That is hardly the same
I'm not saying that it is. 
We didn't take any position on the measure to allow 16-17 year olds to vote in local elections (Proposition G) at the last meeting. If we were to decide to submit a paid argument for it, the deadline for that is next Monday (August 17) at noon.
I will vote for the LPSF taking a position in support of the measure because I believe it is the correct libertarian stance. However given the significant dissenting opinion in our group, I would oppose the party spending money to pay for a supporting argument in the Voter Information Pamphlet (VIP). This seems to me a reasonable compromise, as I believe there is a majority in favor, but not a strong majority.
The more immediate and pressing deadline is that any arguments against any of the measures that we want to file in hopes of securing the official opponent slot and the ability to have those arguments (and rebuttals to proponents' arguments) published in the VIP, are due tomorrow (Thursday, August 13) at noon. (Proponents automatically get the official proponent arguments, so we would not file anything tomorrow on measures we support.)
The ballot measure letter designations and official statements on the measures are in. Here are my further thoughts on the remaining measures we haven't yet taken positions on, in light of those statements:
Proposition B – Charter amendment to create a Public Works Commission and a Sanitation and Streets Department / Commission
On the bright side, this measure would give somewhat more control to the Board of Supervisors at the expense of the mayor in terms of control over these city departments. It also takes significant power and responsibilities away from the Department of Public Works, which may be good given that DPW was long headed by the corrupt Mohammed Nuru, who although now removed may have imprinted some of his ways on remaining personnel. On the downside however, instead of getting rid of DPW altogether, it would create an entirely new department. And Nuru's old employees would form a big part of that new department – 835 out of 1,711 of them would be automatically ported over to the new Sanitation and Streets Department according to Natasha Mihal of the Controller's office (https://sfelections.sfgov.org/sites/default/files/Documents/candidates/2020Nov/Prop%20B%20-%20Public%20Works%20and%20Streets%20Commissions_0.pdf). She further states that "Decoupling shared administrative services would necessitate a 10-25 percent increase in staffing for these functions for the loss of efficiency with shared services," and that the measure "would have a significant impact on the cost of government beginning in fiscal year 2022-23, ranging from $2.5 million to $6 million annually". For these reasons I propose that we oppose the measure.
Proposition C – Allowing non-citizens to serve on city bodies
I've changed my mind on this one again. Initially I thought it was good, but revised that opinion on learning that it would require appointees to these bodies to be San Francisco residents. According to the Ballot Simplification Committee's legislative digest (https://sfelections.sfgov.org/sites/default/files/Leg%20Dig%20Ver1.pdf), the city charter already requires city residency for members of these bodies, with some possible exceptions. Proposition C would preserve those exceptions, while changing the law to allow non-citizens to serve. Therefore I see no downside to Prop. C and propose that we support the measure.
Proposition D – Sheriff's Department oversight
According to official estimates, this reform will come at some cost. Natasha Mihal of the Controller's Office estimates a $400,000 annual cost for the Sheriff's Department Oversight Board, and a $1.2 million to $1.8 million cost for the Office of Inspector General that this board would oversee. The Legislative and Budget Analyst estimates a $2.8 million cost to staff the OIG (see https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/city-puts-3m-yearly-price-tag-on-plan-to-probe-deputy-misconduct/). However it seems a reasonable price to pay to guarantee some external accountability for a law enforcement agency and hopefully rein in some of its abuses. Mihal states that "The OIG would receive, review and investigate complaints against the Sheriff’s Department, its employees and contractors, and other City employees serving persons in custody, and investigate in-custody deaths. The OIG would also recommend a use of force policy and internal review process for use of force and critical incidents for the Sheriff’s Department." The Controller's office may also be disposed to cast it in a negative light, given her statement that "The OIG would take over some investigative functions currently performed by the Whistleblower unit of the Controller’s Office." These new bodies would not be allowed to employee persons with a background in law enforcement. This all appears promising, and the financial impact on the city's budget could also be offset to some degree by reducing the number of payouts in lawsuits as a result of employee misconduct. For example, the city government recently paid out $180,000 to settle two lawsuits over beatings in its jails (see Examiner article linked above). Especially given that many people in the jails are legally innocent and simply awaiting trial, not having been convicted of any crime (although this practice has I think been decreasing under new district attorney Chesa Boudin), I think it is a responsibility of government to do more to ensure they are not mistreated while in custody.. I believe the LPSF should support Prop. D.
