San Francisco and California March 2024 Ballot Measures
- California Proposition 1, Behavioral Health Services Program and Bond Measure
- San Francisco, California, Proposition A, Affordable Housing Bond Measure
- San Francisco, California, Proposition B, Minimum Police Staffing Amendment
- San Francisco, California, Proposition C, Real Estate Transfer Tax Exemption for Properties Converted from Commercial to Residential Use Initiative
- San Francisco, California, Proposition D, Amend City Ethics Laws and Expand Restrictions on Gifts to City Officers and Employees Initiative
- San Francisco, California, Proposition E, Limit Police Department Administrative Task Time and Increase Use of Camera and Drone Technology Initiative
- San Francisco, California, Proposition F, Require Drug Screening for Certain Beneficiaries of the County Adult Assistance Program Initiative
- San Francisco, California, Proposition G, Declaration of Policy Urging San Francisco Unified School District to Offer Algebra 1 to Students by Eighth Grade Measure
While waiting for the horror of Weekend at Bernie's vs. A Clockwork Orange in November there is time to contemplate another slate of job-outsourcing ballot measures. Just one for California and seven for San Francisco so it could be worse. Here goes...
California Proposition 1, Behavioral Health Services Program and Bond Measure
Yes. This funds housing and treatment for the mentally ill, homeless and veterans in need. It also requires counties to put more of their existing funds into housing.
San Francisco, California, Proposition A, Affordable Housing Bond Measure
Yes. $300M in bonds to build, buy and repair affordable housing. Homelessness is driven by a lack of affordable housing. In addition to building more I'd love to see us cut more of the red tape, but this is a necessary measure to meet our existing obligations.
San Francisco, California, Proposition B, Minimum Police Staffing Amendment
No. I voted against minimum numbers in 2020, and I don't see a good reason to bring them back today. I also recoil at the thought of a dedicated police recruitment tax as this measure suggests. Funding the police is a very basic city service, as is determining the appropriate staffing levels at any particular moment in time. I'm not against recruiting more police at all, but this is a bad proposal.
San Francisco, California, Proposition C, Real Estate Transfer Tax Exemption for Properties Converted from Commercial to Residential Use Initiative
Yes. I voted in favor of this tax in 2020. Post pandemic San Francisco has one of the worst return to office rates and a huge decline in retail. We need to rethink what downtown is for and I love the idea of bringing in more universities and more homes. So this is a tax break that makes sense for now.
San Francisco, California, Proposition D, Amend City Ethics Laws and Expand Restrictions on Gifts to City Officers and Employees Initiative
Yes. Tougher ethics rules are needed. Can't find any reason to oppose this package. We have bribing of inspection personnel, theft of public funds, corruption in Public Works, that inspector who inspected his own building, etc.
San Francisco, California, Proposition E, Limit Police Department Administrative Task Time and Increase Use of Camera and Drone Technology Initiative
Yes. Apparently when SFPD decides to chase someone they crash 38% of the time, about twice the state average. This bill would let them chase more people and use drones and GPS taggers to do it. I'd like them to go on an advanced driving course or two, but if you can avoid consequences just by running away then we don't really have a law enforcement system. Maybe I'll regret this in a few years but it seems mostly common sense to me right now.
San Francisco, California, Proposition F, Require Drug Screening for Certain Beneficiaries of the County Adult Assistance Program Initiative
No. It looks like the recipients of most of these funds are not homeless and have plenty of hoops to jump through already. This seems like it would risk making their situation worse.
San Francisco, California, Proposition G, Declaration of Policy Urging San Francisco Unified School District to Offer Algebra 1 to Students by Eighth Grade Measure
Yes. This is pointless as it has no teeth and they're moving this way anyway. I still want to help make the pointless point.
Related Posts
- San Francisco November 2020 Ballot Measures
- San Francisco November 2016 Propositions
- San Francisco November 2022 Ballot Measures
- San Francisco 2014 Ballot Measures
- San Francisco June 2022 Ballot Measures
(Published to the Fediverse as: San Francisco and California March 2024 Ballot Measures #politics #sanfrancisco #propositions #election #california ITHCWY voter guide to the San Francisco and California March 2024 primary election propositions and ballot measures. )
California November 2022 Propositions
- PROP 1: CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
- PROP 26: ALLOWS IN-PERSON ROULETTE, DICE GAMES, SPORTS WAGERING ON TRIBAL LANDS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.
