Hi All! Thanks to all those helping out on the ballot measures. Here's where we stand:
A-Parcel Tax-Marcy and Les have written good arguments against this measure. Marcy, if you can print out 25 (or more, if you feel like it) versions of your argument, just changing a word here or there, I will take care of the rest. When they're done, just let me know, and I'll pick them up after work one day. Les, I believe you were going to change a few words to make it apply specifically to this 8-year tax which is for CCSF; after that, just forward it to me electronically, and I'll do the word game to produce many versions of your argument.
B-Clean & Safe Neighborhood Parks Bond--I will write an argument against this one and post it for comments/suggestions as soon as I'm done.
C-Housing Trust Fund-Both Les and Starchild will write arguments against this super-outrage, an attempt by the Mayor and Board of Supervisors to resurrect the SF Redevelopment Mess. Les, please send me your electronic version when it's done. Starchild, if this is done before midnight Wednesday night, I may faint. Otherwise, we can put it together at City Hall on Thursday morning.
D-Consolidating Odd Year Municipal Elections-Sorry I didn't get to this one yesterday. To me, it looked like the least important issue, and as a Libertarian I couldn't find any reason to get excited about this measure. In fact, it looks like a pretty reasonable measure which warrants our support. No time to waste on this one now, so we can revisit it for a few minutes at our next meeting and decide yea or nay.
E-Gross Receipts Tax-Another Mayor Lee disaster to encourage businesses to leave SF. Mike Denny has agreed to write an argument against this one, most likely from the first person point of view as a small business owner. Mike, I will be down at the Dept of Elections tomorrow picking up tons of the control forms (that accompany each version of each argument we turn in) and I will find out how that control form needs to be filled out to match your first person point of view. So, while all our other arguments will be from the LPSF period (none of our names), I want yours to say LPSF and also your name to make sense. I think a real-life personal argument will be most effective. Will get back to you on this, but you can go ahead and write your argument and send it to me electronically while I sort this out.
F-Water & Environmental Plan-I will hang on to my argument against this measure and see how we do in the lottery at 2PM on Thursday. Duly noted on the suggestions to add something about why spend the money to study something so ridiculous and also something about other environmental problems being more serious than this one. Since Elsbernd has pre-empted the argument against this one, we cannot get the free argument on this one. We might submit this one as a paid argument.
G-Policy Opposing Corporate Personhood-Les has agreed to write an argument against this measure, which was written mainly to attack super PAC'S, but the unions' power over politics doesn't bother the authors of this measure. Les, please bother them in your usual manner.
Those who want to can post their versions for viewing, but due to the time constraint and importance of getting lots of our arguments in the lottery, I'm not going to agonize over every little word. In fact words will be changed here and there anyway, so OK to suggest a certain word or phrase change, but not whole sentences, unless there's a factual error of some sort. Thanks to the extra help, I think we will do quite well in this election as far as getting at least some of our free arguments in.
By the way, Marcy made the excellent suggestion that we drop the paid argument idea if we get 2 or more free arguments in the lottery. While it's always great to have our ideas all over a pamphlet that at least a fair amount of folks take a look at, to pay up to $800 for an argument that may get buried at the back may not be a prudent investment because we're not rich like the R's and D's. On the other hand, if folks are willing to give donations for a paid argument to help offset the cost, then maybe we should consider a paid argument, even if we do get 2 of our arguments chosen. I'm willing to put in $50 toward a paid argument. Again let's see how we do in the lottery on Thursday and which ones we win, and we can decide at that time. However, there won't be much time since all paid arguments are due at noon on Monday August 20.
Also, due to the cost involved of $20 million/year - $50 million/year budget set aside for 30 years, Agenda 21 implications (emphasis on dense housing), and also revenue bonds thrown into this measure, those of us left at the end of the meeting more or less agreed that C (Housing Trust Fund) measure would be the best choice for a paid argument, if we submit one. If you disagree, please post your thoughts, and all will be considered on Thursday after the lottery.
Again Thanks to All for Your Help!