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

[Dave Snyder]

A couple things.

First, agreed about the problem with setasides. There are also  
benefits, too. Here's a great discussion of the issue:
http://www.spur.org/documents/030108_article_01.shtm

SPUR analyzed the issue and couldn't bring itself to oppose setasides  
as a matter of policy because there are benefits. Instead, they  
identified some proposals for making them work better, including a  
mandatory sunset provision, and tying them to revenue.

With regards to Prop B, it conforms to some of SPUR's recommendations  
for smart setasides, but not all. For one, it sunsets in 15 years. We  
will not be stuck with this voter-approved setaside forever. We can  
renew it in 15 years if we want, or we can consider the affordable  
housing problem solved (wouldn't that be nice?)

For another, it's tied to revenue, sort of. The proponents of this  
measure were also the proponents behind the two otherwise unrelated  
tax measures: the increase in the transfer tax and the adjustment in  
the payroll tax to include partnerships. Those together raise only  
about half the money that will be set aside by this measure, however.

Regarding the micromanaging issue, I respectfully disagree. The  
decision about whether to set aside limited housing funds for the  
really poor or the middle poor, like many readers of this list,  
perhaps, is an important policy decision. In terms of numbers, the  
need is the same, and you get more housing built for more people with  
lower subsidies if you target people who make 80% of the median income  
than if you target peopel who make 30% or less. But where do you put  
your priorities? There will never be enough to serve all needs, so the  
question of priority is really important. It's a hard question, a deep  
question, and appropriate for the voters to weigh in on. (If you like  
the idea of voters weighing in on this stuff in any case, which is  
another question; it's not micromanaging, in my opinion; that's my  
point.)

Yes, the housing set aside means de facto cuts in the social services  
budget. I actually support that sad result, as long as the  
beneficiaries of the set aside are the most needy, as is the case with  
Prop B.  Which is why I'm voting yes.





On Oct 24, 2008, at 1:23 AM, Randall Isaac wrote:

> 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.*
>> *
>> *
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Social mailing list
> Social at lists.deeptrouble.com
> http://lists.deeptrouble.com/listinfo.cgi/social-deeptrouble.com