By Greg M. Schwartz, Newsdesk.org/The Public Press
|
|
Editor’s note: Twenty-two voter propositions have been placed on the November 2008 ballot, with some drawing attention months before the election. This guide will be updated with links to articles, analyses and opinion sites as they become available. To suggest a link, add your comment to the bottom of this page. Tune in to Crosscurrents on KALW 91.7 FM at 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, October 28, for a live call-in program with experts answering your questions about the ballot.
Click on a proposition title for more detail
• Official ballot resources and third-party coverage
A: SF General Hospital and Trauma Center Earthquake Safety Bond
B: Establishing of Affordable Housing Fund (Charter Amendment)
C: Prohibiting City Employees from Serving on Charter Boards and Commissions
D: Financing Pier 70 Waterfront District Development Plan Upon Board of Supervisors’ Approval
E: Changing the Number of Signatures Required to Recall City Officials
F: Holding All Scheduled City Elections Only in Even-Numbered Years
G: Allowing Retirement System Credit for Unpaid Parental Leave
H: Setting Clean Energy Deadlines; Studying Options for Providing Energy; Changing Revenue Bond Authority to Pay for Public Utility Facilities
I: Creating the Office of an Independent Rate Payer Advocate
J: Creating a Historic Preservation Commission
K: Changing the Enforcement of Laws Related to Prostitution and Sex Workers
L: Funding the Community Justice Center
M: Changing the Residential Rent Ordinance to Prohibit Specific Acts of Harassment of Tenants by Landlords
N: Changing Real Property Transfer Tax Rates
O: Replacing the Emergency Response Fee With an Access Line Tax and Revising the Telephone User Tax
P: Changing the Composition of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority Board
Q: Modifying the Payroll Expense Tax
R: Renaming the Oceanside Water Treatment Plant
S: Policy Regarding Budget Set-Asides and Identification of Replacement Funds
T: Free and Low-Cost Substance Abuse Treatment Programs
U: Policy Against Funding the Deployment of Armed Forces in Iraq
V: Policy Against Terminating Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (JROTC) Programs in Public High Schools
A: SF General Hospital and Trauma Center Earthquake Safety Bond State law requires that all acute-care hospitals meet the highest seismic safety standards or face closure in 2013. If passed, Proposition A would rebuild San Francisco General Hospital through an $887 million general obligation bond, with construction running from 2010 to 2015. Proponents argue that this is the safest, most cost-efficient way to comply with state law — but opponents argue that the proposal is badly planned, doesn’t add enough new beds and needs more financial scrutiny. They also note that property owners will be annually taxed $59 for every $100,000 of property assessments over the next 23 years, and that a 50 percent pass-through clause could lead to renters facing $100 to $300 rent increases.
For more information: Text of Proposition A | Simplified ballot language
Yes on A San Francisco Department of Public Health: "Why rebuild" "S.F. General Hospital’s life on line," San Francisco Business Journal, Sept. 8, 2008 "Prop. A would pay to build new S.F. hospital," San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 6, 2008
B: Establishing of Affordable Housing Fund (Charter Amendment) Mandates a regular source of funding for building, maintaining and promoting new and existing housing developments priced for lower-income renters and some would-be homeowners, derived from a 2.5 cent set-aside for each local property tax dollar. The measure mandates tenant diversity, support of low-income residence construction, and a "baseline" city budget for housing and related services that could not be cut, estimated at $88 million by B’s main proponent, Supervisor Chris Daly. Programs also include housing for people with HIV and homeless youth, and repairs to Housing Authority property. Proponents say the city is losing diversity, with many San Francisco families unable to afford housing, and that Proposition B would enable some low-income residents to stay. Opponents say Proposition B would constrain the budget and hinder the city’s ability to respond to emerging critical needs, and that mandating $2.7 billion for affordable housing over the next 15 years would lead to lost jobs and cuts in vital city services.
For more information: Text of Proposition B | Simplified ballot language
Supervisor Chris Daly San Francisco Housing Justice Coalition
C: Prohibiting City Employees from Serving on Charter Boards and Commissions Eliminates potential conflict-of-interest issues by banning city employees from serving city-sponsored charter boards and commissions. Proponents argue that good government requires these votes to be as objective as possible. Opponents argue the measure overreaches. For example, forbidding a San Francisco firefighter from serving on the Environment Commission might not necessarily improve city government.
