RE: [lpsf-activists] Re: PROPOSED FINAL LANGUAGE (ballot argument contra Prop. B)

mdm2548 · August 14, 2009, 2:44am

Sorry all that I am so late responding. I am on the East Coast and have limited access to email 'cause I didn’t bring my computer. I’m willing to kick in $50 and vote to spend $250 from the kitty.
Best,
Francoise

Subject: [lpsf-activists] Re: PROPOSED FINAL LANGUAGE (ballot argument
contra Prop. B)
From: “Amarcy D. Berry” amarcyb@hotmail.com
Date: Thu, August 13, 2009 5:14 pm
To: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com

Dear Starchild and All,

I know Rob said he would support the LPSF contributing $250. As you all know, as the resident bean counter, I would not. However, if the others in the ExCom “vote” to spend the $250, I will go along.

Marcy

Thanks Marcy, Mike and Rob for your willingness to pitch in. With our
four contributions, and if the LPSF spent $250 as Rob suggested, then
we would only need to raise about $300 more to publish without making
any cuts. Pitching to various lists, that should be do-able.

I fully understand the reservations about signing onto Howard
Epstein’s argument. As a general matter, I am interested in seeing the
LP do more to appeal the left and distinguish ourselves from
Republicans. Nor am I necessarily in favor of signing on; I would want
to make sure the proposed argument was acceptable from a libertarian
perspective, and one we were comfortable with.

Nevertheless, I think it would be unwise to automatically shun
cooperation with anyone whose agenda overlaps with ours and with whom
we might work on a single-issue basis (save perhaps neo-Nazis or
someone equally objectionable). If it matters to anyone, I also don’t
know that the SF GOP would be listed as an organization; it might just
be Epstein (though presumably identified as GOP chair). Besides the
LP’s reputation, there is also of course the fact that we want to
defeat the measure, and showing voters a broader range of opponents
would probably make a favorable outcome slightly more likely.

Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))

Hi Starchild,

Thank you for all the work you did! I am also willing to chip in $50
for an LPSF paid argument. I also would not “vote” for going with
Epstein or anyone else. Also, we could, as Rob suggests cut a few
words, to decrease the $2 per word charge.

Marcy

Good try at getting the free argument. I say the dice were loaded.
But
nothing we can do about that, other than keep track of how often
we have
“bad luck,” and use that to guide us in future years when deciding
whether applying for the free arguments is worth the effort. (If we
plan to do a paid one anyway, submitting it for the free one is
worth
the effort, but the dozen permutations probably aren’t, if it ends
up
that it’s not truly random chance that chooses the free argument.)

First, I’d rather not sign onto Epstein’s. I tend to oppose signing
onto things by other political parties unless it’s something unusual
where it lets us drive home the point that Libertarians aren’t just
ultra-conservative Republicans. This one wouldn’t advance that
goal, IMHO.

As for our paid argument, if we can whittle down the text to 150
words,
I’m willing to chip in $50 of the $500 and will support LPSF putting
$250 toward it.

Rob

Starchild wrote:

[Attachment(s) <#TopText> from Starchild included below]

The fee to publish as a paid argument is approximately $780 ($200,
plus $2 per word). I’ll kick in the $80. Others? Perhaps the
LPSF can

put some money from our treasury toward part of the balance?

Also, do we want to approach Howard Epstein about signing on to
his

official 250-word rebuttal, if he is willing to add the LPSF as
signatories? Let’s discuss.

Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))

How many times will voters have to say NO before this proposal
dies the death it deserves?

In 2000, Supervisors sought voter approval to hire an
additional

aide for each of the eleven Board members at public expense.
Over

62% of San Francisco voters said no.

In 2004, Supervisors tried a stealthier approach, proposing to
eliminate the city charter’s reference to a specific number of
aides. But San Francisco voters saw through the scheme, and
nearly 58% of us rejected it despite the disingenuous language.

Now the stealth approach to hiring more Board staffers is back
again as Proposition B. The Supervisors’ arrogance in putting
such a

measure onto the ballot in these economic circumstances is truly
stunning. Perhaps they are suffering a collective case of
selective

amnesia, and have forgotten that the city budget had a $300
million deficit this year? Perhaps they have already forgotten
the

program cuts, the layoffs, the fee hikes?

According to the San Francisco Examiner’s Melissa Griffin (July
30, 2009), Prop. B was put on this year’s ballot "Because
there are

no supervisor races this year. Supervisors didn’t want
candidates

for the board to have to answer icky questions about this
historically unpopular issue."

According to Controller Ben Rosenfield, Supervisor’s aides are
paid as much as $93,100 a year, and with benefits the total
cost of

the 22 existing aides is approximately $2.3 million a year. This
budget item should if anything be cut, not increased!

The Supervisors themselves make nearly $100,000 a year. If they
want more warm bodies around the office to do their bidding,
let their

generous salaries cover the expense instead of sticking it to
the

People!

Vote NO (again) on Proposition B!

Libertarian Party of San Francisco
Starchild, 2010 candidate for Supervisor, District 8

Well, it seems the dice didn’t go our way. The Elections
Department

tells me that Howard Epstein (local GOP chair) was selected as
the

Prop. B opponent. He got lucky, as I was told he’d only
submitted two

arguments. The opponent on Prop. D is San Francisco Beautiful,
and the

opponent on Prop. D is perennial Republican maverick ballot
argument

filer Terrance Faulkner. Members of the Board of Supervisors
used

their ability to preempt other opponents to take for
themselves the

official opponent designations on the remaining measures.

Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))

Thanks, Rob. Marcy and I submitted 12 copies of our argument,
and I

was told there were also 10 copies of arguments submitted by
other

persons, so we have a slightly better than 50% chance of
having one

of
ours chosen. The lottery takes place at 2 p.m. – cross your
fingers!

Usually there is more time to finish filling out paperwork in
the

office after noon while Elections Dept. staff are processing
submissions, but because this was a very slow election cycle,
we were

not allowed the time to complete as many submissions as I’d
hoped.

Apparently the other ballot measures for which opponent slots
were

available only drew something like one argument each, and the
room

which is normally packed around the deadline on these ballot
argument

submission days was virtually empty while we were there. If
we are

not
selected as the official opponent, I hope some of you will
join me in

pitching in so we can submit it as a paid argument.

Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))

Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: [Switch delivery to Daily Digest](mailto:lpsf-activists-digest@yahoogroups.com?subject=Email Delivery: Digest) | [Switch format to Traditional](mailto:lpsf-activists-traditional@yahoogroups.com?subject=Change Delivery Format: Traditional)
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

Recent Activity

Visit Your Group

Give Back

Yahoo! for Good

Get inspired

by a good cause.

Y! Toolbar

Get it Free!

easy 1-click access

to your groups.

Yahoo! Groups

Start a group

in 3 easy steps.

Connect with others.

.

,.,_