Who's Taking Which Ballot Measures to Write the Rebuttals Due on Monday Morning? [2 Attachments]

Hi All. I will attach the proponents arguments for C and E, so we can get started. They're pretty pitiful, especially the one for the "Children's Fund." It actually says, "We can't stop now," I guess referring to their addiction to giving away taxpayer money. The lady at the Department of Elections got excitable and forgot to attach the proponent argument to G, so I'll get that one tomorrow and pass it on. Just let me know who's working on what. I'll take the leftover rebuttal argument to work on. Limit is 250 words.

Thanks!
Aubrey
P.S. By the way, when I spoke to the excitable DOE lady this afternoon, she did say that the DOE workers were rooting for us to win some of the lottery arguments, so they were happy that we won three of them.

A couple of comments.

Agreed that C is pitiful. There is no mention at all of anything they are actually doing. I don't have a handle on the best way to deal with it as a rebuttal and looking for some ideas.

Regarding E....note the tax is "a mere 2 pennies per ounce". As the tax will be paid by the wholesalers and passed on to retailers, then retailers will mark it up at least 50%. That's $.36 per standard 12 oz can for something that normally might cost less than a dollar to the consumer. At the restaurant level, the consumer cost will be dramatically higher with at least a 300% markup making it over $1 per serving. The change in cost is dramatic.

Looking forward to seeing G.

Michael Denny
Libertarian Party of San Francisco
www.LPSF.org<http://www.LPSF.org>

Hi Michael. Thanks for your thoughts and that information about how dramatic the cost will be to the consumers. Francoise's rebuttal (thanks Francoise!) clocked in at 216, so there's some room left for tinkering. I spoke with the guy from the Coalition for an Affordable City (the folks trying to get us to withdraw our argument and give it or the rebuttal to them), and he was awful to deal with (got nasty when I told him that we will be writing our own rebuttal--Marcy's instincts were right on), but one thing he did mention about the proponents' statement when I asked him about it might be worth rebutting. Regarding "Mexico instituted a soda tax this year and already consumption dropped 5-7%," this statement sounds questionable to me. The Nasty One mentioned that it's so new how could they have this information already.

On C, one thing that really upsets me about this one is the expanded definition of children that we might talk about in our rebuttal. This part is all under the section entitled New Services: "and for Disconnected Transitional-Aged Youth 18 through 24 years old. "Disconnected Transitional-Aged Youth" are those who: are homeless or in danger of homelessness; have dropped out of high school; have a disability or other special needs, including substance abuse; are low-income parents; are undocumented; are new immigrants and/or English learners; are Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Questioning ("LGBTQQ"); and/or are transitioning from the foster care, juvenile justice, criminal justice or special education system." So if I'm 24 and decide to question my sexuality or start taking drugs or decide to have kids that I can't afford, I can apply for the "Children's Fund"?! By our thinking this is crazy, but as Starchild pointed out, the
leftists will like this feature better because it gives more money out to more folks. However, I would think the average person might at least think twice before voting YES that maybe this giant expansion is a bit much, even for SF values. But maybe not.

Finally here's the proponents' argument for G. It's pretty predictable.

Thanks!
Aubrey

Hi All. Phil has written a nice rebuttal to G (flipping apartments), and we're going back and forth editing it and will post something later on. Francoise has also written a nice rebuttal to the soda tax--I did some research yesterday and will add something to her argument since there's room for another thought or two. I didn't hear anything about C, so I will write the rebuttal and post it later. We can't not submit a rebuttal--that would make the LPSF look goofy, so even a non-perfect rebuttal is better than nothing. Besides, C is a sure bet to pass anyway.

I will take our 3 rebuttals in to the Department of Elections tomorrow morning at 9:00 AM. I cannot go into work late again like last Thursday when I didn't get in until almost 1:00 PM, so all posting on our Activist List will have to be completed no later than 2:00 AM Monday morning.

Thanks!
Aubrey

Regarding C…the only response I can think of is something like this.

“Are there any voters out there who see how incredibly empty of content this measure is?” And then take it from there going line to line asking for details. I’d do it myself but it is “back to school” tomorrow and I’m swamped.

Thanks for all the work…

Mike

Michael F Denny
Mike@DennyConnect.com<mailto:Mike@DennyConnect.com>
(415) 750-9340

Hi Aubrey

I vote looks good on everything. Regarding the save MUNI rebuttal I vote that you use your judgement rather than forego including LPSF should time not permit an activist vote.

Marcy

Hi Mike, Aubrey and All,

I am working on the ballot "analysis" for the LPSF website which I have been doing for the past few elections. I just finished Prop C. If there is anything there that would serve for a rebuttal, go for it.

I am attaching it. It is in Word.

Marcy

I second that…

Mike

Michael F Denny
Mike@DennyConnect.com<mailto:Mike@DennyConnect.com>
(415) 750-9340

Okay, Aubrey. I'm still planning to work up some proposed edits, and Nick from the No on E campaign has sent me their write-up of a rebuttal on that measure. I understand people don't want to sign over the rebuttal to them (I don't either unless we were getting something more valuable to the libertarian cause in return), but I do think they raise some good points that I'd like to try to work into our rebuttal:

Nick asked us not to copy any language word-for-word from their measure because they're planning to run it as a paid argument unless we were to give them the rebuttal. I could still reword some of the below points to get them in however, unless we have other material we'd like to use.

  Thoughts?

Love & Liberty,
                                ((( starchild )))

Hi Starchild. I'm OK with any changes you want to make, and I'm glad you had better communication with Nick than I did. Actually they have a pretty strong argument, but Francoise's is good too, so maybe just take the weakest part of ours that you think (the Reuters part), and use the best part of theirs. As long as I have it to drop off at the DOE at 9:00 AM, I'm comfortable with whatever you do.

