Feature
by Sean Pritchard
November 7 is right around the corner, which means San Francisco voters will soon go to the polls and cast a ballot for a variety of state and local issues. It’s imperative that you, as an SFAA member, cast your vote against the policies that negatively impact our industry and other businesses in San Francisco. Please read the arguments concerning the 11 local propositions and vote accordingly.
Proposition A
(SFAA Position Pending Passthrough Discussions at Board of Supervisors)
School Bond
If passed, Prop. A would allow the San Francisco Unified School District to issue $450 million in bonds to modernize and repair up to 64 school facilities. (All projects covered in this bond measure are in addition and mutually exclusive of the 32 projects included in the 2003 school improvement bond.) It guarantees annual audits and citizen oversight to monitor expenditures. The bond would assess up to $33 per $100,000 of property value for approximately 20 years.
Proposition B (No Position)
Parental Leave for Supervisors
Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier, the first elected official in San Francisco to give birth while holding office, submitted this measure. It allows members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to participate in meetings via teleconferencing when they cannot attend due to pregnancy, childbirth, adoption or foster care.
Proposition C (Vote No)
Setting Salaries for Certain Elected Officials
This proposition would essentially give civil servants like the mayor and others a pay raise every five years. This increase is based on the cost of living, which we all know is high in San Francisco. This increase is not tied to job performance and promotes the spoiled, do-nothing attitude that prevails at City Hall. Why do they deserve a cost of living adjustment while San Franciscans pay ever-higher taxes? The idea of giving themselves a raise while San Francisco taxpayers are in a chokehold is deplorable.
Proposition D (Vote No)
Disclosure of Private Information
San Francisco already maintains a regulation that prohibits City Hall and its contractors from providing personal information without prior authorization. What is the point of making another law that does the same thing? Besides, we don’t know the full effect of denying information to federal and state agencies. There could be unintended consequences leading to the withdrawal of state and federal monies.
Proposition E (Vote No)
Parking Tax Ordinance
The City of San Francisco already has a 25% tax on the cost of parking. Now Supervisor Chris Daly wants to increase it to 35%, starting in January 2007. How far do we have to go before we tax ourselves out of the market? How long before we drive people away and they head elsewhere to spend their money? Let’s not turn business and commerce away by overtaxing them. It’s already expensive to drive into San Francisco to do business. Let’s not increase the costs for those who choose San Francisco as a place to spend their time and money.
Proposition F (Vote No)
Paid Sick Leave
This ordinance would require employers to provide sick leave to their full- and part-time employees. Not only is this bad for business, it could cost the city $1 million to implement. The hardest hit will, of course, be the small business community. Those with only a handful of employees might even put their storefronts elsewhere. Micromanaging San Francisco’s businesses will lead to more of an exodus of the city’s small businesses and will end up creating fewer jobs for San Franciscans.
Proposition G (Vote No)
Limitations on Formula Retail Stores
This proposition will change the way companies with 11 or more stores get approval from San Francisco to do business in the city’s commercial districts. It would require a hearing before the city’s Planning Commission, which, let’s face it, will probably deny approval to these chain stores. The stores will not be able to open up shop as they once did and it will eventually drive jobs away from the city. We should invite and encourage businesses—whether it’s family-owned or a chain—to San Francisco, not lock them out.
Proposition H (Vote No)
Relocation Benefits
This measure will mandate a $4,500 payout to all tenants (up to $13,500 per unit) who are displaced by a no-fault eviction—a $3,500 per tenant increase. Ultimately, it will make owning a home in San Francisco that much more expensive and out of reach to first-time homeowners. This group will be most affected by this proposition because it will increase the price of condos and tenancies in common (TICs) in San Francisco. On top of making condo or TIC ownership more expensive, Prop. H will also make it more difficult and costly to manage property.
Proposition I (Vote No)
Mayoral Appearances Before the Board of Supervisors
As it stands now, any supervisor can see Mayor Gavin Newsom because he’s always had an open door policy. This legislation, sponsored by Chris Daly, seeks to make the mayor come to the Board of Supervisors meetings, instead. Do we really need to see more headlines with our city officials’ names printed in bold letters? Let’s not make the Board of Supervisors a bigger three-ring circus and waste more of the city’s time. Stop the egos behind this proposition from wasting our time. Don’t allow City Hall to become a venue for the Daly Show.
Proposition J (Vote No)
Calling for the Impeachment of President George W. Bush
The Board of Supervisors has already passed a resolution calling for the investigation, impeachment and/or resignation of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. So far, no one in Washington has cared or even noticed. Now the board wants to make it a “Declaration of Policy.” Doesn’t San Francisco have enough negative press? And don’t our officials have better things to do, like fixing our roads or lowering the violent crime rate? No matter how you feel about the president, vote “No” and send the supervisors a message to stop wasting time and attend to the problems that matter in San Francisco.
Proposition K (Vote No)
Housing Needs of Seniors and the Disabled
Prop. K will bring unneeded control and scrutiny to the housing market. The city will in turn spend more money on subsidized housing, tightening the available market-rent units, which houses a majority of San Francisco’s renters. The language of this declaration intends to recognize the needs of seniors and the disabled and spend resources to accommodate these needs. This means more tax dollars and government bureaucracy to control the market. This is just more control on the already suffocating San Francisco rental market. Don’t let City Hall frivolously spend your tax dollars on this unnecessary proposition.
SFAA hopes to see all our members at the polls on November 7, 2006, to cast their votes on these local measures. Please see our slate card on the cover for a quick reference on the local races that are important for apartment building owners.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of SFAA or San Francisco Apartment Magazine. Sean Pritchard is the government and community affairs coordinator for SFAA and can be reached at 415-255-2288. Copyright © 2006 by San Francisco Apartment Magazine. All rights reserved.