For more information: Text of Proposition C | Simplified ballot language
D: Financing Pier 70 Waterfront District Development Plan Upon Board of Supervisors’ Approval This measure will promote public improvements for Pier 70 — located on the eastern side of the city near Illinois and 22nd streets — including waterfront parks, environmental remediation, historic rehabilitation of pier buildings, solar panels, rainwater recycling and maritime terminals. The improvements will be paid for by existing city revenues and offset by future tax receipts generated by development of the pier. Proponents say the popularity of the waterfront from Fishermans Wharf to the San Francisco Giants baseball stadium could extend all the way to the Bayview district. Also, some of the pier structures, such as the Union Iron Works Building, are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places with proper rehabilitation.
For more information: Text of Proposition D | Simplified ballot language
"Prop. D could put life into historic Pier 70," San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 14, 2008
E: Changing the Number of Signatures Required to Recall City Officials Currently, recall of city officials can be placed on the ballot with the signatures of 10 percent of the registered voters in a jurisdiction. Proposition E would change this to match the state formula, which relies on the population of each jurisdiction to determine the number of signatures needed. For example, under the state system, districts of 50,000 voters or less require 15 percent to 30 percent of registered voters to put a recall on the ballot. Proponents contend that the current city requirement of 10 percent is too low and encourages abuse of the system by what they describe as small special-interest groups motivated by mere policy disagreements. Opponents say raising the recall threshold is unnecessary because the current law is adequate, and that all three recall attempts of the past eight years have failed.
For more information: Text of Proposition E | Simplified ballot language
F: Holding All Scheduled City Elections Only in Even-Numbered Years This measure proposes to hold city elections only in even-numbered years, to combat voter fatigue. Proponents say that over the past 40 years, only 40 percent of registered voters have participated in municipal elections in odd-numbered years, compared with 70 percent in presidential elections. Combining elections, they say, would ensure a larger turnout and a more diverse body of voters, and would also save the city more than $3 million every two years. Opponents argue that local issues get less attention when mixed with huge federal elections; that mayoral candidate forums would be fewer and less well attended; and that grassroots campaigns would suffer as local candidates fought for media coverage amid presidential and state contests.
For more information: Text of Proposition F | Simplified ballot language
"Should San Francisco Abolish Elections in Odd-Numbered Years?" BeyondChron.com, June 28, 2007
G: Allowing Retirement System Credit for Unpaid Parental Leave The city’s charter was amended in 2003 to provide paid parental leave for city employees — but those who went on leave before the amendment’s passage were ineligible to earn retirement credits for unpaid time off. Proposition G would give these employees the opportunity to buy back unpaid parental leave time and earn retirement credits for that period. Proponents argue that the measure has no cost to taxpayers. What’s more, they say, since city employees who go on military leave are allowed to purchase time back toward retirement, it’s only fair and equitable that pregnant women have the same chance. Opponents say that it’s inappropriate to provide retroactive pension entitlements that did not exist before passage of improved parental leave benefits. They also say that the city retirement board cannot guarantee that Proposition G will not cost the taxpayers money over the long term. For more information: Text of Proposition G | Simplified ballot language
H: Setting Clean Energy Deadlines; Studying Options for Providing Energy; Changing Revenue Bond Authority to Pay for Public Utility Facilities Proposition H mandates that the city switch to 100 percent clean, renewable and sustainable electricity by 2040. The measure empowers the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission to study the best way to achieve this at a reasonable price, and would authorize the city purchase of PG&E facilities through bonds issued by the Board of Supervisors that would be repaid through consumer electric bills. Proponents contend that Proposition H itself won’t cost the city a penny, but would create green-energy jobs, and that publicly owned utilities across the state are more accountable and produce cheaper electricity. Opponents argue that Prop H would give supervisors a "blank check" to issue billions of dollars in revenue bonds to take over utilities without a popular vote. Opponents also say the city controller’s report shows the plan could cost billions; that a takeover of just the city electric utility could cost taxpayers nearly $20 million in lost taxes and fees; and that advocates exempt themselves from enforceable state renewable-energy standards and define "renewable" as excluding nuclear power.
