Thank you for sticking up for the poorest among us who have no voice in this town.

Unfortunately people are allergic to math around these parts...

"A city employee with two dependents only pays a total of $448 a month for full health coverage. "

This is not true for all of the unions. You keep using this figure, but for teachers it will be $750 under Prop B. They already pay over the private sector average you cite, although a study by UC Berkeley puts the average private sector employee contributions for family care at $5,184, not over $7K. A nine-year teacher has a salary of $61K. The $93,000 is an average you use to stoke outrage, but there are many who make way less than this. We did our budget just before I found out about this, and we had $1.98 left over after the furloughs and regular yearly premium increases for health care. This is with no saving for college or retirement, outside the state teacher's pension which replaces social security. I know others are hurting too and there are many in both private and public sector having difficulties paying the bills, but I just want people to know that the idea of this fat cat government employee is a myth. It does not represent even most of the workers, and you WILL be hurting working families even though you claim the opposition is making us up.

Why didn't you craft a better proposition that defends the lower earners (you are supposed to be a public defender after all), or bring the unions/employees to the table? And the answer you gave in the Forest Hill debate was lame--because you didn't think you'd get anywhere if you tried that approach? I'm an employer and would never foist this kind of "reform" on our employee without asking for ideas and/or concessions first. For this reason alone, Prop B should be voted down and another solution sought.

I'm all for reform and having city employees pay more for their benefits, but the problem I see is that the city of SF will just take that money they saved from city employees and give it to drug addicts, homeless drunks, or any other people that wants a free handout.

Do city employees deserve what they currently have? I don't know. I work and live in SF, and don't take any gov't subsidies. I work for a living, and work for what I get, and what I have. I grew up in a household where it is understood that nothing is free and you need to work for what you want.

As of now, I see cops drive and walk around my neighborhood, I hear firetrucks with their annoying sirens going to, what I assume is an emergency, I see MUNI buses picking up and dropping off passengers, I know teachers are going to work everyday and teaching kids, I don't hear anything bad about being seen at SF General Hospital besides the waiting, etc...

From what I see, it looks like they make way too much for what they do, but at least they do something for what they make.

Reform...YES!

Taking that money from people who actually work and giving it to people who CHOOSE not to work and are content with recieving subsidies on SF taxpayers money... ABSOLUTLY NO!!!

If your going to take money out of the pocket of city employees, make sure it goes to the right cause.

IS PROP B GOING TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THE WORKING SAN FRANCISCIAN? OR IS IT JUST ANOTHER PLOY TO HELP OUT THE DEAD BEATS, CRIMINALS, AND USELESS WASTE WE HAVE EVERYWHERE IN THIS CITY? This is what I'm going to look into before voting, and I think everyone else should too.

I'm all for reform and having city employees pay more for their benefits, but the problem I see is that the city of SF will just take that money they saved from city employees and give it to drug addicts, homeless drunks, or any other people that wants a free handout.

Do city employees deserve what they currently have? I don't know. I work and live in SF, and don't take any gov't subsidies. I work for a living, and work for what I get, and what I have. I grew up in a household where it is understood that nothing is free and you need to work for what you want.

As of now, I see cops drive and walk around my neighborhood, I hear firetrucks with their annoying sirens going to, what I assume is an emergency, I see MUNI buses picking up and dropping off passengers, I know teachers are going to work everyday and teaching kids, I don't hear anything bad about being seen at SF General Hospital besides the waiting, etc...

From what I see, it looks like they make way too much for what they do, but at least they do something for what they make.

Reform...YES!

Taking that money from people who actually work and giving it to people who CHOOSE not to work and are content with recieving subsidies on SF taxpayers money... ABSOLUTLY NO!!!

If your going to take money out of the pocket of city employees, make sure it goes to the right cause.

IS PROP B GOING TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THE WORKING SAN FRANCISCIAN? OR IS IT JUST ANOTHER PLOY TO HELP OUT THE DEAD BEATS, CRIMINALS, AND USELESS WASTE WE HAVE EVERYWHERE IN THIS CITY? This is what I'm going to look into before voting, and I think everyone else should too.

It's called civility, Marc. Offering rebuttal space and equal time for opposing arguments.

Thank you for posting Jeff Adachi's reasoned response.

I am a City Employee and make no where close to $93,000! I already live paycheck to paycheck and can barely afford rent here in San Francisco. It's already tough due to the fact that I had to take a paycut this past July, because of the budget deficit. VOTE NO ON PROP B!

All you city employees need to get off the public welfare system and find a private sector job.

I have no duty or desire to fund your family's health care.

I fund my own 100%.

So should you.

I vote YES for Prop B.

I vote YES for any Prop that eliminates ALL benefits and just pays salary with performance evaluations.

Our government needs to be solvent and small.

Propostion B will not do what its endorsers claim. As a Nurse Practitioner with the City and County of San Franiciso for over 15 years, I find Adachi's comments disengenious and inconsistent with past measures, like "Care Not Cash" which did not help our homeless situation in the least. Both measures slashed benefits in an effort to fund city services. But, these measures as written, DID NOT and DO NOT directly ear-mark the money taken for services. Could they have. Yes! But, the people who wrote the measures chose to put money from slashing GA in the case of "Care not Cash" and in Proposition B, into the general fund for the Mayor and the BOS to use as they see fit. The next Mayor could use the money to hire more consultants, more administrators, out-source jobs and do just about everything not to fund services.
This measure will only add more pain and suffering, especially to the lowest paid workers that Mr. Adachi seems to ignore by continuing to say that everybody earns an average of 93, 000 a year which the majority of workers do not. In my clinic with a staff of 5, 3 staff members earn less than 50,000$ and are seeing their salaries reduced futher with a furlough day a month for the next two years. It is a race to the economic bottom of the barrel for jobs that have been the mainstay in the SF economy for years. If Mr. Adachi likes the private sector so much, then he should go and work in it for awhile.

This measure ,which has already been stripped by a judge of its most draconian and unconstitutional part is not going to help fund services and will open the door to destroying public sector labor contracts which have been negotiated in good faith. That is probably its real intent of the measure.

This measure won't fund the services. It is badly crafted and will hurt a lot of workers and their families.

This is a measure that only Meg Whitman would love and love to see pass.

This measure will not save the services anymore than Care Not Cash reduced homelessness in San Francisco.

Jeff Adachi should no better.

i'm the decider, i'm the decider, i'm the decider.
it's my idea that is the best one.
it's my point of view that is smarter than yours.
it's my needs that are more important than yours.
it's my family that needs more resources.
it's my pension that is more precious than yours.
it's my rent that should be free
it's my transportation that should be here when i want it, free.
it's my house that should be expanded. don't block my view.
it's my landlord who should share his equity with me.
it's my supervisor who should listen to me and only me.
it's my coffee that needs individual dripping

it's my pacifier that fell off the high-chair.

i'm a san franciscan and i, and only i, approve this message.

I don't hear much about Prop B and retired employees, Remember most retired are on fixed incomes and most never worked 30 years or more with the city and receive 70% or more in pension. Many retired worked for less years and retired because of illness, Many get 20 to 45% or less. Prop B will harm retired more than active working city employees who get step, and annual cost of living increases, also active employees can talk test and promote to higher paid jobs. I have Blue shield and Delta dental, I pay $456 per month for my wife and I. If prop B passes I might have to pay $900 or more, Prop B was poorly drafted is not fair to retired. Other counties have similar health coverage to San Francisco . San Mateo and other counties have a better pension than SF,. many counties you can retire at age 55 SF 60 or older. vote no on B

Prop B will really be costly to retired city employees. Most retired never worked 30+ years and get a large 70% or more pension...Retired are on fixed incomes. I am retired and get $2000 per month and pay $ 456 for Blueshield and Delta dental for me and my wife. If prop B is passed I might pay $950 or more per month ...How can I afford that? Prop B is a poorly drafted. Acitve city employees get cost of living and step increases and can promote and take test for higher paid city jobs. Retired cannot and seldom get a 2% yearly increase. Vote no of B.

"City employees with dependents currently pay $8 a month. Under Prop. B, they would pay $2,988 per year. Private sector employees with dependents pay an average of $7,026 a year. And this doesn't include the 31 percent of San Franciscans who do not receive employer-paid health care costs and pay the entire cost themselves."

Good point, Mr. Adachi. Public employees have had it so good for so long that they just don't understand what people out in the REAL WORLD have to pay for healthcare.

Yes, it is a shame that costs are so high. But all you Public-Sector people writing here must come to grip with reality.

"According to the Controller's Office, the city's health system has an unfunded liability of $4 billion — meaning that it has made $4 billion in promised coverage to city employees and their dependents that it doesn't have the money to pay for.

That's a major reason why two city departments that serve the poorest residents, the Public Defender and Public Health, must cut millions of dollars of essential services each year, to save the city's General Fund for growing employee healthcare and pension costs."

This is the key. All these lavish pensions are forcing us to cut city services to people who really need them.

Why does Jeff Adachi want to fund platinum plated defense services for accused felons, many of whom are multiple offenders?

We need to be slashing the salaries of attorneys working for the City if we want to get serious about getting control of the budget.

Did you know that a starting political hack lawyer like Rebecca Prozan makes $110K per year?

Did you know that a senior political hack lawyer like Scott Weiner makes $186K per year?

Surely, Adachi's shop could provide a constitutionally acceptable level of defense for half of the cost of what he's currently charging.

The economy is down, how about the $100K club stepping up to do its fair share instead of taking health care from working families to get rapists and killers off of the hook?

-marc

Adachi's math is a bit off. I have a dependant and I currently pay $200 a month to keep her on the plan. This is similar to what I paid in the private sector.

Interesting to note that Adachi does not pay a dime into his health plan or his pension...but wants to make City workers do what he does not have to do.