JMC, Thanks for taking the time to do this. Here are my suggestions: Prop A: 1. While Proposition A lays out no specific plan to reduce San Francisco's contribution to global warming from its transportation sector, it requires the MTA create such a plan by Janaury 1, 2009. 2. With the exception of an increase in the number of supervisors required to approve an increase in the number of parking spaces allowed to be created by right and a decrease in the number of supervisors needed to lower the number of required parking spaces, Proposition A maintains the parking status quo. Proposition H, on the other hand, is a radical departure from 30 years of transit-based planning. Proposition H: 1. Proposition H makes deceptive concessions for low emission vehicles that essentially remove virtually all limits on the number of new parking spaces that can be created. Proposition H does this be exempting parking spaces that can be created for low emission vehicles from any legal limits. However, by 2008, almost all passenger cars and trucks in the United States will qualify as low emission. We think of Bangkok, Athens, Greece, and Mexico City -- some of the world's most congested metropolises -- when we think of Proposition H. Sue Please note: message attached These are proposed statements for our website and election newspaper (which we'll print instead of a slate card). Note that some have been approved already, while others are still in draft, and others still need to be written. I've noted the status of each, below. Please send proposed additions and corrections: -- Proposed statement about the Mayoral Candidates (still being drafted by various people; needs final approval by the CIWG): Grassroots Democracy is a key value of the Green Party. Our recommended candidates reflect that value in the best sense. The incumbent chose not to seek our endorsement. After careful consideration of the candidates' responses to our questionnaires and verbal presentations as part of our process, being inclusive, with a focus on the future and the well-being of all San Franciscans, the following candidates for Mayor are recommended by the SF Green Party (presented in alphabetical order): Lonnie Holmes did ??? Quintin Mecke did ??? and was a key part of the 2003 Gonzalez campaign. Ahimsa Sumchai has been a tireless advocate for environmental justice in the Bayview and Hunter's Point. Josh Wolf served a record jail sentence to defend the rights of journalists to protect the privacy of their sources and include alternative journalism in that protection. He supports participatory democracy, open government and has new ideas to effect his goals. --- Proposed statement about the D.A's race (written by JMC; needs final approval by the GM): No candidate for District Attorney sought the SF Green Party's endorsement. (do we want to say anything further about the incumbent?) --- Proposed statement about the Sheriff's race (written by JMC; needs final approval by the GM): We have issued a ranked endorsed for Sheriff. Incumbent Michael Hennessey is our number one choice, and David Wong is our number two choice. (does anybody want to add anything about why we support them?) -- Proposed statement on Prop A (approved by the Transpo WG; we will be seeking endorsement at the GM on Wednesday): Prop A: MUNI charter reform - YES The SF Green Party believes that as a Transit First city, SF must limit the amount of new parking that we build in order to ensure smooth operation of public transit. Prop A would only allow an increase in private parking above current limits with a supermajority (9 of 11 members) of the Board of Supervisors. On the other hand, lowering the current limits would require only a simple majority of the Board. This provision of Prop A would supersede Prop H (see discussion of Prop H below). [Note that Marc suggested adding language condemning Peskin's compromise that will result in a SOMA garage if a future prop in February passes; such concerns might mean a neutral position instead of YES]. We also support returning more control over the MTA budget to our elected representatives; Prop A lowers the current threshold of 8 members of the Board of Supervisors required to reject the budget to 7 members. We think this limit should be lowered to a simple majority, and include the power of line item veto. Prop A dedicates more city funds to the MTA. Although this would allow more stable funding for Muni, there is no new revenue source in this proposition; all new money would come from the General Fund. We have concerns that Prop A will continue the failed policies of a board consisting entirely of mayoral appointees, which has raised Muni fares twice in recent years rather than aggressively seeking other sources of funding. In a time of global warming and peak oil, SF needs radical rather than incremental improvement to our public transit system. Incremental tinkering with policy is NOT "Transit First." We also have concerns about greenwashing in Prop A, as there is much language urging environmental improvement by the MTA, but no proposed infrastructure or measures of accountability to ensure that these