San Francisco should be the greatest city in the world, and that’s the goal. But before we get to all the fun shit — new tunnels and trains up your ass, rooftop hydroponic gardens of genetically-modified flora, every building in the city zoned to seven stories (provided it is beautiful (we all know what is, and what is not, beautiful)), 24-hour clubbing in the foggy neon “midnight district,” promotions and raises for whoever is managing the city parks (you guys are doing a great job actually, thank you), and a colossal “Justice” statue on Alcatraz Island to match New York City’s Lady Liberty — we need to claw our way back to base-level human civilization.

Namely: crime should be illegal, emergency shelter should be built for the homeless, that emergency shelter should be prioritized over free one-bedroom apartments for drug addicts who just moved to the city, NGOs grifting city dollars in the name of improving a social problem they invariably make worse should be starved of funding, public schools should be safe and clean, public transportation should be solvent, and the budget should be balanced. Things, in other words, should just be normal.

At various points we have termed this philosophy of government “duh,” “yeah no shit,” and “what if things just worked?” Over time, the philosophy has become more popular, and today adherents of this radical perspective on local government functioning in a manner that is not, technically speaking, terroristic in nature… are legion. This is a voter guide for you — people who aren’t insane. Accept no substitutions.

Basic breakdown of the guide looks like this: first, we provide a cheat sheet with every answer, one after the other, for easy cribbing in your polling booth. Then, below, a bit more context if you’re curious about our thinking. This guide was put together by the Pirate Wires editorial team, with special thanks to guest star Kartik Sathappan.

Now, let’s get down to business.

CHEAT SHEET

SAN FRANCISCO

Board of Education

Ann Hsu

Supriya Ray

John Jersin

[No fourth endorsement]

These are the only three we’re confident don’t totally suck. Would leave that fourth slot blank.

Community College Board

[No endorsements]

Sorry, we tried. But all of these people kind of suck. Leaving this one blank.

BART Board, District 7

Victor Flores

BART Board, District 9

[No endorsement]

Joe Sangirardi seems like a nice guy, but he only seems to be running in order to market a 2026 ballot measure for more BART funding. That isn’t a plan to fix BART. No.

Mayor

First choice: Mark Farrell

Second choice: London Breed

Third choice: Daniel Lurie

See selected notes for details.

City Attorney

David Chiu

District Attorney

Brooke Jenkins

Sheriff

Paul Miyamoto

Treasurer

No Contest

Board of Supervisors, District 1

Marjan Philhour

Board of Supervisors, District 3

First choice: Matthew Susk

Second choice: Danny Sauter

See selected notes for details.

Board of Supervisors, District 5

First choice: Autumn Hope Looijen

Second choice: Scotty Jacobs

Third choice: None. Eat shit, Bilal. We’d rather have a fat communist in office.

See selected notes for details.

Board of Supervisors, District 7

First choice: Stephen Martin-Pinto

Second choice: Matt Boschetto

See selected notes for details.

Board of Supervisors, District 9

Trevor Chandler

Board of Supervisors, District 11

Michael Lai

Prop A: No

Prop B: No

Prop C: No

Prop D: Yes

Prop E: No

Prop F: Yes

Prop G: No

Prop H: Yes

Prop I: Yes

Prop J: Yes

Prop K: No

Prop L: No

Prop M: No

Prop N: No

Prop O: No

CALIFORNIA

State Senate, District 11

No endorsement. (Eat your filthy bugs, Scott Wiener)

See selected notes for details.

Prop 2: No

Prop 3: Yes

Prop 4: No

Prop 5: No

Prop 6: Yes

Prop 32: No

Prop 33: No

Prop 34: Yes

Prop 35: No

Prop 36: Yessss (in orgasm voice)

SELECTED NOTES

Mayor //

First choice: Mark Farrell. Imagine for a moment a world in which crime is illegal. Are you feeling lighter? More optimistic? Great, so is the entire city of San Francisco, apparently. It’s pretty wild: Mark Farrell, a tough-on-crime family man who wants a more efficient local government, is polling neck and neck with incumbent mayor London “French Laundry” Breed, who sucks. We keep her around because she’s not actively trying to burn the city to the ground, a rare quality in City Hall. But an alternative would be great. Make sure you rank Mark Farrell 1st on your ballot. Then Breed. Then Lurie.

Unfortunately, we do have to deal with the reality of ranked choice voting. Aaron Peskin, a prodigious, pro-crime NIMBY — and the don, for years, of the psychopathic Board of Supervisors that drove the city to ruin — is rising in the polls. Because of his name recognition, I’m worried people will rank him second, which means Lurie over Breed could mean an actual monster in office. Peskin has fought housing, small business, and law enforcement tooth and nail in his over 20 years in office. He has to be stopped. Rank the other moderates, Daniel Lurie and London Breed, after Mark, and don’t even rank Peskin.

