# Prop A Ballot Measure Argument - School Bond

**URL:** <https://forum.lpsf.org/t/prop-a-ballot-measure-argument-school-bond/19394>\
**Category:** Activists List\
**Created:** [August 17, 2016, 3:31pm UTC](https://forum.lpsf.org/t/prop-a-ballot-measure-argument-school-bond/19394 "2016-08-17T15:31:49Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![aubreyfreedman](https://forum.lpsf.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/74df32/32.png) [@aubreyfreedman](https://forum.lpsf.org/u/aubreyfreedman)\
**Post date:** [August 17, 2016, 3:31pm UTC](https://forum.lpsf.org/t/prop-a-ballot-measure-argument-school-bond/19394/1 "2016-08-17T15:31:49Z")

</div>

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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![dennz](https://forum.lpsf.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/58956e/32.png) [@dennz](https://forum.lpsf.org/u/dennz)\
**Post date:** [August 17, 2016, 8:53pm UTC](https://forum.lpsf.org/t/prop-a-ballot-measure-argument-school-bond/19394/2 "2016-08-17T20:53:26Z")

</div>

This looks quite good….thanks Aubrey.

Mike