It’s possible than less than one-third of registered voters will cast ballots today and decide the fate of Propositions 98 and 99, F and G. Our votes are going to count, will yours?
UPDATE: A plugged-in Bayview resident’s comment regarding F and G that’s worth a read. And should you choose to share, a kind request to consider providing a “why” in addition to the “how” you marked your ballot.
UPDATE (6/4): The final results: Proposition 98 Fails/99 Passes, Measure F Fails/G Passes.
∙ Proposition 98: An Interesting Perspective And Opportunity For “Play” [SocketSite]
∙ JustQuotes: The Ballot Battle Over Hunters And Candlestick Point [SocketSite]
∙ Results: Proposition 98 Fails/99 Passes, Measure F Fails/G Passes [SocketSite]
Good ballot analysis from SPUR:
http://www.spur.org/documents/0608_ballot_analysis.shtm
No on 98
No on 99
No on F
YES on G
Yes my vote will count … I mailed it in last week. I am vaguely amused by the last minute phone calls I get from Gavin, his father, and Carol Migden. They all seem anxious to get me to the polling place, lol. I wonder, for the first time, if there is any truth in the city’s claim that part of their budget dilemma is because of the burden that the voters have placed on them with propositions that have passed. On the other hand I am thrilled that we can maintain support for libraries and schools by insisting that money is set aside for them. They might just have got shoved aside if not for propositions.
I voted
yes on 98
yes on 99
No on F
YES on G
Why did I not receive an absentee ballot this time? I had one in February. I don’t think these measures/propositions were on the ballot then.
I voted no on F, yes on G.
Pretty much I vote against anything Chris Daly is voting for.
I voted Yes on G, No on F.
Yes 98, no 99.
I wrote in No on Chris Daly.
It’s hard for me to wrap my arms around the fact that SF could pass Prop F and throw away the chance to bring hope and economic opportunity to one of the most wretched corners of the city. But somehow the good always becomes the enemy of the perfect around here, and in a low-turnout election the Chris Daly-style zealots are likely to carry disproportionate weight. Maybe I’m being too pessimistic but I thoroughly expect Prop F to pass.
Budget set-asides are like free candy for the majority renters in the City …. yes, please, more candy … Horrible way to govern, absolutely horrible (set-asides, that is).
Back to politics … here’s some fodder:
http://www.sfbg.com/blogs/politics/2008/05/the_phoney_slate_card.html
vote yes on 98. The fear mongers make us all believe that rent control will END , which isn’t true. It will be phased out, and if you live in a rent controlled unit, it will stay rent controlled. Rent control is bad in the long run as hundreds of studies show, but no politician has the sack to stand up and educate their constituents about this fact. Why doesn’t someone LEAD the people rather than simply follow their misinformed will? Look at how Boston had fared after voting out rent control in the middle 90’s. Rent control creates housing shortages, encourages renter discrimination, and encourages MORE evictions, not fewer. I could go on….
Jamie, I see your point, but at least set-asides guarantee things like education, parks, health care, and law enforcement are properly funded, even in a budget crisis. Hopefully it forces City Hall to trim their bloated and overpaid staff, which is the real culprit of SF’s budget.
I voted:
Yes on 98
No on 99
No on F
Yes on G.
I voted:
No on 98
Yes on 99
I voted like Tweety. & I agree with Jamie, set asides are bad. It’s ok to say that things like ed, parks, health care, etc. should be funded, but I disagree with putting a fixed amount. we should have other way to force accountability.
I’m anti-“progressive”…
Yes on 98
No on 99
No on F
Yes on G
I’m anti-proposition. I voted no down the line.
Well, since we are reporting. I voted the curmudgeon ticket:
No on 98
No on 99
No on F
No on G
Ah, and yes, I voted Chris Daly for 13th District Dem Central Committee. I just had to do it because cock fights are illegal, and the next best thing is watching San Francisco’s petite bourgeoisie rip one another’s heads off while trying to get a toe hold on SF real estate.
Yes on 98. IF only.
I have not made it to the polls yet and will after work, but reading through the thread and with regards to Props G & F heard the Bayview referred to as being one of the most wretched corners of the city. Being a Bayview resident and home-owner i simply say that the Bayview is a product of 30+ years of neglect. People can throw whatever adjective they like at the area and is their right, but i truly hope that there is a recognition that many of the ills are the direct results of political and social isolations not only with regards to race but also to economics, education, voting base, and business.
If Bayview- Hunters Point had remained largely Italian American as it was in the 1950’s is there any real doubt that right now it would very much resemble the sunset district? built up and supported by politicians, protected by the planning department, watched over by city services? Instead there was population change, a shipyard closure, a lack of political representation and oversight, industrial development growth then downturn, public housing, gang and drug war, all happened to the Bayview, the result being a district with very little public appeal, non-existent political power, crumbling and disappearing public services and none if any interest by the city for any of its campaigns for a more beautiful city. In essence the City simply moved on leaving the Bayview behind to fend for itself.
All the Bayview has ever had in its favor was its land. Land that gave way to a stadium, but like one of the Yes on Prop G commercials says, the majority of people dont see the real Bayview, dont see the people of the bayview, and really all they see are the results of neglect. Many still cant fathom the notion that Bayview residents have the highest home ownership rates of any other area of the city.
