The bed capacity is insufficient for future needs. So basically, they’re saying let’s spend $887.4 million on something that will look nice but won’t help enough? Let’s get something on the ballot that will do the job, not just look nice.

Proposition B: Establishing Affordable Housing Fund
VOTE: NO
RESULT: NO

Supporters contend that renters need more help. Apparently rent control, which generally only allows rent increases of 1-2%, is not enough. Sure it’s nice to help the poor, but let’s not give the City to the poor at the expense of the middle class.

Proposition C: Prohibiting City Employees from Serving on Charter Boards and Commissions
VOTE: YES
RESULT: NO

As an attorney, I know that conflicts of interest can be a real problem. This helps rid conflicts of interest.

Proposition D: Financing Pier 70 Waterfront District Development Plan upon Board of Supevisors’ Approval
VOTE: YES
RESULT: YES

Yes, let’s develop an area of San Francisco that will have great views but is currently not being used.

Proposition E: Changing Number of Signatures Required to Recall City Officials
VOTE: YES
RESULT: YES

Applying the state standard appears to be the smart move. It will reduce the number of frivolous recall attempts.

Proposition F: Holding all Scheduled City Elections only in Even-Numbered Years
VOTE: NO
RESULT: NO

People don’t pay as much attention to elections and don’t vote as much when it’s not a presidential election year. But this won’t help solve this lack of attention. In fact people will more likely just not do enough research when there are too many initiatives and offices to vote for.

No major city in America schedules its mayor’s race to compete for voter attention with a presidential election.

Proposition G: Allowing Retirement System Credit for Unpaid Parental Leave
VOTE: NO
RESULT: YES

This proposition is just a “grandfather clause.” Changes were made in 2003 and only affect people starting from when those changes were made. There is no disparity in personnel policies. New policies were adopted, and just because benefits were expanded in 2003, that doesn’t mean these policies should be expanded to cover everyone from the beginning of time to be “fair.”

Proposition H: Setting Clean Energy Deadlines; Studying Options for Providing Energy; Changing Revenue Bond Authority to Pay for Public Utility Facilities
VOTE: NO
RESULT: NO

This proposition basically allows the City to take over utilities. Let’s regulate the industry and force the utilities to go “green.” We don’t need the City in the business of utilities to get this done.

Proposition I: Creating the Office of an Independent Rate Payer Advocate
VOTE: YES
RESULT: NO

It is a good idea to have an advocate review the PUC’s rates and provide explanations.

Proposition J: Creating a Historic Preservation Commission
VOTE: YES
RESULT: YES

Hopefully this will streamline approval permits or certificates regarding the use of designated landmarks and historic buildings. I’ve seen land values plummet once it was rumored that a property might get designated as a historic landmark because then it becomes nearly impossible to remodel or use that building at all.

Proposition K: Changing the Enforcement of Laws Related to Prostitution and Sex Workers
VOTE: NO
RESULT: NO

Let’s not prohibit the police department from investigating and prosecuting prostitution. Keep the First Offender Program to help prostitutes who have been prosecuted.

Proposition L: Funding the Community Justice Center
VOTE: YES
RESULT: NO

The Community Justice Center is a good thing. It keeps small time criminals from getting put into the same places as violent or repeat offenders, and allow these first time offenders to get social services and hopefully stay out of trouble. Let’s make sure it gets funded.

Proposition M: Changing the Residential Rent Ordinance to Prohibit Specific Acts of Harassment of Tenants by Landlords
VOTE: NO
RESULT: YES

San Francisco already has a stringent rent control policy. Let’s not drive out property investment or future rental units because owners realize that it’s just too risky to rent any property in San Francisco County. Our rent control policy already helps tenants a great deal and is already driving out many would-be rental property owners. Let’s not reduce the number of available rental properties any further by trying to “protect” renters.

Proposition N: Changing Real Property Transfer Tax Rates
VOTE: YES
RESULT: YES

This increases the tax rate of real estate sales worth $5 million or more. More importantly, it reduces the transfer tax rate for sale of residential property by up to 1/3 if the seller had installed a solar energy system or made improvements to increase earthquake safety.

