Election 2022 - California & San Francisco Propositions Explained Transcription

Listen Now | VOC Producers | Share | Donate | Resources

About This Transcript: This text version of our radio show/podcast is created to make our content more accessible to all audiences. However, it may not be 100% accurate. Some things to keep in mind: The original audio is always the most reliable source. Some words or phrases may be transcribed incorrectly due to audio quality, accents, or overlapping speech. Speaker labels are our best attempt at identification. We welcome your feedback if you spot errors that affect meaning or understanding.

VOC 2022 Election Podcast EP 101 Mix 2

[00:00:00] George Koster: Welcome to Voices of the Community, which explores critical issues facing Northern California communities. We introduce you to the voices of community thought leaders and change makers who are working on solutions that face our fellow individual community members, neighborhoods,

[00:00:26] George Koster: cities, and our region.

[00:00:28] George Koster: This is George Koster, your host.

[00:00:32] George Koster: Welcome to our 2022 election show. Given all the propositions on both a state of California level, as well as the usual, too many propositions to understand on the city of San Francisco level, we wanted to bring together two wonderful subject matter experts to help us better understand both the pros and cons of both state and city propositions.

[00:00:51] George Koster: We're joined remotely by Michelle Maritz, the Speakers Bureau, chair of the League of Women's Voters of San Francisco and Madison Alvarado, a reporter and the co-creator of the San Francisco Public Press election Guide. Welcome to Voices of the Community, Madison and Michelle.

[00:01:06] Michelle Moritz: Thank you.

[00:01:07] Madison Alvarado: Thank you so much for having us.

[00:01:09] George Koster: So medicine, please share with the audience a little background on the San Francisco Public Press.

[00:01:14] Madison Alvarado: Yeah, so the San Francisco Public Press is a nonprofit, non-commercial news organization, and we publish independent public interest journalism about undercover topics with a focus on really a reaching out and listening to issues affecting underserved audiences.

[00:01:29] Madison Alvarado: We began in 2009 as an experiment to provide nonprofit local news with a more investigative focus that we felt like was kind of missing in the Bay Area. You can read our work online. We also have a radio station, which. I have right here, 102.5 FM KSFP, or you can check out our flagship podcast Civic on any platform where you get your podcast.

[00:01:54] Madison Alvarado: So yeah,

[00:01:55] George Koster: so we really wanted to start with a macro level with the state and propositions, and let's turn to Michelle to kind of walk us through the seven propositions at the state level.

[00:02:05] Michelle Moritz: Okay. First, I just wanted to say a tiny bit about the League of Women Voters. We're a nonpartisan political nonprofit that defends democracy.

[00:02:14] Michelle Moritz: We provide education to encourage people to vote and participate in government. We do engage in some advocacy to influence public policy that benefits the community. And one important thing to note, and the way I will speak today is that we don't support or oppose any candidates or political parties.

[00:02:34] Michelle Moritz: And also despite our name, which is historic, people of all genders are welcome. So I'll delve into the California props now starting with prop one, which is the constitutional right to reproductive freedom. And the question here is, shall the California Constitution expressly provide that? The state of California shall not deny or interfere with an individual's reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, including the right to choose to have an abortion and their right to choose or refuse contraception.

[00:03:06] Michelle Moritz: So this one would be actually changing the Constitution of the state to specify that this constitutional amendment is intended to further the right of privacy and the right to not be denied equal protection. So some of the supporters say that Prop one will enshrine the fundamental right to an abortion and contraception.

[00:03:29] Michelle Moritz: California State Constitution and yes, on prop one is necessary to keep reproductive medical decisions where they belong with individuals and their healthcare providers based on scientific facts, not political arguments. And the opponents say that our current California law already grants. These rights to abortion and contraception.

[00:03:51] Michelle Moritz: And the recent US Supreme Court ruling that prompted putting this on the ballot did not and will not change. This prop one is not needed to protect women's health or their reproductive rights. The opponents also argue that Prop one is an extreme and costly proposal that allows unrestricted late term abortions and punishes taxpayers, abortion seekers from outside California will swamp California's resources.

[00:04:17] Michelle Moritz: I recently heard of some interviews around how this prop one and one thing I thought was an interesting fact is that there is only about 1% of abortions that occur after the second trimester now, and those are by and large due to serious medical issues with either the fetus. For the pregnant woman. So, and also the state says that fiscally prop one would have probably little impact.

[00:04:48] Michelle Moritz: So moving on to props 26 and 27. I guess I would describe those together. Because they both involve expanding gambling in California. So Prop 26 would, uh, expand gambling in Indian owned casinos and at four horse racing tracks around the state. And it would, the question is whether California should expand the allowable gambling activities at American Indian owned casinos and these four horse racing tracks, including betting on sports events for those 21 years or older.

[00:05:22] Michelle Moritz: So it would also allow tribal casinos to run new roulette and dice games. It would allow the casinos and four horse race tracks to offer onsite betting on sports events like football games, although no betting would be allowed on California high school or college sports. It would impose a 10% tax on sports betting at racetracks.

[00:05:44] Michelle Moritz: And the tracks revenue left after deducting the costs of sports betting regulation would be divided to send 70% to the state general fund, 15% to programs on gaming and mental health research, and 15% to the Department of Justice for enforcing gaming laws. And Prop 26 and 27 both legalized sports betting in some way.

[00:06:06] Michelle Moritz: So if both pass, they both may take effect. And since some provisions in these two props may conflict, those would most likely have to be resolved in court. Okay, so for 26, the supporters say that it would continue the 20 year legacy of allowing closely regulated gaming to support American Indian economies.

[00:06:28] Michelle Moritz: And Prop 26 is the most responsible approach to authorizing sports wagering and would promote American Indian self-reliance. Opponents say Prop 26 would massively expand gambling in California for the benefit of the large tribal casinos. So this one would leave out some of the smaller tribes that don't have these large casinos.

[00:06:51] Michelle Moritz: Prop 26 would also leave casino workers unprotected from worker safety, harassment, and discrimination. It also does not require minimum wage salaries or health insurance for casino workers. Then moving on to Prop 27, this one would allow online and mobile sports wagering outside of tribal lands from anywhere.

[00:07:13] Michelle Moritz: So from your mobile device or computer in your bedroom, wherever you wanna engage in this type of gambling. And of course, it would be restricted to people 21 years of age or older. So it would allow betting on adult sports events online from anywhere. It allows tribes to offer online sports betting under the.

[00:07:35] Michelle Moritz: Tribe's branding for a one-time $10 million state licensing fee, followed by a renewal fee every five years. But it would also allow gaming companies that are not affiliated with casinos. To strike a deal with a tribe to operate in California, they would have to pay a one-time licensing fee of a hundred million dollars plus a renewal fee every five years.

[00:07:58] Michelle Moritz: It would require the creation of a new sports wagering regulatory division within the State's Justice Department, and it would impose a 10% tax on all companies or tribes offering sports betting After the regulatory costs, 85% of revenue from taxes and fees would support mental health programs and help the homeless.

[00:08:20] Michelle Moritz: 15% would go to Indian tribes that are not involved in sports betting, so this one would include some money for the smaller tribes that don't have. Large casinos. Unlike Prop 26, none of the revenue or licensing fees would be included in the State's general fund for purposes of allocating money to programs such as public education.

[00:08:42] Michelle Moritz: So the supporters of Prop 27 say that this will provide hundreds of millions of dollars to support programs that alleviate homelessness and study mental health and addiction. In California, prop 27 will benefit every California tribe, especially the rural and economically disadvantaged tribes that don't own big casinos and have been kind of left out of.

