San Francisco propositions

To give you an idea of the ridiculousness of the initiative process in this city, the voters guide is 272 pages for 22 propositions, of which the legal text takes up 40 of those pages; the Controllers Statement, pros and cons and Digest take up 160 or so pages.

Proposition A

Proposition A would issue $887.4 million in bonds that will be used to rebuild or retrofit San Francisco General Hospital in order to improve the hospital's earthquake safety. Construction is set to begin in 2010 and be completed by 2015. State law requires hospitals to be able to withstand large earthquakes through retrofitting or rebuilding by 2013, or risk being shut-down. This proposition would also allow landlords to pass 50% of the resulting property tax increase to tenants. In this instance, the City is deciding to rebuild the General- treatment would continue through the construction.

Again, I have various concerns about increasing government debt, and will oppose such imprudent government spending. However, rebuilding a hospital to meet state law to meet earthquake safety standards in a completely different thing. I am in no position to doubt the veracity or completeness of whatever the design study for the new hospital. This bond measure certainly appears to be worthwhile.

Vote yes on Proposition A.

Proposition B

Proposition B will amend the city charter requiring a new specific funding set aside for a new affordable housing fund. This set aside would guarantee a revenue stream from the city's general fund, so new revenue sources would have to be found to replace the lost funding. The Affordable Housing Fund would be used to purchase, build, rehabilitate or maintain housing for households that earn not more than 80% of the median income of Ess Eff; support programs to help first-time buyers; provide rent subsidies and other services to tenants; and help with urgent repairs of public housing properties owned by the Ess Eff Housing Authority. Money can also be used for housing with dependents, seniors, people with disabilities, people who are HIV positive, and people who were recently homeless or are at risk of becoming homeless. There are other specific requirements for spending funds from this fund. This fund is set to expire in 2024. In the first year, the program will take away $36 million out of the 2008-2009 budget, afterwards, it will cost $88 million a year, for a total of nearly $3 billion over the length of the program.

This proposition is simply put a 15 year earmark that takes money out of the city's general fund without replacing the lost funds. This is an attempt by Chris Daly to hijack the city's spending priorities and funnel money to groups aligned with him. Despite claims to the alternative, this fund will not help middle class families stay in San Francisco. Not to mention that losing this money will take away money that would be better used at, say, fixing roads, maintaining police and fire departments, helping out MUNI, maintaining parks or helping out schools. While the city infrastructure begins to fall apart, the city repeatedly is forced to make funding judgments on social policies. This measure will not help the people who live in this city.

Vote No on Prop. B.

Proposition C

This is a proposition that will prohibit city employees from serving on most City Charter created boards and commissions. Some commissions require the city employees are part of the commission, and some commissions require city officials as part of the board. This proposition would not apply citizen advisory committees, the Law Library Board of Trustees, the Arts Commission, the Asian Art Commission, the Fine Arts Museums Board of Trustees, the governing board of the War Memorial and Performing Arts Center, the Retirement Board and the Health Service Board.

I honestly do not know what the purpose of this proposition is supposed to accomplish. The argument in favor say that this proposition will reduce conflicts and undue influence by city employees. This proposition seems needlessly excessive and unnecessary. The threat imagined by the Board of Supervisors that put this on the ballot seems to be really off the mark. My general feeling when dealing with city propositions is that if I have any doubts, vote no. I don't know what the real purpose or design is for this proposition and it seems really unnecessary. So, vote No on Prop. C.

Proposition D

This proposition will provide funds to develop Pier 70 based on new city hotel and payroll expense tax revenues from the development of Pier 70, provided that the Board of Supervisors approves a financial and land use plan for Pier 70. In other words, this would allow the Port of San Francisco and/or the city's General Fund to expend funds to pay for the development of new buildings and commercial buildings, and would allow the Port and/or the city to recover those expenditures through an increase in hotel and payroll expense taxes on property built and businesses operating in the Pier 70 waterfront development. This will allow for redevelopment of a historical area badly in need of redevelopment and repair, at little to no cost to citizens. This proposition is supported by the entire Board of Supervisors, the S.F. Chamber of Commerce and both the S.F. Republican Party and the S.F. Democratic Party.

