Category: Update

By Opinion Columnist : pressdemocrat – excerpt (includes audio track)

Last week, and despite the popularity of Proposition 13, the California Legislature passed two proposed amendments to the California Constitution that rip huge holes in that iconic taxpayer protection overwhelmingly approved by voters in 1978.

But here’s the good news. These anti-homeowner bills must be approved at a statewide election and, given the anger from thousands of constituents who flooded the Capitol with calls, letters, and petitions, the two measures are likely headed for the defeat they so richly deserve.

These two bills, Assembly Constitutional Amendment 1 and Assembly Constitutional Amendment 13, are both serious threats to Proposition 13, although for two different reasons.

Assembly Constitutional Amendment 1 is a direct attack on Proposition 13 that would remove the taxpayer protection of the two-thirds vote of the electorate required to pass local special taxes. If this measure is enacted, local taxes for “infrastructure” – defined so broadly as to be meaningless – could pass with just 55% of the vote instead of the 66.67% margin as required by Proposition 13. This makes it easier for local governments to raise taxes so California’s already stressed taxpayers will end up paying billions more.

Because ACA 1 repeals language in Proposition 13, even the most dishonest politician can’t argue that it leaves Prop. 13 unharmed. But ACA 13 is a different type of assault that doesn’t directly alter Prop. 13’s language. But the harm it inflicts is just as bad. Here’s how.

ACA 13 is a devious attempt to prevent taxpayers from protecting Prop. 13. It aims to derail the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (TPA), an initiative constitutional amendment that has already qualified for the November 2024 ballot. TPA restores Proposition 13 protections that have been eroded by the courts and it is supported by a large coalition of taxpayer, business, and property rights organizations…(more)

By Tim Redmond : 48hills – excerpt

Four-hour parking rules would mean eviction. Why isn’t Breed pushing the obvious solution?

An item described as “various routine parking and traffic modifications” doesn’t usually generate hours of powerful testimony from homeless people and their advocates at the Municipal Transportation Agency.

But this week’s meeting involved a plan to create four-hour parking rules on streets near Lake Merced—which would amount to eviction notices for a community of recreational vehicle dwellers who have been living there for several years…

But there’s actually a pretty simple, easy solution: The city could provide a safe parking space in the area, a lot where the RV dwellers could remain until there’s decent, acceptable affordable housing for them.

Melgar told me she’s been working on this for more than two years. There’s money in the budget for it.

But the Mayor’s Office has been delaying and delaying and bringing up obstacle after obstacle. “There’s no reason we can’t do this quickly,” Melgar said. “We did it during Covid.”

For more than an hour, people who lived in the RVs (mostly Spanish speakers) and a long list of advocates asked the panel not to evict the residents. As Erick Arguello, who works at Glide’s Center for Social Justice, said, “this is the only thing they have.”…(more)

We heard from people in District 11, how well the safe parking project worked when the neighborhood groups became involved at the CSFN September Town Hall.

Vehicle Triage Center youtu.be

by Josh Koehn : sfstandard – excerpt

Days ahead of his expected announcement to run for mayor of San Francisco, Daniel Lurie filed campaign paperwork Thursday afternoon with the city’s Ethics Commission.

The founder of the anti-poverty nonprofit Tipping Point, who is also an heir to the Levi Strauss fortune, is scheduled to deliver a speech Tuesday in which he will officially announce his campaign to challenge Mayor London Breed in the November 2024 election. Over the last several months, Lurie has been holding private gatherings since the spring to rally support for his candidacy.

An email sent earlier this month to close friends, family and supporters advised them to save the date for a special announcement on Sept. 26. The location of that event has still not been announced…

Polling suggests Breed could be vulnerable to a challenge in next year’s election, as more than three-quarters of residents feel San Francisco is going down the wrong track. Supervisor Ahsha Safaí has already filed papers to run and reported raising $149,000 in the first two months of his campaign …(more)

By John Barned-Smith : sfchronicle – excerpt

Longtime San Francisco politico Quentin Kopp has filed a ballot measure to amend the City Charter to have district supervisors elected in what is essentially an at-large process.

Longtime San Francisco politico Quentin Kopp has proposed a ballot measure that could dramatically upend the city’s Board of Supervisors — and the way voters choose who sits on it.

Last week, he filed a ballot measure to amend the City Charter to have district supervisors elected in what is essentially an at-large process.

The ballot measure would make all registered voters eligible to vote for candidates in specified districts, he said…

Kopp and his supporters will need to get signatures of more than 49,000 registered voters, or secure the votes of six city supervisors, by this November, to get the proposal on the ballot in March 2024. If it makes it on the ballot and ends up getting passed, it is likely to be challenged in court, experts told the Chronicle…(more)

From hjta.org

Taxpayer Protection Initiative Qualifies for 2024 Ballot – Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association hjta.org

Taxpayers scored an important victory in February when the secretary of state announced that the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act has successfully qualified for the November 2024 ballot.

A late push for extra signatures, with an assist from thousands of HJTA Members who volunteered their time, was key to collecting a total of 1.4 million raw signatures, enough to exceed the required minimum of nearly 1 million valid signatures of registered voters needed to qualify.

