I have printed my argument

Hi Aubrey,

I have separated the text in three paragraphs, placed a link to the website where the accreditation report is contained, changed the first/second sentences of each version, and printed 25 copies -- as you requested. So, I am all set.

Let me know if you would like me to bring the copies to your house.

Marcy

Hi All! Thanks to all of you for writing such wonderful arguments--and so promptly too. I was worried about getting them all at the last moment--and now everyone is done but me. I better get to work on B. I was down at the Dept. of Elections this morning picking up the forms and asking them how to fill it out if we want a person's name to be printed as well as LPSF. It took 3 employees who work there (and should know their stuff) to figure out how I should mark the form. Marcy, the overzealous one who thought I was forcing you to change parties was in a less militaristic mood today and was quite helpful in trying to answer my question. They wouldn't give me all the control forms I wanted, so I will make copies.

Marcy, thanks for your argument. I'll swing by tomorrow after work and pick the 25 versions up. You'd never find my house. Miraloma Park can be confusing.

Starchild, I fainted. No problem printing your name with the argument, especially since they showed me how to fill out the control form for such a case, and also because you're probably the most likely of us all to run for office again (when you have straightened out the state and national parties). In your case, since you're so picky with words and your name will be printed in the pamphlet and we're early for a change, perhaps you want to do the 25 versions (or more). I'll do the control sheets, but if you could do the changing of words, I think it would be better, in this instance.

Mike, thanks for your argument and also mentioning the outrageousness of submitting such wordy nonsense at the last moment. If you could print out the 25 (or more) versions, I can pick them up at your house on Wednesday evening or you can drop them off at my house (leave in mailbox if my son isn't home). Since my house might be hard to find, I suggest I pick them up at your house. Thanks for the offer of electronically, but too many saved versions on the computer makes me crazy. Rather, I save one version, and if our argument wins the lottery, then I just edit the one version I saved to match the chosen one to send to the Dept. of Elections electronically. Do you want your name printed on the argument? It's not in the first person like I thought it would be, but it's a fine argument nevertheless, so if you want your name to appear with LPSF, that's just fine with me. It's up to you.

Les, thanks for bothering the goofballs who wrote G--and also for writing 3 separate ballot arguments.

Again, thanks to all for the great group effort. Who says Libertarians can't get things done?!

Aubrey

Aubrey….do they have to be double spaced?

Mike

Also….I believe names are included in the word count….right?

Mike

Better not need to be double spaced, since I did mine all single spaced! The sample I have is single spaced; so I think single space is what they want. Important to have the text fit into the Control Sheet, so my margins are 1 inch wide.

Yes, names of authors do count for the 300-word limit.

Marcy

Hi Mike and All! Thanks for schlepping over to my place with the copies. Got them.

Here is my argument against B, the$195M bond measure for Clean & Safe Parks. It came in at around 250 words, surprisingly short for me. I welcome suggestions and recommendations to improve the argument. I will incorporate any changes as I produce 25 versions tonight.

While maintaining clean and safe parks is a laudable goal,
paying for routine upkeep with expensive bonds is a waste of the taxpayers’
hard earned money. The City already has
enough parks and it certainly collects enough taxes—it should be paying for routine
maintenance of parks out of its annual operating budget. Instead it diverts funds to pet projects,
allows park facilities to become run down, and then asks the taxpayers to pay
for expensive bonds.
Bonds are the most expensive way to fund government
operations. By the time you add in bond
finance costs, sales commissions, attorney fees, transfer fees—not to mention
interest—the $195 million we are being asked to approve could end up costing
$400 million.
Rec and Park does not have a great record with the bonds
approved in 2008. Every one of the 12
park improvement projects funded by the 2008 bonds had major delays. On average the projects are scheduled to be
completed 14 months late. (SF Examiner
08/23/11)
Furthermore Rec & Park needs to do a better job managing
the money that it is allotted. Recent
scandals in the Park Patrol regarding overtime misuse, discrimination,
lawsuits, sleeping on the job, and not showing up for park events that
organizers paid for all do nothing to inspire confidence in Rec & Park.
Don’t give city officials the OK to waste more of your
money. Make them accountable for the
taxes they collect. Vote NO for
unnecessary, expensive bonds.
Libertarian Party of San Francisco
Thanks!
Aubrey

Great, Aubrey! (Not to mention folks in the Rec&Parc Dep hiding funds, as I recall reading about recently!)

Marcy