San Francisco Prop A-C, 2022 Edition
It’s that time a year again when California voters get to play lawmaker. San Francisco’s ballot measures go all the way up to the letter O this year, and Deliberatus hasn’t even looked at state propositions. As always, I would note that this is no way to run a government. We elect people do our lawmaking for us. But here we are, so I must pull up my policy boots and act as though I myself hold office.
Today we’ll deliberate Propositions A-C.
Prop A: Raising Pension Payouts
Prop A would raise pension payouts for city employees in years when the pension system is not fully funded, but those raises would be capped at $200 per month for people with a pension of more than $50,000. Prop A only applies to employees who retired before November 6, 1996. It would also give the City Retirement Board more flexibility for paying its executive director.
The City Controller estimates this would cost about $8 million per year, which about two-thirds of the money coming from the City’s General Fund. It would apply to roughly 4,500 retirees.
Arguments in Favor
All 11 supervisors voted to place Prop A on the ballot. Most supporters are who you would expect: Unions and retirees.
There are no arguments in opposition.
Except mine. A “fully funded” pension system is one that can pay what it owes. As a believer in pensions I place that common sense financial metric above any other consideration. We simply cannot put the pension system at risk, no matter who small the risk may be or how good we’ll feel by doing it. Bizarrely, Prop A would pay the increase retroactively for the past five years. Why five? Why not 10? 15? Let’s just go all the way back to 1996.
Deliberatus is sorry to be the bad guy here. Vote no on Prop A.
It is so deliberated.
Prop B: Eliminating the Department of Sanitation and Streets
Prop B would move all duties from the Department of Sanitation and Streets to the Department of Public Works. You might recognize the DSS because we just voted to create it two years ago. Now they’re proposing to uncreate it. The Controller estimates the city would save around $3 million per year to start but grow in future years. Ending the DSS would eliminate 12 jobs in addition to reducing overhead.
This is such an easy no I’m not even going to waste your time laying out the arguments. All the people who didn’t like the original proposition last time are still in office so they put this on the ballot in a pathetic attempt to get their way this time. Revoking a proposition we passed two years ago is exactly why this whole citizen lawmaking process is stupid.
The thing that pisses me off about Prop B is maybe this really is the better way to do what the 2020 proposition did. You’ll recall at the time I was a less-than-enthusiastic yes vote. It certainly did create new and costly bureaucracy. Maybe the contract approval and annual review requirements will be too heavy handed. But let’s at least give what we voted for a shot before we throw it out.
I cannot close this deliberation without mentioning supporters are using “Oversight done right” as the slogan for their Prop B campaign. Many of them are the same supervisors and political parties who have so catastrophically failed at their jobs governing this city that it makes my blood boil. Don’t make me step over piss on the sidewalk and tell me it’s raining, you fools. The mere fact that you’ll lie to our faces by pretending to give one iota about oversight is proof of how stupid you think we are and how little you deserve to hold office.
Absent the 2020 vote, if you brought Prop B to me right now I’d probably say yeah let’s give this a shot. Maybe the time will come when its proposed changes make sense. That time is not two years after creating the department they now want to eliminate. Vote no on B.
It is do deliberated.
Prop C: Creating a Homelessness Oversight Commission
Prop C would create a new Homelessness Oversight Commission to watch over the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing, which voters created in 2016. The board would have seven members—four appointed by the mayor (subject to BoS approval and three by the Board of Supervisors itself. Prop C lays out the qualifications each of the seven board members must have. It wouldn’t cost more than a few hundred grand.
Arguments in favor
The whole Board again shows in favor of the proposition it placed on the ballot. They justify the need for the new commission by pointing out the number of homeless people rose 13 percent since voters created the DHSH and that its $672 million budget needs some overshot.
Arguments opposed
Some Republicans crawled out of hiding to point out the “homeless non-profit complex” cannot be reigned in by a complex of another sort.
Remember how Deliberatus went off about the Board’s sudden infatuation with oversight while discussing Prop B? Here come the same clowns.
HOW ABOUT THEY DO THEIR JOB AND PROVIDE OVERSIGHT? Shouldn’t this be what we expect of the people we elect? Perhaps they are too busy doing other things. MAYBE THEY SHOULD CUT BACK THE SIZE AND SCOPE OF GOVERNMENT so they can provide this oversight they are so hard up for then. Imagine all the sights they could over! Of course this will never happen. Bigger government gives them more power.
The vengeful conservative in me says let the Department’s budget climb to a million billion dollars and let it all go to waste. Maybe that will teach San Francisco voters that approving the tax increase du jour (we raised taxes to fight homelessness in 2018; newsflash it raised a lot of money and did not fight homelessness) always has been and always will be a poor idea.
But that wouldn’t do any good. We have to let common sense rise above owning the libs. Nevertheless, Deliberatus urges a no vote on Prop C in the name of demanding our elected officials do their jobs.
It is so deliberated.