FW: [lpsf-activists] State Ballot Measure - Water Bond - Prop 43 [1 Attachment]

Ooops....sent to discuss

Mike

One correction (we don't want our opponents to accuse us of exaggeration): The amount authorized is not "$11,149,000,000 billion dollars."

I see no reason why the LPSF shouldn't submit an argument, and I'm interested in trying to write something on this, or maybe just continuing in the editing process of what Trish wrote. Has Aubrey or anyone posted a link to the rules for submitting state ballot arguments? Word count limit, whether signers count toward that limit, whether we can include our website, etc.?

  By the way, Republican gadfly Terrance Faulkner called me recently to say that Supervisor Scott Wiener is introducing a measure to change the rules for ballot arguments. We should watch this, as it likely won't be good, and could mean the end of our ability to get our arguments before SF voters as we have been able to do. Terrance also told me previously (which I didn't know) that he was prominently involved with the change in the rules many years ago that gave ordinary San Franciscans and independent groups like ours the opportunity to submit free ballot arguments.

Love & Liberty,
                                  ((( starchild )))

Hi All,

I also "vote" that LPSF submit state ballot arguments. Additionally, I "vote" that LPSF use Mike D.'s version as the official submission, with whatever minor adjustments for factual errors are found. There are so many egregious proposals on the November ballot, that reinventing the wheel on one initiative alone does not seem efficient to me.

Here are my minor adjustments:

1. Provide some citation for the California Policy Center Study.
2. Replace "Senate Bill 2" for "SB2 Cogdill", since 99% of the audience will have no idea that "SB2 Cogdill refers to Senate Bill 2 authored by David Cogdill.
3. Replace "dought fears" with "drought fears".
4. Consider the statement "our drought will soon be over anyways": This initiative is addressing a long-term challenge of providing the state with clean water. Maybe we should not give the impression that we misinterpret the initiative to be addressing this particular drought cycle.

Regarding the word count, Aubrey indicated what the count was, but now I can neither recall or find the information on the Secretary of State website.

I believe Aubrey also indicated the deadline for submission is tomorrow, Tuesday. He is submitting Tuesday afternoon.

Marcy

Hi Starchild and All,

I remember Aubrey mentioning the Scott Wiener "attack" on initiatives. Wiener has been trying to do away with them for years! As I recall, the new rules say that each organization can only submit one official organization argument, instead of the current multiple arguments. I suppose that means that LPSF would submit one argument, and hope not to be pre-empted by the Board of Supervisors.

Marcy

Good comments Marcy...have at it.

Count is 500 words I believe. In any case, the text as submitted was 498 words.

Mike

Until I start getting seriously into writing/editing an argument, I don't necessarily know how many changes I may come up with, or whether they would be categorized as "minor adjustments" or not. Efficiency wouldn't necessarily come into it, because I wasn't necessarily planning to write another argument if I don't write this one -- this is the only measure we've talked about, and I don't even know what else is on the state ballot. If the consensus is we want to use Mike's edit of Trish's argument without considering anything substantially different, that's fine, I don't need to spend time on this. What he wrote looked fine to me at a glance. I might think of other issues or arguments to use if I took more time to go over it, but I don't want to do that if people aren't potentially interested in anything different, because if I start digging into the issue I might come up with changes that go beyond "minor adjustments".

Love & Liberty,
                               ((( starchild )))

Thanks, Mike. I noticed the edited version was 498, and for local arguments it's only 300, which is why I was asking. Hopefully it is 500 for state ballot arguments.

Love & Liberty,
                                ((( starchild )))

Hi All,

I am totally in favor or submitting state ballot arguments. However, being basically paranoid, I have to bring up the question as to whether we are aware of the myriad of forms we need to fill out in order to have a chance to appear on the voter book. I have no clue, although I know Aubrey knows what submission form to use. http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/qualified-ballot-measures.htm

Marcy

Regarding the study. http://californiapolicycenter.org/calculating-californias-total-state-and-local-government-debt/

Marcy

Hi All. Thanks for your interest in this endeavor. I wasn't even sure we would submit something--now I think we will. The word count is definitely 500 max. The state LP will not be submitting anything as there isn't enough time, so it's up to us. Some members of the anti-Plan Bay Area coalition may submit Trish's argument, but maybe not. The pecking order for getting into the Voters Handbook from the state is, as always, legislators first, then bona fide organizations, and individuals last. So, if makes more sense for the LPSF to submit the argument and not individuals in order to get picked. If multiple organizations submit arguments either for or against, then it's up to the Secretary of State's discretion to pick the argument (or organization) they like the best. How crazy, but that's how it is! As Richard Winger pointed out once, when the Top Two was going on the ballot, the Secretary of State did not pick the strongest
argument against the Top Two to appear in the Votes Handbook, and we know how that turned out.

There appears to be only one form to submit with the argument, and it's only one page--very similar to the control sheet that we submit with our arguments here in SF. The only tricky part is what name or names to list on the "Statement to be Filed by Author of Argument." We've been through this before locally with bruised egos, so mostly for the last few years we have been submitting all arguments from the LPSF with no personal names listed, and that seemed to work out pretty well. (Looks like we will not be able to submit multiple arguments in the future due to the new ordinance that Weiner has come up with--our shenanigans are over.) There is room on the form for 3 names, and the only requirement is that all signers be registered voters in California. Since Mike Denny wrote the argument, it makes sense for his name to be there (must list name, address, telephone number, and sign and date the form). I'd like to see the LPSF's name
somewhere on the argument, so perhaps it can be listed with his name and underneath say "Libertarian Party of San Francisco." I have zero interest in having my name listed except as the contact person regarding the argument.

Since we will submit from the LPSF as an organization, I will type up a brief cover page on LPSF letterhead just stating what I'm submitting so that the SOS can see we're a valid bona fide organization and not some fly-by-night. Also another requirement is that our submission include the name, address, and phone number of at least 2 of our principal officers, so I assume, Marcy and Les, that you do not mind listing our three names and information in my cover sheet. Please let me know if you prefer not to be listed. Looks more legitimate if 3 officers are listed.

Also the signer's name and organization is to be listed at the end of the argument, but that does not count against the 500 word count.

Starchild, if you still have an interest in doing some writing, why don't you take a look at Prop 45 on the state ballot regarding Approval of Healthcare Insurance Rate Changes? This ballot measure begs for a strong NO argument, and I don't see that there will be that many arguments submitted on this one, so the chance of making it in the Voters Handbook looks to be stronger on this one. The measure makes the bold statement that "Government has an obligation to guarantee that the insurance is affordable, available, competitive and fair." It also states the it won't cost the taxpayers anything since the fees for the program will be paid by the insurance companies. As if taxes aren't included in the cost of goods and services. It also states that insurance companies may not charge more in the absence of prior insurance (think of car insurance--with new drivers, why wouldn't an insurance company charge more until you can show that you're a good
driver?) Lastly the measure exempts large group health insurance companies, so this appears to me to be a good way to drive out smaller companies. I think a good Libertarian argument could be made on this one to have less micromanagement between the insurance companies and their customers--or perhaps not to force us all to become their customers. Here's the link: http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i1013_11-0070_(insurance_affordability).pdf

I'll attach the ballot argument package the SOS lady sent me some time ago so you can see the process better. Please let me know if I've missed anything or misinterpreted anything. Mike, you would need to sign and fill out your info on the "Statement to be Filed" and I assume you have a scanner so we can do this all electronically today and tomorrow. My intent is to the submit your argument tomorrow with the "Statement to be Filed..." and also a short cover sheet with the information described above. I plan to fax and email it to be on the safe side, and I'll give the SOS lady a call in the morning to make sure everything is filled out correctly. I will FedEx the originals to her since they must be received within 72 hours, so I would probably need to hook up with you, Mike, to get an original signature.

