Correction: Prop. E isn't retroactive


In the hustle-bustle of getting our last pre-election issue out the door, we made a significant error in describing Prop. E in the “Buying power” section of this story. The measure does not apply retroactively, but would allow the Board of Supervisors to change measures that voters approve after January 2012. Sorry for the mistake.


only applies to initiatives that were placed on the ballot by the Supes, and not those placed there by popular acclaim.

Yes on D, E and H.

No on the others.

Posted by Anonymous on Nov. 04, 2011 @ 1:57 pm

There are quite a number of reasons why Scott Wiener's Prop E will get a no vote from me, and I'm not sure how I will vote on his Prop B, but I just want to point out that for a legislator who is railing against our alleged broken prop system, he's got two props before the voters this year.

Oh, and his former boss Dennis Herrera is running for mayor and Scott's endorsed him to the hilt. For all his complaining about the prop system, I give Scott credit for skillfully using it to drive drive for Herrera on election day.

Vote no E.

Posted by MPetrelis on Nov. 04, 2011 @ 9:51 pm

What a lame excuse. The fact that Prop E isn't retroactive is such an important feature of the initiative that it's hard to believe that the print version of the article was anything other than a deliberate lie. Even if it wasn't a deliberate lie, it betrays a lazy, sloppy disregard for accuracy. Why should readers believe anything else the Guardian says?

Posted by Guest on Nov. 05, 2011 @ 8:43 am

Scott Wiener - "Prop E is a good start."

Posted by Guest on Nov. 05, 2011 @ 8:59 am

With the Chamber of Commerce plutocrats back in the saddle in SF their bought and paid for proclamations will be overruled more and more by the ballot. This is unacceptable to them.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 05, 2011 @ 9:02 am

Wiener's Prop E was initially retrospective which generated concern he was targeting progressive-backed measures and initiatives. After much outcry, he amended the legislation to be prospective.

Now that the Board composition is decidedly pro-special interests, Prop E, if passed, would make it possible for the moderate-leaning Board to torpedo voter-approved progressive ballot measures that made it to the ballot with four supervisors' signatures.

Prop E is wrong on so many levels not least of which is Wiener's transparent attempt to consolidate power under the Board and render the electorate powerless.

Vote NO on Prop E.

Posted by Wiener's Wiener on Nov. 05, 2011 @ 11:45 am

Some of the major financial backers of Prop E, and probably Prop F, are:-
COMMITTEE ON JOBS (aka Big Breaks for Big Business)
Not exactly a group with the best interests of renters in mind.
Wiener received significant financial support from types like these in his election, so we know where his allegiance lies. If it smells like a duck......

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Nov. 05, 2011 @ 1:05 pm

I don't think it will, since it has broad opposition from both the right and the left. I'm curious how the Yes on E folks are spending their money. I haven't gotten a mailer or anything.

But I do give props to Scott Wiener for trying to push an endorsement from the Harvey Milk Club, in person. Nevertheless, I don't see it passing. I predict it will go down 54% to 46%.

Posted by Common Sense SF on Nov. 06, 2011 @ 11:39 pm

California is the only state that does not allow elected officials to revise ballot propositions. This is an extremely mild, good government measure that will enable common sense changes to the unintended consequences of poorly written ballot initiatives -- something San Francisco voters are only too familiar with.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 2:18 am
Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 6:12 am

Also from this author