Didn’t we just have an election on this topic just a few weeks ago?
I think so.
Here they are yesterday, still. Defeated, and yet not:
CALL: Defeat does not exist in this dojo, does it?
RESPONSE: No, Sensei!
Here we go:
Proposition A, Proposition B and Proposition L present stark contrasts for our city’s future, and the November elections will give voters a chance to weigh in on whether they want to move our transportation system forwards or backwards.
EVERYTHING IN SF WILL BE PRETTY MUCH THE SAME REGARDLESS OF HOW WELL THESE PROPS FARE IN NOVEMBER – THIS IS A FACT. THERE ARE NO “STARK CONTRASTS FOR OUR CITY’S FUTURE.” I CAN SAY THAT BECAUSE I’M NOT TRYING TO RAISE MONEY FROM YOU, GENTLE READER.
Proposition A renews current property bond taxes to fund over $52 million for better bikeways, including $22 million for Better Market Street, in addition to $68 million for pedestrian improvements, $22 million for signal upgrades, and $358 million to improve Muni. Since it’s simply renewing a current property bond, Proposition A won’t raise taxes, and it will result in a markedly better commute for all of us.
PROP A. AUTHORIZES “PASSTHROUGHS” SO IT WILL ALLOW YOUR LANDLORD TO RAISE YOUR RENT TO THE TUNE OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS, RIGHT? NEGLECTING TO MENTION THIS POSSIBILITY IS DISHONEST.*
In the first year, Proposition B would mean an extra $6 million for Vision Zero projects and an additional $16 million to improve Muni.
AND IN ITS FIRST YEAR, PROP B WOULD MEAN _LESS_ MONEY FOR SAN FRANCISCO NON-PROFITS, RIGHT? DON’T YOU THINK YOUR MEMBERS SHOULD KNOW THAT? OH WHAT’S THAT, YOU’RE A MONOMANIACAL POLITICAL GROUP SO YOU DON’T CARE? OK FINE.
Proposition L is a policy declaration statement that rolls back San Francisco’s Transit-First policy, and would result in the City having to prioritize car traffic and parking above all other modes.
UH NOPE. ITS PASSAGE WOULD NOT FORCE THE CITY TO DO ANYTHING, IT’S BASICALLY A MEASURE OF HOW VOTERS ARE THINKING.
Proposition L would require the SFMTA to value “free-flowing traffic” as highly as human life when designing streets, and would take money away from Muni to build more parking garages.
AGAIN, THE SFMTA WILL BE “REQUIRED” TO DO NOTHING.
END OF LINE.
As for myself, I’m agin Prop A, as I want a better MUNI. Pouring more money down the SFMTA rat hole doesn’t sound like a good idea to me. Hey, shouldn’t the head of MUNI be an elected position ala the DA’s Office? Where’s that proposition?
And I’m for Prop B. Some politically-connected non-profits are hopping mad about it, but I don’t care.
And Prop L doesn’t matter, so I don’t care about it. If it wins by a surprisingly large margin, it will end up being a face-punch to the SFMTA and its needy vassal, the SFBC.
*AND OH YEAH, THE SFMTA AND SFGOV PROVIDE THE SFBC WITH HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS PER YEAR – DID YOU KNOW THAT, GENTLE READER? IT MIGHT BE NICE FOR THE SFBC TO POST A NOTE TO THAT EFFECT ON ITS OP-EDS, YOU KNOW, LIKE THIS ONE…
As seen in SF:
Generic soda at Lucky costs about $2 a gallon. Prop E would raise that to about $4.50 a gallon, more than gasoline is these days, not that I care.
First they came for the cigarettes, and I did not speak out—
Because I am not a smoker.
Then they came for the gasoline, and I did not speak out—
Because I don’t spend much on gasoline, usually less than $1000 per year .
Then they came for the sugary soda, and I did not speak out—
Because I don’t drink sugary soda – too sweet.
But if they come for refreshing Diet Cherry Coke, there will be no one left to speak for me. Oh well.
Click to expand
See it on the right?
Click to expand
All the deets:
Just Added: Governor Jerry Brown
The California Dream was built on a system of public schools and colleges that gave every Californian access to the education needed to get ahead. Gov. Jerry Brown is pushing hard for Prop. 30 because he says “we can’t keep cutting our schools and still keep the economy strong for the next generation.” In the last four years alone, California schools have been hit with $20 billion in cuts, over 30,000 fewer teachers and class sizes that are among the largest in the country. Brown says his Prop. 30 stops the cuts, stops the steep tuition hikes, and invests in our schools and colleges to prepare the next generation for the jobs of the future. To protect schools and invest in the future, Prop. 30. Prop. 30 asks California’s wealthiest to pay a little more so that the middle class doesn’t have to bear the burden; families making below $500,000 a year will pay no additional income taxes, and the sales tax will be established at a level lower than it was last year.
