San Francisco Ballot Propositions – Fall 2014

[If you haven't looked at Notes to Readers, here is a link to enable you to do so directly.]

After a series of relatively light election ballots, San Francisco has returned to its pattern of complexity, including dueling ballot propositions over, frankly, trivia, and some truly useless non-binding “declarations of policy.”  But sandwiched amidst the nonsense are some propositions that actually matter.

Now, fair warning.  The analysis that follows is long.  Unfortunately that has to be the case because some of the propositions are complex and so are the arguments pro and con.  But if you really want to be told what to do and, briefly, why, I’m also including, at the end of this post, a quick cheat sheet with recommendations and very brief rationales for them.  Time (and energy) permitting, I’ll do local elective offices in a separate post, as well as state propositions and races.

Proposition “A” asks the voters to approve a $500 million general obligation bond to finance transportation and road improvements.  The proposition requires a two thirds-plus majority to come into effect.  While I have extremely mixed feelings about bond issues such as this one, I am going to reluctantly vote yes.  Let me explain why.

Preliminarily, I dislike almost all bond propositions.  Such propositions are little different than a limitless credit card (with plenty of interest thrown in), with the further undesirable aspect that they enable politicians to kick the spending can down the road as the parties who really pay the bill are not the current voters but our children and other successor residents. 

Worse yet, I regard the maintenance of the streets and the provision of transportation services as one of the reasons municipal government exists in the first place.  Surely such an essential function of local government should be paid for out of current income.

But that does not happen and has not happened for years.  The streets of this city are progressively deteriorating from lack of current maintenance, the congestion gets worse from year to year, and the traffic density is way out of hand (not to mention the bad behavior of cyclists, pedestrians and motorists).  Bus service, particularly on surface streets, is measurably slower than in previous years.

So if I do not vote for this proposition, I can pretty well rest assured that nothing will happen.  So I will hold my nose and do just that.  But this reflects horribly on our political system and our politicians.

I took a close look at the vote No arguments and I think the No campaign is being disingenuous when it suggests that the money will not be spent for traffic and transportation improvements.  Yes, the list proposed by the Yes proponents is not necessarily binding, but the general purpose of the legislation is set out.

I also took a look at the proponents and opponents.  It matters to me that organizations like the Sierra Club and SPUR (fkn “San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association”) support Proposition A.  The paid opposition ads are not nearly as impressive.

Hence my “vote yes” recommendation.

Proposition “B” would change the way the Municipal Transit Agency (the “MTA”) is funded by linking a portion of its funding (the portion that comes from the City’s General Fund) to increases in population growth.  It also mandates that 75% of any population-based increase be used to improve the San Francisco Municipal Railway (aka “MUNI”), with the balance used for capital expenditures and to improve street safety.  The proposition appears to be a stand-in for a future vehicle license tax as the proposition gives the Mayor the power to discontinue the increases if such a tax is ever enacted.

I recommend a yes vote as public transit in this City needs all the help it can get and, unlike Proposition “A,” this money comes out of current revenues and strikes me as an appropriate prioritization of such revenues.

Proposition “B” was put on the ballot by what I think could fairly be described as the “progressive” wing of the Board of Supervisors, backed by the “moderates.”  The “conservative” members of the Board dissented.  (I put quotation marks around all these characterizations because of the bizarre leftward skew of San Francisco local politics – basically any political description is probably two degrees of characterization off relative to what would pass for “progressive,” “moderate” or “conservative” in pretty much any other place this side of Santa Monica or Berkeley.)

As you saw with Proposition “A,” one way I often judge ballot propositions is to look at who supports and opposes.  I call this the “H.L. Richardson Rule,” named after a Republican state senator whose ballot arguments pretty much reliably telegraphed that I would come out the other way.  In the case of Proposition “B,” the official opposition is perennial losing Republican candidate Dr. Terence Faulkner, who may be a nice guy (I have no idea) but whose politics command no following whatsoever in this city that I have ever seen and who, for my purposes, is the H.L. Richardson equivalent.

So my recommendation is to vote yes on Proposition “B.”

Proposition “C” seems to address three separate issues.  One would extend the existence and increase the funding (from 3% to 4% of property tax revenue) of something called the “Children’s Fund.”  The Children’s Fund is used to fund various services for children (think childcare, health services and delinquency prevention services, as examples).  Another portion of the proposition does the same for the “Public Education Enrichment Fund” and extends the coverage of this fund to include a broader range of children served.  (It also creates an advisory board to help direct the funding.)  The third divides the current Rainy Day Fund (money collected and held for years when tax revenues decline) so that 25% goes to a “School Reserve” and 75% goes to a “City Reserve.”  It also transfers authority over the “School Reserve” from the Board of Supervisors to the Board of Education.

