Prop 1 - Bonds for low-income housing - No
We were really torn about this one. On one hand it wants to do a lot of very good things, many of which involve building, which makes it seem like a good use of bonds. But then again this is the kind of building that should be ongoing, in the budget every year. In fact, it used to be in the budget every years as a duty of the California Redevelopment Agency.
Oh, but there are things to like about Prop 1. It helps veterans get loans to buy houses, which they will pay back with some interest. It lets local governments set their definition of what constitutes low-income housing. It encourages building near public transit. And it tries to make the whole housing market more affordable the only way that could actually work: by increasing the supply.
Crap, so much to like, but there’s this whole bond thing. Our group voted narrowly against, but can understand if you want to vote for this. Heck, Californians seem to vote in favor of all other bonds, Prop 1 will probably be no different.
Prop 2 - Build housing for mental health services - Yes
This would authorize the use of money from the Mental Health Services Act of 2004 to be used to build housing for its patients. The Legislature created the No Place Like Home program in 2016 to do this, but the courts are trying to decide if housing is a legal use of the Mental Health Services Act money. Passing Prop 2 would send it straight through.
The housing would be built with $2 billion in bonds, payments coming from Mental Health Services Act revenues, which we hear are underutilized anyway. We think this is a reasonable (if not perfect) use of bonds. We think that housing a mentally ill person or someone teetering toward the abyss can be a great tool toward stabilizing them, so we are in favor.
Prop 3 - Water bond - No
Hey look at that, another water bond, strikingly similar the the one voters passed (of course) just five months ago, or the other one they passed four years ago. We were against the recent one for our standard bond reasons, so naturally we’re against this one as well. I mean, come on, how many water bonds do you really need before it becomes obvious this should be in the regular budget?
Supposedly this is a “pay-to-play” bond, where the backers are the various contractors who would get paid to build this projects. Some of the money would go to projects on private land. No, no, no.
Prop 4 - Children’s hospitals bond - No
OK, here’s where our bond stance is really going to make us look heartless. In a way, an argument against this $1.5 billion bond is that it’s too low. The bond payments would be $80 million per year, while this year California had a budget of $201 billion. And a lot of the money in this thing would go toward maintenance…of private hospitals…whose CEOs make over $1 million per year. These private non-profit hospitals are typically supported by charity, and we think that’s a good model. One of us didn’t have the heart to turn the children down, but the rest of us kept a stiff upper lip.
Prop 5 - Property tax transfer requirements - No
Prop 13 in 1978 limited the amount by which property taxes could increase if the owner didn’t move or perform any major construction. The result is that in a neighborhood where market values have greatly increased over time, newer home owners will pay much more property tax than the old-timers. This prevents longtime residents from getting taxed out of their homes (so they often will never move), but it also means substantially less taxes are collected. Property taxes are the bedrock of public school funding. We have mostly negative feelings about Prop 13.
Prop 13 does allow for someone to move once and keep their low tax if they move within the same county to a home of equal or lesser value. Prop 5 would get rid of those limitations, letting anyone over 55 move anywhere in the state to a home of any value, and still pay the same property tax.
This sounds like a bad idea to us. If someone can afford to buy a more expensive home, they can afford to pay taxes. If Prop 5 only got rid of the requirement that the homeowner stay in the same county, we would be in favor of it in order to free up space in high-demand areas. But if you’re upgrading to a bigger home, you should be ready to pay some bigger taxes.
On the other hand, we’re caught in a game of chicken, a big unintended consequence of Prop 13. Homeowners in a high-demand area may want to move, but don’t want to lose their great tax deal. We want them to move but aren’t willing to let them transfer it. By sticking to our guns, maybe we’re just hurting ourselves and not freeing up any of that housing. Either way we’re not getting that tax money, unless you think you can get the voters to overturn Prop 13 someday. It’s not fair, but maybe Prop 5 will at least loosen the housing market a little.
Apparently Prop 5 is the work of a group who stands to benefit greatly from the change: realtors. They feel like Prop 13 keeps people from buying new, expensive homes, so it prevents them from getting commissions on those sales. To us that sounds like another reason to repeal Prop 13, not expand its reach.
Prop 6 - Repeal gas tax - No
This would repeal a 2017 gasoline tax approved by the legislature (with a two-thirds vote). The tax pays for roads and public transportation.
We love this tax! It pays for the right things. Oh, but it makes gas more expensive. We love expensive gas! Sell your SUV.
So, no.
