Umbrage and Prop. A

It's as if the Examiner is daring me to take it on. So, here I am, one insignificant individual and I will dare take on San Francisco's Proposition A, full legal text is available here.

Prop. A asks for approval to issue $185 million in bonds to cover the costs of construction, reconstruction or improvement of 12 of the playgrounds located throughout the city, as well as 9 waterfront parks, and other upkeep. Additionally, it allows landlords to pass through 50% of whatever tax increase the city determines is necessary to meet its payment obligations to pay off the bonds onto its tenants (at least those residential tenants under Chapter 37, whatever that means). I should note that in the voter guide, the city controller could not outline what or how much that tax may be, noting that "the actual tax rate and the years in which such rates are applicable may vary." Heck, it doesn't even propose a schedule to pay off the bonds. In other words, who knows how much it will all cost in the long run.

Also, it will fund an oversight committee to oversee the expenditures and progress.

So, you may ask, what's the big deal? Think of the children and the quality of life that parks bring to neighborhoods.

Yes, indeed, all of that is good. What I am opposed to is that this whole bond mess is even necessary. As noted in the Examiner article, the previous playground upkeep bond that passed in 2000 was a mess and did not accomplish its goals. Even with the institution of this oversight committee, what is there to ensure that the committee abides by the rules of the bond, that this isn't another well intentioned bond proposal that goes awry by special interests?

Further, the text notes that in a 2007 Capital Plan adopted by the city, it outlined several areas that needed to be addressed by the city to upgrade facilities throughout the city. So, instead of weeding through the budget to find programs that can be cut, to make park clean up fit within a budget process, the city instead opts for a bond measure. If the city really wanted to upgrade the parks, it could find a better way through the budget, than through a bond measure.

I don't want crumbling and unsafe playgrounds, I don't want unkept walkways along the waterfront; I want everything the bond proposes to accomplish. But I want government accountability too. I want to make sure that the city isn't wasting current tax funds on wasteful projects, when that money could already be used towards upgrading our playgrounds and parks. Admittedly, I probably could have chosen a better bond measure to take this public stand (although I did vote no in the last election on the library bonds proposition for accountability reasons), because who will deny money to fix playgrounds. I certainly do not want to, but when the city (continually) decides that it will be easier to simply float some bonds, raise property taxes to presumably pay off those bonds sometime in the future, and not through their budget process, then I have to say something.

Therefore, I recommend a No on Prop. A.

What makes this even more interesting is a recent article in the Chronicle that notes that Ess Eff may not even have very many children living here anyway and even less in the future. According to the article, some see Ess Eff attracting young and single management-level workers, going out to clubs and fine dining, then getting married and finding housing too expensive and moving to the suburbs when they can raise children. Then, when children are off in college, moving back into the city. What type of populace this "new urbanism" results in is open to debate. You can begin to see it areas like Haight, where homeowners, looking to protect their investment and live in a safe environment, are beginning to respond to vagrants and homelessness. If this new urbanism does develop, where will these playgrounds fit in? If there are no children, who will use these playgrounds?

Finally, I would like to say Happy Trails to Rep. Tom Lantos, who announced he will retire from Congress at the end of the year due to health reasons. Best of luck to him and hope that he is able to enjoy many more healthy years.