Hi Matt and All! Well, I played around with my ballot measure argument when I got home and only succeeded in increasing the word count from 290 to 317. If you can, please take a look and help to improve the argument so we can hopefully submit it on Thursday at the Department of Elections.
I feel that it's important for us to submit an "Against" argument, not only so folks know we're still alive and kicking, but also as a sole voice for fiscal prudence. If no one speaks up against this measure, that sends the message that all the bureaucrats have to do is to attach a nice feel-good title to their bond measures and the voters will automatically approve them. They have done this for years--and they will continue to do this--but someone should speak out against this common practice. Only Terence Faulkner would have the nerve to write an argument against this ballot measure too, but he usually doesn't submit that many arguments, so if we submit, we should be able to win the lottery.
Here are my ramblings:
EARTHQUAKE SAFETY & EMERGENCY RESPONSE $400 MILLION BOND
No one would argue against safe buildings and a
functioning emergency response system, but is an expensive bond measure the most
prudent use of taxpayer money to accomplish these goals? By lumping all these reasonable improvements
under one “proposed project,” the Board of Supervisors has inflated the cost
and declared a bond is necessary. By the
time the citizens pay for the interest, legal expenses, bond fees, and the
oversight committee costs, the $400 million cost will almost double. With the expected cost overruns that always
accompany these bond projects, we can expect to pay a lot more.
The needed improvements can and should be paid for out of
the annual operating budget, one at a time, not all at once. With a current budget of $7.3 billion, surely
city officials can put aside a small portion each year to upgrade facilities,
rather than wait for an emergency. Would
an individual defer all maintenance on his/her car until it becomes an
emergency or fix things as needed on a priority basis each year? We should expect no less from our city
Have you seen the proposed FY 2015-2018 water and sewer
rate increases from SF Water Power & Sewer? Many of the increases will almost double over 4 years. The rate increases are to “ensure we can
provide water during a drought and within 24 hours of an earthquake…” If the rate increases will pay for
firefighting, then why is “a reliable water supply for fires and disasters”
part of the reason for this bond? Isn’t
that double dipping?
Vote NO on . Demand that city officials
fund the basic services of government, which includes the upkeep of safe government
buildings, out of their huge operating budget each year, not with costly bond
measures that will burden our children and grandchildren.
Libertarian Party of San Francisco