Prop 7 - Daylight Saving Time - No
California conforms to the federal government’s definition of Daylight Saving Time due to an initiative passed in 1949. Prop 7 would undo that initiative, putting the decision back into the hands of the legislature, including the ability to opt for year-round daylight saving time (if the federal government approves). Apparently a large number of people favor year-round DST, so it is assumed the legislature would pursue that.
Is this initiative about putting control in the hands of the legislature, or is it more of a referendum on weather the public wants to change their clocks or not? We decided to treat it as a referendum. As we are mostly in favor in keeping DST the way it is, the majority of us voted no.
One thing that is certain is your faithful author likes to talk about this subject about 100 times more than anyone else, and so he will use his authorial privilege to do a deeper dive on the subject down below.
Prop 8 - Kidney dialysis clinic price regulation - No
Californians needing kidney dialysis treatment three times per week can visit a hospital or be treated in their homes, but most of them, roughly 80,000 patients, visit one of 588 dialysis clinics, usually for-profit companies with a combined annual revenue of $3 billion. These clinics cost more to visit than a hospital, but for some reason the majority of patients use clinics and private health plans are willing to pay for them. Perhaps they offer better service, or are more convenient? We’re not sure.
One thing we do know is that these dialysis clinics are generally not unionized, and that appears to be the real motivation behind this initiative, which was put on the ballot by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Prop 8 would put a cap on the overhead (including profits) dialysis companies are allowed to have, limiting them to 15% where they typically earn closer to 21%. Ostensibly this hopes to reduce costs and/or encourage the clinics to invest in equipment and staff, but really the goal is to hurt these non-union companies financially.
While there may be reasons not to like these clinics and we generally support unionized labor, we don’t think an initiative like this is the place to wage a union vs. non-union labor dispute. If passed, dialysis patients would be caught in the crossfire, potentially suffering reduced access to services and reduced quality of service, a service they desperately need. We would prefer the legislature regulate clinics in a more precise way. Leave us out of it.
Prop 10 - Rent control expansion - Yes
The Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995 is a statewide law limiting what kinds of properties can be subject to rent control. Rent control prevents landlords from raising the rent from year to year beyond a small inflation adjustment. Among the Costa-Hawkins restrictions is that no housing built after the passage of the law can be rent controlled, even if the surrounding community would like it to be. It serves the interests of landlords operating in a city like San Francisco who might be subject to rent control otherwise.
Prop 10 repeals the Costa-Hawkins limits, allowing cities to enact rent control if they choose to. Our endorsement of Prop 10 isn't about if rent control is good or bad, it's about who should be making that decision. We believe each city should be free to weigh the pros and cons, and make the decision that is best for their community. San Francisco (4th largest city in CA) has very different needs than Fresno (5th largest).
Economists universally dislike rent control because they believe it distorts markets and leads to a weaker economy overall, but the decision to impose rent control is usually cultural—the desire to have some cultural continuity in a city that might be going through economic upheaval. Then again, if you destroy your economy, your culture probably won't be too great either. We think each municipality should be able to make its own cultural decisions, but if you thought rent control was going to bring about a statewide economic collapse, that would be a good reason to vote No on Prop 10.
BTW, we find it pretty ironic that the California Republican Party opposes this. Whatever happened to small government? I guess not when there’s big money at stake.
Prop 11 - Private-sector ambulance driver breaks - Yes
Like police officers and firefighters, ambulance drivers are always on-call, even when taking a break for a meal or something. In a recent case, Augustus v. ABM Security Services, the California Supreme Court decided it was a violation of labor law for an employee to be on-call during breaks, and this likely would apply to the 75% of ambulance drivers who are private-sector employees.
Prop 11 would make an exception in the labor law for ambulance drivers and absolve their employers of past wrongdoings. While we are always on the side of the working man and don’t think companies who were breaking the law should get off scott-free, we think the on-call situation is industry-standard for this type of work and this was basically an honest mistake by the ambulance companies. We note that there is no argument against Prop 11 in the voter guide. A couple of us were not completely sure, but overall we voted Yes.
Prop 12 - Standards for animal confinement - Yes
What a blast from the past, during our very first one of these meetings in 2008 we discussed Prop 2, which created new standards for storing animals at a factory farm. We were split at the time: we like animals, but were cautious about increasing the price of food while decreasing farmers’ taxable income and requiring money for enforcement.
