Below (and attached as an MS Word document) is my argument against Prop. B, the Recreation & Parks set-aside.
After looking at Prop. E, the paid sick leave measure, I realized that the understanding of it that we were going on at the meeting is not accurate. It would not increase the paid sick leave that employers are required to provide to 72 hours a year – apparently that is already the law in SF. While I still plan to vote against it, most of the changes it would make are comparatively innocuous, and doing no more than matching what is already in state law. Consequently I did not feel inspired to write an argument against it.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Proposition B is another transfer of power from elected officials to unelected bureaucrats (similar in this respect to Proposition A).
It would take millions of dollars in spending authority away from elected legislators and put it in the hands of political appointees and career bureaucrats in the Recreation and Parks Department.
According to the measure’s official legislative digest, The Board of Supervisors “would not have the power to adopt, reject, or modify the [department’s] plans.”
Why have Board members put such a measure on the ballot, one might wonder? Ducking responsibility, much?
Even if a Controller’s audit “finds that the Department has not complied” with requirements for reporting, holding public hearings, establishing metrics to ensure equal distribution of resources to low-income neighborhoods, etc., the most the Board would be allowed to do is reduce the following year’s departmental budget by 5%!
Prop. B would also eliminate the requirement that “New revenues from outside sources, such as grant or foundation support” be used “only for enhancement of park and recreational programs” (page 4).
In other words, opening the door for such funds to be spent on salaries, perks, or other overhead, rather than on park improvement!
With no guarantee that their donations won’t be misspent, will “outside sources” still want to support the parks? Perhaps only in cases where the motive for giving is not to improve the parks, but to curry favor with those in power!
Besides increasing the portion of the municipal budget off-limits to legislators elected by the people, Prop. B would sneakily authorize the issuance of revenue bonds (incurring debt) without voter approval (pages 4-5).
Definitely last, though perhaps not least, this abdication of power to the bureaucracy wouldn’t expire until 2046!
This is not good government. Vote NO on B.
Libertarian Party of San Francisco
www.LPSF.org
No On B (Park Set-Asides)-2016 (55 KB)