- PROP 27: ALLOWS ONLINE AND MOBILE SPORTS WAGERING OUTSIDE TRIBAL LANDS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.
- PROP 28: PROVIDES ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ARTS AND MUSIC EDUCATION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
- PROP 29: REQUIRES ON-SITE LICENSED MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL AT KIDNEY DIALYSIS CLINICS AND ESTABLISHES OTHER STATE REQUIREMENTS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
- PROP 30: PROVIDES FUNDING FOR PROGRAMS TO REDUCE AIR POLLUTION AND PREVENT WILDFIRES BY INCREASING TAX ON PERSONAL INCOME OVER $2 MILLION. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
- PROP 31: REFERENDUM ON 2020 LAW THAT WOULD PROHIBIT THE RETAIL SALE OF CERTAIN FLAVORED TOBACCO PRODUCTS.
Only 7 statewide propositions this year! And most of them are easy. I feel like the teacher forgot to assign homework. I still need to fill out the ballot though so here is my traditional voter guide:
PROP 1: CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Yes. This only really makes a statement, but it's worth making given the fundamental corruption of a Supreme Court which is now just an emblem of the failure of the American political system to represent the people who live here.
PROP 26: ALLOWS IN-PERSON ROULETTE, DICE GAMES, SPORTS WAGERING ON TRIBAL LANDS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.
No. I think Californians should be allowed to gamble more freely. I'd love to see something from the legislature though, not from gaming tribes or companies. I don't understand why we use sin based indulgences to fund tribes. Gambling should be legal across the board (which I'd favor) or not at all. So getting deeper into this immoral deal is a non starter for me.
PROP 27: ALLOWS ONLINE AND MOBILE SPORTS WAGERING OUTSIDE TRIBAL LANDS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.
No. I'd be more inclined to back 27, but it makes the process of qualifying so expensive and complex that only existing giant companies would benefit. So it stinks of regulatory capture. Also, positioning this as a mechanism to solve homelessness is repulsive. Homelessness is a problem that we need to make more progress on. It probably makes sense to allow more gambling in the state. But that gambling is probably going to lead to more homelessness and the funds that might be provided to address it are a small drop in a very large bucket.
PROP 28: PROVIDES ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ARTS AND MUSIC EDUCATION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
No. We don't need more voter mandated spending levels that constrain our ability to manage the budget in the future.
PROP 29: REQUIRES ON-SITE LICENSED MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL AT KIDNEY DIALYSIS CLINICS AND ESTABLISHES OTHER STATE REQUIREMENTS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
No. Same answer and rationale as 2020. Stop asking.
PROP 30: PROVIDES FUNDING FOR PROGRAMS TO REDUCE AIR POLLUTION AND PREVENT WILDFIRES BY INCREASING TAX ON PERSONAL INCOME OVER $2 MILLION. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
No. This will probably pass, and if so it will be the second time in two years that Lyft has been able to just buy favorable legislation. Last time it was less regulation so that it didn't have to provide benefits to its 'independent contractors' and now somehow it's more regulation so we can lower their costs.
PROP 31: REFERENDUM ON 2020 LAW THAT WOULD PROHIBIT THE RETAIL SALE OF CERTAIN FLAVORED TOBACCO PRODUCTS.
No. You can't vape mango nicotine to give up smoking at the same time as another fun addictive plant is seen as the future? I continue to believe that all drugs should be legal, taxed and regulated.
Related Posts
- California November 2016 Propositions
- California November 2020 Propositions
- California 2012 Propositions
- California 2014 Propositions
- San Francisco and California March 2024 Ballot Measures
(Published to the Fediverse as: California November 2022 Propositions #politics #california #propositions #election Official ITHCWY voter guide to the statewide propositions for California in 2022. )
San Francisco November 2022 Ballot Measures
- A: Retiree Supplemental Cost of Living Adjustment; Retirement Board Contract with Executive Director
- B: Public Works Department and Commission, Sanitation and Streets Department and Commission
- C: Homelessness Oversight Commission
- D: Affordable Housing – Initiative Petition
- E: Affordable Housing – Board of Supervisors
- F: Library Preservation Fund
- G: Student Success Fund – Grants to the San Francisco Unified School District
- H: City Elections in Even-Numbered Years
- I: Vehicles on JFK Drive in Golden Gate Park and the Great Highway
- J: Recreational Use of JFK Drive in Golden Gate Park
- L: Sales Tax for Transportation Projects
- M: Tax on Keeping Residential Units Vacant
- N: Golden Gate Park Underground Parking Facility; Golden Gate Park Concourse Authority
- O: Additional Parcel Tax for City College
My guide to all fourteen ballot measures for San Francisco in November 2022. Hot on the heels of 8 in June. My overriding principle here is to prevent the need for future ballot measures although I can't help myself from indulging in the occasional good idea.