Proposition E – Police staffing
This would have no direct impact on the cost of government, but could have a considerable indirect positive impact by capping the number of police officers. According to the Controller's statement, "The estimated annual salary and fringe benefit cost of a full duty sworn officer is approximately $155,000." All the more reason the LPSF should support this reform to eliminate the absurdly high (compared e.g. to other area cities like San Jose) number of SFPD officers currently mandated by the charter, a mandate that even SF's spendthrift government has not been upholding.
Proposition F – Business tax overhaul, new commercial property tax
The Controller's Office statement (https://sfelections.sfgov.org/sites/default/files/Documents/candidates/2020Nov/Prop%20F%20-%20Business%20Tax%20Overhaul.pdf) confirms my suspicions that the net effect of this complex measure would be a major tax increase. It estimates an annual hit to the taxpayers of $97 million once fully implemented. Furthermore it would let the government engage in additional short-term spending of $1.5 billion by dodging the hold on that spending currently imposed by ongoing litigation (the legal action Mike Denny has been pursuing?) I think the LPSF should oppose Prop. F. [Incidentally, this is a measure on which it could have been very useful to have Libertarian voices present at the Ballot Simplification Committee's hearing. The BSC's "legislative digest" (https://sfelections.sfgov.org/sites/default/files/Documents/candidates/2020Nov/200648_BusinessTaxOverhaul_LD.pdf) is almost as difficult to parse as the measure itself, and nowhere that I can see does it give any indication that the net effect of Prop. F is to massively increase taxes!
There are also the other five measures we've voted to oppose. As they, along with Prop. B and Prop. F are all primarily economic measures, I've listed them here in order of their apparent projected costs, in rough order of most to least fiscally burdensome:
Proposition K – "Affordable" Housing Authorization
The Controller's Office doesn't give any projected figure for the costs of this measure, since it merely authorizes (i.e. does not mandate) government action to provide housing. Realistically however, the costs will probably be major, and the office's ballot statement (https://sfelections.sfgov.org/sites/default/files/Documents/candidates/2020Nov/Prop%20K%20-%20Affordable%20Housing%20Authorization.pdf) acknowledges as much: "Should City policymakers decide to proceed to create the government structure and staffing to fully utilize the authorization contained in ordinance, the cost would be significant." With the measure authorizing up to 10,000 units to be owned, developed, constructed, acquired, or rehabilitated by the city government, if each unit costs $700,000 (a December 2019 Chronicle piece by Roland Li gives that estimate of housing construction costs in SF – https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/SF-is-one-of-the-most-expensive-places-in-the-14888205.php), the total cost of these units could be $7 billion. And that's not including "the expansion or modification of city agency structures, new processes, staffing, [and] other costs" that the Controller's statements notes could result from politicians fully utilizing the authority granted by this measure. Not to mention the awful precedent of the city government getting into the housing business on this scale, as if nothing had been learned over the past half century about the failures of government-owned housing projects. Weighing against all this, of course, is the real and serious need for additional housing in the face of a massive, government-created housing shortage. But even giving due consideration to this countervailing factor, as possibly the most costly measure on the ballot, Prop. K is probably also among the worst.