I will now read Mike's argument since I haven't had a chance to actually read it carefully myself today.

Thanks, Mike and all, for jumping into action when needed! You're the best!
Aubrey

Hi All,

I am totally in favor or submitting state ballot arguments. However, being basically paranoid, I have to bring up the question as to whether we are aware of the myriad of forms we need to fill out in order to have a chance to appear on the voter book. I have no clue, although I know Aubrey knows what submission form to use. http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/qualified-ballot-measures.htm

Marcy

Hi Aubrey,

No objection if you need to put my name as one of the officers. Regarding author, of course we should have the LPSF name. Although I am not clear if the personal name of an LPSF member is also required. If it is, yes, I hope Mike D. Is ok with his name being listed. However, if it is not required, would we be risking bruising Trish's ego unnecessarily? I know she said she has no "proprietary interest" on the wording, but the research and authorship I would imagine are different issues. Just a thought.

Marcy

Hi All. I went through the bond measure again and added the two bulleted items and the final sentences reminding the voters that this is a NO argument. I removed the title since that increases the word count, and the SOS will already have a title indicating that it's the argument against. I changed the amount of the bond from $11,149,000,000 to $11,140,000,000 because the bond amount is $11.140 billion. "Costs double the face value bond" sounded awkward to me, so I cut out a few words in that sentence. I changed SB2 Cogdill as suggested and also removed all the SB2's in brackets to cut down on the word count. I removed the words climate change about the $250 million dam since that's a whole other issue that is best to avoid, I think. I removed the last part about the El Nino effect since you indicated, Mike, that you were OK with keeping or removing it.

I did not change, but please review this sentence in the argument: A vague definition of "public benefit" which is not defined with projects whose benefits are unquantifiable. I don't think this reads right and implies the opposite of what we're trying to say. Benefits should be quantifiable, so I think the unquantifiable should be quantifiable or maybe measurable or something like that.

Word count is currently 488, which allows a small margin of safety.

Marcy and Les, are you OK with listing your officer information in my cover letter to the SOS? I still intend to list Mike Denny as the sole signer, with hopefully the words Libertarian Party of San Francisco under his name.

I will go in to work a little late this morning to get this project completed and sent in after the LPSF approves the changes.

This
measure, if passed, authorizes bond creation in the amount of $11,140,000,000. Bond payback generally costs double, so the
actual amount is closer to 22 billion dollars.

Over
a year ago, the California Policy Center concluded a study saying(1) the outstanding debt already owed by
California’s state and local governments, is almost certainly in excess of $1.0
trillion, and (2) it is surprising none
of our government institutions in California can themselves provide an
authoritative estimate of total state and local government debt to the public.Does this sound like a responsible government
you’d want to authorize more money to?

Senate
Bill 2 passed in 2009 but now claims to be URGENT though on the ballot five years later. Drought fears are being used to
manipulate you, the voters, to approve a special interest, land grab and are less
about providing clean and safe water.

As
this bond will be paid through your water bill instead of taxes, it is not
subject to the limitations imposed by Article XIIIB of the California
Constitution. (Chapter 12, 79823) In short, while tax payers will be on the
hook for this bill, EVERYONE who uses water will pay the higher rates this bill
will demand.

If
you vote for this bond you are buying:

  * Approval to essentially limit your availability of water to that of
drinking water only. Your uses for water to shower, wash your car or pet, fill
your pool and water your lawn are not included.
  * Your transition from taxpayer to ratepayer.
  * An unelected, unaccountable "stakeholder council".
  * With the cost share requirement, the privilege of paying twice for
water projects (Chapter 5, 79720.1 (e)).
  * Loss of local control of water through regional integrated water
resource plan implementation. (Chapter 6, 79722 (a)).
  * The transitioning of our constitutional government system to regional
governance run by unelected, unaccountable special interests virtually deciding
the future water policy for our State. (Chapter 5, 79720.1 (f))
  * A finance plan so large and complex that it is virtually impossible to
evaluate what you are approving.
  * A vague definition of "public benefit" which is not defined
with projects whose benefits are unquantifiable.
  * A governance (not government) structure through joint powers
authorities which may include in their membership governmental and
nongovernmental partners. (Chapter 8, 79749 (b))
  * While you will be paying for it, the infrastructure you buy will be
owned by private interests. (Chapter 8, 79749 (c))
  * $250,000,000 for dam removal in a time when we should store as much
water as possible. (Chapter 8, 79757).
  * $3 billion to be “continuously appropriated” each year without
legislative oversight thus bypassing the formal budget process of checks and
balances. (Chapter 8, 79740 (b))
  * Pork projects such as $8 million for the City of Maywood (Chapter 5,
79720.4 (b)) and $100 million for San Diego County (Chapter 5, 79720.1 (f)) for
a dam that has already been financed by local bonds.

This
bond is fiscally irresponsible. Please
vote NO.

Thanks!
Aubrey

Hi All. Thanks for your interest in this endeavor. I wasn't even sure we would submit something--now I think we will. The word count is definitely 500 max. The state LP will not be submitting anything as there isn't enough time, so it's up to us. Some members of the anti-Plan Bay Area coalition may submit Trish's argument, but maybe not. The pecking order for getting into the Voters Handbook from the state is, as always, legislators first, then bona fide organizations, and individuals last. So, if makes more sense for the LPSF to submit the argument and not individuals in order to get picked. If multiple organizations submit arguments either for or against, then it's up to the Secretary of State's discretion to pick the argument (or organization) they like the best. How crazy, but that's how it is! As Richard Winger pointed out once, when the Top Two was going on the ballot, the Secretary of State did not pick the strongest
argument against the Top Two to appear in the Votes Handbook, and we know how that turned out.

There appears to be only one form to submit with the argument, and it's only one page--very similar to the control sheet that we submit with our arguments here in SF. The only tricky part is what name or names to list on the "Statement to be Filed by Author of Argument." We've been through this before locally with bruised egos, so mostly for the last few years we have been submitting all arguments from the LPSF with no personal names listed, and that seemed to work out pretty well. (Looks like we will not be able to submit multiple arguments in the future due to the new ordinance that Weiner has come up with--our shenanigans are over.) There is room on the form for 3 names, and the only requirement is that all signers be registered voters in California. Since Mike Denny wrote the argument, it makes sense for his name to be there (must list name, address, telephone number, and sign and date the form). I'd like to see the LPSF's name
somewhere on the argument, so perhaps it can be listed with his name and underneath say "Libertarian Party of San Francisco." I have zero interest in having my name listed except as the contact person regarding the argument.

Since we will submit from the LPSF as an organization, I will type up a brief cover page on LPSF letterhead just stating what I'm submitting so that the SOS can see we're a valid bona fide organization and not some fly-by-night. Also another requirement is that our submission include the name, address, and phone number of at least 2 of our principal officers, so I assume, Marcy and Les, that you do not mind listing our three names and information in my cover sheet. Please let me know if you prefer not to be listed. Looks more legitimate if 3 officers are listed.

Also the signer's name and organization is to be listed at the end of the argument, but that does not count against the 500 word count.

