SAN FRANCISCO MEASURES
Proposition A
San Francisco General Hospital bonds
YES, YES, YES
This critically needed $887 million bond would be used to rebuild the San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, which is currently not up to seismic safety codes. If the hospital isn't brought into seismic compliance by 2013, the state has threatened to shut it down.
Proposition A has the support of just about everyone in town: Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, all four state legislators from San Francisco, Mayor Gavin Newsom, former mayors Willie Brown and Frank Jordan, all 11 supervisors, the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, Service Employees International Union, Local 1021 ... the list goes on and on.
And for good reason: SF General is not only the hospital of last resort for many San Franciscans and the linchpin of the entire Healthy San Francisco system. It's also the only trauma center in the area. Without SF General, trauma patients would have to travel to Palo Alto for the nearest available facility.
Just about the only opposition is coming from the Coalition for Better Housing.
This deep-pocketed landlord group is threatening to sink the hospital bond unless it gets concessions on Sup. Michela Alioto-Pier's legislation that would allow landlords to pass the costs of the $4 billion rebuild of the city's Hetch Hetchy water, sewage, and power system through to their tenants.
These deplorable tactics should make voters, most of whom are tenants, even more determined to see Prop. A pass. Vote yes.
Proposition B
Affordable housing fund
YES, YES, YES
Housing isn't just the most contentious issue in San Francisco; it's the defining issue, the one that will determine whether the city of tomorrow bears any resemblance to the city of today.
San Francisco is on the brink of becoming a city of the rich and only the rich, a bedroom community for Silicon Valley and an urban nest for wealthy retirees. Some 90 percent of current city residents can't afford the cost of a median-priced house, and working-class people are getting displaced by the day. Tenants are thrown out when their rent-controlled apartments are converted to condos. Young families find they can't rent or buy a place with enough room for kids and are forced to move to the far suburbs. Seniors and people on fixed incomes find there are virtually no housing choices for them in the market, and many wind up on the streets. Small businesses suffer because their employees can't afford to live here; the environment suffers because so many San Francisco workers must commute long distances to find affordable housing.
And meanwhile, the city continues to allow developers to build million-dollar condos for the rich.
Proposition B alone won't solve the problem, but it would be a major first step. The measure would set aside a small percentage of the city's property-tax revenue — enough to generate about $33 million a year — for affordable housing. It would set a baseline appropriation to defend the money the city currently spends on housing. It would expire in 15 years.
Given the state of the city's housing crisis, $33 million is a fairly modest sum — but with a guaranteed funding stream, the city can seek matching federal and state funds and leverage ...
The Guardian seems to believe its not so bad to be an illegal alien felon murderer and to keep supporting "progressive" views and politicians that have abetted this murdering, but its horrible to have a program that is seemingly full of kids (in this case actual kids) who actually aspire to something other than a boys camp in southern California to escape from to create more havoc.
This endorsement proves beyond any shadow of doubt that so called progressives are as intolerant and authoritarian as the right wingers they are supposedly an antidote to.
Most workers at what is now unimaginatively known as the Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant understand that this initiative is in no way a condemnation of their effort, or of wastewater treatment in general, and many support the initative.
Indeed, there are many reasons to support the initiative that I'm sure the Guardian would recognize. History is written by those who take the time to write it and Bush's ideological supporters will be working tirelessly to cast him in a flattering light, just as the same crowd has re-branded Reagan as a well-loved, effective leader that he never was.
This is an opportunity for the city of San Francisco to raise a collective middle finger to this abomination of an administration (and have a good laugh at the same time).
I am the author of Paid Arguments in favor of Proposition R, renaming the Oceanside Water Treatment Plant the "George W Bush Sewage Plant", and I am disappointed in the position taken by the Guardian on the issue. The two reasons you put forth to justify your decision make no sense.
You claim that renaming the plant would be insulting to the workers, but the union that represents these workers (Service Employees International Union, chapter 1021) has endorsed the measure.
Then you suggest to name something awful after Bush instead of our "pretty good" and "pretty important" sewage treatment plant, but that's completely missing the point. The question is not to figure what more awful of a monument our city has to offer to Bush's legacy, and neither is it to know if we San Franciscans would even appreciate to see the name of the villain on our environmentally conscious plant. It is much larger than that. What this proposition really asks is: Do we San Franciscans believe that somewhere in America or in the world, there should be a sewage plant named after Bush? Do you think that in the future, every time we land at the George W Bush Airport or cruise on the George W Bush Freeway, we will find solace knowing that back home we can flush into the George W Bush Sewage Plant?
We did not ask for Bush to be our President. This monument is our way to let the world know "The last 8 years were not in our name!", and it's also our gift to everybody else in New Orleans and across America who believes the same.
(Here is the text of the Paid Arguments that I published in the pamphlet...)
