The project, which was co-published on Newsdesk.org and Public-Press.org, with segments broadcast on Crosscurrents Radio on KALW-FM, took to task the spinmeisters who flooded San Francisco neighborhoods with fliers containing truths, half-truths, and “truthiness.”

View a sampling of dozens of fliers distributed in San Francisco to sway voters for and against propositions at our Flickr site — and mouse over the graphics to read our reporters’ commentary.

Among the facts we discovered (and highlighted using interactive Flickr images):

• Opponents of Proposition H, which would have promoted public power and clean energy generation, misrepresented the level of authority that would have been handed over to the Board of Supervisors to approve bonds, and inflated estimates of the cost.
• Proponents of Proposition A, which will provide funding to rebuild San Francisco General Hospital, made it seem in their ads that the hospital would have to close within five years if it wasn’t rebuilt. In fact, there were plenty of ways the deadline could be pushed back.
• Both sides of the debate over Proposition B, which would have created an affordable housing trust fund, spun the numbers for their own purposes in discussing the impact of setting aside a portion of the city’s annual budget.

  The project was financed through an experimental collaboration with the new Knight Foundation-funded Web site Spot.us, which is pioneering “crowdfunded” journalism. Seventy-four individuals donated an average of $33 each through the Web site to make the series happen. The series got favorable coverage in SF Weekly and PBS MediaShift.

The coverage:

SF election 2008 proposition fliers decoded

Nov 3 2008

Prop. D: Consensus on Pier 70?

By Bernice Yeung, Nov 3 2008

JROTC and Proposition V: Lessons in How Not to Listen

By Tim Kingston, Oct 31 2008

Prop. A: The Specter of a City Without a Lifeline

By Matthew Hirsch, Oct 31 2008

Prop. M: The Latest Battle in San Francisco’s Rent Wars

By Tim Kingston, Oct 31 2008

Prop. L: Political Maneuvering on Community Justice Center

By Bernice Yeung,Oct 28 2008

Brass Tax: Propositions N and Q Levy Businesses, Property

By Tim Kingston, Oct 23 2008

Prop. K: Untested Theories Drive Prostitution Debate

By Bernice Yeung, Oct 20 2008

Prop. H: Energy Measure Spurs Conflicting Claims

By L.A. Chung, Oct 16 2008

The Business of Ballot Booklet Brokering

Campaigner and ex-City Hall aide David Noyola in an insider with election impact

By Matthew Hirsch, Sep 30 2008

San Francisco Voter Propositions for Nov. ’08

By Greg M. Schwartz, Sep 18 2008

Invasion of the Policy Pushers

Interest Groups Spin SF Ballot Arguments

By Matthew Hirsch, Sep 9 2008

The post The Truthiness Report: Fact-checking SF election ads appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

View a sampling of dozens of fliers distributed in San Francisco to sway voters for and against propositions at our Flickr site — and mouse over the graphics to read our reporters’ commentary.

The post SF Election 2008 Proposition Fliers Decoded appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

Although development is a perennially hot-button topic in San Francisco due to concerns about gentrification, Proposition D, which would facilitate Pier 70 revitalization, is a seemingly controversy-free measure that has garnered wide support from neighborhood groups, environmentalists, city officials and developers.

Pier 70 is a 65-acre site along the Central Waterfront, just south of Mission Bay. According to the Port of San Francisco’s proposed master plan — which will be finalized by early 2009 and then released to the public for comment before going to the Board of Supervisors for approval — the redeveloped port would feature retail sites, restaurants, public parks, cultural venues, parking and continued maritime industry (Pier 70 is the oldest continuously operating shipyard on the West Coast for boat building and repair).

In fact, many anti-gentrification activists are supporting D because they see it as a way to not only save the historic buildings, but also to insist on more green space and less dense retail-type development.

No Opposition?

The master plan was drafted with the input of the Central Waterfront Advisory Group, which is comprised of citizens who live nearby, representatives from community groups and local experts on topics such as planning and the environment.

Although Proposition D is not related to approval or disapproval of the current Pier 70 master plan, it would make amendments to the city charter to pave the way for development there.

If it passes, Proposition D is expected to generate up to $70 million, or 5 percent of the estimated $1.9 billion public-private project currently described in the proposed master plan.

"I haven’t heard of any opposition," said Jennifer Clary of urban environmentalist group San Francisco Tomorrow, which has endorsed the measure. "And we are one of the organizations that tend to question the port’s developments."

"We would prefer to see Pier 70 go to maritime uses and public access," continued Clary, who also sits on the Central Waterfront Advisory Group. "Proposition D would allow the port to capture more public funds generated by the development, which would lessen the need for too dense a development. This is an opportunity to reduce that."

On the Committee To Restore Our Waterfront’s online fact sheet, proponents of Pier 70 development adopt an urgent tone by saying that Proposition D is crucial to the revitalization of Pier 70 and the 30 historic buildings there that date back to the mid-1800s.

"Approving Proposition D is critical to ensuring some certainty to the entitlement process," the fact sheet says, "and providing the level of publicly oriented improvements to the site (like parks) that the public expects. The nationally significant historic resources on the site are in such a massive state of disrepair that if the City and Port do not act quickly to attract a development partner, it is likely that these structures will be lost."