Starchild, if you still have an interest in doing some writing, why don't you take a look at Prop 45 on the state ballot regarding Approval of Healthcare Insurance Rate Changes? This ballot measure begs for a strong NO argument, and I don't see that there will be that many arguments submitted on this one, so the chance of making it in the Voters Handbook looks to be stronger on this one. The measure makes the bold statement that "Government has an obligation to guarantee that the insurance is affordable, available, competitive and fair." It also states the it won't cost the taxpayers anything since the fees for the program will be paid by the insurance companies. As if taxes aren't included in the cost of goods and services. It also states that insurance companies may not charge more in the absence of prior insurance (think of car insurance--with new drivers, why wouldn't an insurance company charge more until you can show that you're a good
driver?) Lastly the measure exempts large group health insurance companies, so this appears to me to be a good way to drive out smaller companies. I think a good Libertarian argument could be made on this one to have less micromanagement between the insurance companies and their customers--or perhaps not to force us all to become their customers. Here's the link: http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i1013_11-0070_(insurance_affordability).pdf

I'll attach the ballot argument package the SOS lady sent me some time ago so you can see the process better. Please let me know if I've missed anything or misinterpreted anything. Mike, you would need to sign and fill out your info on the "Statement to be Filed" and I assume you have a scanner so we can do this all electronically today and tomorrow. My intent is to the submit your argument tomorrow with the "Statement to be Filed..." and also a short cover sheet with the information described above. I plan to fax and email it to be on the safe side, and I'll give the SOS lady a call in the morning to make sure everything is filled out correctly. I will FedEx the originals to her since they must be received within 72 hours, so I would probably need to hook up with you, Mike, to get an original signature.

I will now read Mike's argument since I haven't had a chance to actually read it carefully myself today.

Thanks, Mike and all, for jumping into action when needed! You're the best!
Aubrey

Hi All,

I am totally in favor or submitting state ballot arguments. However, being basically paranoid, I have to bring up the question as to whether we are aware of the myriad of forms we need to fill out in order to have a chance to appear on the voter book. I have no clue, although I know Aubrey knows what submission form to use. http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/qualified-ballot-measures.htm

Marcy

I’m OK with it….just let me know what you need from me.

Mike

Hi Aubrey,

I reread. Sounds good to me. I did not see the last two points in the previous version, but I assume they are correct (though dams already approved of course still need money for capital improvements). Yes, a summary sentence such as you added is good, although the argument is not primarily about fiscal responsibility, but about exchanging local control for regional governance.

Yes, I am OK with my name appearing as one of the officers. If you don't hear from Les, I suggest you assume so is he. Let's get this Baby filed.

Marcy

I am a little uneasy about listing the "Libertarian Party of San Francisco".

We do not want the party to be determined a "campaign committee" within the meaning of the law. It would be better to say "San Francisco Libertarian Campaign Committee". The point of setting up a campaign committee is to keep campaigning separate from any other activity. You should never ever ever list the LPSF on anything relating any campaign material.

Campaigning on ballot measures, state or city, is NOT something we can just do. This is a highly regulated and monitored activity. All it takes is one person to call up the Ethics Commission to have them demand to see our records.

Les

[Attachment(s) from Aubrey Freedman included below]
Hi All. I went through the bond measure again and added the two bulleted items and the final sentences reminding the voters that this is a NO argument. I removed the title since that increases the word count, and the SOS will already have a title indicating that it's the argument against. I changed the amount of the bond from $11,149,000,000 to $11,140,000,000 because the bond amount is $11.140 billion. "Costs double the face value bond" sounded awkward to me, so I cut out a few words in that sentence. I changed SB2 Cogdill as suggested and also removed all the SB2's in brackets to cut down on the word count. I removed the words climate change about the $250 million dam since that's a whole other issue that is best to avoid, I think. I removed the last part about the El Nino effect since you indicated, Mike, that you were OK with keeping or removing it.

I did not change, but please review this sentence in the argument: A vague definition of "public benefit" which is not defined with projects whose benefits are unquantifiable. I don't think this reads right and implies the opposite of what we're trying to say. Benefits should be quantifiable, so I think the unquantifiable should be quantifiable or maybe measurable or something like that.

Word count is currently 488, which allows a small margin of safety.

Marcy and Les, are you OK with listing your officer information in my cover letter to the SOS? I still intend to list Mike Denny as the sole signer, with hopefully the words Libertarian Party of San Francisco under his name.

I will go in to work a little late this morning to get this project completed and sent in after the LPSF approves the changes.

This
measure, if passed, authorizes bond creation in the amount of $11,140,000,000. Bond payback generally costs double, so the
actual amount is closer to 22 billion dollars.

Over
a year ago, the California Policy Center concluded a study saying(1) the outstanding debt already owed by
California’s state and local governments, is almost certainly in excess of $1.0
trillion, and (2) it is surprising none
of our government institutions in California can themselves provide an
authoritative estimate of total state and local government debt to the public.Does this sound like a responsible government
you’d want to authorize more money to?

Senate
Bill 2 passed in 2009 but now claims to be URGENT though on the ballot five years later. Drought fears are being used to
manipulate you, the voters, to approve a special interest, land grab and are less
about providing clean and safe water.

As
this bond will be paid through your water bill instead of taxes, it is not
subject to the limitations imposed by Article XIIIB of the California
Constitution. (Chapter 12, 79823) In short, while tax payers will be on the
hook for this bill, EVERYONE who uses water will pay the higher rates this bill
will demand.

If
you vote for this bond you are buying:

  * Approval to essentially limit your availability of water to that of
drinking water only. Your uses for water to shower, wash your car or pet, fill
your pool and water your lawn are not included.
  * Your transition from taxpayer to ratepayer.
  * An unelected, unaccountable "stakeholder council".
  * With the cost share requirement, the privilege of paying twice for
water projects (Chapter 5, 79720.1 (e)).
  * Loss of local control of water through regional integrated water
resource plan implementation. (Chapter 6, 79722 (a)).
  * The transitioning of our constitutional government system to regional
governance run by unelected, unaccountable special interests virtually deciding
the future water policy for our State. (Chapter 5, 79720.1 (f))
  * A finance plan so large and complex that it is virtually impossible to
evaluate what you are approving.
  * A vague definition of "public benefit" which is not defined
with projects whose benefits are unquantifiable.
  * A governance (not government) structure through joint powers
authorities which may include in their membership governmental and
nongovernmental partners. (Chapter 8, 79749 (b))
  * While you will be paying for it, the infrastructure you buy will be
owned by private interests. (Chapter 8, 79749 (c))
  * $250,000,000 for dam removal in a time when we should store as much
water as possible. (Chapter 8, 79757).
  * $3 billion to be “continuously appropriated” each year without
legislative oversight thus bypassing the formal budget process of checks and
balances. (Chapter 8, 79740 (b))
  * Pork projects such as $8 million for the City of Maywood (Chapter 5,
79720.4 (b)) and $100 million for San Diego County (Chapter 5, 79720.1 (f)) for
a dam that has already been financed by local bonds.

This
bond is fiscally irresponsible. Please
vote NO.

Thanks!
Aubrey

Hi All. Thanks for your interest in this endeavor. I wasn't even sure we would submit something--now I think we will. The word count is definitely 500 max. The state LP will not be submitting anything as there isn't enough time, so it's up to us. Some members of the anti-Plan Bay Area coalition may submit Trish's argument, but maybe not. The pecking order for getting into the Voters Handbook from the state is, as always, legislators first, then bona fide organizations, and individuals last. So, if makes more sense for the LPSF to submit the argument and not individuals in order to get picked. If multiple organizations submit arguments either for or against, then it's up to the Secretary of State's discretion to pick the argument (or organization) they like the best. How crazy, but that's how it is! As Richard Winger pointed out once, when the Top Two was going on the ballot, the Secretary of State did not pick the strongest
argument against the Top Two to appear in the Votes Handbook, and we know how that turned out.