Reduce taxes on sale of property if there are safety or alternative energy improvements? Sounds good.

Proposition O: Replacing the Emergency Response Fee with an Access Line Tax ad Revising the Telephone Users Tax
VOTE: YES
RESULT: YES

So it seems the “fee” charged for our 911 emergency services is actually a tax. Opponents want an apology.

Let’s make sure we have someone to call in case of emergency. Or is an apology that important to you?

Proposition P: Changing the Composition of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority Board
VOTE: NO
RESULT: NO

The Proposition would only “urge” the Authority to obtain expert financial review before adopting budgets, and “urge” the adoption of ethics and public records laws that apply to City agencies. In legal speak, that means nothing.

Proposition Q: Modifying the Payroll Expense Tax
VOTE: YES

The proposition will expand payroll expense tax exemption for small businesses. At the same time it will apply to compensation paid to shareholders of professional corporations, members of limited liability companies, and owners of partnerships for their services.

Proposition R: Renaming the Oceanside Water Treatment Plant
VOTE: YES
RESULT: NO

At first I thought this was a pretty silly proposition. What a waste of time. Then again, we’ve wasted away most of the goodwill the United States had built up internationally in the last 8 years also.

The costs are minimal, and it’ll be a testament to quirky, liberal San Francisco. And if it might bring in a few more tourist dollars to the SF Zoo and nearby attractions in southwest San Francisco, then let’s give it a shot.

Proposition S: Policy Regarding Budget Set-Asides and Identification of Replacement Funds
VOTE: YES
RESULT: YES

Numerous ballot measures attempt to create budget set-asides for good causes. This helps to make sure these set-asides doesn’t tie up so much of the budget for good causes that we can’t take care of the essentials.

Proposition T: Free and Low-Cost Substance Abuse Treatment Programs
VOTE: YES
RESULT: YES

Treatment saves money on public costs. It is a step in preventing and eliminating homelessness.

Proposition U: Policy Against Funding the Deployment of Armed Forces in Iraq
VOTE: NO
RESULT: YES

This is a federal issue, not one for the City. Contact your congressmen to voice your opinion.

Proposition V: Policy Against Terminating Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC) Programs in Public High Schools
VOTE: YES
RESULT: YES

There is a new program, the “Leadership Pathway,” that has started at some schools. It seems like a good idea. Let’s allow the students and their parents choose between the Leadership Pathway and JROTC.

Opponents want to replace the JROTC. It seems more like we just need to regulate it more – let JROTC students understand the real ramifications of war. We don’t need to abolish JROTC entirely.

My guess is that of all the many different issues on the ballot, you’ll know who you’re voting for president. My intent is to help inform you on how I’m voting, and maybe persuade you with a few of my reasons, on the issues that have received less attention.

With that in mind, this “voter reference guide” would not be complete without a quick nod at the Presidency. Obama’s tax plan will give me a tax break. Obama has a better grip on the reality of our country’s financial situation. Obama has been able to deal with tough decisions without rash reactions. Obama chose a running mate to help compliment him, one who can aid him on issues where he might lack as much experience.

McCain, on the other hand, while voicing his support for alternative and clean fuels, also proposed a “gas tax holiday” for the summer months. Sure, let’s stop our dependence on foreign oil by trying to get more people on the road and driving. He also supports offshore drilling. I don’t.

This is a big ticket issue but not one I want to focus on.

Judicial: Judge of the Superior Court. Seat #12
VOTE: THOMAS MELLON

Judge Mellon is currently serving on the Superior Court. The Bar Association of San Francisco supports him.

Board of Supervisors, District 7
VOTE: SEAN R. ELSBERND

Currently serving on the Board. Seems to be doing well, having worked to reduce City expenditures and improving streets.

