That’s really good, Starchild!
Subject: [lpsf-activists] Prop. A housing bond argument
From: “Starchild sfdreamer@earthlink.net [lpsf-activists]”
<lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Thu, August 13, 2015 6:17 am
To: LPSF Activist List <lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com>Okay, here’s my stab at this. I decided to give up on the corruption angle this time around and save the juicy quotes from the Raymond “Shrimp Boy” Chow case for some other argument where they might be a better fit.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))Ever notice how “Proposition A” is never a citizen initiative, always a proposal by those in power to let them borrow and spend more money?
That’s because research has shown voters are slightly more likely to say yes to “A” than to other letters (who knows why; perhaps our classroom days have subconsciously programmed us to like A’s?). But assigning that letter to their favorite measures is a little trick the politicians use to stack the deck in their favor.
This year’s Prop. A is typical: They want to spend $310 million on something government is poorly qualified to provide. (Ever notice how “public housing projects” tend to degenerate into neglect and disrepair and become hotspots for crime?) Ironically, it’s largely government regulations that have made San Francisco housing unaffordable in the first place, by making it difficult and expensive to build anything here.
As usual, this Prop. A says nothing about maintenance – even though the Citizens’ General Obligation Bond Oversight Committee’s last annual report clearly stated*,“all future general obligation bond proposals should include an analysis of the increase or decrease in annual maintenance costs related to each project and the ongoing implications of these costs.”*
(The committee’s report further warns, “The ramifications of investing taxpayer money in capital projects without simultaneously planning for their continued viability are sobering.”)
It’s hard to tell exactly how the $310 million would be spent. We’re teased with a laundry list of causes toward which bond money “may” be allocated, but only “shall” counts in legalese!
The measure would be more justifiable if it were honestly about helping the poor. But subsidizing people making up to $150,000, with part of any property tax increase getting passed along to tenants who mainly earn far less than that?!
Vote NO on Proposition A!
Libertarian Party of San Francisco
Posted by: francoise@thefieldingcompanies.com
Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (2) |
- | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
• Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
.