Navigating the San Francisco ballot can be challenging, especially with numerous propositions that can significantly impact our city’s future. This guide provides clear Republican endorsements on the upcoming San Francisco propositions, offering a conservative perspective to help you make informed decisions on Election Day. It’s crucial to understand how each proposition aligns with Republican values of fiscal responsibility, limited government, and effective governance. Let’s delve into each proposition to ensure your vote reflects these principles.
Prop A: Schools Improvement and Safety Bond
OPPOSE:
San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) is requesting yet another general obligation bond, despite already holding substantial unspent funds from previous bonds. Furthermore, SFUSD is currently grappling with school closures and a significant budget deficit. It is fiscally irresponsible to approve additional borrowing when the district has not effectively managed its existing resources. Before taxpayers are asked to shoulder more debt, SFUSD must demonstrate responsible spending and efficient use of current funds.
Prop B: Community Health and Medical Facilities, Street Safety, Public Spaces and Shelter to Reduce Homelessness Bond
OPPOSE:
We must draw a line on excessive spending. San Francisco consistently allocates vast sums of money towards community health, homelessness, and street safety initiatives, yet tangible improvements remain elusive. Proposition B proposes even more spending without addressing the fundamental issues of mismanagement and ineffective allocation of existing funds. Until the City demonstrates responsible stewardship of the hundreds of millions already allocated annually, further expenditure is unwarranted and unlikely to yield positive outcomes.
Prop C: Inspector General
OPPOSE:
While the concept of an Inspector General to combat corruption is commendable, the structure proposed in Proposition C is fundamentally flawed. The selection of this Inspector General would be subject to approval by both the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor. This political appointment process severely compromises the Inspector General’s independence and effectiveness. An Inspector General reliant on the approval of the very entities they are meant to oversee is unlikely to rigorously pursue corruption. Meaningful reform in San Francisco requires a truly independent watchdog, free from political influence, which this proposition fails to deliver. Real change will only come when San Francisco voters elect leaders committed to accountability and transparency, regardless of political affiliation.
Prop D: City Commissions and Mayoral Authority
SUPPORT:
Proposition D offers a crucial step towards restoring accountability and efficiency in San Francisco’s governance. Currently, the Police Commission, an unelected body, wields significant power in setting police department policies, bypassing direct accountability to elected officials and voters. Prop D rectifies this by returning oversight authority to the police chief, a mayoral appointee, thus enhancing mayoral accountability for public safety. Moreover, this proposition addresses the bloated bureaucracy of San Francisco by reducing the number of city commissions, which are twice as numerous as in comparable cities like Los Angeles or Boston. Streamlining city government and ensuring accountability are vital for effective governance.
Prop E: Creating a Task Force to Recommend Changing, Eliminating, or Combining City Commissions
OPPOSE:
Proposition E is a deceptive measure designed to undermine Proposition D. Sponsored by the progressive wing of the Board of Supervisors, it serves as a “poison pill” to confuse voters and detract from the much-needed reforms proposed by Prop D. Creating yet another task force to study city commissions is a delaying tactic that avoids real action and perpetuates bureaucratic inertia. San Francisco needs decisive action to streamline government, not more studies and committees that lead to inaction.
Prop F: Police Staffing and Deferred Retirement
SUPPORT:
Retaining experienced police officers is a cost-effective and practical approach to public safety. Proposition F encourages veteran officers to remain on the force by allowing deferred retirement, which is more economical than relying heavily on overtime pay. Experienced, “street-savvy” officers are invaluable assets to the police department and the community. Their expertise and knowledge are crucial for maintaining law and order and ensuring effective policing strategies. Supporting Prop F is a sensible way to enhance public safety and utilize taxpayer dollars efficiently.
Prop G: Funding Rental Subsidies for Affordable Housing Developments Serving Low Income Seniors, Families, and Persons with Disabilities
OPPOSE:
Proposition G proposes another government program that distorts the housing market and misallocates taxpayer funds. San Francisco already has numerous vacant subsidized rental units, indicating a need to address existing inefficiencies before creating new programs. This proposition establishes a “literal lottery” system, arbitrarily selecting winners and losers for housing subsidies, which is inherently unfair. Charitable housing assistance should primarily come from private citizens and foundations, not from diverting tax dollars that could be used more effectively or left in the hands of taxpayers to address their own family’s needs. Government intervention in the housing market often creates more problems than it solves.
Prop H: Retirement Benefits for Firefighters
OPPOSE:
San Francisco voters wisely approved Proposition C in 2011 to ensure the financial stability of the City’s pension system while maintaining reasonable benefits for public employees. Proposition H undermines this fiscal discipline by expanding retirement benefits for firefighters. It is crucial to adhere to the principles of fiscal responsibility and avoid eroding the reforms enacted by Proposition C. Maintaining a sustainable pension system requires resisting the temptation to increase benefits, especially when the City faces significant financial challenges.
Prop I: Retirement Benefits for Nurses and 911 Operators
OPPOSE:
Similar to Proposition H, Proposition I seeks to expand retirement benefits, this time for nurses and 911 operators. While these professions are vital, expanding benefits, particularly for per-diem nurses who are already compensated at higher rates, is fiscally imprudent. The City Controller estimates this measure could cost millions annually, further straining San Francisco’s already precarious financial situation, with the city nearly $1 billion in debt. While the sentiment to support 911 operators is understandable, the fiscal impact of this proposition is unsustainable. A more responsible approach would be to address compensation concerns through base pay adjustments rather than expanding costly retirement benefits.
Prop J: Funding Programs Serving Children, Youth, and Families
OPPOSE:
Proposition J is another example of earmarking funds and limiting the Board of Supervisors’ budgetary discretion. As the Controller notes, this proposition would significantly impact the City’s budget, potentially costing tens of millions annually by reallocating funds from the General Fund. Sound government principles dictate that the Board of Supervisors should have the flexibility to allocate funds based on evolving needs and priorities. Furthermore, Prop J creates new bureaucratic positions, ostensibly for “monitoring,” but more likely for political patronage, further expanding the size and cost of government without demonstrable benefit.
Prop K: Permanently Closing the Upper Great Highway to Private Vehicles to Establish a Public Open Recreation Space
OPPOSE:
Roads are designed for vehicles. Proposition K effectively closes the Great Highway to private vehicles, converting it into a restricted-access roadway primarily for government vehicles. It’s crucial to understand that THIS PROPOSITION DOES NOT PROVIDE FUNDING FOR A FUTURE PARK. Closing the Great Highway will likely increase traffic congestion and accidents on adjacent roadways and residential streets in the Sunset and Parkside districts. Claims that closing the Great Highway is environmentally beneficial are dubious and lack evidence. Restricting vehicle access will not necessarily reduce greenhouse gas emissions and will negatively impact traffic flow and accessibility for San Francisco residents.
Prop L: Additional Business Tax on Transportation Network Companies and Autonomous Vehicle Businesses to Fund Public Transportation
OPPOSE:
San Francisco already imposes a substantial tax burden on businesses. Proposition L seeks to add yet another tax, this time targeting Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) and Autonomous Vehicle businesses, to further fund public transportation. The premise that San Francisco needs more taxes is flawed. The City already collects sufficient revenue to meet its needs, but suffers from mismanagement and inefficient spending. Muni ridership has significantly declined since the pandemic, indicating a need to “right-size” the system and improve its efficiency before seeking additional funding. San Francisco should prioritize fixing Muni’s existing problems rather than perpetually resorting to new taxes.
Prop M: Changes to Business Taxes
OPPOSE:
Proposition M represents a continued assault on San Francisco’s business climate. Increasing taxes on medium-sized and large businesses will further incentivize companies to leave San Francisco or deter new businesses from establishing themselves here. Large companies are vital drivers of the local economy and wealth creation. Continuing to raise taxes on businesses will undermine economic growth and prosperity in San Francisco. The City should focus on creating a business-friendly environment to attract and retain companies, rather than driving them away with excessive taxation.
Prop N: First Responder Student Loan and Training Reimbursement Fund
OPPOSE:
Proposition N is an unnecessary and duplicative government program. It proposes a student loan and training reimbursement fund for first responders, despite the existence of a federal student loan forgiveness program that already serves this purpose. This proposition raises concerns about encouraging city employees to incur additional debt in anticipation of reimbursement and could set a precedent for similar demands from other city employee groups. A more direct and effective approach to supporting first responders is to increase their base pay to attract and retain qualified individuals, rather than creating complex and potentially redundant reimbursement schemes.
Prop O: Supporting Reproductive Rights
NEUTRAL:
On the issue of reproductive rights, a neutral stance is appropriate. As with President Trump’s position, this matter is best left to individual conscience and personal conviction. Therefore, we take a neutral position on Proposition O.