[00:09:06] Michelle Moritz: The profits generated by gambling. The opponents say Prop 27 is a deceptive measure promoted by out-of-state companies to legalize online and mobile sports gambling in California. Online gambling is not a solution to homelessness or other social ills, and we'll promote more gambling addictions.

[00:09:25] George Koster: So before we start, I would love to get each of your take on who you think is behind both propositions.

[00:09:32] George Koster: 'cause they've spent massive amounts of money on TV to convince folks for each of their propositions. So Michelle, do you wanna provide a little context of, from your perspective, who are the folks that brought these two propositions onto the ballot?

[00:09:45] Michelle Moritz: So I understand that Prop 27 is the, you know, big backers of that are these large companies that provide online sports wagering.

[00:09:56] Michelle Moritz: Perhaps Madison knows more details. Than I do about this.

[00:10:01] Madison Alvarado: Yeah, I'd be happy to jump in. I believe, especially for Prop 27, some of the main supporters are these large sports betting companies like FanDuel, DraftKings bet, MGM, and a few other large gaming companies that would stand to make quite a bit of money if these, if this measure passes something else I remember reading about, I believe it was Cal Matters article, sort of discussing how the entry level fees for a lot of the gaming companies that would be able to provide online sports betting under Prop 27.

[00:10:36] Madison Alvarado: There are very high requirements for how much these companies have to pay and also requirements in terms of how many states they're operating in and things like that, that the consensus among some. Folks over at Cal Matters seemed to be that it was the way that the measure was written, it was gonna be really hard for smaller companies looking to offer online sports betting.

[00:10:58] Madison Alvarado: It was gonna be really hard for them to meet the thresholds required under Prop 27. And it was gonna largely be a few of these companies like FanDuel and DraftKings who are gonna be able to benefit just because I think they have to be operating in a certain number of states. And obviously the a hundred million dollars licensing fee is.

[00:11:17] Madison Alvarado: Pretty steep as well. And I think, so George, you touched on this a bit. I mean, we all, I think, are aware that this has been both measures at 26 and 27. There's been hundreds of millions of dollars poured into funding those campaigns. And I know I've been getting bombarded with ads for both sides, for and against.

[00:11:36] Madison Alvarado: And one of the big ads that I had been seeing a lot of for Prop 27 was saying it was really being supported by tribes. But when you look at the numbers, I believe Prop 27 is supported by three Native American tribes, but opposed by 50 Native American tribes. And then for 26, which is the other competing measure, I believe there are 27 tribes supporting it.

[00:12:00] Madison Alvarado: So I think looking at those number breakdowns, it is kind of interesting seeing what the ads are saying versus looking into the numbers of who actually is supporting those measures and sort of how that that pans out. So yeah.

[00:12:13] George Koster: Right.

[00:12:14] Michelle Moritz: I make another comment about that too. It reminded me that I also noticed in the, in some of the information that organizations to help the homeless and veterans groups are kind of split on whether they support.

[00:12:29] Michelle Moritz: Prop 27 or not, you know, it's supposed to raise all this money to support the homeless and mental health and gambling addiction problems. And, uh, but it, I thought it was interesting that the people who would, the organizations that would benefit. From funding raised by 27 are pretty much split on whether they think it's a good idea or not.

[00:12:50] George Koster: Great insight. And Michelle, do you wanna move on to the next proposition?

[00:12:54] Michelle Moritz: Sure. So moving on to Prop 28, this would provide additional funding for arts and music education in California public schools. So we already do, because of Prop 98, which was passed in 1988, we already do have money that is devoted to supporting.

[00:13:14] Michelle Moritz: Arts and music education in public schools, but this would simply increase that amount and, and add a few additional specifics. So to get into those, the question is, shall the state provide specific funding for arts and music education in public schools at a higher level than the existing constitutional minimum required for public education?

[00:13:36] Michelle Moritz: So it would require the state to set aside an additional portion of the General Fund for Arts and Music education in K to 12 schools and at greater than or equal to 1% of the funding received by schools in the prior year as designated by Prop 98 will supplement the amount currently provided and to DR.

[00:13:57] Michelle Moritz: To address equity issues. Prop 28 would allocate more money to schools that serve many low income students. Schools would. Must now report how the funding is used. And larger schools would be required to spend 80% of the funding to employ new staff and 20% on training and supplies. And the supporters say arts and music education can improve a student's personal and academic life.

[00:14:25] Michelle Moritz: Only one in five schools have a dedicated teacher for arts and music programs. So this prop would assist with that deficit and it does not raise taxes. As far as I know right now, there is no organized campaign to oppose this proposition.

[00:14:41] George Koster: Thank you. That was really also great insight. Shall we move to the next proposition mic.

[00:14:45] Michelle Moritz: Okay. Prop 29 may give you deja vu because we've already voted on this twice in recent years, and it was voted down each time. So this would require onsite licensed medical professionals at kidney dialysis clinics and establishes other state requirements. So this prop would require outpatient dialysis clinics to have a physician.

[00:15:10] Michelle Moritz: Nurse practitioner or physician assistant with at least six months of kidney care experience onsite at all hours when patients are being treated. The clinics would also have to report to patients the name of any physician with greater than or equal to 5% interest in the clinic, and clinics would not be able to discriminate among patients based on the source of payment.

[00:15:33] Michelle Moritz: Clinics would also have to report information about dialysis related infections among their patients to the state, and clinics would have to obtain permission from the state to close or reduce hours. So the supporters say that requiring a physician, nurse practitioner, or a physician or physician assistant to be present during a dangerous procedure like dialysis is common sense and a matter of safety for patients.

[00:15:59] Michelle Moritz: Dialysis clinics currently face fewer inspections than other health facilities and deficiencies are often uncovered. The supporters also say the big corporations operating dialysis clinics can easily make the required staffing changes and still profit hundreds of millions of dollars a year. The opponents say the clinics already use specially trained technicians, and every patient is already under the care of their own kidney doctors.

[00:16:26] Michelle Moritz: So more oversight is unnecessary. Prop 29 would also take thousands of skilled medical staff from hospitals where they're needed and place them in administrative jobs. In these clinics and onsite administrators who do not provide patient care would cost hundreds of millions of dollars every year forcing clinics to reduce hours or close.

[00:16:48] George Koster: And Madison, any thoughts on dialysis re revisited? I feel like it's to your, to, to Michelle's point, it's deja vu all over again.

[00:16:57] Madison Alvarado: Yeah. I, I believe this is the third time that a dialysis related measure has been on the ballot. I think just in response to the discussion of. Clinics being forced to close.

[00:17:08] Madison Alvarado: State analysts estimate that clinics have a total revenue of about $3.5 billion a year, and that two private for-profit companies are operating about 75% of the clinics. So I just think that's some interesting, you know, background to add on to some of those points.

[00:17:26] George Koster: Good context. And Michelle, would you like to provide the, the next proposition?

[00:17:30] Michelle Moritz: Sure. I had one more thing to say about Prop 29. I tried to look into why this keeps appearing on the ballot and my best guess is that the. Clinic workers would like to unionize and they have not, they have been unsuccessful in bringing that about, and so unions are, unfortunately, I can't remember which one or more it is, but they're, this is a way to put pressure on who runs these clinics to agitate for the unionization of the workers at the clinics.

[00:18:04] Michelle Moritz: That's my best understanding of why this keeps coming up.

[00:18:08] George Koster: Thank you. I think wasn't the, I'm trying to remember whether it was two generations ago. Wasn't there A part of it was they were trying to unionize and union vote, and then the employers made sure that the union vote did basically lost.