Proposition F – See analysis in previous section
Proposition I – Real Estate Transfer Tax
The Controller's statement (https://sfelections.sfgov.org/sites/default/files/Documents/candidates/2020Nov/Prop%20I%20-%20Transfer%20Tax.pdf) says that if implemented during the period 2008-2020, this measure would have hit property owners (and indirectly, renters) with increased taxes to the tune of between $13 million to $346 million a year, with an annual average cost of $196 million/year. The statement by Natasha Mihal sensibly acknowledges that tax avoidance strategies will likely lessen the actual burden somewhat if Prop. I is adopted, and that it is therefore difficult to estimate the true cost, but it's clearly a significant tax hike that will make housing less affordable.
Proposition L – Business Tax Based on Comparison of Top Executive's Pay to Employees' Pay
Per the Controller's statement (https://sfelections.sfgov.org/sites/default/files/Documents/candidates/2020Nov/Prop%20L%20-%20Business%20Tax%20on%20Comparison%20of%20Top%20Executive%20Pay%20to%20Employee%20Pay.pdf), this would be a tax hike of between $60 million to $140 million a year based on applying the tax formula to current business practices. As with Prop I, the actual fiscal burden may be lower, as the statement acknowledges, given that there are obvious tax avoidance strategies that companies could pursue to avoid it (e.g. paying executives less, paying employees more, and/or moving operations out of San Francisco). Of the taxes on the ballot, this may be the one I consider least objectionable – corporate executives, in my opinion, having largely rigged the system to give themselves higher pay than they would receive in a freer economic climate with corporate governance rules protecting the interests of owners (shareholders). Putting ourselves in a position where we appear to be defending high executive pay may also be less politically beneficial to the party than just about any other tax we might oppose.
Proposition J – Parcel Tax for San Francisco Unified School District
According to the Controller's statement (https://sfelections.sfgov.org/sites/default/files/Documents/candidates/2020Nov/Prop%20J%20-%20Parcel%20Tax%20Replacement_0.pdf), this estimated burden this tax would impose is $48.1 million per year from 2021 through 2038.
Proposition A – Health and Homelessness, Parks, and Streets Bond
This is a proposal for the city government to borrow $487.5 million (on top of its current $13.7 billion budget). With bond financing costs, as we've discussed in past arguments against bond measures, the true cost will be significantly higher. The Controller's Office statement (https://sfelections.sfgov.org/sites/default/files/Documents/candidates/2020Nov/Prop%20A%20-%20GO%20Bond%20Health%20and%20Recovery.pdf) estimates a total tax cost of $960 million, with the bill spread from 2021 through 2053, or $30 million/year.
Proposition B – See analysis in previous section
So – who's willing to write an argument or arguments against one or more of these measures tonight? Each argument can be up to 300 words. As usual I will write a couple myself and help with editing/reviewing any other arguments submitted. I have no strong attachments toward being the lead author of an argument against any particular measure, but given the above analysis, am inclined to write arguments against Propositions K and F as two of the worst, unless someone else has a burning desire to take on those particular proposals.
Of course it never hurts to have more than one person writing an argument against a given measure, as we can potentially combine different arguments and language from multiple authors to craft a better final argument on behalf of the party. But given that we have 7 targeted measures to oppose (assuming we vote to oppose Props. B and F), and we haven't usually mustered than many arguments in a single election cycle in the past, we may do better for each author to target different measures.
Does anyone have any discussion of Props. B, C, D, E, or F?
Disagreement or thoughts on any of my analysis above?
For the other officers (individually copied on this email) – please consider how you intend to vote, giving due consideration to the views of the general membership as they may be expressed, and be prepared to make or vote on a motion this evening on any of the above measures as well as the one we've discussed fairly extensively (Prop. G on youth voting).
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Mike,
I agree there needs to be a vote, but currently our bylaws allow only LPSF officers (currently Jeff Yunes, Richard Fast, Greg Michael and myself) to vote between meetings (something I do would like to see us change – would you care to write a proposed bylaw amendment to fix this?)
In the meantime, I've encouraged the other officers to give consideration to the views of other members when voting on the remaining measures, and suggested as a compromise on the youth voting measure (Prop. G), which I believe all of the officers support, that the party vote to support it but that we do not publish a paid argument for it in the name of the party.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
OK....everyone, please provide feedback on who should be included in the bylaw amendment to qualify for future voting between meetings. And feel free to offer feedback on whether your not it is commonly agreed to be a good thing.
