Hi All! Just found this new ballot measure that the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor put on the next election ballot. A new bond for $400M for earthquake safety and preparedness. It will pass merely because of the wording they have selected--and they know it. One wonders why they have waited until now to put forth such a bond when a major quake for the Bay Area has been predicted for decades now. Could it have something to do with the fact that The City is doing well economically now, so it's now time to hit up the voters for more indebtedness? With the current boom, The City's coffers should be overflowing--why can't they pay out of current "revenue streams" rather than incur new debt that will cost twice as much? Also why does all this work have to be done all at once and not spread out over a period of years? The measure specifically notes "that the estimated cost of such proposed project is and will be too great to be paid out of
the ordinary annual income and revenue of the City."
Another thing I noticed that looks odd to me is Section 3 "Proposed Program" talking about the "First Source Hiring Program." When looking to which companies will do the proposed work, it mentions "permanent employment opportunities for qualified economically disadvantaged individuals." Another government program to encourage employment? Why use a $400M bond which will end up costing $800M to accomplish this goal? Another opportunity for more cozy connections to win government contracts.
Interestingly this measure also talks about CEQA a lot, which says that there will be new construction involved, not just regular seismic retrofitting. The case could be made for regular retrofitting, but do we need new government buildings?
Please take a look at the link above (hope it works) and the ballot measure. If we are to oppose this measure, we don't have much time to submit our arguments. They will be due on March 13 at noon.
Hi All. Posted this a few days ago and still haven't seen it in my inbox for LPActivist List for some reason, so I am reposting it. Please take a look.
Hi Marcy! Ballot arguments are due next Thursday, March 13 at the Department of Elections at noon, and we will be deciding this Saturday at our meeting where we stand on these ballot measures. As you know, we were undecided on the waterfront heights limit measure last month, but hopefully we can sort this one out on Saturday. To be on the safe side, and because time is short, I think it's a great idea if you go ahead and write a "Yes" argument and bring it to the meeting and convince the skeptics that we should vote "Yes." I will try to research this issue more in depth before the meeting. I may sit down and write a "No" argument against the bond measure myself and bring it to the meeting, if time permits.
I will post the agenda separately in a moment. It would be great if others bring their ballot measure arguments to Saturday's meeting. Even if we don't submit those particular arguments next Thursday, the discussion will help us form our official LPSF position on the ballot measures.
It seems to me that to write that argument would be to argue for limitations on how freedom can be advanced. I mean, you wouldn't similarly say, "Voters expressed their wish for X level of taxation in the past, so Supervisors shouldn't be allowed to arbitrarily lower taxes", would you?
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Nothing has been written. We will discuss and vote on the propositions at Saturday's meeting.
Hi Marcy and Starchild! I had another thought on the waterfront heights ballot measure. Aside from your comment Starchild, and even though I am violently opposed to Plan Bay Area, it wouldn't make sense for us to submit any arguments on this measure. We're used to submitting for the free arguments, which are very prominent in the Voters Handbook, give us a lot of advertising, and don't cost us a penny--the best deal in town--but on this measure, the proponents will automatically get the pro side. We would have a free shot at the against side, but sentiment at the last meeting was definitely mixed.
If we wanted to submit a pro argument, it would have to be a paid argument, and frankly as many times as we've had to go to our people and ask for donations in the last year for all of our outreach activities, it doesn't make sense to me to ask again for donations to get a short argument stuck in with all the likely pro paid arguments that will be listed in the back after the free arguments. And these paid arguments are very costly, rarely costing under $800, just to get a brief and likely mostly unnoticed mention. For us, at this stage, our best bet is free arguments or nothing in the Voters Handbook. However, as always, we can write as much as we want on our website about our recommendations and do our mailing of postcards.
We'll settle these issues on Saturday.
Oh my goodness, you are right. I think it is a given that Golinger will submit an argument. No, I would not fund raise for a paid argument on this either, since it is not something we unanimously feel strongly about.
BTW, I have joined their campaign as a private person, not LPSF member. If I succeed in catching up with a whole bunch of work I have on my desk right now, I will help with their tabling on Sunday.