While I don’t care for all aspects of Proposition “C,” I recommend a yes vote.   Realistically, the groups supported by the Children’s Fund and the Public Education Enrichment Fund need the support and while I’m not thrilled at adding a one percent increase to the property tax (why shouldn’t all taxpayers shoulder this burden), looking at the purpose of the legislation, it’s probably the right thing to do.

I also note that our usually fractious Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to put the proposition on the ballot. 

On the “H.L. Richardson Rule,” the official opposition is from yet another gadfly, “Starchild,” on behalf of the Libertarian Party of San Francisco.  (As I noted back in 2012 when I reviewed ballot arguments, Starchild is (or at least was) a self-described "Erotic Service Provider”)).  While I can see why such a person would be a Libertarian, the combination is a bit too hilarious to be taken seriously and I am not particularly impressed by the ballot argument provided in any event.  “Starchild” has a point about not restricting the use of tax money, but it’s not much of one in this instance.  The need is real and I think I’d rather see the money used this way than at the whim of successive Boards of Supervisors and/or Mayors.

Proposition “D” addresses a weird disparity that treats a relative handful of employees of the former San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (maybe 50 people) differently than similarly situated employees of the City & County of San Francisco for purposes of retiree health care funding.

This one is a no-brainer.  Just vote “yes.”  No significant funding costs ($75,000 “spread over many years,” according to the City Controller), near-unanimous sponsorship by the Board of Supervisors, and the opposition is from, wait for it. Dr. Terence Faulkner.  ‘nuff said.

Proposition “E” is the so-called sugar tax.  It adds a 2% tax per ounce on sugared beverages and would use the money to fund health, nutrition, physical education and active recreation programs.

I recommend a “yes” vote.

While you would believe from the hysterical opposition that the sky will fall in, jobs will be lost and revenue hits will occur, baloney.  The sugared beverage industry is behind virtually all the No advocacy (as the “true source” information contained in the paid ballot opposition arguments reveals) and the No arguments are almost breathtaking in their mendacity (that’s “bullshit” for my less literary readers).  As a parent, I am very well aware of the insidious influence of sugared drinks on kids and we all know about the obesity crisis gripping this country, even in (sometimes overly) health conscious San Francisco. 

I have a lot of sympathy for unions (my grandfather was an ILGWU organizer), but I think the unions are putting a relative few potential job losses (and I doubt they will occur) ahead of the public interest here.  (This is also the case in the BART board election, to be discussed in another post.)  The same for the small grocery store owners who are registering their opposition in beverage industry-funded ads.  If the sales tax went up two percent would we see the same type of hysteria?  Not very likely.  We tax the living daylights out of plenty of lifestyle choices, for example alcohol and cigarettes.  I see no principled reason why sugared soft drinks should not be treated exactly the same way.  (And I look forward to the day we tax the hell out of recreational marijuana instead of placing it in a weird legal twilight zone where it is (usually) tolerated but is untaxed and largely unregulated.)

Again, my recommendation is to vote “yes” on Proposition “E.”

Proposition “F” would increase the 40 feet height limit on a 28-acre development site in the Pier 70 area to 90 feet.  It also proposes that “city policy” should encourage quick regulatory approval, but at the same time also encouraging “parks, housing, cultural space, and job creation for this site” (in addition, presumably, to God and motherhood).

What this means in plain English is that the Golden State Warriors can build their arena (and make money on developing the real estate) on a far less politically-sensitive part of the waterfront.  I recommend voting yes because everyone, for a change (except for Dr. Faulkner), seems to be on board with this proposition.

For those readers out there who missed the back story, the original Warriors development was going to located at 8 Washington Street.  The opposition was ferocious, well funded, and capitalized on the anger of the voters, particularly renters, to the development of luxury real estate on a choice portion of the waterfront while people were losing their homes to skyrocketing rents, real estate “flipping” and Ellis Act evictions.  While this, perhaps unfairly, worked out to benefit “NIMBY” (“not in my back yard”) opponents, this time around everyone seems to be agreeing that the location should work and that there are benefits that outweigh the deficits.  So the Chamber of Commerce, the unions, the political establishment, and the 8 Washington Street NIMBYs all seem to be okay with this proposition.  Even Judge Quentin Kopp has signed on (Judge Kopp is my opposite to H.L. Richardson – by and large I trust Judge Kopp on good government issues.)