There appears to be only one form to submit with the argument, and it's only one page--very similar to the control sheet that we submit with our arguments here in SF. The only tricky part is what name or names to list on the "Statement to be Filed by Author of Argument." We've been through this before locally with bruised egos, so mostly for the last few years we have been submitting all arguments from the LPSF with no personal names listed, and that seemed to work out pretty well. (Looks like we will not be able to submit multiple arguments in the future due to the new ordinance that Weiner has come up with--our shenanigans are over.) There is room on the form for 3 names, and the only requirement is that all signers be registered voters in California. Since Mike Denny wrote the argument, it makes sense for his name to be there (must list name, address, telephone number, and sign and date the form). I'd like to see the LPSF's name
somewhere on the argument, so perhaps it can be listed with his name and underneath say "Libertarian Party of San Francisco." I have zero interest in having my name listed except as the contact person regarding the argument.

Since we will submit from the LPSF as an organization, I will type up a brief cover page on LPSF letterhead just stating what I'm submitting so that the SOS can see we're a valid bona fide organization and not some fly-by-night. Also another requirement is that our submission include the name, address, and phone number of at least 2 of our principal officers, so I assume, Marcy and Les, that you do not mind listing our three names and information in my cover sheet. Please let me know if you prefer not to be listed. Looks more legitimate if 3 officers are listed.

Also the signer's name and organization is to be listed at the end of the argument, but that does not count against the 500 word count.

Starchild, if you still have an interest in doing some writing, why don't you take a look at Prop 45 on the state ballot regarding Approval of Healthcare Insurance Rate Changes? This ballot measure begs for a strong NO argument, and I don't see that there will be that many arguments submitted on this one, so the chance of making it in the Voters Handbook looks to be stronger on this one. The measure makes the bold statement that "Government has an obligation to guarantee that the insurance is affordable, available, competitive and fair." It also states the it won't cost the taxpayers anything since the fees for the program will be paid by the insurance companies. As if taxes aren't included in the cost of goods and services. It also states that insurance companies may not charge more in the absence of prior insurance (think of car insurance--with new drivers, why wouldn't an insurance company charge more until you can show that you're a good
driver?) Lastly the measure exempts large group health insurance companies, so this appears to me to be a good way to drive out smaller companies. I think a good Libertarian argument could be made on this one to have less micromanagement between the insurance companies and their customers--or perhaps not to force us all to become their customers. Here's the link: http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i1013_11-0070_(insurance_affordability).pdf

I'll attach the ballot argument package the SOS lady sent me some time ago so you can see the process better. Please let me know if I've missed anything or misinterpreted anything. Mike, you would need to sign and fill out your info on the "Statement to be Filed" and I assume you have a scanner so we can do this all electronically today and tomorrow. My intent is to the submit your argument tomorrow with the "Statement to be Filed..." and also a short cover sheet with the information described above. I plan to fax and email it to be on the safe side, and I'll give the SOS lady a call in the morning to make sure everything is filled out correctly. I will FedEx the originals to her since they must be received within 72 hours, so I would probably need to hook up with you, Mike, to get an original signature.

I will now read Mike's argument since I haven't had a chance to actually read it carefully myself today.

Thanks, Mike and all, for jumping into action when needed! You're the best!
Aubrey

Hi All,

I am totally in favor or submitting state ballot arguments. However, being basically paranoid, I have to bring up the question as to whether we are aware of the myriad of forms we need to fill out in order to have a chance to appear on the voter book. I have no clue, although I know Aubrey knows what submission form to use. http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/qualified-ballot-measures.htm

Marcy

I am not keen on listing the LPSF in connection with any campaign material. We have a campaign committee set up. The purpose of this is to keep campaign separate from any other party activity.

I DO NOT want the LPSF to be determined to be a "campaign committee" within the meaning of the law subject to the disclosure requirements.

You do not have my permission to list the LPSF. You should list the "San Francisco Libertarian Campaign Committee" as the sponsor. Under no circumstance should any reference be made to the LPSF in any campaign literature or statements.

Les

Hi Les and All,

Like locking the barn door after the horse is gone!

After years of listing LPSF in the ballot arguments, those of us who were involved this time forgot that we now have a campaign committee. If the name cannot be changed I would tend to leave as is since no expense is involved (no campaign contribution).

What I hope does not happen is trying to go by the millions of committee rules sucks the fun out of our campaigning!

Marcy

Ok, but the fact that no money is involved would not stop the Ethics Commission from launching an investigation into (1) whether the LPSF is by law a campaign committee and (2) whether any rules were violated.

Maybe, it seems I am overly concerned. But .... the treasurer is the person who has personal responsibility and liability for seeing that the rules are followed. We may not have had a problem in the past, but the more active we get on this campaigning the likely it is that some yahoo or parasite at the public trough is going to report us to the Ethics Commission.

The whole point of setting up a campaign committee was to shield the party from such investigation and responsibility.

Les

Hi Les and All,

Like locking the barn door after the horse is gone!

After years of listing LPSF in the ballot arguments, those of us who were involved this time forgot that we now have a campaign committee. If the name cannot be changed I would tend to leave as is since no expense is involved (no campaign contribution).

What I hope does not happen is trying to go by the millions of committee rules sucks the fun out of our campaigning!

Marcy

I am not keen on listing the LPSF in connection with any campaign material. We have a campaign committee set up. The purpose of this is to keep campaign separate from any other party activity.

I DO NOT want the LPSF to be determined to be a "campaign committee" within the meaning of the law subject to the disclosure requirements.

You do not have my permission to list the LPSF. You should list the "San Francisco Libertarian Campaign Committee" as the sponsor. Under no circumstance should any reference be made to the LPSF in any campaign literature or statements.

Les

Hi Aubrey,

I reread. Sounds good to me. I did not see the last two points in the previous version, but I assume they are correct (though dams already approved of course still need money for capital improvements). Yes, a summary sentence such as you added is good, although the argument is not primarily about fiscal responsibility, but about exchanging local control for regional governance.

Yes, I am OK with my name appearing as one of the officers. If you don't hear from Les, I suggest you assume so is he. Let's get this Baby filed.

Marcy

________________________________
To: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
From: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 08:47:51 -0700
Subject: Re: [lpsf-activists] State Ballot Measure - Water Bond - Prop 43 [1 Attachment]

[Attachment(s) from Aubrey Freedman included below]
Hi All. I went through the bond measure again and added the two bulleted items and the final sentences reminding the voters that this is a NO argument. I removed the title since that increases the word count, and the SOS will already have a title indicating that it's the argument against. I changed the amount of the bond from $11,149,000,000 to $11,140,000,000 because the bond amount is $11.140 billion. "Costs double the face value bond" sounded awkward to me, so I cut out a few words in that sentence. I changed SB2 Cogdill as suggested and also removed all the SB2's in brackets to cut down on the word count. I removed the words climate change about the $250 million dam since that's a whole other issue that is best to avoid, I think. I removed the last part about the El Nino effect since you indicated, Mike, that you were OK with keeping or removing it.

I did not change, but please review this sentence in the argument: A vague definition of "public benefit" which is not defined with projects whose benefits are unquantifiable. I don't think this reads right and implies the opposite of what we're trying to say. Benefits should be quantifiable, so I think the unquantifiable should be quantifiable or maybe measurable or something like that.

Word count is currently 488, which allows a small margin of safety.

Marcy and Les, are you OK with listing your officer information in my cover letter to the SOS? I still intend to list Mike Denny as the sole signer, with hopefully the words Libertarian Party of San Francisco under his name.

