By Calvin Welch, HANC Board
This November’s election was the first held under the new Supervisor District boundaries which split the neighborhood into three Supervisorial Districts, with the North Panhandle (Fulton to Fell, Stanyan to Baker) having one precinct in Distract 1, and the remaining 3 joining four of the five “Flatland” precincts (Fell to Frederick, Stanyan to Baker) in District 5. The remaining Flatland precinct was moved, along with the 3 “Hill” precincts into District 8. (see map, hint, the second digit denotes the Supervisor District; precinct 9801, which is entirely west of Stanyan, was not included in the analysis).
Turnout in the neighborhood was higher than the City’s 62%, with 72% of voters casting votes in the North Panhandle precincts, 74% in the Flatland and a robust 78% in the more moderate voting Hill precincts in D8. The higher hill precinct turnout was probably due to the fact that there was a Supervisor race in D8 and no such race in D5. A total of 9,733 votes were cast in the neighborhood.
It is important to note that the Haight-Ashbury is a decidedly “progressive” voting part of the world on general “equity” issues, even in the more moderate Hill precincts. Higher than both citywide and statewide averages were totaled on the state ban on abortion, and internet gambling, while solid majorities were cast for local measures creating taxes on vacant units (Prop. M), funding for libraries (Prop F) and even for additional funding for public schools (Prop G).
****************************************************************
Props C,F,G,H,L M,N and O
|
N. Pan |
C |
F |
G |
H |
L |
M |
N |
O |
|
9147 |
Y 71% |
Y 93% |
Y 84% |
Y 83% |
Y 83% |
Y 69% |
Y 91% |
N 57% |
|
9502 |
Y 75% |
Y 89% |
Y 87% |
Y 83% |
Y 85% |
Y 65% |
Y 85% |
Y 52% |
|
9505 |
Y 77% |
Y 91% |
Y 89% |
Y 84% |
Y 87% |
Y 63% |
Y 86% |
N 54% |
|
9507 |
Y 77% |
Y 87% |
Y 85% |
Y 80% |
Y 84% |
Y 68% |
Y 84% |
N 51% |
|
Sub total |
Y 75% |
Y 90% |
Y 86% |
Y 82% |
Y 84% |
Y 66% |
Y 86% |
N 52% |
|
Flats |
||||||||
|
9501 |
Y 76% |
Y 91% |
Y 89% |
Y 81% |
Y 87% |
Y 69% |
Y 84% |
Y 57% |
|
9503 |
Y 79% |
Y 92% |
Y 91% |
Y 85% |
Y 89% |
Y 69% |
Y 86% |
Y 53% |
|
9504 |
Y 74% |
Y 93% |
Y 89% |
Y 83% |
Y 87% |
Y 65% |
Y 86% |
N 52% |
|
9506 |
Y 81% |
Y 94% |
Y 90% |
Y 85% |
Y 89% |
Y 68% |
Y 89% |
Y 56% |
|
9803 |
Y 76% |
Y 92% |
Y 87% |
Y 86% |
Y 88% |
Y 64% |
Y 86% |
N 51% |
|
Sub total |
Y 77% |
Y 92% |
Y 89% |
Y 84% |
Y 88% |
Y 67% |
Y 86% |
Y 52% |
|
Hills |
||||||||
|
9802 |
Y 72% |
Y 90% |
Y 80% |
Y 79% |
Y 82% |
N 52% |
Y 83% |
N 68% |
|
9804 |
Y 74% |
Y 91% |
Y 87% |
Y 83% |
Y 88% |
Y 57% |
Y 87% |
N 55% |
|
9805 |
Y 72% |
Y 92% |
Y82% |
Y 82% |
Y 86% |
N 51% |
Y 86% |
N 66% |
|
9806 |
Y 71%` |
Y 92% |
Y 86% |
Y 81% |
Y 86% |
Y 55% |
Y 84% |
N 61% |
|
Sub total |
Y 72% |
Y 91% |
Y 83% |
Y 81% |
Y 85% |
Y 52% |
Y 85% |
N 62% |
|
Total HA |
Y 74% |
Y 91% |
Y 86% |
Y 82% |
Y 85% |
Y 57% |
Y 85% |
N 54% |
|
D5 |
Y 74% |
Y 87% |
Y 86% |
Y 78% |
Y 81% |
Y 65% |
Y81% |
N 51% |
|
SF |
Y 67% |
Y 83% |
Y 77% |
Y 71% |
Y 72% |
Y 55% |
Y 75% |
N 63% |
HANC's Recommendations
Prop C Homeless Oversight Commission Yes
Prop F Library Preservation Fund Yes
Prop G Student Success Fund Yes
Prop H City Elections in Even Years Yes
Prop L Renew sales tax for MUNI * Yes
Prop M Tax on Vacant Units Yes
Prop N GGP Parking Garage to City Yes
Prop O Parcel Tax for CCSF Yes
* 2/3rds vote required
******************************************************************************
But real difference emerged within the neighborhood on measures with a direct economic or “class” impact. Three measures – Prop O, a parcel tax to fund City College, and the two competing housing density measures - Prop D which favored market rate development and Prop E which favored lower income affordable development- resulted in sharp geographic difference in voting patterns.
Prop O, the City College parcel tax, lost city wide with a resounding 63% no vote, but it won narrow majorities in the left- liberal voting precincts of the North Panhandle and Flatlands, getting a 52% yes vote in those precincts. However, in the Hill precincts 62% of the voters voted no. A 10% swing among portions of the neighborhood is a huge difference.
But an even greater difference was apparent in the housing density proposals. Both the North Panhandle and Flatland precincts narrowly rejected the market rate measure favor by Mayor Breed and the Yimbys (Prop D) and supported the affordable housing proposal favored by labor, the Democratic Party, the Sierra Club and HANC. But in a remarkable example of class solidarity the Hill precinct voted the exact reverse: favoring market rate housing over affordable housing. And given its higher turnout, cast just enough votes for the narrowest neighborhood victory of Yes on D (51%) and No on E (51%). City wide, both measure lost, while the new District Five was the only District in which both D and E won!