Board of Supervisors, District 1 //

First choice: Marjan Philhour. Marjan Philhour is a normie lib who supports many idiotic positions, including this year’s idiotic proposal to tax Ubers and Waymo to fund Muni. Obviously, Muni should just be properly managed, and if Muni employees can’t figure that out they should be fired. But what are you going to do, it’s San Francisco. Your choices are limited. Vote for Marj, and then anyone else other than Connie Chan, who is an evil communist.

Board of Supervisors, District 3 //

First choice: Matthew Susk. Matthew Susk is great on crime (which is to say that he is, unlike many others in this race, opposed to it). He also wants to amend the gross receipts tax to keep fintech HQs in SF, and he’s committed to turning the long-vacant Lombardi Sports building into housing. He’s a good guy, and would be great for this job.

We also recommend ranking Daniel Sauter second. Daniel isn’t as tough on drug dealers, but he’s serious about reforming CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) and discretionary review to speed up the development of housing, shelters, and new businesses. He also supports expanding the police force from 1,500 to at least 2,100 officers.

Board of Supervisors, District 5 //

First choice: Autumn Hope Looijen. Eighth graders are learning algebra again this year, and you have one person to thank: Autumn Hope Looijen. Autumn led the successful effort to recall three members of the school board (including evil racist Alison Collins, and Gabriela Lopez, who is predictably now in grad school). Replacing “downtown is for drug users” Dean Preston with Autumn would be the greatest upset in SF politics ever. It’s probably not going to happen (no offense), but give it a shot.

We also recommend ranking Scotty Jacobs 2nd. He doesn’t have Autumn’s track record, but he’s committed to arresting and deporting drug dealers, building shelter beds, and compelling treatment when necessary.

Bilal, the “moderate” choice of GrowSF, has attacked tech for years, even while running. Most of his worst tweets have been deleted, but a pirate remembers. We’re not interested in traitorous candidates with an inability to grasp basic economic principles like “if there is no business in this city the city will die.” Honestly, we would rather have Preston in office. Sure, he is one of the most evil men in politics. But he is at least openly evil. An honest literal communist is better than a fraud moderate, and also making fun of Dean has significant galvanizing upside. Would die before we ranked him of course, but there you have it.

Board of Supervisors, District 7 //

First choice: Stephen Martin-Pinto. We’ve followed Stephen on Twitter for years. A sane human who prioritizes common sense positions on crime (it should be illegal, he thinks) and fentanyl dealers (they should be in jail, he controversially believes). He’s been on the right side of most issues since 2020, and we’re glad he’s running.

Matt Boschetto is a reasonable number 2.

Truly, the important thing here is we get rid of Myrna, a proponent of the Defund the Police movement, and a supporter of essentially every terrible policy in play. Aaron Peskin’s drooling, loser sidekick.

State Senate, District 11 //

No choice. Listen, from his war on AI and his obsession with banning shit like single-use plastics and flavored nicotine to his downgrade on criminal penalties for people who knowingly infect others with HIV, Scott Wiener has proven he is not a reasonable person. He is better than the communists who typically run against him from the left, but he isn’t a “moderate” lib. While we are sometimes willing to make allowances for crazy policy where we are mostly aligned with a candidate, Scott is the actual architect of the crazy policies in question. A no for us. (For more detail on Wiener’s AI war, check out Solana’s Bugman vs. the Robots)

On the other side, Scott’s Republican challenger, Yvette Corkrean, wants to block a housing development to “preserve neighborhood character.” While I’d be willing to at least hear her out on this position were she also arguing for a clear path to 5x’ing San Francisco’s supply of beautiful housing (she is not), she also opposes public drinking (in a very small “entertainment zone” on Front Street like come on can you please just relax). Another no.

Pirate Wires is sitting this one out. If you want our support, don’t be a piece of shit.

SAN FRANCISCO PROPS

Prop A // School improvement / safety bond

No. First of all, bonds are stupid. We pay taxes. If you can’t afford the absolute ground floor level of government services we’ve managed for over a century with the largest budget in the city’s history, it's time to figure out what’s going wrong at the bureaucratic level, and fix it. But in terms of this bond, we find ourselves wondering how many more bonds SFUSD needs before it can deliver on its promises.

Readers will recall that previous bond measures, like the 2016 bond, promised school improvements that still haven’t materialized. The problem isn’t a lack of funds, it’s a lack of accountability, and a short memory — seriously, do you even remember that you already greenlit extra funding for these people? Are you even the tiniest bit curious as to how it all went? Spoiler alert: they lit your money on fire, and the schools still suck.

Finally, this bond measure would also increase property taxes, which will inevitably drive up rents and home prices in a city already struggling with housing affordability. No more funding without a clear plan and results. Stop asking!

