Ballot argument rebuttals, paid arguments due today (Monday at noon)

Hi Nick,

  Got your voice message from around 1130pm, thanks. I'd managed to kind of put the Monday filing out of my head too. We didn't really discuss how much to spend on paid argument(s), so not sure how much I should whittle down what I wrote against Prop. D to submit for that purpose. Under their fees of $200 plus $2 per word, at around 300 words, filing it as written would be around $800.

  If you and Thomas have written rebuttals for Props. A and E, I'd be happy to take a look and edit again before we submit them.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

By the way, here's the link with the rules on submitting arguments:

  Note that we're required to list the LPSF's three biggest financial contributors during the past 6 months (as we have done with previous paid ballot argument filings, at least recently):

Payment of Fee and Disclosure of True Source of Funds
SFMEC §830
Anyone submitting a paid ballot argument must pay a publication fee of $200 plus $2 per word. The fee must be paid
when the argument is submitted, and may be paid by personal check, credit or debit card, money order, or cash.
Anyone submitting a paid ballot argument must disclose the true source of funds used for
payment of the publication fee. This information will be printed below the paid argument, after the names of the authors, as follows:

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: (insert name).

If the source of the funds used for payment of the fee is a “recipient committee” under the Political Reform Act (CAGov.Code §82013), the submitter of the ballot argument must disclose the names of the three contributors whose cumulative contributions are the largest contributions receive d by the committee during the six months immediately
preceding submission of the argument. For more information, contact the San Francisco Ethics Commission at (415) 252-3100 or visit

i. Definition of a General Recipient Committee
CA Gov. Code §82013

“Committee” means any person or combination of persons who directly or indirectly does any of the

 Receives contributions totaling $2,000 or more in a calendar year
 Makes independent expenditures totaling $1,000 or more in a calendar year; or
 Makes contributions totaling $10,000 or more in a calendar year to, or at the behest of,
candidates or committees

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

Here's an abbreviated version of the 300-word argument I wrote against Prop. D (the ride-share tax). At 180 words (according to Microsoft Word), it would cost us about $560 to publish in the Voter Information Pamphlet (versus about $800 for the full version). I've also attached this shorter version as an MS Word document.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

The title of this measure, “Traffic Congestion Mitigation Tax”, is misleading. Proposition D would not tax people for driving in congested areas.

In fact it taxes not drivers, but passengers – anyone who relies on ride-share services like Lyft and Uber anywhere in San Francisco, regardless of whether an area is congested. Even multiple passengers sharing a ride instead of each using a separate form of transportation would be taxed.

We get that politicians are sore at ride-sharing because it disrupted their money-making scheme of ripping off taxi drivers by collectively charging them $64 million for now-worthless “medallions”, but Proposition D is bad policy.

By taxing ride-shares, this measure would incentivize people to drive their own vehicles instead of using these services.

With fewer passengers, ride-share drivers will have to work longer hours – i.e. spend more time driving around – in order to get the same number of rides and take home the same amount of money.

In other words, Proposition D will likely increase traffic congestion, not decrease it.

We urge you to vote NO.

Libertarian Party of San Francisco

NoOnD-Paid-11:19 (39 KB)

For the purpose of filing campaign disclosure reports (Form 460) the county committee of a political party is automatically a “campaign committee” regardless of the amount of money raised or spent. I don’t see any specific statement that this applies to filing arguments, but I think it would.

BTW if the LPSF name is on the rebuttal, then LPSF has to count the expenditure even if some other persons or organizations wrote the check.

Les Mangus (former treasurer of LPSF)


Thank you Starchild! I will submit this as a paid argument this morning along with the rebuttal for Prop A (Thomas will submit the rebuttal he wrote for Prop E).

I apologize for the lack of communication this weekend, I have been traveling.


You haven't seen what Thomas is submitting, have you Nick? I haven't seen anything posted to the list. We really should have at least a couple pairs of eyes looking at arguments we're publishing in the name of the party before submitting them.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

Sorry, I haven't. I have just submitted my rebuttal for A and your paid argument against D (clocked in at $540).

Sorry for the poor planning. I trust that Thomas can write a compelling rebuttal though, his opponent argument was very good.

I agree with a second pair of eyes for all arguments, but especially in the case of Thomas who does not write in a very clear style. The last thing we need is to publish something that looks like muddled thinking.

Sorry, not sure how I managed to send that without anything in it. The last long paragraph will likely be cut-- it's not a clearly Libertarian argument, and anyway the word count is well over the maximum of 250. Starchild is working with Thomas to get this edited and submitted.

Sorry again for the confusion and poor communication

Help our Teachers! Fix the Housing Crisis! A no-brainer, right?

Not so fast. Remember the promises about the California State Lottery? It’s for “education,” right? It was supposed to fix everything, right? Well, the lottery provides less than 1% of educational revenue. This proposal is no different. The so-called “educator housing” will house so few “educators” that an applicant has to “win” the lottery.

Ever won the lottery?

In August, the *Chronicle* reported the Federal Dept. of Housing and Urban Development was investigating whether *San Francisco’s affordable housing programs contribute to housing unaffordability and make it worse. *The Feds cited “artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary impediments to fair housing choice development.” This measure is more of the same. Although some well-connected “educators” will win San Francisco’s lottery, these lucky 1%-ers will simply jump the queue.

The proponents won’t solve the problem because they are the problem.. Developers often claim they have difficulty obtaining financing for median-income and “affordable” developments – including those in the tax credit programs. Could it be that corrupt bankers meddle in the housing market to inflate real estate valuation? Could these financial interests behind-the-scenes promote politicians who push feel-good P/R-about affordable housing programs intended to make housing less affordable?

Here’s a real Progressive idea: San Francisco has $5 Billion in its Treasury to invest. San Francisco could invest that as reserves in publicly-chartered community development banks. These banks would make loans for construction of community housing needs – real affordable housing. No more excuses for delaying construction due to lack of financing. Such a scheme would also make favorable mortgage loans to teachers. Why expect tenured educators to rent if you could help them buy?

So let’s call the Faux-gressive proponents’ bluff: it’s not about the teachers.

Libertarian Party of San Francisco

I think everything worked out okay. Thomas was too sick to go out, but he printed out his rebuttal argument against Prop. E ("affordable"/"educator" housing), which he was cool with editing down (my printer isn't working), and even had some of the paperwork done. I went and submitted it before noon at the Elections Department. It ended up being well under on the word count, but I think the content we is pretty good – the only parts I thought were dubious ended up on the cutting room floor so to speak.

  Nick was in earlier and got his rebuttal on Prop. A (the $600 million housing bond) submitted, and the shortened version of my argument against Prop. D (the ride-share tax) submitted as a paid argument. We missed the opportunity to present against Prop. A to the Democrats on Saturday because none of us happened to be available, but hopefully there will be more chances to speak against some of these in the next few weeks.

  If your neighborhood group does ballot measure endorsements, try to find out if they could use someone to come speak on any of the measures. Don't know whether there's a neighborhood group in your area? Feel free to call me up and I may be able to tell you – (415) 625-FREE (3733).

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

Super good… it.