I will go in to work a little late this morning to get this project completed and sent in after the LPSF approves the changes.

This

measure, if passed, authorizes bond creation in the amount of $11,140,000,000. Bond payback generally costs double, so the
actual amount is closer to 22 billion dollars.

Over

a year ago, the California Policy Center concluded a study saying(1) the outstanding debt already owed by
California’s state and local governments, is almost certainly in excess of $1.0
trillion, and (2) it is surprising none
of our government institutions in California can themselves provide an
authoritative estimate of total state and local government debt to the public.Does this sound like a responsible government
you’d want to authorize more money to?

Senate

Bill 2 passed in 2009 but now claims to be URGENT though on the ballot five years later. Drought fears are being used to
manipulate you, the voters, to approve a special interest, land grab and are less
about providing clean and safe water.

As

this bond will be paid through your water bill instead of taxes, it is not
subject to the limitations imposed by Article XIIIB of the California
Constitution. (Chapter 12, 79823) In short, while tax payers will be on the
hook for this bill, EVERYONE who uses water will pay the higher rates this bill
will demand.

If

you vote for this bond you are buying:

* Approval to essentially limit your availability of water to that of

drinking water only. Your uses for water to shower, wash your car or pet, fill
your pool and water your lawn are not included.

* Your transition from taxpayer to ratepayer.
* An unelected, unaccountable "stakeholder council".
* With the cost share requirement, the privilege of paying twice for

water projects (Chapter 5, 79720.1 (e)).

* Loss of local control of water through regional integrated water

resource plan implementation. (Chapter 6, 79722 (a)).

* The transitioning of our constitutional government system to regional

governance run by unelected, unaccountable special interests virtually deciding
the future water policy for our State. (Chapter 5, 79720.1 (f))

* A finance plan so large and complex that it is virtually impossible to

evaluate what you are approving.

* A vague definition of "public benefit" which is not defined

with projects whose benefits are unquantifiable.

* A governance (not government) structure through joint powers

authorities which may include in their membership governmental and
nongovernmental partners. (Chapter 8, 79749 (b))

* While you will be paying for it, the infrastructure you buy will be

owned by private interests. (Chapter 8, 79749 (c))

* $250,000,000 for dam removal in a time when we should store as much

water as possible. (Chapter 8, 79757).

* $3 billion to be “continuously appropriated” each year without

legislative oversight thus bypassing the formal budget process of checks and
balances. (Chapter 8, 79740 (b))

* Pork projects such as $8 million for the City of Maywood (Chapter 5,

79720.4 (b)) and $100 million for San Diego County (Chapter 5, 79720.1 (f)) for
a dam that has already been financed by local bonds.

This

bond is fiscally irresponsible. Please
vote NO.

Thanks!
Aubrey

Hi All. Thanks for your interest in this endeavor. I wasn't even sure we would submit something--now I think we will. The word count is definitely 500 max. The state LP will not be submitting anything as there isn't enough time, so it's up to us. Some members of the anti-Plan Bay Area coalition may submit Trish's argument, but maybe not. The pecking order for getting into the Voters Handbook from the state is, as always, legislators first, then bona fide organizations, and individuals last. So, if makes more sense for the LPSF to submit the argument and not individuals in order to get picked. If multiple organizations submit arguments either for or against, then it's up to the Secretary of State's discretion to pick the argument (or organization) they like the best. How crazy, but that's how it is! As Richard Winger pointed out once, when the Top Two was going on the ballot, the Secretary of State did not pick the strongest

argument against the Top Two to appear in the Votes Handbook, and we know how that turned out.

There appears to be only one form to submit with the argument, and it's only one page--very similar to the control sheet that we submit with our arguments here in SF. The only tricky part is what name or names to list on the "Statement to be Filed by Author of Argument." We've been through this before locally with bruised egos, so mostly for the last few years we have been submitting all arguments from the LPSF with no personal names listed, and that seemed to work out pretty well. (Looks like we will not be able to submit multiple arguments in the future due to the new ordinance that Weiner has come up with--our shenanigans are over.) There is room on the form for 3 names, and the only requirement is that all signers be registered voters in California. Since Mike Denny wrote the argument, it makes sense for his name to be there (must list name, address, telephone number, and sign and date the form). I'd like to see the LPSF's name

somewhere on the argument, so perhaps it can be listed with his name and underneath say "Libertarian Party of San Francisco." I have zero interest in having my name listed except as the contact person regarding the argument.

Since we will submit from the LPSF as an organization, I will type up a brief cover page on LPSF letterhead just stating what I'm submitting so that the SOS can see we're a valid bona fide organization and not some fly-by-night. Also another requirement is that our submission include the name, address, and phone number of at least 2 of our principal officers, so I assume, Marcy and Les, that you do not mind listing our three names and information in my cover sheet. Please let me know if you prefer not to be listed. Looks more legitimate if 3 officers are listed.

Also the signer's name and organization is to be listed at the end of the argument, but that does not count against the 500 word count.

Starchild, if you still have an interest in doing some writing, why don't you take a look at Prop 45 on the state ballot regarding Approval of Healthcare Insurance Rate Changes? This ballot measure begs for a strong NO argument, and I don't see that there will be that many arguments submitted on this one, so the chance of making it in the Voters Handbook looks to be stronger on this one. The measure makes the bold statement that "Government has an obligation to guarantee that the insurance is affordable, available, competitive and fair." It also states the it won't cost the taxpayers anything since the fees for the program will be paid by the insurance companies. As if taxes aren't included in the cost of goods and services. It also states that insurance companies may not charge more in the absence of prior insurance (think of car insurance--with new drivers, why wouldn't an insurance company charge more until you can show that you're a good

driver?) Lastly the measure exempts large group health insurance companies, so this appears to me to be a good way to drive out smaller companies. I think a good Libertarian argument could be made on this one to have less micromanagement between the insurance companies and their customers--or perhaps not to force us all to become their customers. Here's the link: http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i1013_11-0070_(insurance_affordability).pdf

I'll attach the ballot argument package the SOS lady sent me some time ago so you can see the process better. Please let me know if I've missed anything or misinterpreted anything. Mike, you would need to sign and fill out your info on the "Statement to be Filed" and I assume you have a scanner so we can do this all electronically today and tomorrow. My intent is to the submit your argument tomorrow with the "Statement to be Filed..." and also a short cover sheet with the information described above. I plan to fax and email it to be on the safe side, and I'll give the SOS lady a call in the morning to make sure everything is filled out correctly. I will FedEx the originals to her since they must be received within 72 hours, so I would probably need to hook up with you, Mike, to get an original signature.

I will now read Mike's argument since I haven't had a chance to actually read it carefully myself today.

Thanks, Mike and all, for jumping into action when needed! You're the best!
Aubrey

Hi All,

I am totally in favor or submitting state ballot arguments. However, being basically paranoid, I have to bring up the question as to whether we are aware of the myriad of forms we need to fill out in order to have a chance to appear on the voter book. I have no clue, although I know Aubrey knows what submission form to use. http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/qualified-ballot-measures.htm

Marcy

To: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
From: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 23:51:58 +0000
Subject: RE: [lpsf-activists] State Ballot Measure - Water Bond - Prop 43

Good comments Marcy…have at it.

Count is 500 words I believe. In any case, the text as submitted was 498 words.

Mike

From:lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com [mailto:lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 3:55 PM
To: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [lpsf-activists] State Ballot Measure - Water Bond - Prop 43

Hi All,

I also "vote" that LPSF submit state ballot arguments. Additionally, I "vote" that LPSF use Mike D.'s version as the official submission, with whatever minor adjustments for factual errors are found. There are so many egregious proposals on the November ballot,

that reinventing the wheel on one initiative alone does not seem efficient to me.