A: Retiree Supplemental Cost of Living Adjustment; Retirement Board Contract with Executive Director
Yes. This is cheap and makes retirement benefits for city workers more fair and predictable.
B: Public Works Department and Commission, Sanitation and Streets Department and Commission
No. We just voted to create a department of sanitation and streets in 2020.
C: Homelessness Oversight Commission
Yes. More oversight for spending on homeless services.
D: Affordable Housing – Initiative Petition
Yes. Makes it easier to build new housing in San Francisco. Seems to cut a lot of unnecessary red tape to get projects moving faster.
E: Affordable Housing – Board of Supervisors
No. This competes with D to try and avoid losing too much control.
F: Library Preservation Fund
No. I'm not anti-library, but I am opposed to ballot measures that carve out specific funding and then will need another ballot measure if anything needs to change.
G: Student Success Fund – Grants to the San Francisco Unified School District
No. Another set aside that can't be undone without a future ballot measure.
H: City Elections in Even-Numbered Years
Yes. Increased voter turnout should lead to more representative local officials. I thought I voted for this already in 2012? Unfortunately this measure also has an adjustment to keep the number of signatures required for a new ballot measure constant. I'd love to see it get harder.
I: Vehicles on JFK Drive in Golden Gate Park and the Great Highway
No. Let's keep some car free space.
J: Recreational Use of JFK Drive in Golden Gate Park
Yes. As above.
L: Sales Tax for Transportation Projects
Yes. Extends an existing sales tax for transportation.
M: Tax on Keeping Residential Units Vacant
No. Could discourage new housing from being built and as written does not apply equally to all housing.
N: Golden Gate Park Underground Parking Facility; Golden Gate Park Concourse Authority
Yes. I need to make decisions about a single parking garage? This would allow the city more control, and as I want to keep JFK car free it makes sense to optimize this parking resource for people who will have more difficulty getting to the museums as a result.
O: Additional Parcel Tax for City College
Yes. This is an important resource and we need to get it back on track.
Related Posts
- San Francisco 2014 Ballot Measures
- San Francisco November 2020 Ballot Measures
- San Francisco June 2022 Ballot Measures
- San Francisco November 2016 Propositions
- San Francisco and California March 2024 Ballot Measures
(Published to the Fediverse as: San Francisco November 2022 Ballot Measures #politics #sanfrancisco #propositions #election The official ITHCWY voter guide to San Francisco's 2022 ballot measures. )
San Francisco June 2022 Ballot Measures
- A - MUNI Reliability and Street Safety Bond
- B - Building Inspection Commission
- C - Recall Timelines and Vacancy Process
- D - Victims and Witness Rights
- E - Behested Payments
- F - Refuse Collection and Disposal
- G - Public Health Emergency Leave
- H - District Attorney
How I hate all the propositions. Here's the ITHCWY official (hastily scratched together and possibly idiotically wrong) voter's guide to the June 2022 batch:
A - MUNI Reliability and Street Safety Bond
Yes. I hate that the largest line item is bus yard upgrades rather than more frequent and reliable service but they make a good case for it - i.e. being able to repair broken equipment faster and not in a century old earthquake prone death trap of a building. Hopefully this is all true and they're not just installing hot tubs and keg fridges. But sure, MUNI, take my money.
B - Building Inspection Commission
Yes. Because it seems widely supported, not because I have a strong opinion here.
C - Recall Timelines and Vacancy Process
No. I hate recall elections (foreshadowing H below) but this is too restrictive. We shouldn't recall politicians for doing what they said they were going to do when we elected them. We should consider their performance when deciding if they deserve another term. But if they are egregiously bad it doesn't make sense to prevent the recall process for two full years, and I don't see any reason why an appointed successor shouldn't get a crack at the next election either.
D - Victims and Witness Rights
No. Creating a department for Victims is within the power of the city government. Doing this by ballot measure will mean they can't stop if it doesn't make sense or needs reform or turns out to be a bad idea.
E - Behested Payments
No. A majority vote of supervisors seems enough to modify the rules here.
F - Refuse Collection and Disposal
No. Replaces the City Controller with an appointed 'ratepayer representative' who is not really going to be able to represent all ratepayers. I think I'd rather stick with the Controller.
