LOCAL BALLOT MEASURES:
Prop A – San Francisco Transportation and Road Improvement Bond: NO
Prop B – Adjusting Transportation Funding for Population Growth: NO
Prop C – Children’s Fund: NO
Prop D – Retiree Health Benefits, Former Redevelopment Agency: NO
Prop E – Tax on Sugar-Sweetened Beverages: NO
Prop F – Pier 70: YES
Prop G – Additional Transfer Tax, Residential Property Sold Within 5 Years: NO
Prop H – GG Park Athletic Fields Kept as Grass With No Artificial Lighting: YES
Prop I – Renovation of Playgrounds, Walking Trails, and Athletic Fields: NO
Prop J – Minimum Wage Increase: NO
Prop K – Affordable Housing: NO
Prop L – Policy Regarding Transportation Priorities: YES
As is the Libertarian Party of San Francisco’s tradition, we just don’t recommend YES or NO based on private information or deals. Our volunteers analyze each proposal, consider its costs and benefits to the people, and clearly explain the reasons for the recommendations. Please click “Elections & Campaigns” on the Main Menu to read the “Why” behind our recommendations.
Prop 1 – Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Bond: NO
Prop 2 – State Budget Stabilization Account: NO
Prop 45 – Healthcare Insurance. Rate Changes: NO
Prop 46 – Drug and Alcohol Testing of Doctors. Medical Negligence Lawsuit: NO
Prop 47 – Criminal Sentences. Misdemeanor Penalties: YES
Prop 48 – Indian Gaming Compacts: YES
We back up our YES/NO Recommendations with reasons for our view. Please read the “Why” behind what we recommend.
November 4 ELECTION DAY
October 28 Last Day to Request Vote-By-Mail
October 20 Last Day to Register to Vote
October 6 Early Voting at City Hall Begins
October 6 Mailing of Voter Pamphlets
San Francisco voters will have a chance to make their voices heard during the upcoming consolidated general elections. As always, the Libertarian Party of San Francisco urges voters to acquaint themselves with the issues and the candidates, consider not only the benefits they might perceive in promises made but also the unintended consequences of those promises, and vote!
As a lone Libertarian voice in an utterly progressive city, we endeavor to call attention to unintended consequences, and we ask the questions that need to be asked,
How many laws are too many laws, before personal initiative is killed?
Can we legislate away natural economic forces to achieve political outcomes?
Is people’s growing dependence on government a good thing?
What is the acceptable level of verbal or physical threat or of force to impose laws?
What do words such as “wage theft” or “transit related improvements” used on the ballot proposals mean?
Who is stealing what from whom?
We point to consequences and we ask such questions in ballot arguments we submit every election season. Our unpaid volunteers, none of them politicians and all of them dedicated Libertarians, write these arguments after carefully studying the ballot proposals.
LOCAL BALLOT MEASURES:
For the November 4, 2014 elections, three of the Libertarian Party of San Francisco ballot arguments won the chance to appear in the San Francisco voters’ pamphlet, so we hope you will take the time to read our point of view in the Official Opponents Arguments for the following ballot proposals:
Proposition C – Children’s Fund
Proposition E – Tax on Sugar-Sweetened Beverages
Proposition G – Additional Transfer Tax on Residential Property Sold Within 5 Years of Purchase
In addition to ballot arguments, our volunteers have summarized each ballot proposal, and made voter recommendations. We will post these on this website shortly after Labor Day.
The San Francisco November 4, 2014, ballot will once again be sheets long and rife with factions. This city seems to have a talent for whipping up divisiveness. “Transit First!” but blockades impede the development of a variety of transit, such as company-provided buses. “Walkable Cities!” but endless legislation taxes and regulates neighborhood small businesses to death. “Transportation Justice!” but policies ignore significant population sectors, such as working seniors (yes, lots of them in today’s difficult economic environment) who find it difficult or impossible to walk, bike, or take the bus to work.
Bonds to finance transportation should be of special concern to voters. Section 8A.105. Municipal Transportation Fund establishes “a fund to provide a predictable, stable, and adequate level of funding for the Agency, which shall be called the Municipal Transportation Fund. The fund shall be maintained separate and apart from all other City and County funds. Monies therein shall be appropriated, expended, or used by the Agency solely and exclusively for the operation including, without limitation, capital improvements, management, supervision, maintenance, extension, and day-to-day operation of the Agency…” We Libertarians continue to encourage City leaders to take such funds seriously. As things stand, revenues are not prioritized to fund basic City functions, and expensive bonds are used to do so.
Also, we would like to offer some thoughts on the proposed measures relating to transportation that are as of today, August 3, listed on the San Francisco Department of Elections website. We say “as of today,” since measures have been popping up and disappearing (at what cost?!) as the Mayor and Supervisors carry on their own fisticuffing. Please feel free to contact us anytime with your own thoughts. Click “Contact Us” for our email addresses and telephone number.
San Francisco Board of Supervisor John Avalos, along with co-signing Supervisors David Campos, Eric Mar, and Jane Kim, sponsored the above proposed resolution. The Board voted on July 8, 2014, to postpone a decision. This proposal has been around since September of 2013, when Supervisor David Campos urged the Board to adopt a similar measure. You can see our analysis of that 2013 proposal in our article, Supervisor Campos to Explore Underwater Property Eminent Domain.
The idea of seizing underwater mortgages from private lenders is not going away. To the contrary, according to what Supervisor Avalos indicated during the meeting of July 8, he is looking forward to working with the rest of the Board, the Controller’s Office, and the City Attorney to craft a Joint Powers Authority Ordinance to be introduced later in 2014 – note the reference to an ordinance, not a mere resolution.
The forging ahead with this proposal is occurring in spite of investors giving every indication that they stand ready to flood every entity involved with lawsuits. Wells Fargo, Deutsche, and Mellon banks have already sued, although, as the court decided, prematurely, since the plaintiffs had not yet been harmed. No doubt, everybody will be back in court as soon as any actual seizing of mortgages is attempted!
Although these investors are powerful corporations, they are not voters, upon whom Supervisors depend at election time. Therefore, as always, we encourage voters - ordinary citizens - to get acquainted with the issues, contact their government representatives, and vote wisely.
File No. 140709 starts out by proposing that San Francisco commend the City of Richmond for “their work on creating a Local Principle Reduction Program…” – emphasis ours – and gets worse with each “Whereas.” Here are our primary concerns with Supervisor Avalos proposal:
Applies only to homeowners who are still making payments on their mortgages. It does not apply to borrowers who are no longer able to pay, and are truly facing foreclosure.
Applies only to securitized mortgages. Traditional mortgages still being held by original lenders are not included, no matter how underwater they are.