Some of the historic buildings are still being leased by artists and businesses, while others have been "red tagged," or deemed by the city as too unstable for use because they are seismically unsafe, require asbestos remediation or contain lead and other potential toxins.

Chris Carlsson, a community historian in San Francisco and an advocate of radical urban sustainability, said that preservationists and community activists who are typically opposed to redevelopment due to gentrification concerns see Proposition D as "a way to get money to preserve those buildings. There’s nothing else out there."

Carlsson said that such an attitude makes sense — but he claimed that the process has not effectively included public comment, particularly around rehabilitating traditional maritime industries or local fisheries.

A Complex Scenario

Pier 70 is considered by some urban planners to present a complicated redevelopment scenario as it involves a number of expensive and complex legal, environmental and planning issues.

The area is a "brownfield" that will likely require environmental remediation due to contaminants in the soil and groundwater left behind from 100 years of heavy industrial work by the U.S. Navy and its contractors there.

The Port of San Francisco has begun initial investigations into the environmental conditions of the Northeastern Shoreline, which have shown that the contaminants found on the site are not a health hazard.

The agency has secured federal funds to complete a more thorough inquiry of the entire site.

Development would also involve the costly and careful restoration of historic buildings.

If preservation is done, however, the pier would likely qualify as a National Register Historic District, given the number of buildings that would qualify for a designation through the National Register of Historic Places.

Additionally, Pier 70 is public-trust land, which means there are regulations on the kind of development that can happen there (for example, no housing is permitted on public-trust land).

Easing Bureaucratic Hindrances

There are a number of bureaucratic hindrances related to the city’s financial relationship with the port, which Proposition D aims to ease.

Since its creation in 1969, the Port of San Francisco cannot receive any city funds and it must generate its own revenue for all of its operations. In addition, the Board of Supervisors must approve each individual port lease that lasts longer than 10 years and that generates revenue of $1 million or more per year.

Proposition D would amend the city charter in two ways. First, if and when the Pier 70 master plan is approved by the Board of Supervisors, all related and subsequent leases consistent with the Board-approved master plan would not require additional approval.

Secondly, the initiative would create an "option financing tool," which would allow the city to estimate the tax revenues that would be generated by businesses and hotels developed at Pier 70 over the next 20 years.

The Board of Supervisors could then authorize spending 75 percent of that projected sum on historic preservation and infrastructure for the area, including the development of public parks.

The largest donors to the Committee To Restore Our Waterfront are the San Francisco Waterfront Partners II, Nibbi Brothers and TMG Partners, all private development entities.

There is no official opposition to Proposition D.

A former staff writer for SF Weekly who has also worked as an editor at California Lawyer magazine, Bernice Yeung has written for a variety of publications, including the Village Voice, The International Herald Tribune, The New York Times, Dwell, Wired and Glamour.

The San Francisco 2008 Election Truthiness Report is co-produced by Newsdesk.org and The Public Press, and funded through small donations using the Spot.Us "crowdfunding" Web site.

The post Prop. D: Consensus on Pier 70? appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

For a measure that is completely nonbinding there is much sturm und drang around the "Policy Against Terminating Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (JROTC) in Public High Schools."

Debate is a limited commodity in the case of Proposition V; instead the two sides talk past and through each other — loudly and heatedly. They also make claims that cannot be verified.

The simple fact about Proposition V is that all it does is urge the San Francisco Board of Education not to eliminate JROTC — and the school board is free to ignore the measure if it passes.

Despite all the fuss, the city controller said Proposition V will have no fiscal consequences for the city.

Ideological Battle

But the spat over JROTC is really more about a case of two alternate worldviews that just happen to occupy the same space-time continuum.

On the one hand there is the moderate/conservative "leave politics out of school yard" crowd that wants students to make their own decision about JROTC.

They say this dispute is all about saving a successful local program teaching leadership skills to youth.

On the other is the view that "politics" can’t be left outside the school gates, particularly when it involves anything that smacks of both discrimination and militarism.

Opponents see JROTC a central part of Department of Defense efforts to recruit and maintain a steady supply of "cannon fodder" for foreign wars, as well as supporting the "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy in gay- and lesbian-friendly San Francisco.

Unverified Assertions

At the heart of the Proposition V argument is the contention that JRTOC is a successful local civics program that students should have the choice to join if they wish.

Proponents assert that the program is overwhelmingly supported by parents, teachers, administrators and students.

"It is a good program," said Michael Bernick of Choice for Students. "There is no reason it should be eliminated due to local politics."

In the San Francisco voter handbook, supporters say that JROTC "teaches students discipline, leadership skills and the importance of civic responsibility" to 1,600 cadets in San Francisco schools.

They stress that 90 percent of the cadets "are from minority groups," that 88 percent of the student leaders were female in the last two years, and that there are openly lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender cadets and cadet leaders.

Supporters also say a significant portion of JROTC cadets wind up in college — more than non-cadets, in fact.

They also note that only 3 percent of San Francisco cadets join the military — considerably fewer than nationwide statistics, which vary from 45 percent according to the ACLU, to 30-40 percent according to Bernick.

However, not all of the assertions can be verified.

Gentle Blythe, the school district’s communications director, said no statistics are available to back the assertion that more JROTC students get into college than other students.

Actual JROTC enrollment is significantly down from the 1,600 cited in the voters’ guide. There are now between 500 to 1,050 cadets according to Bernick and a July 2007 San Francisco school district handout (search for "jrotc"), respectively.

