7 ms·

This is a really laudable write-up, whether or not you agree with prop F. The problem of "sounds good in principle" propositions that are terribly or deceptivel

This is a really laudable write-up, whether or not you agree with prop F. The problem of "sounds good in principle" propositions that are terribly or deceptively drafted is one that makes every California election a minefield.

cheepin 11y ago
That's why a strangely sound election strategy is to just vote no on every proposition. Most of them have heavy corporate sponsorship and are written to deceive the public.
- DiabloD3 11y ago
  I don't know why this guy is being downvoted. I've heard the exact same thing from many friends of mine who have or still do live in SF: just vote no on all of them, and force the city to do it's job by legislating the usual way.
  - simoncion 11y ago
    Downvotes on HN are... strange and capricious. Things that are downvoted for no apparent reason do tend to get voted back up, though. (I wish there was a meta.n.y.c where we could discuss things like this. Alas.)
- azernik 11y ago
  And even if you are willing to put in the time to read some props and convince yourself they're a good idea, vote no on all the ones you can't be bothered to research.
- skuhn 11y ago
  I find the proposition system extremely aggravating. Even for propositions that I largely or wholly agree with I have to ask myself: does this deserve to be an amendment of the state constitution or city charter? That's the power that voter initiatives essentially have, after all. When you think about it that way, they almost all look pretty ridiculous. Should the San Francisco city charter have an amendment about whether one particular construction project in 2014 can be built at a certain height? Should we have a ballot initiative every time a new building needs to be built? That might make sense in some alternate reality if we lived in a direct democracy with routine voting and people actually informed themselves about the issues they were deciding. I think it's pretty safe to say that we aren't living in that world today.
ak217 11y ago
It's worse than that. The California government is in a long-term constitutional crisis precisely because of the proposition system. The legislative burden from politicized, poorly written, un-repealable propositions paralyzes the state and local governments and budgets, and is the tyranny of the majority embodied. It starts with prop 13 and goes downhill from there. The only thing that will fix it is a constitutional convention and removal of the proposition process.
- jfb 11y ago
  It all comes back to Proposition 13, which crippled local governments.
  - narrator 11y ago
    Imagine how many people who've owned their homes for years would be forced to sell and move elsewhere in San Francisco if prop 13 were repealed.
    - jfb 11y ago
      Imagine a state where decisions about local concerns are handled by local government, rather than getting kicked up to the statehouse.
    - secabeen 11y ago
      Okay, let's just remove prop 13 protections for commercial property. That's at least a start. This isn't an all-or-nothing thing.
    - ScottBurson 11y ago
      Prop. 13 could be fixed without forcing people out of their homes. Instead of capping the tax, we should cap the amount of the tax that actually has to be paid in a year in which the property does not change hands. That number could be limited according to the Prop. 13 formula; the city or county would receive a lien for the difference, that lien not becoming due until the property does change hands. This wouldn't change anyone's cash flow until the property is sold, at which time the city or county would receive the unpaid amount out of the sale. The unpaid amount will be a fraction of the amount by which the property appreciated (or if its value fell, the unpaid amount will be zero), so this will be relatively painless. I've read that this has been done somewhere, though I don't recall where. It's clearly possible. No one is forced to sell, and the localities still get their tax money.

cheepin 11y ago

That's why a strangely sound election strategy is to just vote no on every proposition. Most of them have heavy corporate sponsorship and are written to deceive the public.

DiabloD3 11y ago
I don't know why this guy is being downvoted. I've heard the exact same thing from many friends of mine who have or still do live in SF: just vote no on all of them, and force the city to do it's job by legislating the usual way.
- simoncion 11y ago
  Downvotes on HN are... strange and capricious. Things that are downvoted for no apparent reason do tend to get voted back up, though. (I wish there was a meta.n.y.c where we could discuss things like this. Alas.)
azernik 11y ago
And even if you are willing to put in the time to read some props and convince yourself they're a good idea, vote no on all the ones you can't be bothered to research.
skuhn 11y ago
I find the proposition system extremely aggravating. Even for propositions that I largely or wholly agree with I have to ask myself: does this deserve to be an amendment of the state constitution or city charter? That's the power that voter initiatives essentially have, after all. When you think about it that way, they almost all look pretty ridiculous. Should the San Francisco city charter have an amendment about whether one particular construction project in 2014 can be built at a certain height? Should we have a ballot initiative every time a new building needs to be built? That might make sense in some alternate reality if we lived in a direct democracy with routine voting and people actually informed themselves about the issues they were deciding. I think it's pretty safe to say that we aren't living in that world today.

ak217 11y ago

It's worse than that. The California government is in a long-term constitutional crisis precisely because of the proposition system. The legislative burden from politicized, poorly written, un-repealable propositions paralyzes the state and local governments and budgets, and is the tyranny of the majority embodied. It starts with prop 13 and goes downhill from there. The only thing that will fix it is a constitutional convention and removal of the proposition process.

jfb 11y ago
It all comes back to Proposition 13, which crippled local governments.
- narrator 11y ago
  Imagine how many people who've owned their homes for years would be forced to sell and move elsewhere in San Francisco if prop 13 were repealed.
  - jfb 11y ago
    Imagine a state where decisions about local concerns are handled by local government, rather than getting kicked up to the statehouse.
  - secabeen 11y ago
    Okay, let's just remove prop 13 protections for commercial property. That's at least a start. This isn't an all-or-nothing thing.
  - ScottBurson 11y ago
    Prop. 13 could be fixed without forcing people out of their homes. Instead of capping the tax, we should cap the amount of the tax that actually has to be paid in a year in which the property does not change hands. That number could be limited according to the Prop. 13 formula; the city or county would receive a lien for the difference, that lien not becoming due until the property does change hands. This wouldn't change anyone's cash flow until the property is sold, at which time the city or county would receive the unpaid amount out of the sale. The unpaid amount will be a fraction of the amount by which the property appreciated (or if its value fell, the unpaid amount will be zero), so this will be relatively painless. I've read that this has been done somewhere, though I don't recall where. It's clearly possible. No one is forced to sell, and the localities still get their tax money.