23 October 2008

San Francisco Voter's Guide UPDATES

These endorsements are based on a 2-hour conversation that happened tonight between Dawn, Sharon, Pete, Rich, Mike, Lisa, Gabe, Ethan, Leef, and myself. Many come from consensus but there were some differing opinions. Please post a comment if you would like to add something.

See also: State Initiatives Voters' Guide blog posting. The following websites provide more information about the San Francisco initiatives:
Bay Guardian--San Francisco Measures
San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association
San Francisco Democratic party endorsements
NOTE: Red and/or capital letters means the vote is clear and strong. A question mark means marginal, that the issue remained somewhat opaque no matter how many sources or opinions were voiced...

Sf voter results came from SFgov.org.

A: San Francisco General Hospital bonds YES (SF voted YES 84%)
Everyone is for this one.

B: Affordable housing fund Yes? (SF voted NO 51%)
SF Democratic party and Bay Guardian are for this.

C: Ban city employees from commissions No? (SF voted NO 63%)
Spur.org, SF Democratic party, and the SF Bay Guardian are against.

D: Financing Pier 70 waterfront district YES (SF voted YES 68%)

E: Recall reform Yes (SF voted YES 60%)

F: Mayoral election in even-numbered years Yes? (SF voted NO 55%)
Those against think that local elections will receive less attention from voters if merged with national elections and that this eclipses the benefit of a greater voter turnout.

G: Retirement system credit for unpaid parental leave YES (SF voted YES 63%)

H: Clean Energy Act YES (SF voted NO 60%)

I: Independent ratepayer advocate No (SF voted NO 64%)
Everyone says No on this one.

J: Historic preservation commission Yes (SF voted YES 56%)

K: Rights for sex workers YES (SF voted NO 58%)

L: Funding the Community Justice Center No (SF voted NO 58%)

M: Tenants' rights YES (SF voted YES 60%)

N: Real property transfer tax Yes (SF voted YES 59%)

O: Emergency response fee Yes (SF voted YEs 63%)

P: Transportation Authority changes No (SF voted NO 68%)

Q: Modifying the payroll tax YES (SF voted YES 74%)

R: Naming sewage plant after Bush No (SF voted NO 69%)

S: Budget set-aside policy Yes (SF voted YES 54%)

T: Free and low-cost substance abuse treatment YES (SF voted YES 62%)

U: Recommend defunding the Iraq War NO or NO VOTE (SF voted YES 60%)

V: Recommend bringing back JROTC Yes? (SF voted YES 54%)


Dawn said...

It was so fun to have this get together and to discuss politics. When I go to vote I will be making an informed decision. Thanks SP for posting the results and to everyone who cares enough to vote. -Dawn

Sharon said...

Hey all,

So here's the scoop from my boss, Matt Schwartz, at California Housing Partnership, about Prop B, the affordable housing fund, which sounds comtroversial & yes, complicated....

"The best source of information about Prop. B (as with many propositions) is SPUR, but the website (www.spur.org) is down right now for some reason. Sarah Karlinsky wrote the analysis with input from me and others. The uses are actually reasonably specific, perhaps too specific. The bottom line of the analysis is this: since Prop. B does not designate a new source of revenue it will further strain the general fund and cannot be considered a good government initiative; however, there are two other ballot measures that do create new sources of revenue (the tax on real estate sales over $5 million and a parcel tax) so it is possible to make the argument that this is not another unfunded mandate. The more persuasive point for me is that the votes on the various affordable housing bonds in SF have all shown that a strong majority of voters wants to raise and spend public funds on affordable housing. The problem with the last two attempts, however, is that they fell just under the 2/3 vote requirement. In other words, there is no reasonably viable mechanism for creating a new revenue source involving bonds so that leaves a set aside in the general fund as the only other tool. That was enough for me but it may not be enough for others."

Matt Schwartz,
Executive Director

Site Meter