I recommend a yes vote (both on its merits and because it is going to pass one way or the other).

Proposition “G” would impose a hefty transfer tax on certain categories of multi-unit real estate that are sold within five years of its acquisition (the tax goes down for each year the property is owned and disappears after five years).  The idea here is to discourage speculation in the form of “flipping” properties for quick resale and short term profit.

I recommend a “yes” vote.  While one can legitimately question if Proposition “G” is a bit too blunt of an instrument to accomplish its purposes, the concern is legitimate and there is only so much city government can do to address the very real problem of shockingly higher real estate rentals, rampant speculation, and shrinking rental stock.

The opposition is a pretty mixed bag.  The official argument in opposition comes from the Libertarian Party, which is a non starter for me.  (The Libertarians have some good ideas, but some pretty weird ones, too.)  The paid opposition ads are largely funded by real estate advocacy organizations that have a vested interest in seeing property values increase. 

Proposition “H” might fairly be called “Revenge of the NIMBYs.”  It asks the City’s voters to overrule every agency and official that had passed on the issue of whether to install artificial turf and night lighting on the soccer fields near Beach Chalet (which also includes the Polo Field).  Yes, read that again.  This is actually on the ballot. 

This is nuts.  The proponents are crazed and you would be hard pressed to find a more silly proposition for voter consideration.  These folks even went to court to overturn adverse regulatory decisions even though the chance of that happening was probably the same as lightning striking.  So they may be well financed but nuts is nuts.

I therefore strongly urge a no vote on this nonsense.

By the way, “National Park Dark Sky” supporters favor Proposition “H” (see page 141 of the Voter Information Pamphlet).  If that floats your boat, then you know what to do.  But for the rest of us, this is a no-brainer.  (The remaining paid arguments are an illustration of how, if you analyze something to death and/or stretch things, you can come up with plausible, but ultimately ridiculous, arguments in opposition to anything.)

Proposition “I” is the equivalent of the Empire Strikes Back relative to Proposition “H.”  Proposition “I” would give the City’s Recreation & Park Department authority to renovate any children’s playground, walking trail or athletic field if (a) the Department has determined that the renovation will double the public’s use; and (b) an environmental impact statement has been certified if otherwise required by law.

Seven members of the Board of Supervisors put Proposition “I” on the ballot (four out of eleven are needed).  The leadoff ballot argument is by Senator Feinstein.  The rebuttal to the opposition is from Mayor Lee, who tends to be a pretty cautious politician these days, so for him to come out from his usual political cover shows either strong feelings or a careful testing of the political winds, perhaps both.

I strongly suspect that Proposition “I” was intended not only as a stalking horse relative to Proposition “H” but to make the Proposition “H” proponents spend money opposing it.  (Plus, while I do not believe municipal law is as clear as state law, at the state level, the proposition that attracts the most votes prevails against a proposition related to the same subject matter.)

My recommendation is to vote in favor of Proposition “I.”  I very much doubt that the proposition will change anything but stomping Proposition “H” might well send a message to other would-be NIMBYs who want to clutter up the ballot.

Proposition “J” would increase the minimum wage to $15 per hour by July 1, 2018, with further inflation-based adjustments thereafter.

I recommend a yes vote even though I have some reservations about the proposition.

My reservation is that a disproportionately high minimum wage, specific to San Francisco, might damage the City’s economy by making it more attractive to employers to move their businesses out of San Francisco.  As a small business owner myself, I also have reservations about a municipality jumping in here as opposed to state and national government.  There is also some force to the argument by the San Francisco Council of District Merchants Associations (who submitted the official argument against the proposition) that the cost of living will go up since the additional costs will be passed through to consumers. 

But, having said that, the reservations are outweighed by the following considerations.

First, I want people who are in service industries to have a shot at living in San Francisco. 

Second, I fully suspect that San Francisco’s economy, certainly at present, is just too attractive for most low-wage employers to just pull up stakes and leave (or if they do, labor may be the least of the reasons for doing so).

Third, the federal minimum wage has been stuck at the same level for years – I think dating back to 2008.

