Posted by: “mike@dennz.com” mike@dennz.com
• Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
.
Thanks Mike... I haven't been on top of this, unfortunately.
Here are the measures:
*A*
*City College Job Training, Repair and Earthquake Safety Measure*
* Legal Text (PDF) <https://sfelections.sfgov.org/sites/default/files/Documents/candidates/March2020_CC_Bond.pdf>
*B*
*San Francisco Earthquake Safety and Emergency Response Bond, 2020*
* Legal Text (PDF) <https://sfelections.sfgov.org/sites/default/files/Documents/candidates/NOV2019_EarthquakeSafetyEmergencyResponse_LegalText.pdf>
* Legislative Digest (PDF) <https://sfelections.sfgov.org/sites/default/files/Documents/candidates/NOV2019_EarthquakeSafetyEmergencyResponse_LegislativeDigest.pdf>
*C*
*Retiree Health Care Benefits for Former Employees of the San Francisco Housing Authority*
* Legal Text (PDF) <https://sfelections.sfgov.org/sites/default/files/Documents/candidates/March2020_RetireeHealthBenefits.pdf>
* Legislative Digest (PDF) <https://www.sfelections.org/archive/2020march/M20_3-Legislative_digest.pdf>
*D*
*Vacancy Tax*
* Legal Text (PDF) <https://sfelections.sfgov.org/sites/default/files/Documents/candidates/March2020_ExciseTax_LegalText.pdf>
* Legislative Digest (PDF) <https://www.sfelections.org/archive/2020march/M20_4-Legislative_digest.pdf>
*E*
*Limits on Office Development*
* Title and Summary (PDF) <https://www.sfelections.org/archive/2020march/M20_6-Title_and_summary.pdf>
* Legal Text (PDF) <https://www.sfelections.org/archive/2020march/M20_6-Legal_text.pdf>
Is anyone able and eager to write an argument on one or more of these? It's very close to the deadline, but if someone is willing to do it, I can make sure to get it to the DoE tomorrow.
Nick
Yes, thanks Mike, I forgot about this too, although I should have remembered since it always follows the Ballot Simplification Committee meetings. I did attend one day's meeting of the BSC, where they were discussing the City College "earthquake safety" bond measure, and gave testimony on the proposed language.
I'll review the measures and write up an argument against at least one of them to submit tomorrow. At this point I don't have a strong leaning toward taking on any particular proposal, so if anybody else wants to write something against one specifically, let us know.
How did the LPSF planning meeting go last night? I was unable to make it, as I posted on the Meetup page, but was doing some activism of a sort – I had an oral presentation in Spanish class, for which I talked about the situation in Venezuela and passed out copies of the cover story from the latest issue of Reason with a first-hand account by a Venezuelan expatriate.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Here's an argument I've written up against Prop. A on the March 3rd, 2020 ballot, attached as an MS Word document and copied below.
One potential issue is that they may give us grief on quoting from the union bulletin. I think it's okay as long as we don't name the organization in the ballot argument (pssst! it's AFT Local 2121), but if the Elections Department objects to even the "faculty union" language, I suggest replacing it with "a source the government won't allow us to identify here".
Arguments for the free opposition lottery must be submitted by NOON TODAY (Thursday Dec. 12), so if you have input, speak up ASAP.
Anybody want to take a stab at writing up anything against one of the other four measures on the local March ballot (all bad) this morning? There's another proposed "earthquake safety" bond, this one for the city as a whole rather than City College (Prop. B), a proposed vacancy tax (Prop. D), benefits for retired Housing Authority employees (Prop. C), and a measure tinkering with office development limits (Prop. E).
Barring any changes, I hope the officers will vote to approve submitting this on behalf of the party.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
No On A (City College bond) (46.5 KB)
Upon further examination, I'm thinking we should probably not oppose Proposition E. It appears to be another measure of the variety that provides the opportunity to be exempted from some bad regulations, but attaches all kinds of strings to the exemptions. Certainly nothing to get excited about, but it does apparently offer builders some extra options, and more choice isn't a bad thing even when the choices offered are far from fair or ideal.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Terrific, Starchild. I think it might change a significant number of minds..
Excellent, Starchild. And fast turnaround too! Thanks!Amazing that the gov won't let us quote a statement from the union bulletin!!!!!Françoise
Françoise Fielding, Esq., 820 Stanyan St. #5, San Francisco, CA 94117, 415-386-8643
Terrific, Starchild. I think it might change a significant number of minds.
Here's an argument I've written up against Prop. A on the March 3rd, 2020 ballot, attached as an MS Word document and copied below.
One potential issue is that they may give us grief on quoting from the union bulletin. I think it's okay as long as we don't name the organization in the ballot argument (pssst! it's AFT Local 2121), but if the Elections Department objects to even the "faculty union" language, I suggest replacing it with "a source the government won't allow us to identify here".