[00:18:23] Michelle Moritz: That was what I learned.

[00:18:25] Michelle Moritz: Trying to look into the background of this.

[00:18:27] Madison Alvarado: Yeah, and I looked it up. It looks like the union is the service employees International Union United Healthcare Workers West.

[00:18:35] George Koster: Okay. And then Michelle, shall we go to Proposition 30 Income tax on millionaires to everybody's favorite topic?

[00:18:42] Michelle Moritz: Yeah. So Prop 30 would provide funding for programs to reduce air pollution and prevent wildfires by increasing tax on personal income over $2 million.

[00:18:53] Michelle Moritz: So the question is whether the tax rate on people who earn more than 2 million a year be increased by 1.75% to support zero emission vehicle subsidies and infrastructure, such as charging stations and wildfire suppression and prevention programs. So the funds would be allocated as follows, 45% would promote the purchase of zero emission vehicles or ZEVs in including subsidies and rebates for cars, trucks, and buses.

[00:19:25] Michelle Moritz: 35% of the funds would increase ZEV infrastructure, including charging stations close to where people live, and 20% would help fund wildfire suppression and prevention. So the supporters say existing programs are insufficient to address California's poor air quality, which is largely caused by automobile exhaust, and wildfire smoke.

[00:19:48] Michelle Moritz: And Prop 30 would make electric vehicles more affordable and create well paying green jobs. It would also fund critically needed programs to prevent catastrophic wild fires and protect homes, and there would be strict accountability to ensure that the the funds are spent as intended. The opponents say California's already spending more than $50 billion a year for a multi-year climate investment, including $10 billion for ZEV support.

[00:20:17] Michelle Moritz: There's no guarantee that Prop 30 will make Z EVs affordable for most California families. Prop 30 would also lock money from income taxes in this special interest. And this income taxes are normally a major source of school funding and it would be locking it into the special interest. And then, as you know, we've all seen Governor Newsom's ad where the claim is made that it's lifts attempt to get taxpayers to help foot the bill for the requirement to increase the number of electric vehicles used by Lyft's drivers.

[00:20:51] Michelle Moritz: And I guess Lyft is the largest supporter of Prop 30.

[00:20:56] George Koster: Madison, any context on your end?

[00:20:58] Madison Alvarado: I think that Michelle mostly covered it. I guess just going into a bit more detail, I believe there's a state law that by 2035 there will be a ban on the new sale of gas powered cars. And in that law, there's also built-in rules that require a big ride share companies like Lyft and Uber, that by 2030, 90% of the miles logged by drivers for those companies need to be electric vehicle cars.

[00:21:24] Madison Alvarado: And so I think that's part of the thought around this, why Lyft is promoting this prop so much.

[00:21:32] George Koster: Right. And then moving on to our last Proposition, 31.

[00:21:35] Michelle Moritz: Yeah. So this is a referendum on a 2020 law that the state legislature passed that would prohibit the retail sale of certain flavored tobacco products. So there was a law SB 7 93 that was enacted by the California state legislature to ban the sale of certain flavored tobacco products.

[00:21:55] Michelle Moritz: And it did not go into effect because a petition to demand, a referendum on the law qualified for the ballot. So Prop 31 would provide that in-person stores and vending machines could not sell most flavored tobacco products and tobacco product flavor enhancers, including menthol cigarettes. There would be a $250 penalty per violation for store and vending machine owners.

[00:22:22] Michelle Moritz: And this would exclude premium cigars or hookah tobacco. So the supporters say Prop 31 will help decrease smoking rates, especially among youth. Prop 31 protects youth by ending the sale of candy flavored tobacco products that lures them into lifelong addiction to nicotine. And this prop would also prevent big tobacco from causing more harm to black communities that buy menthol flavored tobaccos.

[00:22:49] Michelle Moritz: The opponents say Prop 31 is simply prohibition of tobacco sales to adults. It will drive more tobacco sales into the existing illegal market, and it goes too far in banning some products that the FDA allows, which will cause people to buy other tobacco products that are more harmful. And

[00:23:08] George Koster: who's behind this one?

[00:23:09] Michelle Moritz: I think the, uh, big tobacco companies and Juul, the different vaping companies are opposed.

[00:23:17] George Koster: Right. Madison, any, uh, insights on Prop 31?

[00:23:20] Madison Alvarado: I guess just a little context. There are certain cities and counties across California that have already banned the sale of certain flavored tobacco products. I think San Francisco is one of those.

[00:23:30] Madison Alvarado: So just even if this statewide ban is overturned by the proposition, those local bans will still be in place in certain cities and counties that have taken action already. So just a little nugget of info for listeners who might be in a place where that sale is already banned.

[00:23:47] George Koster: Right. Like San Francisco.

[00:23:49] George Koster: You're listening to Voices of the Community, which explores critical issues facing Northern California communities. Voices of the Community is supported by a grant from the James Irvine Foundation dedicated to a California where all low income workers have the power to advance economically more@irvine.org.

[00:24:05] George Koster: This is George Koster, your host, and if you're just joining us, this is our 2022 election show, exploring the pros and cons of both the state of California and the city of San Francisco propositions with our guest, Madison Alvarado, a reporter and the co-creator of the San Francisco Public Press Election Guide.

[00:24:23] George Koster: And Michelle Moritz, the Speakers Bureau Chair of the League of Women Voters of San Francisco. We just finished with the State of California propositions, and now we're going to dive into the 14 propositions facing the city of San Francisco voters. So we're gonna turn to you, Madison to kick us off with one of 14.

[00:24:40] Madison Alvarado: Yes. Awesome. Thank you for that introduction, George. So let's just kick things off with Proposition A. So Proposition A is a charter amendment that would adjust supplemental cost of living benefits for folks in the San Francisco employees retirement system who retired before November 6th, 1996. And basically what this proposition would do is eliminate a requirement that the retirement system be fully funded based on the prior year's market value of its assets, and ensure that employees who or retirees, whose base allowance.

[00:25:17] Madison Alvarado: Was not supplemented for five years would basically get those supplements paid back. So there were in 20 13, 20 14, 20 17, 20 18, and 2019, retirees were not able to receive supplemental payments because of this full funding requirement. So Prop A would eliminate that requirement and give about 4,400 retirees that those back supplements and the other.

[00:25:45] Madison Alvarado: Change that it makes is it allows the retirement board to enter into an individual contract with the executive director of the retirement system, and basically this will allow them to pay the executive director higher than what's currently allowed for civil servant employees, essentially allowing them to compete more with private companies.

[00:26:11] Madison Alvarado: That's what supporters are saying is that they need to be able to pay people more to attract candidates that will take on this newly combined role of CEO and see IO that took place in 2021. The city controller estimates that if this prop passes, it will cost about $8 million. Annually for the next 10 years and about $5 million each year will come out of the city's general fund to pay for those supplements.

[00:26:40] Madison Alvarado: So yeah, supporters say that this bill is gonna be really helpful for those 4,400 former employees in helping them keep up with the increased cost of livings. And as of right now, I don't believe there are any groups arguing against this proposition.

[00:26:56] George Koster: And for some context to medicine, was this put together by the city itself or were there unions involved with city employees that were trying to recapture funds that they weren't able to get?

[00:27:08] Madison Alvarado: You know, I do not remember. I can check back. And then report back if that works. But yeah, I, off the top of my head, I do not fully remember who kind of put this together.

[00:27:21] George Koster: No worries. And Michelle, any insights on this proposition?

[00:27:25] Michelle Moritz: One thing I I thought was interesting was that, so Madison mentioned it would affect about 4,400 retirees.

[00:27:32] Michelle Moritz: I thought it was interesting that the average age of those people is 85 and most of them are getting less than $50,000 a year. Many less than 22,000. And also I did read that some opponents of that one said that this would override a 2015 court ruling, which held that beneficiaries who retired before.

[00:27:55] Michelle Moritz: November 6th, 1996 have no contractual right to Supplemental Cola payments. So just a little more information I guess.

[00:28:04] George Koster: Thank you. Madison, would you like to move on to proposition B?

[00:28:06] Madison Alvarado: Yes, that sounds great. So Proposition B is, if Proposition B passes, basically it will undo a 2020 charter amendment that split the Department of Public works into two and basically created a new sanitation and streets department.

[00:28:23] Madison Alvarado: And the reason why some folks have buyer's remorse on that 2020 proposition is because it was going to cost the city an extra $6 million annually to create that new department and. The city controller also says that sort of undoing that step would require 23 fewer administrative staff positions, but part of the 2020 Charter Amendment that will remain is some of the oversight committees that will be created because the reason why the initial proposition back in 2020 passed.

[00:28:56] Madison Alvarado: Was because there was a corruption scandal that started with an FBI probe into Department of Public Works that resulted in prison time for the director at the time who just was sentenced back in August, I believe. And so that proposition was kind of designed to help clean up the city streets and also clean up some of the corruption happening behind closed doors.

[00:29:19] Madison Alvarado: But because. Of the costs that would come with splitting Department of Public Works and creating this new department. Several members of the Board of supervisors have kind of decided that it might be better to keep some of the oversight, but not create this separate department that's gonna cost about $6 million every year.

[00:29:38] Madison Alvarado: So it was Supervisor Aaron Peskin who introduced this ballot measure and it passed The board of supervisors voted eight three in favor of having this measure appear on the ballot. And so supporters are arguing that oversight of the board is gonna remain without the massive costs of creating a new department.

[00:29:56] Madison Alvarado: While opponents, including, uh, state assembly member Matt Haney, who helped pass this, the original 2020 measure when he was a District six supervisor, he is arguing that by overturning this, we are opening up. Doors to corruption and that in a long scheme of things, $6 million out of San Francisco's budget, which is, you know, in the tens of billions is, is not that much of a high cost to pay.

[00:30:24] George Koster: Thank you. That was really good. Alright, so moving on to Proposition C.

[00:30:28] Madison Alvarado: So Proposition C would create oversight commission to oversee one of San Francisco's largest departments, and that is the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing. The Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing, or HSH is the eighth largest city department, and in fiscal year 2022 through 2023, it has a budget of 672 million.

[00:30:51] Madison Alvarado: So that makes it right now the largest city agency without an oversight committee. And so Proposition C would create an oversight commission to have binding authority over projects and funding for the department. And that would make it the first oversight committee in the Bay Area that is. Tackling projects sort of around homelessness.

[00:31:11] Madison Alvarado: A lot of other cities have commissions and committees that advise their homelessness departments, but these public bodies aren't able to hold city agencies or service providers accountable. And here in San Francisco, a lot of people know that a large portion of homeless services come from. Third party providers like nonprofits.

[00:31:30] Madison Alvarado: And in the last few months there have been several big investigations. I know I'm thinking of the San Francisco Chronicle investigating conditions in single room occupancy hotels, also here at the public press. And one of our reporters was looking into really long wait lists, but there were lots of vacancies in the different shelters and SROs.

[00:31:51] Madison Alvarado: And so this measure is kind of designed to create a lot of more, a lot more oversight and transparency around that department for an issue that San Franciscans and Californians widely list as a top concern for them, which is homelessness. The board of supervisors, unanim unanimously voted to put this measure on the ballot, so clearly it has a lot of support.

[00:32:12] Madison Alvarado: If this commission is created, it will have seven members and initial appointments will be made in March of 2023. Four of those appointed appointees will be appointed by the mayor, and the other three will be appointed by the board of supervisors. And basically, if the oversight commission is created, they will formulate, evaluate, and set homeless policies, serve as a public forum to raise accountability issues, and advocate for fair policies, conduct investigations into governmental operations that are within its jurisdiction and a few other key roles.

[00:32:47] Madison Alvarado: So yeah, if you are interested in looking into that more, our reporter kind of did, does a full breakdown of a lot of the different aspects that that. Oversight commission will do. But that's kind of the bare bones of what it we'd be looking at if this measure passes.

[00:33:03] George Koster: All right. Thank you. And now moving on to the dueling affordable housing coming from the mayor or the porter supervisors.

[00:33:09] Madison Alvarado: Yes. Yeah, so I think this is a topic that we've been hearing a lot about, at least I've been seeing a lot. Because once again, yeah, homelessness, affordable housing, all of these issues are a really upfront and center in voters' minds. I think these two are coming at a pretty critical time for San Francisco.

[00:33:26] Madison Alvarado: Three months ago, the California Department of Housing and Community Development launched an investigation into San Francisco's housing policies to sort of figure out why the permitting process takes so long here, especially considering we have a massive, affordable H housing shortage. And so these two measures are both focused on streamlining that process.

[00:33:47] Madison Alvarado: And sort of who gets veto power and within the city looking at the permitting process for various affordable housing projects, there are a few key differences. So I'm gonna sort of outline some of those two. But as George said, it really makes sense to kind of talk about the two of them together because they're both targeting the same thing, but have sort of different ways of going about it.

[00:34:09] Madison Alvarado: So starting with Proposition D, this was brought forward by Mayor London Breed, and she tried to get it passed by the Board of Supervisors, but ultimately was not successful in that. So she turned with a group of other groups like Habitat for Humanity, greater sf. SF ybi, which we know stands for yes, in My Backyard and a few other groups to get the 10% I believe required.

[00:34:35] Madison Alvarado: 10% of registered voters signatures to have this appear on the ballot. And basically what her plan will do is it will streamline approval for three types of affordable housing development. And that is 100% affordable housing development, affordable housing that's designed for teachers. So folks who are employed with City College of San Francisco and the San Francisco Unified School District.

[00:35:00] Madison Alvarado: And then a third category, which is mixed income buildings. And this is where you kind of start to see some of the differences in the two proposals. So for Mayor London Breed, the plan that cheese backing the buildings that would qualify are mixed use buildings with 15% more affordable housing than currently mandated by the city.

[00:35:21] Madison Alvarado: So the city currently mandates that 22% of a mixed income building. Is affordable. And so this plan being pushed by Mayor London breed Proposition D would require an extra 15% on top of the 22% mandated by the city. In contrast, the other plan, proposition E, which was pushed by several members of the Board of Supervisors, has a flat requirement of 30% for mixed income housing developments to be streamlined through this approval process.

[00:35:57] Madison Alvarado: So that's one key difference between the two. Another important aspect that the backers of Proposition D, our pushing is that going through the approval process, there are certain housing developments are subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act, and that act has been cited by supervisors in several controversial rejections of housing developments and under the Proposition D, these projects.

[00:36:25] Madison Alvarado: I just described those three categories, they would not be subject to review under CQA. And so supporters say that this is really key to making sure that there's no unnecessary stops or rejections of the development of certain proposed sites. However, proposition E does not make a complete exemption. So there are some projects under Proposition E that may be subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act.

[00:36:52] Madison Alvarado: And so that is another key difference between the two. And people who are in favor of eliminating SQA oversight say that's really important to making sure that none of these projects are vetoed. And so the opponents of Proposition E are saying, you know, by not including that exemption. That's gonna affect how many sites get built.

[00:37:15] Madison Alvarado: So that's another key difference. And then there are other, a few smaller differences in things like the labor standards that are required for certain projects. So for Proposition E, there are higher standards that require skilled and trained laborers. There are also differences in area median income requirements.

[00:37:36] Madison Alvarado: So opponents of Proposition D say that basically Proposition D allows, uh. 100% affordable housing projects to include units that have households making up to 140% of area median income. And opponents say that means that some people living in affordable housing could actually be paying more than market rate housing in a building that's deemed affordable.

[00:38:00] Madison Alvarado: So they take issue with that. And Proposition D also allows the maximum average income of all units in an affordable development to be raised from the state set 80% of area median income to no more than 120%. And that's a higher threshold than is allowed under Proposition E. So the critics of Prop D say that it won't actually generate affordable housing, and they're saying it's a developer giveaway.

[00:38:26] Madison Alvarado: And then the critics of Prop E are saying they're missing this really important inclusion because there's no CQA. Because CQA oversight is still allowed. And so they're worried that. Projects will be stopped through that. And the opponents of Proposition E are also saying the affordability requirements are so high that.

[00:38:47] Madison Alvarado: The projects will not pencil out and it won't produce any new housing. So that's an overview, trying to get to some of the nuances and differences between these two. But yeah, they both kind of have the same goal but different, uh, strategies as to how to fix that. And different groups on either side supporting, you know, which measure they think should pass.

[00:39:07] Madison Alvarado: And both sides are very passionate about which one is more effective or which one yeah. Will result in higher affordability and less gentrification and all of these other factors.

[00:39:21] George Koster: Right, and so for some context for folks listening and or watching, what is the average household median income in the city of San Francisco for a family of four?

[00:39:30] Madison Alvarado: Off the top of my head, I do not know, but if Michelle has anything she wants to add.

[00:39:35] Michelle Moritz: Well, I guess I would say that I can answer that. For example, 120% of the average median income for a family of four or a household of four would be about 166,000 per year, and 80% would be about 110,000 a year for four people.

[00:39:55] George Koster: So that would allow people who make more money to actually access affordable housing versus what the state slash federal, which is really based on HUD numbers, uh, with regards to that 80% cap in the past. Alright, well thank you for trying to distill two really interesting conflicting and for lack of a better term, politically placed propositions with hopefully the goal of building more housing in San Francisco.

[00:40:19] George Koster: So any other thoughts on, on either of these, Michelle or Madison?

[00:40:23] Michelle Moritz: One thing I thought was interesting is that both of these props could pass because they just require a simple majority to pass. And so then I don't know what would happen. It's not really clarified, you know, would there be lawsuits?

[00:40:41] Madison Alvarado: Thank you for bringing that up Michelle.

[00:40:42] Madison Alvarado: 'cause I actually meant to mention that as Michelle pointed out both of these, it's entirely possible that both of these could pass and in the event that both pass, whichever receives more votes will go into effect. So. Even if both get more than 50% of the votes, whichever one receives higher votes, that will knock the other out and the other bill will be null.

[00:41:04] Madison Alvarado: So yeah. Thank you that that's a very important point to bring up.

[00:41:07] George Koster: Yeah. Very good. And so now moving on to a proposition that I'm sure no one hates and that's libraries.

[00:41:13] Madison Alvarado: Yes. So Proposition F is an plan to extend the library preservation fund for another 25 years. So that would extend the fund through June, 2048.

[00:41:23] Madison Alvarado: And right now the fund draws 2.50 cents out of every a hundred dollars from existing property taxes. And so this rate setting aside, this rate would basically be continued if Prop F passes. And so the fund is designed to provide library services and materials and help operate library facilities. So, yeah, this basically would just extend that fund for another 25 years.

[00:41:50] Madison Alvarado: Supporters note that there is no increase in cost as this is part of a set aside and that libraries are a really key public resource as far as I'm aware, there are no arguments against this measure, and the city controller estimates that it will have very minimal costs. So yeah, that's a brief overview of Proposition F.

[00:42:10] George Koster: Michelle, any thoughts on libraries?

[00:42:12] Michelle Moritz: I did come across a couple of opponents arguments. One that the current voter approved library preservation fund renewal period of 15 years is satisfactory and provides more flexibility in terms of not locking it in for 25 years. And another opponent, one that I saw was a set aside, does not allow flexibility for other city needs driving up property taxes.

[00:42:37] George Koster: Right. So moving on to student success fund proposition G.

[00:42:43] Madison Alvarado: Yes. So Prop G was spearheaded by supervisor Hillary Ronan, and it is a charter amendment that would establish a student success fund. And that fund would be operated by the Department of Children, youth, and their families for 15 years. And basically the idea with this fund is that it would provide grants to San Francisco Unified School district schools, and those grants would be paid for using excess property tax revenues.

[00:43:11] Madison Alvarado: So the grants. Are up to $1 million annually to S-F-U-S-D schools, ranging from pre-K all the way through 12th grade. And the goal of the grants is to improve academic achievement and social and emotional wellness for students. And so in its first year, the fund would receive $11 million. Its second year, it would receive 35 million and up to in, in the fourth year, I believe it's 60 million.

[00:43:38] Madison Alvarado: So the city controllers analysis that there would an impact on the cost of government because Proposition G is reallocating funds that would otherwise be available in the general fund. And that is a point that opponents bring up that other city services funded by the general fund, like public transit and police, would potentially be losing out on funds that will be redirected towards schools.

[00:44:02] Madison Alvarado: The measure also outlines a community school framework that basically creates a model for. Students, educators, families and community partners to work with the school administrators to design these programs to help students who are struggling. And the grants that are awarded the funding at schools could go to hiring more educators, nurses to tutors, the math specialists, social workers, and all kinds of other support staffs.

[00:44:31] Madison Alvarado: And it could also be used to fund afterschool programs or arts and culture programs. And then there are certain requirements that the measure sets up in order to receive the grants. Like having a community coordinator who can work with the principal to implement new programs or having a. School site council that endorses the grant proposal and for schools that might not have these, the ability to easily create the required school site council or having that full-time school coordinator, there are technical assistance grants that are available to help schools that want to apply to these, apply for these grants that might not have as many resources.

[00:45:13] Madison Alvarado: So yeah, that's an overview of. Prop G.

[00:45:16] George Koster: And it's based on the framework of a school being really a community resource. Like a community center, for example. Yes. So that's the funding for a lot of the wraparound services. And Michelle, any thoughts on proposition G?

[00:45:28] Michelle Moritz: I would just bring up some of the things that the opponents say.

[00:45:32] Michelle Moritz: One thing they argue is that since the schools that receive grants would have to have a community school coordinator to implement the newly funded programs, there's such a shortage of educators now that creating new administrative positions seems Ill-advised is one practical sort of argument I've seen opposing it.

[00:45:54] Michelle Moritz: That's the only bit I have to add.

[00:45:57] George Koster: Great. And then moving on to hopefully an easier one, proposition H for all those people who like even years.

[00:46:03] Madison Alvarado: So as George just hinted at Proposition H would move elections to even years and the city controller estimates that would save about $7 million every election.

[00:46:13] Madison Alvarado: So if you're listening to this and you're interested in voting, you probably are aware that San Francisco has had many elections this year. I think this will be the fourth or, or something absurd like that. And so the idea with this proposition is that voter turnout tends to be higher on even numbered years, like this year, 2022 midterms, or you know, every four years when there's the presidential election.

[00:46:38] Madison Alvarado: And so what proposition H does is it would move odd number election years. So in San Francisco, mayor, sheriff, district attorney, city attorney, and treasurer, those elections typically happen on odd years. And this measure, if it passes, will move those elections to an even year. So for example, the mayoral election is.

