There's a primary election today, the first open primary under the new system installed by voters in 2010. We predicted this new system would not be an improvement, and now we get to find out. We don't endorse candidates, but there are a few state and city ballot measures to opine on briefly.
Prop 41 - Veteran's housing bond - No
In every election we vote on bonds, and so every year we present our view on bonds. We believe a bond makes sense if, and only if, the thing you're spending money on is paid for in one year, but the benefits extend over many years. For example, if you wanted to build a new park, go ahead and issue a bond for that. If you need to do maintenance on existing parks, that is ongoing and needs to be in the regular budget. If government doesn't presently have the money, they need to raise taxes and/or make cuts elsewhere.
On the surface, a $600 million project to build veteran housing sounds like the kind of thing a bond would be good for, but actually housing veterans is an ongoing problem that will not be permanently solved by this or any other bond. It needs to be in the regular budget, so we are voting No.
Additionally, it appears the money for the project is already available via a 2008 bond measure, but said money has been shuffled around by lawmakers to create the appearance of a gaping hole to necessitate borrowing. Nice try.
Prop 42 - Local government transparency - Yes
California has laws that require local governments to be transparent. But transparency ain't free, and the state has been reimbursing these governments for the cost of complying with the law. Attempting to balance the budget, Jerry Brown said he would not pay for it any more, although he probably does not have the authority to do that.
Prop 42 would put it into law that local governments have to pay for their own transparency. This makes sense to us, as communicating with the public is an essential part of being a democracy. Also, the current reimbursement situation puts incentives in the wrong place—local governments have no reason to do it efficiently if they don't have to foot the bill.
SF Prop A - Public safety bond - Split
We are really on the fence here, so I guess you'll have to decide for yourselves, dear readers. The reason for our ambivalence is that there is a split among the things this $400 million bond would supposedly be spent on.
The most-touted items, retrofitting fire stations and upgrading the Emergency Firefighting Water System, are mid-length projects that we'd argue should be in the regular budget.
There is also a new seismically-safe building in the proposal, so that at least is ripe for a bond. But then it would constitute the minority of the money being borrowed here, with the rest feeling like tacked-on expenditures. You decide.
SF Prop B - Waterfront height limit planning - No
See our Prop B and C statement from last November. This year's proposal would call on the electorate to approve any construction over standard height limits along the Embarcadero. We were against ballot box planning last year, and we're against it now.
Debaters only
Did you know that Nancy Pelosi is up for re-election this year? Well, how would you when she has no campaign events, no public fundraisers, not even an election web site. As of this writing, she hasn't even bothered to ask for your vote in a tweet! And of course, it has been years since she has participated in a debate.
It's this last point that gets us. As we've mentioned before, we think politicians owe it to their constituents and to democracy in general to engage in debates. We refuse to vote for any non-debating politicians and encourage you do do the same.
Wednesday morning update: the results
Prop 41 - Yes
Prop 42 - Yes
Prop A - Yes
Prob B - Yes
Tuesday, June 3, 2014
Monday, November 4, 2013
2013 Endorsements
You could be forgiven for not noticing there's an election of sorts in San Francisco on Tuesday. With no accompanying state-wide election and no candidate drama, there's very little to talk about. Nevertheless, we got together to hash out all four SF ballot measures, and here are the results.
Prop A - Retirement trust fund rules change - Abstain
Years ago, something called the Retiree Heath Care Trust Fund (RHCTF) was set up so that money would be saved now to pay for city pensions in the future. Like new parents setting up a college fund, this is just sound financial management.
The trust fund has rules for how and when its money is spent. Prop A wants to slightly change those rules. Are you intrigued yet?
One change would make it harder to take money out, requiring that the deposits for that year had all been paid. Another change would make it easier to take money out now if pension costs for a year are higher than the City anticipated (which they usually are, we hear). Seems like a wash. There are also a number of smaller changes that I won't bore you with.
Our overarching feeling on this one is: why are we being asked to vote on this? Minutia such as the management of a trust fund should be left to lawyers and elected officials, not the electorate.
Half of our group abstained and the rest was split. All were meh. You could either abstain or vote No to express how silly it is that you are being asked to vote on such a thing.
