Initially, I intended to vote (twice) for Adam Schiff, who I followed in the 1^st impeachment trial. Adam also impressed me when he spoke at a Beach Cities Democrats gathering in September.

But I also was excited by Katie Porter, and contributed to her campaign. Then, one of my very smart friends sent me the following from northern California activist Debbie Mytels, whose reasoning clarified this race for me:

Debbie Mytels writes:
“US Senate — Like all of our CA elections now, this is a “Top Two” race in which the two candidates who get the most votes will go into a run-off in November.  That adds a wrinkle in this race, because there are three Dems (Barbara Lee, Katie Porter, & Adam Schiff) and one Republican (former LA Dodger Steve Garvey).

While I doubt that any of the people I know will be voting for Steve Garvey, his candidacy presents a problem, because as the lone Republican, Garvey COULD come in “second” — and while it’s not likely he would win in November, it would also mean that we won’t have a full and robust debate among the “top two” Democrats (whom I assume will otherwise be Katie Porter and Adam Schiff, based upon current polling and campaign funds collected.)   While I think Barbara Lee is a terrific person and admire her sole vote against the disastrous Iraq War back in 2001, she does not have the financial backing to run for this highly competitive seat.

Porter and Schiff, on the other hand, represent starkly different perspectives:  progressive vs. “middle-of-the-road” Democrat. Porter is not accepting any corporate contributions to her campaign, and as a former UC Irvine economcs professor, she’s become famous for writing questions on a whiteboard during Congressional hearings about economic issues.  For example, during a hearing with Jamie Dimond, CEO  of Chase Bank, Congressmember Porter wrote his salary with a Sharpie on her whiteboard, holding it up for all the cameras to see — and comparing it to the wages of a typical Chase worker.

Porter’s pointed questioning has helped many people to see the difficulties our country faces because of our extreme income inequality.  Schiff, on the other hand, is unapologetic about the big war chest he has accumulated for his campaign.  While Schiff has been a leader in former Pres. Trump’s impeachment hearings, this has not required much courage by the Congressman from a safe Dem. district in L.A. who has been ambitiously eyeing Feinstein’s seat for a while.  Porter is a young, dynamic and SMART woman, and I think she would be a great new Senator.  I’ve been donating to her campaign hoping she can get enough votes to win the # 2 spot so she can have a one-on-one debate with Schiff.  Schiff, meanwhile, has strategically been running TV ads that loudly proclaim Garvey as a Republican (rather than identifying him as an old baseball player who’s never held public office before) — and it’s clear he’d rather run against Garvey in November than Porter.”

* SF Chronicle’s Endorsement of Katie Porter:

“Katie Porter was easily the most impressive candidate we interviewed during our endorsement process. Overflowing with ideas and energy, Porter demonstrated deep policy knowledge and brought her analytical mind to bear on California’s most intractable problems — including the potential for water recycling technology to shore up the state’s residential supply while sustaining the water needs of farmers.

“Porter’s housing platform is pragmatic, including bipartisan-friendly ideas to bring homebuilding costs down, such as federal support for 3-D printing and modular construction. She also proposes allowing the federal government to finance the construction of four-unit starter homes, which could potentially make new housing in low-slung neighborhoods like San Francisco’s Sunset District more financially tenable.

“These practical ideas befit a candidate who has repeatedly won tough elections in a purple Orange County district. And they’re why we believe Porter has the chance to be effective for California even if Republicans control Congress.

“To be clear, should Democrats control the levers of power, Porter can swing big, too, most notably on her ideas to end soft corruption in politics.”

I’m so proud that he represents me in Congress. if only he could run for president! Unfortunately, he can’t, as he was born in Taipei, Taiwan, and immigrated to the US when he was three years old.

One of the good guys who has blossomed in his role as our state assembly member.

Steve Napolitano ~ though Steve is not a Democrat, I know him and support him. He’s the youngest ever elected in our city and is now the longest serving Mayor and City Councilmember for the City of Manhattan Beach. Steve cares deeply and votes fairly.

*NOTE: neither candidate is rated “qualified” by the Los Angeles County Bar Association. Emily Spear is the incumbent; The Beach Cities Dems have endorsed Repecka.