Blythe said the percentage of youth of color in JROTC is roughly comparable with school district demographics as a whole, which means JROTC neither targets, nor underserves, communities of color.

The fact that the proportion of female students in JROTC is roughly double compared to the general student population could indicate the program offers advantages for female students.

Military Recruitment Tool

Choice is not the issue for opponents of Proposition V, nor is the popularity of the program with students, teachers, parents and administrators.

"JROTC is one of the Pentagon’s primary military recruitment tool," asserts the No on V Web site. "The San Francisco School Board decided to phase out JROTC because San Franciscans do not want military recruiters in our schools, and do not support a program that discriminates against the LGBT community with its ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policies."

Barry Hermanson, a Green Party congressional candidate for San Francisco’s 12th district, goes even further, by linking the program with the Bush administration.

"International law said that militaries around the world should not recruit children under 17 years of age," he said. "Former defense secretary [William] Cohen said JROTC is one of the best recruitment devices we could have. Proponents say, ‘We are not recruiting,’ but I maintain by bringing retired military staff into our schools … you are recruiting students."

The problem is that this is accurate only in the most general sense — that JROTC raises the profile of the military on local public-school campuses.

It could be argued that JROTC students are more predisposed to recruitment, but if that were the case, more than 3 percent of San Francisco’s JROTC cadets would be joining the military.

Proposition V advocates vociferously deny that JROTC allows the recruiting of cadets.

They say, backed by the Blythe of the SFUSD, that it is the federal No Child Left Behind law that governs military recruitment access to students.

"JROTC has nothing to do with this process," said Bernick. "If recruiters want to visit schools they must access the school through the main office, not JROTC."

The other primary argument used against proposition V is that JROTC is partly funded by the Defense Department, which administers the "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy.

Opponents say this results in secondhand discrimination against lesbian and gay people, because it is unlikely that they will be hired as JROTC instructors.

‘Don’t Ask’ Conflicts

Proponents of Proposition V said they too oppose the "Don’t Ask" policy, and have lobbied against it, but that it does not apply locally.

They also assert that San Francisco’s JROTC could be a model for the rest of the nation, and note that one of the ballot arguments favoring proposition V was written by Michael Thomas, a gay African American JROTC graduate.

Yet Gentle Blythe of the local school district notes that instructors for the program have to be veterans certified by the JROTC, which means they must have an honorable discharge — something much harder for openly gay and lesbian individuals to get.

Alan Lessick of the pacifist American Friends Service Committee said Thomas "can participate in the program, but it is unequal, because other people earn benefits that he does not."

Even if openly gay and lesbian youth in the local program are not discriminated against, he said, this will change when and if they go on to join the military, because they will be ineligible for ROTC college scholarships and other educational benefits available to heterosexual cadets.

About the only thing these opposing parties all agree on is that a very small percent JROTC students from the San Francisco Unified School District wind up joining the military — unlike the rest of the country where at least a third of JROTC students end up in boot camp.

Whichever way the vote goes on Nov. 4, one this is clear, this issue will not be resolved by Nov. 5 and both sides will remain at loggerheads.

The post JROTC and Proposition V: Lessons in How Not to Listen appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

	View our annotated Flickr collection to see how pro-Propositon A activists are spinning the issue in campaign fliers.

The proponents of Proposition A want voters to believe that the Nov. 4 election is a matter of life or death for San Francisco’s main public hospital.

The measure has an enormous list of supporters, including elected officials, newspapers, community groups, and the local Democratic, Republican and Green parties. The campaign ads also feature long endorsement lists and descriptions of health care specialists who provide essential medical services.

However, these ads misrepresent some of the facts. And they appeal to the lowest common denominator in politics — quality health care, something everybody supports — without taking on more difficult questions raised by the campaign.

Unchecked Assertions

Proponents say voters can "save" San Francisco General Hospital by approving an $887-million bond measure to build a new medical facility in place of the existing one. If the campaign fails, they say, the 154-year-old hospital could be forced to close because of stringent earthquake safety standards that will soon take effect.

There’s no organized opposition campaign to refute these claims. But according to the state agency that oversees hospital and nursing facility construction projects, the deadline for rebuilding SF General is more flexible than the Proposition A campaign makes it seem.

In one campaign advertisement mailed to San Francisco voters, two hospital administrators say: "California law requires that all acute care hospitals meet seismic standards or close by 2013."

In fact, the state legislature in 2006 gave hospitals an option for a two-year extension until 2015.

And last year, the legislature approved another extension that would last until 2020.

Another Proposition A campaign ad shows a picture of two paramedics, with the text: "If you’re ever severely injured in a car accident in San Francisco … they’ll bring you to General Hospital. That’s because General Hospital has the only trauma center in the region."

This claim depends on your definition of the word "region."

SF General is the only trauma center in San Francisco, and as a Level I trauma center it also serves northern San Mateo County.

But according to the American College of Surgeons, there are six verified trauma centers in the San Francisco Bay region, including Level I trauma centers at Stanford University and in San Jose.

By comparison, a single Level I trauma center in Seattle serves the entire state of Washington, plus Alaska, Idaho and Montana.

Proposition A campaign spokesman Chuck Finnie said, "When we talk about the region, we’re talking about the practical distances that are able to save lives for people who’ve suffered traumatic injury."