G - Public Health Emergency Leave
No. Sick leave should cover this and should be set at the state level. We don't need more businesses leaving San Francisco right now.
H - District Attorney
No. I don't think Boudin has done anything that rises to the level of recall, and he should be judged at the next election. He's unlucky enough to be holding the hat during a post-pandemic crime surge, but mostly it's a surge back to pre-pandemic levels. Murder is up, but is everywhere. I generally support locking fewer people up and a consequence of this is more unlocked up people. Hard to see how you can have this both ways. The fentanyl situation in the city is a tragedy. I don't think recalling Boudin fixes this. I think we need legalized, safe, tested drugs and treatment rather than criminalization.
Related Posts
- San Francisco November 2022 Ballot Measures
- San Francisco November 2020 Ballot Measures
- San Francisco 2014 Ballot Measures
- San Francisco November 2016 Propositions
- San Francisco and California March 2024 Ballot Measures
(Published to the Fediverse as: San Francisco June 2022 Ballot Measures #politics #sanfrancisco #propositions #election Official ITHCWY voter guide to the San Francisco June 2022 Ballot Measures )
California November 2020 Propositions
A good principle for figuring out propositions is that the more money is being poured into local news ad spots the more that position is likely to be a case of concentrated benefits and diffuse costs with you on the receiving end of the costs. I mostly follow that below.
Also, I've realized that previous proposition links have rotted, because of course the state government is too busy to maintain a permalink and maybe even some history for measures that we now seem to need to vote on every two years. Maybe I need to start a proposition to fix that. Anyway...
14: AUTHORIZES BONDS CONTINUING STEM CELL RESEARCH.
No. CIRM doesn't seem to have delivered much since 2004, it's not a good time to add more debt obligations and I feel that we would be better off funding more basic research in universities.
15: INCREASES FUNDING SOURCES FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, COMMUNITY COLLEGES, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES BY CHANGING TAX ASSESSMENT OF COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY.
Yes. Market rate property taxes for >$3M properties to increase school and college funding.
16: ALLOWS DIVERSITY AS A FACTOR IN PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION, AND CONTRACTING DECISIONS.
No. Employment and education should be color blind. Affirmative action perpetuates racism. I'd rather see measures that increase opportunity rather than provide compensation.
17: RESTORES RIGHT TO VOTE AFTER COMPLETION OF PRISON TERM.
Yes. If you have served your time then you should be participating in society again.
18: AMENDS CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION TO PERMIT 17-YEAR-OLDS TO VOTE IN PRIMARY AND SPECIAL ELECTIONS IF THEY WILL TURN 18 BY THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION AND BE OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE.
Yes. And I say this while recommending a no vote on San Francisco's Measure G. This is participating in a primary when you're old enough to vote the general which is different from lowering the voting age overall.
19: CHANGES CERTAIN PROPERTY TAX RULES.
No. When the person playing the firefighter in the constant ads says the puppy just won't make it unless you support the proposition you know it must stink.
20: RESTRICTS PAROLE FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES CURRENTLY CONSIDERED TO BE NON-VIOLENT. AUTHORIZES FELONY SENTENCES FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES CURRENTLY TREATED ONLY AS MISDEMEANORS.
No. Lock more people up for more time? We don't need to be spending more money on prisons. California (and the US generally) needs to be looking to reduce our dependence on locking people up (and get rid of for-profit incarceration).
21: EXPANDS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS' AUTHORITY TO ENACT RENT CONTROL ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.
No. I'm a little torn on this one but we already have a state law controlling rent increases and the fact that Gavin opposes this prop pushes me to a no.
22: EXEMPTS APP-BASED TRANSPORTATION AND DELIVERY COMPANIES FROM PROVIDING EMPLOYEE BENEFITS TO CERTAIN DRIVERS.
No. Otherwise everyone is going to end up being contracted through an app. Maybe that's OK if we manage to fix other problems - universal health care that is unconnected to employment for instance - but right now these employees deserve the protections and rights that go with providing the service.
23: ESTABLISHES STATE REQUIREMENTS FOR KIDNEY DIALYSIS CLINICS. REQUIRES ON-SITE MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL.
No. This is an issue where I hate both sides and also hate voting the same way as the advertising. I support universal single payer healthcare and this is a vote in favor of profit driven dialysis clinics. But it's not clear that they need a doctor on site and the other side is a profit seeking union looking to muscle in. I resent being involved in the decision and default to no.
24: AMENDS CONSUMER PRIVACY LAWS.
No. Not until we get something that might actually work. The result of all of these privacy choice measures is that you just get an ugly banner on every website that gives you the 'choice' between continuing to share your data and jumping through baroque hoops to try and understand which cookies you need or not. So far this just makes everything worse for both businesses and consumers.
25: REFERENDUM ON LAW THAT REPLACED MONEY BAIL WITH SYSTEM BASED ON PUBLIC SAFETY AND FLIGHT RISK
Yes. There seems to be some conflict over whether this reform is good enough, but a system where the wealthy go free and the poor are stuck in prison until trial is unfair. We need to wring the profit out of the criminal justice system and this is a reasonable step in that direction.
Related Posts
- California 2012 Propositions
- California November 2016 Propositions
- California 2014 Propositions
- California November 2022 Propositions
- California and San Francisco June 2016 Propositions
(Published to the Fediverse as: California November 2020 Propositions #politics #california #propositions #election Official ITHCWY voter guide to the California November 2020 Propositions )
San Francisco November 2020 Ballot Measures
I don't like to vote if I can't string together a rationale that I'm willing to post on my blog, so here are my recommendations for the San Francisco November 2020 ballot measures. It's been a tough year for the city. My neighbors are moving somewhere cheaper and less smoky, I see more houses on the market then usual as I walk around. It's hard to know what the next year will bring and to what extent tech jobs will end up shifting out of the bay area as the giants are forced to match work from home policies and smaller companies follow suit. What's clear to me is that we need to stimulate recovery and stop the city from becoming a worse place to live. And beyond that my ultimate dream of just throwing the politicians out if they're doing a lousy job rather than slogging through ballot measures for them. Until that day, here we go:
A: Health and Homelessness, Parks, and Streets Bond
Yes. The problem with homelessness is only getting worse and the construction will create jobs.
B: Department of Sanitation and Streets, Sanitation and Streets Commission, and Public Works Commission
Yes. The streets are a mess, so anything that shakes up the current system seems like it's worth a try.
C: Removing Citizenship Requirements for Members of City Bodies
Yes. Given the huge number of non-citizens paying taxes and otherwise contributing to the city it makes sense to allow them to participate in civic life. I don't support allowing non-citizens to vote but have no objection to them serving on a commission or other city body.
D: Sheriff Oversight
Yes. I really struggle with American policing. We have SF park rangers, community college police, university police, SFPD, sheriffs, highway patrol and other state police. That's without even starting to think about the various federal TLAs and transportation related agencies. Maybe before defunding the police we should first just spend a few years merging most of them and saving on administrative and uniform design costs? Having said all that I find it very hard to vote against more oversight for a department mainly concerned with running jails that organizes fight clubs at those jails. FFS.
E: Police Staffing
Yes. Doesn't seem to make sense to have a specific number of police officers as a requirement.
F: Business Tax Overhaul
Yes. I've never been in love with the payroll tax and moving to gross receipts with a higher exemption helps small business and startups. Seems like a good trade off.
G: Youth Voting in Local Elections
No. 18 is somewhat arbitrary but it's the point at which you take on adult rights and responsibilities.
H: Neighborhood Commercial Districts and City Permitting
Yes. Makes it faster and easier to permit new businesses and sadly we're going to need a lot of that as we recover.
I: Real Estate Transfer Tax
Yes. We need the revenue even if it is uncertain.
J: Parcel Tax for San Francisco Unified School District
Yes. More funding for SFUSD. I voted for this before and it's on the ballot again as only a 50% requirement in 2018 instead of a 2/3rds majority.
K: Affordable Housing Authorization
Yes. A step towards creating more affordable housing.
L: Business Tax Based on Comparison of Top Executive's Pay to Employees' Pay
No. I think this is up to each company. Regulate the floor not the ceiling.
RR: Caltrain Sales Tax
Yes. I don't ride Caltrain often but I love it. My dream is coming back from a meeting on the peninsula in a comfortable top deck seat with a couple of cheap canned Gin and Tonics. We need more public transportation and we need it more than ever.
