BART Cop Smashes Drunk Dude's Head Through Glass
Asm. Tom Ammiano On Glass Breaking BART Cop
Don't Dump Unwanted Stuff On City Sidewalks
Daisy Does the 49ers: Green Bay Tops SF
Help Children Have a Merry Xmas While Receiving a Lap Dance
And concluding our series of Your Overly Simplistic Guides To The November 2006 Election, here's the SFist guide to the San Francisco propositions. (Here's our take on the state propositions and the Oakland city propositions, for those of you keeping track.)
If you're looking for better-informed information than the cursory one-sentence summaries we're going to provide to you after the jump, check out the SF Dept. of Elections and the San Francisco League of Women Voters.
Don't forget, the election's November 7.
Okay! After the jump -- it's school bonds, parking taxes, impeaching Bush and Cheney, and question time!
All links are in .pdf form. And here's a global pro and con analysis by the SF League of Women Voters, which is also in .pdf. Don't say we didn't warn you.
Proposition A: Bonds to fix up the schools. Pro: The schools need repair. Con: Why so many bonds?
Proposition B: Call-in meetings for new parents. Pro: Let new mom Michela Alioto-Pier call in for meetings while she's on maternity leave. Con: Hey, you're the one who wanted to have a kid.
Proposition C: Raises for local elected officials. Pro: The mayor, the DA, the PD, the sheriff, the treasurer, and the sheriff aren't being paid comparably to those officials in other counties. Con: Does Gavin really need a raise?
Proposition D: Privacy rules for the city. Pro: Don't let the city accidentally make you a victim of identity theft. Con: What about life post-9/11?
Proposition E: Parking tax increase. Pro: More money for public transportation. Con: Parking is already crazy expensive around here, Chris Daly (who sponsored the proposition). Plus, Gavin doesn't support it (he'll presumably find some other way to pay for those solar-powered parking meters, then).
Proposition F: Requiring paid sick leave. Pro: It's not your fault if you get sick. Con: Money doesn't grow on trees, Chris Daly.
Proposition G: No chain stores. Pro: Everyone loves Cole Hardware! Con: Home Depot's cheaper.
Proposition H: More money for evicted tenants. Pro: Poor tenants getting Ellis Acted out! Con: Poor homeowners who already had to spend so much money to buy the house in the first place!
Proposition I: It's Question Time! We've got some questions for the mayor! Pro: Make Gavin explain himself in front of the Board of Supes. Also, it'll be awesome to post on SFist about. Con: Why you gotta hate, Chris Daly? Note: passing the proposition doesn't require Question Time, it just "suggests" to the mayor that he should think about it.
Proposition J: Impeach Bush and Cheney. Pro: This war is kind of stupid. Con: This proposition is kind of stupid.
Proposition K: Learn about senior housing issues. Pro: Seniors have unique housing issues we should learn more about. Con: We hate you, Chris Daly.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Cole Hardware is a scam, and the Mayor is a jackass. No on G, Yes on E.
Does Prop E guarantee the money from increased parking taxes is going to go for transit? Every backer seems to say it should, but is it actually written into the prop that it will? I got the impression these taxes are just going to end up in the money pit of the general fund. Nothing in the linked PDF file for Prop E says anything about "money for public transit".
Speaking of money pits, it's not that throwing more dollars into Muni is actually going to translate into more buses on the streets or more drivers hired. Noooo. We'll probably have to pay $3 a ride for that.
E specifically says the money goes to the general fund. That's the way the existing parking tax is allocated, as well. Remember, the parking tax is not completely new, it's just being raised and more sanely applied.
Actually, according to SPUR's ballot analysis, here is how the existing parking tax is distributed pursuant to the City Charter:
40% to Muni
40% to the General Fund
20% dedicated to Senior Services
Also according to SPUR, the additional 10%, if passed, would go to the black hole known as the General Fund, **NOT** to MUNI.
Doesnt sound like a good idea to me. SPUR took "no position".
Regarding E, I believe a dedicated tax would require a higher threshold to pass.
There's no legal guarantee that the money will be used for Muni but nor is there for the 20% which currently goes to senior services. Yet, the Supervisors continue to dedicate that same 20% to senior services and can be expected, held accountable by the public, to continue the historic allocation of the parking tax because it's a good and proper allocation.
The Mayor should have made this part of *his* tax package and in so doing show the strongest support for Muni he's ever shown (hasn't shown much).
The other reason I support this tax is that regardless of where it goes, it's a great source to tax! It's as good or better than the cigarette tax in terms of its social effects. And unlike the much more expensive cigarette tax ($1.26 per pack or more than 50%), the parking tax doesn't hit the poor nearly as much. People who use garages and valet parking tend to be non-residents from the suburbs and/or people with great jobs and relatively high incomes. The tax doesn't hit residential garages or street parking. It's a great tax, and I hope it passes!
I agree Dave. We need to be taxed more. San Francisco isn't expensive enough. Those lucky bastards who live &/or work in the city who already work hard to pay high California taxes, pay DPT tickets & tow fees, and suffer & endure abysmal MUNI service and also earn too much just simply don't pay their fair share.
oops... my typo. I meant to strike out everything in that sentence between "work in the city" and "earn too much". :-)
Strike out tags worked in the MovableType preview.
If you were to make Prop E a dedicated tax, it would require 2/3 vote to pass. Putting it into the General Fund only requires a simple majority. Rightly or wrongly, they decided to go for the non-dedicated funding source as they felt it would be easier to pass that way. Having said that, SPUR in its analysis notes that it has supported the same increase in the past if the monies were dedicated to transit improvements. Daly has said that he would intend to use those funds towards transit improvements.