Mike
Hi Starchild,
Thank you for your insightful analysis. I know that SF libertarians will be happy for the help, and non-libertarians will learn a little about our principles.
I think it's pretty cool that we're supporting some propositions for a change 
I move for LPSF to **oppose** Proposition B.
I move for LPSF to **support** Proposition C.
I move for LPSF to **support** Proposition D.
I move for LPSF to **support** Proposition E.
I move for LPSF to **oppose** Proposition F.
Note that there is no motion here on Proposition G (the 16-17 year old vote). I support the measure, but think LPSF should share the pros/cons from a libertarian perspective on our website, and let individuals make their own decision.
Life and Liberty,
Jeff
LPSF Vice Chair
I move for LPSF to support Proposition G.
And I second all of Jeff's above motions.
I vote yes on all of Jeff's motions.
I have to say, I am very surprised at the divide on G. To me, this is a
no-brainer for libertarians. We need all the registered Libertarians we can
get. Why cut ourselves off from a potentially lucrative voting bloc? I
think it is in the LPSF's best interest to court the young vote and grow
our base. I ask my colleagues to re-consider and second the motion.
I also vote YES on each of Jeff's motions below (for the LPSF to oppose Props. B and F, and support Props. C, D, and E).
When he and I spoke a little earlier this evening, Jeff suggested we vote on Prop. G at the next general membership meeting, which struck me as a good idea – if we aren't going to file a paid argument in support, there's no other real deadline for us to make a decision, and that would allow all members to vote on the issue. Might also help meeting attendance, if people feel strongly about it! 
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
That sounds like a fantastic idea.
Greg
I agree....thank you.
Cool, thanks for posting, Richard.
Jeff, I realize it's a formality, but technically you need to vote in favor of your own motions, to make it unanimous.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Thanks, Jeff. Have you and/or Greg decided which measures to try to write ballot arguments against?
Anyone else care to take a stab at writing something against one or more of the 7 measures the LPSF has voted to oppose (Props. A, B, F, I, J, K, or L)? (I'm working on arguments against Props F and K.) Links to the text of all the measures, and official statements on many of them, appear here – https://sfelections.sfgov.org/measures.
As a reminder, these ballot arguments are excellent exposure for the Libertarian Party – the lottery selecting official opponents for each measure is a chance to reach hundreds of thousands of San Francisco voters with pro-freedom ideas at no cost to us. Some of our members and supporters have commented that they feel it's the most important thing we do.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
I support all “No” votes on all propositions and I abstain on lowering the voting age.
Warm regards, Michael
Michael R. Edelstein, Ph.D.
Clinical Psychologist
415-673-2848 (24/7)
www.TheREBT.Life
Co-author of Three Minute Therapy <http://www.threeminutetherapy.com/>
with David Ramsay Steele, Ph.D.
Features help for anxiety, depression,
relationships, panic attacks, addiction
Hi Starchild,
Thank you for your insightful analysis. I know that SF libertarians will be happy for the help, and non-libertarians will learn a little about our principles.
I think it's pretty cool that we're supporting some propositions for a change 
I move for LPSF to oppose Proposition B.
I move for LPSF to support Proposition C.
I move for LPSF to support Proposition D.
I move for LPSF to support Proposition E.
I move for LPSF to oppose Proposition F.
Note that there is no motion here on Proposition G (the 16-17 year old vote). I support the measure, but think LPSF should share the pros/cons from a libertarian perspective on our website, and let individuals make their own decision.
Life and Liberty,
Jeff
LPSF Vice Chair
We didn't take any position on the measure to allow 16-17 year olds to vote in local elections (Proposition G) at the last meeting. If we were to decide to submit a paid argument for it, the deadline for that is next Monday (August 17) at noon.
