San Francisco County Propositions

Unlike the state propositions, which supervisor voted for what measure is clearly identified in the Voter Information Pamphlet for each San Francsico county provision.  This is usually a good indiactor on which way to vote.  Basically, anything Chris Daly supports, I am against; and vice versa.

All kidding aside, here is how I am going to vote.

Proposition AA – Vehicle Registration Fee to Fund Transportation Projects

In short, the city wants to apply a $10 tax on vehicle registration to pay for street repairs, crosswalk improvements, and bicycle infrastructure.  This came about because in 2009, when the state legislature stole the funds the cities were supposed to have for transportation projects, they cleverly adopted a law to allow local municipalities to apply an additional annual fee of up to $10 on vehicles registered in their counties.

I like the fact that the Board of Supervisors did not hesitate to go for the whole $10.  At some point, the state is going to overturn Arnold Schwarzenegger’s cutback on vehicle registration fee to pull in the money we need to fully fund transportation infrastructure project.  Do not give an extra $10 to the Board of Supervisors.  It would be like giving whiskey and car keys to teenagers – bad idea.

I am voting no on AA.

Proposition A – Earthquake Retrofit Bond

This proposition allows the city to float a $46 billion dollar bond to fund grants and loans for the seismic retrofitting of soft-story affordable housing and single room occupancy dwellings.  A study was conducting in 2009 and found that over 2,800 dwellings within the city were vulnerable to collapse or significant damage during a major earthquake.

On the surface, this seems like a common sense bond to approve.  However, the city could address much of this through the use of private funds by inspecting buildings and requiring owners to invest in changes to bring buildings up to code.  This bond seems like an expensive way to address a problem that many building owners should fix on their own.

I am voting no on Prop A.

Proposition B – Increase City Workers’ Contributions To Pension and Health Care

Here are the basic numbers on this.  Police officers and firefighters who currently contribute 7.5 percent of their pay toward their pension would have to contribute 10 percent. All other employees, whose contributions now range from zero to 7.5 percent, would contribute 9 percent.  On health care, employees would be required to make a contribution to their own health premiums and cover fifty percent of their dependent health care coverage (under the Kaiser plan, an employee with one dependent who now pays $8.84 a month would pay $249.17; with two or more dependents, the $228.74 premium would rise to $448.64).

This proposition was put on the ballot by public defender Jeff Adachi.  It is expected to save the city an estimated $120 million a year.

Who doesn’t think this is a good idea?  The city unions.  All money being used to fight this initiative is coming from them.  During the boom economy, the city unions plowed through a bunch of propositions to increase their take from the city coffers under the guise that the increases would pay for themselves.  Now that the economy is down, this is not the case.

Let’s talk about common sense.  Do you pay $8.84 per month for health care?  Do you contribute nothing to your pension and still get something?  No.  Would you like to?  Heck yes.  But that is not the economic reality.  City workers need to shoulder their fair share of the costs.

Vote yes on Prop B.

Proposition C – Require Mayoral Appearances At Board Meetings

We’ve seen this initiative before.  It was on the ballot in 2007.  Basically, the Board of Supervisors wants to require the Mayor of the City to appear in person at one Board meeting per month.

City child Chris Daly is leading the charge on this one.  All this proposition would do is to ensure that the Board of Supervisors could grandstand once a month.  Every San Francisco Mayor in recent history has maintained an open door policy with the Board.  Anyone requesting a meeting can get one.

I am voting no on this silly proposition.

Proposition D – Non-Citizen Voting in School Board Elections

This proposition is to allow non-citizen residents 18 years or older and who have children enrolled in the San Francisco Unified School District to vote for members of the city Board of Education.  This same initiative was on the ballot in 2004 and rejected then.

One of the basic values of citizenship is the right to vote.  The San Francisco Board of Supervisors continues to devalue those basic rights by putting this idiotic measure on the ballot (its sponsor, Supervisor David Chiu believes we need to engage immigrant parents in the schools).  Bottom line, the measure is probably illegal under state law and the overhead of managing who could vote for what in what election is not worth the cost.

I’m voting no on Prop D.

Proposition E – Election Day Voter Registration

Under current law, people must register fifteen days in advance to vote in an election.  This allows time to validate if that person is eligible to vote in that district.

Nine of eleven supervisors voted to put this on the ballot.  I like the San Francisco Chronicle’s summary of its opposition to the measure: “If supervisors really want to get voters engaged in municipal elections, perhaps they can spend less time worrying about Happy Meals and foreign policy, and more time concentrating on real problems facing the city.”

I’m voting no on Prop E.

Proposition F – Reduce the Health Service Board of Elections

This doesn’t actually reduce the elections as it does reduce the staggering of elections so that there are only two elections every five years rather than the current four elections.

In business, boards are staggered for a reason – to ensure continuity.  That is the same process currently in place for the city.  I believe the chance of loading the board with political charges outweighs any cost savings.  Staggered elections work.

I am voting no on Prop F.