Prop B // “Community health” and “safety” and “homeless” bond

I said NO. San Francisco has a $15 billion budget, and spends 40% more per capita than other city-county governments. Nonetheless, city services are declining, and costs keep rising. We don’t need to borrow more money. We need systemic change. We need people who are not doing their jobs to be fired. Probably what we need is for a bunch of people to go to prison.

Prop C // Inspector General

No. The purpose of this proposition is to add new confusing layers to our government, and hamstring our ability to fix the city. Obviously, Aaron Peskin (evil) is responsible for the proposed Charter Amendment, which clones authority that already exists, and changes nothing. Idiot. No.

Prop D // Gut a lil bureaucracy, more power for the mayor

Yes. Prop D caps the city’s 120+ commissions at 65 (still well below other major cities). Every mayor since 1995 (when the OG “endless commissions” charter passed) has added departments, and government employees, to the government, ostensibly to fix some problem or other. This is a way to make it look like you’re solving a problem while actually doing nothing. There are presently 5 homeless commissions, for example. If you aren’t confident a sixth will change anything, vote yes on Prop D.

Prop E // A commission to look at the commissions 

No. Rather than support Prop D, Aaron Peskin wants another commission to look at the problem. Prop E asks voters to create a commission to address the number of commissions we already have. I feel like I’m going insane. Like??? These are not serious people. No. Also, please lose your race for mayor and move.

Prop F // Police staffing and deferred retirement

Yes. San Francisco is facing one of its worst police staffing crises ever, with over 600 officers short of the recommended levels needed to keep the city safe. This shortage is leading to slower 911 response times, higher crime rates, and skyrocketing overtime costs. Not a huge fan of burning through more money, but this is a temporary solution, and it auto-expires after 5 years. (Every law should auto-expire, tbh.)

Prop G // (more) Special housing subsidies for the poor

No. San Francisco is already failing to meet its state-mandated housing goals, adding just 2,066 new units in 2023 (we’re supposed to build over 10,000 each year). Prop G will increase the demand for affordable housing, with no plan to boost supply. Plus, there’s a good chance any assistance will be handed out by lottery, which we oppose on an ethical (and spiritual) level.

Prop H // Retirement benefits for firefighters

Yes. Firefighters face some of the toughest conditions on the job, with cancer as their leading cause of death. It’s only fair they retire at 55, just like their peers hired before 2012. With fires in San Francisco at a ten-year high in 2022, and Dean Preston letting crackheads set buildings on fire in Hayes Valley, we need to retain and support firefighters.

Prop I // Retirement benefits for nurses and 911 operators

Yes. We support Prop I. Just like our support for firefighters and police officers, it’s essential to offer similar benefits to nurses and 911 operators. Nurses face burnout and high vacancy rates, while 911 operators are crucial in emergencies but face chronic understaffing. We have to find a way to retain these workers.

Prop J // Accountability for child services

Yes. This prop charges the city’s accountants to keep track of the $200 million that’s spent each year from the “Children and Youth Fund,” which has been flying under the radar since 1991. Duplicate spending gets capped, waste gets capped, good chance some useless bureaucrats are fired. Spending does not increase. Easy yes. Yes all day.

Prop K // Permanently closing the Upper Great Highway to private vehicles to establish a public open recreation space

No (but it’s a soft no). This portion of the Upper Great Highway is already closed on weekends, when people with jobs are most likely to use the space. People in the area seem to want some access to the road, and a bunch of bikers are mad, but when are they not? They just hate cars. Okay, well, cars exist, and we can’t build new rail anymore so we need to make some compromises here. Also, the angry bikers are talking about a park? That will be put on the road? There is no plan for a park. And also? It’s fucking cold over there, nobody goes to that beach! Why are we pretending! 

Mostly we don’t care though do whatever you want here.

Prop L // Tax tech to pay for Muni

No. You are not taxing Uber, Lyft, and Waymo to briefly defer Muni’s looming mass layoff. Muni’s bureaucracy needs to be gutted, most people working for Muni need to be fired, and we need to stop tolerating rampant ride theft (fare evasion has nearly doubled from 12.8% in 2019 to over 20% in 2024, costing the system millions each year). The cops should be called when crazy passengers start getting violent, and we should encourage people back to the service. Also, we already do a special “fuck you” tax to these companies.

Prop M // Changes to business taxes

No. A penalty for tech companies with remote employees dressed up as a “small business” benefit. These companies are already leaving. Do you know what this city looks like when they’re all gone? You don’t need a new tax. You need Downtown to not be a Mad Max hellscape, this way people will actually want to work there. Have you tried incarcerating the criminals? Let’s start there, and pick this conversation up next year.

Prop N // First responder student loan and training reimbursement fund

No. Sorry did I miss a memo? Why should taxpayer money be used to pay off personal debts? This opens the door to similar demands across the city’s workforce. We’re already paying the government workforce way too much for way too little, and Prop N doesn't solve the real issue of rising education costs or inadequate pay — it's a short-term fix that could lead to long-term financial headaches.

