URGENT - Re: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Charges-of-Nixonian-trickery-in-S-F-waterfront-5319210.php

Activists List
1

Yes, thanks for bringing this to our attention Francoise! I am troubled by the context in which we are mentioned here, for the reasons outlined in the letter below. If there are no objections, I am going to fire this letter off on our behalf to John and the SFGate editors requesting them to make corrections:

2

Hi Starchild,

Thanks for your concern. I totally disagree with your view point and approach to this article. Besides, I am supposed to be the little old lady curmudgeon in this group, not you. However, I am also for not curbing the free expression of group members unless they state an untruth. Therefore, I am not registering an objection.

Marcy

3

Hi Starchild and Marcy! I just read the article and some of the comments after it. Thanks for taking advantage, Starchild, of the opportunity to express some Libertarian suggestions for less government in the Comments section. The letter is fine, and to be quite honest, the publicity will definitely do us good, and I do agree with your point that the article should have been more clear that our 40 arguments, not 50, were nothing out of the ordinary from what happens every voting cycle and perfectly within the rules, strange as they are. Please go ahead and send it.

Thanks!
Aubrey

Hi Starchild,

Thanks for your concern. I totally disagree with your view point and approach to this article. Besides, I am supposed to be the little old lady curmudgeon in this group, not you. However, I am also for not curbing the free expression of group members unless they state an untruth. Therefore, I am not registering an objection.

Marcy

Yes, thanks for bringing this to our attention Francoise! I am troubled by the context in which we are mentioned here, for the reasons outlined in the letter below. If there are no objections, I am going to fire this letter off on our behalf to John and the SFGate editors requesting them to make corrections:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hi John,

Just got done reading your piece about Jon Golinger, the campaign chair for the waterfront heights limit measure Proposition B, filing a disingenuous ballot argument against the measure. Maybe it was only a matter time until something like this happened. The way the rules are set up allowing people to get one chance in the lottery per argument submitted even if the wording is only minimally changed from other copies of the same argument they have submitted is kind of bizarre. Even worse is how elected officials have the power to automatically supersede other voters when filing arguments. Sitting members of the Board of Supervisors should never be allowed to file ballot arguments in my opinion, unless they are filing in the unlimited paid arguments category that won't result in someone else getting bumped -- they already have the ability as Board members to introduce legislation, and the mayor has an even bigger soapbox. Official proponent and opponent

arguments should be reserved for non-elected members of the public.

4

Thanks Marcy and Aubrey, done! Marcy, you can be the curmudgeon, and I'll be the scallywag. :slight_smile: I asked about objections because I was writing on behalf of the LPSF, which goes beyond individual group members' expression. Such letters to the media asking for retractions sometimes precede a formal legal complaint (though I have no interest in pursuing such in this case; as Aubrey says, the publicity is not necessarily a bad thing overall even though there are the negative connotations I mentioned).

  You know Aubrey, I was on the verge of mentioning in my letter and online post that the number of arguments was 40 not 50, but then I thought what if the Elections Department somehow miscounted? I saw them numbering arguments higher than 40 when they were processing ours, but assumed that was because some (Terrance's) had already been turned in and assigned lower numbers. Most likely the Chronicle writer just got the total wrong, but if not it could be opening a can of worms so I figured I'd just let that go.

  Finally, do you have a draft of the rebuttal? I thought you said you wanted to get stuff written by midnight, but I don't see anything from you.

Love & Liberty,
                                 ((( starchild )))

5

Hi Starchild! As I recall, the numbers that they told us as we were leaving the Department of Elections were 11-50, so I think the writer just got his numbers mixed up. Also now I know who Gollinger is, since I've seen him down at the DOE a few times and the article featured his picture.

As for the rebuttal, I meant midnight Sunday night, so I should have said 11:59 PM Sunday night so there would be no confusion on that. I was just doing some research on San Francisco's bond ratings for the rebuttal and signed up for Moody's ratings reports (they're free), and I reopened my email box to finish the registration when I saw your latest email. I'll have it finished and posted before I go to sleep, and I trust you can give it some of your usual "bite" to make it better.

Thanks!
Aubrey

Thanks Marcy and Aubrey, done\! Marcy, you can be the curmudgeon, and I'll be the scallywag\.  :\-\)  I asked about objections because I was writing on behalf of the LPSF, which goes beyond individual group members' expression\. Such letters to the media asking for retractions sometimes precede a formal legal complaint \(though I have no interest in pursuing such in this case; as Aubrey says, the publicity is not necessarily a bad thing overall even though there are the negative connotations I mentioned\)\.

You know Aubrey, I was on the verge of mentioning in my letter and online post that the number of arguments was 40 not 50, but then I thought what if the Elections Department somehow miscounted? I saw them numbering arguments higher than 40 when they were processing ours, but assumed that was because some \(Terrance's\) had already been turned in and assigned lower numbers\. Most likely the Chronicle writer just got the total wrong, but if not it could be opening a can of worms so I figured I'd just let that go\.

Finally, do you have a draft of the rebuttal? I thought you said you wanted to get stuff written by midnight, but I don't see anything from you\.

Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))

Hi Starchild and Marcy! I just read the article and some of the comments after it. Thanks for taking advantage, Starchild, of the opportunity to express some Libertarian suggestions for less government in the Comments section. The letter is fine, and to be quite honest, the publicity will definitely do us good, and I do agree with your point that the article should have been more clear that our 40 arguments, not 50, were nothing out of the ordinary from what happens every voting cycle and perfectly within the rules, strange as they are. Please go ahead and send it.

Thanks!
Aubrey

Hi Starchild,

Thanks for your concern. I totally disagree with your view point and approach to this article. Besides, I am supposed to be the little old lady curmudgeon in this group, not you. However, I am also for not curbing the free expression of group members unless they state an untruth. Therefore, I am not registering an objection.

Marcy

Yes, thanks for bringing this to our attention Francoise\! I am troubled by the context in which we are mentioned here, for the reasons outlined in the letter below\. If there are no objections, I am going to fire this letter off on our behalf to John and the SFGate editors requesting them to make corrections:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hi John,

Just got done reading your piece about Jon Golinger, the campaign chair for the waterfront heights limit measure Proposition B, filing a disingenuous ballot argument against the measure\. Maybe it was only a matter time until something like this happened\. The way the rules are set up allowing people to get one chance in the lottery per argument submitted even if the wording is only minimally changed from other copies of the same argument they have submitted is kind of bizarre\. Even worse is how elected officials have the power to automatically supersede other voters when filing arguments\. Sitting members of the Board of Supervisors should never be allowed to file ballot arguments in my opinion, unless they are filing in the unlimited paid arguments category that won't result in someone else getting bumped \-\- they already have the ability as Board members to introduce legislation, and the mayor has an even bigger soapbox\. Official proponent and

opponent arguments should be reserved for non-elected members of the public.