My Votes/Endorsements for Election Day 2008

Local (San Francisco) Propositions

Yes on A – SF General Hospital and Trauma Center Earthquake Safety Bond, 2008:

Authorizes the issuance of $887,400,000 in general obligation bonds to earthquake retrofit San Francisco General Hospital. Allows the Board to impose and collect a general tax levy annually until such bonds are repaid. Allows landlords to pass through 50 percent of the increase in real property taxes attributable to the repayment of the bonds.

Charter Amendments

No on B – Establishing Affordable Housing Fund Using Set-Asides from Property Taxes:

Creates a baseline appropriation and set-aside equivalent to $0.025 on each $100 of assessed property tax valuation for the next 15 years to support affordable housing programs. Ultimately, could cost up to $2.3 billion – with all the housing dedicated to low- and very low-income people, providing little opportunity for working families to benefit.

No on C – Prohibiting City Employees from Serving on Charter Boards and Commissions:

Prohibits, except for specified positions, city employees from serving on Charter-created boards and commissions. There is no apparent reason to limit eligibility when the Board of Supervisors can reject a mayoral appointee.

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

Creates a Pier 70 improvement district to preserve and restore historic buildings, make seismic upgrades, clean up toxics and fund parks and maritime facilities. Authorizes the city to appropriate General Fund revenues in an amount up to 75 percent of the projected hotel and payroll taxes attributable to new development.

No on E – Changing the Number of Signatures Required to Recall City Officials:

Would double the number of signatures required to petition for recall of a member of the Board of Supervisors by increasing the number to 20 percent of the voters in the district, greatly reducing the opportunity for voters to recall a supervisor.

No on F – Holding all Scheduled City Elections only in Even-Numbered Years:

Moves all elections of city officials to even-numbered years. Also, specifies that any person appointed to fill a vacancy on the Board of Supervisors with more than two years remaining on a term who is then elected to fill the balance of the term has served one of the person’s allowable two terms. No major American city holds mayoral campaigns in even years because of the danger of the race being overshadowed by concurrent campaigns for President and US Senate.

Yes on G – Allowing Retirement System Credit for Unpaid Parental Leave:

Allows police and firefighters taking unpaid parental leave to buy back the time as total years of city service for retirement purposes. No cost to the city, and will help attract and retain public safety employees.

No on H – Setting Renewable Energy Goals; Options for Providing Electric Power; Changing Revenue Bond Authority to Pay for Public Utility Facilities:

Grants authority to six members of the Board of Supervisors to municipalize electricity distribution in San Francisco. Requires the SF PUC by late April 2009 to issue a comprehensive plan to provide “cost effective” power to residents and businesses, including the costs and benefits of municipalizing PG&E. By the end of 2009 and without a further vote by the public, the Board of Supervisors could authorize the issuance of billions of dollars of bonds to force PG&E, or any other local utility to sell its local distribution system to the city.

No on I – Creating the Office of an Independent Rate-Payer Advocate:

Creates an independent rate-payer advocate appointed by the City Administrator to analyze and comment on rate proposals prepared by the SF Public Utilities Commission. Services to be paid from revenues of the utility rates that are the subject matter of those services.

No on J – Creating a Historic Preservation Commission:

Establishes a seven-member Historic Preservation Commission to replace the Landmarks Board. New commission would have the power to recommend landmark designations and historic district designations, certificates of appropriateness for work on landmark structures and amendments to the Preservation Element of the General Plan – powers that currently rest with the Planning Commission. Adds a layer of bureaucracy that could increase uncertainty in the building-permit process, and does not balance other planning priorities in the permitting process.

Ordinances

No on K – Changing the Enforcement of Laws Related to Prostitution and Sex Workers:

Attempts to illegally circumvent state law by prohibiting legal action against prostitutes. May encourage sex trafficking and other violent crimes.

Yes on L – Funding the Community Justice Center:

Authorizes the creation of the Community Justice Center, in collaboration with the Superior Court, to address crimes that negatively impact the quality of life of those living and working in the Tenderloin, South of Market, Civic Center and Union Square neighborhoods. Authorizes the expenditure of $1,770,000 dollars for the court, $984,000 of which will come from earmarked federal grant funds.

No on M – Changing the Residential Rent Ordinance to Prohibit Specific Acts of Harassment of Tenants by Landlords:

Provides for both criminal and civil cause of action against landlords for “harassment,” including failure to perform a repair, abuse of a landlord’s right to access a unit, threats by word or gesture and other repeated acts or omissions designed to encourage a tenant to vacate a unit. Can expose landlords to unfounded complaints and litigation.

No on N – Changing Real Property Transfer Tax Rates:

Increases the real property transfer tax rate from .75 percent to 1.5 percent if property value exceeds $5 million, and reduces the tax on residential property transfers by up to 1/3 if, after January 1, 2009, transferor has installed an active solar system or made seismic retrofitting improvements.