I will vote for the LPSF taking a position in support of the measure because I believe it is the correct libertarian stance. However given the significant dissenting opinion in our group, I would oppose the party spending money to pay for a supporting argument in the Voter Information Pamphlet (VIP). This seems to me a reasonable compromise, as I believe there is a majority in favor, but not a strong majority.
The more immediate and pressing deadline is that any arguments against any of the measures that we want to file in hopes of securing the official opponent slot and the ability to have those arguments (and rebuttals to proponents' arguments) published in the VIP, are due tomorrow (Thursday, August 13) at noon. (Proponents automatically get the official proponent arguments, so we would not file anything tomorrow on measures we support.)
The ballot measure letter designations and official statements on the measures are in. Here are my further thoughts on the remaining measures we haven't yet taken positions on, in light of those statements:
Proposition B – Charter amendment to create a Public Works Commission and a Sanitation and Streets Department / Commission
On the bright side, this measure would give somewhat more control to the Board of Supervisors at the expense of the mayor in terms of control over these city departments. It also takes significant power and responsibilities away from the Department of Public Works, which may be good given that DPW was long headed by the corrupt Mohammed Nuru, who although now removed may have imprinted some of his ways on remaining personnel. On the downside however, instead of getting rid of DPW altogether, it would create an entirely new department. And Nuru's old employees would form a big part of that new department – 835 out of 1,711 of them would be automatically ported over to the new Sanitation and Streets Department according to Natasha Mihal of the Controller's office (https://sfelections.sfgov.org/sites/default/files/Documents/candidates/2020Nov/Prop%20B%20-%20Public%20Works%20and%20Streets%20Commissions_0.pdf). She further states that "Decoupling shared administrative services would necessitate a 10-25 percent increase in staffing for these functions for the loss of efficiency with shared services," and that the measure "would have a significant impact on the cost of government beginning in fiscal year 2022-23, ranging from $2.5 million to $6 million annually". For these reasons I propose that we oppose the measure.
Proposition C – Allowing non-citizens to serve on city bodies
I've changed my mind on this one again. Initially I thought it was good, but revised that opinion on learning that it would require appointees to these bodies to be San Francisco residents. According to the Ballot Simplification Committee's legislative digest (https://sfelections.sfgov.org/sites/default/files/Leg%20Dig%20Ver1.pdf), the city charter already requires city residency for members of these bodies, with some possible exceptions. Proposition C would preserve those exceptions, while changing the law to allow non-citizens to serve. Therefore I see no downside to Prop. C and propose that we support the measure.
Proposition D – Sheriff's Department oversight
According to official estimates, this reform will come at some cost. Natasha Mihal of the Controller's Office estimates a $400,000 annual cost for the Sheriff's Department Oversight Board, and a $1.2 million to $1.8 million cost for the Office of Inspector General that this board would oversee. The Legislative and Budget Analyst estimates a $2.8 million cost to staff the OIG (see https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/city-puts-3m-yearly-price-tag-on-plan-to-probe-deputy-misconduct/). However it seems a reasonable price to pay to guarantee some external accountability for a law enforcement agency and hopefully rein in some of its abuses. Mihal states that "The OIG would receive, review and investigate complaints against the Sheriff’s Department, its employees and contractors, and other City employees serving persons in custody, and investigate in-custody deaths. The OIG would also recommend a use of force policy and internal review process for use of force and critical incidents for the Sheriff’s Department." The Controller's office may also be disposed to cast it in a negative light, given her statement that "The OIG would take over some investigative functions currently performed by the Whistleblower unit of the Controller’s Office." These new bodies would not be allowed to employee persons with a background in law enforcement. This all appears promising, and the financial impact on the city's budget could also be offset to some degree by reducing the number of payouts in lawsuits as a result of employee misconduct. For example, the city government recently paid out $180,000 to settle two lawsuits over beatings in its jails (see Examiner article linked above). Especially given that many people in the jails are legally innocent and simply awaiting trial, not having been convicted of any crime (although this practice has I think been decreasing under new district attorney Chesa Boudin), I think it is a responsibility of government to do more to ensure they are not mistreated while in custody. I believe the LPSF should support Prop. D.
