Hi all.
Here is my draft argument opposing the $600M housing bonds. It needs some work still, but I'd like feedback if anyone has suggestions. Not sure about the exact word count, it may be a tad over, but I can cut it back a bit.
Nick,
I have a couple grammatical suggestions:
• "Board of Supervisors" should be capitalized like that.
• I notice you put "Affordable Housing" in quotes in one place; I would put "affordable" in quotes in the other place it appears as well – "Simply put, affordable housing programs are NOT an incentive to build more housing."
A standard joke of mine (except that I'm only half joking) is that the term "affordable" should always appear in quotes when housing is being discussed! 
And a more substantive suggestion:
• Where you write, "...by increasing property taxes, 50% of which will be passed on to tenants," I would suggest instead, "...with property tax increases, up to half of which will be passed on to tenants."
That's mostly just to make the sentence technically accurate – it isn't 50% of all property taxes that will be passed on, after all, only the increases, and not all property owners have tenants. "Up to" gets us off that hook.
It looks like you've used the full 300 word count, but here are a couple ideas for some additional content, if you wanted to make room for it (if you'd like to try, I'm pretty good at tightening up existing wording to squeeze in more!):
• A comparison of how many housing units have been built in SF in recent years, compared to another U.S. city of comparable size that doesn't have such a NIMBY problem, if you can find the data.
• "Why would non-teaching SFUSD personnel be eligible for subsidized housing, but not actual teachers at non-SFUSD schools who in many cases have lower pay than government teachers? Do the authors of Proposition X really care about helping teachers, or is this more about growing government?" (You're welcome to use this exact language.) Again if you can find the data, citing teacher pay at a local independent school and showing it to be less than wages for comparable teaching positions in SFUSD schools would make such an argument stronger. But given that teachers are said to earn less on average at independent schools, I'm confident the statement is technically accurate as written (i.e. that there are "many" cases of teachers at non-government schools in SF being paid less than their government counterparts).
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Wow Nick….super good.
Mike
Masterful contribution Starchild.
Mike
A “housing emergency” has been declared in SF and been repeatedly re-declared by the Supervisors since rent control was first passed in 1979, as the excuse to impose ever-stricter regulation, gather electoral power, increase housing costs.
Clearly, none of their “solutions” have worked.
The definition of insanity is repeating particular actions and expecting a different result.
Why double down on a demonstrably failed approach, which only accomplished their undeclared objectives of electoral control over the 65% renter population, and therefore control over the $13 billion annual SF budget, which has been plundered for the last 40+ years with impunity?
This is ~$ 20,000/year per SF resident. In whose coffers does the money actually end up?
Great job by Nick and Starchild!
Francoise
All true….the whole system is a money and power racket that feeds itself at the expense of the people.
Mike
Hi Sarosh,
Didn't realize you were on this list, glad you're still around.
Nice point about the "housing emergency" – aptly illustrates how politicians declaring "emergencies" solves nothing, as no one can argue the housing crisis hasn't gotten far worse since 1979.
The $20K per resident per year number is based on dividing the $13 billion annual budget by the number of residents, or does that number reflect some other calculation?
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Thank you all for your comments and Starchild for your excellent edits.
As of now, here is the revised version I'll submit tomorrow.
"Trillion" should be "billion".
Wow, dumb mistake. I'm an engineer, I swear! Thanks
Nick,
Important correction! "Trillion" should be "billion". The term appears twice.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
No worries, Nick... Government spending being what it is, it's easy enough to get confused! "A billion here, a billion there..." 
I had also suggested "Why would non-teaching SFUSD personnel be eligible for subsidized housing, but not actual teachers at non-SFUSD schools who in many cases have lower pay than government teachers? Do the authors of Proposition X really care about helping teachers, or is this more about growing government?" as a possible addition to your argument, which you said you were okay with if I could make it fit. Looking at it just now however I realize that I got the two housing measures confused when I wrote that, and that this line actually goes with the other one, about the so-called "educator housing".
One more minor suggestion: replacing the words "$600M that is claimed" with just the word "money" – the extra verbiage there doesn't really seem to add anything.
If there's enough extra words left over as a result, it occurs to me we might also list "@SanFranciscoLP" and/or our phone number (415) 775-LPSF under our website at the bottom of the ballot argument – one more way for people to get in touch or follow us.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))