Prop O // Abortion virtue signal (+MORE MONEY)

No. Unnecessary virtue signaling. Nobody in San Francisco is at risk of losing access to abortion services. Who said this was a problem? Seriously, can someone please just introduce me to someone in San Francisco who has not been able to receive an abortion? Then explain to me how raising new funds, from the already overburdened taxpayer, to put up a bunch of signs telling women where to get abortions (actual proposal) is going to help this imaginary person.

CALIFORNIA PROPS

Prop 2 // School facilities bond

No. When I tell you how tired I am of new bonds for things the government is supposed to be paying for with our tax dollars. No new money until you start firing bureaucrats. Period. This is, by the way, our perspective on every item as related to bonds.

Prop 3 // Let the gays marry

Yes. Are gay couples actually at risk of losing their right to marry in the state of California? No. Is this mostly just a virtue signal? Of course. But who cares, whatever, the main thing is this isn’t costing us any more money.

Prop 4 // Climate change bond?

No. You are not getting more money for *checks notes* drinking water programs??? You’re taking in close to $500 billion a year, is safe drinking water not included in the budget? What are we doing here? No, you are not gaslighting us into giving you more money so you can piss the budget away on educational opportunities for nonbinary illegal immigrants and the 7,600 paid state employees you have working on that program (probably). Also, fuck you.

Prop 5 // “Affordable housing bonds”

No. First of all, when the government says “affordable housing” what it really means is free apartments, in perpetuity, for drug addicts. Second, why is the government “building housing”? What does the government know about “building housing”? And why is this even a question? We know how to fix the housing supply. All you have to do is legalize the construction of new housing. Also see: Prop 4, Prop 2.

Prop 6 // End forced prison labor

Yes. I’m not going to sit here and lie to you, the thought of a fentanyl dealer forced to hammer rocks or something? I don’t hate it. But my higher self says: guys this is wrong. (We do need way more people in jail, however.)

Prop 32 // Raise the minimum wage

No. Are you kidding me? Again?! You know that businesses are firing people all over the state because they can’t afford the (mandatory) cost of labor, right? And you want to force In-n-Out to pay a 15-year-old $18 dollars an hour right as we are learning how to automate those jobs away? What do you think this incentivizes? Stop.

Prop 33 // Let local governments impose rent control

No. Obviously stupid at face value, but a little more context here: Prop 33 eliminates Costa-Hawkins, which prevents cities and counties from initiating rent control on newer buildings. If passed, cities and counties could control rents for any type of housing, and even limit how much landlords can increase rents when a new tenant moves in. The slim incentive left to build in cities like San Francisco will, almost overnight, vanish. All evidence indicates rent control is one of the reasons our rents are so high — something our boy Milei down in Argentina is proving out in real time (which is why the mentally ill anchors on MSNBC have taken to calling him a fascist, their word for “man who does things that work, which bothers me”).

Prop 34 // Limits ability of healthcare NGOs to do bullshit

Yes. Long story short, the federal government has been giving non-profit health care providers a deal that allows them to sell discounted pharmaceuticals at a profit, so they can use the profit to “increase services and serve more low-income patients.” But the fed doesn’t actually force them to do that. And so it turns out, duh, the NGOs are run by Bad Humans, and at least one of the NGOs (LA’s “AIDS Healthcare Foundation”) is mostly using the money to lobby politicians for — *drum roll* — more money. Henceforth, the org will be forced to spend the money they receive from the government deal on their patients, which… why is this controversial? An obvious yes. And honestly? Get more aggressive. I’m ready to say yes to probably any prop that limits the power of NGOs.

Thought: should we just be doing our own ballot props? Pirate Wires would really flourish in this space I think. Our long term goal is to convince you the entire system of props should be abolished. Perhaps this would assist us in persuading the people of California?

Prop 35 // Permanent funding for Medi-Cal

No. And not for the reason you think. This prop forces a set-aside in the budget, guaranteeing a certain level of funding for CA’s Medicaid program in perpetuity. This formalizes a bureaucratic machine around the program, and guarantees costs in the state will never come down. No, you have to justify your spend in every budget battle, just like every other shitty government program.

Prop 36 // Crime should be illegal, actually

Yes. Make felonies great again. Reverses Prop 47 by making theft under $950 a felony for repeat offenders. Cracks down on drug dealers with harsher sentences based on the quantity sold and mandates they serve full terms, no exceptions. Allows the state to mandate treatment for drug addicts (or, they can opt into a felony). A beautiful start to our beautiful new era of beauty and love and grace in the city of San Francisco.

—The Pirate Wires Editorial Board

For a printable cheat sheet to take to the polls, download this PDF.