[00:47:01] Madison Alvarado: Set to take place in 2023. If this measure passes, that will be pushed to 2024. And oddly, even though that would mean Mayor London Breed would get an extra year in office, she actually has opposed it and said that changes were being pushed by a group of democratic socialists who would want to quote, have more control over elections.

[00:47:24] Madison Alvarado: So that was kind of an interesting point that I, yeah, I just. I thought that was an interesting comment because we know that in San Francisco and in a lot of elections, there tend to be much higher turnouts on even years. And actually there's a state law that under the California Voter Participation Rights Acts, that basically was passed in 2015 that required elections to be held on even number years if there was a significant difference in even and odd elections.

[00:47:55] Madison Alvarado: I think the difference was 25% or more. But San Francisco and San Francisco does does meet that threshold, but there was a separate lawsuit brought forward by another city that said that law shouldn't apply to charter cities. So San Francisco and other charter cities were exempt from this state law. And the idea with Proposition H, with supervisor Dean Preston kind of bringing it forward.

[00:48:18] Madison Alvarado: He's saying, you know, San Francisco we're, we're behind on this. We need to catch up to all these other cities that are making the change, including Los Angeles and San Jose, who are switching over to these even numbered election years. So yeah, supporters say it's gonna increase voter turnout, it's gonna save $7 million a year, and it ensures that more voters, especially voters from marginalized communities, can make their voices heard.

[00:48:45] Madison Alvarado: And then opponents are saying that there's the official opponent argument. A former Republican mayoral candidate, Richie Greenberg said the measure would be canceling the 2023 elections. So they kind of feel like we shouldn't move around. Election dates. Yeah.

[00:49:01] George Koster: Right. And, and Michelle, any thoughts on even years?

[00:49:05] Michelle Moritz: Yeah. It would also change the minimum number of signatures required to qualify for an initiative or a recall election. So right now, it would change that to 2% of the registered voters in the previous election. And so that would kind of discourage and make the hurdle higher to have a special election or a recall election.

[00:49:27] Michelle Moritz: So if you're a voter who did not like the four elections we had this year, this might be a good one for you. And then, yeah, I was really kind of stunned to see. How different the voter turnout is in even versus odd numbered years. It's like 70 in the last 10 years, even your average is 73% in San Francisco turnout, whereas in odd years it's around 39%.

[00:49:54] George Koster: Wow. Almost double.

[00:49:55] Madison Alvarado: Yeah. The, the difference is really stark.

[00:49:58] George Koster: Alright, so then moving on to two of our next propositions which are joined. What I find fascinating is these are two propositions that were really kind of born out of the last two and a half years of the pandemic. When there are issues that have percolated up because of people being locked down, people gonna wanting to be outside, et cetera.

[00:50:15] George Koster: So medicine share with us, and we're gonna kind of link these, right? 'cause they are linked Proposition I and Proposition J.

[00:50:21] Madison Alvarado: Yes, they definitely, the fate of these two are also linked, much like D and e. If both of these pass, whichever one receives more votes is going to go into effect. So as George referenced during the pandemic, in order to create a more space for social distancing and for people to spend time outside, there were certain stretches of the Great Highway and Golden Gate Park that were closed down to cars for pedestrians and bikers and people to enjoy those spaces.

[00:50:48] Madison Alvarado: And in May, 2022, the board of supervisors voted to turn JFK drive in Golden Gate Park into what is called the JFK Promenade and closed the Great Highway on weekends. And so what proposition I would do is it would overturn that board of supervisor vote that closed JFK Drive and the Great Highway and it would reopen those roads.

[00:51:12] Madison Alvarado: So what would happen is. For JFK Drive, that would remain completely open on weekdays, but closed to private cars on weekends from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM in the months between April and September and on holidays. So outside of those. Months, the roads would remain open to cars, and then the Great Highway would be open to vehicle traffic seven days a week except for special approved events by the city.

[00:51:41] Madison Alvarado: And then the other big part of Proposition I is that it would forbid the city from moving forward with a plan that would eventually close the great highway between Slo Boulevard and Skyline Boulevard. Basically, right now, traffic, the plan is to divert traffic to the other side of the San Francisco Zoo along Skyline and SLO Boulevard.

[00:52:02] Madison Alvarado: And the reason why that plan is in place is because the Great Highway is subject to a lot of coastal erosion because of sea level rise. And city planners think that maintaining that roadway over time is gonna become impossible and pretty expensive. And so the plan. The city's current plan is to turn that part of the Great Highway into paths and a parking lot, and what proposition I would do is reverse course on that plan and basically forbid the city from moving forward with that plan.

[00:52:35] Madison Alvarado: And it would take JFK Drive and the Great Highway out of the jurisdiction from the Recreation and Parks Department, and under the purview of the Department of Public Works, which manages most of the city's roadways. So supporters of Proposition. I include some senior and disability groups who say that access to the park with reduced roads is a lot harder for, uh, folks who are older or disabled.

[00:53:02] Madison Alvarado: The group seniors for Inclusion said that a nearly 1000 free parking spaces and a DA parking spaces near attractions like the Conservatory of Flowers and the De Young are no longer accessible. Now that those roads are closed on the opponent side, which include several supervisors. They are saying that the cost of maintaining the Great Highway is really expensive and the city controller's office estimated it was gonna cost at least $80 million over the next 20 years to maintain that highway and keep it open for roads.

[00:53:36] Madison Alvarado: And that's really expensive. And also that people really enjoy having these open, open spaces. So that's I, and sort of in response to I to protect that decision that was made several supervisors. Produce Proposition J, which basically does the opposite. It makes the closure of K permanent and it's kind of there in contrast with Proposition I.

[00:53:59] Madison Alvarado: And so it would add these road closures and changes to the park code with the goal of shifting park access away from car traffic and more towards pedestrian and bicycle use. So if you've gone through Golden Gate Park in the last few weeks, I know I've seen people there with flyers and signs for both.

[00:54:19] Madison Alvarado: Yes. On J and No on J or Yes. On I and No on I. That, yes. On J Campaign specifically claims that public use of the park has increased by 35% since the closure of JFK and the Great Highway and that 70% of people that they surveyed support that closure. It's not clear. How that survey data was conducted. But the groups for Yes on J also cite traffic data that say that JFK Drive was among the top 13% of most dangerous streets in San Francisco when it come, when it was open to car traffic.

[00:54:53] Madison Alvarado: And so they say that, you know, it's, it's a good thing. These streets were dangerous and in response to criticisms that the park will be less accessible, they also said that the city has added 29 new a DA parking spaces behind the music band shell, which exceeds the number of spaces that were eliminated when the drive was turned into like this promenade area.

[00:55:17] Madison Alvarado: And there's a later measure that we're gonna talk about that also relates to kind of parking in that area. But yeah, for now that's, that's INJ

[00:55:25] George Koster: and Michelle. Any, uh, insights on INJ?

[00:55:28] Michelle Moritz: I guess I would just point out there is a new parking shuttle that runs every 15 minutes along JFK Promenade, connecting all the major park attractions to Muni.

[00:55:39] Michelle Moritz: And so that is an option for people who are not as mobile as some. Yeah. So that was another argument in support of Prop J.

[00:55:49] George Koster: Great. So moving on to Proposition L, which is sales tax for Transportation.

[00:55:54] Madison Alvarado: Yes. And actually that was a great transition from Michelle talking about Muni. And because L focuses on public transit and basically Proposition L is a proposed extension of the city's current 0.5% sales tax.