School: Member, Board of Education
VOTE: NORMAN YEE, MARIGRACE COHEN, H. BROWN, JILL WYNNS

H. Brown: The Student Defense Corps that Brown advocates seems to be a good alternative to the JROTC.

Marigrace Cohen: She plans to integrate academic and career skills. The reality is that not all high schoolers will have the opportunity to go to college, so let’s prepare them with career skills.

Jill Wynns: Restored arts and music to schools. These are important programs, so I like her priorities.

Norman Yee: An incumbent on the board, and he seems to be an agent that helped better our schools while on the Board.

School: Member, Community College Board
VOTE: CARL KOEHLER, STEVE NGO, NATALIE BERG, CHRIS JACKSON

Natalie Berg: She is committed to help students develop marketable skills and transferring to baccalaureate programs. As an incumbent, she has a good list of accomplishments.

Chris Jackson: He has worked to promote workforce development programs, outreach programs, and green job training programs. These are important.

Carl Koehler: He has worked to expand vocational education programs with a focus on “green.” I like that.

Steve Ngo: He will focus on green jobs, workforce development and re-entry programs. Great!

Proposition 1A: High Speed Rail Bonds. Legislative Initiative Amendment.
VOTE: NO
OUTCOME: YES

I travel between San Francisco and Los Angeles for most major holidays. It would be great to have high speed rail to take me there.

This initiative appears to be poorly put together. Daily transit should be top priority for mass transit, including light rail in our cities so we don’t have to rely on our cars to get to work.

The supporters of this initiative hope to get people out of cars and into high speed rail to reduce traffic congestion, and to fight against global warming. However, most people who drive do so because it gives them the freedom to go where they want once they do reach their destination city and carry as much as their trunks might fit. So I don’t believe high speed rail will get people out of their cars for these long distance trips. Rather, it might simply give people an alternative when plane tickets get too expensive, especially for holiday travel.

Also, powering these high speed rail trains isn’t a small task. If these trains were full, then each train full of passengers helps to reduce the carbon footprint of Californians. But what about during the weekdays, will these trains be running with only a few passengers? Would powering these huge trains all across California still be “green”?

Proposition 2: Standards for Confining Farm Animals.
VOTE: YES
OUTCOME: YES

Treating animals well is a good thing. Preventing the transmission of disease is a good thing.

Proposition 3: Children’s Hospital Bond Act.
VOTE: NO
OUTCOME: YES

Proposition 61, approved by voters in November 2004, authorized the sale of $750 million in general obligation bonds to provide funding for children’s hospital. As of June 1, 2008, about $403 million of he funds had been awarded. That leaves about $347 million that has not been awarded, or spent.

Have them spend the money already provided before giving them more money.

Proposition 4: Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy.
VOTE: NO
OUTCOME: NO

Families that can teach their kids good values and have open communication won’t need this initiative. The families this initiative may be intending to help probably won’t be helped. Of course parents will want to know if their kids are pregnant or about to have an abortion, but making a law to force this will not help.

Arguments in favor of Prop 4 provide anecdotal evidence – which is hardly evidence because there is such a variety of circumstances (abusive relationships, abusive parents, etc) that any single anecdotal story should not be used as “evidence” that it will work under any circumstance.

Most appalling to me is the argument that this will reduce teen pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. STDs and pregnancies are not an immediate deterrent, meaning that there is so much time between committing the act to finding out one has an STD or is pregnant that it does not serve as a good deterrent. That’s why there are still so many teens practicing unsafe sex – it’s not that they think they won’t get pregnant (although some do), but that contracting an STD or becoming pregnant is so far outside of their realm of understanding that they simply don’t understand the gravity of the situation for it to be a deterrent.

Proposition 5: Nonviolent Drug Offenses. Sentencing.
VOTE: YES
OUTCOME: NO

Offenders in prison for a drug or nonviolent property crime and did not have serious, violent, gang-related or sex crime on their record would be placed on parole supervision for six months. Parole terms are extended from three to five years for an offender sentenced for a violent or serious felony.

I think we should differentiate between serious/ violent criminals on nonviolent criminals. It’s the violent ones that we need better supervision over.

Proposition 6: Police and Law Enforcement Funding
VOTE: NO
OUTCOME: NO

CalGRIP already does what this initiative wants to do – mainly targeting gang participation and recruitment. For some information on CalGRIP: http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/6395/

Proposition 7: Renewable Energy Generation.
VOTE: YES
OUTCOME: NO

This one vexes me. I want the state to support the use of more renewable energy. Supporters claim that is what this will do. Opposers claim this will actually disrupt renewable power development.

In the end, I am convinced by the supporting argument – that it is not poorly worded to produce litigation rather than advancement of renewable energy.

Proposition 8: Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.
VOTE: NO
OUTCOME: YES

Marriage, in the eyes of the state, has long since lots any religious meaning and is now about taxes, benefits and rights. It’s no longer a religious ceremony because if it were, we wouldn’t be able to get married by a buddy who got an online certificate or by some dude who works at City Hall. Rather, marriage now carries tax benefits, rights to survivorship, and access to health benefits, etc. I say let all people have these rights and benefits.

California has been on the forefront of providing rights to gay marriages. In a “separate but equal” institution of “Registered Domestic Partnership,” gay couples have been given substantially the same rights and privileges as in marriage. (Where have we seen this “separate but equal” idea before?) Unfortunately, this concept of Registered Domestic Partnership is not recognized federally, and thus their rights do not extend to federal taxes or other benefits controlled by the federal government.

It seems to me that it is mostly the religious that support Proposition 8. As a Christian myself, that saddens me. If you want to keep marriage as between a man and a woman based on some Biblical teaching, I understand. Then let your pastor know so he won’t marry gay couples. If you think the gay lifestyle is “perverse,” “wrong,” or “sinful,” then let he who is without sin cast the first stone. (see John 8:7)

Proposition 9: Criminal Justice System. Victim’s Rights. Parole.
VOTE: NO
OUTCOME: YES

From my reading and understanding, this is an attempt to provide an expansion of current rights, including allowing crime victims earlier notification of parole hearings and removing the limit on the number of family members who can testify at such hearings.

The supporters tug at our heartstrings, making emotional pleas. Victims already have these rights, but they want to expand them. From their arguments, it appears to be a veiled attempt to help victims ensure that the perpetrators get as harsh a sentence as possible. Not in the name of justice, but for the sake of revenge.

Proposition 10: Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Renewable Energy.
VOTE: NO
OUTCOME: NO

Approximately $1.6 billion will go to financial incentives or grants for research on alternative or renewable energy. Program audits and milestones will ensure that something comes out of it.

Most of the money, totaling $3.4 billion, will go to rebates for different “clean” or alternative fuel vehicles. Rebates help people adopt a technology before it’s ready for mass consumption. Let companies continue their research and prices will continue to drop. Technology not ready for mass consumption won’t be forced upon the public, and the public therefore won’t begin to adopt a technology that will not survive. Remember the E85 hoopla? Turns out that hasn’t quite taken off despite government help, and it didn’t help consumers when farmers stopped producing food for the table and tried making E85 gas for a few gas stations. (If only we followed Brazil’s tried and true use of sugar crops, but that’s another debate). Let’s not have another such debacle.

Proposition 11: Redistricting.
VOTE: YES
OUTCOME:

We often here about how after redistricting, the controlling party is able to make sure their party stays in power. We can stop this with Prop 11. Since the applicant pool for the Citizens Redistricting Commission is vetted by legislative leaders, we can be sure that each side will try to fight to be in power, but the majority will not be able to fix the redistricting to ensure that they always stay in power.

Proposition 12: Voters’ Bond Act of 2008
VOTE: YES
OUTCOME: YES

The Cal-Vet program has a good track record. Taxpayers haven’t yet had to pay a penny yet, and it’s a good cause. Let’s keep it going.

Move with Arrow Keys
Shoot with Z
Bomb with X
Pause with space bar