#sfpolitics | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

thepoliticalbreakdown · 6 years

Text

Vote 2018: California Midterm Elections

Two years later, we’re back. I miss political blogging sometimes but adulthood only leaves room for so much.

Anyway.

Did a quick writeup of the local propositions (San Francisco) and state measures on the California ballot. Let me know your thoughts, and go vote! First, the local measures.

Prop A: Seawall Renovations.

Yes. Seems fairly straightforward to both fix and upgrade a 100-year-old seawall so that SF infrastructure doesn’t get owned by the inevitable catastrophic climate change (unless we seize the state and radically shift from a thing oriented society to a person and land oriented society including rapidly shifting away from carbon technologies and redefining efficiency as sustainability, but that’s neither here nor there). The detracting arguments seem fairly petty and unconvincing, saying that sea-facing businesses and residents should fix it themselves. I think it’s the government’s job to take care of large public projects and threats to public works, so going to disagree.

Prop B: Privacy Policy.

This one is tricky, but I’m saying Yes. It’s largely symbolic at this point, stating that privacy is important and setting timelines for coming up with concrete privacy guidelines. The major detracting arguments come from the Sunshine Ordinance on public records and concerns that SF officials could tamper and limit it. After doing some reading this concerns seem overblown. Many groups are already watching for it, officials seem to somewhat flout the ordinance already, and the City Attorney has stated he won’t sign off on anything of the sort. So I think for better or worse we’re ok, and I agree with putting plans in place for comprehensive policy on privacy.

Prop C: Taxing Big Businesses to fund Homeless Services.

Yes. This is the big one, and by far the most contentious. Detractors argue there is not adequate accountability or a plan to spend the 300 million this would bring in. That the plan for homelessness is already rife with mismanagement. I was pretty swayed at first, but I have strongly U-turned. For starters, the money is being used for definitive action. Additional shelter for 1k people, cutting to the root (or one of the roots) of the problem by helping over 7k households avoid homeless, and creating 4k supportive car homes. There will be a committee put in place to manage the money and make sure it’s being used adequately. There are big provisions for mental health services as well. I could go on about this one for a while, but anyone who lives in SF knows how bad the situation is, and I simply cannot say no to taxing large tech companies who have brought in an influx of well-paid tech workers - myself included - to take a dramatic swing at homelessness in SF. And no, tech companies are far from solely to blame for homeless in SF. It’s complicated, yes. But they can handle this tax on profits over 50 million, and I want to see the homeless situation get better. Strongly encourage a Yes vote.

https://48hills.org/2018/08/propc-progressive-politics/

Prop D: Cannabis Tax.

Yes, albeit tentatively. However, most other major cities tax their new cannabis industries and do not seem to have come to great harm. Furthermore, the cannabis industry pushed for it to be delayed - and it was, until 2021. This will give the new industry more time to settle. It would also be relatively simple for the Board of Supervisors to modify the tax rate if needed or lobbied for. Welcome to have my mind changed, but it seems alright to me. Prop E: Hotel Tax to the Arts. Yes. Kind of an odd one. Without increasing the tax on hotel rooms, this would allocate a set portion of that money to the arts instead of all of it going into a general fund. I’m going to say yes because art is important and I’m a huge fan of supporting arts initiatives. The only detracting args seem to come from people worried that other taxes will rise because of this money not going directly to the general fund. But I’m doubtful that this is enough money to cause a huge uproar in the general fund. I’m open to having my mind changed, but Yes for now.

Second, the state-wide measures. This is going to be fast and a little rough around the edges. Happy to hear differing opinions.

Prop 1: Bonds to fund housing assistance programs.

Yes. This authorizes $4 billion in bonds for affordable housing programs and veteran home owning programs. I’m for anything that helps to alleviate California’s lack of affordable housing. We need it, so let’s fund it and let’s build it.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-proposition-1-endorsement-20181009-story.html

Prop 2: Bonds to fund housing programs for individuals with mental illness.

Yes, absolutely. Mental health is real and there is a glut of homeless people suffering with mental conditions. Let’s back initiatives to get them the help they need.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/endorsements/la-ed-proposition-2-mentally-ill-housing-20181002-story.html

Prop 3: Bonds to fund water projects.

