URGENT - Text of Proposition A Rebuttal

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 Jack 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 Meskunas, but I don't think there's anything controversial here for Libertarians. I deleted more problematic sentences expressing general support for City College and saying we would welcome a less flawed version of this bond 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 the Taxpayers Union appear as a co-signer, but I thought it politic to use most of Barbara's text -- which is generally very good -- and give the SFTU first billing among the opponents. Let me know ASAP if anyone has 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 general obligation bond proposal that shows questionable timing, lack of due 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 again dig deep into their pockets for a wish list of projects that were never properly reviewed by the Board of Trustees or the public.

Newspaper accounts attribute the decidedly premature appearance of this bond request on this ballot to the mayor’s concern that next year’s ballot was already crowded with new bond requests, and competition from City College would not be helpful. City College complied, even though two Trustees dissented, refusing to support this last-minute scramble -- one even called it a “back room deal.”

City College presents an assortment of projects to be funded by this bond issuance. The problem is that state law permits the College’s Board of Trustees to reallocate the funds after they are approved, 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 conceived, planned, and placed before the voters.

Send a message that taxpayers deserve better from their elected officials.

Vote NO on Proposition A.

San Francisco Taxpayers Union
San Francisco Libertarian Party
Coalition For Better Housing