Proposition G – Transit Operator Wages

Currently, the City Charter requires that MUNI drivers are paid at least as much as the average salary of transit operators in the two highest paying similar transit systems in the country as well as requires the payout of certain bonuses.  Prop G wants to return to the normal way of negotiating pay – through collective bargaining agreements.

This is another proposition the unions are firmly against.  MUNI drivers are paid a fat, happy wage and can still do work slowdowns or stoppages if they like.  The requirement to tie pay to how much the two other most expensive systems in the country are paying is crazy.  The logic that the current agreement has prevented strikes is flawed as drivers have done sick outs and slowdowns with no reprisals.

I’m tired of the unions helping to drive the city further into debt (when they should be just driving us to work on time).

I’m voting yes on Prop G.

Proposition H – Prohibit Local Elected Officials From Serving on Party County Central Committees

Currently, there are no restrictions on elected City officials from serving on their county’s political party central committee.

Gavin Newsom put this on the ballot when he was having a pissing contest with the Board of Supervisors.  Just like voting down Prop C is a kiss-off to Chris Daly, saying no to Prop H would be a fitting send off for Mayor Newsom.

I am voting no on Prop H.

Proposition I – Polling Places Open Saturday Before the Election

Currently, City polling places are open the Tuesday of the election.  In addition, people may cast absentee ballots or go down to City Hall up to a month in advance to vote in an upcoming election.

This proposition was placed on the ballot by professional political consultant Alex Tourk.  He qualified that it would not cost the city any money as private interests that wanted the opening polling places would have to fund them.

Wow.  So now you can not only buy votes but Mr. Tourk wants to be able to buy the polling places, too.  This is special interest at its worst as groups will buy the polling places and then pay to bus people to them (like the old days when the party bosses used to buy lunch for people who voted).

I am voting no on Prop I.

Proposition J – Hotel Tax Increase and Collection Confirmation Law

There is a 14% tax on hotel rooms and related charges.  This money goes to the City General Fund.  The hotel operator must collect the tax when it collects payment for the room and services.  The tax does not apply to a “permanent resident” who pays for 30 consecutive days or more.  This proposition raises the tax rate to 16% and wants to redefine what a “permanent resident” is.

People love to visit San Francisco.  However, everyone always notices how expensive it is.  If Proposition J passes, it will give San Francisco the highest hotel tax in the nation.  Does the city really need to provide convention bookers and tourist another reason to take their disposable income elsewhere?

I am voting no on Prop J.

Proposition K – Hotel Tax Clarification

Currently, if a person books a room on-line and pays the on-line vendor $150 but the on-line vendor only pays the city hotel $100, the city is only getting taxes on the $100.  Proposition K is trying to force the hotel operator to be the collector for the full taxes the city thinks it is due.

This issue where on-line companies are using tax code loopholes to avoid paying cities their "fair share" is an issue all over the country.  The item is already being pursued in court.  In addition, Prop K is poorly written and could lead to new and unnecessary litigation.

I am voting no on Prop K.

Proposition L –Sit/Lie Ordinance

This proposition amends the city Police Code to prohibit sitting or lying on a public sidewalk between 7AM and 11PM.  The proposition accounts for certain exceptions including medical emergencies, authorized events, and normal business lines.

Propositions L and M are tied at the hip.  If they both pass, the one with the higher percentage becomes the law and the other one is tossed aside.  Personally, I do not like L but M is worse.  In Proposition M, the Board of Supervisors forces a silly, bureaucratic exercise on the Police Department where they would have to present a written community policing policy, establish a foot patrol program, and specifically not adopt any sit/lie measures.

The city needs to do something about the abuse of its sidewalks.  The current process of writing citations does nothing for the most egregious offenders (and the current District Attorney, Kamala Harris, has a notoriously bad/lax conviction rate).  This would be a law that certainly could be abused if we ever moved to a full police state in the city.  However, we cannot afford Prop M, either.

I am voting for Prop L.

Proposition M – Community Policing and Foot Patrols

Proposition M requires the Police Commission to adopt a written community policing policy, the Chief of Police to establish a comprehensive Foot Beat Patrol Program, and specifically not adopt any sit/lie law.

This proposition is an example on why you really should punch a Supervisor in the nose if you see them; the Board cannot do their job but they want to tell others how to do theirs.

I am voting no on Prop M.

Proposition N – Real Property Tax Transfer

Is it over yet?  I’ve had to vote on twenty offices and twenty-four propositions!

Proposition N proposes to increase the real estate property transfer tax to 2.0% for sales and long term leases of property between $5 and $10 million and 2.5% for anything over $10 million.  The current rates vary between 0.5% and 1.5%.

Just two years ago, the Board of Supervisors doubled the tax on property transitions.  Now they want to raise the tax again by anywhere from 33% to 66%, depending on property value.  Instead of focusing on government cost containment, the Board always seems to be looking for tax expansion.

I’m voting no on Prop N.


And with that, I am done...