As for the deadlines for seismic safety, Finnie didn’t dispute that SF General can request an extension past 2013.

"If you want to point out that state authorities say there are avenues for extensions, go for it. I don’t think we’re going to need it. I think we’re going to pass this thing," he said.

Finnie has good reason to be confident on the eve of the election, given its long list of supporters and endorsements.

Official Opposition

The official opponents of Proposition A, who have no formal campaign organization, are Mara Kopp and George Wooding — both west-side neighborhood activists.

Kopp is a frequent advocate for government oversight and an opponent of local spending measures. In opposing Proposition A, she and Wooding claim that the bond measure understates the true cost of the SF General reconstruction project.

They claim less expensive design plans that would limit the tax burden are available and question whether the city could pursue alternatives to municipal bond financing, such as by tapping anticipated settlement funds from tobacco litigation.

The Yes on Proposition A campaign argues in response that rebuilding the hospital won’t increase property taxes because the city will have repaid debt from other projects as it assumes new debt for this one.

The campaign also claims that if the bond measure doesn’t pass, any future construction will be more expensive because of escalating hospital construction costs.

In other words, they say it might be now or never for SF General.

The San Francisco 2008 Election Truthiness Report is co-produced by Newsdesk.org and The Public Press, and funded through small donations using the Spot.Us "crowdfunding" Web site.

Freelance writer Matthew Hirsch has produced work that has  appeared in SF Weekly and Bloomberg News. His journalism career began when he was a reporter for The Chariot, the student newspaper at J.P. Taravella High School, in Coral Springs, Fla.

The post Prop. A: The Specter of a City Without a Lifeline appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

	View our annotated Flickr collection to see how pro- Proposition M activists are spinning the issue in campaign fliers.

Rancorous is always a good way to describe tenant-landlord relations in San Francisco, and the debate over Proposition M — an anti-harassment initiative put on the ballot by tenants’ rights activists — is no exception.

The inelegantly dubbed Changing the Residential Rent Ordinance to Prohibit Specific Acts of Harassment of Tenants by Landlords attempts to do just that — at great length, and has spurred an exchange of pro and con arguments around free speech and the role of lawyers.

Proposition M replaces a simple one-paragraph definition — "any act or omission … that causes or is intended to cause any person … [to vacate] a dwelling unit" — with a 22-paragraph explanation of exactly what constitutes landlord harassment of tenants.

This would include, among other things, intimidation; physical threats; failure to provide housing services, repairs or maintenance; refusal to accept rent checks; and landlord abuse of the right to access units.

Penalties for infractions would include rent reductions and other sanctions.

Jump in Harassment?

Tenant activists say the measure is essential, while opponents assert that it’s legally redundent — and also faces the same fate as an earlier anti-harassment measure that was tossed out by the courts.

According to proponents, M was crafted with that failure in mind, and will stand up to legal challenges.

The initiative is backed by the San Francisco Tenants Union, which paid for the majority of arguments in the voters handbook, the San Francisco Housing Rights Committee and other tenants’ rights groups.

Tenant attorneys and activists say the measure is needed, due to what they assert is a jump in the number of renters suffering harassment from owners eager to boot rent-controlled tenants and charge market rates.

While there are no official numbers, figures compiled by the San Francisco Housing Rights Committee, through its intake statistics, show 210 harassment complaints so far this year.

Starting in 2000, those intakes show an increase in the number of such complaints, going from 181 in 2000 to 246 in 2007 (although the numbers dropped during one interim year, tallying at 189 in 2006).

There are no city figures on such harassment; one reason advocates say the measure is needed is so the San Francisco Rent Board can accurately count harassment incidents.

San Francisco Apartment Association Executive Director Janan New said Proposition M is unnecessary, as "tenants are already protected under current law."

New also contends the issue was settled by a case called Baba v. CCSF (PDF) filed in November 2004, which invalidated earlier anti-harassment legislation.

The SFAA also cites another case that invalidated a Santa Monica anti-harassment law.

Free Speech for Landlords?

While New is calm when discussing the issue, language used against the measure in the voters’ handbook is far less so.

"Unconstitutional!" one argument screams in capital letters.

It "violates" the First Amendment, states another in boldface letters.

Still another bold-faced argument says it violates landlords’ free speech and "should be called the Full Employment Act for Greedy Lawyers."

Scott Weaver, an attorney representing almost 80 tenants who are suing the Citi Apartments property management company for harassment, said the measure does not violate the First Amendment.

"Some landlords are hiding behind free speech to verbally harass people," said Ted Gullicksen, a spokesman for the San Francisco Tenant Union. "There is, in California law, the ability to get a [temporary restraining order] against someone who calls repeatedly on the phone. There are anti-stalking laws."

[The Truthiness Report contacted UC Hastings and Boalt schools of law, but was unable to find a scholar familiar with the legisltation or its First Amendment implications by press time.]

As for the argument that the whole measure was dreamed up by lawyers to fill their pocket books — Gullickson notes that the anti-lawyer assertions are the "worst argument they have … Proposition M is designed to avoid court suits. It allows tenants to go to the rent board where lawyers are not needed to file for a decrease in rent if they are harassed. Right now [tenants] only recourse is a lawsuit."

Indeed, Tim Lee, a senior administrative law judge in San Francisco, noted that "currently, the rent board does not deal with tenant harassment," unless the landlord is reducing services or creating a nuisance for the tenant on an ongoing basis.

