Measures on the November 2008 ballot
I went to the Board of Elections, and read through all the Proposed Measures. I am not an attorney, I am a citizen, just like you. The following are my observations on the proposed measures. I encourage everyone to read through the proposed laws, in their entirety, and cast your informed vote.
A – Retrofit & Rebuild SF General Hospital
SFGH is the only trauma center and the only acute-care facility in the city prepared to handle every emergency from injury accidents to full-blown public health emergencies. It is absolutely vital that this critical resource is in place. I sincerely hope that the Measure A passes this November, the San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center Earthquake Safety bond. This is a much needed community asset.
B – The Housing Charter Amendment
We need to encourage REAL affordable housing, not just subsidized housing for low-income residents. But, middle class (in other cities) citizens also. The whole approach we have been historically taking has been misguided. If a family is spending over 33% of their pretax income on housing, they cannot afford it. This has lead to our current foreclosure debacle that is far from over. We need to take a long-term look at the situation and work with home developers to find REAL affordable housing solutions.
Unless I have my math wrong, the SFMI is currently $57,833. As this law is written it states that 40% of all new units built must be affordable to households in the income range of 30% SFMI and below. This computes to $17,349.90 a year. Based on a 40 hour workweek @ San Francisco minimum wage rate of $9.36 per hour, this comes to $19,468 a year. If you could change this to reflect this to read 40% of all new units built must be affordable to households in the income range of 50% SFMI and below I would be 100% behind this law. This 50% level is easily achievable by one person working a 60-hour work week, one job 40 hours and a second job 20 hours a week.
Things I think are wrong with this law:
This law currently states:
1. (i) youth leaving juvenile justice systems - this needs to be taken out. We are going to reward young criminals with free housing?
2. (ii) 40% of all new units must be affordable to households in the income of 30% SFMI and below. (Read above)
C – Prohibits city employees from sitting on commissions
I am in favor of this. It helps reduce conflict-of-interest issues.
D – Development of Pier 70
The way this law is currently written, I am against it.
E – Increasing the number of signatures required to recall a Supervisor
I am opposed to this measure; the City Charter currently requires that at least 10% of registered voters in the district sign a petition within a 120-day period. This is large number of signatures already.
F – Abolish city elections in odd numbered years
We have other things to worry about.
G – Retirement credit for employees who took unpaid parental leave before 2003.
Allows police and firefighters taking unpaid parental leave to buy back the time as total years of city service for retirement purposes. This involves no cost to the city, and will help attract and retain public safety employees.
H – Clean Power
Two of the most important issues coming up are the possible move by the San Francisco to have public power and distribution of water from Hetch Hetchy. The SF Clean Energy Act is the first volley in the move towards San Francisco having a public power source. I wish the current version of this proposed law was more thought out. After a law passes, it is often hard to undue or alter, unless a new law is written and often these are filled with pork. In the Clean Energy Act, it asks for the transmission lines to be upgraded from existing power plants from San Francisco to Hetch Hetchy. Purchasing land along this route and having solar power fields that feed into the upgraded transmission lines would be a good idea. I believe water will be a major commodity in the future. San Francisco needs to make sure it will receive a fair market value from other communities for this water. We need to be careful not to enter into long-term contracts with other communities that do not ensure a fair market value for this precious resource. If these changes are made the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission will need to be upgraded and we will need to have new standards to sit on that commission.
Currently, the Commission does not have the level of competency to handle these complex issues. None of the current individuals on the SFPUC has any experience in the utilities or power industry. This is not a good policy. You cannot have political hacks or socialites in this position.
With the passage of San Francisco Public Utilities Measure E in June it is now much more important that we have a business background on the Board of Supervisors, the appointments to the PUC will need to be of a much higher caliber than have been placed on this commission in the past.
I – Rate-payer Advocate
The current rate setting process lacks sufficient oversight and protection of rate-payer’s interests. This law is good, specifically the wording: The independent rate advocate shall have at least 10 years of experience in utility rates methodology and analysis and at least 10 years experience relevant to operation of water, waste water or power utilities.
