RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BALLOT MEASURES MUNICIPAL ELECTION NOVEMBER 3, 2015 FROM MICHAEL ANTONINI A GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND $310,000,000- YES-Some may argue that government should not building housing, but-realistically- the voting public of San Francisco Is demanding affordable housing for people of low and moderate income. In today’s market, a couple needs a collective income of $200,000 to buy a home in San Francisco. Unlike the ridiculous moratorium measure, which would stop housing production and drive prices even higher, this measure will build housing and take some pressure off the price of existing and/or newly built housing stock. ENHANCEMENT OF PAID PARENTAL LEAVE -NO- | usually support the legislation of Supervisor Tang, but this measure would add to the already very rich benefit package of City employees. ‘Apparently, under current policy, employees must use up their paid sick time off, before beginning to receive additional paid leave( 120 days) for child birth or adoption. This measure would allow employee-parent-to-be and spouse or partner, if both are City employees, not to invade their existing sick time off and get paid child birth time off in addition to existing benefit time. 'm not sure this type of policy is common in the private business community. t sounds like double-dipping. EXPENDITURE LOBBYIST MEASURE- YES- While one does not usually support additional ‘government spending, this measure might represent taxpayer dollars well spent. Currently some “progressive” non profits, in particular, often utilize revenue paid to them by the City and County of San Francisco, granted to fund social programs, instead for political activity in violation of its intended purpose. Many times, people are paid or otherwise compensated, by some publically- funded non profits, to speak before the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors advocating 2 position opposite the position of The City of San Francisco, the entity which is often thelr primary funding source. This measure should help to monitor the above as well as the funding sources of labor and business interests when they lobby our public decision makers. MISSION ROCK DEVELOPMENT:YES- This is a well crafted project that will enhance the new neighborhood in Mission Bay. This project Is only before the voters because of the recently passed height intiative-Proposition “B” -that requires a public vote for any Port projects that exceed 40 feet. This measure will create much needed housing-including a high percentage affordable~ some to middle income people-, acres of public parks, neighborhood serving retail and commerciak-often industrial, such as Anchor Steam Brewery. While some may worry about this project being under parked, its location close to Muni Metro and Cal Train, will encourage many residents to utilize public transit, bikes, car sharing, or Uber and cabs for their mobility needs. Mission Rock's density is high, but this site is one of the few undeveloped areas in San Francisco that can support dense development. Most of the new residents wil likely vote In a more politically moderate way than the majority of today’s San Francisco electorate. There will be @ public school site, which, hopefully, wll give preference to those who reside in Mission Bay. Traffic will ikely be minimized because many people who now commute to San Francisco will be able to live and walk, bike or ride Muni to their nearly jobs in the growing business districts in Eastern Soma and, soon Central Soma. Something wonderful is happening in San Francisco. Our children and their friends as well as newcomers much like them are now filling neighborhoods that, just a few years ago, were totally undesirable or, in the case of Mission Bay, vacant. A few towers in this area won't hurt. Many of us may not want to live ina tower, but towers will be sought by many people. While preserving less dense areas in many parts of San Francisco, its reasonable and wise to allow density close to downtown business areas- a commercial districtZu that Is quickly growing toward Mission Bay. We are, after all, a dense, compact City- second in the nation behind New York. In a recent survey, conducted by the Bay Area Council, 1,000 residents from throughout the entire Bay Area overwhelmingly advocated for more housing, both market and affordable, in San Francisco as a first choice in terms of location for additional, new housing. People want to establish their businesses in San Francisco and they want to live in San Francisco. REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC MEETINGS- NO- Supervisors and Commissioners must be physically present to hear testimony and to vote on every Issue before them. If a member of the public doesn't care enough about an issue to devote a few hours of his or her time to support their cause, why should we let their testimony be read publically into the record? Written, Faxed or emailed correspondence received by commissions, of the Board of Supervisors is included as part of the public record and sent to commissioners or supervisors electronically and in hard copy. Meetings already often last over 12 hours. ‘SHORT TERM RESIDENTIAL RENTALS- NO- Air BNB and other short term rental housing platforms provide funding to many homeowners which allow them enough income to stay in their homes. innovation companies lke Air 8NB, Uber, Lyft, Pinnerest, and many other based in San Francisco have added a lot of jobs, direct and indirect, to The City’s economy as well as creating significant ‘tax revenue. Their