SFist: The SFist Guide To The SF Propositions

Manish

Mon, 16 Oct 2006 22:45:06 -0800

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.

michael

Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:04:54 -0800

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.

Michael

Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:01:43 -0800

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.

Dave

Mon, 16 Oct 2006 19:31:24 -0800

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!

JMC

Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:30:05 -0800

Regarding E, I believe a dedicated tax would require a higher threshold to pass.

Scott

Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:53:35 -0800

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".

Jeff Baker

Mon, 16 Oct 2006 15:34:42 -0800

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.

Michael

Mon, 16 Oct 2006 15:08:42 -0800

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.

Jeff Baker

Mon, 16 Oct 2006 14:28:15 -0800

Cole Hardware is a scam, and the Mayor is a jackass. No on G, Yes on E.