We thank you, Starchild for all your work with these arguments,
rebuttals, cross rebuttals, etc.
Regarding the Better Housing Coalition not being able to get on board
because of their approval process (assuming they were not just using
that as an excuse for something), I take that as a lesson learned.
Following rules is good, up to the point that doing so interferes
with action -- at which point an organization must allow its trusted
people (i.e., those with good track records) to bend things a little.
Which brings me to a request: I would like a meeting of the
interested (ExCom plus anyone interested in being there) at 2:30 pm
at the Round Table Pizza on the day of our next meeting September 10.
I am hoping to clarify the purpose of the ExCom in urgent decision
making. We had a little back and forth on that when trying to file
the ballot arguments, and I would hate for us to find ourselves in
the position of the Better Housing Coalition in a future time crunch.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Starchild <sfdreamer@e...>
Thanks, guys. We filed the statement I posted, minus the
Better Housing -- Jack talked to their rep and was told that their
approval process for such an action would take too long to make
appearing as a co-signer feasible, given the short time frame. So
just the LPSF listed alongside the Taxpayers Union, which I think
real coup for us, even if it would have been nice to have more
supporters on board.
Incidentally, Chris Bowman is supporting Proposition F -- as
I take it
are some other local Republicans of note... Unrelated item: Jack
also mentioned that he had lunch with Natalie Berg, a former SF
Democratic Party chair who is on the City College Board of
and that she tried to talk him out of opposing Prop. A, but Jack
"not a chance."
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
> Looks great. Thanks.
> Thanks, Starchild. I like your collaborative work, and the
> sounds fine to me.
> --- In email@example.com, Starchild <sfdreamer@e...>
>> Below is the text I am planning to submit for the rebuttal on
>> Proposition A. It's due at 5pm today, and I'm going to be meeting
>> Davis and possibly a representative from the Coalition for Better
>> Housing at the Elections Department before that to sign for their
>> organizations. The language was mostly written by Barbara
>> I don't think there's anything controversial here for
>> deleted more problematic sentences expressing general support for
>> College and saying we would welcome a less flawed version of this
>> request in the future, and Jack did not argue with me. He seemed
>> willing to sign off on whatever I came up with in order to have
>> Taxpayers Union appear as a co-signer, but I thought it politic
>> most of Barbara's text -- which is generally very good -- and
>> SFTU first billing among the opponents. Let me know ASAP if
>> any comments or suggestions.
>> Yours in liberty,
>> <<< Starchild >>>
>> Proposition A is a Rush Job Not Worthy of City College
>> It is wrong to ask voters to endorse a flawed $246,300,000
>> obligation bond proposal that shows questionable timing, lack of
>> process, and political machinations behind it.
>> Voters approved the $195 million City College Phase I capital
>> improvement bonds in 2001. The projects funded by the voters are
>> nowhere near completion, yet taxpayers are being asked to once
>> dig deep into their pockets for a wish list of projects that were
>> properly reviewed by the Board of Trustees or the public.
>> Newspaper accounts attribute the decidedly premature appearance
>> bond request on this ballot to the mayor's concern that next
>> ballot was already crowded with new bond requests, and
>> City College would not be helpful. City College complied, even
>> two Trustees dissented, refusing to support this last-minute
>> -- one even called it a "back room deal."
>> City College presents an assortment of projects to be funded by
>> bond issuance. The problem is that state law permits the
>> Board of Trustees to reallocate the funds after they are
>> i.e., the projects listed may be funded, or not.
>> No guarantees, only good intentions.
>> We support education, but not the way this bond request was
>> planned, and placed before the voters.
>> Send a message that taxpayers deserve better from their elected
>> Vote NO on Proposition A.
>> San Francisco Taxpayers Union
>> San Francisco Libertarian Party
>> Coalition For Better Housing
> Yahoo! Groups Links
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: