The following is a tabular summary of my voting preferences for the
2004 General Election to be held November 2, 2004. I am a resident of
San Francico's District 1 (the Richmond District), and have only
researched the contests in which I am eligible to
vote. §
| Propositions |
| 1A |
Protection of Local Government Revenues |
NO |
locks in sales tax; strange property tax stuff |
| 59 |
Public Records, Open Meetings. |
NO |
This claims to add a constitutional endorsement of the
public's right to visibility into the government's workings,
but includes so many exceptions it's laughable. It upholds all
existing statutory exceptions to public records and open
meetings, and completely exempts the Legislature! |
| 60 |
Election Rights of Political Parties. |
NO |
but not because it doesn't go far enough |
| 60A |
Surplus Property. |
NO |
ties hands of legislators; what is done now? |
| 61 |
Children's Hospital Projects. Grant Program. Bond Act. |
NO |
bond issue |
| 62 |
Elections. Primaries. |
NO |
This is a totally bogus scheme. Smaller parties won't even
appear on the November ballot, and any larger party with
multiple viable candidates will have its vote split and lose
out. Worse still, most of the decision in any contest will be
made in the lower-turnout primary election rather than the
higher-turnout general election. For real election reform see
www.approvalvoting.org
and www.fairvote.org. |
| 63 |
Mental Health Services Expansion, Funding.
Tax on Personal Incomes Above $1 Million. |
NO |
new tax |
| 64 |
Limits on Private Enforcement of Unfair Business
Competition Laws. |
NO |
I'm sympathetic to the motivation of this proposal, but we
need to be very careful when tinkering with the ability to
bring lawsuits, and the proponents have not provided
substantial evidence for these restrictions. Also note that 64
includes a provision to change how money won by the State in
lawsuits it pursues can be spent, which is unnecessary. |
| 65 |
Local Government Funds, Revenues. State Mandates. |
NO |
The proponents are backing 1A instead, though I also oppose
that proposition. |
| 66 |
Limitations on "Three Strikes" Law. Sex Crimes.
Punishment. |
NO |
The basic idea of this proposal is more sane than the
existing law, but there's just too much tinkering going on. In
addition to requiring the third strike to be a "violent or
serious felony", this proposal changes the definition of
"violent or serious", which applies even outside of the Three
Strikes rule, so that fewer crimes are considered violent or
serious; and at the same time it introduces new One Strike and
Two Strikes rules to require life sentences for some crimes on
the first or second offense. |
| 67 |
Emergency Medical Services. Funding. Telephone
Surcharge. |
NO |
new tax |
| 68 |
Non-Tribal Commercial Gambling Expansion. Tribal Gaming
Compact Amendments. Revenues, Tax Exemptions. |
NO |
68 and 70 are both just nutty. We're being asked to step in
the middle of negotiations between the Governor, tribal
casinos, and non-tribal casinos. 68 is from the non-tribal
casinos, and 70 is from the tribal casinos; both "authorize"
the Governor to "negotiate" specific terms with ultimatums if
he doesn't do it or the other parties don't agree. Both 68 and
70 are one-sided proposals that are bad for the State. Let the
Governor's negotiations stand unless we want to make a real,
sensible change to the law, which neither of these proposals
does. |
| 69 |
DNA Samples. Collection. Database. Funding. |
NO |
invasion of privacy; violation of due process |
| 70 |
Tribal Gaming Compacts. Exclusive Gaming Rights.