He carefully acknowledged that in cases where tenants cannot get redress from the rent board, they can file a lawsuit against their landlord.

Lawsuits seem like an inevitable outcome, especially if Proposition M passes.

"They sue on everything," Gullicksen said, referring to landlords and their allies. "We always expect that."

He’s optimistic about any court battle, but then again, the San Francisco Tenants Union will not be paying the legal fees.

That task goes to the city attorney’s office.

Tim Kingston is a veteran investigative and general assignment reporter in the Bay Area. His stories and opinion articles have appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle, Columbia Journalism Review, San Francisco Bay Guardian, East Bay Express, San Jose Mercury New, AlterNet and The Nation, among other outlets.

The San Francisco 2008 Election Truthiness Report is co-produced by Newsdesk.org and The Public Press, and funded through small donations using the Spot.Us "crowdfunding" Web site.

The post Prop. M: The Latest Battle in San Francisco’s Rent Wars appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

However, given the heated debate among city officials — rooted in a longstanding feud between Supervisor Chris Daly and Mayor Gavin Newsom — that surrounds the creation of the court, the measure appears to serve a political purpose itself.

Modeled after successful programs in New York City, the CJC is a "problem solving" criminal court that would provide social services instead of incarceration for defendants who commit misdemeanors or nonviolent felonies. It is slated to begin operating in early 2009.

The Numbers

Newsom placed Proposition L on the ballot before the Board of Supervisors approved $1,973,000 for the CJC in July. The funds that have been approved for the CJC consist of about $1 million in unspent city money from the 2007-2008 budget, and $984,000 in federal grants. All of these funds must be spent by June 30, 2009, the end of the fiscal year.

Proposition L, however, calls for a guaranteed total allocation of $2,754,000 for the CJC, which means that if it were to pass, the CJC would be authorized to access an additional $771,855 in city funds this fiscal year.

(The Controller’s statement in the city’s voter information pamphlet states that the initiative’s potential cost to the city would be $129,177, and this figure is based on calculations using the mayor’s proposed budget and not the city’s final, approved budget. The Controller’s office did not respond to requests for additional clarification.)

If the initiative passes, it is unknown whether the additional $771,855 in city funds would actually be spent on the center, since the release of the money would be determined by a process involving a number of city officials, including the city’s budget director, the city controller and others.

Starr Terrell, the fiscal and policy analyst for Mayor Newsom, says that although Proposition L would authorize the city to tap into additional city funds for CJC operations, city agencies are already moving forward using existing funds.

"The CJC is operating within the amount that it has been funded," Terrell said. "What this ballot initiative would do is provide funding that the Board of Supervisors would not have the authority to reduce."

Political Infighting

Indeed, the Community Justice Court Coalition, which supports Proposition L, claims that supporting the measure is crucial to the CJC’s existence, arguing on its Web site that Proposition L will "ensure the continued existence of the ongoing initiative, despite the desire by some members of the Board of Supervisors to terminate the project."

In fact, political infighting appears to be the sole reason Proposition L is on November’s ballot. The court was first proposed by Newsom in 2007, and it met with resistance from some members of the Board of Supervisors.

Most notably, Supervisor Daly, who is often at odds with Newsom, said at a Board of Supervisors meeting in July, just after the CJC received funding, that the center "makes no sense to me. I can’t wait until we have a new Board of Supervisors that can eliminate the Community Justice Center from next year’s budget."

He has been critical of the CJC because, he says, he believes it will encourage the police department and the district attorney’s office to effectively criminalize poor people by pursuing minor cases such as public intoxication or shoplifting.

Although there has been no stated intent to do so, the supervisors could choose to cancel the funds for the CJC; in his statements, Daly has threatened next year’s budget, not the 2008-2009 funds.

Proposition L is an attempt to prevent this from happening; however, it will have no effect beyond the 2008-2009 fiscal year, because an ordinance such as this one cannot guarantee or mandate future financial support of a program. That must be determined by the city’s annual budget process.

"Show of Support"

Perhaps the more notable effect of Proposition L would be political.

If it passes, the initiative could serve as a kind of public referendum that could be used to bolster support for the CJC in case of future funding challenges from opponents on the Board of Supervisors.

"It could demonstrate a public show of support," said Terrell, the fiscal and policy analyst for the mayor.

Because the CJC has already been funded through June 2009, six members of the Board of Supervisors — some of whom supported allocating city funds for the CJC — oppose Proposition L, which they have called an "unnecessary measure" in the city’s ballot guide.

They are Jake McGoldrick, Aaron Peskin, Tom Ammiano, Chris Daly, Sophie Maxwell and Ross Mirkarimi. (No additional citizen or community political committee has been formed to oppose Proposition L.)

The Community Justice Court Coalition’s largest donors are an entity listed simply as "Voice" in public documents (the coalition did not respond to requests for clarification), and Seven Hills Properties, a San Francisco real estate development company.

A former staff writer for SF Weekly who has also worked as an editor at California Lawyer magazine, Bernice Yeung has written for a variety of publications, including the Village Voice, The International Herald Tribune, The New York Times, Dwell, Wired and Glamour.

The San Francisco 2008 Election Truthiness Report is co-produced by Newsdesk.org and The Public Press, and funded through small donations using the Spot.Us "crowdfunding" Web site.

