I’ll contribute $100. Check will go in mail tomorrow.
Françoise
Subject: Re: [lpsf-activists] LPSF election recommendations postcard
(DRAFT)
From: “Aubrey Freedman aubreyfreedman@yahoo.com [lpsf-activists]”
<lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sun, October 04, 2015 2:46 am
To: “lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com” <lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com>Hi Marcy and Starchild. How I did it last time was sort the listing from the Department of Elections going back one election at a time starting from the most recent one with registered Libertarians who voted and then going back another election and then another getting the list smaller and smaller to fit into the budgeted amount. I will not submit more than $100 for reimbursement. I usually go over the budgeted amount by about $20 or more (I donate the difference myself) once I get a nice relatively small list of those most likely to vote Libertarian; it seems to me it was around 250 last year. I usually include a few of our allies from our other liberty groups if they live in The City and I know they vote, even though they may not be Big L. Last year I did it more scientifically than previous years using this method and concentrating on the HPV folks, and I think we had less than 5 postcards returned, so I consider the time invested in working with the DOE list worth the effort. I don’t see any point to send it the media outlets, since they are hopelessly leftist and will toss it in the trash can the moment they see the dreaded “L” on it. However, I will send one to Elreportero, unless there are major objections, because I know Marvin (the editor) will take a look at it and see what we have to say about the propositions and why.
Starchild, if you could send me the postcard in PDF format and also upload it to the Click2Mail site in my account (you have the password), that would be great. This is the first time we’re doing it this way, and once the mail list is finalized, I want to submit the whole thing and get it on its way without unexpected problems. Early voting starts on Monday, so time is of the essence.
By the way, my Voters Handbook arrived in the mail today, and I was happy to check out our 4 paid arguments in there. They look great and are definitely worth every penny. I particularly enjoyed Prop F’s ending sentence: “This regulation needs repeal, not expansion.” As expected, no one other than Faulkner and the LPSF would have the nerve to oppose B, and his opposing argument to B was a little strange. Not many surprises in my quick perusal of the arguments, except that I was disappointed to see Quentin Kopp, who is usually good on the issues, submit a paid argument for F. Also a bit of humor: in support of J (legacy businesses), one of the paid arguments mentioned Etta James, Janis Joplin, Jerry Garcia, Mark Twain, and Jack Kerouac as if the taxpayer money dolled out to the nominated businesses was going to help these celebrated and deceased icons from the past.
Thanks!
Aubrey
From: “Marcy Berry amarcyb@hotmail.com [lpsf-activists]” <lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com>
To: “lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com” <lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2015 2:56 PM
Subject: RE: [lpsf-activists] LPSF election recommendations postcard (DRAFT)Huuuummmm…Don’t know. I guess the HPVs Aubrey had in mind. I guess we need some figures from Aubrey. The Click2Mail website says 1000 4.25 x 6 postcards “printed on both sides” (don’t know what that means) would cost $502; $0.218 each for printing and $0.284 each for postage.
Marcy
To: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
From: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 13:51:32 -0700
Subject: Re: [lpsf-activists] LPSF election recommendations postcard (DRAFT)It would seem a question is how many “high-propensity voters” there are, according to whichever definition we’re going by (voted in last election? last 2 elections?) If $100 is to cover mailing to those folks, we can extrapolate to determine what it would cost to mail to all the registered Libertarians in SF (unless there’s a better bulk mailing discount we might qualify for or something). Media outlets, let’s say 50 of those (I have 67 in my address book, but may not have physical addresses for all; some may be outdated, others undoubtedly need adding).
Love & Liberty
((( starchild )))We had decided on high-propensity voters to keep costs reasonable. We also voted on $100. Sounds too little but that is what went into the minutes. To change any of that we would need some estimate of cost.
Marcy
Thanks, Aubrey…
Well, we’re now at 2,872 registered Libertarians in SF (http://www.sfelections.org/tools/election_data/), so looks like we’ve gained a few in the past couple weeks!
What I sent as an attachment was just a screenshot saved as a jpeg (.jpg) file – I’m surprised you had trouble opening that. Shall I try sending it to you as a PDF, or what? Sending it to you seems like a better plan than me trying to upload it to the Click2Mail site and then counting on you being able to access and use what I’ve uploaded there.
Was the plan to only send to high-propensity LP voters? I thought we were sending to all the registered Libertarians whose mail hasn’t bounced back on previous mailings, but maybe I’m mis-recollecting? I would also suggest it would be worthwhile to spend the money to send the postcard to every local media outlet for whom we can have a mailing address, assuming that adding additional addresses to the list of addresses from the Elections Dept. that you upload to Click2Mail isn’t too difficult. In addition to more eyeballs, it could help get us more media contacts and press coverage.
