After chatting with Trip, who had to go out of town and won’t be able to sign his name for the Elections Department in order to have his name appear on what he wrote, I edited his argument further and came up with the following, at 296 words according to Libre Office.
I took out the material about bundling the bond spending priorities as a package deal showing a lack of faith in the voters that would make Gandhi cry (much as I love that line) because it seemed at odds with arguing that most people vote emotionally rather than logically when it comes to school bonds. I also took out the part about inflationary times being a bad time to borrow, since inflation actually reduces the cost of repaying loans. Inflation is probably the most insidious tax due to its hidden nature however, so I also took out the “most insidious” claim against property taxes, but did add in languages about renters also having to shoulder these costs – always an important reminder in a city where more people rent than own. I also got in a reference to Trip’s having two kids in the SFUSD himself (giving our naysaying more credibility in the eyes of some) and cited some of the salary and budget numbers.
Trip, let me know if this version works for you, and if anyone else has any thoughts, please weigh in! Bearing in mind I have to file the arguments by noon today.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
···
There are many logical reasons to oppose this school bond. Unfortunately, most people vote on these measures emotionally, heeding the cry of "it's for the children”. If you’re reading this however,you are not most people. Sadly, few voters do any real research prior to voting!
It’s admittedly tough to make an informed decision on a long laundry list of projects about which few details are given. Proposition A promises to fund everything from building repairs, to interior redesign, to a central food hub. Why not split it into multiple smaller measures and let us vote individual projects up or down? This is common practice in districts like the one in Texas an author of this argument lived in before coming to San Francisco and making the dubious decision to enroll his two kids in government schools here.
Or better yet, learn to responsibly live within a budget rather than borrowing $790 million at an estimated repayment cost (per the Controller’s analysis) of nearly $1.3 billion – coincidentally(?) the same size as the SFUSD’s 2024 budget, which irresponsibly exceeds district revenues by $148 million.
With under 50,000 children now enrolled, they’re spending over $26,000 per student per year!
Meanwhile, you’re being asked to swallow it this gigantic, jagged $1.3 billion pill whole, increasing your debt servitude via property taxes. Paying taxes every year on something you already own hurts, especially when you don’t even own the property but see your rent increase because the landlord has to pay more.
Why not cut the salaries of the superintendent ($310,000/year) and other overpaid administrators instead? How do other districts manage to spend far less per student? Unless you ask these tough questions, expect to keep getting more of the same.
Vote NO on Prop. A!
Libertarian Party of San Francisco
LPSF.org
Resending this email, as I did not see it post to the list!
···
On Aug 15, 2024, at 6:36 AM, Starchild sfdreamer@earthlink.net wrote:
After chatting with Trip, who had to go out of town and won’t be able to sign his name for the Elections Department in order to have his name appear on what he wrote, I edited his argument further and came up with the following, at 296 words according to Libre Office.
I took out the material about bundling the bond spending priorities as a package deal showing a lack of faith in the voters that would make Gandhi cry (much as I love that line) because it seemed at odds with arguing that most people vote emotionally rather than logically when it comes to school bonds. I also took out the part about inflationary times being a bad time to borrow, since inflation actually reduces the cost of repaying loans. Inflation is probably the most insidious tax due to its hidden nature however, so I also took out the “most insidious” claim against property taxes, but did add in languages about renters also having to shoulder these costs – always an important reminder in a city where more people rent than own. I also got in a reference to Trip’s having two kids in the SFUSD himself (giving our naysaying more credibility in the eyes of some) and cited some of the salary and budget numbers.
Trip, let me know if this version works for you, and if anyone else has any thoughts, please weigh in! Bearing in mind I have to file the arguments by noon today.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
There are many logical reasons to oppose this school bond. Unfortunately, most people vote on these measures emotionally, heeding the cry of "it's for the children”. If you’re reading this however,you are not most people. Sadly, few voters do any real research prior to voting!
It’s admittedly tough to make an informed decision on a long laundry list of projects about which few details are given. Proposition A promises to fund everything from building repairs, to interior redesign, to a central food hub. Why not split it into multiple smaller measures and let us vote individual projects up or down? This is common practice in districts like the one in Texas an author of this argument lived in before coming to San Francisco and making the dubious decision to enroll his two kids in government schools here.
Or better yet, learn to responsibly live within a budget rather than borrowing $790 million at an estimated repayment cost (per the Controller’s analysis) of nearly $1.3 billion – coincidentally(?) the same size as the SFUSD’s 2024 budget, which irresponsibly exceeds district revenues by $148 million.
With under 50,000 children now enrolled, they’re spending over $26,000 per student per year!
Meanwhile, you’re being asked to swallow it this gigantic, jagged $1.3 billion pill whole, increasing your debt servitude via property taxes. Paying taxes every year on something you already own hurts, especially when you don’t even own the property but see your rent increase because the landlord has to pay more.
Why not cut the salaries of the superintendent ($310,000/year) and other overpaid administrators instead? How do other districts manage to spend far less per student? Unless you ask these tough questions, expect to keep getting more of the same.
Vote NO on Prop. A!
Libertarian Party of San Francisco
LPSF.org <http://lpsf.org/>