SOCIAL: LIST: 'Deep Slate November 2008: Setasides and SF Prop B

[Randall Isaac]

Here's the thing: we all agree that ballots and setasides are really bad 
for government. [A 'setaside' is a ballot measure that specifies that a 
particular amount of general fund money shall be spent on a particular 
project.  Sort of like an earmark by the voters.]  Setasides limit 
government flexibility and exacerbate budget problems.   Yet, after 
agreeing that setasides are bad, we always turn around and vote for them 
when they're for a project we like ("Look, this proposition helps 
ponies! OMG Ponies!").

That's exactly what's going on with SF Proposition B.  Prob B sets aside 
additional funding for affordable housing on top of the existing 
affordable housing funding the city already spends.  Affordable housing 
is a laudable goal, but Prob B does not create any additional taxes or 
source of revenue for this goal, it simply requires that other money 
that was going to be spent elsewhere must now be spent on affordable 
housing.  Really? Is that better or worse than health care, mental 
health, drug treatment, etc? 

Furthermore, it locks in *how* the money will be spent for the next 16 
years, regardless of circumstances.  Here's a quote from the voter 
guide: "...the City must spend at least 75% of the Fund to acquire and 
develop new housing units, at least half of which must be 2 bedrooms or 
larger units. It also must assure that at least 40% of those new units 
will be affordable to households earning 30% or less of the SF median 
income."  Can you say "micro-management"?

This kind of decision should be done by the Board of Supes and mayor; 
this is why we elect them.  Micro-management by ballot proposition isn't 
the way to do it.

Randall

Amandeep Jawa wrote:
> Hey folks - 
>
> 'deep
>
> .ps
> Jeez! All the way to Prop V!?  This has taken me FOREVER TO WRITE! 
>  UGH.  This is ridiculous!  The combination of "we know everyone is 
> coming out to vote" & "political tit-for-tat" has made a ridiculously 
> LARGE # of measures. 
>
> -----------------
>
> Ok - so to figure out how to value (or devalue :-)) my opinions you 
> should know the following:
>
> snip...
> • Ballot measures are REALLY a bad way to govern.  Most of the things 
> done in ballot measures SHOULD be done in the normal legislature, 
> where they are easier to fix if they turn out wrong.  Another problem 
> is that you have to boil complex issues down to yes/no votes - which 
> rarely is a good idea.  But this is what we have, so keep in mind that 
> some good ideas make bad ballot propositions & a lot bad ideas can be 
> made to be sound like good sense in ballot initiative form because the 
> devil is often in the details. And also note that often, these 
> measures are grey - there is often a lot of balancing going on.....
> snip...
>
>
> * *
> *B: YES - Establishing Affordable Housing Fund*
> *Prop B is a set aside from property taxes (which fund the City's 
> General Fund) to create an Affordable Housing fund to consistently 
> build new affordable housing in San Francisco for the next fifteen 
> years. That is a pretty serious thing to do, but the problem is very 
> very acute and we as a City have consistently failed to do enough 
> about.  Housing in SF is too expensive and the City is getting mor ena 
> d more expensive for working families to live here.  This is a serious 
> crisis and this is a necessary solution. YES.*
> *
> *
>
> *T: Yes - Free and Low Cost Substance Abuse Programs**
> *This measure requires the City to expand its successful substance 
> abuse programs which currently are underfunded and have a long waiting 
> list.  Yes.*
> *
> *
>