Related Posts
- San Francisco 2014 Ballot Measures
- San Francisco November 2022 Ballot Measures
- San Francisco November 2016 Propositions
- San Francisco and California March 2024 Ballot Measures
- San Francisco June 2022 Ballot Measures
(Published to the Fediverse as: San Francisco November 2020 Ballot Measures #politics #sanfrancisco #propositions #election Official ITHCWY voter guide to the San Francisco November 2020 Ballot Measures )
San Francisco November 2016 Propositions
The voter guide for November 2016 reminds me of The Cat in the Hat Comes Back. You've got propositions A, B and C, D, E and F, G, H and I, J, K and L, M, N and O, P, Q and R, S, T and U, V, W and X. Y is missing and so is the microscopic and invisible little proposition Z. We do get an RR for BART though.
Also missing is the Voom, the magic powder that makes all the mess go away. Really this slate of city propositions is the government failing to do it's job and punting to the voters. I'm tempted to send the Board of Supervisors a week of my work to handle while I struggle through theirs. Maybe the supervisors should be limited to whatever they feel the most important one is?
As much as I hate it I have to do the best job I can. This is shorter than my state guide because after slogging through that I'm losing my will to live. Here goes:
Proposition A: San Francisco Unified School District Bond Issue
Yes. Necessary funds to fix and build schools.
Proposition B: San Francisco Community College
Yes. We need to continue to resuscitate City College.
Proposition C: San Francisco Affordable Housing Bond Issue
Yes. Repurposes unspent seismic upgrade bonds to housing.
Proposition D: San Francisco Vacancy Appointments
No. This one is just weird - someone appointed to a vacant supervisor spot can’t then run for election? Makes no sense.
Proposition E: San Francisco City Responsibility for Street Trees and Sidewalks Amendment
No. Ring fences money for tree maintenance. This was shifted to property owners and should probably stay there. I’m also generally opposed to untouchable money in the city budget.
Proposition F: San Francisco Youth Voting in Local Elections
No. Students shouldn’t be voting for the school board.
Proposition G: San Francisco Police Oversight Amendment
Yes. SFPD clearly needs more supervision.
Proposition H: San Francisco Establishment of a Public Advocate Office Amendment
No. We don’t need to pay for someone to write reports. Seems like a recipe for pointless infighting. If we get fed up with the Mayor we can elect a new one.
Proposition I: San Francisco Funding for Seniors and Adults with Disabilities Amendment
No. Should be funded by the city without needing any special ring fencing. I don’t want to be involved in setting the right level.
Proposition J: San Francisco Homeless Services and Transportation Funds Amendment
Yes. Spends the money from Prop K on transportation and homelessness.
Proposition K: San Francisco Sales Tax Increase
Yes. I don’t love it because it’s regressive but it’s a small increase for a couple of good causes (see K above).
Proposition L: San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency Governance Amendment
No. Leave the Mayor in charge of the MUNI board.
Proposition M: San Francisco Housing and Development Commission Establishment Amendment
No. Doesn’t need a new body of politicians.
Proposition N: San Francisco Non-Citizen Voting in School Board Elections
No. Only citizens should get to vote.
Proposition O: San Francisco Office Development in Candlestick Point and Hunters Point
Yes. Allows more office space to be created in a much needed development project.
Proposition P: San Francisco Minimum Three-Proposal Requirement for Affordable Housing Projects on City Property
No. Makes it harder to get projects going. Most projects have multiple bidders already.
Proposition Q: San Francisco Prohibiting Tents on Public Sidewalks
No. Focus on more shelter space instead. Speeding up the process of kicking people into non-existent services isn’t helping anyone.
Proposition R: San Francisco Neighborhood Crime Unit Creation
No. Not that I’m a fan of graffiti or other neighborhood blight but forcing SFPD to allocate offices to it full time means that more serious crime might not get the attention it needs.
Proposition S: San Francisco Allocation of Hotel Tax Funds
No. The money should continue to go to the general fund and not be locked down for a specific purpose.
Proposition T: San Francisco Restricting Gifts and Campaign Contributions from Lobbyists
Yes. More constraints and time in the sunshine for lobbyists.
Proposition U: San Francisco Income Qualifications for Affordable Housing
No. Not enough to go around as it is so it doesn’t make sense to make it easier to apply for.
Proposition V: San Francisco Soda and Sugary Beverages Tax
No. Regressive and of dubious value. And I only just voted on this in 2014.
Proposition W: San Francisco Real Estate Transfer Tax
No. This tax is already higher than other bay area cities and the funds raised would be ring fenced.
Proposition X: San Francisco Replacement Space Requirement for Development Projects
No. Should be part of the regular planning process and not a proposition.
Measure RR: San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
Yes. BART desperately needs the upgrades.
