Edit of Rebuttal argument against Prop. A


  Here's my edit of the rebuttal argument against Prop. A, at 249 words. Let me know what you think.

Love & Liberty,
                                 ((( starchild )))

Isn’t it funny how there’s always money in the budget for administrators’ six-figure salaries and generous benefits, while maintenance is regularly deferred to blackmail voters into approving bond measures lest children be stuck in decrepit schools?

Bonds are for major expenses like constructing new school buildings. That isn’t needed now. Enrollment is declining as families leave San Francisco or choose home schooling or non-government schools due to SFUSD’s failure to meet their children’s needs. Instead, district officials again propose borrowing money for routine maintenance their annual operating budget is supposed to cover.

As long as San Francisco has government-run schools, keeping them repaired will cost taxpayers. But regularly borrowing money for repairs is stupid. By the time you add in bond finance costs, sales commissions, attorney fees, transfer fees, and up to 12% interest, SFUSD’s plan to raise $531,000,000 in revenue could end up costing nearly $1,000,000,000!

That would be bad enough if we could trust the money would be spent wisely -- but we can’t. Money from previous bonds was spent repairing schools like Treasure Island Elementary that were closed shortly thereafter. Total lack of foresight and planning!

They’re calling this the “third and final” measure to modernize district schools. Don’t believe it. Prop. A includes “$1,500,000 in bond funds to be used for future bond planning as well as outreach and communication” (read: polling and public relations).

Send them a message to stop wasting your money like this! Vote NO on A.

Libertarian Party of San Francisco

Hi Starchild! This is fine--let's go with this one. I will leave work in a short while to head over to City Hall. I have just copied and pasted this version, printed it, and will attach it to Control Sheet A.


Excellent Starchild...

By the way my argument is FOR prop D although it mentions NO on C several times.

Here's the final version filed this AM.