San Francisco Proposition A (2020)
Ballot measures are no way to run a government. Constitutional amendments notwithstanding, we elect people to make these decisions for us. I shouldn’t have to educate myself on the best way to clean up trash or staff the police department, and I oppose the initiative and referendum (I&R) process entirely.
Yet it exists and our esteemed lawmakers love to use it. Therefore despite my personal objectives to the game I must play along. In the deliberations below I’ll put my policy hat on and act as if I’m an elected official.
In this update we’ll deliberate on Proposition A facing San Francisco voters in 2020.
SF Prop A: Health and Homelessness, Parks and Street Bond
Prop A would borrow up to $960,000,000* to spend on homelessness, parks and recreation facilities and the usual street improvements or repairs. When this raises property taxes for landlords, they may pass up to half of the increase on to their tenants (officially. They’ll find another way to recapture the other half.) This requires two-thirds of voters who vote on the question to pass.
Homelessness: $207,000,000 plus interest
Huge problem in this city, and it’s no surprise the government is turning to citizens for even more money to deal with it. Perhaps if they’d adequately handled it from the beginning…lol this is a far-far-left city government we’re talking about. I’ll be more realistic. Funds will go to “stabilize, improve and make permanent investments in” a number of efforts on housing, shelters, substance use and mental health. All needed, clearly.
I would not be wild about borrowing to fund program spending, something I think should be done on an annual budget basis. But judging by the text of the proposal the funds would housing and shelters, which I find it much more palatable to borrow for. Opponents’ arguments call this into question and I’ve been unable to get any clarifying information from elected officials.
Parks + Streets: $280,500,000 plus interest
Long-term capital expenses should be funded through borrowing, but the city goes to laughable lengths to justify it in the proposal by citing surveys that show 83 percent of adults love their parks. No shit? Don’t forget about the urban agriculture benefits! LOL come on, just tell me what you’re funding.
According to the proposition, $239,000,000 plus interest of this debt would go to parks and $41,500,000 plus interest would go to streets. I find this amount backwards. In fact the bond calls for $101,000,000 plus interest for neighborhood parks alone.
The priority here is baffling. I can’t support something that messed up. Sorry not sorry, but street maintenance before parks every time.
What’s not a justification for borrowing money?
“Creating jobs.” Says the proposition: “Infrastructure investment is a known and tested jobs stimulus strategy with a strong multiplier effect, estimated at 5.93 jobs for every million dollars in construction spending.” This is according to something called REMI, which I had never heard of but appears to be an organization dedicated to justifying government.
Government should run taxpayers into debt to fund things it can’t for up front: Buildings, roads, long-term assets. If those things create jobs—and they do, though exactly how many is up for debate (sorry REMI)—that’s great but job creation should not be a factor in whether or not a borrowing measure is worth supporting.
“Deferred maintenance.” The city reports nearly $800,000,000 in deferred maintenance for streets and facilities, with another$950,000,000 in parks and rec maintenance. That sucks for all of us, but it’s no taxpayers’ fault their Board of Supervisors did their job like shit, why are we expected to bail them out with whatever is left in our bank accounts after the federal, state and city governments take their cut? Perhaps if someone had the guts to say no to one of the “220 parks…181 playgrounds, 82 recreation centers, 37 community gardens and 29 off-leash dog areas” maybe we wouldn’t be in this position.
Opposing arguments
The opposing argument on Prop A comes from Craig Weber. Craig rightly refers to the full principle & interest amount and raises something I failed to catch in reading the information provided by the city: The mayor appears to have proposed using the money for program spending. Bad!
“Why are we borrowing more funds to support services that have been budgeted for expenditures from the General Fund?” he asks.
Deliberatus wonders the same. This is how government grows out of control. The mayor seems to gloss right over this in her rebuttal, which really isn’t a rebuttal at all. Disappointing and probably a sign Craig is onto something.
Other paid arguments opposing Prop A are more frontal: “[Prop A] lays bare City Hall’s addiction to taxpayer dollars. They simply cannot stop!” It also points out the city borrowed money for parks in 2000, 2008 and 2012 which makes me wonder WTF happened in 2004 and 2016. Seems like the plan is to take advantage of the higher turnout in presidential years to drive us into debt.
The Libertarians also weigh in, pointing out it’s long past time the city “lift its excessive restrictions on building housing…” Amen. It’s ridiculous to take in one of the gorgeous and expansive views of this city and see nothing but single-family homes.
Supporting arguments
These come first and foremost from elected officials, which is no surprise. They strain to point out Prop A does not in fact raise taxes because the city has a policy of retiring old debt before taking on new debt. Great! They fail to mention what would happen if we don’t take on new debt. Deliberatus is no fool, our taxes won’t go down. But perhaps these proposals could be required to disclose how much taxes could go down if they don’t pass. Then at least citizens would have adequate and honest information before they vote.
Supporting arguments also do well to highlight specific city facilities in the hopes you’ll recognize one and feel an emotional attachment to your vote. A common tactic among the spending class. Deliberatus is not so easily fooled.
There are several of these arguments attached to this link. You only need to read the first one. The rest appear to be the entire city council repeating and signing their names the exact same text. With efficiency like that you can only scratch your head at why San Francisco is such a mess. They do this again with the non-rebuttal rebuttal. The lack of self-awareness astounds.
Then we get into my favorite part of San Francisco’s ballot measures: All the community groups lining up to say “Us, too!” It’s our great political circle jerk and woe to the person or interest who doesn’t make an appearance. One group scanned its page upside down. Because there’s always someone.
What’s most notable is they make few actual policy arguments. “Parks are great; vote yes.” Wonderful! You’re trying to commit us to spending nearly $1,000,000,000. Fucking inspire me.
Resolution: Voting no.
It’s difficult to walk the streets of what should be a beautiful city and not understand the crisis of humanity happening all around us. It’s doubly difficult to vote against it. But the city’s failure to control its appetite for parks, inexplicable failure to prioritize street funding and mischievous attempt to tie much-needed homelessness funds together with the previous two should items be rejected by San Francisco voters with this message:
Do your damn jobs. Take care of what you have or cut back if you can’t afford to take care of it all. Place more emphasis on fixing our streets, a core role of any local government. And don’t cowardly hide behind the shield of the homeless crisis to trick us into bailing you out.
It is so deliberated.
—-
*Deliberatus cites the principle plus interest cost of borrowing whenever such cost is given and adds “plus interest” to any figure where it is not. There is no magic pot of free money to pay interest, it comes from taxpayers. We deserve to see the full amount we’re being asked to fork over.
Footnote: I see here the Board of Supervisors is authorized to “adopt future ordinances authorizing tenants to seek waivers from the pass-through based on financial hardship.” Which begs the question: If your taxes create a financial hardship why don’t you not collect so many?