Tag: November 2008 Election

10/18/08

SF: Prop F – Holding All Scheduled City Elections Only in Even-Numbered Years

Shall the City shift all City elections except special elections to even-numbered years after the November 2011 election?

Short answer, no.

The long answer is there should be a separation between the national and city elections. We want the city officials to be given the opportunity to properly introduce themselves, their values, and their policies. If the election of city officials occur at the same time as the president, they would get nil air time.
Continue reading →

10/18/08

SF: Prop E – Changing the Number of Signatures Required to Recall City Officials

Shall the City adopt state law signature requirements for petitions to recall City officials?

Currently, 10% of registered voters in a district of the City is needed to recall an elected official in the following areas/positions:

  • City and County
  • City Administrator
  • Airports Commission
  • Board of Education
  • governing board of the Community College District
  • the Ethics Commission
  • the Public Utilities Commission

The ten percent rule is in the City laws. Proposition E wants to rid the City of the ten percent rule and use the state recall rule which dictates the percentage based on a tiered system.
Continue reading →

10/18/08

SF: Prop D – Financing Pier 70 Waterfront District Development Plan upon Board of Supervisors’ Approval

Shall the City provide funds to develop Pier 70, based on new City hotel and payroll expense tax revenues from the development, if the Board of Supervisors approves a financial and land use plan for Pier 70?

Proposition D will allow the Board of Supervisors to approve a broad development plan for Pier 70 rather than checking off each and every project one at a time. The proposition will also contribute approximately $600 million to help the developers clean up the area of contaminates from when the port first operated as a ship part factory. A portion of taxes and revenue from the future hotels and businesses will be used to pay back the City.

No real risk to passing this proposition unless the developers quit midway through the project. The area this affects is pretty run down currently. Once the land is developed, the City can recoup the cost through taxation and generate more revenue for other programs.

An easy yes vote for this proposition.

10/17/08

SF: Prop C – Prohibiting City Employees from Serving on Charter Boards and Commissions

Shall the City prohibit City employees from serving on most Charter created boards and commissions?

Proposition C is pretty clear cut. The supporters of the proposition do not want city employees to staff commissions whose decisions may affect their department. The reasoning seems logical.
Continue reading →

10/17/08

SF: Prob B – Establishing Affordable Housing Fund

Shall the City establish an Affordable Housing Fund; set aside from the property tax 2 ½ cents for every $100 of assessed value for this Fund through 2024; and use this Fund, subject to public review, to acquire and develop new affordable housing units meeting certain priorities and income limitations?

Proposition B sounds like someone watched Office Space once too many times. In the movie, three disgruntled office workers concoct a plan to transfer half a cent from the company’s internal bank transactions to a private bank account. They ended up with a huge sum of money. Worried about getting caught, they try to return the money to the company only to find the place burned to the ground. The money was assumed to have burned in the fire; but, another employee had found the packet and flew to a tropical island for some R&R.
Continue reading →

10/17/08

SF: Prop A – San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center Earthquake Safety Bonds, 2008

To ensure the availability of San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center in the event of a natural disaster or emergency, by building and/or rebuilding and improving the earthquake safety of the hospital and to pay related costs necessary or convenient for the foregoing purposes, shall the City and County of San Francisco issue $887,400,000 in general obligation bonds subject to independent oversight and regular audits?

Turns out there is a state law (SB 1953) that requires hospitals to meet certain seismic safety standards by 2013 or have their acute facilities downgraded to non-acute status. The definition of acute care is “short-term medical treatment, usually in a hospital, for patients having an acute illness or injury or recovering from surgery.” (Answers.com)

The San Francisco General Hospital is the only hospital in the city that have these facilities. Unfortunately, the hospital is unable to retrofit the current buildings thereby requiring bonds to build a new acute facility on the current hospital grounds.
Continue reading →

Pages:  1 2 3 4