On the Prop. B argument, arguing against excessive generosity to government employees relative to those in the voluntary sector is certainly a valid point, but my sense is it will not appeal to SF voters as much as emphasizing the discrimination angle.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))Hi Marcy and Starchild. Thanks, Starchild, for your amazing work on the postcard. All the political groups in town send out recommendation cards for their members, but no one squeezes the reasons (and good ones too) into the postcard. The postcard is chock full of interesting comments on the political nonsense going on in The City today. On B, by the way, I would have just said that the voluntary sector does not normally offer such a generous fringe benefit to its workers, so why should government workers get it; but I’m OK with your angle and would not change it either.
Thanks, Marcy, for your additional thoughts on the K wording and I am happy with the compromise language.
Starchild, can you please upload your postcard into the Click2Mail site under my account or just send it to me in a different form? I don’t want to lose it after all your hard work! The version you posted—I was not able to open it on my computer. I got an updated registration listing from the Department of Elections yesterday and will come up with a list of high propensity Libertarian voters for our mailing. By the way, as of 09/14/15, there are 2,858 registered Libertarians in SF, a very slight increase but in terms of increasing city population probably right in line with our usual percentage.
Thanks!
AubreyFrom: “Marcy Berry amarcyb@hotmail.com [lpsf-activists]” <lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com>
To: “lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com” <lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, October 2, 2015 3:24 PM
Subject: RE: [lpsf-activists] LPSF election recommendations postcard (DRAFT)Hi Starchild,
You and I don’t agree on much, but I am always very appreciative of your reading my comments carefully and addressing where you agree and disagree. Thank you.
I will change the wording as noted by end of day today.
I actually agree with your assessment of the word “collapse.” Maybe this word connotes something sinister, but the event it describes is simply, as you indicate, a natural fall in prices.
Regarding the “shortage” debate, I love this article by Murray Rothbard on the “water shortage.” His contention is that there is no such thing as a shortage, other than that created artificially. https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/12/murray-n-rothbard/water-shortage/
Oh good. I got the reaction I was aiming for regarding the Margaret Sanger jab. What do you think Ms. Sanger was saying: There is no shortage of people! BTW, I was not suggesting we change anything in the wording.
See you tomorrow at Free Exchange.
Marcy
To: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
From: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 14:25:30 -0700
Subject: Re: [lpsf-activists] LPSF election recommendations postcard (DRAFT)Mike and Marcy,
Thank you for your kind words.
Marcy, your suggested language for the end of the Prop. K statement on the website works for me. Certainly I agree that government-subsidized housing – which many in SFBARF don’t seem to have a problem with, but I do – is not what we want built, and that this approach is not economically sound, even setting aside the unjust means of stealing money from other people used to accomplish it.
You say Dan Christman is a “former LPSF member”? I don’t recall hearing that he left, although now that you mention it I realize it’s been a while since I’ve seen or heard from him. That’s too bad.
I think the term “housing collapse” (how you describe the outcome of what you call “Scenario #1”) is a bit hyperbolic though. A natural collapse in prices resulting from increased supply bringing down prices does not seem to me to justify the use of such a term. I mean, when lots of people start selling some other product, and it becomes relatively inexpensive and affordable as a result, we don’t normally refer to this situation as a “collapse” of that product. Maybe a “collapse in prices”, but I would argue that is a good thing on the whole – it means lower cost of living. While I realize that for some people who own their homes they are investment assets or sources of equity, first and foremost homes are places to live, and right now the situation is such that many people have great difficulty affording what most people tend to see as a basic necessity of life, and many thousands of people in this city alone are living homeless on the streets.
I would also quibble that the housing shortage in SF has not been “non-existent” until recently. Even back in the '90s when I was looking for a rental, people were talking about the difficulty of finding decent, affordable apartments. It’s just gotten much worse. You’re certainly right that the government housing restrictions have not been without a good deal of popular support (the same could be said for government welfare, police abuses, etc.), but government has unquestionably been the vehicle by which the NIMBYs have been able to interfere with other people’s rights to develop their property.
Regarding the Prop. B language, I’m amused by the Margaret Sanger reference, though I’m not sure I quite get it. Surely I said nothing suggesting eugenics, only that there’s no shortage of people and thus no need to subsidize people who choose to have kids (any more than there is to subsidize them to have homes, less in fact since there actually is a housing shortage.) What do you think is wrong with the current phrasing, or how would you phrase it?