Props B and C - 8 Washington development and height limit - No
At first glance these two seem practically identical. They authorize a building project that includes luxury apartments and retail space down on the Embarcadero, wiping out a private tennis club in the process. The main difference is that C simply raises the height limit for an ordinance already approved by the Board of Supervisors while B stands alone.
We have someone in our group with real estate knowledge, and she points out that Prop B creates a special use district, which is a big pain in the rear for all future permitting there. So if you really wanted to vote for one of these, vote C.
One thing you hear a lot from the opponents of B and C is that this new development will build a "wall on the waterfront" because it's even taller then the old Embarcadero freeway monstrosity. Well it may be twice as tall, but it will be 1/1000th as wide (usually the more important consideration when discussing a wall), so we're going to call BS on that argument. Smells like tennis club money.
But once again our feeling on these is: why are we voting on this? This is why we have a planning commission and elected officials. These decisions should be made in a variety of local hearings, not by the city-wide electorate. Jeesh.
Prop D - Negotiate drug pricing - Yes
Well, this is just a non-binding statement, but of course anybody making a big purchase should negotiate to bring the price down as much as possible. It's pretty shocking that a Bush-era law actually prevents Medicare from negotiating drug prices, resulting in Medicare paying about double what the Department of Veterans Affairs pays.
So we're not sure why anyone would be against this, and indeed nobody is. Well, almost nobody…
Our good friend Terence Faulkner is back! His opposition argument is a real gem. It starts with the Roman Empire, drops by Hippocrates, and just keeps on going. He basically argues that pharmaceutical companies are absolutely wonderful and should get as much money as possible. But really, you should read it yourself—pull up the voter guide and scroll to page 71. We love voting against this guy!
Wednesday morning update: the results
A - Yes
B - No
C - No
D - Yes
Prop A - Retirement trust fund rules change - Abstain
Years ago, something called the Retiree Heath Care Trust Fund (RHCTF) was set up so that money would be saved now to pay for city pensions in the future. Like new parents setting up a college fund, this is just sound financial management.
The trust fund has rules for how and when its money is spent. Prop A wants to slightly change those rules. Are you intrigued yet?
One change would make it harder to take money out, requiring that the deposits for that year had all been paid. Another change would make it easier to take money out now if pension costs for a year are higher than the City anticipated (which they usually are, we hear). Seems like a wash. There are also a number of smaller changes that I won't bore you with.
Our overarching feeling on this one is: why are we being asked to vote on this? Minutia such as the management of a trust fund should be left to lawyers and elected officials, not the electorate.
Half of our group abstained and the rest was split. All were meh. You could either abstain or vote No to express how silly it is that you are being asked to vote on such a thing.
Props B and C - 8 Washington development and height limit - No
At first glance these two seem practically identical. They authorize a building project that includes luxury apartments and retail space down on the Embarcadero, wiping out a private tennis club in the process. The main difference is that C simply raises the height limit for an ordinance already approved by the Board of Supervisors while B stands alone.
We have someone in our group with real estate knowledge, and she points out that Prop B creates a special use district, which is a big pain in the rear for all future permitting there. So if you really wanted to vote for one of these, vote C.
One thing you hear a lot from the opponents of B and C is that this new development will build a "wall on the waterfront" because it's even taller then the old Embarcadero freeway monstrosity. Well it may be twice as tall, but it will be 1/1000th as wide (usually the more important consideration when discussing a wall), so we're going to call BS on that argument. Smells like tennis club money.
But once again our feeling on these is: why are we voting on this? This is why we have a planning commission and elected officials. These decisions should be made in a variety of local hearings, not by the city-wide electorate. Jeesh.
Prop D - Negotiate drug pricing - Yes
Well, this is just a non-binding statement, but of course anybody making a big purchase should negotiate to bring the price down as much as possible. It's pretty shocking that a Bush-era law actually prevents Medicare from negotiating drug prices, resulting in Medicare paying about double what the Department of Veterans Affairs pays.
So we're not sure why anyone would be against this, and indeed nobody is. Well, almost nobody…
Our good friend Terence Faulkner is back! His opposition argument is a real gem. It starts with the Roman Empire, drops by Hippocrates, and just keeps on going. He basically argues that pharmaceutical companies are absolutely wonderful and should get as much money as possible. But really, you should read it yourself—pull up the voter guide and scroll to page 71. We love voting against this guy!
Wednesday morning update: the results
A - Yes
B - No
C - No
D - Yes
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)