[00:56:10] Madison Alvarado: That would basically extend a sales tax to fund public transportation through 2053. Right now, San Francisco actually the current 0.5% sales tax isn't set to expire for at least another 10 years, but right now the supporters of Proposition L are wanting to pass this now that would basically extend, replace the existing tax and extend it.

[00:56:36] Madison Alvarado: Another 30 years. So this would allow the city to issue up to 1.9 billion in bonds that would be repaid with proceeds from the tax. And the city controller estimated that the tax would generate about a hundred million per year in its early years. And by the time the tax is set to expire, it would, that number would increase to about 236 million.

[00:56:59] Madison Alvarado: And the idea is that the revenue from the tax would go to the 2022 transportation expenditure plan, which includes a variety of programs focused on basic transit maintenance, major transit improvements, increasing pair transit services, congestion reduction, pedestrian and bike safety, and some community based equity planning.

[00:57:20] Madison Alvarado: So this is, there are a lot of. A lot more detailed plans and changes and extensions and and things like that. But basically the supporters say that a passing this proposition now is gonna be a really important part of luring back riders. We know that during the pandemic public transit, the. Amount of people using public transit dropped pretty significantly, and that obviously has affected the budgets of a lot of these transit organizations.

[00:57:49] Madison Alvarado: Back in one of our earlier elections this year, there was a $400 million muni bond measure that failed back in June. And so supporters also say that this is really important to kind of help bolster these services that people use every day. And advocates say that passing the tax now will unlock the potential to qualify for matching federal and state funds.

[00:58:13] Madison Alvarado: And they basically say that under our current transit plans, we've finished. Except for one of the major capital projects. And so the idea is, well, if we pass this now, we can then start implementing all these new projects beginning in 2020. San Francisco has had this 0.5% sales tax going towards public transit since it was first approved in 1989, and voters again elected to extend it in 2003.

[00:58:41] Madison Alvarado: So this has been around for a long time, but opponents are saying that we already have a tax in place that's not gonna expire for another 10 years. Why do we need to fund this now? And they also think that the. Amount of federal funding that's available is false marketing because it doesn't adjust for inflation.

[00:59:00] Madison Alvarado: And some of these opponents are pushing to retool public transit for a system that takes into account reduced commutes in the work from home setting that we're kind of in now. So, yeah, I think that's most of the key. Oh, proposition L is the only measure. All of the other measures on the ballot require 50% plus one votes to pass, and Proposition L will require two thirds majority to pass.

[00:59:30] Madison Alvarado: So that's a key difference here.

[00:59:32] George Koster: Great. And then moving back into housing, one of our, you know, favorite, uh, topics here in San Francisco and besides taxing millionaires, now we're gonna take away, we're gonna tax people who are not living in their unit.

[00:59:43] Madison Alvarado: Yes, so Proposition M is basically a tax on vacant properties that is designed to encourage owners to put those vacant homes back on the market.

[00:59:56] Madison Alvarado: So it is varied based upon the size of the property as well as how long it has been off the market. And so it would take effect January 1st, 2024, and it ranges on the low end from 2,500 up to $5,000 based on size for that first year. And each year that. The, your unit remains vacant. The cost of that tax would double.

[01:00:23] Madison Alvarado: This was introduced by Supervisor Dean Preston, and what the goal of the tax he has said is really to help encourage people to put money back on, to put units back on the market. But it would also create a fund for helping support other affordable housing issues and seniors who are struggling with high costs of living and things like that.

[01:00:48] Madison Alvarado: And so that's kind of the idea of the tax. The tax is opposed by groups like the California Apartment Association and a key exemption in the tax is that it does not apply to one in two unit homes. And so that has kind of caused a stir among certain groups who say, you know, why are we exempting certain homes from this?

[01:01:08] Madison Alvarado: These we should be also taxing, you know, what's the difference between. A two unit home versus a four unit home and why are we gonna be taxing these homes differently? So that's kind of one area that sort of people point to is inconsistencies there. The original measure was based on a vacancy tax in Vancouver, in Canada.

[01:01:30] Madison Alvarado: And so yeah, I believe there they, it can look at things like your utility bill and it's also done sort of through self-reporting of whether or not a home is vacant. And so it would be kind of similar here. I think the authors were saying they would fine tune that process for verifying things a little more if the measure passes the, yeah, and that, I think some opponents have raised issues around privacy, just that they don't want people looking into their utilities or, you know, trying to figure out if they're residing in their unit or not.

[01:02:02] Madison Alvarado: But yeah, that's the main focus of Proposition M.

[01:02:06] George Koster: Michelle, any thoughts on Proposition M?

[01:02:08] Michelle Moritz: Well, I was reading recently that the city controller has come out and said that this might actually only apply to 4,000 units in the city and maybe would estimate, they estimate that it might only free up about 250 units that would then be rented.

[01:02:25] Michelle Moritz: So they're arguing, you know, maybe this needs to be reworked and appear on the ballot again in the future.

[01:02:32] Madison Alvarado: And I think also to put into context, the budget and legislative analyst office. In a report in January, 2022, said that as of 2019, San Francisco had over 40,000 vacant units, which is almost 10% of the city's housing stock.

[01:02:49] Madison Alvarado: So it was those high numbers that kind of pushed supporters to say, you know, if 10% of our housing stock is vacant and we have so many issues around homelessness and lack of affordable housing and things like that, why not tax put a tax on those vacant homes? So that was kind of the onus behind creating this measure in the first place.

[01:03:11] George Koster: All right, so then we're gonna move on to Proposition N, which again links back to INJ and people fighting over Golden Gate Park.

[01:03:18] Madison Alvarado: Mm-hmm. Yes. So basically, proposition N would give the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department control of the Music Concourse Garage in Golden Gate Park. So this is a parking garage with 800 spots, and right now it is managed by a nonprofit that was created by another earlier ballot measure back in 1998.

[01:03:44] Madison Alvarado: And the ballot measure in 1998 raised private donations to help finance the creation of the garage. But in the years since, basically, there have been a series of financial scandals and mismanagement of the garage that have led the city to say. It might be time for us to take back control of this parking garage.

[01:04:05] Madison Alvarado: So this is supported by Mayor London Breed and basically looking at how the garage is functioning. Back in 2008, there was a big embezzlement scandal that a former chief financial officer of the fundraising nonprofit that sort of helped create this garage in the first place. It was discovered that the former CFO had embezzled $4 million.

[01:04:30] Madison Alvarado: And people say that, you know, the, the cost of parking here is really high and. The original measure said that if there were excess parking funds that were created by this parking garage, then those excess funds were gonna go to Golden Gate Park. And Golden Gate Park has never received any funds from the parking garage since it was created years and years ago.

[01:04:54] Madison Alvarado: And so this would basically take control from this nonprofit and put it back in the city's hands to then open up, perhaps make. Some of this parking more accessible and affordable for people who work in the museums and areas nearby, or other people who just wanna visit and see the attractions near this garage in uh, golden Gate Park.

[01:05:18] George Koster: Michelle, thoughts on parking in Golden Gate Park?

[01:05:20] Michelle Moritz: It would be nice if they had connected this to Jay in that they could provide more parking for disabled people in this garage if they took control. So if those paths, hopefully that will happen.

[01:05:34] George Koster: Alright, so moving on to our last one, which is Proposition O and supporting one of Eric and my favorite topics that City College of San Francisco, which is where we first launched Voices of the Community way back when.