J – Landmarks preservation board
No opinion.
K – Legalizing Prostitution
Decriminalization of prostitution without any regulation. The proponents of this law have no game plan. Who is going to supervise this? Will a new commission need to be formed, how will it be taxed. What are the public health issues? The proposer of this law cannot provide me with this information, therefore I am against it.
L – Community Justice Center
I am in favor.
This legislation needs to be re-written.
Part I am in favor of - The California Supreme Court is encouraging landlords to illegally evict tenants, and to try to illegally harass tenants out of their homes. They are accomplishing this by making it harder for tenants to sue for such conduct.
Against – Section 2 (iii) of this law states "For any tenant-based rental assistance terminates or expires, for whatever reason, following effective date of this ordinance, the base rent for each such unit following expiration or termination shall be the HAP contract rent in effect for that unit immediately prior to the expiration or termination of the tenant-based rental assistance."
This is in reference to Section 8 housing. The way I read this to mean is that once a tenant leaves, or is removed from a section 8 unit. The rate that can be charged can never increase.
I talked to Chris Daly about this and he was not aware that this wording may have that effect.
Section 14 of this law states: "Request information that violates a tenant’s right to privacy, including but not limited to residence or citizenship status."
So a landlord cannot ask if a possible renter is a citizen. This is unfair.
N – Real Estate Transfer Tax
I am leaning towards voting in favor in this proposition.
Currently the sale of real estate is between .50% to .75% with property less than $1 million and .75% on real estate of $1 million or more.
The new law changes the tax to 1.5% on properties of $5 million or more
O – Tax fund for 911 Services – Emergency Response Fee
I was originally in favor of this until I read the proposed law. Proposition O would replace the Emergency Response Fee with a general tax (Access Line Tax) at the same rates and with the same exemptions. Revenue from this tax would go to the City’s General Fund.
Proposition O would also renew the Telephone User Tax:
Define “telephone communications services” to include current and future technologies for telephone communications, including voice over internet protocol services and give examples of the types of charges subject to this tax including charges for conference calls, voicemail and call waiting: activation, termination and late payment fees; and universal service fees.
Currently these fees go to 911 services, if this law is voted in these fees would go to the General Fund. Also this proposition will raise taxes.
P – Transportation Authority Efficiency Measure
I am against this law.
Q – Payroll Expense Tax
I am for this law.
R – George Bush Sewage Treatment Plant
We have bigger things to worry about, than the naming rights of a sewage treatment facility.
S – Set Asides Must Identify Funding Source
I agree with this law. Without its passage it hampers the city’s ability to balance the budget. This new law limits set asides to 10 years maximum.
T – Treatment on Demand
I was originally in favor of this law, but after talking with Jenny Fredenback who is the main proponent/sponsor of this law, she notified me that she did not have a copy of this law, she lost her copy and I would need to get a copy at the Dept. of Elections. Brilliant.
Secondly, I went to the Dept. of Elections to read this law. This law is strictly to have on demand services for substance abuse programs. This law does not have enough information on how to pay for these services or how they will be provided. This law does not have enough detail. I am against Prop T.
U – Funding for Deployment of Armed Forces in Iraq
This is a federal issue.
Please write:
Senator Barbara Boxer - boxer.senate.gov/contact or Phone: 202-224-3841
Senator Diane Feinstein - feinstein,senate.gov/publicindex.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs.EmailMe or Phone: 202-224-3553
Representative Nancy Pelosi - sf.nancy@mail.house.gov or Phone: 202-225-4965
V – San Francisco Public High Schools Students’ Participation in the JROTC
The JROTC was an after school program that was working. The current cancellation of the JROTC behind closed doors is a symptom of current problems, canceling programs that students are not forced into is a shame. We need to have more after school programs, not less. We need to take the politics out of school and student's should not have to bear the brunt of the political rage of the day. I do not support ending the JROTC program; no one is forced into enrollment. Ending the JROTC at SFUSD is complete buffoonery and an example of politics gone astray.