changes actually happen. Similarly, there is a lack of accountability for reaching Muni performance standards. We think the generous pay raises in Prop A for MTA employees should be linked to improvements in performance, in cases where the job duties of the employee have the potential to directly result in performance increases. Prop A also provides no incentive to improve MTA employee attendance. On balance, we support Prop A, and urge a YES vote. However, we hope that a stronger measure that addresses the deficiencies of this one will appear on a future ballot. --- Proposed statement on Prop B; written by JMC and requiring CIWG approval. Endorsement was already made by the GM. Prop B: Limiting hold-over service on charter-created Boards and Commissions - YES On many SF government boards and commissions, the appointed representatives may not be removed without cause, until they finish serving their terms. This theoretically allows the commissioners more independence from the person or body that appointed them. However, there is currently a major loophole: commissioners who have finished their terms may continue to serve indefinitely without being formally re-appointed, and may then be replaced at any time, without cause, by a new appointee. The current law has resulted in many commissioners serving second terms without having been formally re-appointed. These commissioners know they are on a "short leash" and may be replaced at any time if they make a decision that their appointing officials disagree with. Prop B closes this loophole, and requires that commissioners whose terms have expired be re-appointed within 6 months, or the position be declared vacant. Prop B will allow more commissioners to be more independent, and is in keeping with the original intent of the charter provision that requires cause for their removal. In the interests of clean government, the SF Green Party urges a YES vote on Prop B. -- Prop C: Requiring public hearings for proposed ballot measures We need to discuss this at the GM; can proponents and opponents please draft something before then, and send it to the list? -- Proposed statement on Prop D; written by JMC and requiring GM approval. This proposition has not yet been discussed--I'm just presenting my position and hope that a proponent of the measure will write an opposing argument. Prop D: Renewing library preservation fund - NO The SF Green Party opposes Prop D. Prop D would expand the current library preservation fund (which is a necessary means to pay for keeping our libraries open and buying books) to also allow bonds to be issued without voter approval. These bonds would pay for unspecified construction projects and equipment. For 15 years, only approval by the Supervisors and Mayor would be required to issue these bonds, not the usual approval threshold of a 2/3 majority of voters. [the following was modified from the GP of Alameda County's voter guide; they have more good language concerning bonds] The SF Green Party has often been hesitant to embrace bond financing. In addition to being environmentally and socially responsible, we are also fiscally responsible. Because people who buy bonds are almost exclusively the wealthy, as investors are paid back over the 20-30 year life of the bond, wealth is transferred from middle and low income taxpayers to rich bondholders. As noted in the Voter Guide in 1992, over 35,000 U.S. millionaires supplemented their income with tax exempt state and local bond checks averaging over $2,500 per week (that's over $130,000 per year tax free). They avoided paying federal and state taxes on over $5 billion which must be made up by the rest of us. The SF Green Party calls on the public to join us in working to phase out this regressive and unfair subsidy of the rich and their investment bankers (who take millions of dollars off the top when the bonds are issued). If Prop D passes, City funds would be used to pay the interest on the bonds, rather than going towards more open hours and library books. The proponents of Prop D argue that the funding is needed immediately to keep our libraries open; however, the current fund doesn't expire until 2009, which gives us several more elections to craft more fiscally responsible solutions that do not rely on bonds. Although the Prop D bonds would provide a short-term boost to library funds, repaying them will drain funds that will needed in the future. Prop D is a shortsighted solution that is not consistent with our Key Value of Future Focus, and we therefore oppose it. -- Proposed statement on Prop E; written by JMC and requiring CIWG approval. Endorsement was already made by the GM. Prop E: Requiring Mayor to appear monthly at a Board of Supervisors meeting - YES The SF Green Party strongly supports a YES vote on Prop E. Public debate over policy is a key part of the democratic process. In 2006, 56% of voters asked the Mayor to engage in formal policy discussions once per month at a Board of Supervisors meeting. The incumbent Mayor has ignored the will of the voters; Prop E will require future mayors to participate in this fundamental democratic process. -- Proposed statement on Prop F; written by JMC and requiring CIWG approval. Endorsement was already made by the GM. Prop F: Pork Not Police (a.k.a. Authorizing Board of Supervisors to amend contract for retirement benefits for police department employees who were airport police officers) - NO The SF Green Party opposes Prop F. For historical reasons, airport police officers currently receive retirement benefits through CalPERS, while other police officers receive City retirement benefits, which are better and more expensive for taxpayers to fund. Both groups of officers knew what type of benefits they were getting when they signed up. Instead of paying more benefits to airport police officers, additional money spent on our Police Department should be spent on community priorities, such as more foot patrols in SF neighborhoods with the highest crime rates. Prop F is a transparent attempt to buy the favors of the police union with public funds, and is a waste of taxpayer's money. The SF Green Party strongly opposes it. -- Prop G: Establishing Golden Gate Park stables matching fund No position taken so far. Concerns raised at the meeting are the there are far more important issues affecting SF residents, that there's no guarantee that the stables will be restricted to public uses only (i.e., public horse-power), and that the animals might be mistreated. We should finalize this at the GM; can anybody expand the above into a real proposed statement, and send it to the list before the GM? -- This statement has already been approved by the GM, although it can be overturned or modified by another GM: Prop H: Gridlock for Neighborhoods (a.k.a. Regulating parking spaces) - NO The SF Green Party strongly opposes Prop H. Prop H is an initiative backed by a parking lot development corporation that would slow MUNI service, violate SF's Transit First policy, increase housing costs, add to traffic gridlock, remove trees, increase global warming, and create dangerous conditions for pedestrians and cyclists. Prop H would require a minimum number of parking spaces to be built for each new housing unit, making housing more expensive and requiring that limited space be used to store cars instead of creating badly needed housing. Prop H would even override neighborhood development plans that call for fewer parking spaces in dense and transit-rich neighborhoods. Most San Franciscans have supported these plans in order to preserve their community's livability and character. Prop H would bring an influx of cars to all neighborhoods, resulting in traffic gridlock, dangerous conditions for cyclists, and even slower MUNI service. In an age of global warming, Prop H would increase carbon emissions, and is a step in the wrong direction. Worse, Prop H would allow developers to add private driveways and garage entrances wherever they want, eliminating public on-street parking, MUNI stops, and sidewalk trees. More private driveways would make it harder to find on-street parking, and more cars pulling in and out of garages would be dangerous for pedestrians. Removal of many street trees would be a detriment to the character and beauty of our city, in addition to the necessity of plants and the symbiotic dynamic to filter the airspace and contribute to oxygen. This amounts to the practice of clearcutting forests. Prop H is greenwashed with some minor concessions to car-sharing. Don't be fooled. The SF Green Party strongly urges you to vote NO on Prop H. -- Prop I: Establishing Office of Small Business as city departement and creating a Small Business Assistance Center We need to discuss this at the GM; can proponents and opponents please draft something before then, and send it to the list? -- Proposed statement on Prop J; written by JMC and requiring CIWG approval. Endorsement was already made by the GM. Prop J: Fake "Free" Wireless (a.k.a. Adopting a policy to offer free city-wide wireless high-speed Internet network) - NO The SF Green Party does not support any form of citywide communications infrastructure that is owned and/or effectively controlled by any private entity or corporation. Communications infrastructure such as internet or cable networks should be owned and controlled by the public, for the public interest. Prop J promises voters a free lunch, while not giving any of the ugly details of the corporate monopoly franchise deal the Mayor wants us to enter into with Google/Earthlink. It is also a purely advisory public relations tool that was created to allow the Mayor to circumvent Ethics rules on campaign financing. The SF Green Party strongly opposes it. -- Proposed statement on Prop K; written by JMC and requiring CIWG approval. Endorsement was already made by the GM. Prop K: Adopting a policy to restrict advertising on street furniture and city buildings - YES The SF Green Party urges a YES vote on Prop K. Prop K would restrict advertising on public street fixtures such as bus shelters and newspaper racks. Such objects are designed by advertising companies to provide optimal display of ads to street and automobile traffic, although they are not particularly effective for their stated purposes. Rather than clutter our City with useless ads, SF should put bus shelters where they are really needed, and use them to display useful information such as route maps. The SF Green Party also urges the City to enforce existing restrictions on the proliferation of private billboards. These ads often appear illegally on construction sites and private buildings, but their removal is not currently enforced by the City. Prop K addresses only the problem of excessive advertising on public street property, but both public and private ads should be limited. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/ Files & Documents Help signature.asc (1KB) Attachment (1KB) These are proposed statements for our website and election newspaper (which we'll print instead of a slate card). Note that some have been approved already, while others are still in draft, and others still need to be written. I've noted the status of each, below. Please send proposed additions and corrections: -- Proposed statement about the Mayoral Candidates (still being drafted by various people; needs final approval by the CIWG): Grassroots Democracy is a key value of the Green Party. Our recommended candidates reflect that value in the best sense. The incumbent chose not to seek our endorsement. After careful consideration of the candidates' responsesto our questionnaires and verbal presentations as part of our process, being inclusive, with a focus on the future and the well-being of all San Franciscans, the following candidates for Mayor are recommended by the SF Green Party (presented in alphabetical order): Lonnie Holmes did ??? Quintin Mecke did ??? and was a key part of the 2003 Gonzalez campaign. Ahimsa Sumchai has been a tireless advocate for environmental justice in the Bayview and Hunter's Point. Josh Wolf served a record jail sentence to defend the rights of journalists to protect the privacy of their sources and include alternative journalism in that protection. He supports participatory democracy, open government and has new ideas to effect his goals. --- Proposed statement about the D.A's race (written by JMC; needs final approval by the GM): No candidate for District Attorney sought the SF Green Party's endorsement. (do we want to say anything further about the incumbent?) --- Proposed statement about the Sheriff's race (written by JMC; needs final approval by the GM): We have issued a ranked endorsed for Sheriff. Incumbent Michael Hennessey is our number one choice, and David Wong is our number two choice. (does anybody want to add anything about why we support them?) -- Proposed statement on Prop A (approved by the Transpo WG; we will be seeking endorsement at the GM on Wednesday): Prop A: MUNI charter reform - YES The SF Green Party believes that as a Transit First city, SF must limit the amount of new parking that we build in order to ensure smooth operation of public transit. Prop A would only allow an increase in private parking above current limits with a supermajority (9 of 11 members) of the Board of Supervisors. On the other hand, lowering the current limits would require only a simple majority of the Board. This provision of Prop A would supersede Prop H (see discussion of Prop H below). [Note that Marc suggested adding language condemning Peskin's compromise that will result in a SOMA garage if a future prop in February passes; such concerns might mean a neutral position instead of YES]. We also support returning more control over the MTA budget to our elected representatives; Prop A lowers the current threshold of 8 members of the Board of Supervisors required to reject the budget to 7 members. We think this limit should be lowered to a simple majority, and include the power of line item veto. Prop A dedicates more city funds to the MTA. Although this would allow more stable funding for Muni, there is no new revenue source in this proposition; all new money would come from the General Fund. We have concerns that Prop A will continue the failed policies of a board consisting entirely of mayoral appointees, which has raised Muni fares twice in recent years rather than aggressively seeking other sources of funding. In a time of global warming and peak oil, SF needs radical rather than incremental improvement to our public transit system. Incremental tinkering with policy is NOT "Transit First." We also have concerns about greenwashing in Prop A, as there is much language urging environmental improvement by the MTA, but no proposed infrastructure or measures of accountability to ensure that these changes actually happen. Similarly, there is a lack of accountability for reaching Muni performance standards. We think the generous pay raises in Prop A for MTA employees should be linked to improvements in performance, in cases where the job duties of the employee have the potential to directly result in performance increases. Prop A also provides no incentive to improve MTA employee attendance. On balance, we support Prop A, and urge a YES vote. However, we hope that a stronger measure that addresses the deficiencies of this one will appear on a future ballot. --- Proposed statement on Prop B; written by JMC and requiring CIWG approval. Endorsement was already made by the GM. Prop B: Limiting hold-over service on charter-created Boards and Commissions - YES On many SF government boards and commissions, the appointed representatives may not be removed without cause, until they finish serving their terms. This theoretically allows the commissioners more independence from the person or body that appointed them. However, there is currently a major loophole: commissioners who have finished their terms may continue to serve indefinitely without being formally re-appointed, and may then be replaced at any time, without cause, by a new appointee. The current law has resulted in many commissioners serving second terms without having been formally re-appointed. These commissioners know they are on a "short leash" and may be replaced at any time if they make a decision that their appointing officials disagree with. Prop B closes this loophole, and requires that commissioners whose terms have expired be re-appointed within 6 months, or the position be declared vacant. Prop B will allow more commissioners to be more independent, and is in keeping with the original intent of the charter provision that requires cause for their removal. In the interests of clean government, the SF Green Party urges a YES vote on Prop B. -- Prop C: Requiring public hearings for proposed ballot measures We need to discuss this at the GM; can proponents and opponents please draft something before then, and send it to the list? -- Proposed statement on Prop D; written by JMC and requiring GM approval. This proposition has not yet been discussed--I'm just presenting my position and hope that a proponent of the measure will write an opposing argument. Prop D: Renewing library preservation fund - NO The SF Green Party opposes Prop D. Prop D would expand the current library preservation fund (which is a necessary means to pay for keeping our libraries open and buying books) to also allow bonds to be issued without voter approval. These bonds would pay for unspecified construction projects and equipment. For 15 years, only approval by the Supervisors and Mayor would be required to issue these bonds, not the usual approval threshold of a 2/3 majority of voters. [the following was modified from the GP of Alameda County's voter guide; they have more good language concerning bonds] The SF Green Party has often been hesitant to embrace bond financing. In addition to being environmentally and socially responsible, we are also fiscally responsible. Because people who buy bonds are almost exclusively the wealthy, as investors are paid back over the 20-30 year life of the bond, wealth is transferred from middle and low income taxpayers to rich bondholders. As noted in the Voter Guide in 1992, over 35,000 U.S. millionaires supplemented their income with tax exempt state and local bond checks averaging over $2,500 per week (that's over $130,000 per year tax free). They avoided paying federal and state taxes on over $5 billion which must be made up by the rest of us. The SF Green Party calls on the public to join us in working to phase out this regressive and unfair subsidy of the rich and their investment bankers (who take millions of dollars off the top when the bonds are issued). If Prop D passes, City funds would be used to pay the interest on the bonds, rather than going towards more open hours and library books. The proponents of Prop D argue that the funding is needed immediately to keep our libraries open; however, the current fund doesn't expire until 2009, which gives us several more elections to craft more fiscally responsible solutions that do not rely on bonds. Although the Prop D bonds would provide a short-term boost to library funds, repaying them will drain funds that will needed in the future. Prop D is a shortsighted solution that is not consistent with our Key Value of Future Focus, and we therefore oppose it. -- Proposed statement on Prop E; written by JMC and requiring CIWG approval. Endorsement was already made by the GM. Prop E: Requiring Mayor to appear monthly at a Board of Supervisors meeting - YES The SF Green Party strongly supports a YES vote on Prop E. Public debate over policy is a key part of the democratic process. In 2006, 56% of voters asked the Mayor to engage in formal policy discussions once per month at a Board of Supervisors meeting. The incumbent Mayor has ignored the will of the voters; Prop E will require future mayors to participate in this fundamental democratic process. -- Proposed statement on Prop F; written by JMC and requiring CIWG approval. Endorsement was already made by the GM. Prop F: Pork Not Police (a.k.a. Authorizing Board of Supervisors to amend contract for retirement benefits for police department employees who were airport police officers) - NO The SF Green Party opposes Prop F. For historical reasons, airport police officers currently receive retirement benefits through CalPERS, while other police officers receive City retirement benefits, which are better and more expensive for taxpayers to fund. Both groups of officers knew what type of benefits they