Aye,
Françoise
Subject: Re: [lpsf-activists] Report from Dept of Elections
From: “Aubrey Freedman aubreyyfreedman@gmail.com [lpsf-activists]”
<lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sat, August 20, 2016 2:34 am
To: yahoogroups <lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com>Hi All. Thanks everybody for posting your thoughts–I asked for input and I got it! Well, if Les, who is generally not keen to spend money, says go ahead and pay for 3 arguments, then I think we should do it. I would say B (CCSF Parcel Tax) for sure and also V (Sugary Beverage Tax) and W (Real Estate Transfer Tax). Les makes an excellent point that our main benefactor likes to see our arguments in the Voters Handbook, and since he is putting his money where our mouth is, then we should use that money for that purpose when it fights statism and promotes Libertarian common sense. At $200/argument + $2/word, my estimate of the cost is closer to $2,000, if we submit the original arguments as is. We could start editing them and chopping them down as we’ve done in the past, but I think they’re great as is, so I recommend just keeping them intact and not starting with that rewriting business again. Though, on Prop W, I would drop the words “Stop the madness” near the end since I don’t think it adds anything valuable to what is already a great argument–and it saves $6. For Les’ solid argument against the CCSF tax increase, I would just drop the titles at the top and just say Vote NO on B, and then just sign our name Libertarian Party of San Francisco at the end, since its placement in the Voters Handbook will indicate to any voter who can read that this is a paid opposing argument to the measure at hand. Not even sure I would add our website afterwards since it will already be on Prop A, but at $2, it’s not a huge deal.
Starchild, I’m positive you can write an excellent arguments in support of the 16 and 17 year olds voting and the non-citizens voting in School Board elections, so I would encourage you to submit them as an individual. I’m not that opposed to the non-citizens voting in school board elections, but as I mentioned at the meeting, I think it will add extra and unnecessary costs to the voting process, not to mention more possible fraud, due to the necessity of having separate ballots for the non-citizens. For the younger folks voting, I did think of one legitimate argument in favor, which is that the older folks in SF are voting for bonds,debt, and setasides that the younger folks will be stuck with for decades to come, and indeed that is inherently unfair–taxation without representation. However, giving the younger folks the vote when their parents are supporting them and virtually all the taxes they pay comes from their parents–this will encourage more voting for freebies since their parents essentially pay for the goodies. Until kids start working and looking at the deductions on their paystubs and paying the bills themselves, it all sounds groovy.
I forgot to scan the proponents’ argument for A (SFUSD school bond) before I left work, so I will just retype it in the morning and rather than looking around for a scanner. It’s pretty bland and says all the things you would expect them to say, though I thought this sentence was especially pitiful: “Explore methods for developing affordable housing for teachers.” Oy.
Now the Pesky Peskin business. Greg at the DOE confirmed that Peskin did pre-empt B but he just didn’t submit an argument against it. He agreed that it was tacky but is totally legal. Basically we were bluffed. Indeed we will make a big stink about this–after the arguments and rebuttal are submitted on Monday. In fact, if the lines aren’t too long on Monday (Greg warned me it will a zoo on Monday morning), I may just pop over to the SF Ethics Commission afterwards and talk to someone about how to file a complaint about this shenanigan. The other ideas mentioned all sound good–letters to the Editor and also a letter to the DOE, which I can do myself after Monday–but I don’t think complaining to anyone on the BOS would do any good, though I could try Katy Tang, who I met at at a Joel Engardio campaign event and she seemed somewhat reasonable. To be reasonable I will write Peskin myself a short email about the incident and ask him why he didn’t submit an argument–let’s see what he has to say for himself, if he even answers at all. On this one, we will not allow sleeping dogs to lie!
So to summarize, we will submit paid arguments on B, V, and W on Monday morning at a cost of around $2,000 plus the rebuttal on A. Please indicate your Aye, Nay, or additional thoughts.
Thanks!
Aubrey
Posted by: francoise@thefieldingcompanies.com
Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (25) |
- | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
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.
• Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
.