For more information: Text of Proposition H | Simplified ballot language
"S.F. girds for its biggest public power fight yet," San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 2, 2008 No on H campaign "PG&E’s blank check:Who is the utility buying off? Start with Newsom, Feinstein, and Willie Brown," San Francisco Bay Guardian, Aug. 27, 2008
I: Creating the Office of an Independent Rate Payer Advocate The Public Utilities Commission is the city’s largest and wealthiest commission, overseeing an annual budget of $677 million and a 10-year capital plan program of more than $7 billion. Proposition I creates an office of the Independent Ratepayer Advocate to work for the lowest utility rates possible for consumers. To insulate the position from political influence, the job would be filled by the city administrator, not an elected official. Proponents say that an advocate would help ensure that costs are shared fairly among all and guarantee a voice for consumers. Prop H opponents such as Supervisors Alioto-Pier, Chu and Elsbernd have signed the ballot argument for Prop I.
For more information: Text of Proposition I | Simplified ballot language
J: Creating a Historic Preservation Commission This proposition would follow New York, Boston, Chicago and Philadelphia by giving more authority to a local historic preservation commission. It would streamline the review process for changes to historic buildings and help prevent demolition of landmark buildings and neighborhood characteristics. Proponents say that the city’s current preservation apparatus is outdated and must be reformed, and that saving historic buildings would help the city meet environmental goals by preventing demolition debris from winding up in state landfills.
For more information: Text of Proposition J | Simplified ballot language
K: Changing the Enforcement of Laws Related to Prostitution and Sex Workers Proposition K would prohibit the police department from using resources to investigate and prosecute prostitution, and require the police and district attorney to enforce existing laws that prohibit coercion, extortion, battery, rape or sexual assault against prostitutes. Proposition K would further prohibit the city from funding or supporting its First Offender Prostitution Program, which provides education and diversion programs to get women and their clients out of the business. Proponents argue that Proposition K would enable sex workers and their clients to work more effectively with authorities to report and prevent human trafficking or other abuses. Opponents argue that the measure will empower pimps and human traffickers to exploit their victims without repercussions. They say Proposition K is bad policy because it is decriminalization without any accompanying regulation.
For more information: Text of Proposition K | Simplified ballot language
Yes on K No on K: Committee Against Trafficking & Sexual Exploitation "Should Prostitution Be Legalized? The pros and cons of decriminalization and legalization," Alternet, July 30, 2008
L: Funding the Community Justice Center This measure authorizes funding for the creation of a San Francisco Community Justice Center in collaboration with the City’s Superior Court. The center would hear misdemeanors, nonviolent felonies and other suitable cases in the Tenderloin, SoMa, Civic Center and Union Square neighborhoods, where more than one-quarter of all crimes in the city occur. Proponents say the center would be a collaborative, problem-solving service center with a court on site, enabling misdemeanor and nonviolent felony defendants to choose treatment instead of incarceration. A judge would work with social services staff to create individual treatment plans for defendants. Opponents, including six supervisors, say the center has already been funded by the Board of Supervisors and that Proposition L is therefore a wasteful and unnecessary gimmick. Proponents counter that it would ensure the continued existence of the initiative despite a preference by some supervisors to terminate the project.
For more information: Text of Proposition L | Simplified ballot language
Community Justice Court Coalition – Yes on L
M: Changing the Residential Rent Ordinance to Prohibit Specific Acts of Harassment of Tenants by Landlords This proposition would add a section to the city’s rent-control law to prevent landlords who want to raise rents from pressuring tenants to leave. It would offer tenants a rent reduction when victimized by harassment, as well as attorney fees to fight bogus eviction attempts. Proponents contend that landlord harassment has become epidemic in the city because there is no local law prohibiting it. Opponents argue that Proposition M should be called the "Full Employment Act for Greedy Lawyers," saying that state and local law already protects tenants. Opponents also say that the proposition would violate the First Amendment.
For more information: Text of Proposition M | Simplified ballot language
San Francisco Tenants Union — Yes on Prop M campaign
N: Changing Real Property Transfer Tax Rates Proposition N would close a tax-code loophole that, critics say, allows some corporations to avoid paying their share of real-estate transfer taxes. It would raise that tax on any properties sold for $5 million or more. Proponents say that this loophole is causing the city to lose tens of millions of dollars in revenue, and that their proposition also contains tax incentives for property owners to make solar and seismic improvements. Opponents say that taxing more for property sales would discourage economic activity and hurt the city’s economy.