Thanks!
Aubrey

Nick asked us not to copy any language word\-for\-word from their measure because they&#39;re planning to run it as a paid argument unless we were to give them the rebuttal\. I could still reword some of the below points to get them in however, unless we have other material we&#39;d like to use\.

Thoughts?

Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))

Okay, Aubrey\. I&#39;m still planning to work up some proposed edits, and Nick from the No on E campaign has sent me their write\-up of a rebuttal on that measure\. I understand people don&#39;t want to sign over the rebuttal to them \(I don&#39;t either unless we were getting something more valuable to the libertarian cause in return\), but I do think they raise some good points that I&#39;d like to try to work into our rebuttal:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOTE NO ON E BECAUSE IT WILL DRIVE UP GROCERY PRICES AND MAKE SAN FRANCISCO AN EVEN MORE EXPENSIVE PLACE TO LIVE AND WORK.

This is not just a soda tax; it’s a tax on juice drinks, ice teas, powdered drinks, fruit juices, sports drinks, and more. It’s a tax that could force grocers to spread added costs across all grocery items—not just beverages.

This law would:

• increase the price of some beverages by up to 75%;

• raise the price of a soda by 32¢ and a 12-pack by almost $3.00;

• interfere with our ability to make responsible decisions for our own families;

• create a new tax that hurts most those who can least afford it;

The Board of Supervisors spent a lot of time and resources to place this tax on the ballot—some would argue too much. This tax is a distraction from the issues that really matter—issues like public safety, homelessness, education, housing, and the city’s general lack of affordability.

The cost of living in San Francisco is high enough. Instead of pushing for taxes on the ballot that target those who can least afford it, city officials should be working to make San Francisco a less expensive place to raise a family.

Enough is enough: Vote NO on E to send a message that we’re tired of paying for the wrong priorities.

No on E: Stop Unfair Beverage Taxes, Coalition for an Affordable City
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On including the LPSF website on ballot arguments, I lean in favor of it \-\- preferably we can put some additional material up there arguing against or relating to the measures we&#39;re submitting ballot arguments on though, so people will see the link as more relevant\.

Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))

Hi All. Phil has written a nice rebuttal to G (flipping apartments), and we're going back and forth editing it and will post something later on. Francoise has also written a nice rebuttal to the soda tax--I did some research yesterday and will add something to her argument since there's room for another thought or two. I didn't hear anything about C, so I will write the rebuttal and post it later. We can't not submit a rebuttal--that would make the LPSF look goofy, so even a non-perfect rebuttal is better than nothing. Besides, C is a sure bet to pass anyway.

I will take our 3 rebuttals in to the Department of Elections tomorrow morning at 9:00 AM. I cannot go into work late again like last Thursday when I didn't get in until almost 1:00 PM, so all posting on our Activist List will have to be completed no later than 2:00 AM Monday morning.

Thanks!
Aubrey

Hi Michael. Thanks for your thoughts and that information about how dramatic the cost will be to the consumers. Francoise's rebuttal (thanks Francoise!) clocked in at 216, so there's some room left for tinkering. I spoke with the guy from the Coalition for an Affordable City (the folks trying to get us to withdraw our argument and give it or the rebuttal to them), and he was awful to deal with (got nasty when I told him that we will be writing our own rebuttal--Marcy's instincts were right on), but one thing he did mention about the proponents' statement when I asked him about it might be worth rebutting. Regarding "Mexico instituted a soda tax this year and already consumption dropped 5-7%," this statement sounds questionable to me. The Nasty One mentioned that it's so new how could they have this information already.

On C, one thing that really upsets me about this one is the expanded definition of children that we might talk about in our rebuttal. This part is all under the section entitled New Services: "and for Disconnected Transitional-Aged Youth 18 through 24 years old. "Disconnected Transitional-Aged Youth" are those who: are homeless or in danger of homelessness; have dropped out of high school; have a disability or other special needs, including substance abuse; are low-income parents; are undocumented; are new immigrants and/or English learners; are Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Questioning ("LGBTQQ"); and/or are transitioning from the foster care, juvenile justice, criminal justice or special education system." So if I'm 24 and decide to question my sexuality or start taking drugs or decide to have kids that I can't afford, I can apply for the "Children's Fund"?! By our thinking this is crazy, but as Starchild pointed out,

the leftists will like this feature better because it gives more money out to more folks. However, I would think the average person might at least think twice before voting YES that maybe this giant expansion is a bit much, even for SF values. But maybe not.

Okay, I'll see what I can do. Do we have any other points on E that were left out for lack of space?

  What do you or others think about the Prop. G rebuttal? I think that is the one that really could use some work. Phil, are you reading emails at this hour and did you read my previous message about it?

Love & Liberty,
                                ((( starchild )))

I cant find your review of Prop g rebuttal, please send it directly. Up for maybe twenty minutes.

No problem Phil -- here's what I wrote earlier:

Bear with me because I'm using Siri to write this I mentioned the legislature because I needed to establish the fact that this was all about rent control then I mentioned inflation because that is the basic reason why rent control exists and has Marcie said we should try to give constructive suggestions instead of just opposing everything

I also couched my language on outcomes protected because has an Austrian we understand that humans are unpredictable and political action often has completely unpredictable results

And if the lefties extended the tax to 10 years would it still be an anti-flipping issue

Okay Aubrey, here's my edit of the Prop. E rebuttal...

“Iced tea,” please, not “ice tea.”

<URL: http://grammarist.com/spelling/ice-tea-iced-tea/ >

~Chris

Chris,

  Technically you're right I'm sure, historically speaking, and I would have fixed the spelling if I'd seen this sooner, but it's probably a lost cause at this point: