My vote would be to spend the money on “B” (the CCSF parcel tax) and “W”.
I also liked Phil’s argument against “I” and I don’t remember any arguments about it but perhaps that took place behind the scenes?
I agree that “V” will have a lot of other arguments but it it likely to pass and I don’t think that our argument, as good as it is, is going to make a difference.
Aubrey, thanks for briefing us about what happened, and staying on top of this. Would love to know what the deal was with Peskin.
Subject: Re: [lpsf-activists] Report from Dept of Elections
From: “Aubrey Freedman email@example.com [lpsf-activists]”
Date: Fri, August 19, 2016 12:57 am
To: yahoogroups <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Hi Mike, Starchild, and All. Thanks to everyone who helped out on the arguments. I think we pretty much covered all the major ballot measures and I was proud of what we turned in today. I was not able to hang around the house long enough to wait for the edit of Prop C (Changing Bond from a government loan program to affordable housing acquisition) because one has to allow for parking problems and TSA treatment at City Hall, and I couldn’t take a chance of missing the ball on all the measures.
Looking at the results on the DOE website, I am extremely upset about Prop B, the CCSF parcel tax increase and extension. Last Friday I called the DOE and discussed the pre-empting business with one of the folks there. With the limited resources we have, I hate to have our people spend time writing a beautiful argument and then you get down to the DOE and find out that they won’t accept the argument because it was pre-empted by one of the politicians (this happened a year ago), so I checked with him as to how to find out if a measure has been pre-empted. He definitely told me that if someone is listed under the Opponent column, then it’s pre-empted and that’s that. I checked “Local Ballot Measure Status” the morning of last Saturday’s meeting and was surprised to see Peskin’s name listed as the Opponent on 4 different measures, especially the sales tax increase measure and the CCSF parcel tax. I remember that Mike kidded at the meeting that maybe Peskin opposed the sales tax measure because it wasn’t high enough. So I told Les (who had spent time writing an argument against the CCSF tax because he just “loves” that school) to forget us submitting it for the free argument but to hang on to it because we might still use it as a paid argument. So we didn’t bother to submit anything against this measure today.
When I checked their website tonight, Prop B (CCSF tax) had no opponent argument submitted. What happened to Peskin? In fact his name is nowhere to be found on any of the measures except perhaps Prop C as a proponent. Was this a shenanigan? Errors on the part of the Dept of Elections? Seems unlikely they could goof on that many measures. At any rate, what’s done is done, but I will call the DOE tomorrow morning and get to the bottom of what happened for my own peace of mind, as well as future submissions. We cannot pass up the free argument on an important issue, and that “temporary” CCSF paracel tax needs a loud voice against it. I think we definitely should submit a paid argument on this one–and it kills me to pay good Libertarian money for what should have cost us nothing. Please advise your thoughts on this. If there is a consensus, then I will ask Les to post it on the Activist List, and we will submit it on Monday morning.
Now should we submit another paid argument? This will cost us another $500, but our coffers our good, and this is a good year for Libertarians, so I am leaning towards recommending a second paid argument as a good investment. We have strong arguments already written for V (Sugary Beverage Tax) and W (Real Estate Transfer Tax), so both are good candidates for submission. V will probably have other paid arguments against it, so it will stand out less, but then again the vote was close last time, so our argument might help to get folks to vote NO and turn the tide. On W fewer groups will oppose it because in SF you’re supposed to hate the rich, so our argument will get more exposure, but I think it’s a shoo-in to pass. Prop I (Dignity Fund) had a great argument, but there were already hard feelings regarding the editing, so let’s just leave that one alone. There was also talk of submitting paid arguments in favor of non-citizens voting in school board elections and 16 and 17-year olds voting in municipal elections, but there was nothing even close to consensus on either measure, so we should skip those measures as paid arguments but can engage the conversation again when we make our final recommendations for the remaining ballot measures that we didn’t have time to finish up last Saturday. Please advise your thoughts on a second paid argument.
I will post the proponent argument of A (school bond) when I get my hands on it tomorrow, and I am happy to write the rebuttal over the week-end, unless someone else prefers to do it. I will get the rebuttal from Wendy for the BART bond and post it also.
Again thanks to the helpers–you were great!
Posted by: email@example.com
Have you tried the highest rated email app?
With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage.