I have some advice for you- stop running to the courts.
Now, I don't say that to mean give up and stop trying; far from it. Rather, I would advise y'all to get out and educate and put up a positive ballot measure that would grant marriages. On election night, I was watching the local news and they interviewed one of the Yes on 8 campaign directors and he noted that not once have pro-gay marriage supporters gone out and sought approval from voters for that position. Instead, they've reacted to anti-gay marriage propositions and hauled them to court, and allowed the court to decide when the legislature and the people should decide. The legislature already set-up domestic partnership laws, laws that the people of this state appeared to support. Prop 8 passed by 400,000 votes- I can imagine that a substantial part of that margin was made up of people who don't care one way or another, but simply were upset that the court forced this upon the public. The citizens of this state have now voted twice against gay marriage. . .Get before the public a pro-gay marriage amendment, and stop relying on the courts to force this down peoples' throats. The court was wrong on this decision- the court cannot usurp the vote of the people (or the legislature) and make new exceptions where none are evident. Only the people can and should make these decisions- and the pro-gay marriage advocates need to get them, and stop relying on the courts.
On the other hand...I am not at all surprised by these findings- "While Obama publicly backed the "No on Prop. 8" effort, African American voters had no trouble voting overwhelmingly for the man who will be the nation's first black president and then voting 70 percent in favor of Prop. 8, exit polls showed."
This same situation played itself out in Florida: "Barack Obama's candidacy likely played a role in the gay-marriage ban passing in Florida. Black voters turned out in droves and, according to exit polls, supported the amendment by the greatest margin -- 71 percent to 29 percent -- when compared to whites and Hispanics."
None of this should be at all surprising to Democrats and gay marriage advocates and foes. How so? In 2004, the voters of Ohio passed an amendment to the state constitution declaring that marriage shall be only between a man and woman. The vote total was 62% in favor and 38% opposed; yet, Bush won Ohio by 2%, or 120,000 votes. It should also be noted that Bush got a higher percentage of the black vote in Ohio, 16%, up from 9% in 2000, than he got nationwide, 10%. So, not only did Bush get a sizable percentage of the black vote in Ohio, enough to possibly have pushed him over the top, the black vote also accounted for the large support in Ohio for declaring marriage to be between a man and a woman. In other words, even though only winning the state by 2%, a proposition denying same-sex marriages passed by 24%. It seems obvious that that discrepancy was made up by black voters.
As I began this posting above- those in favor of same-sex marriages need to come out and make a positive ballot proposition, and stop running to the courts to stop "the people." Give the people something positive to respond to on this matter, and they will come around. The courts should not be used to effect social change; that responsibility is up to the people. I know that some people look back longingly to the excesses of the Warren Court, but those days are long gone. Move on.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Who didn't see this coming?
Stocks have worst day after election day ever, surpassing the dreadful day after FDR's first win.
As this place has noted previously, FDR's economic policies made the country worse, and any attempts by Obama and the Congress do emulate those same policies must be opposed, especially any growth in aggressive unionization (card check). If Wall Street supposedly had already internalized an Obama victory, this shows a rather shocking doubt about the state of the economy and Obama's plan- another stimulus package with government mucking around in the economy is the last thing we need.
As if a 5+% loss in one day wasn't expected, Iraq says they are confident Obama won't pull out troops too quickly, with a current strategy shooting for 2011. I can only help but wonder if this is one of the many, many things Obama must have been referring to in his election night speech about how some things may take some time, and may not be done by the end of his first term. Of course, this had made some news before the election in an article in the NY Post, of course, Obama supporters attacked the author. Not surprisingly, the media continued to peddle the Obama narrative on Iraq, and not one day later, Iraq comes out and says 2011. Obviously, I can only wonder what else has the press covered up until the election.
Finally, various Asian countries voice their concerns over Obama's potential trade policies, especially towards the East. "He appears to be a protectionist," said Chea Mony, president of the Free Trade Union of Workers in Cambodia, which has an export-driven textile industry." Further, "[i]n an Oct. 24 letter to the U.S. National Council of Textile Organizations, Obama pledged "strong enforcement" of trade remedy laws, which can include added tariffs on imports that are deemed to hurt American businesses. Obama said he would include labor and environmental standards in free trade agreements — a measure that many in Asia view as a possible pretext to shield U.S. companies from foreign competition."
Obama has a huge task ahead of him. . .based on his history, I have great concerns about where he will govern, coupled with little belief that he'll be able to stand up to Congress.
Anyway. . .I may write something more about California and the City proposition; but, two quick things. 1) I opposed the passage of Prop 2, but it passed with flying colors- I simply have no explanation for it, especially in light of the failure of Prop 8. Apparently people hold a higher opinion of chickens, pigs and baby cows than of their fellow citizens- I'd be willing to entertain any other opinions. 2) Mayor Newsom and the San Francisco Chronicle have nearly zero effect on voting in this city, at least when it comes to Board candidates- any board for that matter, be Board of Supervisors, Board of Education or City College Board. I suppose it's amusing to think that in San Francisco, Newsom is considered an unacceptable moderate in some circles, yet once you leave the Bay Area, he's a raging bleeding heart. I'm not looking forward to the next Mayoral campaign.
Finally, today starts the battle for 2010. I'm quickly going to note that the three-way race for the Democratic nominee for Governor- S.F. Mayor Newsom, L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and California Attorney General Jerry Brown could be in for some company in the form of Senator Dianne Feinstein. With Arnold's term expiring in 2010, there continues to be rumors of what he will do next- I posit that if Feinstein decides to run for Governor, Sen. Boxer, who's term expires at the end of 2010 will decide to not run, and let the Mayors battle it out for the nomination, and Arnold will run for her seat on the Republican side. I will say that I'm very enthusiastic about the potential nominees for the Republican nominee for governor- currently, former Rep. Tom Campbell (who was my Rep. growing up in San Jose and almost went to work for in D.C.) has announced, and I expect Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner and former Ebay executive Meg Whitman to all run. We shall see.
The stock market posted its biggest plunge following a presidential election as reports on jobs and service industries stoked concern the economy will worsen even as President-elect Barack Obama tries to stimulate growth.
As this place has noted previously, FDR's economic policies made the country worse, and any attempts by Obama and the Congress do emulate those same policies must be opposed, especially any growth in aggressive unionization (card check). If Wall Street supposedly had already internalized an Obama victory, this shows a rather shocking doubt about the state of the economy and Obama's plan- another stimulus package with government mucking around in the economy is the last thing we need.
As if a 5+% loss in one day wasn't expected, Iraq says they are confident Obama won't pull out troops too quickly, with a current strategy shooting for 2011. I can only help but wonder if this is one of the many, many things Obama must have been referring to in his election night speech about how some things may take some time, and may not be done by the end of his first term. Of course, this had made some news before the election in an article in the NY Post, of course, Obama supporters attacked the author. Not surprisingly, the media continued to peddle the Obama narrative on Iraq, and not one day later, Iraq comes out and says 2011. Obviously, I can only wonder what else has the press covered up until the election.
Finally, various Asian countries voice their concerns over Obama's potential trade policies, especially towards the East. "He appears to be a protectionist," said Chea Mony, president of the Free Trade Union of Workers in Cambodia, which has an export-driven textile industry." Further, "[i]n an Oct. 24 letter to the U.S. National Council of Textile Organizations, Obama pledged "strong enforcement" of trade remedy laws, which can include added tariffs on imports that are deemed to hurt American businesses. Obama said he would include labor and environmental standards in free trade agreements — a measure that many in Asia view as a possible pretext to shield U.S. companies from foreign competition."
Obama has a huge task ahead of him. . .based on his history, I have great concerns about where he will govern, coupled with little belief that he'll be able to stand up to Congress.
Anyway. . .I may write something more about California and the City proposition; but, two quick things. 1) I opposed the passage of Prop 2, but it passed with flying colors- I simply have no explanation for it, especially in light of the failure of Prop 8. Apparently people hold a higher opinion of chickens, pigs and baby cows than of their fellow citizens- I'd be willing to entertain any other opinions. 2) Mayor Newsom and the San Francisco Chronicle have nearly zero effect on voting in this city, at least when it comes to Board candidates- any board for that matter, be Board of Supervisors, Board of Education or City College Board. I suppose it's amusing to think that in San Francisco, Newsom is considered an unacceptable moderate in some circles, yet once you leave the Bay Area, he's a raging bleeding heart. I'm not looking forward to the next Mayoral campaign.
Finally, today starts the battle for 2010. I'm quickly going to note that the three-way race for the Democratic nominee for Governor- S.F. Mayor Newsom, L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and California Attorney General Jerry Brown could be in for some company in the form of Senator Dianne Feinstein. With Arnold's term expiring in 2010, there continues to be rumors of what he will do next- I posit that if Feinstein decides to run for Governor, Sen. Boxer, who's term expires at the end of 2010 will decide to not run, and let the Mayors battle it out for the nomination, and Arnold will run for her seat on the Republican side. I will say that I'm very enthusiastic about the potential nominees for the Republican nominee for governor- currently, former Rep. Tom Campbell (who was my Rep. growing up in San Jose and almost went to work for in D.C.) has announced, and I expect Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner and former Ebay executive Meg Whitman to all run. We shall see.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Congratulations
The sheeple have spoken and they have chosen wrongly. The piper will come for his payment, and it will not be good for the this country. Universal health care=bad idea; tax increases=bad idea; protectionist policies=bad idea; union card check=bad idea; fairness doctrine=bad idea. Once again, I am simply dumbfounded how anyone in their right mind on these issues could possibly vote for Obama and his empty rhetoric. Empty campaign promises, poorly explained policies and a simple ignorance of practical economics is not a view of America that I want to see; the people of this country have made a terrible choice, a choice that they will regret come this next year after Pelosi and Harry Reid, two of the worst Congressional leaders in some time, push extremely liberal positions upon the people of this country. Barack Obama will be a weak and ineffective leader and will be unable to stop Congress; he is Jimmy Carter re-incarnated.
Yes I'm bitter; I'm bitter that people of this country are willing to elect a person of such inexperience and someone who is extremely unqualified to lead us. I'm bitter that this country has such a short memory that 20+ years of unqualified success in free trade and free markets will let that be shot by a charlatan.
So, congratulations USA. . .you have made a decision to go backwards.
Yes I'm bitter; I'm bitter that people of this country are willing to elect a person of such inexperience and someone who is extremely unqualified to lead us. I'm bitter that this country has such a short memory that 20+ years of unqualified success in free trade and free markets will let that be shot by a charlatan.
So, congratulations USA. . .you have made a decision to go backwards.
Tuesday Morn
Last night, wife and I went over the ballot and made our cheat sheet. Yes, I know, I've failed again as I failed to fully complete my voter guide. . .sorry, but when there's 30+ propositions to go over and summarize, it's a little difficult.
Anyway, so, this morning we head down to our local polling place which is in a Starbucks. There's a line that stretches about halfway down the street- I attribute this to a combination of increased voter turnout and the aforementioned 30+ ballot propositions we have to go through, which takes time. As we approach, it becomes clear to me that that is no pretense of a secret ballot. The polling officials only set up 8 "private" booths, but there are far too many people for those 8 booths, so people just set up shop at the various tables scattered throughout the Starbucks, two people to a table, whether or not they know the person. Wife and I end up doing our ballot on a ledge in front of the holiday ground coffee bags for sale, and she asks me questions about the ballot because she couldn't remember what we agreed on. I motor through the ballot- all 30+ propositions, 4 school board positions, 4 city college positions, president, U.S. Rep, State Assembly, Board of Supervisors, City Judge and BART. As I put my ballot through the scanner, the woman says, "Don't forget, free coffee today at Starbucks!" Great, I hate coffee. As we walk out, there are a few people doing their ballots on tables outside, in front of everyone waiting in line. And no one apparently minds.
About the free coffee. Apparently, giving free stuff to people who voted isn't necessarily legal. Businesses from Starbucks, to Ben and Jerrys, Krispy Kreme and even possibly Chick fil A all were planning on giving free stuff to people who voted. . .unfortunately, giving a reward to only people who voted is illegal. So, instead, anyone who asks for a free cup of coffee, or scoop of ice cream or a doughnut will get it; no need to prove you actually did anything. I find this final line from the WAPO ad amusingly prescient as we presumably move into an Obama administration: "So today's lesson is: Vote or don't vote -- either way you get free food." Wow, an excellent summary of exactly what Obama is promising.
Anyway, so, this morning we head down to our local polling place which is in a Starbucks. There's a line that stretches about halfway down the street- I attribute this to a combination of increased voter turnout and the aforementioned 30+ ballot propositions we have to go through, which takes time. As we approach, it becomes clear to me that that is no pretense of a secret ballot. The polling officials only set up 8 "private" booths, but there are far too many people for those 8 booths, so people just set up shop at the various tables scattered throughout the Starbucks, two people to a table, whether or not they know the person. Wife and I end up doing our ballot on a ledge in front of the holiday ground coffee bags for sale, and she asks me questions about the ballot because she couldn't remember what we agreed on. I motor through the ballot- all 30+ propositions, 4 school board positions, 4 city college positions, president, U.S. Rep, State Assembly, Board of Supervisors, City Judge and BART. As I put my ballot through the scanner, the woman says, "Don't forget, free coffee today at Starbucks!" Great, I hate coffee. As we walk out, there are a few people doing their ballots on tables outside, in front of everyone waiting in line. And no one apparently minds.
About the free coffee. Apparently, giving free stuff to people who voted isn't necessarily legal. Businesses from Starbucks, to Ben and Jerrys, Krispy Kreme and even possibly Chick fil A all were planning on giving free stuff to people who voted. . .unfortunately, giving a reward to only people who voted is illegal. So, instead, anyone who asks for a free cup of coffee, or scoop of ice cream or a doughnut will get it; no need to prove you actually did anything. I find this final line from the WAPO ad amusingly prescient as we presumably move into an Obama administration: "So today's lesson is: Vote or don't vote -- either way you get free food." Wow, an excellent summary of exactly what Obama is promising.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Local races
Putting these up the day before the election probably won't mean very much, but at least I put them up- maybe someone out there will find them beneficial.
First up, S.F. School Board.
The school board has been very contentious over these past few years, mainly because it has been led by the progressives who show that they are anything but. And I'm not ashamed to admit it, but I'm basically doing a one-issue slate this time. The issues? JROTC. Those opposed to JROTC, which has been led by the progressive majority, have been extremely vocal both in their opposition to it (for very non-JROTC reasons) and have been very vocal in trying to stifle debate on this issue. I'll get more into JROTC when I get around to Proposition V. Let it be said, though, the list below are people who support JROTC in high schools; who support free and open debate; and show they are willing to listen to other people. So, please vote for:
Rachel Norton
Emily Murase
Marigrace Cohen
Jill Wynns
I have not included Norman Yee, because he supported the petition to removed JROTC from the PE requirement. Despite his general position supporting JROTC, I feel that he has not shown leadership on this issue, instead, just following the tide, whichever way it may be. So, if you think my one-issue list is wrong, feel free to read the Chronicle's endorsements, where we disagree on Norman Yee and Marigrace Cohen.
Next up is the Community College Board. I'll admit to having little understanding of what this board does, or even having a real opinion on who should make up the board. However, I do know who I do not support, even though almost all of those up for election are Democrats that I would ordinarily not support, so it was a struggle to find four. So, after a period of whittling down names, here are the four I would suggest:
Steve Ngo
Mary Hernandez
For the final two, I can find no reason to not vote for current board members Natalie Berg and Milton Marks.
For District 5 Board of Supervisors, I'm left with the great distinction of choosing between three candidates, none of whom are likely to give a whit about the Inner Sunset portion of their district. First up, I do not support current Supe Ross Mirkarimi. He does not represent what I believe in, and he supports Proposition H, which deals with a potential city takeover of PG&E. I promise to get a Prop. H post up sometime soon. He is aligned with the Progressives in this city, although he is registered as a Green. And I have no faith in him holding the interests of the Inner Sunset in his mind. The second candidate is Owen O'Donnell, who is a Democrat. I do not agree with him either, most notably on the various social enginnering programs he supports all gussied up under the environment banner. Finally, there's Rob Anderson. On his website, he notes that he's trying to get at the left by moving further to the left of San Francisco progressives. What I find most alarming, at least to me, is how much I agree with him on a number of issues, homelessness and the various bicycle gangs, such as Critical Mass (who is a big supporter of Mirkarimi), that try to run this city. As he notes,
Nevertheless, it appears quite clear that the Inner Sunset is an area in District 5 that continues to get the short end of the stick. Inner Sunset is far less "progressive" than nearly all of the rest of District 5, which includes the Haight and the Western Addition. Which leaves me with a decision as to which candidate for District 5 would result in the least amount of problems for the Inner Sunset. I'm also comfortable in the knowledge that what I say probably won't change the fact that Mirkarimi will likely win re-election. So, I'm gonna vote for Rob Anderson, if for no other reason than it will make Board of Supervisors meetings far more interesting for
Melissa.
For the supervisor districts that border the Inner Sunset, re-elect both Sean Elsbernd and Carmen Chu.
Quick fire-
BART Director: I see no reason to not re-elect Tom Radulovich.
District 12 State Assembly: What to do with Fiona Ma. She single-handedly thwarted a very good bill in the legislature on an issue of great importance to me because of her relationship with a certain lobbyist. And she co-authored an editorial supporting Proposition H. So, you would think that that would lead me to cast my lot with the Republican running against her. Again, my vote isn't going to really matter in this district. Nevertheless, while I have substantial concerns about Fiona's stances on energy, she is in the Assembly leadership, and she does appear to be doing a decent job on behalf of those of us living in the her district. She has tackled recycling scavengers, who are stealing money from the garbage companies, and has sought to make Highway 1 much safer. While I disagree with her on energy policy, I see no reason to not re-elect her.
District 12 U.S. Representative: Unlike for the State Assembly, I as of yet do not have a solid opinion on Rep. Jackie Speier. I will preface this by saying the Rep. Speier is a newcomer still getting used to how Washington works, and I am greatly enthused that she is working with Rep. Jeff Flake on how to combat earmarks. Yet, at the same, she introduced a bill to re-establish a federal speed limit. Her opponent, Greg Conlon, has been around a long time, and, like most Bay Area Republicans, appear to be simply taking one for the team. I have no doubt that either one of them would be an adequate representative for this district. And, like in the State Assembly, it doesn't really matter who I recommend, because Jackie Speier will likely be re-elected. I suppose it does concern me that Jackie has been in office since April, but only has 2 pieces of legislation to show for herself, one being the Federal speed limit, the other being a post office naming for her old boss Leo Ryan, who was gunned down at Jonestown (and where a much younger Jackie Speier lay bleeding on the tarmac for several hours until help finally arrived). I will be interested to see how she performs with a full 2 year term.
San Francisco Superior Court: This one is easy. As I wrote earlier this year, current Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval has no business being elected to the S.F. Superior Court. Simply put, the position of judge is not to further certain social policies, create new law, or to use it as simply another city job; rather, the role of a judge is to interpret and enforce the law. I have zero faith that Gerardo Sandoval will be able to adequately or faithfully execute the law as written. Incumbent Judge Thomas Mellon may not be the nicest person on the planet, but he knows what it means to be a judge. Keep Judge Mellon.
First up, S.F. School Board.
The school board has been very contentious over these past few years, mainly because it has been led by the progressives who show that they are anything but. And I'm not ashamed to admit it, but I'm basically doing a one-issue slate this time. The issues? JROTC. Those opposed to JROTC, which has been led by the progressive majority, have been extremely vocal both in their opposition to it (for very non-JROTC reasons) and have been very vocal in trying to stifle debate on this issue. I'll get more into JROTC when I get around to Proposition V. Let it be said, though, the list below are people who support JROTC in high schools; who support free and open debate; and show they are willing to listen to other people. So, please vote for:
Rachel Norton
Emily Murase
Marigrace Cohen
Jill Wynns
I have not included Norman Yee, because he supported the petition to removed JROTC from the PE requirement. Despite his general position supporting JROTC, I feel that he has not shown leadership on this issue, instead, just following the tide, whichever way it may be. So, if you think my one-issue list is wrong, feel free to read the Chronicle's endorsements, where we disagree on Norman Yee and Marigrace Cohen.
Next up is the Community College Board. I'll admit to having little understanding of what this board does, or even having a real opinion on who should make up the board. However, I do know who I do not support, even though almost all of those up for election are Democrats that I would ordinarily not support, so it was a struggle to find four. So, after a period of whittling down names, here are the four I would suggest:
Steve Ngo
Mary Hernandez
For the final two, I can find no reason to not vote for current board members Natalie Berg and Milton Marks.
For District 5 Board of Supervisors, I'm left with the great distinction of choosing between three candidates, none of whom are likely to give a whit about the Inner Sunset portion of their district. First up, I do not support current Supe Ross Mirkarimi. He does not represent what I believe in, and he supports Proposition H, which deals with a potential city takeover of PG&E. I promise to get a Prop. H post up sometime soon. He is aligned with the Progressives in this city, although he is registered as a Green. And I have no faith in him holding the interests of the Inner Sunset in his mind. The second candidate is Owen O'Donnell, who is a Democrat. I do not agree with him either, most notably on the various social enginnering programs he supports all gussied up under the environment banner. Finally, there's Rob Anderson. On his website, he notes that he's trying to get at the left by moving further to the left of San Francisco progressives. What I find most alarming, at least to me, is how much I agree with him on a number of issues, homelessness and the various bicycle gangs, such as Critical Mass (who is a big supporter of Mirkarimi), that try to run this city. As he notes,
City progressives---that rather elastic term includes Greens and the left wing of the Democratic Party---live inside an ideological box that prevents their seeing homelessness and other issues clearly. Instead of seeing it as an ongoing emergency---with 100-200 homeless people a year dying on our streets---progressives acted as if the homeless were another oppressed minority, like blacks and gays, whose rights and lifestyle had to be defended. As a result, progressives ended up in effect defending a tragic status quo instead of launching serious political initiatives to address homelessness.
Nevertheless, it appears quite clear that the Inner Sunset is an area in District 5 that continues to get the short end of the stick. Inner Sunset is far less "progressive" than nearly all of the rest of District 5, which includes the Haight and the Western Addition. Which leaves me with a decision as to which candidate for District 5 would result in the least amount of problems for the Inner Sunset. I'm also comfortable in the knowledge that what I say probably won't change the fact that Mirkarimi will likely win re-election. So, I'm gonna vote for Rob Anderson, if for no other reason than it will make Board of Supervisors meetings far more interesting for
Melissa.
For the supervisor districts that border the Inner Sunset, re-elect both Sean Elsbernd and Carmen Chu.
Quick fire-
BART Director: I see no reason to not re-elect Tom Radulovich.
District 12 State Assembly: What to do with Fiona Ma. She single-handedly thwarted a very good bill in the legislature on an issue of great importance to me because of her relationship with a certain lobbyist. And she co-authored an editorial supporting Proposition H. So, you would think that that would lead me to cast my lot with the Republican running against her. Again, my vote isn't going to really matter in this district. Nevertheless, while I have substantial concerns about Fiona's stances on energy, she is in the Assembly leadership, and she does appear to be doing a decent job on behalf of those of us living in the her district. She has tackled recycling scavengers, who are stealing money from the garbage companies, and has sought to make Highway 1 much safer. While I disagree with her on energy policy, I see no reason to not re-elect her.
District 12 U.S. Representative: Unlike for the State Assembly, I as of yet do not have a solid opinion on Rep. Jackie Speier. I will preface this by saying the Rep. Speier is a newcomer still getting used to how Washington works, and I am greatly enthused that she is working with Rep. Jeff Flake on how to combat earmarks. Yet, at the same, she introduced a bill to re-establish a federal speed limit. Her opponent, Greg Conlon, has been around a long time, and, like most Bay Area Republicans, appear to be simply taking one for the team. I have no doubt that either one of them would be an adequate representative for this district. And, like in the State Assembly, it doesn't really matter who I recommend, because Jackie Speier will likely be re-elected. I suppose it does concern me that Jackie has been in office since April, but only has 2 pieces of legislation to show for herself, one being the Federal speed limit, the other being a post office naming for her old boss Leo Ryan, who was gunned down at Jonestown (and where a much younger Jackie Speier lay bleeding on the tarmac for several hours until help finally arrived). I will be interested to see how she performs with a full 2 year term.
San Francisco Superior Court: This one is easy. As I wrote earlier this year, current Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval has no business being elected to the S.F. Superior Court. Simply put, the position of judge is not to further certain social policies, create new law, or to use it as simply another city job; rather, the role of a judge is to interpret and enforce the law. I have zero faith that Gerardo Sandoval will be able to adequately or faithfully execute the law as written. Incumbent Judge Thomas Mellon may not be the nicest person on the planet, but he knows what it means to be a judge. Keep Judge Mellon.
More econ.
From the WSJ, letters to the editor:
As I raised in my Vote for John McCain posting, over 20 years of economic growth, study, and experience is on the verge of being wiped-out with an Obama election. Reinstituting FDR's policies of massive government spending, raising taxes and raising trade barriers has been shown to be colossal failures, yet Obama has campaigned on a message of recreating the worst aspects of the New Deal. Taxing the rich, raising trade barriers and increasing government hand-outs does nothing to drive people to create, to produce or to flourish; rather, it encourages people to cut-back, relax and open their government check every week.
As for Obama's promise to "spread the wealth" via government handouts and social programs, it is useful to look back at one president who understood the limits imposed upon the Federal government by the Constitution: President Grover Cleveland. In 1887, President Cleveland wrote the following in a statement vetoing $100,000 that would purchase seed for farmers in Texas suffering through a drought-
Once upon a time, receiving a government hand-out was something one did not admit for it showed a failure upon the individual; now, though, receiving a government hand-out is no longer frowned upon, rather, it's expected. This year simply magnifies that fact. Free markets are characterized by ups and downs, the one means by which the Federal government can and should regulate those ups and downs is through monetary policy, i.e., interest rates and injecting capital. However, when government intervenes outside of monetary policy, havoc can be created; of which the source of our most recent economic troubles is but one example. Other examples are such things as increasing taxes and implementing protectionist foreign trade policies, especially in times of economic difficulties, which are two things being proposed by Obama.
I plan only one more post about the current presidential election, which I do hope to get out sometime today, unless something very noteworthy pops across my screen.
I think the answer to Alan Reynolds's excellent question and article ("How's Obama Going to Raise $4.3 Trillion?," op-ed, Oct. 24) is that Barack Obama is not going to raise $4.3 trillion, and he is not going to perform on his rhetoric. He excels as a rhetorician -- common to both the great and the least of past presidents -- but performance cannot run on that fuel. Inevitably, I think his luster will fade even with his most ardent supporters as that reality sets in. We also have seen luster fade time after time with Republican presidents. The rhetoric of a smaller and less invasive government always leads to king-size performance disappointments. This weakness is as central to the reality of our political economy as are its strengths. With all its foibles, its strengths become transparent when you compare it, not with our various idealizations, but with the litter of human experiments in political economy that have delivered far more suffering and murder than human betterment to the citizens of those economies.
Of course it is entirely likely that Mr. Obama will succeed in going for higher business, capital gains and income taxes, but it is an economic illusion to think for a minute that this will benefit the poor. All our wars on poverty have been lost by failing to help the poor help themselves. Higher business taxes, which ultimately can only be paid by individuals anyway, will simply export more economic activity to the world economy. Higher capital gains and income taxes will primarily reduce savings and investment at the expense of greater future productivity, which is at the heart of cross-generational reductions in poverty. A dozen countries, including the third largest economy, already have zero taxes on capital gains, and eight of them score high on the Economic Freedom Index and high in gross domestic product per capita.
As I raised in my Vote for John McCain posting, over 20 years of economic growth, study, and experience is on the verge of being wiped-out with an Obama election. Reinstituting FDR's policies of massive government spending, raising taxes and raising trade barriers has been shown to be colossal failures, yet Obama has campaigned on a message of recreating the worst aspects of the New Deal. Taxing the rich, raising trade barriers and increasing government hand-outs does nothing to drive people to create, to produce or to flourish; rather, it encourages people to cut-back, relax and open their government check every week.
As for Obama's promise to "spread the wealth" via government handouts and social programs, it is useful to look back at one president who understood the limits imposed upon the Federal government by the Constitution: President Grover Cleveland. In 1887, President Cleveland wrote the following in a statement vetoing $100,000 that would purchase seed for farmers in Texas suffering through a drought-
I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that though the people support the Government the Government should not support the people.
The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.
Once upon a time, receiving a government hand-out was something one did not admit for it showed a failure upon the individual; now, though, receiving a government hand-out is no longer frowned upon, rather, it's expected. This year simply magnifies that fact. Free markets are characterized by ups and downs, the one means by which the Federal government can and should regulate those ups and downs is through monetary policy, i.e., interest rates and injecting capital. However, when government intervenes outside of monetary policy, havoc can be created; of which the source of our most recent economic troubles is but one example. Other examples are such things as increasing taxes and implementing protectionist foreign trade policies, especially in times of economic difficulties, which are two things being proposed by Obama.
I plan only one more post about the current presidential election, which I do hope to get out sometime today, unless something very noteworthy pops across my screen.
Friday, October 31, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)