Related Posts
- San Francisco November 2020 Ballot Measures
- San Francisco November 2022 Ballot Measures
- San Francisco 2014 Ballot Measures
- San Francisco 2012 Propositions
- San Francisco and California March 2024 Ballot Measures
(Published to the Fediverse as: San Francisco November 2016 Propositions #politics #propositions #election #sanfrancisco ITHCWY voter guide to the November 2016 San Francisco propositions and a rant about the Board of Supervisors failing to do their job. )
California November 2016 Propositions
Stopping Trump is the easy part. We have seventeen statewide propositions to decide this year (and 25 city and district measures in San Francisco). Here is my guide to the California propositions:
51 School Bonds. Funding for K-12 School and Community College Facilities. Initiative Statute.
Yes. This is around $1,125 per student to help fix up run down schools. Pretty modest impact on the state budget.
52 Medi-Cal Hospital Fee Program. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Yes. Ensures that California continues to get four billion dollars in Federal matching funds for Medicaid.
53 Revenue Bonds. Statewide Voter Approval. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
No. I’d like to see fewer propositions on the ballot. This is asking for a referendum on every medium to large project. What a nightmare. I want to elect representatives to handle this for me and then vote them out if they seem to be making a mess of it.
54 Legislature. Legislation and Proceedings. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Yes. Would require advance notice of legislation and also preserve video of proceedings for twenty years. Might stop some bad bills from getting through and will certainly provide many hours of footage to the Daily Show.
55 Tax Extension to Fund Education and Healthcare. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Yes. I grudgingly supported Prop 30 back in 2012. I actually preferred Prop 38 back then which seemed more balanced across income brackets and I hated the regressive sales tax component. This extension keeps the tax on the wealthy while allowing the sales tax to expire.
56 Cigarette Tax to Fund Healthcare, Tobacco Use Prevention, Research, and Law Enforcement. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Yes. About time California taxed tobacco more. I’d rather see the funds raised be unrestricted but this is a good cause.
57 Criminal Sentences. Parole. Juvenile Criminal Proceedings and Sentencing. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute
Yes. Stops throwing away the key on some prisoners who could be rehabilitated. Our prison population is ridiculous. Also makes it harder to send kids to adult court.
58 English Proficiency. Multilingual Education. Initiative Statute.
Yes. Makes it easier for schools to establish bilingual education programs.
59 Corporations. Political Spending. Federal Constitutional Protections. Legislative Advisory Question.
Yes. Corporations are not people. This proposition will do close to nothing to reverse that Supreme Court decision but it doesn’t hurt to complain about it.
60 Adult Films. Condoms. Health Requirements. Initiative Statute.
Abstain. Don’t really know or care.
61 State Prescription Drug Purchases. Pricing Standards. Initiative Statute.
Yes. It’s a tough one because there is risk that VA pricing would increase and some drugs may not be available at the discounted rate. But if that happens the answer is going to be more draconian action against the drug makers not less. The current system where Medicare is banned from negotiating prices while bad actors send costs into the stratosphere has to end. Also, they’re spending $100M to defeat this which makes me inclined to see it as a great idea.
62 Death Penalty. Initiative Statute.
Yes. I disagree with the death penalty for a bunch of reasons. Primarily that the state should only use violence in life or death situations and should not have the power to kill in cold blood. The risk that we execute the wrong person is too high. Practically the cost and complexity is a waste of time. Life without the possibility of parole should be the ultimate sanction (and can be reversed in the event of a miscarriage of justice.
63 Firearms. Ammunition Sales. Initiative Statute.
Yes. The only thing that can stop a bad toddler with a gun is a good parent with no ammunition. More seriously this solidifies a ban on large capacity magazines and remove more guns from more bad guys. All for it.
64 Marijuana Legalization. Initiative Statute.
Yes. Make it legal and tax it already. I’d do the same for all drugs. See also #57. We could have more tax revenue and fewer people in jail.
65 Carry-Out Bags. Charges. Initiative Statute.
No, see #67.
66 Death Penalty. Procedures. Initiative Statute.
No, see #62.
67 Ban on Single-Use Plastic Bags. Referendum.
Yes. Banning plastic bags has been a big success in San Francisco. Reusable bags are way more popular. This is an attempt by the disposable bag industry to fight back. Brace yourselves - other wasteful disposables must be next. Yes on 67 and no on 65.