Here are my minor adjustments:

1. Provide some citation for the California Policy Center Study.
2. Replace "Senate Bill 2" for "SB2 Cogdill", since 99% of the audience will have no idea that "SB2 Cogdill refers to Senate Bill 2 authored by David Cogdill.
3. Replace "dought fears" with "drought fears".
4. Consider the statement "our drought will soon be over anyways": This initiative is addressing a long-term challenge of providing the state with clean water. Maybe we should not give the impression that we misinterpret the initiative to be addressing this

particular drought cycle.

Regarding the word count, Aubrey indicated what the count was, but now I can neither recall or find the information on the Secretary of State website.

I believe Aubrey also indicated the deadline for submission is tomorrow, Tuesday. He is submitting Tuesday afternoon.

Marcy

To: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
From: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 14:03:53 -0700
Subject: Re: [lpsf-activists] State Ballot Measure - Water Bond - Prop 43

I see no reason why the LPSF shouldn't submit an argument, and I'm interested in trying to write something on this, or maybe just continuing in the editing process of what Trish wrote. Has Aubrey or anyone posted a link to the rules for submitting state ballot

arguments? Word count limit, whether signers count toward that limit, whether we can include our website, etc.?

By the way, Republican gadfly Terrance Faulkner called me recently to say that Supervisor Scott Wiener is introducing a measure to change the rules for ballot arguments. We should watch this, as it likely won't be good, and could mean the end of our ability

to get our arguments before SF voters as we have been able to do. Terrance also told me previously (which I didn't know) that he was prominently involved with the change in the rules many years ago that gave ordinary San Franciscans and independent groups
like ours the opportunity to submit free ballot arguments.

Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))

> One correction (we don’t want our opponents to accuse us of exaggeration): The amount authorized is not “$11,149,000,000 billion dollars.”
>
>
> From: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com [mailto:lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 9:31 AM
> To: LPSF - Activists (lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com)
> Subject: FW: [lpsf-activists] State Ballot Measure - Water Bond - Prop 43 [1 Attachment]
>
> [Attachment(s) from mike@dennyconnect.com included below]
>
> Ooops….sent to discuss
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> From: mike@dennyconnect.com
> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 9:33 AM
> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: FW: [lpsf-activists] State Ballot Measure - Water Bond - Prop 43 [1 Attachment]
>
> It doesn’t seem to be going through…if this doesn’t work I’ll just forward to Marcy and Aubrey.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> From: mike@dennyconnect.com
> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 8:04 AM
> To: 'lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com'
> Subject: RE: [lpsf-activists] State Ballot Measure - Water Bond - Prop 43 [1 Attachment]
>
>
> Here you go Aubrey…there are some thing in my version derived from “reading between the lines” of Trish’s version but not based on conclusive evidence. They might not be correct.
>
> I also removed some of the things about her arguments that the Left is likely to find attractive such as open areas and the taking of private property. I tried to focus on what appears to be a fact that the bond, while guaranteed by taxpayers, will be paid

by all users of water through higher rates and the fact that private interests will benefit from it.

>
> I tried to bring some of the more important arguments to the beginning of the statement hopefully to focus….and included some research from the California Policy Center about the status of CA bond debt.
>
> Lastly…and you can keep it or not if you want….but there is satellite data showing a major El Nino effect is building suggesting the possibility the drought may be over this winter anyways.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> From: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com [mailto:lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 2:45 AM
> To: LPSF Activist List
> Subject: [lpsf-activists] State Ballot Measure - Water Bond - Prop 43 [1 Attachment]
>
>
>
> [Attachment(s) from Aubrey Freedman included below]
>
> Hi All. There is an $11.14 billion water bond slated to appear on the November ballot. I have contacted the state LP to see if they want to submit an argument against it, but I have not heard back yet. The word a few days ago was that the state legislature

couldn't come to terms on the bond and that it would not be on the ballot in November, but I spoke with the lady at the Secretary of State on Thursday afternoon, and she said that it will remain on the ballot. Since the deadline is Tuesday, July 8 5:00 PM
to submit any arguments, I suggest the LPSF submit something. Trish (from the coalition against Plan Bay Area and also a panelist at our Prop 13 Tax Symposium) has written a good, solid argument against this bond, and we can use her argument. (She is not into
the proprietary business and has stated that any of the coalition groups can use her argument as they wish and can add or delete as it suits them.)

>
>
>
> The legislators have been toying with this bond measure since 2009, if you can believe it, and have put off having the voters vote on it until this year when we're in a drought year and "Safe, Clean, & Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act" might go over better

with the voters. It's full of pork. Here is the link: Qualified Statewide Ballot Measures - Elections & Voter Information - California Secretary of State

>
>
>
>
> Qualified Statewide Ballot Measures - Elections & Voter ...
>
> Qualified Statewide Ballot Measures Subscribe to California Secretary of State Ballot Measure Update in a reader Subscribe to California Secretary of State Ballot ...
>
> View on http://www.sos.ca.gov/
>
> Preview by Yahoo
>
>
>
>
> Please advise if you think the LPSF should submit the argument by Tuesday. If so, I (or anyone else interested) could tinker with it on Monday night just to make it a little bit different, if any of the other coalition members against Plan Bay Area submit

the argument too. I have no time to do a major rewrite with the deadline so close, but if anyone else wants to do one, that's fine with me. If the LPSF chooses to submit the argument, I will take care of faxing, emailing, and sending the originals to the Secretary
of State on Tuesday afternoon.

Hi Les and All. The lady from the Secretary of State called me yesterday to let me know that our argument was not selected for publication in the state Voters Handbook that will come out in the fall, so Les you won't need to wear stripes after all. I was shocked that they would even have the courtesy to call to advise us that our argument wasn't selected. (I think the employee is relatively new in her position, so she was really nice each time I spoke to her and probably unaware that, as a government employee, she should be indifferent and uncaring.) I was quite surprised to find out that only 3 arguments against the measure were submitted. It was my understanding that there was some opposition to the bond, so I'm surprised that more groups didn't submit anything. At any rate, it wasn't that hard to do, and now we know the procedure for next time, so hopefully I can prod the state party to get involved next time.

Thanks, again, all for your help. The LPSF rose to the occasion!
Aubrey

Ok, but the fact that no money is involved would not stop the Ethics Commission from launching an investigation into (1) whether the LPSF is by law a campaign committee and (2) whether any rules were violated.

Maybe, it seems I am overly concerned. But .... the treasurer is the person who has personal responsibility and liability for seeing that the rules are followed. We may not have had a problem in the past, but the more active we get on this campaigning the likely it is that some yahoo or parasite at the public trough is going to report us to the Ethics Commission.

The whole point of setting up a campaign committee was to shield the party from such investigation and responsibility.

Les

Hi Les and All,

Like locking the barn door after the horse is gone!

After years of listing LPSF in the ballot arguments, those of us who were involved this time forgot that we now have a campaign committee. If the name cannot be changed I would tend to leave as is since no expense is involved (no campaign contribution).

What I hope does not happen is trying to go by the millions of committee rules sucks the fun out of our campaigning!

Marcy

I am not keen on listing the LPSF in connection with any campaign material. We have a campaign committee set up. The purpose of this is to keep campaign separate from any other party activity.

I DO NOT want the LPSF to be determined to be a "campaign committee" within the meaning of the law subject to the disclosure requirements.