Proposition E – Police staffing
This would have no direct impact on the cost of government, but could have a considerable indirect positive impact by capping the number of police officers. According to the Controller's statement, "The estimated annual salary and fringe benefit cost of a full duty sworn officer is approximately $155,000." All the more reason the LPSF should support this reform to eliminate the absurdly high (compared e.g. to other area cities like San Jose) number of SFPD officers currently mandated by the charter, a mandate that even SF's spendthrift government has not been upholding.
Proposition F – Business tax overhaul, new commercial property tax
The Controller's Office statement (https://sfelections.sfgov.org/sites/default/files/Documents/candidates/2020Nov/Prop%20F%20-%20Business%20Tax%20Overhaul.pdf) confirms my suspicions that the net effect of this complex measure would be a major tax increase. It estimates an annual hit to the taxpayers of $97 million once fully implemented. Furthermore it would let the government engage in additional short-term spending of $1.5 billion by dodging the hold on that spending currently imposed by ongoing litigation (the legal action Mike Denny has been pursuing?) I think the LPSF should oppose Prop. F. [Incidentally, this is a measure on which it could have been very useful to have Libertarian voices present at the Ballot Simplification Committee's hearing. The BSC's "legislative digest" (https://sfelections.sfgov.org/sites/default/files/Documents/candidates/2020Nov/200648_BusinessTaxOverhaul_LD.pdf) is almost as difficult to parse as the measure itself, and nowhere that I can see does it give any indication that the net effect of Prop. F is to massively increase taxes!
There are also the other five measures we've voted to oppose. As they, along with Prop. B and Prop. F are all primarily economic measures, I've listed them here in order of their apparent projected costs, in rough order of most to least fiscally burdensome:
Proposition K – "Affordable" Housing Authorization
The Controller's Office doesn't give any projected figure for the costs of this measure, since it merely authorizes (i..e. does not mandate) government action to provide housing. Realistically however, the costs will probably be major, and the office's ballot statement (https://sfelections.sfgov.org/sites/default/files/Documents/candidates/2020Nov/Prop%20K%20-%20Affordable%20Housing%20Authorization.pdf) acknowledges as much: "Should City policymakers decide to proceed to create the government structure and staffing to fully utilize the authorization contained in ordinance, the cost would be significant." With the measure authorizing up to 10,000 units to be owned, developed, constructed, acquired, or rehabilitated by the city government, if each unit costs $700,000 (a December 2019 Chronicle piece by Roland Li gives that estimate of housing construction costs in SF – https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/SF-is-one-of-the-most-expensive-places-in-the-14888205.php), the total cost of these units could be $7 billion. And that's not including "the expansion or modification of city agency structures, new processes, staffing, [and] other costs" that the Controller's statements notes could result from politicians fully utilizing the authority granted by this measure. Not to mention the awful precedent of the city government getting into the housing business on this scale, as if nothing had been learned over the past half century about the failures of government-owned housing projects. Weighing against all this, of course, is the real and serious need for additional housing in the face of a massive, government-created housing shortage. But even giving due consideration to this countervailing factor, as possibly the most costly measure on the ballot, Prop. K is probably also among the worst.
Proposition F – See analysis in previous section
Proposition I – Real Estate Transfer Tax
The Controller's statement (https://sfelections.sfgov.org/sites/default/files/Documents/candidates/2020Nov/Prop%20I%20-%20Transfer%20Tax.pdf) says that if implemented during the period 2008-2020, this measure would have hit property owners (and indirectly, renters) with increased taxes to the tune of between $13 million to $346 million a year, with an annual average cost of $196 million/year. The statement by Natasha Mihal sensibly acknowledges that tax avoidance strategies will likely lessen the actual burden somewhat if Prop. I is adopted, and that it is therefore difficult to estimate the true cost, but it's clearly a significant tax hike that will make housing less affordable.