Prop 12 makes Prop 2’s regulations more specific and what a difference 10 years makes: we are now all in favor of it (also, a reality TV star is President). Prop 12 is maybe something of a government overreach and it would be better if this were done in the legislature (as with all Propositions). It will raise the cost (but also quality) of meat somewhat but we think that’s fine, people can eat less meat.
Whoa, Diane Feinstein is actually campaigning a little, and debating for the first time in almost two decades! As usual, Nancy Pelosi will not be debating (or even acknowledging) her opponent.
Results
Prop 1 - Yes
Prop 2 - Yes
Prop 3 - No
Prop 4 - Yes
Prop 5 - No
Prop 6 - No
Prop 7 - Yes
Prop 8 - No
Prop 10 - No
Prop 11 - Yes
Prop 12 - Yes
TL;DR on Prop 7 - Daylight Saving Time
Note: What follows is not the opinion our whole group, just the secretary.
When considering Prop 7, there are really two different issues at play. First, should the legislature be in charge of deciding to stick with DST or should the initiative process be used? Second, do we want to keep the current DST system or switch to something else?
Friday, October 26, 2018
Our Feelings About Bonds
This group has a stance on bonds that seems common sense to us, but does not appear to be shared by many of our fellow Californians. While the majority of bond initiatives are passed by California voters, we usually vote against. It’s not that we’re against bonds in general, we’re simply against irresponsible bonds.
Some people seem to forget that a bond is a loan. It makes sense for you to take out a loan to buy a house, but it would be irresponsible to use one to pay the electric bill. Similarly, we’re fine using a bond to build a bridge, not fine using one to maintain a bridge. The former is a large one-time expense that a bond allows you to spread across many years, while the latter is an ongoing expense that should be part of the budget every year.
A bond is appealing if you think of it as free money, less appealing if you think of it as a way to nearly double the price of something (with the extra money going to bond purchasers, who are typically wealthy). Returning to the bridge example, the alternative to using a bond would be to save money for many years (not that government has shown any ability to save) and then finally build the bridge when you have enough. A bond lets you actually use the bridge during those years, which is arguably worth the cost of the interest you pay. Sometimes an initiative even identifies the source of the money that will be used to pay off a bond, like if you collected bridge tolls. Now, that’s a bond we could really get behind.
But more often than not, bond initiatives are maintenance-type projects that should be in the regular budget, and so we vote against them. Or frequently a proposition pays for something like building low income housing for bullied kids with cancer. Since we’re talking about building something, that sounds like the kind of bond we would support…except that in a state as large as California, low income housing needs to be built every year, so that too should be part of the regular budget. We’re not heartless, we want to help those kids too! We just want to do it responsibly. If there’s no room in the budget, cut something or create a new tax. That we would vote for.
So, to summarize: kids good, bonds (often) bad.
Some people seem to forget that a bond is a loan. It makes sense for you to take out a loan to buy a house, but it would be irresponsible to use one to pay the electric bill. Similarly, we’re fine using a bond to build a bridge, not fine using one to maintain a bridge. The former is a large one-time expense that a bond allows you to spread across many years, while the latter is an ongoing expense that should be part of the budget every year.
A bond is appealing if you think of it as free money, less appealing if you think of it as a way to nearly double the price of something (with the extra money going to bond purchasers, who are typically wealthy). Returning to the bridge example, the alternative to using a bond would be to save money for many years (not that government has shown any ability to save) and then finally build the bridge when you have enough. A bond lets you actually use the bridge during those years, which is arguably worth the cost of the interest you pay. Sometimes an initiative even identifies the source of the money that will be used to pay off a bond, like if you collected bridge tolls. Now, that’s a bond we could really get behind.
But more often than not, bond initiatives are maintenance-type projects that should be in the regular budget, and so we vote against them. Or frequently a proposition pays for something like building low income housing for bullied kids with cancer. Since we’re talking about building something, that sounds like the kind of bond we would support…except that in a state as large as California, low income housing needs to be built every year, so that too should be part of the regular budget. We’re not heartless, we want to help those kids too! We just want to do it responsibly. If there’s no room in the budget, cut something or create a new tax. That we would vote for.
So, to summarize: kids good, bonds (often) bad.
Tuesday, June 5, 2018
June 2018 Endorsements
Prop. 68 - $4 billion bond for parks and the environment - No
Look, we love parks too, but this is a great example of a bond being used to take out a loan to pay for things that should come out of the budget every year. This isn't a single massive thing like a bridge, it's hundreds or even thousands of state and local parks. Some of the money is used for maintenance, which definitely should be a regular budget thing, not a bond thing. In order to get this $4 billion now we would eventually pay $8 billion over 40 years. See our previous statements on bonds.