You do not have my permission to list the LPSF. You should list the "San Francisco Libertarian Campaign Committee" as the sponsor. Under no circumstance should any reference be made to the LPSF in any campaign literature or statements.

Les

Hi Aubrey,

I reread. Sounds good to me. I did not see the last two points in the previous version, but I assume they are correct (though dams already approved of course still need money for capital improvements). Yes, a summary sentence such as you added is good, although the argument is not primarily about fiscal responsibility, but about exchanging local control for regional governance.

Yes, I am OK with my name appearing as one of the officers. If you don't hear from Les, I suggest you assume so is he. Let's get this Baby filed.

Marcy

________________________________
To: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
From: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 08:47:51 -0700
Subject: Re: [lpsf-activists] State Ballot Measure - Water Bond - Prop 43 [1 Attachment]

[Attachment(s) from Aubrey Freedman included below]
Hi All. I went through the bond measure again and added the two bulleted items and the final sentences reminding the voters that this is a NO argument. I removed the title since that increases the word count, and the SOS will already have a title indicating that it's the argument against. I changed the amount of the bond from $11,149,000,000 to $11,140,000,000 because the bond amount is $11.140 billion. "Costs double the face value bond" sounded awkward to me, so I cut out a few words in that sentence. I changed SB2 Cogdill as suggested and also removed all the SB2's in brackets to cut down on the word count. I removed the words climate change about the $250 million dam since that's a whole other issue that is best to avoid, I think. I removed the last part about the El Nino effect since you indicated, Mike, that you were OK with keeping or removing it.

I did not change, but please review this sentence in the argument: A vague definition of "public benefit" which is not defined with projects whose benefits are unquantifiable. I don't think this reads right and implies the opposite of what we're trying to say. Benefits should be quantifiable, so I think the unquantifiable should be quantifiable or maybe measurable or something like that.

Word count is currently 488, which allows a small margin of safety.

Marcy and Les, are you OK with listing your officer information in my cover letter to the SOS? I still intend to list Mike Denny as the sole signer, with hopefully the words Libertarian Party of San Francisco under his name.

I will go in to work a little late this morning to get this project completed and sent in after the LPSF approves the changes.

This

measure, if passed, authorizes bond creation in the amount of $11,140,000,000. Bond payback generally costs double, so the
actual amount is closer to 22 billion dollars.

Over

a year ago, the California Policy Center concluded a study saying(1) the outstanding debt already owed by
California’s state and local governments, is almost certainly in excess of $1.0
trillion, and (2) it is surprising none
of our government institutions in California can themselves provide an
authoritative estimate of total state and local government debt to the public.Does this sound like a responsible government
you’d want to authorize more money to?

Senate

Bill 2 passed in 2009 but now claims to be URGENT though on the ballot five years later. Drought fears are being used to
manipulate you, the voters, to approve a special interest, land grab and are less
about providing clean and safe water.

As

this bond will be paid through your water bill instead of taxes, it is not
subject to the limitations imposed by Article XIIIB of the California
Constitution. (Chapter 12, 79823) In short, while tax payers will be on the
hook for this bill, EVERYONE who uses water will pay the higher rates this bill
will demand.

If

you vote for this bond you are buying:

* Approval to essentially limit your availability of water to that of

drinking water only. Your uses for water to shower, wash your car or pet, fill
your pool and water your lawn are not included.

* Your transition from taxpayer to ratepayer.
* An unelected, unaccountable "stakeholder council".
* With the cost share requirement, the privilege of paying twice for

water projects (Chapter 5, 79720.1 (e)).

* Loss of local control of water through regional integrated water

resource plan implementation. (Chapter 6, 79722 (a)).

* The transitioning of our constitutional government system to regional

governance run by unelected, unaccountable special interests virtually deciding
the future water policy for our State. (Chapter 5, 79720.1 (f))

* A finance plan so large and complex that it is virtually impossible to

evaluate what you are approving.

* A vague definition of "public benefit" which is not defined

with projects whose benefits are unquantifiable.

* A governance (not government) structure through joint powers

authorities which may include in their membership governmental and
nongovernmental partners. (Chapter 8, 79749 (b))

* While you will be paying for it, the infrastructure you buy will be

owned by private interests. (Chapter 8, 79749 (c))

* $250,000,000 for dam removal in a time when we should store as much

water as possible. (Chapter 8, 79757).

* $3 billion to be “continuously appropriated” each year without

legislative oversight thus bypassing the formal budget process of checks and
balances. (Chapter 8, 79740 (b))

* Pork projects such as $8 million for the City of Maywood (Chapter 5,

79720.4 (b)) and $100 million for San Diego County (Chapter 5, 79720.1 (f)) for
a dam that has already been financed by local bonds.

This

bond is fiscally irresponsible. Please
vote NO.

Thanks!
Aubrey

Hi All. Thanks for your interest in this endeavor. I wasn't even sure we would submit something--now I think we will. The word count is definitely 500 max. The state LP will not be submitting anything as there isn't enough time, so it's up to us. Some members of the anti-Plan Bay Area coalition may submit Trish's argument, but maybe not. The pecking order for getting into the Voters Handbook from the state is, as always, legislators first, then bona fide organizations, and individuals last. So, if makes more sense for the LPSF to submit the argument and not individuals in order to get picked. If multiple organizations submit arguments either for or against, then it's up to the Secretary of State's discretion to pick the argument (or organization) they like the best. How crazy, but that's how it is! As Richard Winger pointed out once, when the Top Two was going on the ballot, the Secretary of State did not pick the strongest

argument against the Top Two to appear in the Votes Handbook, and we know how that turned out.

There appears to be only one form to submit with the argument, and it's only one page--very similar to the control sheet that we submit with our arguments here in SF. The only tricky part is what name or names to list on the "Statement to be Filed by Author of Argument." We've been through this before locally with bruised egos, so mostly for the last few years we have been submitting all arguments from the LPSF with no personal names listed, and that seemed to work out pretty well. (Looks like we will not be able to submit multiple arguments in the future due to the new ordinance that Weiner has come up with--our shenanigans are over.) There is room on the form for 3 names, and the only requirement is that all signers be registered voters in California. Since Mike Denny wrote the argument, it makes sense for his name to be there (must list name, address, telephone number, and sign and date the form). I'd like to see the LPSF's name

somewhere on the argument, so perhaps it can be listed with his name and underneath say "Libertarian Party of San Francisco." I have zero interest in having my name listed except as the contact person regarding the argument.

Since we will submit from the LPSF as an organization, I will type up a brief cover page on LPSF letterhead just stating what I'm submitting so that the SOS can see we're a valid bona fide organization and not some fly-by-night. Also another requirement is that our submission include the name, address, and phone number of at least 2 of our principal officers, so I assume, Marcy and Les, that you do not mind listing our three names and information in my cover sheet. Please let me know if you prefer not to be listed. Looks more legitimate if 3 officers are listed.

Also the signer's name and organization is to be listed at the end of the argument, but that does not count against the 500 word count.