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))Fabulous job….thank you.
Mike
Hi Aubrey, Starchild, and All,
Best postcard we ever had, I think (except maybe for the Margaret Sanger-type reason for No on B). Hope you guys can get it out ASAP.
Regarding the wording of Proposition K, here are some points I am suggesting we consider, not only regarding Prop K, but regarding our general view of the housing situation:
- The City is dealing with two distinct scenarios.
Scenario #1 is what the current wording on K on the website tried to convey: We are not creating “affordable” housing, we are creating “subsidized” housing. Such generous subsidies, now extended to the middle class with the advent of last year’s Prop K and this year’s Props A and K, will attract a continual stream of newcomers. The website wording leaves out what a more extensive article on the subject would contain: A “supply/demand” balance can be achieved under such scenario – when the value of housing in the City starts declining due to the negative effects of taxes supporting the subsidies, crowding, stretched municipal services, scarcity of water, and pollution. At that point, newcomers stop coming and current residents who can afford to do so start leaving.
Scenario #2 is what Starchild’s wording reflects: Housing is a commodity and therefore subject to the principles of “supply/demand.” What this wording leaves out is a) supply/demand as libertarians interpret this principle is a function of the free market, and b) housing is not entirely a commodity. The City’s housing is not a free market due to heavy subsidies. Housing is not entirely a commodity because of its wide variety; regular wheat, for example, is a commodity, since every grain is like every other grain. True, the City has restricted housing growth during the last few decades. But the “shortage” was non-existent, until there was a political decision to dole out tax breaks to tech companies, and at the same time dole out generous housing subsidies. So, perfect storm.
- The “Just Build” faction of the housing movement will bring about the conclusion in Scenario #1.
I thank Dan Christman (former LPSF member) for pointing out back in June what Sonja briefly touched upon during her presentation a couple of weeks ago before the Older Women’s League: One of the ultimate objectives of building until demand is satisfied is bringing about a real estate collapse – the most effective way of having really affordable housing. I doubt that LPSF would like to promote such an outcome. But maybe we do. We never discussed it.
- So, here is my take on Prop K recommendation:
I do object to us pretending Scenario #1 does not exist, to our falling for the “affordable” language when what we really have at present is “subsidy,” and to our ignoring that supply/demand as we interpret the principle applies to free markets absent in the City. I also question that it is “government” that has single-handedly imposed restrictions in growth, without input from residents of neighborhoods attempting to prevent the outcome in Scenario #1.
However, I agree that saying that “there will never be enough housing to bring prices down or enough taxpayer money to fund subsidies” confuses the issue by leaving too many variables unexplained.
I offer a compromise language that blends both Scenario #1 and Scenario #2. Hopefully, I am correct that LPSF is opposed to housing subsidies and not afraid to say so, especially subsidies of the magnitude inherent in Props K and A. If I am incorrect, please advise me. Here is what I suggest as a last sentence to the Prop K recommendation:
“So city government must not stand in the way of housing growth as it has done for the last few decades, contributing to today’s sky-high prices. As long as there are restrictions to housing supply, there will never be enough taxpayer money to fund subsidies sufficient to bridge the gap between affordable and unaffordable. Natural growth, free of the heavy subsidies inherent not only in Proposition K, but also in Proposition A, would accomplish a more realistic outcome.”
Marcy
To: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com; lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com; libertarian-370@meetup.com
From: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 08:31:26 -0700
Subject: [lpsf-activists] LPSF election recommendations postcard (DRAFT) [1 Attachment][Attachment(s) from Starchild included below] Aubrey was over here till after 230am helping work on this, and then like a fool I stayed up several more hours tinkering with it instead of getting to sleep! Never could quite find the skyline graphic I was looking for, etc. But I think it’s at least an improvement, and manages to pack in a lot of info (the printed area should go just about to the edges of the 6" x 4.25" postcard) although anyone who uses reading glasses may well need them for the details!
Anyway, let me know if you see any mistakes or have other feedback. And if there are any real graphic artists in the house who want to help out with this next year (or lend a hand with the website or other projects, for that matter), by all means give us a holler!
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Yahoo Groups Links
Yahoo Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-activists/<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-activists/join
(Yahoo! ID required)<*> To change settings via email:
lpsf-activists-digest@yahoogroups.com
lpsf-activists-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<*> Your use of Yahoo Groups is subject to:
https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/
Posted by: francoise@thefieldingcompanies.com
Check out the automatic photo album with 1 photo(s) from this topic.
• Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
.