Fourth, I’m not aware of any economic disasters occurring in other municipalities that have tried this (specifically Seattle, which has significant similarities to San Francisco in its socio-economic composition).

Fifth, if higher costs are passed through, that doesn’t strike me as necessarily unfair or inequitable.  Some things are too cheaply priced and often at the expense of the least able to advocate for themselves (again referring to service-industry workers).  Plus, a little economic “priming the pump” might well stimulate economic activity by giving workers at the lower pay levels some additional buying power.  I doubt that paying a few cents more for a latte at a Starbucks is going to make a huge difference in the lives of consumers who can otherwise afford to live in San Francisco.

So I recommend a Yes vote on Proposition “J.”

Proposition “K” is yet another of the endless string of non-binding, useless declarations of policy that may make voters feel good but which are meaningless.  This time the city policy is to construct or rehabilitate “at least 30,000 homes by 2020,” and to price them affordably.  Not only does this not have the force of law, but, of course, the means of doing so and the economics are simply not addressed at all.

Please vote No.  Send proponents of useless and ballot-cluttering useless declarations of policy a message.  Failing that, when I get around to putting on the ballot a declaration that it is the official policy of the City & County of San Francisco that the moon is made of green cheese, please support me. 

These propositions are deceptive to the extent that any voters are misled into believing they have any legal significance.  They clutter an already cluttered ballot (as you can see).  They curry favor with the electorate by being long on “policy” but short on details.  In fact, maybe that’s the answer.  How about a ballot initiative that requires that “declarations of policy” be accompanied by some implementation detail?  (But I still like the moon is made out of green cheese approach.)

Proposition “L” is equally obnoxious.  This time the non-binding and legally meaningless declaration of policy is to reverse the long-standing “transit first” policy of the City, the only policy that can possibly work in this increasingly congested place.

The apparent motivation here is that some local merchants think that the City is too pro cyclists, pedestrians and public transportation.   Another form of NIMBYism, in essence, because small businesses that advocate for this to benefit themselves are not keeping the broader public interest in perspective.  If, Heaven forbid, this useless declaration of policy had the force of law, traffic would get worse, not better, and the fact that so many San Franciscans (including yours truly) own cars doesn’t change that fact.  (In my case it caused me to seriously consider biking to work and readers of this blog are aware that my experiment with hybrid-electric bikes has been, at least as far as I am concerned, a total success – see my blog post entitled The Fine Art of Urban Bicycle Commuting (And More)).

I therefore recommend a "no" vote.

And, now, the Cheat Sheet:

Proposition “A” – Yes.  Not the best way to finance transportation and road improvements but considerably better than nothing.

Proposition “B” – Yes.  Change funding formula and increase funding for public transportation.  Desperately needed.

Proposition “C” – Yes.  Increase funding for children/educational programs and tinker with the way the City’s “rainy day fund” for bad revenue years is administered.  Not perfect legislation but on balance worthy of your support.

Proposition “D” – Yes.  Treat approximately 50 ex Redevelopment Agency employees the same as public employees for retiree health insurance purposes.  Only fair.

Proposition “E” – Yes.  The sugar tax is sound public policy and the arguments against it are ridiculous.

Proposition “F” – Yes.  Let’s the Warriors basketball team build its arena and develop real estate located at Pier 70.  Broadly supported and economically attractive.

Proposition “G” – Yes.  Imposes transfer tax on real estate “flips” with the amount graduating down the longer the property is owned.  Not perfect legislation but something necessary to tamp down the rampant real estate speculation that is occurring.

Proposition “H” – No.  A bunch of NIMBYs asking the voters to reverse the use of artificial turf and night lighting on two soccer field areas in the vicinity of Ocean Beach.  Crazy stuff.

Proposition “I”  -- Yes.  “Stalking horse” legislation that would likely override even a successful Proposition “H” campaign by giving the Recreation & Park Department the authority it already has anyway.  Voting yes will send a powerful message to the other crazies out there with more money than sense.

Proposition “J” – Yes.  Increases minimum wage to $15 per hour as of 2018 with inflation-based adjustments thereafter.  Clumsy but probably necessary social engineering.

Proposition “K” – No.  Useless (and toothless) “declaration of policy” regarding the construction of 30,000 affordable housing units without bothering to explain how this will happen or how it will be funded.  Never vote for useless declarations of City policy.

Proposition “L” – No.  Even more ill-conceived non-binding “declaration of policy” seeking to reverse the City’s long-standing “transit first” policy.