This is a good deal for the residents of this city. Vote Yes on Prop. D.

Proposition E

This proposition will change the number of signatures required for petitions to recall city officials to match state law for a recall of an official. Currently, the number of signatures required for a petition to recall city officials is 10% of the registered voters in the supervisor's district. This proposition would change that to 20% of the supervisor's district. What is telling about the purpose of this proposition is the rebuttal by supporters of this proposition, there the supporters come out and say they want this to stop recall attempts "based on one or two policy disagreements." They claim this 10% level is "ripe for abuse"; in other words, they don't want to make it easy for residents to recall them. Over the past 2 years, 2 separate recall attempts have been tried against Supervisor Jake McGoldrick and Board President Aaron Peskin, conveniently, both of them are termed out this year. Both attempts failed. There is nothing wrong with the current 10% requirement, and has not be abused. This is simply to make it harder for residents to move to recall their supervisor.

Vote No on E.

Proposition F

This proposition would declare that all city elections, except special elections, be held only in even-numbered years beginning after the 2011 elections. Currently, elections for Mayor, Sheriff, District Attorney, City Attorney and Treasurer in odd-numbered years for 4 year terms. If approved, those positions elected in either 2009, when City Attorney and Treasurer are up, or 2011, when Mayor, Sheriff and District Attorney are up, would serve 5 year terms; thereafter, terms would return to 4 years. Supporters argue that turn-out tends to be higher in even numbered years, especially in Presidential election years, additionally, holding elections every year increases voter fatigue. Opponents argue that by aligning local races with federal races will decrease attention paid to local races.

I will simply note that this is the largest voter guide since I've lived in San Francisco; I'm sure it's no coincidence that the size of this voter guide coincides with a Presidential election. As a voter do I want 20+ city wide ballot propositions every 2 years, or have them spread out over 2 or more elections. I say the latter. Also, it's important to note that the language still allows the city to call a special election whenever it wants. So, even though it attempts to say elections will only be held every 2 years, it's still possible, and likely, that we'll have elections at least every year or something.

Vote No on Proposition F.

Proposition G

This proposition would allow city employees who took unpaid parental leave before July 1, 2003 to purchase retirement system credit for those lost days. In 2003, city voters approved paid parental leave for city employees, up to 16 weeks paid leave. Employees would be eligible to buy back this lost credit if they returned to work with the City and stayed for at least 6 months. Employees would be able to buy back this credit in 2 month blocks, up to 4 months, for each period of unpaid leave. Employees must purchase this credit before they retire. All costs to purchase this credit will be borne by the employee and not the City.

This seems an entirely reasonable solution to working mothers and fathers who were city employees before 2003 and took unpaid parental leave. If the city employees subject to this proposition want to be able to buy back their service credit for those unpaid periods, they should be able to. This is a fair result to what turned out to be an inequitable situation.

Vote Yes of G.

I'm going to skip Prop. H, and save that for another post.

Proposition I

This proposition will create an Office of the Independent Ratepayer Advocate. Basically, this will be an independent office that will provide advice on behalf of ratepayers before the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. The SF PUC sets rates to be paid by citizen residents on water and sewer services, as well as operating the Hetch Hetchy Dam, Hetchy Hetchy water canal, and any power created from Hetch Hetchy Dam. The SF PUC is essentially a municipal utility that is responsible for water and sewer service to San Francisco residents. The ratepayer advocate would provide advice, comments and make recommendations on PUC rates from the ratepayer perspective; review PUC revenues; hold public meetings on PUC rates; accept inquiries from PUC customers; provide explanations of PUC rates; and conduct customer outreach activities. The ratepayer advocate would be paid for by ratepayers, as such, the PUC would be allowed to raise rates to recover the costs of funding the Office of Ratepayer Advocate. The City Administrator would appoint or remove the Advocate. Currently, the PUC contracts for an independent analysis of the fairness of their rates and the soundness of their business plan and revenues.

