Rebuttals A and AA

Hi All. Here arethe rebuttals for A and AA. I’m waitingfor Starchild to finish up B and then I’m off to the Department of Elections toturn them in on my way to work. Not alot of time for revisions now, so unless there’s something blaringly off on un-Libertarian,they will have to do as is. I neverheard back from Quentin Kopp, even though he indicated he would sign therebuttal on Friday. I sent it to himyesterday morning and also left a voice message, so it will have to go inwithout his endorsement.
The argument in favor ofProposition A merely restates with feeling the list of proposed projects onwhich $350 million will be spent if the bond is approved. It does not discuss need or cost, or suggestthat the use of any building will change. Nor does it discuss why thebond is needed now, or its relation to two similar recent bond measures, the$400 million Earthquake Safety and Emergency Response Bond passed in June 2014or the $412 million Earthquake Safety Bond passed in November 2010. It would be cheaper, simplerand more honest if the city set up an improvement fund from which annualdisbursements for necessary maintenance and upgrades could be made. The city should abandon its preference foraggregating all capital improvements into bond measures creating unnecessaryfuture debt. In addition to theinterest, fees, and administrative costs they involve, bonds encourage inflatedcosts and cost overruns. Vote NO on A. Libertarian Party of SanFrancisco

We take issue with theproponents’ claim that Prop AA has “important fiscal accountabilityprotections.” This measure is the heightof fiscal irresponsibility by the forced extraction of half a billion dollarsfrom the taxpayers without specificprice tags for the jobs to be done. Why are there no cost estimates provided sothe taxpayers can judge what exactly we will be paying for? What accountability is there in place tomeasure how the wetlands have been restored? Since SFBRA serves as adistributor of grants with no specific projects with earmarked funds, cronyismand insider politics will determine how the money is doled out—not fiscalworthiness. Already “non-profits” andorganizations are lined up at SFBRA’s door just waiting for a piece of thelucrative taxpayer pie. This startedalready when SFBRA voted to implement a Project Labor Agreement with the unionBuilding Trades Council mandating union labor on all contracts greater than$100,000 funded by Prop AA. Expect a lotmore feeding at the public trough if AA passes. We also take issue withthe proponents’ claim that AA “will ensure our children and grandchildreninherit a clean and healthy San Francisco.” The only thing we can be absolutely sure of is that we will be paying alot more bureaucrats and consultants. Since SFBRA staff currently have no funding, a Joint Powers Agreementbetween SFBRA and Association of Bay Area Governments specifies reimbursementfor staff services if AA passes. Vote No on AA. Libertarian Party of SanFrancisco


Hi Aubrey,

  Just gave the A and AA rebuttals a quick look-over. I don't think they're bad as-is, but a few minor improvements below if you have time.

Proposition A

  Recommend changing "The city should abandon its preference..." to "City politicians should abandon their preference..." (More properly affixes the blame where it belongs!)

  Also recommend changing "inflated costs and cost overruns" to read "inflated costs and overruns". If there's any extra words left, it would be nice to say something about why bonds encourage these things.

Proposition AA

  This sentence would be punchier without the words "already" ("This started already...") and "union" ("...with the union building Trades Council...") since you mention "union labor" later in the sentence:

This started already when SFBRA voted to implement a Project Labor Agreement with the union Building Trades Council mandating union labor on all contracts greater than $100,000 funded by Prop AA. Expect a lot more feeding at the public trough if AA passes.

  You can use one of the saved words to add a "the" before "Association of Bay Area Governments" in the final sentence. Also, to be consistent and for emphasis should we make the "No" all caps as in our other arguments?

Love & Liberty,
                                ((( starchild )))