SFist: The SFist Guide To The Propositions

elephanza

Mon, 04 Feb 2008 16:22:45 -0800

I used to support Prop 93 until I started working at the Capitol. This Prop makes sense if we have competitive districts and campaign finance reform, without it? It just means more of the same bullshit representation we have now. Without those critical elements, it's 6-8 more years of Nunez and Perata in charge and hating each other. Please know that lots of great policy got killed last year simply because of the caustic relationship between the Assembly and Senate leadership.....pathetic. I like the idea of Prop 93, but redistricting and campaign finance reform would have a much bigger impact.

mariconsoy

Fri, 01 Feb 2008 19:12:21 -0800

I'm cynical especially about "A" "They" [ our pols] don't want to put too many bond issues on the same election, so they have a backroom deal to spread them along time. Sticker shock for we little ignorant puppets if all go on at once. So it was libraries last time, parks this time, sf general restro is coming so is Hetch Hetchy. By the time those are done being crammed down our throats by the putrid marketeers, it will be time for new ones. Vote no on every prop, and to behead anyone running for office.

bluecanary

Fri, 01 Feb 2008 14:17:17 -0800

I thought about voting in favor of the park bond. Then I realized Newsom would probably just take the money and use it to pay off another political hack so I voted no, no, NO to everything. And no to CC. $20 an hour is already dirt cheap. Those students can go mire themselves in debt to get an education like I, and everyone else I know did.

phsargent

Fri, 01 Feb 2008 09:34:27 -0800

I did the switch parties thing in order to vote for Ron Paul. I still feel dirty since I'm now a 'republican.'

suckafree

Fri, 01 Feb 2008 07:37:42 -0800

obama won my vote last night. i was really imppressed with his debate with hillary. i'm a registered independent btw so i couldn't vote for ron paul without re-registering as a republican. not going to happen.

RinconHillSF

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:25:22 -0800

I like the park bond, Prop. A. Obama for President! :) I'm torn on Prop. B - yes, we need more cops and this is a way to hold on to some, but this is a band-aid and not a solution - band-aids lead to more band-aids typically. Next thing you know, Tiger's are jumping over the band-aid (or underfunded) fences and ripping boys' heads off. Flip a coin ... I voted no.

suckafree

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 19:04:30 -0800

here's his answer: Not familiar with the CA proposition, but casinos in NV pay 6.75% gaming tax (albeit there is a movement to increase it to 9.75%). What is CA proposing? isn't this the first time we would ever collect any taxes from the exempt indian casinos? i think we support it

suckafree

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:13:45 -0800

i don't know what to do about the indian gaming stuff. i sent a note to a buddy of mine that's building a new casino in vegas to ask him about tax rates on slot machines. if he replies before the election, i'll cut and paste it here. here's the pro gaming site: http://www.yesforcalifornia.com/ with nut bags like leftinsf opposing it, you really have to think hard about this one ;)

Jeremy_ofSF

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:41:10 -0800

I think you're right, rroseselavy. California's $20 rate is already relatively low nationally. I've also heard that Community College could do a better job of publicizing how low-income students can get fee waivers. But I'm still voting for 92 because I think CCs are so important for low-income people that it makes sense to guarantee funding for the system. It's not like CCs are blowing money on fancy buildings and outrageous salaries like the UCs do. There must be a pretty direct link between increasing spending on CCs and reducing costs of welfare, incarceration, etc.

suckafree

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:16:29 -0800

here's a great site to learn more about prop a: http://www.fixourparks.com/

suckafree

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:55:41 -0800

the community college prop is dead in the water. it creates an unfunded liability in a time of fiscal crisis. real smart!

rroseselavy

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:45:30 -0800

Thanks for the stats, Jeremy ofSF. A 12% drop is significant.And yes, a fee hike from $11 to $26 is huge on a relative level, but I believe the new rates are still low compared with rates nationally. (I couldn't find figures by quickly Googling either.) My point is that if you want to improve your life, you have to meet the taxpayers more than halfway in making it happen. I can say with some confidence that people take their education more seriously when they have made their own investment in it.

suckafree

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:36:40 -0800

sfmike, i thought you had kids? how could you oppose prop a if so? does anyone know how much the nevada casinos pay in tax revenue for their slots? if the proposals for the indian casinos is anywhere close it, i support it.

bluecanary

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:22:23 -0800

I already mailed in my absentee ballot for Edwards. The least he could have done was wait until after Tuesday, as I know a lot of friends who have already voted for him/were going to vote for him as well. In fact, just about everyone I know was planning to vote for him. :-( My one beef with absentee balloting (aside from voting early for someone who just dropped out), they don't give you an "I Voted" sticker. Why can't they include the sticker so I can display my civic responsibility??

Jeremy_ofSF

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 13:21:01 -0800

From the Gate: "California community college enrollment plunged by 314,000 students in the past two years partly because of a 136 percent increase in student fees." It says total enrollment was 2.5 million, so that's about a 12% drop in enrollment. I think that enrollment went back up after the fees were cut from $26 to 20, but my quick googling couldn't find any details. And it seems reasonable that if you're earning $25K a year in San Francisco that a few extra bucks might make the difference.

rroseselavy

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 13:10:03 -0800

Not to beat a dead horse, but from the argument in favor or 92: CALIFORNIA'S COMMUNITY COLLEGES ARE THE GATEWAY TO THE MIDDLE CLASS. Community college students who earned a vocational degree or certificate see their wages jump from $25,600 to $47,571 three years after earning their degree. Now tell me you can't afford that extra few bucks a unit?

rroseselavy

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:57:29 -0800

I stand by what I wrote. That 300,000 figure only means anything to me if I know how many people regularly enroll (what is the percentage drop?) and if we know that it was the rates that made a difference and not some extraneous criteria. Did enrollment rates increase at other colleges and trade schools? Did the enrollment figure stay lower, or did it bounce back after the initial drop? Even at $26 per unit, it's a bargain. For the approximately 100 credits of coursework, to complete your B.A., that's $2,600. We're giving it away already.

Jeremy_ofSF

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:38:11 -0800

I think the the parks bond has to be passed by the voters. Prop B is on the ballot because the Police Officers Association didn't want to have to negotiate with the Board of Supervisors. Instead they spent something like $200K to hire petition gatherers. I agree with Slappydafrog that the grandfather provisions in 93 are shady, but this likely to be our only chance to modify term limits for years to come, and overall I think it's an improvement on the system. Same with 92: I think the good outweighs the bad. Mandating budgets isn't ideal, but it's a relatively small mandate and it's a reasonable level. And to rroseselavy: apparently these relatively small changes in fees make a big difference to students. Back in 2004 when the fees were raised (to $26, I think), community college enrollment dropped by 300,000. 94-97 are horrible. The only way the tribes were able to get the deals approved in the first place was by blackmailing Schwarzenegger and Fabian Nunez.

sfmike

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:35:01 -0800

As far as the propositions go, state and city, please channel Nancy Reagan and "just say no." They are all bad, and giving more money to the colossally dysfunctional Rec & Park Department is just silly (Prop A), as is giving more money to the old, corrupt power structure of the San Francisco Police Department (Prop B). Both departments need to be seriously reformed before they get another extra dime.

rroseselavy

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:29:33 -0800

PS -- thanks for the link to the voter's pamphlet. Discovering the word "artainment" was worth the journey alone.

manys

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:26:28 -0800

A, B, etc: Shouldn't this stuff be handled by the Board? I'm growing tired of politicians abdicating their responsibilities. This is exactly why I vote no on all propositions. The initiative process is counterproductive and lazy, not to mention being invented by a crazyperson.

Leanne

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:16:42 -0800

Thanks for the great help, Rita and commenters! I had declined to declare, so I will definitely request a Democratic Primary ballot. Also, a reminder that everyone can avoid the crowds and vote early at City Hall from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. weekdays and 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. over the weekend.

rroseselavy

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:12:32 -0800

If you can't pay $20 for your college education, you're not very committed.

underachieving

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:50:29 -0800

Slappydafrog, you are right about that. Who is the Green Lantern in that clip? Joe Biden?

Slappydafrog

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:46:18 -0800

Tsk...that's more of an Aquaman costume than a Flash costume on Edwards, don't you think? As far as the propositions go, is it just me or are they all pretty lame? 92: While good intentioned, part of our budget mess is the constitutionally mandated expenditures, should we really be adding more? 93: I don't mind the change to term limits but I have yet to decide how I feel about having current legislators grand-fathered in. 94, etc: It looks like there is favoritism to the tribes in question and some real questions about whether the money going to the state is the correct amount A, B, etc: Shouldn't this stuff be handled by the Board? I'm growing tired of politicians abdicating their responsibilities.

underachieving

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:45:48 -0800

Holy Crap, I loved that clip. It gave me such a raging nerd boner. I recommend people check out Kevin Drum's take on statewide ballot measures and why they suck.

tony_flow

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:41:34 -0800

For a non-partisan analysis of the propositions go to: http://lao.ca.gov/laoapp/ballot_source/Propositions.aspx

Jeremy_ofSF

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:37:42 -0800

A couple of nit-picks: - The main thing 92 does is lower community college fees from $20 to $15. It sets a minimum funding level for CCs, but doesn't necessarily take money away from K-12. - Prop 93 actually reduces total term limits from 14 to 12 years, but it lets them spend the whole time in either the Senate or Assembly. As opposed to the current system that leads to the term limit shuffle. (cough, cough, Leno, cough, Migden) - SPUR opposes Prop B, saying it could let cops "double dip." And we all know there's nothing worse than a double dipping copper. Here are links to voter guides from SPUR, the League of Pissed Off Voters and Pirate Cat Radio.

freelivin

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:32:05 -0800

I just want to remind everyone: IF you are a "decline-to-state" independent voter with no party affiliation, you CAN vote in the Democratic primary, but CANNOT vote in the Republican primary (as they've chosen to keep theirs closed). However, if you would like to vote in the Democratic primary you MUST specifically request a Democratic ballot at your polling place. If you do not request a Democratic ballot, you will be given a ballot that includes only the initiatives and propositions, with no option for selecting a presidential nominee. You can imagine who will benefit from getting the word out on this, and I know a lot of us are indepedent voters! so SPREAD THE WORD!