Contributions to State. |
NO |
68 and 70 are both just nutty. We're being asked to step in
the middle of negotiations between the Governor, tribal
casinos, and non-tribal casinos. 68 is from the non-tribal
casinos, and 70 is from the tribal casinos; both "authorize"
the Governor to "negotiate" specific terms with ultimatums if
he doesn't do it or the other parties don't agree. Both 68 and
70 are one-sided proposals that are bad for the State. Let the
Governor's negotiations stand unless we want to make a real,
sensible change to the law, which neither of these proposals
does. |
| 71 |
Stem Cell Research. Funding. Bonds. |
NO |
Besides my default objection to raising taxes and growing
the government bureaucracy, 71 locks this funding to a specific
kind of research rather than going to whatever medical research
is actually the most effective. It's a play by pharmaceutical
companies on the current attention this one issue is
getting. |
| 72 |
Health Care Coverage Requirements. |
NO |
Your employer has nothing inherently to do with your
healthcare. Your trade union would be a better source for
health coverage (or even your credit union, for that
matter). It makes no sense to force employment agreements to
include health coverage, and it's even worse to add another
level of state bureaucracy to the cost of it all. |
| Measures |
| A |
Affordable Housing Bonds |
NO |
If we want to help more people buy homes in San Francisco,
we should be repealing rent control and encouraging more condo
conversion rather than issuing general-obligation bonds (which
will have to be paid back twice over with higher property
taxes!) to implement inefficient bureaucratic development
projects. |
| B |
Historical Preservation Bonds |
NO |
|
| C |
Health Service System |
NO |
|
| D |
Changes to City Charter |
NO |
|
| E |
Police & Fire Survivor Benefits |
NO |
This is a feel-good measure, but where does the money
really come from? Ultimately this is an executive-branch
personnel issue that shouldn't be on the ballot. |
| F |
Noncitizen Voting in School Board Elections |
NO |
This sounds reasonable because non-citizens do contribute
to the tax base that supports our public schools. However, this
measure only extends voting to parents of schoolchildren, not
all taxpaying residents. Ultimately, voting should be a
privilege of citizenship. California and the United States need
a sane and open immigration policy, but opening loopholes for
non-citizens is no way to encourage immigration reform. |
| G |
Health Plans for City Residents |
NO |
|
| H |
Naming the Stadium at Candlestick Point |
NO |
This is just silly. Sure a name change would be annoying
and even mildly offensive, but the city made a deal with the
team and we shouldn't be wasting time and money dealing with it
here. Everyone will still call it "Candlestick" informally
anyway. |
| I |
Economic Analysis of Legislation |
NO |
Let's get government out of economic planning. This
measure will grow the City government with a new office that
could not and should not have any binding influence on Board
decisions, so there is no reason to believe that the Board will
even listen to any analysis that the office does. |
| J |
Sales Tax Increase |
NO |
The Mayor is asking us to "pay our fair share"
to reduce the City's billion-dollar deficit. Nonsense. These
taxes are bad in principle, besides putting an extra burden
on residents and businesses and driving shoppers out of the
City. |
| K |
Business Tax |
NO |
| L |
Use of Hotel Tax to Preserve Movie Theaters |
NO |
This is a scam. Real theater preservationists are against
this measure. It names a specific private organization (which
doesn't even exist yet) to receive a big chunk of our too-high
hotel taxes. |
| M |
Housing Preservation |
NO |
This measure has been withdrawn,
but it may come back in a special election that will cost us up
to one million dollars. It's absurd to prevent a landloard
from modernizing his building and increasing the number of
housing units downtown just to preserve a few rent-controlled
apartments. |
| N |
Withdrawing U.S. Military Personnel from Iraq |
NO |
I have to admit I'm tempted, because I do agree with the
sentiment and it's nice to live in a city that feels a sense of
international urgency. But the City should not be expressing an
opinion not held by all its residents, and the Supervisors
really should not be wasting our time and money putting it on
the ballot. |
| O |
Use of Sales Tax Funds |
NO |
This measure is irrelevant if J doesn't pass. But it's
irrelevant even if J does pass because it's only
"a non-binding recommendation" anyway. The Board has again
chosen to waste our time and money on a frivolous ballot
proposition. |
| AA |
BART Earthquake Safety Bond |
NO |
This is a billion-dollar bond issue that has to be paid
for twice over through unknown tax hikes in the coming years.
Let BART get its budget under control and pay for whatever
retrofits it needs through its own ticket revenues. |
