my votes in San Francisco election
kragen at pobox.com
Tue Nov 2 11:10:29 EST 2004
California ballot measures:
59: yes. Transparency measure.
60: no; counterbalances 62.
60A: yes; makes it harder to hide deficit spending
61: no; bond, largely to fund private hospitals.
62: no; doesn't improve things and may discourage further electoral
64: no. Tort reform.
65: no, switch to 1A.
66: yes, reduce "three strikes" law.
67: yes, regressive tax for a good cause, emergency care.
68: no. stupid gambling fucks.
69: no. DNA samples.
70: no. unreasonable rights grab by casinos.
71: no. Stem cell research is good, but too expensive.
72: yes, provisionally; may have significant negative effects on
San Francisco ballot measures:
A, Affordable Housing Bonds: yes. Will raise rent for un-poor people
like me by an insignificant amount, while creating capital
improvements that will ameliorate the homelessness problem. Also
endorsed by ten supervisors, so it's guaranteed to not be too wacky.
B. Historical Preservation Bonds: yes. Similarly, raises rent by an
insignificant amount, while creating capital improvements that will
preserve San Francisco's history. Also endorsed by ten supervisors.
C. Health Service System: yes. This increases both accountability and
possibilities for corruption in the City's health service system, and
nine supervisors endorse it.
D. Changes to City Charter: yes. No strong arguments against, and the
changes appear to me to be improvements, and they are endorsed by
E. Police and Fire Survivor Benefits: yes. Although the cost is
significant, it seems to be a worthwhile cause, and is endorsed by
F. Non-citizen Voting in School Board Elections: yes. Improves
democracy and accountability for a trivial cost. Endorsed by nine
G. Health Plans for City Residents: yes. A step towards universal
health care coverage; health care for everyone who coughs on me on
Muni, Caltrain, or BART would significantly improve my own health.
Unknown whether it would actually help, but that's a future step.
Endorsed by ten supervisors.
H. Renaming Candlestick Park to Candlestick Park: yes. Whoring out
City properties for advertising is not an acceptable way to balance
the budget. Endorsed by only four supervisors, apparently because the
cost is about $4 per San Franciscan per year.
I. Economic Analysis of Legislation: no. Sounds like an official
propaganda office for Hayekians to rail against higher taxes, at the
cost of perhaps 50 cents per San Franciscan per year. Endorsed by
only four supervisors.
J. Sales Tax Increase from 8.5% to 8.75%: yes. Although it's a
regressive tax, it's not a particularly onerous one, and it doesn't
seem likely to drive much business elsewhere. Endorsed by eight
K. Business Tax: ???. An 0.1% gross receipts tax is pretty large for
low-margin businesses like supermarkets, and the new extension of the
1.5% payroll tax to partnerships ("clarification") seems like it could
have a dramatic effect on partnerships.
L. Save Our Theaters: no. What the fuck are they thinking?
N: Withdrawing US Military Personnel from Iraq: yes. While rapidly
withdrawing US troops from Iraq could have an adverse effect on the
region, "taking immediate steps to end the US occupation" would not.
O: Use of Sales Tax Funds: no. I do not have any opinion on whether
support programs for old people, poor people, etc. have a greater need
for new money than other City programs, and consequently I do not wish
to express such an opinion to the City Council.
AA. BART general obligation bond: yes. I'd like to see actual
improvements to BART as well, of course, but preventing damage to it
has a higher priority, despite the enormous cost of this measure.
More information about the Kragen-tol