Affordable housing is a regional problem that should be solved at a level higher than a city, so when a state is trying to do something about it I have to be for it.
The legislature already voted for it, I generally dislike citizen propositions but this is not one of them
A little torn on this one. Water is important but my general distaste of citizen propositions won out. Also, much of the funding is for long term maintenance which is something we should budget for, and not something that we should periodically borrow money (and pay interest) for.
Similar to Prop 3. Also, 72% of the money is for private (even though non-profit) hospitals. They should figure out how to plan for their own finances.
Prop 13 created this problem and this is the wrong solution
Again I generally believe in representative democracy. The legislature voted for the tax already. Plus taxing drivers for their use of the roads is generally a good thing.
Doesn't actually get rid of the need to change the clocks twice a year, but a step towards it. Also, already passed by the state legislature.
Generally dislike citizen propositions and limiting free markets, but there does seem to be a market failure in dialysis services
I benefit from rent control and I am not low income. Do you want more people like me to benefit from rent control? Probably yes, but this is not the way to solve the housing crisis. Also this is another citizen proposition that repeals something already passed by legislature.
Seems like a good idea but why are we voting on it? Voting no as a protest vote.
I can certainly afford to pay for organic cage free all natural farm products where the animals have to get 8 hours of sunshine every day, but people should not be forced to pay for that. Also, another citizen proposition.
Board of education (3): Phil Kim, Michelle Parker, Josephine Zhao
Mostly because they called out restoring "advance" math classes (algebra) in middle school, something that the city decided that is too difficut for kids.
Community college board (3): No strong opinion
The claim that it will not increase property tax seems like a lie, but unanimous vote by SF supervisors.
Unanimous vote by SF supervisors
Only up to 15% for homelessness prevention. Homelessness is a regional problem and should not be solved by a city alone. We already spend almost $300M a year on homelessness and it's not clear what doubling down on that would do.
Why are we lumping non-local business tax with a tax on marijuana? Taxing marijuana makes sense but requiring businesses that are not in SF to pay SF tax (other than sales tax) doesn't.
Unanimous vote by SF supervisors, but they can already set the budget to fund arts and culture and choose not to do so. Fixed budget for non-essential services is a bad idea.