Proposition L, which would guarantee funding to San Francisco’s new Community Justice Center, is supposedly an initiative that would “stop efforts to play politics with community justice,” according to advertising paid for by proponents.
However, given the heated debate among city officials — rooted in a longstanding feud between Supervisor Chris Daly and Mayor Gavin Newsom — that surrounds the creation of the court, the measure appears to serve a political purpose itself.
The battle over public power and the hospital bond have vacuumed up much of San Francisco’s attention and political capital this season. But there’s an equally significant, if under-the-radar, item up for grabs: Proposition B. The “Establishing [an] Affordable Housing Fund” measure mandates that 2.5 cents out of every $100 in property taxes go to create what is essentially a dedicated San Francisco affordable housing account. Proponents and opponents alike agree that it would raise roughly $2.7 billion over its 15-year lifespan — in fact, that’s about all they agree on.
Propositions N and Q, which would increase and modify San Francisco’s property transfer and payroll expense taxes, were the product of intense negotiations between different business groups. Not surprisingly, the winners and losers in those negotiations define the pro and con election advertisements. The laws are simple enough: N would increase the property transfer tax from 0.75 to 1.5 percent on properties worth over $5 million, while Q ensures that partners in law firms have to pay payroll taxes. It also raises the ceiling for payroll tax exemption to $250,000. The city controller states in the voter handbook that the propositions would raise almost $40 million for the city’s general fund, but how it does that, and who stands to gain or lose, is not so clearcut.
Proposition K, which seeks to decriminalize prostitution in San Francisco, has spawned a heated debate over how to curb human trafficking and protect the lives and health of sex workers. A close look at campaign advertising around the proposition reveals sharp disagreements between supporters and opponents over what the local impacts of the law would be, as well as a schism in feminist circles over prostitution itself.
Proposition H is described as a clean energy measure by its proponents, and a “blank check” by its opponents. With an eye-popping $5.4 million spent on the No on H side compared to the $19,000 on the other, Proposition H merits a close look from voters. Those are dollars spent through September. Expect more money to flow in these next few weeks, as the opposing forces battle over the definitions, costs and consequences of the measure.
Like many who work in San Francisco City Hall, David Noyola last month was answering two phones, a land line for his official duties, and an iPhone to talk politics.
Noyola has since left his position as a legislative aide for Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin, and for election 2008 has put his specialized knowledge to use as a professional campaigner. His work in these two capacities illustrates how insiders can have sizable impacts on local elections. In Noyola’s case, his influence is currently most visible in the city’s voter information guide — the thick booklet published before each election that lists all the candidates and initiatives, as well as the official and paid arguments in support or opposition.
From A to V, a complete overview of the 22 propositions that San Francisco voters will consider on Nov. 4 — from public power and Junior ROTC to waterfront redevelopment and legalizing prostitution.
By Matthew Hirsch, Newsdesk.org/The Public Press
First in a series fact-checking 2008 election advertisements in San Francisco | Sidebar: Swaying Voters at $2 a Word: Inside the Ballot Booklet | Interview on KALW-FM’s “Crosscurrents,” 9/9/08:
For the November 4 election, San Francisco’s voter-information booklet will be packed with dozens of paid arguments around hot-button topics such as housing and public power. Many of these ballot ads are signed by community and small-business leaders and appear to reflect widespread participation in the public debate. Yet the people who sign the paid arguments don’t always pay for or submit the ads themselves. San Francisco legislators changed the election rules in 1997 so voters could find out who was footing the bills. But most voters don’t know that paid arguments are often bundled by professional campaign consultants whose aim is to manufacture a showing of broad support for certain ballot issues, and who sometimes have their own, undisclosed interests.