effect has bought many new residents to San Francisco and helped to provide vitality to many of our neighborhoods which were heretofore economically depressed, unsafe, dirty areas of San Francisco to which few would travel to shop, dine and-much less- ive. The populations of the neighborhoods have changed dramatically. Families with children are ‘common in many of the areas of which | speak. Those who rent short term must be policed to eliminate full ime short term rental use, but shared units add accommodations to a City short in hotel space. San Francisco hotels provide few options for tourists or business travelers outside Downtown and Fisherman’s Wharf areas .t’s better to have short term renters sharing homes with owners, even in RH 1 or RH2 neighborhoods, than to have multiple families living ina single family home or for such homes to be used for ilegal criminal activities - often pretending to be message establishments. Seventy days per year won't provide enough supplemental income to support many, often retired, homeowners trying to remain in their homes. This measure will encourage legal action between neighbors. The Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors have worked to two years to formulate legislation to deal with Short Term Rentals. Give it some time to test its effectiveness. Many of the opponents of this measure are leftists who want to destroy any industries that attract responsible, independent, politically moderate people to live in San Francisco. Finally, any voter initiative passed cannot be modified except by another vote of the public. The short term rental market needs to be policed and laws will continue to need refinement, but the ballot box is the wrong place to craft policies for rapidly growing and changing, locally born industries. G AND H- NO ON BOTH Each of these measures deal with the battle between P.G. and E. and proponents of competitive sources involving renewable energy. Often backers of alternate energy sources may not reveal all the details of their service to potential customers, Likewise P.G.and E. fears competition, but at least they are a private utility. Involverent of The City in energy is asking for trouble. Supporters of Measure G have dropped their support. So | say, punt. MISSION DISTRICT HOUSING MORATORIUM- NO, NO AND NO- This measure is the worst proposal I have seen during my over 50 years of following San Francisco elections. it makes no sense to stop production of normal, market rate housing in the middle of a bidding war for the existing stock of housing in the Mission district. Only 75 new units of housing were approved in the Mission last year. That district is one of the worst in The City terms of new housingB- production over the last 10 years. A moratorium provides no affordable housing. It allows such housing, but does nothing to fund it. t really represents a weak attempt at “land banking” by the Citys socialist Left. They hope to keep parcels undeveloped and, hence, to drive down prices. The exact opposite will occur. Existing housing is will become even more expensive, and existing lower and moderate income residents and businesses- especially the few remaining industrial uses- will be bought out. It measure goes against the Mission Eastern Neighborhood Plan that took stakeholders, the Panning Commission, and Board of Supervisors ten years to complete, Measure “I” is really represents thinly veiled reverse racism, Proponents of the moratorium go so far as to publically protest the fact that people other than Hispanics are moving into the Mission. They want that district to remain a low incomé neighborhood which only allows residents and businesses of one ethnic group. This attitude does not represent the American way. Legally, this measure is on thin ice. It would be challenged in the courts by Persons who invested heavily in the Mission based upon the rules of the Eastern Neighborhoods and by Proposition “C’, in which the voters set maximum levels of affordable housing required in new projects. The courts could rule that this moratorium represents a “taking of one’s ability 0 remove revenue” from an investment. ESTABLISHING LEGACY BUSINESS HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND-Likely NO- Proposes a fund to help preserve legacy businesses, We all lke to see landmark businesses remain, but nothing lasts forever and often decisions are made by familles from which no members of the younger Beneration wish to step in to run a business. Maybe as a private, elective fund to which contributors could provide support, this concept might have merit. It funding should not be placed on the backs of taxpayers. K-SURPLUS CITY PROPERTY ORDINANCE-NO- Binds the City to use many types of surplus cit Property for only affordable housing or homeless housing and services. Homeless problem will Continue as long as San Francisco attracts people with challenges as a result of The City’s falure to enforce rules of public behavior and by passing legislation that gives edgy people from all over the world special treatment under the law. Blending market rate housing with some affordable housing is a better solution. The former will fund the latter. With this measure, although the land cost is nothing, construction costs must be funding entirely by taxpayers. The ‘ruth is that many Supervisors don’t want people in San Francisco who can buy or rent market rate units because such people are independent, likely to vote against so called “progressives”, and are controllable as they are not dependent on The City for benefits, support, or special treatment of any kind,