Endorsements 2012: San Francisco propositions - Page 3

Yes (sigh) on Prop B. And vote hell yes to deny corporations personhood -- that'd be Prop G

|
(85)
Vote No on Prop F -- It's wishful thinking that San Francisco could replace all the water that comes in from Hetch Hetchy.

Mayor Ed Lee deserves credit for proposing this Housing Trust Fund to help offset some of that impact, even if it falls way short of the need identified in the city's Housing Element, which calls for 60 percent of new housing construction to be affordable to prevent gentrification. We're also not thrilled that Prop. C actually reduces the percentage of housing that developers must offer below market rates and prevents that 12 percent level from later being increased, that it devotes too much money to home ownership assistance at the expense of the renters who comprise the vast majority of city residents, and that it depends on the passage of Prop.E and would take $15 million from the increased business taxes from that measure, rather than restoring years of cuts to General Fund programs.

But Prop. C was a hard-won compromise, with the affordable housing folks at the table, and they got most of what they wanted. (Even the 12 percent has a long list of exceptions and thus won't apply to a lot of new market-rate housing.) And it has more chance of actually passing than previous efforts that were opposed by the business community and Mayor's Office. This measure would commit the city to spending $1.5 billion on affordable housing projects over the next 30 years, with an initial $20 million annual contribution steadily growing to more than $50 million annually by 2024, authorizing and funding the construction of 30,000 new rental units throughout the city. With the loss of redevelopment funds that were devoted to affordable housing, San Francisco is a city at risk, and passage of Prop. C is vital to ensuring that we all have a chance of remaining here. Vote yes.

PROPOSITION D

CONSOLIDATING ODD-YEAR LOCAL ELECTIONS

YES

There's a lot of odd stuff in the San Francisco City Charter, and one of the twists is that two offices — the city attorney and the treasurer — are elected in an off-year when there's nothing else on the ballot. There's a quaint kind of charm to that, and some limited value — the city attorney is one of the most powerful officials in local government, and that race could get lost in an election where the mayor, sheriff, and district attorney are all on the ballot.

But seriously: The off-year elections have lower turnout, and cost the city money, and it's pretty ridiculous that San Francisco still does it this way. The entire Board of Supervisors supports Prop. D. So do we. Vote yes.

PROPOSITION E

GROSS RECEIPTS TAX

YES

Over the past five years, Board of Supervisors President David Chiu estimates, San Francisco has cut about $1.5 billion from General Fund programs. It's been bloody, nasty, awful. The budget reductions have thrown severely ill psych patients out of General Hospital and onto the streets. They've forced the Recreation and Parks Department to charge money for the use of public space. They've undermined everything from community policing to Muni maintenance.

And now, as the economy starts to stabilize a bit, the mayor wants to change the way businesses are taxed — and bring an additional $28.5 million into city coffers.

That's right — we've cut $1.5 billion, and we're raising taxes by $28.5 million. That's less than 2 percent. It's insane, it's inexcusable, it's utterly the wrong way to run a city in 2012. It might as well be Mitt Romney making the decision — 98 percent cuts, 2 percent tax hikes.

Nevertheless, that's where we are today — and it's sad to say this is an improvement from where the tax discussion started. At first, Mayor Lee didn't want any tax increase at all; progressive leaders had to struggle to convince him to allow even a pittance in additional revenue.

Comments

SFBG writes:
"We're not happy to be endorsing Prop. B..."
Then DON'T! Go neutral on it. Go ahead; it's still possible!

There are four options open to those considering ballot measures:
endorse, oppose, neutral, and "[item] not considered."

~~~~~~~
RPD doesn't need the money. It still has at least half the 2008 Park Bond money to dole out.

You're correct: If they get this money from us it's as if we are giving RPD a green light to go ahead and continue privatizing and monetizing our PUBLIC parks!
Why would we want to do that?

This model wherein a city department develops its own cash flow (enterprise dept) is mirrored in the Planning Dept. In this instance developers' fees go directly to the Planning Dept and not into the City's budget (General Fund). That's why Planning always favors developers over us, the public.

It has already been happening at RPD: those who pay large (and I mean LARGE!) fees get precedence over all else.

We need RPD to return to being good stewards for our parks. When they do we'll happily and enthusiastically recommend approval.
But not with a literal Pay-to-Play model being shoved down out throats.

Vote NO on this Park Bond!

Posted by Judy Berkowitz on Oct. 04, 2012 @ 11:09 am

Fact of the matter is NO ONE is telling the citizens of SF what R&P is doing with the hundreds of millions of dollars of park bond money (the one from 2008 and this one if it passes).

Are friends of Ginsberg making millions off R&P contracts from all this bond money??? Well someone sure is.

In radically changing the nature of GG Park from one of grass and nature to one of acres of dead artificial turf at the Beach Chalet soccer fields in GG Park, what's NEVER mentioned is that R&P is PAYING PRIVATE PARTIES MILLIONS of dollars to do that radical change to GG Park.

As I understand it, the initial payout of San Franciscans' money that R&P is giving for this artificial turf project is $12 MILLION. Not only that - The City Fields Foundation (the organization started by the late Don Fisher - billionaire funder of Republican politicians such as the disastrous GW Bush) will have control of who gets those contracts worth AT LEAST 12 MILLION of CITY MONEY. Talk about privitization of public resources!!! (as if the City Fields Foundation owned GG Park!)

As for the supes doing a better job than the Rec & Park Commission (as the endorsement article implied when it said the supes should get some of the appointees) - while I do agree the supes should get to appoint close to half of the R&P commissioners - let's not forget that when Rec & Park Commission decisions came before the supes, those dummy supes gave almost-unanimous backing to those R&P commission decisions.

When R&P General Manager Phil Ginsburg took the contract away from the SF family that had run the Stow Lake boat area and gave it to an out-of-state corporation (Ortega Group or something - a New Mexico corporation), did the supes on the SF Bd of Supes oppose that? Nope. Every god-damn supe voted to approve Ginsburg's kicking out of the long time SF family and give the contract to run a facility in GG Park to an out-of-state corporation.

Is Ginsburg getting kickbacks for getting this contract for the Ortega Group??? Is he getting any of the $12 million that the City Fields Foundation now has control of (money from the 2008 bond and Prop B if it passes)??? He sure is chummy with all the Newsom "family" (supporters and friends of Newsom like Willie Brown and the Fisher family) so it's hard to believe Ginsberg or Mark Buell (President of the R&P Commission) or some of those R&P commssioners aren't getting a nice payday for all the millions they've now put under the control of the Fisher family (aka the City Fields Foundation).

The excuse for taking away the contract from the SF family that had run the Stow Lake operations for decades was that they wouldn't pay for expensive renovations. But as I understand it, R&P refused to give them any longterm contract - they only would give them year-to-year contracts - and so of course that SF family wouldn't pay for expensive renovations when they could lose the contract to run it in less than a year.

And when the dummy R&P Commissioners voted UNANIMOUSLY to approve Ginsburg's decision to put 10 acres of artificial turf in GG Park - a decision that was blatantly against the text and spirit of the City's own GG Park Master Plan - did any of the supes reject the phony EIR that Ginsburg's cooked up??? Only one of the eleven did - Sup. Olague. The rest - Avalos, Campos, Mar, Weiner, Kim, etc - all went along again with the Rec & Park Commission.

So for now VOTE NO on Prop B - don't give Ginsburg any more $ and in the future, work should be made so that the commissioners ARE ELECTED. Yeah having the supes get some appointments is a SLIGHT improvement but only slight. The commissioners have TONS OF POWER - so much so that they should have to face the voters.

If the present members of the Planning Commission and Rec & Park Commission faced the voters, I'd work hard to get everyone of them defeated. My guess is that as long as commissioners don't have to face the voters, the ones the supes pick would be almost as bad (if not as bad) since the supes themselves almost always back up those Rec & Park decisions unanimously (which they should pay a price for politically - as in "defeat the bastards the next time they run for re-election").

Voters in district 1 are really screwed. The choice is Eric Mar - a supe who has never failed to be a doormat for R&P General Manager Phil Ginsberg and the dummies on the R&P Commission - or David Lee - a person who until recently was actually one of the R&P Commission dummies and one who voted with Ginsberg on the two cases discussed above (the Stow Lake contract and putting 10 acres of artificial turf in GG Park).

Actually there is a third candidate: Sherman R. D'Silva (go to http://dsilva2012.com/
if you want to read about him).

I'm leading towards voting against Eric Mar. If voters don't punish the incumbent who doesn't have the backbone or knowledge to make the right decisions, he or she should go. And when a supe "represents" the district adjacent to GG Park and continuously makes horrible decisions regarding GG Park, it's hard to argue that supe should continue to represent that district.

It's too bad too because on lots of issues I agree with Mar but GG Park is a HUGE one for me and when a supe can't get GG Park right and he or she represents the district adjacent to it (like Mar does), that's a huge problem for me. Hard to think such a person should be rewarded with a vote for re-election - especially when that person sells himself for being "so green" as if he's some big environmentalist. Environmentalists aren't for replacing 10 acres of grass in GG Park with dead artificial turf and hundreds of tons of tiny tire particles - like Mar is (even brags about it in his re-election print ads)

I think D'Silva is getting my top vote.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 05, 2012 @ 7:34 pm

Agree with guest above and don't forget that Rec and Park wants to cut 300 trees in Glen Park Oct. 15th

Posted by Guest on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 6:14 pm

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that artificial turf is probably a better alternative to grass. It requires little maintenance, no pesticides, no water, and no fertilizer. It's also better for sports events. Artificial turf is also often made of recycled materials, like tire particles. Since the park was originally a sand dune it doesn't really doesn't call for living turf at all.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 29, 2012 @ 6:49 am

Big Time!

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2012 @ 7:43 am

Wow, I am surprised at the recommendation on F. A YES vote on Prop. F really is a no brainer. Is the 0% water recycling that San Francisco currently achieves really all that we can do? A YES vote on Prop. F authorizes a study to improve and modernize San Francisco's water and power system. That is it, JUST A STUDY! Why on earth would anyone be against a study to improve things from 0% water recycling? Let's authorize the study that will give us the facts, then we can make decisions about what we should do. Since Hetch Hetchy is only one of the NINE DAMS in the water system, it may be possible to remove it, which might be a good idea on its own since it is nearly 100 YEARS OLD already. But we can make that decision later. Right now we need to vote YES on Prop. F to study the issue of modernizing our completely outdated water and power system that is 100 years old in large part. VOTE YES on PROP F. to authorize the study!

Posted by SF Man 1111 on Oct. 04, 2012 @ 12:59 pm

How very misleading!
It's NOT "just a study!"

If passed, the "study" to destroy Hetch Hetchy Reservoir will cost SF millions of dollars.

Hidden in the measure is a requirement to hold an election on the matter.

Also, this thing - to tear down the dam - has been studied up down forward backward left right and center since the dam was built.
Same result each time: don't do it.

SF is ALREADY in the process of modernizing the systems.

And most egregious of all: this measure says to dump the concrete debris from the busted-up dam in Camp Mather!

So, no; it's not just a study.

VOTE NO on PROP F!

Posted by Judy Berkowitz on Oct. 04, 2012 @ 4:59 pm

the cost to repair the systems that are in place is 10 billion dollars and the cost to relocate the water to existing reservoirs is far less. the people of san francisco need realize that they don't recycle any water were as la recycles up to 85 percent of their water. the Hetch Hetchy valley would become a second Yosemite valley allowing tourist to experience a glacier carved valley in the Sierra Nevada's. it only makes sense to vote YES on F to allow a study to be done on the removal of the dam and the relocation of water.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 04, 2012 @ 10:37 pm

"...Hetch Hetchy valley would become a second Yosemite valley..."??
In your dreams, anonymous Guest!

If you knew anything about ecology, you'd know that should the worse scenario come to pass, and the dam is destroyed (with the concrete debris dumped in Camp Mather!) the HH valley would first be a muddy disgusting stink of a place alternating with the playa-type environment in hot months (but still with the stink).
This would continue for over 25 years and likely longer.

After that, it'd be desert with some grasses and scrub land (and remaining stink). In another ±150 years or so there *may* be some opportunistic scraggly trees.

But it'd never *ever* reach anywhere near the level of Yosemite.
And it certainly would *never* be a tourist destination!

This is a truly horrible measure that has found its way on to the SF ballot.

P.S. I can also rebut your incorrect LA vs SF numbers and false recycling "info," but this is enough for one post.

Posted by Judy Berkowitz on Oct. 05, 2012 @ 1:30 pm

Wow, Judy, you are really a spin artist. IT IS JUST A STUDY! What are you afraid of? Could it be the fact that the study may show that it would cost only $1 Billion, most of which could be raised from private donations? (like the recent Statue of Liberty restoration which cost approximately half that amount). If you investigate a little further, you will learn that most of Hetch Hetchy Valley was a wet meadow that would flood every spring with the river runoff. Hetch Hetchy is thus the best possible candidate for restoration since the meadow would come back within a couple of years. Please KNOW THE FACTS before spreading scary misinformation. A YES vote on Prop. F is the obvious choice.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 06, 2012 @ 1:14 am

Why stop at Hetch Hetchy? Let's dam everything.

Your posts are too biased for you to be anything other than a paid activist. You don't like national parks? Then you're not a green.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 06, 2012 @ 2:31 am

I'm not "a paid activist," nor a paid anything else.
I like national parks.

For the record.

Posted by Judy B on Oct. 06, 2012 @ 4:33 pm

will say anything to get your way which, it seems, is to continue to tuin a national park

Posted by Guest on Oct. 06, 2012 @ 11:26 pm

Key word: "was" in the statement:
"...Hetch Hetchy Valley was a wet meadow that would flood every spring with the river runoff."

OK. That's not a "fact" for a future dam-destroyed valley, though.

Posted by Judy B on Oct. 06, 2012 @ 4:25 pm

Judy,

How does one have an honest debate with someone who out and out lies through their teeth? You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own set of facts.

Your post is almost laughable because what you say is so ridiculous. Any half way informed reader will see right through your silly arguments. Anyone with internet access can check out your statements for themselves...

Posted by Guest on Oct. 06, 2012 @ 12:35 pm

Please point out what I'm supposedly "lying" about.

Posted by Judy B on Oct. 06, 2012 @ 4:26 pm

No idea what you're on about...
Please show me your rebuttal to my facts.

Posted by Judy B on Oct. 06, 2012 @ 4:30 pm

I am long gone from this land but please read my story:

https://picasaweb.google.com/YosemiteNativePeople/YosemiteNativeAmerican...

Please return our land to all people of this planet. Vote YES on F.

Posted by Captain Jim Paiute on Oct. 08, 2012 @ 3:43 pm

Wow, Judy, you are really a spin artist. IT IS JUST A STUDY! What are you afraid of? Could it be the fact that the study may show that it would cost only $1 Billion, most of which could be raised from private donations? (like the recent Statue of Liberty restoration which cost approximately half that amount). If you investigate a little further, you will learn that most of Hetch Hetchy Valley was a wet meadow that would flood every spring with the river runoff. Hetch Hetchy is thus the best possible candidate for restoration since the meadow would come back within a couple of years. Please KNOW THE FACTS before spreading scary misinformation. A YES vote on Prop. F is the obvious choice.

Posted by SF First on Oct. 06, 2012 @ 1:16 am

You seem to not understand that there has never been a complete study on the Hetch Hetchy issue. The federal Interior Department did a preliminary study in the late 1980's that showed it was feasible. Several academics and environmental groups did partial studies that showed it might be feasible. The State did a review of these studies in 2006 that said it might be feasible, but included inflated "off the cuff" cost information from the City.

By the way, do you really not know that the concrete and rebar has real recyclable value? I would be happy to take it off their hands...

Posted by Bay Area Lark on Oct. 06, 2012 @ 1:24 am

There is a lot of misinformation being spouted from the opponents of Prop. F. A YES vote on Prop. F is the obvious choice. I think that the ideas behind Prop. F are a win/win for San Francisco. The idea is to study more efficient use of the Tuolumne River system. Nobody is proposing to take away San Francisco's water source which is the Tuolumne River. The 100 year old dam at Hetch Hetchy is just one of 9 dams in that system. It seems that a lot of people have a hard time understanding that fact. It seems that many people are fooled by the term "Hetch Hetchy Water" when it is really "Tuolumne River Water" which happens to include an old dam at Hetch Hetchy and several other locations along the Tuolumne River watershed.

Posted by HappyBayDay on Oct. 06, 2012 @ 1:32 am

Prop. F is getting a lot of national media coverage. Do we really want the headlines the day after the election to say "San Francisco Voters Reject Plan to Study Water Recycling, Vote to Keep Dam in National Park."? San Francisco will be shamed as a city of hypocrites. We need to approve Prop. F for so many reasons.

Posted by Jon Lula on Oct. 06, 2012 @ 9:59 am

There is a lot of misinformation being spread by the opponents of Prop. F. A YES vote on Prop. F is the obvious choice. I think that the ideas behind Prop. F are a win/win for San Francisco. The idea is to study more efficient use of the Tuolumne River system. Nobody is proposing to take away San Francisco's water source which is the Tuolumne River. The 100 year old dam at Hetch Hetchy is just one of 9 dams in that system. It seems that a lot of people have a hard time understanding that fact. It seems that many people are fooled by the term "Hetch Hetchy Water" when it is really "Tuolumne River Water" which happens to include an old dam at Hetch Hetchy and several other locations along the Tuolumne River watershed.

Posted by Jon Lula on Oct. 06, 2012 @ 10:14 am

Wow, you guys are the only city in the whole country that destroyed part of a national park with a dam and you don't even want to authorize a study to remove it? San Francisco is not full of liberals, it is full of hypocrites. I will change my opinion only if San Francisco votes yes on Proposition F.

I can't believe the hypocrisy of the opponents of Proposition F. Is this really San Francisco or some place in Alabama?

Give up your intrusion on our national parks or we will take it back from you!

Posted by Chief Tenaya on Oct. 07, 2012 @ 1:09 am

"Wow, you guys are the only city in the whole country that destroyed part of a national park with a dam"

LOL. The City of Seattle has three dams in North Cascades National Park, supplying about a quarter of the electricity for Seattle.

Somehow, people still don't view Seattle as some place in Alabama...

Posted by Demented, Yet Terribly, Terribly Persistent on Oct. 07, 2012 @ 5:42 am

Those dams NEAR North Cascades National Park in Washington are OUTSIDE THE PARK!

Nice try! The opponents of Prop. F seem like the Romney Campaign: They just make up "facts".

Face the truth, San Francisco stands alone as the undisputed leader in national park destruction.

Posted by Chief Tenaya on Oct. 07, 2012 @ 11:39 am

"Those dams NEAR North Cascades National Park in Washington are OUTSIDE THE PARK!"

You've obviously never been there - the dams are physically smack in the middle of the park.

I'll grant you that the Ross, Diablo, and Gorge Dams are technically in the "Ross Lake National Recreation Area" (also administered by the National Park Service), with the park both to the north and south of the recreation area. (The North Cascades National Park visitor's center is also in the recreation area, so technically the park's visitor center isn't in the park either.)

But if defining the center of the park as being outside the park floats your boat, the solution is obvious - create the "Hetch Hetchy National Recreation Area", transfer the area around the dam to the recreation area, and problem solved - the dam isn't in the national park any more.

Hey, if it works for the City of Seattle, it will work for the City of San Francisco!

Posted by Demented, Yet Terribly, Terribly Persistent on Oct. 07, 2012 @ 3:08 pm

You are misinformed about the North Cascades. That park was created after the dams, which is why the reservoirs are outside the park. Hetch Hetchy Valley was included in Yosemite National Park when it was created in 1890. The dam was completed in 1923. San Francisco had to lie to a clueless Congress to get the Raker Act passed in 1913. THE RAKER ACT IS THE ONLY LAW AUTHORIZING A DAM IN A NATIONAL PARK! San Francisco had to get that specific exception through Congress. This is why the National Parks and Conservation Association endorses a YES vote on Prop. F.

So now you want to remove the whole Tuolumne River watershed from Yosemite National Park, that is roughly half the park. Wow, there is no end to the hypocrisy. Face it, with the removal of the 2 dams in Olympic National Park, San Francisco stands alone as the only destroyer of a national park.

You can stop trying to spin this, San Francisco stands alone in its rape of a national park.

Posted by Chief Tenaya on Oct. 08, 2012 @ 10:13 am