The post Prop. L: Political Maneuvering on Community Justice Center appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

	See how pro-Proposition B activists are spinning the issue in campaign fliers.

The battle over public power and the hospital bond have vacuumed up much of San Francisco’s attention and political capital this season.

But there’s an equally significant, if under-the-radar, item up for grabs: Proposition B.

The "Establishing [an] Affordable Housing Fund" measure mandates that 2.5 cents out of every $100 in property taxes go to create what is essentially a dedicated San Francisco affordable housing account.

Proponents and opponents alike agree that it would raise roughly $2.7 billion over its 15-year lifespan — in fact, that’s about all they agree on.

 Different Narratives, Same Facts

Proponents call the measure an essential and responsible way to ensure funds to build affordable housing for those who need it most.

Opponents, including Mayor Gavin Newsom, see higher taxes, deficit spending and set-asides that eat into the city’s discretionary funds and constrain the Board of Supervisors’ legislative options.

The disjoint between them is a near-perfect example of two very different narratives emerging from the same set of facts.

Indeed, that the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research (SPUR) Association was unable to achieve a necessary majority and could neither endorse nor oppose the measure illustrates its strikingly different interpretations.

The "Yes on Proposition B 2008 — San Francisco Housing Fund" campaign argues that the measure is about ensuring desperately needed homes for city residents who make up to 30 percent of San Francisco’s median income; according to SPUR, that’s roughly $25,000 annually for a family of four.

Groups that paid for arguments in the voters’ handbook — including the Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation, the Chinatown Community Development Center and Mercy Housing of California — assert that it will raise funds so working families can buy their first home, without raising taxes, while also offering housing for seniors and homes for the homeless.

‘Budget Hole’
Calvin Welch, chair of the publicity committee of "Yes on B," rejects opponents’ charges that the initiative will create a massive budget hole.

He argues that the roughly $33 million annually that Proposition B would raise is "chump change" given the size of the city’s discretionary funding.

Welch says that over 15 years the city will have $50 billion in discretionary funding. He also argues that for every dollar the city sets aside for affordable housing, nonprofit groups will leverage $3 to $4 in foundation grants and state and federal funding.

"It is a development subsidy," he says.

In addition, Welch rejects worries that set-asides threaten supervisors’ ability to set policy.

"I do not buy the argument that at this time with this budget we are anywhere near being constrained," he says.

Opponents see it differently.

"Proposition B sets aside a certain portion of the annual budget for affordable housing," says Supervisor Sean Elsbernd. "It is robbing Peter to pay Paul … [It is] never fun to have to say clean streets, safe streets, cops, or health or the Fire Department is more important than housing. But that is what the legislative body is supposed to do on an annual basis." With Proposition B and its set-asides, says Elsbernd, "we are precluding the legislature from having a budget that sets annual priorities."

Elsbernd — who signed the official rebuttal to Proposition B along with the mayor and Supervisors Carmen Chu and Michela Alioto-Pier — also questions Welch’s assertion that the measure is modest: "$2.7 billion over 15 years? If you want to call that small, more power to you."

He notes that the entire Recreation and Park budget over 15 years would be about $750 million, a little less than one-third of the total set aside over the same span of time by Proposition B.

"Social Darwinism"

"I don’t disagree or quibble that we need more money for affordable housing," adds Elsbernd.

But he insists that the measure cannot live up to its goal.

"I believe one of their campaign slogans, ‘Housing for all,’ respectfully, is a joke," Elsbernd adds. "That is nowhere near accurate. You cut off a vast portion of the city with thresholds of who qualifies and who cannot."

Welch calls such critiques "social Darwinism" and "vicious arguments" — because, he alleges, they perpetuate a distinction between deserving and undeserving poor.

He says the proposition allows new teachers, police and firefighters access to Proposition B funds.

Yet that doesn’t address the fact that many two-income families may not qualify, because their combined income would put them above Proposition B’s maximum income thresholds.

According to SPUR’s analysis of Proposition B, a family of four with two working parents earning more than $82,000 a year would not be eligible for the funding proposed by the measure.

If, for example, each parent earned $45,000 a year for a combined total of $90,000, the family would not be eligible.

The issue then becomes a question of focus: given a limited pool of money, what should the cut-off point be? This is where opponents of the bill can charge that many San Franciscans would be shut out.

"Not Inaccurate"

Then there’s that potential budget hole.

Opponents say the choice is between cutting services or raising taxes, because the set-asides will help create a deficit that will have to be tackled.

Proponents say that problem, if it arises, could be dealt with by funds derived from Proposition N and Q, the transfer tax adjustment and the payroll tax extension, respectively.

Yet the question remains as to whether those monies destined for the general fund will be sufficient to fund affordable housing, given all the other needs that unrestricted revenues from general funds are supposed to meet.

An effective argument can be crafted for or against Proposition B, depending on the observer’s starting point.

As consultant David Latterman, president of Fall Line Analytics, stresses, campaign statements, as a rule, "are not inaccurate, but you can slant and shape as well. We all do it. We will highlight and de-highlight, it is just the way the game works."

The post Proposition B: ‘Chump Change’ or ‘Massive Budget Hole’? appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

	See how pro-Proposition N&Q activists are spinning the issue in campaign fliers.

Propositions N and Q, which would increase and modify San Francisco’s property transfer and payroll expense taxes, were the product of intense negotiations between different business groups.

Not surprisingly, the winners and losers in those negotiations define the pro and con election advertisements.

The laws are simple enough: N would increase the property transfer tax from 0.75 to 1.5 percent on properties worth over $5 million, while Q ensures that partners in law firms have to pay payroll taxes. It also raises the ceiling for payroll tax exemption to $250,000.

The city controller states in the voter handbook that the propositions would raise almost $40 million for the city’s general fund, but how it does that, and who stands to gain or lose, is not so clearcut.

Links to Proposition B

Proponents of the "Close the Loopholes, Yes on N, Yes on Q" campaign argue the issue is simple fairness, i.e., everyone should pay their share.

Opponents say that these are new taxes, that taxes are bad, and that government is inefficient and makes a mess of whatever it touches.

N is similar to a 2002 measure that would have increased the real estate transfer tax by the same amount as N, but covered properties valued at least $1 million; this time around, that figure was raised to $5 million, to win over homeowners.

While N and Q were conceived separately from Proposition B — "Establishing Affordable Housing" — they are now politically, but not legally, linked.

"Affordable Housing" proponents say the passage of N and Q could help fund B, but that contention is a hope at best, not a guarantee.

Because N and Q’s revenues go directly to the general fund; their ability to fund Proposition B is dependent on the size of the general fund deficit and any other demands made on it.

Residential vs. Business

Supporters of N assert many businesses and residents of San Francisco are "struggling with their tax burdens," but that "multinational corporations … evade paying their fair share" as a result of a "loophole" in city tax code.

The measure appeals directly to homeowners by reducing transfer taxes by up to one-third for residential property owners who install solar energy systems or increase earthquake retrofits.

This has proponents going after big companies and big landlords, two popular San Francisco targets, while offering green-friendly and safety-friendly carrots to residential property owners.

The opposition comes from the real estate industry as well as apartment owners who buy and sell apartment and other buildings worth more than $5 million.

They argue both measures are a tax increase, not a modification, say new taxes force up the price of housing in San Francisco, and call the solar and earthquake provisions a "smoke screen."

One argument from the Chinese Real Estate Association of America Inc. claming that San Francisco’s 0.75 percent tax is "one of the highest transfer tax rates in California."

If this is true, then so are Berkeley’s and San Jose’s, at 1.5 and 3.3 percent respectively.

Real Estate Loses Out?

Paid opposition to Proposition N in the voters’ handbook comes from many of the same landlord groups that oppose Proposition B: the San Francisco Apartment Association, the Coalition for Better Housing, the San Francisco Association of Realtors, the Small Property Owners of San Francisco and the Building Owners and Managers Association of San Francisco.

It’s also worth nothing that three large real estate companies bankrolled BOMA’s paid arguments: Cushman & Wakefield, Harsch Investment Properties and Capital and Countries USA, Inc.

There is no organized opposition to Proposition Q, which in addition to making law firm partners pay city payroll taxes, also raises the payroll tax exemption for small businesses from $166,667 to $250,000.

This affects 1,600 small San Francisco businesses and guarantees their vote for the measure.

The only paid argument against Proposition Q is bankrolled by the California Republican Party, Pacific Gas & Electric, and the DGF Y2K Special Trust, a significant contributor to the Republican Party linked to the apparel tycoon Donald G. Fisher of The Gap.

There is limited organized opposition to N and Q because there were negotiations among virtually all parties affected, before final drafts of the propositions were completed.

Increased city taxes on attorney payrolls are offset by a higher ceiling for small business, accounting for the lack of attorney opposition to Q, and the Chamber of Commerce’s neutral stance on it and Proposition N.

In the end, the only group left out in the cold was the real estate industry.<!–• Tune in Crosscurrents on KALW (91.7 FM San Francisco or crossurrentsradio.org) TK TK TK TK . –>

The post Brass Tax: Propositions N and Q Levy Businesses, Property appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

Proposition K, which seeks to decriminalize prostitution in San Francisco, has spawned a heated debate over how to curb human trafficking and protect the lives and health of sex workers.

A close look at campaign advertising around the proposition reveals sharp disagreements between supporters and opponents over what the local impacts of the law would be, as well as a schism in feminist circles over prostitution itself.

Drafted by the Erotic Service Providers Union (ESPU), a local sex workers’ alliance, Proposition K would require San Francisco law enforcement to disregard state laws prohibiting prostitution.

The measure also calls for the estimated $1.6 million to $3.2 million currently spent on prostitution-related arrests and prosecutions to be directed toward other crimes, including violence against prostitutes.

Despite an impact that would be purely local, the dialogue surrounding the proposition reflects the increasing globalization of the sex industry.

"Mythology" For Both Sides

Proponents argue that decriminalization will help eliminate coercion and violence against sex workers — including those who are trafficked — because prostitutes will be able to report abuses to the police without fearing arrest.

Supporters also say that decriminalized prostitution would empower clients to approach authorities if they suspected a prostitute had been trafficked or was being victimized by a pimp.

Opponents, however, argue that decriminalizing prostitution will make it harder for law enforcement to pursue human trafficking cases because they will have fewer legal tools at their disposal.

Both sides are basing their arguments on untested theories, as there are currently no known models of officially sanctioned decriminalized prostitution.

