to build a more resilient and transparent tax system in San Francisco, while providing tax relief to small businesses that have struggled to recover from the pandemic. The measure would be fiscally neutral...” Yes on Prop M. www.spur.org/voter-guide/...
000
Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 31/10/2024
"Prop. L would provide ~$25 million in critically needed, ongoing funding for transit operations, starting as early as 2025." Multiple studies have found that ridehailing cars have seriously worsened congestion. Taxing them is a smart and just way to fund transit. www.spur.org/voter-guide/...
000
Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 31/10/2024
Prop K will "increase access to shared public amenities; encourage walking, biking, and transit...and proactively address sea level rise and coastal erosion in a fiscally, socially, and environmentally responsible manner." Yes on Prop K! www.spur.org/voter-guide/...
000
Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 31/10/2024
"Bringing back promises we couldn’t afford to keep only hurts employees in the long run. The worst thing you can do to a hardworking city employee is to run their retirement lifeline into insolvency." Vote no on Prop H. 6/6
000
Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 31/10/2024
"And so, it’s with great consternation we see that — even as San Francisco grapples with a $780 million deficit and the gutting of its downtown tax base — there are three pension benefit expansion measures on the November ballot." /5
100
Patrick Siegman – California issues @patricksiegmanca.bsky.social · 31/10/2024
"When the stock market collapsed in 2008, the investments that were supposed to pay for retiree benefits couldn’t float the bills — ultimately leading to $5.8 billion in unfunded liabilities that city residents were on the hook for." /4
100