Yes on O – Replacing the Emergency Response Fee with a General Tax (Access Line Tax) and Revising the Telephone Users Tax:

Ratifies and approves the city’s existing 911 tax and telephone tax. If the measure does not pass, the city would risk losing between $85 and $90 million in annual revenue.

Yes on P – Changing the Composition of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority Board (a State Agency):

Replaces the 11- member SFTA board with five members: all of which must be elected officials: The Mayor and a designee, the President of the Board of Supervisors and a designee, and the Treasurer. The measure also makes it city policy to, to the extent feasible, merge SFTA’S functions into existing city departments.

Yes on Q – Modifying the Payroll Expense Tax:

Extends the 1.5 percent payroll tax to pass-through entities and shareholders of professional corporations for work or services performed in the city, excluding return on capital. Contains a 200 percent formula cap based on the average wages of the top 25 percent of a firm’s wage earners as a “safe harbor” to calculate the tax due. Also includes an expanded small business exemption for businesses with payrolls of less than $250,000.

Yes on R – Renaming the Oceanside Water Treatment Plant to the George W. Bush Sewage Plant

Another chance by the City to "stick it" to Dubya!

Yes on S – Policy Regarding Budget Set-Asides and Identification of Replacement Funds:

Makes it city policy that new set-asides or other mandated levels of spending must identify a funding source, limits the duration and any annual growth in the set-aside or mandated level of spending. Requires city controller’s analysis of the fiscal impact of any proposed new set-aside. Make everyone accountable!

No on T – Free and Low-Cost Substance Abuse Treatment Programs:

Prohibits the reduction of funding, staffing or the number of substance-abuse treatment slots so long as there is excess demand for the slots. No funding source identified for the additional cost of the program.

Declarations of Policy

Neutral on U – Policy against Funding for Deployment of Armed Forces in Iraq:

Makes it official San Francisco policy that Congress should vote against any further funding for the deployment of United States Armed services in Iraq, with the exception of funds specifically earmarked to provide for their safe and orderly withdrawal.

Yes on V – Policy against Terminating Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (JROTC) Programs in Public High Schools:

Makes it city policy, though not binding on the school district, to offer voluntary extracurricular JROTC programs and to reverse the action by the Board of Education to terminate the program.

Board of Supervisors

District One (Richmond)

Sue Lee | Planning Commissioner

District Three (North Beach, Telegraph Hill, Financial District, Nob Hill)

Claudine Cheng | Former National President, Organization of Chinese Americans

District Four (Sunset, Parkside)

Carmen Chu | Incumbent Supervisor

District Seven (Parkside, Golden Gate Heights, Clarendon Heights, Twin Peaks, Forest Knolls, Midtown Terrace, Forest Hill, Miraloma Park, Sunnyside, Sherwood Forest, Westwood Highlands, Westwood Park, St. Francis Wood, Monterey Heights, Mt. Davidson, Balboa Terrace, Ingleside Terrace, Stonestown, Lakeside, Lake Shore, Merced Manor, Park Merced, Lake Merced, City College, San Francisco State)

Sean Elsbernd | Incumbent Supervisor

District Eleven (Excelsior, Ingleside, Oceanview, Merced Heights, Ingleside Heights, Mission Terrace, Outer Mission, Crocker Amazon)

Myrna Lim | Former Planning Commissioner

State Legislation

Yes on 1A – SAFE, RELIABLE HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN BOND ACT.

Yes on 2 – STANDARDS FOR CONFINING FARM ANIMALS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Yes on 3 – CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL BOND ACT. GRANT PROGRAM. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Yes on 4 – WAITING PERIOD AND PARENTAL NOTIFICATION BEFORE TERMINATION OF MINOR’S PREGNANCY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

Yes on 5 – NONVIOLENT DRUG OFFENSES. SENTENCING, PAROLE AND REHABILITATION. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

No on 6 – POLICE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNDING. CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND LAWS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

No on 7 – RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

No on 8 – ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY.

INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

No on 9 - CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. VICTIMS’ RIGHTS. PAROLE.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.

No on 10 - ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES AND RENEWABLE ENERGY.
BONDS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

No on 11 - REDISTRICTING. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.

Yes on 12 - VETERANS’ BOND ACT OF 2008.

Walkability Becomes Plus for Buyers

In this day and age of Green consciousness and rising gas prices, it's become increasingly important for some to be able to ditch the vehicle and commute to/from work.

And for those that are fortunate enough to leave the ride and venture around on foot, here is a nice Web site of a software program that attempts to quantify the quality of walkability.



It figures that walkability is largely determined by the number of amenities within a mile -- and preferably much less -- of your dwelling, or any desired location, for that matter.

When you type in an address, it goes to Google Maps and looks for restaurants, shops, libraries, schools and anything else you might want to walk to. Then it determines the location of all that stuff and assigns a score. The more amenities in close proximity to an address, the higher the score.

Walk Score identifies San Francisco as the most walkable city in the United States, mainly due to the hustle and bustle of the Financial District and SOMA, and other smaller, gentrified neighborhoods like the Mission and Potrero Hill.

