NO, NO, NO
Mayor Gavin Newsom is hoping voters will be fooled by his argument that Proposition P, which would change the size and composition of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority, would lead to more efficiency and accountability.
But as Prop. P's opponents — including all 11 supervisors, the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, and the Sierra Club — point out, the measure would put billions of taxpayer dollars in the hands of political appointees, thus removing independent oversight of local transportation projects.
The Board of Supervisors, which currently serves as the governing body of the small but powerful, voter-created Transportation Authority, has done a good job of acting as a watchdog for local sales-tax revenues earmarked for transportation projects and administering state and federal transportation funding for new projects. The way things stand, the mayor effectively controls Muni, and the board effectively controls the Transportation Authority, providing a tried and tested system of checks and balances that gives all 11 districts equal representation.
There is no good reason to upset this apple cart. Vote No on P.
Proposition Q
Modifying the payroll tax
YES, YES, YES
Proposition Q would close a major loophole that allows big law firms, architecture firms, medical partnerships, and other lucrative outfits to avoid paying the city's main business tax. San Francisco collects money from businesses largely through a 1.5 percent tax on payroll. It's not a perfect system, and we'd like to see a more progressive tax (why should big and small companies pay the same percentage tax?). But even the current system has a giant problem that costs the city millions of dollars a year.
The law applies to the money companies pay their employees. But in a fair number of professional operations, the highest-paid people are considered "partners" and their income is considered profit-sharing, not pay. So the city's biggest law firms, where partners take home hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in compensation, pay no city tax on that money.
Prop. Q would close that loophole and treat partnership income as taxable payroll. It would also exempt small businesses (with payrolls of less than $250,000 a year) from any tax at all.
The proposal would bring at least $10 million a year into the city and stop certain types of businesses from ducking their share of the tax burden. Vote yes.
Proposition R
Naming sewage plant after Bush
NO
This one has tremendous emotional and humor appeal. It would officially rename the Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant the George W. Bush Sewage Plant. That would put San Francisco in the position of creating the first official memorial to the worst president of our time — and his name would be on a sewage plant.
The problem — not to be killjoys — is that sewage treatment is actually a pretty important environmental concern, and the Oceanside plant is a pretty good sewage treatment plant. It's insulting to the plant, and the people who work there, to put the name of an environmental villain on the door.
Let's name something awful after Bush. Vote no on Prop. R.
Proposition S
Budget set-aside policy
NO
This ...
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.
