But a modest amendment to your comment on SF officials. They refuse to do their job in a logical, rational manner, rather than having an inability to do their job. They use rationalizations for not taking action (everyone’s a victim and therefore not accountable for their actions) but it comes down to refusal as enforcing laws protecting private property and giving drug addicts access to programs that work that other cities use successfully doesn't require genius level thinking. To make SF a livable city again requires objectively identifying why it is not now, enforcing the laws now not being enforced to bring crime under control without fear or favor. This requires intellectual and moral honesty.
I voted No on Prop A., but after listening to my friend Annie Fryman (housing aide to weiner and now at SPUR doing special projects), I’d probably have reconsidered.
As Annie explains, this is really continuity proposition – no new taxes are needed – this bond is just taking the place of other bonds that are coming to their end, and the debt service money is already there, already budgeted in existing property tax income – no new funds needed. Also, Prop A does grease the skids a bit --- it lowers developer fees and/or developer affordable housing thresholds by like 40%, which is a good thing. Lastly, there are projects that are in the pipeline and in process that will just kind of go into limbo – again, this is a continuity prop, at least as far as I understand it from Annie.
Sure they will deny, but when we vote in a different slate of supervisors in November, this proposition might be a nice thing to have in place. You know, one foot in front of the other.
Thank you for the information and doing the work.
But a modest amendment to your comment on SF officials. They refuse to do their job in a logical, rational manner, rather than having an inability to do their job. They use rationalizations for not taking action (everyone’s a victim and therefore not accountable for their actions) but it comes down to refusal as enforcing laws protecting private property and giving drug addicts access to programs that work that other cities use successfully doesn't require genius level thinking. To make SF a livable city again requires objectively identifying why it is not now, enforcing the laws now not being enforced to bring crime under control without fear or favor. This requires intellectual and moral honesty.
Excellent points and well put! Thank you!
Hi Susan,
I voted No on Prop A., but after listening to my friend Annie Fryman (housing aide to weiner and now at SPUR doing special projects), I’d probably have reconsidered.
As Annie explains, this is really continuity proposition – no new taxes are needed – this bond is just taking the place of other bonds that are coming to their end, and the debt service money is already there, already budgeted in existing property tax income – no new funds needed. Also, Prop A does grease the skids a bit --- it lowers developer fees and/or developer affordable housing thresholds by like 40%, which is a good thing. Lastly, there are projects that are in the pipeline and in process that will just kind of go into limbo – again, this is a continuity prop, at least as far as I understand it from Annie.
I am so glad I know about your great work!
Best,
Terry
Oh thank you! My problem with it is the Board of Supes. They will find any reason to deny.
Sure they will deny, but when we vote in a different slate of supervisors in November, this proposition might be a nice thing to have in place. You know, one foot in front of the other.