On the other hand, we really like parks. And fighting climate change. Perhaps more than fiscal responsibility. We really like that Prop 68 directs the money toward disadvantaged "parks poor" areas, making this a legitimate use of state-wide money.
But back to fiscal responsibility, there just seems to be no reason to do this with a bond. These projects will be done over a long period of time and California recently had a $6 billion surplus in one year. Also, Prop 68 has a laundry list of items, a list better poured over by full-time legislatures than the electorate. I mean, really, did you read the list of programs?
Prop. 69 - Transportation revenues must be used for transportation - Yes
Apparently there was a California law passed by the legislature that raised taxes and fees on gas and car registration, promising to only use that money on transportation. Except the legislature can't reserve the money for all taxes and all fees, so this prop would would cover the ones that aren't currently reserved. Sounds good to us.
One of the reasons this had to go to the ballot is because propositions are stupid. Thirty years ago, California passed a really stupid proposition that created what is known as a Gann limit—this prohibits state and local governments from spending revenue on a per person basis in excess of what was spent in 1978-79 and adjusted for inflation. All the legislature's new transportation fees would exceed this stupid Gann limit. So now here we are, thirty years later, voting on a stupid proposition because another stupid ill-thought out non-amendable proposition was stupidly passed and we have to make a carve out from the stupid Gann limit so that we can raise revenue that voters in 1988 could never comprehend (zero emission cars?). Stupid. Can we just vote on a proposition to eliminate propositions? Let the legislature legislate.
Prop. 70 - Two-thirds majority required to use cap-and-trade funds - No
This is an attempt by the minority to make it even harder for the majority to do things. Regardless of the substance (making it harder to spend environmental money, which we disagree with), no one should vote for this because it will have untold impacts forty years in the future.
Why is Jerry Brown listed as a supporter? Well, apparently he made a deal to support this initiative in order to keep the state's cap-and-trade system in place last year. OK, wink wink, hope you don't mind us voting no on this, Gov.
Prop. 71 - Effective date for ballot measures - Yes
Currently ballot measures (if successful) take effect the day after the election. Except you could have a case where an initiative was close and initially put into effect, only to be shut down when all the votes were counted and it turned out it lost. Prop 71 would instead say that the initiative takes effect 5 days after the Secretary of State certifies it. Fine, whatever.
This is the reality of the state moving towards more no excuse absentee voting. About 51% of votes are now cast by mail. This allows the County Boards of Election to count those votes.
Prop. 72 - Build rain capture systems without reassessment - Yes
This would allow people to build rain capture systems without having their property value reassessed as it usually is after any property improvement. Fine by us. We like rain. And systems. The voter guide has no arguments against.
One nice thing about Prop 72 is it uses the word "may" and leaves it up to the legislature on whether to actually implement this exclusion. If in future we need to revoke this proposition, we can without a statewide vote.
On the other hand there are quite a few properties out there in need of reassessment, but there is a greater need for water management.
Bay Area Measure 3 - Raise bridge tolls, use money for various transportation projects - Yes
Except for the zero-oversight Golden Gate Bridge, this would raise bridge tolls on the other Bay Area bridges and use the money to pay for a whole host of transportation improvements. We like that the money seems to be weighted in favor of public transit and the like, although it includes road improvements too. See, this is how you raise $4.5 billion without the use of bonds!
We do have some concern that bridge toll increases are essentially a regressive tax with greater proportional burden on the less fortunate. One member of our group, however, argues that the more deprived people in the Bay Area are typically farther from bridges, and yet they will still get their fair share of projects. We would probably prefer some sort of tax increase, but are willing to let it slide to get these projects going.
Debate update: Both Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein are up for re-election this year, but neither has agreed to participate in any primary debates. Feinstein says she will participate in a debate if there is a runoff.
Results
Prop. 68 - Yes
Prop. 69 - Yes
Prop. 70 - No
Prop. 71 - Yes
Prop. 72 - Yes
Measure 3 - Yes
Look, we love parks too, but this is a great example of a bond being used to take out a loan to pay for things that should come out of the budget every year. This isn't a single massive thing like a bridge, it's hundreds or even thousands of state and local parks. Some of the money is used for maintenance, which definitely should be a regular budget thing, not a bond thing. In order to get this $4 billion now we would eventually pay $8 billion over 40 years. See our previous statements on bonds.