Proposition L – Business Tax Based on Comparison of Top Executive's Pay to Employees' Pay
Per the Controller's statement (https://sfelections.sfgov.org/sites/default/files/Documents/candidates/2020Nov/Prop%20L%20-%20Business%20Tax%20on%20Comparison%20of%20Top%20Executive%20Pay%20to%20Employee%20Pay.pdf), this would be a tax hike of between $60 million to $140 million a year based on applying the tax formula to current business practices. As with Prop I, the actual fiscal burden may be lower, as the statement acknowledges, given that there are obvious tax avoidance strategies that companies could pursue to avoid it (e.g. paying executives less, paying employees more, and/or moving operations out of San Francisco). Of the taxes on the ballot, this may be the one I consider least objectionable – corporate executives, in my opinion, having largely rigged the system to give themselves higher pay than they would receive in a freer economic climate with corporate governance rules protecting the interests of owners (shareholders). Putting ourselves in a position where we appear to be defending high executive pay may also be less politically beneficial to the party than just about any other tax we might oppose.
Proposition J – Parcel Tax for San Francisco Unified School District
According to the Controller's statement (https://sfelections.sfgov.org/sites/default/files/Documents/candidates/2020Nov/Prop%20J%20-%20Parcel%20Tax%20Replacement_0.pdf), this estimated burden this tax would impose is $48.1 million per year from 2021 through 2038.
Proposition A – Health and Homelessness, Parks, and Streets Bond
This is a proposal for the city government to borrow $487.5 million (on top of its current $13.7 billion budget). With bond financing costs, as we've discussed in past arguments against bond measures, the true cost will be significantly higher. The Controller's Office statement (https://sfelections.sfgov.org/sites/default/files/Documents/candidates/2020Nov/Prop%20A%20-%20GO%20Bond%20Health%20and%20Recovery.pdf) estimates a total tax cost of $960 million, with the bill spread from 2021 through 2053, or $30 million/year.
Proposition B – See analysis in previous section
So – who's willing to write an argument or arguments against one or more of these measures tonight? Each argument can be up to 300 words. As usual I will write a couple myself and help with editing/reviewing any other arguments submitted. I have no strong attachments toward being the lead author of an argument against any particular measure, but given the above analysis, am inclined to write arguments against Propositions K and F as two of the worst, unless someone else has a burning desire to take on those particular proposals.
Of course it never hurts to have more than one person writing an argument against a given measure, as we can potentially combine different arguments and language from multiple authors to craft a better final argument on behalf of the party.. But given that we have 7 targeted measures to oppose (assuming we vote to oppose Props. B and F), and we haven't usually mustered than many arguments in a single election cycle in the past, we may do better for each author to target different measures.
Does anyone have any discussion of Props. B, C, D, E, or F?
Disagreement or thoughts on any of my analysis above?
For the other officers (individually copied on this email) – please consider how you intend to vote, giving due consideration to the views of the general membership as they may be expressed, and be prepared to make or vote on a motion this evening on any of the above measures as well as the one we've discussed fairly extensively (Prop. G on youth voting).
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Hi all,
Here’s a draft opposition statement against prop A. Please suggest edits/revise freely!
///
Our City has struggled to house and care for those afflicted by the housing crisis and mental health issues for decades. Temporarily washing our hands of the situation by shackling our tenants and housing providers with an additional estimated $960 million in debt obligations in exchange for $487 million in the near term is not a solution, it’s a poorly-applied band-aid on a festering wound.
Solving this crisis requires creative, out-of-the box thinking from more than just tax-funded government workers and bureaucrats. Our community deserves the opportunity to rise to the occasion, as it has done many times before. That opportunity will only come when the City lifts its excessive restrictions on housing development and small businesses which provide for the many needs of our most vulnerable community members. We, as voters, should demand no less.
Vote NO on Prop A and send a strong message that voters will not tolerate more of the same failed policies.