Arguments for the free opposition lottery must be submitted by NOON TODAY (Thursday Dec. 12), so if you have input, speak up ASAP.
Anybody want to take a stab at writing up anything against one of the other four measures on the local March ballot (all bad) this morning? There's another proposed "earthquake safety" bond, this one for the city as a whole rather than City College (Prop. B), a proposed vacancy tax (Prop. D), benefits for retired Housing Authority employees (Prop. C), and a measure tinkering with office development limits (Prop. E).
Barring any changes, I hope the officers will vote to approve submitting this on behalf of the party.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
--------------------------------------------------------------According to a faculty union representing teachers at City College, spending on administration has grown to comprise 10% of the school’s personnel costs, up from 7% just five years ago. An October bulletin published by the union describes howstudents, teachers and community members recently had to “push back on exorbitant raises” for top administrators, “including a proposal to compensate Associate Vice Chancellors at $275K/yr.” According to this bulletin, the administrative raises “were not properly vetted” by the Board of Trustees or the public. New salary scales were just “quietly posted to the CCSF website.” Packing budgets with unjustified expenditures of this sort has long been standard operating procedure for those in power. They scratch each other’s backs, then complain they are under-funded and cook up proposals asking voters to raise taxes and rents in order to provide them with yet more money. Of course we the public never see anything on our ballots proposing, in plain English, to pay City College officials $275,000 salaries. Unpopular spending like that is done with as little visibility as possible. Instead, measures like Proposition A are marketed to us as necessary to fund priorities that their polling tells them the public considers important and deserving, like “earthquake safety”. They do this confident in the knowledge thatfew voters have any detailed information about how money actually ends up getting spent, and so-called “citizens oversight committees” are made up of people appointed by government officials, who rarely ever act as whistleblowers. When was the last time you heard about such a committee holding any officials accountable for waste, corruption, or spending that wasn’t included in the description of a ballot measure you voted for? Wesay don’t raise taxes and rents, cut administrator salaries! Vote NO on Proposition A. Libertarian Party of San FranciscoLPSF.org--------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, thanks Mike, I forgot about this too, although I should have remembered since it always follows the Ballot Simplification Committee meetings. I did attend one day's meeting of the BSC, where they were discussing the City College "earthquake safety" bond measure, and gave testimony on the proposed language.
I'll review the measures and write up an argument against at least one of them to submit tomorrow. At this point I don't have a strong leaning toward taking on any particular proposal, so if anybody else wants to write something against one specifically, let us know.
How did the LPSF planning meeting go last night? I was unable to make it, as I posted on the Meetup page, but was doing some activism of a sort – I had an oral presentation in Spanish class, for which I talked about the situation in Venezuela and passed out copies of the cover story from the latest issue of Reason with a first-hand account by a Venezuelan expatriate.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Thanks Mike... I haven't been on top of this, unfortunately.
Here are the measures:
A
> City College Job Training, Repair and Earthquake Safety Measure
- Legal Text (PDF)
>
B
> San Francisco Earthquake Safety and Emergency Response Bond, 2020
- Legal Text (PDF)
- Legislative Digest (PDF)
>
C
> Retiree Health Care Benefits for Former Employees of the San Francisco Housing Authority
- Legal Text (PDF)
- Legislative Digest (PDF)
>
D
> Vacancy Tax
- Legal Text (PDF)
- Legislative Digest (PDF)
>
E
> Limits on Office Development
- Title and Summary (PDF)
- Legal Text (PDF)
>
Is anyone able and eager to write an argument on one or more of these? It's very close to the deadline, but if someone is willing to do it, I can make sure to get it to the DoE tomorrow.
Nick
Most excellent....
Mike
Great work. Thank you for jumping on this and getting it out there. I'm definitely in support of submitting it!
I can take this down to the DoE today. Give me a call if you have any last minute concerns (and are still awake!)
Thanks again
Nick
Appreciate everyone's appreciation! Hopefully we will win the lottery on it. I'm guessing fewer people were paying attention to ballot arguments this cycle, given the seasonal timing and the presidential election maybe sucking air out of the room, and that our chances will therefore be good, but I could be wrong.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Well, turns out I was too optimistic. The Republicans evidently also submitted an argument against Prop. A, as they were selected for the opposition slot. And there were no arguments submitted against Prop. B (the city-wide earthquake bond) or Prop. C (Housing Authority retiree benefits), which is a shame:
https://sfelections.sfgov.org/measures
We can still submit what I wrote on Monday as a paid argument as we've done with other measures in the past, if people think it's worth spending the money. I'm for it, unless someone has a better idea for the funds. We can afford it, and as Nick recently noted, they aren't advancing liberty just sitting in the bank.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
I vote for submitting it as a paid argument.Françoise
Françoise Fielding, Esq., 820 Stanyan St. #5, San Francisco, CA 94117, 415-386-8643
Hey officers, are we going to do this? Paid ballot arguments are due by noon today.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))