I know this sounds like a good idea, having someone specifically designated to review PUC rates and revenues, but, really, isn't that the job of the Board of Supervisors? The PUC is a municipal agency, as such, it's rates are designed to cover its operating costs. Now, might the PUC decide to go off on some random policy road that ultimately end up costing ratepayers more; sure. But again, that's the job of the Board of Supervisors to deal with. If this city wants to make the PUC more accountable to the people, they would put the PUC board up for a vote. As it is, the PUC board is now subject to Board of Supervisor scrutiny. If the Board of Supervisors don't like what the PUC is doing, they can haul the PUC board into a meeting. At this point, pending revelations of wild PUC spending or unwise policy pronouncements (ok, changing water rate structures may not have been ideal, but they are trying to force conservation, a measure I doubt the Office of Ratepayer Advocate would oppose), I see no reason to support this increase in annual PUC expenditures. It will cost an estimated $125K a year to staff this office. Plus, it seems to me that the Board of Supervisors don't want to do their job of oversight of the PUC; hence, they delegate their responsibility to an unelected official, that serves that the pleasure of the City Administrator, which is appointed by the Mayor and approved by the Board of Supervisors.

So, I do not see this office as needed, nor do I see a need to increase PUC spending (and S.F. ratepayers rates). Therefore, vote No on I.

Proposition J

This proposition will create a Historic Preservation Commission that will consist of 7 members. The Historic Preservation Commission will replace the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board. The differences between the two agencies are: 1) the Landmarks Board only provides recommendations to the Planning Commission and Planning Department, which can accept or reject the Landmarks Board's recommendation and 2) the Historic Preservation Commission would become a separate City agency, taking over the duties of the Landmarks Board, as well as certain duties from the Planning Commission and Planning Department. The Historic Planning Commission will have authority to make recommendations directly to the Board of Supervisors on designation of landmarks, historic buildings, historic districts and conservation districts; approve permits or certificates for demolition of or alteration to designated landmarks and historic buildings; and make recommendations about proposed ordinances and resolutions concerning historic preservation. Decisions from the Commission can be appealed to the Board of Supervisors. Despite all that, the Historic Planning Commission will not have its own staff, but will rely on budgets and staff from the Planning Department.

Ok, so what does all this mean? It means that this new commission is replacing an old commission and giving the new commission some additional authority over historical building issues. Generally, I don't mind historical preservation commissions or boards; I think they do a decent job at trying to keep the historical nature of a building or neighborhood intact. Coupled with the fact that there was already a board required to deal with this issue, I don't really see a major problem with approving this proposition. However, in San Francisco, these things are never so easy. With this new authority, the Commission could go out of its way to deny much needed new construction in areas that are deemed historical. Of course, the way this city works, any number of boards or commissions, or the Board of Supervisors themselves, can kill a worthwhile project- historical or not. Not that I want to be seen as advocating for more regulation, I do admit the need to have some oversight over historical buildings and structures. I recommend this proposition in the hopes that there is some common sense, and buildings aren't declared historical just because.

I recommend Yes on Prop. J.

Proposition K

This proposition would stop enforcing laws against prostitution and direct the City to stop funding anti-prostitution programs. It would keep laws relating to coercion, extortion, battery, rape, sexual assault and other violent crimes on the books and allow police to enforce those laws whether or not the victim is a "sex worker."

Without getting into the hysterics that supporters and opponents whip themselves into on this measure, I will admit there is at least some reasoning behind decriminalizing prostitution. That being said, a modicum of regulation normally steps in to ensure the safety of those workers so that the prostitutes themselves aren't here illegally or against their will, and that they are not engaging in other criminal activity. This proposition provides none of the safeguards that one would expect upon decriminalizing certain behavior. It is an open question as to whether or not human trafficking would be subject to the decriminalizing aspect of this proposition. This proposition is simply poorly constructed, poorly conceived, and poorly thought-out. It is possible to have a reasoned discussion on decriminalizing prostitution, but this measure it not the way to begin this debate.

Vote No on Proposition K.

Ok, that's all I have the patience to deal with for now. I'll get cracking on the remaining 10 propositions later on. I hope this makes sense; my head hurts. If I have any egregious errors, someone let me know.