For more information: Text of Proposition N | Simplified ballot language
O: Replacing the Emergency Response Fee With an Access Line Tax and Revising the Telephone User Tax This measure would fund 911 phone services by repealing the Emergency Response Fee and replacing it with an Access Line Tax. Proponents say a recent court ruling jeopardizes the funding source for the city’s 911 call services and that it must be replaced with this tax. Opponents contend that there is no limitation on future tax increases, and that a provision in Proposition O would allow the city to tax Internet-based telephone services.
For more information: Text of Proposition O | Simplified ballot language
P: Changing the Composition of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority Board This proposition would require agencies and departments of the city to perform some County Transportation Authority staff functions, bring in "expert" financial review and require the county to adopt the city’s ethics and public records laws. Proponents say doing so would increase efficiency and accountability — but opponents argue that the proposition is a takeover of the Transportation Authority that eliminates voter-mandated checks and balances, hands over control of billions of dollars to political appointees, and would let Muni spend more freely, leading to cost overruns.
For more information: Text of Proposition P | Simplified ballot language
Q: Modifying the Payroll Expense Tax Proposition Q increases the number of small businesses exempt from local payroll taxes by raising the total payroll threshold from $166,000 per year to $250,000. It also closes what critics call a loophole for large downtown firms that they say costs the city up to $19 million each year. Proponents say the measure would help more than 1,600 firms to stay in business and earn the city new revenue by closing the loophole. Many proponents of Prop N also support Prop Q. There are no known opponent arguments.
For more information: Text of Proposition Q | Simplified ballot language
R: Renaming the Oceanside Water Treatment Plant Proposition R would change the name of the Oceanside Water Treatment Plant to the George W. Bush Sewage Plant. Proponents claim that the world’s first presidential sewage plant would increase tourist traffic in southwest San Francisco and create opportunities to educate the public about the good work and talent of the facility’s staff. Opponents say that such name-calling is primitive and would disrespect America’s armed forces, because it disrespects the commander in chief.
For more information: Text of Proposition R | Simplified ballot language
Presidential Memorial Commission of San Francisco blog
S: Policy Regarding Budget Set-Asides and Identification of Replacement Funds This measure would ban future budget set-asides that have no identified funding source. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom says it’s a commonsense reform for fiscal responsibility to ensure that voters know how their decisions will affect other programs or increase their tax burdens. No opposing argument was filed.
For more information: Text of Proposition S | Simplified ballot language
T: Free and Low-Cost Substance Abuse Treatment Programs Proposition T would offer substance abuse treatment programs on demand. Proponents say medical studies indicate that every dollar spent on treatment saves $7 to $13 in public costs and that Proposition T would make the city a better place to live. The SF Chamber of Commerce opposes, saying that T prohibits the reduction of funding, staffing or the number of substance-abuse treatment slots so long as there is excess demand for the slots. No funding source is identified for the additional cost of the program.
For more information: Text of Proposition T | Simplified ballot language
U: Policy Against Funding the Deployment of Armed Forces in Iraq Proposition U is a nonbinding resolution urging the city’s elected representatives in Congress to vote against any further funding for deployment of armed forces in Iraq, except for funds specifically earmarked to provide for the safe and orderly withdrawal of troops. Proponents say that in a democracy, citizens are must be able to change policies they oppose. They say federal spending on the war in Iraq has cost California $68 billion and San Francisco $1.8 billion. Opponents argue that such a nonbinding declaration of policy is merely symbolic and therefore a futile, time-wasting and costly attempt to influence national policy.
For more information: Text of Proposition U | Simplified ballot language
Yes on Proposition U "Proposition U: Moral narcissism by city progs," District 5 Diary blog
V: Policy Against Terminating Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (JROTC) Programs in Public High Schools This is a nonbinding resolution in support of JROTC programs in the city’s public high schools, which are set to be phased out by June 2009. Proponents say the measure supports giving students and their families the choice to participate in JROTC, which they say is a successful high school leadership program. Opponents argue that the Pentagon-sponsored program costs the San Francisco school district nearly $1 million per year, and that there are better ways to spend the money.
For more information: Text of Proposition V | Simplified ballot language
No on V: No Military Recruitment in Our Schools
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES: • SF Elections Department ballot initiative PDFs. • San Francisco Chronicle ballot initiative coverage and editorials • BeyondChron.org ballot initiative analysis and edtorials
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.