I will be voting yes on G and no on F this afternoon but i truly hope that people are voting about development and not voting about people. If these two measure pass I hope people recognize that the Bayview is not to be bulldozed (like the Fillmore) and that there are still a number of proud residents that those who never ventured into the Bayview aside from 49er games may soon call neighbor. The section 8 dwellers and public housing members will surely be forced out but unlike Mission Bay or SoMa the Bayview is an actual neighborhood and should not be undertaken with the notion of re-creating a warmer version of the marina as though there is not an existing soul and history to be acknowledged.
I vote for G for obvious reasons, i want to see the development, I want to see the Bayview transform, grow, and i want my neighbors, some 30+ year residents & proud homeowners to experience that as well, and i vote no on F to ensure G has a life.
Do i agree with the notion the F creates, sure i do, and do i believe that Lennar could do it as well…the answer is yes, but i also know that Lennar has shareholders to answer to especially in the midst of an unforgiving economic climate. Mostly i vote no on F though for the false notions that the Yes on F campaign has pushed. Do we want San Francisco to be only a place for the millionaires and to lose its diversity and places of culture only to be replace by celebrations of wealth? I dont and theres always San Carlos, Menlo Park, Palo Alto for that, and decidedly i’m still not sold that those millionaires will come rushing to the bayview for quite a while. At least not until theres a write up or two about the “new” Bayview in 7×7 or San Francisco magazine or when a Zagat rated restaurant comes to the area whenever that should happen.
The Yes on F campaign for the present has been trying to sell Bayview residents on this as a means of staying when the cruel joke is that F does nothing for those who are already in the Bayview. What is market rate housing going to do for a population of people that dont qualify for market rate ownership? for a population coming out of inferior schools? faced with an inferior job pool? and with inferior credit? In my district, the Bayview, Prop F is being marketed to the people as though this will save them, this will ensure them that they will have a chance to stay, but Prop F is about isnt about people who rent, its about people who buy, and if your shopping at foods co. and a lifelong renter making well below the city median income, buying your home is no more on your agenda than is buying that vacation house in hawaii.
Prop F is not for those in the Bayview, its Chris Daly’s argument against the rich, the corporate, the connected but its surely not for the poor, not for the residents, and not even for a real population that i can even envision, and completely not the progressive crusade he’d love for people to believe.
[Editor’s Note: All line breaks have been added by us (for the sake of readability). Apologies in advance if we’ve placed them in the wrong places.]
Dude. Rob. Paragraphs. Think about it.
right on rob.
Hey, sometimes the passion just flows out. No harm no foul Rob. Appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts as a resident of Bayview.
By there very nature these market rate units will be affordable relative to SF just like much of the Bay View is now (being increasing filled with Chinese people, whites, and Hispanics prices out of other areas)
I really don’t see what the issue is. Yuppies are not going to come steaming in. It will be moderate income people and immigrants filling most of these units
This really is a huge opportunity for SF.
Prop F is pie in the sky. The gov. has never solved housing issues in the US. Supply will
i won’t argue what’s been said about f and its motivations and its feasibility. regarding g, however, keep in mind, that the only reason it’s on the ballot is for the stadium. area plans (think market octavia, rincon hill, etc.) don’t require at-large votes and process through the commissions and board. we have to vote whether to convert existing park land (candlestick) to other uses in order to move the existing stadium location. if you think a stadium far from transit and the freeway and requiring lots of investment in a wide boulevard and bridge designed for crowds of 50,000+ 8 days a year is a good idea, you should vote yes on g. personally, i think this money could be better spent (may be on affordable housing even).
Didn’t realize it was a voting day until I saw all t he signs around town today. None of the propositions affect me, so I could give a slug less.
Read the election results and weep, landlords.
As of 9pm, 12% reporting:
Prop 98 is down 45% to 55%
Prop 99 is up 65% to 35% (I’m as shocked as anyone)
Official results here
http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/props/59.htm
yo tipster,
simpsons_nelson_haha2.jpg,
rent control makes rents artificially expensive by making supply artificially constrained. as a ll i like high rents, but maybe that’s just me…
glad we could help you out, paco.
If you have any more Quixotic rent control defeat initiatives you’d like me to help you out by crushing, like all the others before them, be sure to let me know!
Just to chime in, I voted no on F, yes on G. The results are frustratingly slow to come in on the props tonight. The other races seem to be coming in faster…grrr. Please, PLEASE let the people of the Bayview get this win. Defeating the development is no path to the future. Lennar might not be perfect, but they are large enough to get this huge project moving forward. Chris Daly shot his wad here, and lost – I hope.
Measure F – No
Measure G – Yes
Results are almost fully in.
http://www.sfgov.org/site/elections_index.asp?id=70719
I voted No on F, G and 98. I voted yes on 99.
I am glad to see F go down so clearly and a bit surprised to see G win so handily. I don’t want Hunter’s Point to turn into a bunch of car first development, which is what G seems to encourage.
There is still the planning process, so we can hopefully get some good transit and Smart Growth oriented housing and retail in there. Maybe the T can be extended?
A referendum on Chris Daly, I like those results!
Final results: Proposition 98 Fails/99 Passes, Measure F Fails/G Passes.
For a description of the “open housing” debate in the 1964 Civil Rights Act see this this post by the author of Nixonland: http://ourfuture.org/blog-entry/meaning-box-722
It really is amazing how relevant that history is to the discussion in this thread about private landlord discrimination.