On the other hand, we really like parks. And fighting climate change. Perhaps more than fiscal responsibility. We really like that Prop 68 directs the money toward disadvantaged "parks poor" areas, making this a legitimate use of state-wide money.
But back to fiscal responsibility, there just seems to be no reason to do this with a bond. These projects will be done over a long period of time and California recently had a $6 billion surplus in one year. Also, Prop 68 has a laundry list of items, a list better poured over by full-time legislatures than the electorate. I mean, really, did you read the list of programs?
Prop. 69 - Transportation revenues must be used for transportation - Yes
Apparently there was a California law passed by the legislature that raised taxes and fees on gas and car registration, promising to only use that money on transportation. Except the legislature can't reserve the money for all taxes and all fees, so this prop would would cover the ones that aren't currently reserved. Sounds good to us.
One of the reasons this had to go to the ballot is because propositions are stupid. Thirty years ago, California passed a really stupid proposition that created what is known as a Gann limit—this prohibits state and local governments from spending revenue on a per person basis in excess of what was spent in 1978-79 and adjusted for inflation. All the legislature's new transportation fees would exceed this stupid Gann limit. So now here we are, thirty years later, voting on a stupid proposition because another stupid ill-thought out non-amendable proposition was stupidly passed and we have to make a carve out from the stupid Gann limit so that we can raise revenue that voters in 1988 could never comprehend (zero emission cars?). Stupid. Can we just vote on a proposition to eliminate propositions? Let the legislature legislate.
Prop. 70 - Two-thirds majority required to use cap-and-trade funds - No
This is an attempt by the minority to make it even harder for the majority to do things. Regardless of the substance (making it harder to spend environmental money, which we disagree with), no one should vote for this because it will have untold impacts forty years in the future.
Why is Jerry Brown listed as a supporter? Well, apparently he made a deal to support this initiative in order to keep the state's cap-and-trade system in place last year. OK, wink wink, hope you don't mind us voting no on this, Gov.
Prop. 71 - Effective date for ballot measures - Yes
Currently ballot measures (if successful) take effect the day after the election. Except you could have a case where an initiative was close and initially put into effect, only to be shut down when all the votes were counted and it turned out it lost. Prop 71 would instead say that the initiative takes effect 5 days after the Secretary of State certifies it. Fine, whatever.
This is the reality of the state moving towards more no excuse absentee voting. About 51% of votes are now cast by mail. This allows the County Boards of Election to count those votes.
Prop. 72 - Build rain capture systems without reassessment - Yes
This would allow people to build rain capture systems without having their property value reassessed as it usually is after any property improvement. Fine by us. We like rain. And systems. The voter guide has no arguments against.
One nice thing about Prop 72 is it uses the word "may" and leaves it up to the legislature on whether to actually implement this exclusion. If in future we need to revoke this proposition, we can without a statewide vote.
On the other hand there are quite a few properties out there in need of reassessment, but there is a greater need for water management.
Bay Area Measure 3 - Raise bridge tolls, use money for various transportation projects - Yes
Except for the zero-oversight Golden Gate Bridge, this would raise bridge tolls on the other Bay Area bridges and use the money to pay for a whole host of transportation improvements. We like that the money seems to be weighted in favor of public transit and the like, although it includes road improvements too. See, this is how you raise $4.5 billion without the use of bonds!
We do have some concern that bridge toll increases are essentially a regressive tax with greater proportional burden on the less fortunate. One member of our group, however, argues that the more deprived people in the Bay Area are typically farther from bridges, and yet they will still get their fair share of projects. We would probably prefer some sort of tax increase, but are willing to let it slide to get these projects going.
Debate update: Both Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein are up for re-election this year, but neither has agreed to participate in any primary debates. Feinstein says she will participate in a debate if there is a runoff.
Results
Prop. 68 - Yes
Prop. 69 - Yes
Prop. 70 - No
Prop. 71 - Yes
Prop. 72 - Yes
Measure 3 - Yes
Monday, June 4, 2018
June 2018 San Francisco Endorsements
Measure A - SF PUC bonds for clean power - Yes
The Public Utilities Commission can issue bonds for water and sewer projects with a 2/3 Board of Supervisors vote. Measure A would let them issue bonds for power generation too, a step toward offering an alternative to PG&E in SF. Measure A also says all power generation would have to be from green energy. Sounds good to us.
