RE: [lpsf-activists] Disappointing news on ballot measures

I’m in for $200. Will send check to LPSF mailbox tomorrow.
Agree with Aubrey about A and J but will go along with whatever you all decide since I will be out of town.

Subject: Re: [lpsf-activists] Disappointing news on ballot measures
From: “Aubrey Freedman [lpsf-activists]”
Date: Fri, August 14, 2015 8:07 am
To: “” <>,
LPSF Discussion List <>
Cc: Jane Greenwald <>

Hi All. Yes, it was disappointing, but a heartfelt thanks to Starchild, Jawj, and Marcy for giving it our all this time around. We’ve been lucky in recent years, but I guess our luck ran out yesterday. They did have a new “streamlined” procedure at the Dept. of Elections which didn’t seem to work that well, but as Starchild noted the new manager there gave everyone equally a hard time if their paperwork wasn’t in order. Interesting that the group right next to us was already submitting their rebuttal arguments yesterday before all the arguments were in, but we’ve seen this happen before–so much for intellectual honesty. No wonder the rebuttal arguments in the Voters Handbook are often just a rehash of what they wrote in the proponent’s argument.

OK, on to Plan B. We discussed this briefly in last week’s meeting. We should try to submit at least one, maybe two paid arguments on Monday morning. Our cash position is stable and can withstand one paid argument from our coffers, and if we can scrape up enough, we should submit two. At least the cost has not changed over the years since we last submitted a paid argument: 100 words will cost $400, 150 words will cost $500, and 200 words will cost $600. We can squeeze out a pithy argument from the great arguments that we already have.

Since late afternoon yesterday when it became apparent that we didn’t win the lottery, I’ve been thinking about which would be the best measures to submit on. We have to consider not only the worst statist measures, but also the likelihood of our arguments being read if they’re stuck in the back of the measure in pages of paid arguments. Our best bang for our limited bucks is a measure or two with not much opposition. They would seem to exclude F (short-term rentals) and I (Mission moratorium), since those measures are likely to have lots of arguments on both sides. (On the other hand, passage of each of those measures is iffy, so perhaps our opposition could help to defeat them.) Looking at the bad measures with less opposition, that leaves A (housing bond), B (unpaid leave), J (legacy businesses), and K (surplus land). J is particularly disgusting, so I favor that one, and A comes in a close second. B will pass no matter what we say since the voters will not want to be anti-children or anti-parents. K is complicated and the policy of providing housing for the homeless has already been in place for years and unlikely to go away in this statist environment.

Marcy, if you can please put out a call for donations for paid arguments on the Announce List, that would be great. I will check the mailbox tomorrow for checks since I already mentioned Plan B in the newsletter last month. However, there were none when I checked two weeks ago, so most likely that will yield nothing tomorrow. I’ll put up the first $50 for two paid pithy ballot measure arguments.

Please advise your thoughts on submitting paid arguments and the priority of measures if we only submit one.


From: “‘ [lpsf-activists]” <>” <>
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 5:57 PM
Subject: RE: [lpsf-activists] Disappointing news on ballot measures


From: []
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 5:38 PM
To:; LPSF Discussion List; Libertarian SF Meetup
Subject: RE: [lpsf-activists] Disappointing news on ballot measures

Thank you to all of you for the work you did researching and writing and getting it to the Elections Dept. on time.
Subject: [lpsf-activists] Disappointing news on ballot measures
From: “Starchild sfdreamer@earthlink.netmailto:[]( [lpsf-activists]”
Date: Thu, August 13, 2015 3:58 pm
To: LPSF Activist List <lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.commailto:[](>, LPSF Discussion
List <lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.commailto:[](>, Libertarian SF Meetup

We had prepared 6 arguments today (5 in the name of the LPSF, and 1 signed by me as an individual), 2 against Prop. A and 1 each against Prop. B, Prop. F, Prop. J, and Prop. K. When we got to the Elections Department though, we found out the opponent argument on Prop. F had been preempted by the mayor, so we had to scrap that one right off the bat.

The rest Aubrey and I got submitted okay, after Jawg who’d met us at City Hall to pick up some supplies from Aubrey made a heroic run to the library to print off a Chronicle article from the Internet when the Elections Department manager demanded we supply hard copy of the contents of a link I used in one of the arguments (something they hadn’t demanded in the past).

But looking a little while ago, I see that none of our arguments won the lottery. GOP gadfly Terence Faulkner on the other hand really lucked out and got four – A, B, C, and H. Chris Bowman, another local Republican activist who stopped by our meeting Saturday didn’t get any either – unless he’s associated with a group called SF Taxpayers Association which I’ve never heard of. That group got the opponent arguments for Props. J and K. All the other slots were preempted by the mayor or one of the Supervisors, who get first dibs on being official opponents of a measure, except for the opponent slot on Prop. D, which went to the Sierra Club.

The drawing was filmed live at the Elections Department, presumably at 2pm, but apparently they were having technical difficulties, because about 10 minutes into the video the picture and sound get all screwed up before they even started the drawing, so the video ( is basically worthless to see what happened. They did publish the results here:

It’s really a shame, as we had some excellent arguments and I was expecting we’d probably get one or two selected.

Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))

Yahoo Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo Groups is subject to:

Posted by:

Visit Your Group

Yahoo! Groups
PrivacyUnsubscribeTerms of Use


Hi Francoise and All. Thanks for the donation. I think it's safe to proceed with the intent to submit two rather short paid arguments against the housing bond and the legacy businesses on Monday morning. I propose to cap the LPSF's contribution to the effort at no more than $500. Starchild, you're in charge of crowdfunding, which I think is a great idea, but I'm concerned about the short amount of time left before submission. If you can raise more that way, then we can write more elaborate arguments. I'll be quite happy to get something in against those two measures in the Voters Handbook. I'm going to set a deadline of 2:00 AM Monday morning to get this all accomplished since I cannot allocate another chunk of the work day on Monday just to turn in the arguments. I plan to just drop them off at the Dept. of Elections with payment and then head off to work no later than 9:00 AM.
In the meantime, I will take a stab tonight at culling the most pertinent parts of Marcy's A and J arguments for submission as shorter arguments. Marcy, do you prefer to do this yourself, since you were the author? Starchild, knowing how you are with words, I won't touch yours! Every word counts since the payment formula is $200 + $2.00/word--the shorter the better, but we still want to be as convincing as possible.

Hi Aubrey,

Regarding the revision for A and J, I can revise and email to you this afternoon. I know, when money is involved, we are faced with a bigger challenge to really say what counts!


Hi again Aubrey,

I just realized I am confused. Are you saying to revise A and J? That makes two. How about Starchild's? So are we submitting three? Or are you preparing three in case we receive a lot of donations between now and Monday?


Hi Aubrey,

You asked if I wanted to revise my original arguments to submit as paid ones. I hope these two revisions help, since it looks like you have your hands more than full.

I have modified from the original free arguments a little, based on what I heard the most griping about at the meeting on Tuesday.

I have pasted them below and attached them in PDF. They are both 100 words = $200 fee + $200 fee + $200 for words + $200 for words = $800. Seems like we have that amount right now, since I am also giving $50.

However, as I said, I am not clear if you wanted to file 3 arguments for $800. If so we are talking about 33 words for each argument. Each about the size of these 3 sentences.

Let me know if I need to cut my arguments down to file more arguments, give them to you in another format, etc. Also, when copying and pasting the spacing gets all messed up. If unreadable, I will resend.


Proposition A Housing Bonds:

Vote No on Proposition A.
Even if the City’s economic boom ends, taxpayers have to pay
bondholders principal and interest on the bonds, regardless of the money left
to pay for basic services.

Voters are giving the City permission to go way beyond
legitimate uses of bonds, including permission to provide subsidized housing to
“middle-income households.” That
includes households making $150,000 per year.

It costs around $700,000 to build one housing unit. $310,000,000 builds only 443 units. Estimated cost of debt service for those few units
reaches $26,700,000 by 2021.

High cost and little benefit!

Libertarian Party of San Francisco

I'm in for $50.


suggested end to prop J , I will pay for the additional words.

This measure attempts to conserve business. Since when did progressive San francisco become Conserv-ative?

Hi Aubrey,

I took you up on your suggestion to insert 25 more words.

I used the extra words for Prop A. My guess is this is likely to pass unless there is a lot of good opposition to it. But what kind of opposition? The way I see it everything we view as horrible, the proponents have a pat answer for. Subsidies for households making $150,000? Only fair, since we need to spread the wealth around! Bonds are high cost? No problem, since they are only replacing maturing bonds now on the books. Only a few units being build with these bonds? Mayor Lee has promised us more later on. So, best I could do was to list some downsides in 8th grade reading level as the DOE instructs, and hope some of it sinks in.


Nicely guys are terrific.


Oops. I just saw this suggestion after I posted the revision. Sure!! I am totally fine with paid-for additions!

Aubrey, is there a way you can make the addition or do you need me to re-do the PDF?


That's great, Mike. Thank you. That's worth 25 more words. Maybe you or Aubrey or anyone could add 25 words they feel really need to be said to either proposition? If not, I can do it tomorrow afternoon.


I trust you completely. Go for it.

Maybe you guys, Phil or Jawj have something to say. So far so good.



Thanks Mike and Phil. Marcy, why don't you wait until tomorrow afternoon and then finalize them once and for all? The way things are going (which is a good thing), you may be back to your original arguments! No need to send the PDF--I can just copy and paste it from your copy and paste and then fix it in Word.


Unfortunately on further reflection I don't think using the crowdfunding sites will work for this, because of the election rules. I recall that the paid arguments always have that language about the "true source of funds" and reporting requirements to go with that.

  I'd be happy to see us run either of the arguments I wrote (I have no strong preference for one over the other). If we don't have enough funds to run one in its entirety, please let me know how many words can be accommodated and I'll try to edit accordingly.

Love & Liberty,
                                ((( starchild )))