This is a tricky one. It’s a lot of money to support very regional interests, but it’s also public infrastructure, which I’m generally in favor of supporting. The LA Times, which I follow and often trust, says no. The League of Pissed-off Voters says it was one of their most contentious but squeaks by on a yes. There isn’t a perfect answer because while some of the money is going towards pretty legitimate public projects, a good chunk is going to private projects and powerful farms. This seems weird to me. I’m torn, but going with No.

Prop 4: Funds for Children’s Hospitals.

This one’s also weird. Private children’s hospitals lobbied to get it on the ballot. It’s hard to vote against something like a children’s hospital but I have questions about its necessity, especially since tax money would be going to private orgs. I know some people who are voting No as it’s possibly a shady method of private hospitals loading up on money they could pony up themselves. Still, the LA Times and League SF both acknowledge the oddities but ultimately find it legitimate. So I’ll got with Yes.

http://www.theleaguesf.org/#prop4

Prop 5: Expand Prop 13 for Property Owners.

This one is way deeper than I can cover here. Long story short, it allows homeowners to transfer low property tax to other residences of greater value where they’d be paying more. Local communities would lose out on this property tax. Most sources seem to peg us it as another easy method for the rich to get richer and avoid paying their taxes. This one is definitely a No.

Prop 6: Repeal the Gas Tax.

Listen, I’m going to keep this short. The answer is No. Do not repeal the gas tax. There’s a massive backlog of needed road fix and improvement projects that the gas and vehicle tax helps fund. Vote No.

https://cal.streetsblog.org/2018/09/27/fact-checking-arguments-for-repealing-the-gas-tax/

Prop 7: Permanent Daylight Savings.

Whatever. DST is outdated and frankly I think it can go. Yes.

Prop 8: Regulating Dialysis Clinic Charges.

So private for-profit dialysis clinics make a ton of money in profits, which is pretty mediocre. I’m all for providing a service and being compensated for it, but wild profits off others’ medical malaise leaves a bad taste in my mouth. This one is a deeply contentious one. Some say absolutely yes mostly because they’re annoyed with dialysis clinic profits (I agree but it seems a little petty and unfocused too). Others say this could drive out much-needed clinics and we should absolutely not. The problem is, I’m simply not sure what the cap would *do*, and the hardcore “yes” sources seem to very obviously avoid answering that. I’m going to say No, but of all the state and local measurements this is one I’m most receptive to further input.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-dialysis-20180720-story.html

Edit: In the course of writing this, I changed my mind to a tentative yes. If only because capping massive profits on healthcare seems important for turning America into the country it very much is not but could be.

Prop 10: End Restrictions on Rent Control.

This is the “Prop C” of the state measures. Likely the most contentious. I’m voting Yes. It’s a longer story but Costa-Hawkins has been a source of conflict since it was passed and limited enacting rent control. Prop 10 does not enact rent control, but it allows it to be a tool that local government can use to combat homelessness, displacement, and skyrocketing rent. Do your reading - there’s plenty of it on this one - but I’ll reiterate my Yes.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/endorsements/la-ed-endorsement-proposition-10-20180915-story.html

https://48hills.org/2018/10/new-study-says-rent-control-doesnt-discourage-new-housing/

Prop 11: Requiring EMTs to remain on-call during work breaks.

Tentative no. I feel like there’s a lot more to this than even the few articles I’ve read has gotten across, but it seems weird for me for ambulance companies to use a ballot measure to win what effectively a labor dispute. Also, don’t call me on my lunch break.

Prop 12: More Space for Farm Animals.

Ugh. Yes. Increase the space that farm animals live in. I don’t love the fact that costs would go up slightly, but from a moral standpoint better conditions for animals I believe trumps it. Yes.

Phew. Cheers. Midterm elections here we come.

Edit: If you want to read more, my sources were mostly The LA Times, the SF Chronicle (though I take them with a lump of salt, as I strongly disagree with their "No" on Prop C), 48 Hills, a careful reading of the City and County of San Francisco Voter Information Pamphlet, and the SF League of Pissed-Off Voters.

#politics #election #rockthevote #propc #sanfrancisco #localpolitics #sfpolitics #sanfranciscopolitics #homelessness

4 notes · View notes