---
This vote might seem like a joke but it's not. For the past 8 years, Bush dragged the country into war, recession, scandals and bankruptcies through lies, deception, contempt and cronyism, undermining the very values this country is based upon. It will not disappear the day he leaves office; his legacy will resonate for the many years to come in America and throughout the world. The man will have his library, his expressway and his airport, but more than anything he deserves to go down in the history books with a sewage plant. San Francisco will not forget, and neither will New Orleans. Future generations across the nation and the world will be grateful. Please vote Yes.
I came to this decision months before the Guardian issued its endorsements. I think it's funny as hell, but I believe the point has been made merely by taking it as far as it's gone.
However, the sewage treatment plant is a vital tool in maintaining the health and well-being of San Francisco. Naming such an important element in our city's infrastructure for someone who has contributed nothing to the well-being of country denigrates the the importance of the work done there. The proposition also suggests that, were the plant named for anyone else (say, the designer of the plant, or a person who might have played a role in building the city's water treament), it would be dishonorable to that person to have their name appear on the plant.
I'll be voting 'no' on Proposition R, and I encourage all San Franciscans to do so, as well.
The current Transportation Authority is a poster child for dysfunctional bureaucracies, possibly the worst in the City. Why does the TA need an small army of staff to duplicate functions performed by the Municipal Transportation Agency (the MTA)? All those duplicative staff drain off resources from the desperately scarce transportation dollars you pay for with your 1/2-cent sales tax, which the TA is charged to distribute. Proposition P will require the TA to use existing departmental staff to perform work they are already staffed up to do. Let the transportation professionals do their work, and get out of the way already ! The TA has interfered in a variety of projects, resulting in significant delays and budget increases. Do we remember a few years back when a financial audit by the Controller's office found that the TA's financial practices were a disgraceful mess, the worst he'd ever seen? That alone would be a good reason to seat the Treasurer on the TA, as Prop P would do. And why should the TA be exempt from City ethics and sunshine rules? Proposition P would fix that. As for the charge that Prop P would turn the TA over to political appointees, read the text: The TA would become composed of 5 ELECTED OFFICIALS: The Mayor, The President of the Bd of Supes, The Treasurer, and 2 other ELECTED officials one appointed by the Mayor and the other by the Pres. of Bd of Supes. If you remember a few years back why we voted for Proposition E, which created the Municipal Transportation Agency, one key reason was to create more independence for our transportation services, and provide some isolation from political interference. I THANK THE MAYOR for putting Proposition P on the ballot. YES ON P !
The current Transportation Authority is a poster child for dysfunctional bureaucracies, possibly the worst in the City. Why does the TA need an small army of staff to duplicate functions performed by the Municipal Transportation Agency (the MTA)? All those duplicative staff drain off resources from the desperately scarce transportation dollars you pay for with your 1/2-cent sales tax, which the TA is charged to distribute. Proposition P will require the TA to use existing departmental staff to perform work they are already staffed up to do. Let the transportation professionals do their work, and get out of the way already ! The TA has interfered in a variety of projects, resulting in significant delays and budget increases. Do we remember a few years back when a financial audit by the Controller's office found that the TA's financial practices were a disgraceful mess, the worst he'd ever seen? That alone would be a good reason to seat the Treasurer on the TA, as Prop P would do. And why should the TA be exempt from City ethics and sunshine rules? Proposition P would fix that. As for the charge that Prop P would turn the TA over to political appointees, read the text: The TA would become composed of 5 ELECTED OFFICIALS: The Mayor, The President of the Bd of Supes, The Treasurer, and 2 other ELECTED officials one appointed by the Mayor and the other by the Pres. of Bd of Supes. If you remember a few years back why we voted for Proposition E, which created the Municipal Transportation Agency, one key reason was to create more independence for our transportation services, and provide some isolation from political interference. I THANK THE MAYOR for putting Proposition P on the ballot. YES ON P !
Firstly, if the union representing the workers endorses this, your lack of endorsement is trumped.
Secondly, none of us little people had a say in Bush becoming president, SCOTUS made that decision for us. We also didn't have much of a voice in deciding whether or not our sports parks were named Pac-Bell, 3-Com, Monster, or AT&T. But the people of this city own the Oceanside plant, so we should have a chance to name it what we will. We should choose to name it after George W. Bush, for these two reasons: 1) it's a joke that we in this city get to be in on and laugh at, and 2) it actually attaches something good to Bush's name, both of which might help to alleviate some of the pain we've had to deal with due to his presidency being inflicted upon us. As an aside, since W's never felt it necessary to "honor" this city with his presence, let the city honor him in this unique way.
YES on R!
Let's keep it serious. Let's make a case for why our ideas are better for society. Let's not give anyone amunition to call us petty, vindictive or silly.
NO on R.
Comment on: Endorsements 2008: San Francisco measures
In order to comment on an article, you must Log In.