Related Posts
- California 2012 Propositions
- California 2014 Propositions
- California November 2020 Propositions
- California November 2022 Propositions
- San Francisco and California March 2024 Ballot Measures
(Published to the Fediverse as: California November 2016 Propositions #politics #election #propositions #california ITHCWY voter guide to the November 2016 California statewide propositions. Death penalty, pot legalization, Daily Show footage subsidy and more. )
San Francisco 2014 Ballot Measures
My voting guide for the San Francisco 2014 ballot measures:
A: San Francisco Transportation and Road Improvement Bond
Yes: This borrows half a billion dollars to improve bike lanes, transit lanes, pedestrian crossings, etc. I walk, drive and bike around San Francisco as well as taking MUNI. We're killing too many people, especially pedestrians, and need to do a better job.
B: Adjusting Transportation Funding for Population Growth
No: More money to MUNI from population growth instead of tax base growth. These seem like they should be related and if not fix the tax base not the funding formula.
C: Fund; Public Education Enrichment Fund; Children and Families Council; Rainy Day Reserve
Yes: Continues existing universal preschool for 4-year-olds and other kids programs.
D: Retiree Health Benefits for Former Redevelopment Agency and Successor Agency Employees
Yes: This fixes a kink in benefits for a few city employees. Seems fair.
E: Tax on Sugar-Sweetened Beverages
No. I'm somewhat torn on this one. It probably would reduce sugar consumption but is that displaced spending going to broccoli? It's a regressive tax and I'd rather see more effort on education or making healthier alternatives more available and appealing.
F: Pier 70
Yes: Looks like a good development.
G: Additional Transfer Tax on Residential Property Sold Within 5 Years of Purchase
No. Covers way too many sales without many exemptions. Unfair to property owners.
H: Requiring Certain Golden Gate Park Athletic Fields To Be Kept As Grass With No Artificial Lighting
No: H and I are fight over installing artificial turf on the fields by the Beach Chalet. I've played soccer on gopher-ridden grass and it's lethal. I don't want to be responsible for twisted ankles so no on H and yes on I.
I: Renovation of Playgrounds, Walking Trails, and Athletic Fields
Yes. See H.
J: Minimum Wage Increase
Yes: It would be nice if more people who work in San Francisco could afford to live in San Francisco.
K: Affordable Housing
No: Not because it's a bad idea to add more affordable housing but it's a non-binding policy statement and doesn't actually seem to change anything.
L: Policy Regarding Transportation Priorities
No: This seeks to change policy to favor cars over other transit options. Nuts.
Related Posts
- San Francisco November 2022 Ballot Measures
- San Francisco November 2020 Ballot Measures
- San Francisco June 2022 Ballot Measures
- San Francisco November 2016 Propositions
- San Francisco 2012 Propositions
(Published to the Fediverse as: San Francisco 2014 Ballot Measures #politics #election #propositions #sanfrancisco Official ITHCWY voter guide to the San Francisco 2014 Ballot Measures. )
San Francisco 2012 Propositions
Following yesterday’s post on the California 2012 Propositions here’s a shorter post on how I’m planning to vote on the San Francisco (PDF) ballot initiatives:
A: City College Parcel Tax
Yes, happy to pay another $79 a year to support City College.
B: Clean and Safe Neighborhood Parks Bond
Yes, park improvements for a littler over $50 a year.
C: Housing Trust Fund
Yes, a modest amount of money to include affordable housing in a city that desperately needs it.
D: Consolidating Odd-Year Municipal Elections
Yes, because there are too many elections already.
E: Gross Receipts Tax
Yes, makes more sense than taxing payroll and doesn’t tax businesses until you’re over $1M in revenue (whereas the payroll tax hits pre-revenue startups).
F: Water and Environment Plan
No, this is a study on draining the Hetch Hetchy reservoir. Which is just crazy. I might not support building it today but it makes no sense to look at getting rid of it now. Plus that water is really nice.
G: Policy Opposing Corporate Personhood
Yes, because a San Francisco policy will totally reverse hundreds of years of legal precedent. More seriously, corporations are not people and while a policy won’t reverse the malign influence of unlimited corporate spending on elections it doesn’t hurt to whine about it a little.
Related Posts
- San Francisco 2014 Ballot Measures
- San Francisco November 2020 Ballot Measures
- San Francisco November 2016 Propositions
- San Francisco November 2022 Ballot Measures
- San Francisco and California March 2024 Ballot Measures
(Published to the Fediverse as: San Francisco 2012 Propositions #politics #election #sanfrancisco #propositions Official ITHCWY voter guide to the San Francisco 2012 Propositions )