Hi All. Here's what I came up with for the Children's Fund. OK to change anything I've written since, like Francoise, I have no pride of ownership when it comes to these ballot measures. Just need to get something submitted tomorrow. Clocked in at exactly 250 words. Please review.
A “Children’s Fund” is one thing, but Prop C is adding a
whole new group of adults, not children, who will be eligible for government
services. Per Section 16.108 (e), New
Services will be available for “Disconnected Transitional-Aged Youth 18 through
24 years old defined in the City Charter as “homeless or in danger of
homelessness; have dropped out of high school; have a disability or other
special needs, including substance abuse; are low-income parents; are
undocumented; are new immigrants and/or English Learners; are Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Questioning (“LGBTQQ”); and/or transitioning
from the foster care, juvenile justice, criminal justice or special education
system.” We are concerned about
encouraging more adults, not children, from becoming dependent on government
services when it should be the other way around.
We are also concerned about the length of time these funds
are being extended: 25 years for the
Children’s Fund and 26 years for the Public Education Enrichment Fund. While the increase in set-aside from 3 cents
to 4 cents per $100 of assessed property value may not sound like much,
millions of dollars more will be removed from the discretionary part of the
budget if Prop C passes. Does anyone
really know what the economic situation will be like in San Francisco in
2041? While The City is currently
enjoying a prosperous period, good times come and go. Why tie the hands of future city officials to
budget services as needed?
Vote NO on C.Libertarian Party of San Francisco
Thanks!
Aubrey
P.S. Sending through Phil's G and Francoise's E separately in a few minutes for review.
Here's my proposed edit of the Prop. C rebuttal. It comes in at 251 words, but with the Elections Department counting "San Francisco" as one word I think it should be just under 250.
The Spanish phrase is a take on the popular immigrant rights slogan "Si se puede" (yes we can) -- "Si se puede sin gobierno" is "yes we can without government".
Hi Starchild. I knew you'd come through with a better argument--and you did. The only things I noticed that should be changed are it should be 2041 and actually the 18-24 year olds are called "Disconnected Transitional-Aged Youth," so not only are they being treated as kids--the bureaucrats are saying they're "out of it." Otherwise please send it as an attachment so I don't have to reformat it again if I copy it from the email. Looks great--and on time too.
Thanks, Aubrey! The two things you mention were intentional, but I'm open to arguments they should be changed if you don't find the following reasoning persuasive:
1) I cited the year 2040 rather than 2041 because (a) it's a round number, (b) if people do the math by adding 25 or 26 to 2014 they will get 2039 or 2040, not 2041, and (c) if we pick the very last year of the range, people could respond that it wouldn't matter if different spending priorities were needed then because the measure would be expiring that year anyway.
2) I left out the term "disconnected" because (a) it's not relevant to the argument about treating adults as children, (b) it's an extra word, and most importantly (c) the measure implicitly labels ALL 18 to 24 year olds as "Transitional-Aged Youth", whereas only those deemed disadvantaged in some way and therefore eligible for aid are presumably being labeled as "disconnected".
As you can see though, I retained the main themes of what you wrote up, which I thought were well chosen (the inclusion of adults in this "children's fund", and the long timeline for these hands-tying budgetary set-asides).
A Word document with the formatting of the text I sent below is attached.
I do agree with you by the way Aubrey that the term "disconnected" is kind of patronizing, but I don't know that there's enough space for me to say anything about it without taking out something else that seems more important to say.
Here's one idea to work in a reference to the "disconnected" label. Change this sentence...
Young adults want more bottom-up solutions and reduced barriers to economic participation and entrepreneurship, not more top-down programs.
To read...
Young adults feeling "disconnected" want bottom-up solutions and reduced barriers to entrepreneurship and economic participation, not more top-down programs.
Any preference? The latter is one word longer, but I think it will fit.
Hi Starchild. Your reasoning is fine--we'll keep 2040 and not be "disconnected." I couldn't open the document for some reason. Do you have another way to send it? Otherwise I can just copy and paste from the email--not a big deal.
Thanks!
Aubrey
[Attachment(s) from Starchild included below]
Thanks, Aubrey! The two things you mention were intentional, but I'm open to arguments they should be changed if you don't find the following reasoning persuasive:
1) I cited the year 2040 rather than 2041 because (a) it's a round number, (b) if people do the math by adding 25 or 26 to 2014 they will get 2039 or 2040, not 2041, and (c) if we pick the very last year of the range, people could respond that it wouldn't matter if different spending priorities were needed then because the measure would be expiring that year anyway.
2) I left out the term "disconnected" because (a) it's not relevant to the argument about treating adults as children, (b) it's an extra word, and most importantly (c) the measure implicitly labels ALL 18 to 24 year olds as "Transitional-Aged Youth", whereas only those deemed disadvantaged in some way and therefore eligible for aid are presumably being labeled as "disconnected".
As you can see though, I retained the main themes of what you wrote up, which I thought were well chosen (the inclusion of adults in this "children's fund", and the long timeline for these hands-tying budgetary set-asides).
A Word document with the formatting of the text I sent below is attached.
Hi Starchild. If the word count is OK, then you can leave it in. Otherwise you can drop it because I'm probably the only one in SF that actually read the text of the 52 pages of the ballot measure and "disconnected" pops up a lot there, but even the Ballot Simplification folks left it out of their digest, so it won't have much meaning to others.
Thanks!
Aubrey
Here's one idea to work in a reference to the "disconnected" label. Change this sentence...
Young adults want more bottom-up solutions and reduced barriers to economic participation and entrepreneurship, not more top-down programs.
To read...
Young adults feeling "disconnected" want bottom-up solutions and reduced barriers to entrepreneurship and economic participation, not more top-down programs.
Any preference? The latter is one word longer, but I think it will fit.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
I do agree with you by the way Aubrey that the term "disconnected" is kind of patronizing, but I don't know that there's enough space for me to say anything about it without taking out something else that seems more important to say.
Hmm, not sure about the attachment, maybe it's because I have an older version of MS Word or something... Here's an email sent to you directly, in case the formatting is not showing up as well for you when sent via Yahoo.
Should people up to age 24 be treated as children?
That's the direction sponsors of Proposition C are are headed. The measure labels 18 to 24 year old adults as "Transitional-Aged Youth".
The politicians behind this plan are in "handout" mode now, but labeling people as "Transitional-Aged Youth" could later be used to take away rights of young people.
It's not hard to imagine some future measure restricting persons designated in city programs as Transitional-Aged Youth from fully engaging in "adult" activities.
Let government treat you like a child so you can be eligible for more "free" stuff, and you may soon find them treating you like a child in ways that aren’t so nice.
Treating people like dependent children isn't only risky for those affected. There’s ample reason to doubt whether creating a new category of adults in San Francisco to be dependent on government services is really in the city's best interests.
Restricting the use of taxpayer money for decades to come isn’t such a hot idea either. If Proposition C passes, millions of dollars more will be removed from the discretionary part of the municipal budget. Does anyone really know what the needs of San Francisco or the city's economic situation will be in 2040?
Respect the dignity of young adults in San Francisco. Vote no on Proposition C.
Young adults want more bottom-up solutions and reduced barriers to economic participation and entrepreneurship, not more top-down programs.