“The Taxpayer Protection Act was written to restore a series of voter-approved ballot measures that gave taxpayers, not politicians, more say over when and how new tax revenue is raised,” explained HJTA President Jon Coupal. “Over the past decade, the California courts have created massive loopholes and confusion in long-established tax law and policy. The Taxpayer Protection Act closes those loopholes and provides new safeguards to increase accountability and transparency over how politicians spend our tax dollars.”

Some of the measure’s key provisions include:

• Require all new taxes passed by the Legislature to be approved by voters
• Restore two-thirds voter approval for all new local special tax increases
• Clearly define what is a tax or fee
• Require truthful descriptions of new tax proposals
• Hold politicians accountable by requiring them to clearly identify how revenue will be spent before any tax or fee is enacted

The initiative, backed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association together with the California Business Roundtable and the California Business Properties Association, would close loopholes by amending the state constitution, overriding any conflicting court rulings that were based on a disputed interpretation of the constitution’s current language.

One such State Supreme Court ruling, in a 2017 case known as California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, has led to decisions in lower courts declaring that some local taxes for special purposes had passed, even though they received less than the two-thirds vote required by Proposition 13. If the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act is approved by voters, many of these taxes would have to go back on the ballot again and would expire unless approved by a two-thirds vote.

For more information on this important initiative, visit RightToVoteOnTaxes.com.

By Tim Redmond :48hills – excerpt

Breed’s plan, drafted with little community input, would do nothing for the city’s affordable housing needs; supes aren’t going along.

Mayor London Breed is proposing some pretty sweeping new rules to make it easier for for-profit developers to make money building housing in San Francisco. But nobody from the Mayor’s Office showed up at the Board of Supes hearing today, leaving a lone planning staffer to answer questions that in many cases he had no qualifications or authority to answer.

Neither of the supes co-sponsoring the bill, Matt Dorsey and Joel Engardio, was there for the start of the hearing, and they sent no staff to the hearing and then left for another appointment…

Aaron Starr, the director of legislative affairs for the Planning Department, had to represent both his agency, which had its own comments on the measure, and Mayor London Breed, who offered a long list of last-minute amendments

Sup. Dean Preston said that he had reached out to the Mayor’s Office, and “we were told that nobody would be here.”

It was, Sup. Aaron Peskin said, a “strange dynamic,” unprecedented in his more than 14 years in public office.

That was just the start to a hearing overwhelmingly dominated by community and tenant groups strongly opposed to the mayor’s approach…(more)

CSFN may consider writing a letter on this one. It is obvious that the bill removes more citizen’s rights and reduces affordable options for developments in San Francisco. These are questionable actions for city leaders who want the city to be a shiny example of world peace and prosperity on the world stage. Who is running this show that is driving residents and businesses out of the city while selling it off the highest bidders?

by GILARE ZADA and CHUQIN JIANG : missionlocal – excerpt (includes interactive map)

San Francisco’s public healthcare network consists of 14 primary clinics, offering general and specialized services to thousands of annual patients.

We wanted to know: How does the city allocate public health resources to different neighborhoods and populations?

And we found out: Most of San Francisco’s health clinics are in its eastern neighborhoods and downtown — the areas with the highest rates of disease and risky behavior, like smoking and drinking. Most of the funding goes to these clinics, too…

“Each clinic has its own sort of slightly different scope.”

The visualization shows a comprehensive directory of all the health data we compiled, including clinic locations, their budgets and staffing resources, and the specialized care that some of the locations offer… (more)

By Sarah Ravani : sfchronicle – excerpt

AB1033, by Assembly Member Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, allows cities to decide whether property owners can sell ADUs separately, as condos, from the primary home.

Two state bills that could boost construction of ADUs, or accessory dwelling units, moved to the governor’s desk Monday.

AB1033, by Assembly Member Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, allows cities to decide whether property owners can sell ADUs separately, as condos, from the primary home.

Another Ting measure, AB976, also passed and would permanently ban local ordinances that require property owners to live in their ADU — effectively removing barriers that would otherwise prohibit ADUs to be used as rental properties…

If Gov. Gavin Newsom signs AB1033 into law, it would repeal an existing law that prohibits separate sales of ADUs and instead allow homeowners to get loans to build ADUs as opposed to repaying loans through rental income. The Bay Area Council cosponsored AB1033 and said the measure allows local governments to “create more affordable for-sale options.”

Supporters for AB976 say ADUs are critical for expanding affordable housing options. Sen. Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, has said that ADUs can expand the housing supply through the state…(more)

By Mike Ege : sfstandard – excerpt

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved permits for more concerts in Golden Gate Park to be run by Outside Lands organizer Another Planet Entertainment Tuesday, clearing the way for new, separately branded, “headliner-driven” shows at the park’s Polo Fields the weekend after the music festival for at least the next three years.

The board voted 10-1 to approve the concert permits, which proved controversial, with some west-side residents concerned about additional traffic impacts around the park, after the proposal was forwarded to the full board by the Budget and Finance Committee.

“This is great news for San Francisco, which has long been a destination for music, festivals and entertainment,” said Mayor London Breed in a statement.

Supervisor Connie Chan, who represented the Richmond District, was the sole vote against the permits. She reiterated concerns she raised at the budget committee about adverse impacts to the neighborhood…(more)