Measure B: Appointed board members forfeit positions when running for office - No
Measure B would supposedly prevent someone with power in government from taking advantage of their position when campaigning for office. Oh, but only if that person was appointed; elected incumbents are free to do this as much as they want. So if you're a city commissioner and want to run against the people who appointed you, you first have to quit your job, so maybe you just won't run. This doesn't appear to be in the interest of the electorate so much as the Board of Supervisors.
Measure C: Tax leasing of commercial space, give money to kids - No
Measure D: Tax leasing of commercial space, give money to homeless instead - No
Do you want to give money to child education programs or homeless programs? If both of these pass, only the one with the most votes goes into effect. We mostly like the sentiment behind these measures, but do not like the political gamesmanship behind them, so we'll be voting against them both.
Measure E - Prohibit the sale of flavored tobacco products - Split
Half of us don't like prohibition of various substances, even ones that could be characterized as being aimed at kids (even though you have to be 21 to buy them). The other half does like prohibition of smoking, so there you have it.
Measure F - Eviction legal defense program - Yes
If you got evicted, would you have the resources to fight it legally? Many people would not. This would spend about $5 million per year to provide that service to tenants. Given the spate of evictions in SF lately, we like this.
Measure G - $298 per year parcel tax, give money to education - Yes
OK, a modest tax with the money going to schools. Fine. But we don't think this will really do much. But fine. We like schools.
Measure H - Taser policy - No
Should the electorate be setting police policy regarding tasers at the ballot box? Probably not. But really, this is the SFPD going around their bosses (the Mayor and Board of Supervisors) to get the taser policy they want written in stone. Bad idea.
Measure I - Don't encourage sports teams to move to SF - Split
Some of us think taking the Warriors from Oakland just when they were getting good was an un-neighborly move. But then probably we should let voters decide on each specific sports team proposal, should one ever arise. Pretty sure this is non-binding anyway.
Results
Measure A - Yes
Measure B - Yes
Measure C - Yes
Measure D - No
Measure E - Yes
Measure F - Yes
Measure G - Yes
Measure H - No
Measure I - No
The Public Utilities Commission can issue bonds for water and sewer projects with a 2/3 Board of Supervisors vote. Measure A would let them issue bonds for power generation too, a step toward offering an alternative to PG&E in SF. Measure A also says all power generation would have to be from green energy. Sounds good to us.
Measure B: Appointed board members forfeit positions when running for office - No
Measure B would supposedly prevent someone with power in government from taking advantage of their position when campaigning for office. Oh, but only if that person was appointed; elected incumbents are free to do this as much as they want. So if you're a city commissioner and want to run against the people who appointed you, you first have to quit your job, so maybe you just won't run. This doesn't appear to be in the interest of the electorate so much as the Board of Supervisors.
Measure C: Tax leasing of commercial space, give money to kids - No
Measure D: Tax leasing of commercial space, give money to homeless instead - No
Do you want to give money to child education programs or homeless programs? If both of these pass, only the one with the most votes goes into effect. We mostly like the sentiment behind these measures, but do not like the political gamesmanship behind them, so we'll be voting against them both.
Measure E - Prohibit the sale of flavored tobacco products - Split
Half of us don't like prohibition of various substances, even ones that could be characterized as being aimed at kids (even though you have to be 21 to buy them). The other half does like prohibition of smoking, so there you have it.
Measure F - Eviction legal defense program - Yes
If you got evicted, would you have the resources to fight it legally? Many people would not. This would spend about $5 million per year to provide that service to tenants. Given the spate of evictions in SF lately, we like this.
Measure G - $298 per year parcel tax, give money to education - Yes
OK, a modest tax with the money going to schools. Fine. But we don't think this will really do much. But fine. We like schools.
Measure H - Taser policy - No
Should the electorate be setting police policy regarding tasers at the ballot box? Probably not. But really, this is the SFPD going around their bosses (the Mayor and Board of Supervisors) to get the taser policy they want written in stone. Bad idea.
Measure I - Don't encourage sports teams to move to SF - Split
Some of us think taking the Warriors from Oakland just when they were getting good was an un-neighborly move. But then probably we should let voters decide on each specific sports team proposal, should one ever arise. Pretty sure this is non-binding anyway.
Results
Measure A - Yes
Measure B - Yes
Measure C - Yes
Measure D - No
Measure E - Yes
Measure F - Yes
Measure G - Yes
Measure H - No
Measure I - No
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)