were getting when they signed up. Instead of paying more benefits to airport police officers, additional money spent on our Police Department should be spent on community priorities, such as more foot patrols in SF neighborhoods with the highest crime rates. Prop F is a transparent attempt to buy the favors of the police union with public funds, and is a waste of taxpayer's money. The SF Green Party strongly opposes it. -- Prop G: Establishing Golden Gate Park stables matching fund No position taken so far. Concerns raised at the meeting are the there are far more important issues affecting SF residents, that there's no guarantee that the stables will be restricted to public uses only (i.e., public horse-power), and that the animals might be mistreated. We should finalize this at the GM; can anybody expand the above into a real proposed statement, and send it to the list before the GM? -- This statement has already been approved by the GM, although it can be overturned or modified by another GM: Prop H: Gridlock for Neighborhoods (a.k.a. Regulating parking spaces) - NO The SF Green Party strongly opposes Prop H. Prop H is an initiative backed by a parking lot development corporation that would slow MUNI service, violate SF's Transit First policy, increase housing costs, add to traffic gridlock, remove trees, increase global warming, and create dangerous conditions for pedestrians and cyclists. Prop H would require a minimum number of parking spaces to be built for each new housing unit, making housing more expensive and requiring that limited space be used to store cars instead of creating badly needed housing. Prop H would even override neighborhood development plans that call for fewer parking spaces in dense and transit-rich neighborhoods. Most San Franciscans have supported these plans in order to preserve their community's livability and character. Prop H would bring an influx of cars to all neighborhoods, resulting in traffic gridlock, dangerous conditions for cyclists, and even slower MUNI service. In an age of global warming, Prop H would increase carbon emissions, and is a step in the wrong direction. Worse, Prop H would allow developers to add private driveways and garage entrances wherever they want, eliminating public on-street parking, MUNI stops, and sidewalk trees. More private driveways would make it harder to find on-street parking, and more cars pulling in and out of garages would be dangerous for pedestrians. Removal of many street trees would be a detriment to the character and beauty of our city, in addition to the necessity of plants and the symbiotic dynamic to filter the airspace and contribute to oxygen. This amounts to the practice of clearcutting forests. Prop H is greenwashed with some minor concessions to car-sharing. Dont be fooled. The SF Green Party strongly urges you to vote NO on Prop H. -- Prop I: Establishing Office of Small Business as city departement and creating a Small Business Assistance Center We need to discuss this at the GM; can proponents and opponents please draft something before then, and send it to the list? -- Proposed statement on Prop J; written by JMC and requiring CIWG approval. Endorsement was already made by the GM. Prop J: Fake "Free" Wireless (a.k.a. Adopting a policy to offer free city-wide wireless high-speed Internet network) - NO The SF Green Party does not support any form of citywide communications infrastructure that is owned and/or effectively controlled by any private entity or corporation. Communications infrastructure such as internet or cable networks should be owned and controlled by the public, for the public interest. Prop J promises voters a free lunch, while not giving any of the ugly details of the corporate monopoly franchise deal the Mayor wants us to enter into with Google/Earthlink. It is also a purely advisory public relations tool that was created to allow the Mayor to circumvent Ethics rules on campaign financing. The SF Green Party strongly opposes it. -- Proposed statement on Prop K; written by JMC and requiring CIWG approval. Endorsement was already made by the GM. Prop K: Adopting a policy to restrict advertising on street furniture and city buildings - YES The SF Green Party urges a YES vote on Prop K. Prop K would restrict advertising on public street fixtures such as bus shelters and newspaper racks. Such objects are designed by advertising companies to provide optimal display of ads to street and automobile traffic, although they are not particularly effective for their stated purposes. Rather than clutter our City with useless ads, SF should put bus shelters where they are really needed, and use them to display useful information such as route maps. The SF Green Party also urges the City to enforce existing restrictions on the proliferation of private billboards. These ads often appear illegally on construction sites and private buildings, but their removal is not currently enforced by the City. Prop K addresses only the problem of excessive advertising on public street property, but both public and private ads should be limited. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/