Hands down, yes!

George Gascon is supported by the Stonewall Dems and is a very smart judge who sends out a list of his recommendations.

Visit https://www.yes4measuremb.com/

Voting YES to renew Measure MB. Maintains top-rated schools without raising taxes.

Measure MB is an annual parcel tax that provides reliable and essential locally controlled funding to Manhattan Beach schools. Renewing it would continue the current tax rate of $225 per parcel per year for six years. The measure supports retention of exceptional teachers, keeps class sizes manageable, and protects excellent core academic programs in Manhattan Beach Unified School District (MBUSD).

Note: Measure MB exempts homeowners age 65+ for the duration of the measure after a simple one-time application and qualification process. Those who have pre-qualified for an age-based exemption under the current measure are not required to reapply as their exemptions will auto-renew with renewal of the measure. Available to alleviate financial burden on fixed or limited incomes, exemptions are optional and filed at the discretion of the homeowner.

Northern California activist Debbie Mytels writes:

“This drew my attention when Kaye, the chair of our Unitarian-Universalist congregation in Redwood City noted that the major donors to Prop. 1 are giant health care companies — and the opposition was the League of Women Voters!

Another opponent is the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers’ Assn (whose position usually tells me how NOT to vote!)  Since the LWV is known for its careful studies and it’s “good government” stance, we both wondered “why the differing positions?” — and were puzzled over the strange LWV/Howard Jarvis “bedfellows.” I then heard a woman on KQED who is a staffer at a small community-run clinic in the Central Valley — and she also opposed Prop. 1 because she said it would deprive their agency of resources — and take away their local decision-making about what are appropriate treatments for individuals.

Lastly, I received the note below from Vic Ojakian, a former Palo Alto Mayor/councilmember who lost his college-age son to suicide about a decade ago.  Vic and his wife are progressive community leaders — and they have sent out this statement from the ACLU, also opposing Prop. 1.

You can read Vic’s perspective here: 
DON’T BE FOOLED BY PROPOSITION 1’S FALSE PROMISES by ACLU https://aclucalaction.org/2024/02/dont-be-fooled-by-proposition-1s-false-promises/;

… in fact, it would have some catastrophic effects. Proposition 1’s changes to the Mental Health Services Act would force mental health, housing, and substance use disorder programs to compete for funding and would cause one set of life-saving services to be provided at the expense of the other. Proposition 1’s new regulations on counties are projected to lead to a 30-50% reduction in voluntary outpatient, peer-run, and community-based culturally responsive treatment programs. California ACLUs are especially concerned about the risk to programs like non-police mental health crisis response, and diversion programs for people with mental health needs into treatment instead of incarceration.

Additionally, Proposition 1 encourages expanding ineffective, force-first approaches to mental health treatment. Instead of housing, Proposition 1’s bond measure focuses on funding about 10,000 inpatient psychiatric beds, which are typically used for involuntary treatment, and creates a funding stream for for-profit locked mental health facilities, where people with mental health needs can be placed long-term without the right to leave, consent or refuse certain treatments, or other basic civil liberties.

Forced treatment facilities are significantly more expensive than community-based, voluntary care programs, and they are also not effective long-term. People who are involuntarily hospitalized and/or warehoused in institutions typically do not recover and stabilize – when they are released, they quickly end up back in crisis or on the streets. People who feel they are being coerced into mental health hospitalization against their will are more likely to attempt suicide after being released from the hospital [Jordan, J.T. and McNiel, D. E., Perceived Coercion During Admission Into Psychiatric Hospitalization Increases Risk of Suicide Attempts after Discharge, Suicide and Life Threatening Behavior Journal (2020)].

Most people with mental health conditions and substance use disorders, and those experiencing houselessness, can live independently in the community in housing with the appropriate, voluntary support. Institutionalizing individuals who do not require that restrictive of a setting simply because that is the only placement available presents serious civil rights and constitutionality concerns.

They got it right. — Vic Ojakian

Thanks again to Debbie Mytels and my very smart friend who sent her positions to me