[01:05:46] Madison Alvarado: So, yes, proposition O is a proposed parcel tax to generate funding for a variety of programs and services at City College, and the tax would begin in 2023 and continue all the way through 2043. So it's a 20 year tax, and the city controller estimates that it's gonna generate about $37 million annually, but that number will increase over time as the tax is adjusted for inflation.

[01:06:13] Madison Alvarado: So the idea with the tax is that the revenue is going to be split four ways once you take out administrative costs. And so. A quarter of the fund should go towards services that support basic student needs, like enrollment, uh, job retention, things like that. Another 25% would go more towards skill focused programs like English language tutoring or technological proficiency for people wanting to work on those kinds of skills.

[01:06:41] Madison Alvarado: Another quarter would go towards workforce development programs, and the last quarter would go towards equity programs and social justice programs that support the development of students who are historically underrepresented in the college. So that is kind of the idea of the basic fund breakdown. The tax has a note that only a less than 1% of funds from the tax should go towards administering the tax.

[01:07:07] Madison Alvarado: However, the city controller does estimate that it's gonna cost a lot more. I wanna say it'll be a $6 million startup cost because of the way that the tax. Is structured, it's gonna cost about $6 million in startup costs, and then an additional, I believe, $3 million every year after that to administer the tax because of the way that it's structured.

[01:07:30] Madison Alvarado: And so that's something that opponents cite when they're talking about why they don't. Support the tax. The parcel tax is based on the size of the parcel or the building on the parcel, and there are exemptions for folks who are over the age of 65 who own and reside in their properties, as well as certain nonprofits who are already exempt from property taxes.

[01:07:56] Madison Alvarado: A little bit of context for, part of the reason why supporters are pushing for this tax is that City College has seen a lot of cuts in recent years in part due to declining enrollment that started back with the accreditation crisis and got worse during the pandemic. The enrollment has dropped in the last decade by tens of thousands of students, so that has meant less funding for the college and as well as several, uh, financial crises and issues around that in the last few years that have led to a faculty layoffs and a reduction in the number of courses that are available.

[01:08:33] Madison Alvarado: And so proponents are in support of this tax as a way to keep offering these really key resources to all San Franciscans who are able to take classes at City College for free programs at City College and supporters say it's really important to make sure that no San Franciscans are left behind, and that City College is a really key.

[01:08:55] Madison Alvarado: Place for folks to start on a better path in life to make more money and support themselves more. So yeah, that's an overview of that parcel tax.

[01:09:07] George Koster: And are there opponents to supporting City College?

[01:09:09] Madison Alvarado: Yes. So opponents, I and I actually, I'm glad you brought that up, because there actually already is a parcel tax on.

[01:09:15] Madison Alvarado: City College, a flat parcel tax, I believe it's $95 a year, I wanna say, for parcels in the city. And so they're saying we are already supporting City College through the existing parcel tax. And they've also cited financial mismanagement of City College at the last few years saying it doesn't make sense to write a blank check when we don't know how successful city college administrators will be in actually implementing these programs.

[01:09:41] Madison Alvarado: Part of the measure if it passes, will require that City College submit an annual spending plan to the mayor and the board of supervisors in order to receive the revenue from the tax as well as audits for the first five years of the tax every year. And then periodic audits after that. And the bill also creates an oversight committee that makes sure that the investments are used properly.

[01:10:04] Madison Alvarado: So that's kind of been the rebuttal from supporters. But yes, there are opponents including the San Francisco Apartment Association and the San Francisco Taxpayers Association. And interestingly, also Mayor London Breed and two supervisors, supervisor Aaron Peskin and supervisor Katherine Stefani also have said that taxpayers should quote, hold City College accountable by not passing another bond.

[01:10:31] Madison Alvarado: Given the, the high turnover in chancellors that City College has had in the last few years, and the $1.3 billion in public bonds that have voters have already approved in the last 20 years to fund City College.

[01:10:44] George Koster: Okay. And Michelle, let's start with you. Where can folks go to get all of this great information?

[01:10:49] Michelle Moritz: Thank you. Thanks for giving us this opportunity to talk about the ballot props. And I would direct people for more information on the San Francisco props to our website, which is lw vsf.org, and we have a pro con guide there. We also do advocate for some of the local props, not all. And then also, I would really recommend this website called Voters Edge, that the National League of Women Voters puts it out and there's one for every state and you just type in your zip code or your address, and it just gives you so much information.

[01:11:27] Michelle Moritz: About all of the candidates and the ballot props. It's really useful and you can do a little false ballot there to help yourself get organized at the end to actually fill out your real ballot.

[01:11:39] George Koster: That's great. And then Madison, where can listeners go and, and viewers go to access your voter guide?

[01:11:44] Madison Alvarado: So if folks head over to sf public press.org on our homepage, the first thing at the top of the banner is our nonpartisan voter guide for this year's election, we have written in audio versions of in-depth analysis of every San Francisco measure that's on the ballot in addition to how many votes it needs to pass.

[01:12:04] Madison Alvarado: And we also are including biographies of each candidate who's running for local office, and those who are hoping to represent San Francisco at the state level in the state assembly, and several regional positions like Bart Regional Director and the District two Board of equalization. So in our guide we also have links to candidates websites and social media, and we have audio recordings of candidates answers to questions we wrote after combing through a community survey we did.

[01:12:32] Madison Alvarado: So we have a lot of resources there both for the propositions and for other local elections happening here in San Francisco.

[01:12:40] George Koster: We want to thank both Michelle and Madison for sharing their wonderful insights in both the state of California and the city of San Francisco propositions. We'll make sure that listeners and viewers have your contact information, website, social media, along with the links to your voter guides and all the resources for the 2022 state and local elections, and please stay safe and healthy as we all work our way through our latest stage of the COVID to 19 pandemic in all of its variants.

[01:13:06] George Koster: Today's episode was made possible by the Audio Wizard and our associate producer, Eric Estrada and the graphics Magic of Kasey Nance from Citron Studio, along with the wonderful crew at the San Francisco Public Press and KSFP, along with the folks at Bay Vac and SF Commons. Voices of the Community is supported by Grant from the James Irvine Foundation, dedicated to a California where all low income workers have the power to advance economically more@irvine.org,

[01:13:34] Michelle Moritz: voices of the Community

[01:13:35] George Koster: is a member of Intersection for the Arts, which allows us to offer you a tax deduction.

[01:13:40] George Koster: For your contributions, please go to georgekoster.com and click on the donate link to make a donation to help us provide future shows. Just like this one. While you're on our website, you can enjoy our archive to pass shows which feature community voices working on solutions to critical issues facing Northern California communities.

[01:13:59] George Koster: And you can sign up for our newsletter to find out more about future shows as well as shows and events from the organizations that are included in our episodes. Take us along on your next COVID walk by subscribing to voices of the community on Apple Podcast, Spotify, and Google Podcast, or wherever you get your podcast.

[01:14:19] George Koster: You can follow us on Twitter at George Koster and we'd love to hear from you with feedback and show ideas. So send us an email to george@georgekoster.com. I'm George Koster in San Francisco, and thank you for listening.

Thanks to our Sponsor

Voices of the Community is supported by a grant from The James Irvine Foundation, dedicated to a California where all low-income workers have the power to advance economically. More at www.irvine.org

Donate to Voices of the Community

We are fiscally sponsored by Intersection for the Arts, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, which allows us to offer you tax deductions for your contributions. Please consider making a donation to help us provide future shows just like this one. If you want to send us a check, please make checks payable to Intersection for the Arts and write [Voices of the Community] in the memo line of your check. This ensures that you’ll receive an acknowledgement letter for tax purposes, and your donation will be available for our project.

1446 Market Street | San Francisco, CA 94102 | (415) 626-2787