Starchild, if you still have an interest in doing some writing, why don't you take a look at Prop 45 on the state ballot regarding Approval of Healthcare Insurance Rate Changes? This ballot measure begs for a strong NO argument, and I don't see that there will be that many arguments submitted on this one, so the chance of making it in the Voters Handbook looks to be stronger on this one. The measure makes the bold statement that "Government has an obligation to guarantee that the insurance is affordable, available, competitive and fair." It also states the it won't cost the taxpayers anything since the fees for the program will be paid by the insurance companies. As if taxes aren't included in the cost of goods and services. It also states that insurance companies may not charge more in the absence of prior insurance (think of car insurance--with new drivers, why wouldn't an insurance company charge more until you can show that you're a good

driver?) Lastly the measure exempts large group health insurance companies, so this appears to me to be a good way to drive out smaller companies. I think a good Libertarian argument could be made on this one to have less micromanagement between the insurance companies and their customers--or perhaps not to force us all to become their customers. Here's the link: http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i1013_11-0070_(insurance_affordability).pdf

I'll attach the ballot argument package the SOS lady sent me some time ago so you can see the process better. Please let me know if I've missed anything or misinterpreted anything. Mike, you would need to sign and fill out your info on the "Statement to be Filed" and I assume you have a scanner so we can do this all electronically today and tomorrow. My intent is to the submit your argument tomorrow with the "Statement to be Filed..." and also a short cover sheet with the information described above. I plan to fax and email it to be on the safe side, and I'll give the SOS lady a call in the morning to make sure everything is filled out correctly. I will FedEx the originals to her since they must be received within 72 hours, so I would probably need to hook up with you, Mike, to get an original signature.

I will now read Mike's argument since I haven't had a chance to actually read it carefully myself today.

Thanks, Mike and all, for jumping into action when needed! You're the best!
Aubrey

Hi All,

I am totally in favor or submitting state ballot arguments. However, being basically paranoid, I have to bring up the question as to whether we are aware of the myriad of forms we need to fill out in order to have a chance to appear on the voter book. I have no clue, although I know Aubrey knows what submission form to use. http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/qualified-ballot-measures.htm

Marcy

To: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
From: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 23:51:58 +0000
Subject: RE: [lpsf-activists] State Ballot Measure - Water Bond - Prop 43

Good comments Marcy…have at it.

Count is 500 words I believe. In any case, the text as submitted was 498 words.

Mike

From:lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com [mailto:lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 3:55 PM
To: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [lpsf-activists] State Ballot Measure - Water Bond - Prop 43

Hi All,

I also "vote" that LPSF submit state ballot arguments. Additionally, I "vote" that LPSF use Mike D.'s version as the official submission, with whatever minor adjustments for factual errors are found. There are so many egregious proposals on the November ballot,

that reinventing the wheel on one initiative alone does not seem efficient to me.

Here are my minor adjustments:

1. Provide some citation for the California Policy Center Study.
2. Replace "Senate Bill 2" for "SB2 Cogdill", since 99% of the audience will have no idea that "SB2 Cogdill refers to Senate Bill 2 authored by David Cogdill.
3. Replace "dought fears" with "drought fears".
4. Consider the statement "our drought will soon be over anyways": This initiative is addressing a long-term challenge of providing the state with clean water. Maybe we should not give the impression that we misinterpret the initiative to be addressing this

particular drought cycle.

Regarding the word count, Aubrey indicated what the count was, but now I can neither recall or find the information on the Secretary of State website.

I believe Aubrey also indicated the deadline for submission is tomorrow, Tuesday. He is submitting Tuesday afternoon.

Marcy

To: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
From: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 14:03:53 -0700
Subject: Re: [lpsf-activists] State Ballot Measure - Water Bond - Prop 43

I see no reason why the LPSF shouldn't submit an argument, and I'm interested in trying to write something on this, or maybe just continuing in the editing process of what Trish wrote. Has Aubrey or anyone posted a link to the rules for submitting state ballot

arguments? Word count limit, whether signers count toward that limit, whether we can include our website, etc.?

By the way, Republican gadfly Terrance Faulkner called me recently to say that Supervisor Scott Wiener is introducing a measure to change the rules for ballot arguments. We should watch this, as it likely won't be good, and could mean the end of our ability

to get our arguments before SF voters as we have been able to do. Terrance also told me previously (which I didn't know) that he was prominently involved with the change in the rules many years ago that gave ordinary San Franciscans and independent groups
like ours the opportunity to submit free ballot arguments.

Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))

> One correction (we don’t want our opponents to accuse us of exaggeration): The amount authorized is not “$11,149,000,000 billion dollars.”
>
>
> From: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com [mailto:lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 9:31 AM
> To: LPSF - Activists (lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com)
> Subject: FW: [lpsf-activists] State Ballot Measure - Water Bond - Prop 43 [1 Attachment]
>
> [Attachment(s) from mike@dennyconnect.com included below]
>
> Ooops….sent to discuss
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> From: mike@dennyconnect.com
> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 9:33 AM
> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: FW: [lpsf-activists] State Ballot Measure - Water Bond - Prop 43 [1 Attachment]
>
> It doesn’t seem to be going through…if this doesn’t work I’ll just forward to Marcy and Aubrey.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> From: mike@dennyconnect.com
> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 8:04 AM
> To: 'lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com'
> Subject: RE: [lpsf-activists] State Ballot Measure - Water Bond - Prop 43 [1 Attachment]
>
>
> Here you go Aubrey…there are some thing in my version derived from “reading between the lines” of Trish’s version but not based on conclusive evidence. They might not be correct.
>
> I also removed some of the things about her arguments that the Left is likely to find attractive such as open areas and the taking of private property. I tried to focus on what appears to be a fact that the bond, while guaranteed by taxpayers, will be paid

by all users of water through higher rates and the fact that private interests will benefit from it.

>
> I tried to bring some of the more important arguments to the beginning of the statement hopefully to focus….and included some research from the California Policy Center about the status of CA bond debt.
>
> Lastly…and you can keep it or not if you want….but there is satellite data showing a major El Nino effect is building suggesting the possibility the drought may be over this winter anyways.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> From: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com [mailto:lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 2:45 AM
> To: LPSF Activist List
> Subject: [lpsf-activists] State Ballot Measure - Water Bond - Prop 43 [1 Attachment]
>
>
>
> [Attachment(s) from Aubrey Freedman included below]
>
> Hi All. There is an $11.14 billion water bond slated to appear on the November ballot. I have contacted the state LP to see if they want to submit an argument against it, but I have not heard back yet. The word a few days ago was that the state legislature

couldn't come to terms on the bond and that it would not be on the ballot in November, but I spoke with the lady at the Secretary of State on Thursday afternoon, and she said that it will remain on the ballot. Since the deadline is Tuesday, July 8 5:00 PM
to submit any arguments, I suggest the LPSF submit something. Trish (from the coalition against Plan Bay Area and also a panelist at our Prop 13 Tax Symposium) has written a good, solid argument against this bond, and we can use her argument. (She is not into
the proprietary business and has stated that any of the coalition groups can use her argument as they wish and can add or delete as it suits them.)

>
>
>
> The legislators have been toying with this bond measure since 2009, if you can believe it, and have put off having the voters vote on it until this year when we're in a drought year and "Safe, Clean, & Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act" might go over better

with the voters. It's full of pork. Here is the link: Qualified Statewide Ballot Measures - Elections & Voter Information - California Secretary of State

>
>
>
>
> Qualified Statewide Ballot Measures - Elections & Voter ...
>
> Qualified Statewide Ballot Measures Subscribe to California Secretary of State Ballot Measure Update in a reader Subscribe to California Secretary of State Ballot ...
>
> View on http://www.sos.ca.gov/
>
> Preview by Yahoo
>
>
>
>
> Please advise if you think the LPSF should submit the argument by Tuesday. If so, I (or anyone else interested) could tinker with it on Monday night just to make it a little bit different, if any of the other coalition members against Plan Bay Area submit

the argument too. I have no time to do a major rewrite with the deadline so close, but if anyone else wants to do one, that's fine with me. If the LPSF chooses to submit the argument, I will take care of faxing, emailing, and sending the originals to the Secretary
of State on Tuesday afternoon.