Thanks Aubrey, that's a pretty important detail 
Updated below. By
my count it's 300, although maybe less if "Prop C" is counted as a
proper noun.
-- Begin ARGUMENT AGAINST PROP C (v3) --
The City spends $382 million every year on homelessness services and
Prop C looks to nearly double this figure. Even the proponents have no
qualms admitting that the first $382 million is not being utilized
effectively and the problem continues to get worse. *Why should we
believe that another $300 million will magically turn things around?*
San Francisco has the second highest cost of living in the country—on
average $2,500 for a studio apartment—and building anything new can
be insurmountable. Where will The City come up with all this
affordable housing?
Prop C despicably blames yet another of The City’s problems on the
thriving industry that has made our economy flourish. Bureaucrats
consider it a privilege to operate a business in The City; we consider
it none of their business! The proposition even argues that it is a
relatively low tax burden compared to the cut in federal corporate
taxes, but using common sense one should realize that simply being “less
bad” does not make it justified.
Moreover, it is not compassionate to employ the use of force to take
from others to solve your problem. Real compassion comes from
individuals helping one another. We as taxpayers should demand that City
Hall leave more money in our control so that we have more freedom to be
compassionate!
Our new mayor has the opportunity to reform the programs we have now and
enact systemic change. Another $300 million patchwork attempt which
creates more government agencies will yield the same poor results we
have seen time and time again. *We must hold our government accountable
to the people so that we can work over time to *reduce* the need for all
this spending, not double it.*
Don’t get fooled again. *Vote NO on C.*
Libertarian Party of San Franciscowww.LPSF.org
-- END ARGUMENT AGAINST PROP C (v3) --
Hi Nick. Looks good--actually very good for your first ballot measure
argument! The only things I noticed were the "s" missing on problems,
which you corrected, and we want to add "Libertarian Party of San
Francisco" at the bottom, and if the word count is under 300, then
also add "www.LPSF.org." I am pleased with it and wouldn't change
anything, but I'm sure Starchild can make a few improvements and will
suggest some, so I'm going to leave it for the morning before printing
out the final version. One down--3 to go. Mine is done now--I'll
post it separately in a moment.>
Thanks!
Aubrey
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 12:04 AM, Nick Smith
<nicks@fastmail.fm> wrote:>> __
I noticed one small typo in the third paragraph (... yet another of
The City's problem*s* ...). Copied in full below with the correction.>>
-- BEGIN ARGUMENT AGAINST PROP C (v2) --
The City spends $382 million every year on homelessness services and
Prop C looks to nearly double this figure. Even the proponents have
no qualms in admitting that the first $382 million is not being
utilized effectively and that the problem continues to get worse.
*Why should we believe that another $300 million will magically turn
things around?*>>
San Francisco has the second highest cost of living in the country—on
average $2,500 for a studio apartment—and building anything new can
be insurmountable. Where will The City come up with all this
affordable housing?>>
Prop C despicably blames yet another of The City’s problems on the
thriving industry that has made our economy flourish. Bureaucrats
consider it a privilege to operate a business in The City; we
consider it none of their business! The proposition even argues that
it is a relatively low tax burden compared to the cut in federal
corporate taxes, but using common sense one should realize that
simply being “less bad” does not make it justified.>>
Moreover, it is not compassionate to employ the use of force to take
from others to solve your problem. Real compassion comes from
individuals helping one another. We as taxpayers should demand that
City Hall leave more money in our control so that we have more
freedom to be compassionate!>>
Our new mayor has the opportunity to reform the programs we have now
and enact systemic change. Another $300 million patchwork attempt at
a solution which creates more government agencies will yield the
same poor results we have seen time and time again. *We must hold our
government accountable to the people so that we can work over time to
***reduce*** the need for all this spending, not double it.*>>
Don’t get fooled again. *Vote NO on C.*
-- END ARGUMENT AGAINST PROP C (v2) --
Hi,
Please find my argument against Prop C below. Feedback is welcome
and appreciated, but unfortunately we are all running very late.
Aubrey will deliver the arguments tomorrow before noon (thanks again
Aubrey!). I will probably be up until midnight or so to handle last-
minute revisions. Either way, Aubrey, I give you full artistic
license to make any changes you see fit.>>>
Please reply to this thread with any edits.
Thank you, and sorry again for being so late
Nick
-- BEGIN ARGUMENT AGAINST PROP C (v1) --
The City spends $382 million every year on homelessness services and
Prop C looks to nearly double this figure. Even the proponents have
no qualms in admitting that the first $382 million is not being
utilized effectively and that the problem continues to get worse.
*Why should we believe that another $300 million will magically turn
things around?*>>>
San Francisco has the second highest cost of living in the
country—on average $2,500 for a studio apartment—and building
anything new can be insurmountable. Where will The City come up with
all this affordable housing?>>>
Prop C despicably blames yet another of The City’s problem on the
thriving industry that has made our economy flourish. Bureaucrats
consider it a privilege to operate a business in The City; we
consider it none of their business! The proposition even argues that
it is a relatively low tax burden compared to the cut in federal
corporate taxes, but using common sense one should realize that
simply being “less bad” does not make it justified.>>>
Moreover, it is not compassionate to employ the use of force to take
from others to solve your problem. Real compassion comes from
individuals helping one another. We as taxpayers should demand that
City Hall leave more money in our control so that we have more
freedom to be compassionate!>>>
Our new mayor has the opportunity to reform the programs we have now
and enact systemic change. Another $300 million patchwork attempt at
a solution which creates more government agencies will yield the
same poor results we have seen time and time again. *We must hold
our government accountable to the people so that we can work over
time to ***reduce*** the need for all this spending, not double it.*>>>
Don’t get fooled again. *Vote NO on C.*
-- END ARGUMENT AGAINST PROP C (v1) --
Links:
1. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/lpsf-activists/conversations/messages/14703;_ylc=X3oDMTJxbzl2dW9rBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzk1NDkwMjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MzY1MzcwBG1zZ0lkAzE0NzAzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTUzNDM5OTM3OQ--?act=reply&messageNum=14703
2. mailto:nicks@fastmail.fm?subject=Re%3A%20Argument%20against%20Pro-
p%20C%3A%20Homelessness%20Gross%20Receipts%20Tax
3. mailto:lpsf-
activists@yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20Argument%20against%20Pr-
op%20C%3A%20Homelessness%20Gross%20Receipts%20Tax
4. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/lpsf-activists/conversations/newtopic;_ylc=X3oDMTJlcW9pNWh0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzk1NDkwMjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MzY1MzcwBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTUzNDM5OTM3OQ--
5. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/lpsf-activists/conversations/topics/14703;_ylc=X3oDMTM2OHJlbWloBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzk1NDkwMjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MzY1MzcwBG1zZ0lkAzE0NzAzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTUzNDM5OTM3OQR0cGNJZAMxNDcwMw--
6. https://yho.com/1wwmgg
7. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/lpsf-activists/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJlbnVqMjkyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzk1NDkwMjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MzY1MzcwBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTUzNDM5OTM3OQ--
8. https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html
9. mailto:lpsf-activists-
unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe
10. https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/