The governor says that Prop. 30 protects taxpayers with tough accountability measures: all new revenues are put into a dedicated account that Sacramento politicians can’t touch, and Prop. 30 requires annual audits posted online for everyone to see. Rejection of Prop. 30 would trigger $6 billion in state spending cuts on January 1, mostly from K-12 schools, which would be authorized to cut short their school year. Additionally, there would be a 5 percent tuition hike at the California State University system, 20 percent tuition hikes at the University of California, and a reduction in funding to community colleges.
Governor Brown has said,”There are a lot of people who I am confident will vote ‘yes’ if they get the facts.” Come hear the governor up close – and bring your questions.
Location: SF Club Office
Time: 11 a.m. check-in; noon program
Price: $25 standard, $15 members; Premium (seating in first rows) $45 standard,$30 members
Also Know: Attendees subject to search
PURCHASE TICKETS TO THIS EVENT ONLINE HERE, OR CALL OUR BOX OFFICE AT 415-597-6705.
The headline says it all, but here’s the entire release:
“SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT PTA LEADERSHIP AGAIN URGES STATE PTA TO MAKE A DUAL ENDORSEMENT ON PROPS 30 AND 38
San Francisco — The Second District (San Francisco) PTA leadership recommended in July a dual endorsement of state ballot measures, Propositions 30 and 38, to the California State PTA after hearing from PTA members across the City that funding education was a high priority. At that time, the State PTA held its “Yes” on Prop 38 and voted to approve a “Neutral” position on Prop 30.
In light of recent public polling and campaign dynamics with both initiatives, and again with the encouragement of its members, the District PTA leadership is re-recommending the State PTA take a “Yes” position on Prop 30 to add to its current “Yes” on Prop 38 at the State PTA Board of Managers Meeting October 27.
It is critical that education be funded at a higher level, or at the minimum, maintain current funding in order for all of California’s children to be prepared to be successful in college, career and life. Either Prop 30 or Prop 38 must pass for this to happen. The District PTA also strongly encourages both campaigns to refrain from negative messaging about the other to increase the possibility that at least one measure will receive the required 50% + 1 votes.
Prop 30 would prevent further cuts to K-12 public schools and higher education funding through an increase of around $6 billion per year for 7 years to the state’s general fund budget. Prop 38 would increase funding to K-12 schools, early education and school bond debt payments by $10-11 billion per year for 12 years. Prop 38’s increase in funding would greatly mitigate the result of state education budget cuts of over $20 billion statewide and the laying off of over 40,000 educators over the last three years alone.
For a comparison of both propositions go to http://www.edsource.org/
Image Photoshopped slightly, courtesy of the Gavin Newsom for
Governor Lt. Governor campaign
But I’ll tell you, the People of the State of California are not going to follow them.
Hey Molly, if you’re so great, why don’t you just give all your inherited money to the California Teachers Association no strings attached?
You know, instead of driving over the cliff with Prop 30 stashed in the trunk?
*In a Porsche paid for by Daddy, of course.
Right here, and below:
Check out this recent bit from Will Reisman over at the San Francisco Examiner.
Simply, Prop B of November 2012 is a way to give money to a mismanaged department without any requirement of reform, and without any promise of reform.
Let’s put this household down as a tentative NO on PROP B.
Click to expand
Leave us begin:
“Mark Buell, president of the Recreation and Park Commission, said opposition to the bond is based on personal slights, and not on the content of the measure.”
UH, NO. IT’S BASED ON THE CONTENT.
“The fact of the matter is that there are people who didn’t get what they wanted from the department and they’re coalescing around this measure,” said Buell.
UH, I THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO DON’T LIKE THE WAY RPD HAS BEEN HEADING LATELY.
He said that due to The City’s capital priorities and the upcoming election schedule, another parks bond measure wouldn’t be realistic until 2020.
PERHAPS THE ABOVE STATEMENT ISN’T AS EXTORTIONATE AS “DO EXACTLY WHAT I WANT OR EVERYBODY DIES!!!” BUT THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS A LITTLE EXTORTIONATE, DON”T YOU THINK?
Peskin said the parks bond was originally scheduled for 2014, and could easily be placed on a ballot before 2020.
Supervisor Scott Wiener said any criticism against the bond measure would be short-sighted, particularly given the immense needs of the department.
NOPE. WE SHOULD STARVE OUT THIS DEPARTMENT WHILE WE’RE WAITING FOR A NEW DEPARTMENT.
“I think the opposition to this is incredibly cynical and irresponsible, because they are taking the position that, ‘We don’t like Phil Ginsburg, we don’t like some of these operational decisions,” Wiener said.
OH NO, IT’S LOVE THE SINNER, HATE THE SIN. I DON’T THINK ANYBODY HATES PHIL GINSBURG. IT’S JUST THAT PEOPLE DON’T LIKE MOST OF WHAT HE DOES. VOTING FOR PROP B WILL ONLY ENCOURAGE HIM. IN FACT, PROP B _IS_ PHIL GINSBURG, MORE OR LESS.
“‘So therefore kids should continue to play on broken-down playgrounds, people should continue to sit in puddles even when it is dry out because the irrigation systems in these parks are broken, we should continue to have substandard pools.’”
YES! YES YES YES. AND IT’LL BE PHIL GINSBURG’S FAULT.