SFBG only cares about it because of their endless fantasies about public power, which SF voters have rejected every time it has been on the ballot.

Posted by Anonymous on Oct. 08, 2012 @ 10:37 am

With the skill of Robber Barons, San Francisco used a hyped up catastrophe (partly an earthquake, partly an ignorant Fire Dept.) to lay claim to the northern watershed of Yosemite National Park. When has a city stolen a huge chunk of a National Park and gotten away with it?! We have not seen such an blatant violation of public lands since we took back Reservations promised to Native Americans.

This has been an egregious betrayal of public trust that should be rectified. SF has had almost a hundred years to drain water and power from Hetch Hetchy and it can continue to do so -- downstream! The HH Valley can be returned to its natural state, though doing so will indeed require almost as many years as it has been flooded. There is no huge silt accumulation; both flora and fauna would return, as a recent study noted.

One of the reasons I have lived in the SF Bay Area for 40 years lies in the creative, resilient nature of people who have come to live here, honesty acknowledging faults and striving toward ideals. It's time to do just that.

Posted by Jim Chandler on Oct. 05, 2012 @ 9:21 pm

Disconnect from the municipal water system and subsist on rainwater and runoff if the Hetch Hetchy dam bothers you so much. Otherwise - stop attempting to force everyone else to adhere to your values.

Posted by Troll II on Oct. 05, 2012 @ 9:38 pm

Who is forcing his values on another: the man who dreams or the thief who steals them?

Posted by Jim Chandler on Oct. 06, 2012 @ 6:02 am

The only issue is whether it's trapped in Yosemite or downstream.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 06, 2012 @ 6:42 am

The fact that Bruce has been in a pissing match for decades with PG&E for some weird reson lost in time is no reason to keep the dam. If Yosemite Valley had been dammed back then, bruce would argue to keep that too.

We want our National Park back.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 05, 2012 @ 11:29 pm

Reservior capacity would be lost: it won't be replaced due to cost and due to environmental concerns.

Water quality will suffer: even *if* reserviors were built the water contained in them would be far more subject to contamination from airborne pollutants and ground contamination than water in the Hetch Hetchy reservior.

This completely asinine idea is being promoted by an alliance of conniving right-wing haters and their well-meaning but usefully-idiotic dupes in the environmental movement.

There are many actions that Californian's can take towards improving the ecology of our state. This particular idea is outrageous in that its net effect would be to hurt the evironment.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 06, 2012 @ 11:10 am

If they had all passed, this city would be like Detroit now.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 05, 2012 @ 11:30 pm

Because I really, really hate San Francisco.

Posted by Demented, Yet Terribly, Terribly Persistent on Oct. 06, 2012 @ 6:36 am

If San Francisco supports Measure F - it could be a win-win!

The Romney Administration could burnish its environmental credentials by taking out the dam (following in the footsteps of Reagan's Interior Secretary Donald Hodel in 1987, who also proposed taking the dam out).

How to replace the water would then be San Francisco's problem. (You don't think that the Romney Administration is going to send a nickel to San Francisco, do you?)

Posted by Demented, Yet Terribly, Terribly Persistent on Oct. 06, 2012 @ 7:09 am

The same water would be available. It would simply flow downstream as it did for millions of years, and be collected there. That's how the rest of the planet does it. There's no logic to building dams in national parks when you can build them in the foothills or central valley or close to SFBay

Posted by Guest on Oct. 06, 2012 @ 8:26 am

"The same water would be available. It would simply flow downstream as it did for millions of years, and be collected there."

Then why didn't the San Francisco establishment simply go along with Hodel (who suggested taking out the dam because he hated San Francisco, BTW), if the water was so cheap to replace?

It's amazing - you have a state that is as poor as Mississippi once you get away from the coast, whose state government is obviously going bankrupt, and where San Francisco itself is being crushed under a rapidly growing government pension burden, and you want to rip out basic infrastructure, that will be hugely expensive to replace.

Party's over, dude.

"There's no logic to building dams in national parks when you can build them in the foothills or central valley or close to SFBay"

LOL. Are you aware of basic hydrology? You need certain physical characteristics (like a narrow valley) to build a dam - you can't just build the thing on a random flat piece of ground in the Central Valley.

Posted by Demented, Yet Terribly, Terribly Persistent on Oct. 06, 2012 @ 8:56 am

