Hi All. I'm finishing up what we will submit tomorrow. I have finished my third argument--just need to do a little more editing and will post it soon. I will post the arguments separately so as not to get them mixed up. Unless I've written anything un-Libertarian or made a grammatical or factual error, I'm not doing any more rewrites at this point. This first one is against Prop A, the $500 bond for road improvements. I incorporated Starchild's changes and edited the ending slightly from what I brought to our meeting on Saturday. Word count is at 298, so couldn't squeeze in SF Libertarian Campaign Committee name also. Please advise if OK.
Prop A promises to improve MUNI and the ease and safety of
getting around in SF. Don’t count on
it. The language used in the text of Prop
A is intentionally vague with frequent use of the terms “may include,” “may be
allocated,” and “may include but not limited to” when referring to the projects
it promises to implement. Considering
the team of lawyers who frequent City Hall and write these ballot measures in
legalese, the real intent of this bond measure is to mislead the voters to
approve money for fixing MUNI while giving the bureaucrats the authority to
spend the money as they wish.
Since 2006, MUNI has cut service, eliminating 6 bus lines,
shortening 22 routes, and deferring maintenance, yet managed to increase fares,
fees, fines, and metering (1,549,518 parking citations issued last year). What’s to stop the bureaucrats from using the
bond money from Prop A to offset the huge cost overruns of the Central Subway
rather than fix MUNI?
Think property taxes and rents won’t increase if Prop A
(with a 50% pass-through to tenants) passes? Better think twice. While they
say they will only issue new bonds as old ones are retired, bonds are being
submitted to the voters more frequently these days to fund decades of infrastructure
neglect. Sooner or later, higher taxes
are inevitable.
Bonds are the most expensive way to go. Adding in interest, legal expenses, bond
fees, and oversight committee costs, this $500,000 bond will cost nearly $1,000,000,000. SFMTA already has a dedicated and generous
earmarked fund for routine maintenance and infrastructure improvements. Why can’t it live within its budget without
incurring debt for future generations?
Until city officials start taking better care of taxpayer
money, we urge a NO vote on A.
Libertarian Party of San Francisco
Thanks!
Aubrey
P.S. I will also edit and post Francoise's argument against the sugary beverage tax and Phil's argument against the flipping tax. The arguments are already written and sound--they just need a little minor housekeeping.