Hi All. Here's a draft of my argument. It clocks in at 294 words. As
always, I have zero pride of ownership, so please review and change as
needed to give it more bite.
Prop A is a giveaway to the Board of Education to spend almost $1.5 billion
of taxpayer money with absolutely no firm commitment as to how the money
will be spent. Per the text of Prop A, “Until all project costs and
funding sources are known, the Board of Education cannot determine the
amount of bond proceeds available to be spent on each project, nor
guarantee that the bonds will provide sufficient funds to allow completion
of all listed projects.” The legal text contains the word “may,” not
“will,” 26 separate times so they can spend the money as they please on
repairs and maintenance that should be covered by operating funds, not
expensive bonds.
The only possible legitimate purpose for a school bond is the construction
of a new school—a one-time event, not a routine habit of paying for repairs
and maintenance with bonds. Even here the Board of Education refuses to be
tied down on anything as to what school will be built and where: “The
District *may* acquire, construct, furnish, and equip new school facilities
at one or more sites.”
Use of bonds for “Green School Yards” for environmental gardens is
inexcusable, as is throwing in $5 million for teacher housing, which would
only yield 6.67 units ($5,000,000/$750,000).
In 2011 the Board of Education stated in the Voters Handbook that the $531
million bond would be the “third and final” bond for modernization of San
Francisco schools. In our rebuttal, we cautioned not to believe them
because they were already planning new bonds for the future. Relying on
expensive bonds to pay for repairs and maintenance is poor public policy.
Doing so without specific and firm details is even worse. Vote NO on Prop
A.
Libertarian Party of San Francisco
I also have Ryan's and Phil's arguments, but those will be posted
separately. This is Ryan's first effort at ballot argument writing, so he
doesn't mind any changes to make it better. Phil and I are still going
back and forth on the editing and it will be posted later on today.
Wendy from the East Bay submitted the argument against the BART bond
yesterday to the Alameda County Registrar of Voters (I signed for the LPSF
as discussed in Saturday's meeting) since our own SF Department of
Elections confirmed that they are not accepting any arguments on this one
and Alameda is handling everything for the 3 counties (an outrage in itself
as to how this regionalization business is being carried out).
Thanks!
Aubrey