New York's Tribeca, Little Italy, and Soho neighborhoods helped it land a No. 2 ranking on the Web site's list of the most walkable cities, with Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, Seattle, the District of Columbia, Long Beach, Los Angeles, and Portland rounding out the top 10, in that order.

Experts say more people are moving to urban areas as a way to spend less money on gas, though convenience and exercise also play a role.

The Center for Neighborhood Technology -- which insists a shift in transportation spending is necessary to make mass transit more efficient -- says individuals reduce their annual gas expenses by as much as $2,100 when they live in urban areas versus outer-ring suburbs.

Source: Seattle Times, Amy Hoak (08/10/08)

Gas Prices Force Buyers to Rethink 'Burbs

Not too long ago, some of my friends used to ask me what the big deal was about living in the City.

"Why is it so expensive?" "I can get more home for my money in the suburbs." "I need a yard and a buffer from my neighbors..."

Gripe, gripe, gripe.

Now those very same people are watching their neighbors get the boot. Enter the lender's Intent to Foreclose letter. Now the creditors are incessantly calling to collect on those charged up accounts for HDTVs and Louis Vuitton bags. Here comes the repo man, trying to tow away that gas-guzzling SUV that only mommy would drive and ride in.

What a waste. What a joke.

Now, let's get one thing clear. I'm not condemning the suburbs that actually have infrastructure, a job industry and a self-supporting local government. I'm referring to the surrounding cities in the Bay Area that are bedroom communities for San Francisco employees.

I'm also not referring to minimum-wage workers or other lower-income families. They aren't the ones splurging and maxing out their credit cards, taking out second mortgages and overextending themselves for the sake of suburban utopia. (I really feel for those people, who can't seem to catch a break).

My point -- and there should always be one -- is that these irresponsible families should have applied that down payment or 100% financing (whatever it is they used to land that huge house in the 'burbs a few years back) into a more stable property in a stable market, like in San Francisco.

You know... where these very same people actually work to make whatever ends meet. The urban sprawl they loathed to live in, but need so desperately to find work and get paid.

"Ugh, but it's so stuffy. I can only stay there for an 8-hour work day. Perish the thought of having to set roots there."

Here's a novel idea: Live in the city you work in. Like BART says, "Simplify your life."

If you must drive, at least you'll be using less gas. Live close enough that you aren't commuting two hours a day in traffic. Surely you have better things to do.

Alas, social and ecological responsibility? Perish the thought, indeed.

Gas Prices Force Buyers to Rethink 'Burbs

High gas prices are affecting American workers' attitudes toward commuting and are prodding many to trade in their large homes in the exurbs for smaller, more urban properties.

Buying a 6,000-square-foot home with a large yard and a sport-utility vehicle to boot made sense when gas and property prices were low, economists say, but gasoline is now cost-prohibitive for many.

If the federal government lifts the heavy gas subsidies that encourage suburban growth, many Europeans pay $8 a gallon for gas, suburban residents will abandon their properties en masse and move in closer to urban transit stations.

"What were pluses of that lifestyle are now liabilities: a big SUV, a big home to heat, the energy needed to mow the lawn," says CEO Tom Darden of the Raleigh-based real estate conversion group Cherokee Investment Partners.

The firm takes properties close to transit centers in urban areas and develops them into housing.

Properties in the Washington, D.C.-metro area, Montreal, and Denver are thriving, says Darden, while property values in far-removed exurbs like Loudoun County, Va., and California's Central Valley are plummeting.

Source: The Washington Post, Eric M. Weiss (08/05/08)

Better Loans for Green Homes?

Source: Denver Post, Anne C. Mulkern (04/23/08)

U.S. Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo.) has rolled out legislation that could result in lower-interest loans for people who purchase energy-efficient homes or retrofit existing residences with green features.

Under the bill, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would gain as much as a 25-percent credit toward their federal goal of serving low- and moderate-income buyers by repurchasing mortgages on environmentally friendly buildings.

This would create an incentive for lenders to pursue green lending because they would know they can easily resell the loans, said Perlmutter, adding that they could also pass the savings on to borrowers.

It's a promising idea, but it's not a sure thing yet. Home builders have expressed concern about the proposal because the additional requirements could increase construction costs; and Fannie Mae is worried about a requirement that would force it to have different percentages of "green mortgages" by various benchmark dates.

This is quite simply a step in the right direction for everyone involved. For certain home builders to complain about an increase in construction costs, I have to ask: "Why would that matter?"

Are they going to have to fork over the additional costs? If anything, they can tack on the expenses -- like they so normally and vehemently do -- and leave the worry to the financier.
Ultimately, Fannie and Freddie Mae would win under the proposed legislation, and the homeowner would intrinsically benefit with eventual tax deductions and, more importantly, the self-assurance that they are "Going Green."

It sounds like a win-win to me, but leave it to greedy developers to ruin the positive vibes.

//Phil De La Cruz