"There's no logic to building dams in national parks when you can build them in the foothills or central valley or close to SFBay"

I will also guarantee you that the Sierra Club and the environmental movement generally will oppose the construction of any replacement dam anywhere in California, whatever they may say now. When was the last time a large dam was built in California?

Obviously, you can replace any water supply (the East Bay doesn't get water from Hetch Hetchy, for example) - the question is how many billions of dollars you are going to piss away replacing that water supply? Of course, San Francisco doesn't have any urgent social needs for those billions of dollars that will be going to a Hetch Hetchy replacement.

Posted by Demented, Yet Terribly, Terribly Persistent on Oct. 06, 2012 @ 9:06 am

primarily because the scoundrel has repeatedly shown the capacity to use imping and other bold-faced techniques for mischaracterizing the viewpoints of opponents.

Logically though, it does not follow that in supporting a sound cause, that the same troll would neccessarily employ falsehood. One would have to posit a psychopathology as the root problem for that to be true, which I'm not quite prepared to do as yet. The troll's behavior might simply derive from an arrogance and mental simplicity which falls short of pathology.

All the points made above by "Demented" in this case are correct, and I do not believe the troll has intended to debase the position against Prop F by expressing such a viewpoint.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 06, 2012 @ 10:08 am

close to sF (clue - what do you think San Pablo Dam Road is named after?)

Again, it's the same water and we have hills and canyons up the wazoo.

Let the water flow naturally and capture it at lower elevations.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 06, 2012 @ 9:29 am

You won't have to replace all the water from Hetch Hetchy because all the water comes from the Tuolumne River. You have 4 dams down stream that will hold the water lost from the Oshaughnesy Dam. The fact that San Francisco is stealing water from a National Park should make the decision a National Vote but San Francsico is greedily stealing a gem of a moneymaker for the nation when they are to cheap to recycle their own water, or use well water or something. You call yourself an informed modern city??? A "green" city??? You vote against F and your just as bad as LA stealing water from the rest of the state!!!

Posted by Guest on Oct. 06, 2012 @ 8:47 am

Prop. F is getting a lot of national media coverage. Do we really want the headlines the day after the election to say "San Francisco Voters Reject Plan to Study Water Recycling, Vote to Keep Dam in National Park."? San Francisco will be shamed as a city of hypocrites. We need to approve Prop. F for so many reasons.

Posted by Jon Lula on Oct. 06, 2012 @ 9:57 am

That is not a reason to vote to destroy SF's source of clean energy and bountiful, pure water.

The bigger question is this: why are you aligning yourself with Republicans who are on a jihad against San Francisco and the Peninsula?

Posted by Troll II on Oct. 06, 2012 @ 6:21 pm

It's an ironic comment coming from you after your rabid anti-Mirkarimi prevarications.

Posted by lillipubicans on Oct. 06, 2012 @ 6:39 pm

You try and try and try to make this a Democrat vs. Republican issue. It's not. Nor is it progressive vs. conservative because there's nothing progressive about defending a law enforcement official who plead guilty to a crime. As a matter of fact it's usually conservatives who stand with dirty law enforcement officers - not progressives.

Posted by Troll II on Oct. 06, 2012 @ 7:54 pm

Troll, you should be talking about clean vs. dirty. Your behavior on this forum is despicable. Nobody decent would commit such disgustingly reprehensible rhetorical tricks as you do, such as your frequent false attributions to others and mischaracterization of facts.

I don't know what your angle is -- I'll just throw out some possibilities here: heterophobia, racism, or just playing good 'ol machine politics -- but your voice is not one to be trusted, no matter which false name you are currently going under.

That you might adopt a correct position on one particular matter shouldn't be taken by anyone to suggest you are redeemable.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 06, 2012 @ 8:51 pm

Neither here nor anywhere else. Share it all you want but don't think it really matters - because it doesn't.

Posted by Troll II on Oct. 07, 2012 @ 12:34 pm

Related articles

  • East Bay Endorsements 2012

    Our recommendations in key Alameda County, Berkeley and Oakland races

  • Endorsements 2012: San Francisco races

    Rizzo and Selby for D5 supervisor. Our top choice in D1 is Eric Mar

  • Endorsements 2012: State and national races

    End the death penalty -- Yes on 34. Go Barack, and vote No on 35 for sexworker justice