City Props B, C, D and E

October 5th, 2016 No Comments »

City College (Image: SF Examiner)

Prop B – YES. City College Parcel Tax

Raises the amount CCSF gets in annual parcel tax from $79 to $99. They’ve received lots of money already but they need more to ensure they pass the final do-or-die shutdown test with the corrupt-but-still-existing ACCJC. This tax involves, among other things, raising teachers’ salaries, which have languished and are not commensurate with other California CCs. Does not benefit administrators.

Prop C – YES. Loans to Finance Acquisition and Rehabilitation of Affordable Housing – Bond

1992’s Proposition A provided $350 million for low-interest loans to encourage the seismic rehabilitation of unreinforced masonry buildings. $260,700,000 remains unused more than 20 years later. This measure amends Prop A to allow funding for the acquisition, rehabilitation, and conversion to permanent affordable housing of seismically at-risk multi-unit (more than three units) buildings in addition to its original purposes. It is hoped that this will speed up the introduction of more affordable housing to the market.

Prop D – YES. Filling Vacancies in Local Elective Office – Charter Amendment

Mandates a special election when there’s a vacancy on the Board of Supervisors, within 126-140 days unless there’s a regular election within 180 days. The Mayor must appoint an interim Supervisor within 28 days, who cannot run in the subsequent election. The Mayor would be required to fill any local elected office vacancy within 28 days. Currently there is no deadline to appoint.

Prop E – YES. City Responsibility for Maintaining Street Trees – Charter Amendment

Because DPW has never had the funding to properly maintain street trees, during the last recession the City moved the responsibility for their care to the nearest property owner, who is also responsible for tree root-caused sidewalk damage. This situation often leads to neglect and negligence, as many owners can’t or won’t spend the thousands of dollars tree maintenance costs. Often an excuse is found to simply cut down the tree instead of maintaining it.

Prop E clearly gives responsibility for all tree maintenance back to the City. Originally to be paid for by a small parcel tax, it was changed to a $19 million General Fund set-aside instead. The money can’t be used to plant new trees; only for the maintenance of existing ones. Up to $500,000 annually can be used to maintain School District trees.

This has been needed for a long time; it places responsibility for public tree maintenance on all members of the public who enjoy them. While we are sick of set-asides, we recommend a yes.

Leave a Reply