Countries and cities such as New Zealand or Amsterdam that have sought alternatives to criminalization have instead legalized prostitution, which then allows for government regulation (which some proponents of decriminalization are wary of).

"Mythology is informing both sides of the debate," says Ron Weitzer, a professor of sociology at George Washington University and an expert on prostitution policy. "From the opponents, there is talk about the dramatic increase of pimping and more abuse of women and more young girls who would be put into prostitution if this proposition were to pass, but they don’t have the evidence to support that argument because there is no model for it to be compared to.

"The mythology on the yes-on-Prop K-side is that a totally unregulated system is the best option for workers, and there’s plenty of evidence internationally that that’s not true," Weitzer adds. "Decriminalization means that workers don’t have any kinds of protections in place that are institutionalized. Instead, everything falls on the workers themselves to report abuses and solve problems."

Fact-Checking the Supporters

Backers contend that the current legal framework isn’t effective in combating trafficking.

On a Web site and flyers paid for by the Committee United for Safety and Protection, proponents state that "as of this date, there have been no prosecutions for human trafficking in California."

According to a University of California at Berkeley study, however, there were 57 human trafficking cases involving more than 500 victims in California between 1983 and 2003; about 46 percent of those victims were involved in sex trafficking.

Supporters of Proposition K also argue that decriminalized sex work leads to healthier, safer communities.

In making these claims, proponents tend to use the terms "decriminalization" and "legalization" interchangeably, even though they are not comparable.

For example, flyers produced by supporters of Proposition K state that "studies have shown over and over again that decriminalization greatly improves public health."

In fact, some studies have shown that prostitutes are healthier and feel safer under legalized prostitution regimes, where the workplace and testing for sexually transmitted diseases is regulated by the government.

The proponents’ Web site also says that "a five year study just released in New Zealand, where decriminalization has been in place since 2003, found no increase in prostitution, either street or home based."

The New Zealand study, however, was based on results of the country’s legalized prostitution industry, and cannot be compared with the potential ramifications of decriminalization, which are unknown.

Fact-Checking the Opponents

Opponents say that decriminalization would negatively impact local efforts to prevent human trafficking by arguing that California’s prostitution laws are routinely used to "investigate and prosecute traffickers and those involved in exploiting children."

Indeed, local and federal law enforcement have relied on prostitution laws to conduct raids on Bay Area brothels to pursue trafficking cases, as was the case in a 2005 federal investigation of Bay Area Korean massage parlors.

Because human trafficking occurs in all industries, state and federal labor laws are also frequently used to prosecute traffickers, and these laws could be used to pursue sex trafficking cases if prostitution is decriminalized.

Furthermore, the federal Trafficking Victims’ Protection Act and the state’s anti-trafficking law could trigger prosecutions of traffickers.

Whether it will be harder or easier to pursue sex trafficking cases as a result of decriminalizing prostitution remains to be seen.

Reflecting an anti-prostitution perspective, opponents also paint a grim portrait by making a number of dramatic statistical claims about the sex industry that are not entirely accurate.

For example, a Web site paid for by the Committee Against Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation notes that the average age of entry into prostitution is 12 to 14 years, and 90 percent of those in prostitution want to escape it.

Those figures were gathered by local social service organizations, and while the numbers may accurately reflect the circumstances of the agency’s clientele, the data does not distinguish between street prostitution and indoor prostitution.

Also, because the data is not based on a randomized sample, it cannot be generalized to the entire prostitution population in San Francisco.

Differing views among feminists

The debate among those for and against Proposition K also highlights a differing philosophy about prostitution among feminists.

Proponents argue that sex work is in essence a form of female empowerment because it reflects a woman’s ability to make choices about her body.

As a result, their Web sites and leaflets frame the measure as a matter of justice and civil rights that would create "equal protection" for sex workers.

The largest donors to the Committee United for Safety and Protection are ESPU founder Maxine Doogan, Spread magazine, and Jeffrey Klausner, director of STD Prevention and Control Services at the San Francisco Department of Health.

Opponents of Proposition K believe sex work is predicated on the objectification of women and that prostitution is inherently unhealthy, sexist and exploitative.

On their Web site, they argue that Proposition K is "dangerous" and will "harm women, children, and the San Francisco community as a whole."

The largest donors to the Committee Against Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation are Twiss Butler, a lifelong member of the National Organization for Women; an organization called the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women; and Gloria Steinem.

Effects on city funding, spending

In addition to focusing on decriminalization, Proposition K contains two clauses that could affect the way the city receives and administers funds related to human trafficking and prostitution.

First, Proposition K would forbid the city from applying for or receiving state or federal funds to prevent human trafficking if the money is spent on efforts related to "racial profiling" of sex workers.

It is unclear whether this clause will impact the city’s ability to receive funds related to trafficking; human-rights advocates note that traffickers often prey on specific immigrant communities, making investigations and outreach into certain racial or ethnic groups necessary.

Secondly, Proposition K would require the city to stop administering what supporters of decriminalization have dubbed "re-education" programs.

One program specifically identified in the initiative for termination is the First Offender Prostitution Program (FOPP), a diversion program for clients who pay $1,000 to participate, and from which the city collects about $162,000 a year.

About half of the funds derived from the FOPP are used to support programs that provide social services to prostitutes who express interest in leaving the profession.

The post Prop. K: Untested Theories Drive Prostitution Debate appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.