THE NOVEMBER 5TH ELECTIONS AND OUR LIBERTARIAN AIM
The Libertarian Party of San Francisco has upheld its record of recommending the exact opposite of what voters passed in any given election, and we are not at all disheartened! Our aim is to shrink government to a constitutional and sustainable size, while politicians' aim is to sink as much resources as necessary to convince voters to make government grow. We intend to persevere in our aim.
Typically, voters do not turn out in good numbers in an off-year municipal election. November 5th was no exception. As of November 6, the San Francisco Department of Elections reported that ballots cast were 22.59% of registered voters (440,028 registered and 99,417 ballots cast).
Registered Libertarians in San Francisco make up a relatively small number of total registration (2,760 registered Libertarians). However, dedicated small numbers can turn tides. We urge Libertarians to get involved in the political process and promote libertarian ideals via the ballot box. Of course, we also urge more Libertarian Party registration, especially since third parties like ours need to keep up our numbers to maintain our qualified political party status.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE 
NOVEMBER 5TH, 2013 ELECTIONS
Proposition A: Retiree Health Care Trust Fund
Charter Amendment - NO
Supervisor Farrell’s Proposition A is an effort to protect the City’s Retiree Health Care Trust Fund (RHCTF) from under funding and mismanagement. Protecting taxpayers and the City’s promised services from exploding retiree health care costs is an excellent goal, but Proposition A is a step in the wrong direction.
Today, the retired public employees’ trust fund is protected from withdrawals until 2020. Proposition A ends that protection, and replaces it with the uncertain requisite that withdrawals from sub-trusts not be made until the sub-trusts are fully funded – unless City retiree health care costs exceed 10% of City payroll costs. We consider this bar too low to serve as protection against early withdrawals from the trust, since the City Controller’s Five-year Plan indicates City salaries will rise around 3.1% and “fringe benefits” will rise at a five-year average of 10.2%.
Proposition A adds the following, “In the event that the contribution rates set forth above do not cover the entire normal cost, the employer shall contribute the balance into the RHCTF.” We interpret this to mean that taxpayers carry ultimate responsibility for funding the Health Care Trust. Therefore, please vote wisely. Vote NO on Proposition A.
Please see the Libertarian Party of San Francisco official Opponent's Argument Against Proposition A and Rebuttal to Proponent's Argument in Favor of Proposition A in the San Francisco Department of Elections Voter Information Pamphlet http://www.sfgov2.org/index.aspx?page=3979
The Argument and the Rebuttal are reproduced in the "News" section of this website: Argument Against Proposition A
Proposition B: 8 Washington Street Initiative Ordinance - YES
Proposition B allows development of upscale residential housing along the Embarcadero waterfront, which will also include a public park, open space, ground floor retail and cafes, and pedestrian and bicycle access to The Embarcadero. Most of the site (80%) is private property currently being used as a private tennis/swim club; the remainder of the property is owned by The City and currently used as a surface parking lot. The developers have secured from the Board of Supervisors an Ordinance to increase the legal building heights on approximately half-acre portion of the site. Proposition B was placed on the ballot to counter a Referendum seeking to overturn the Supervisors’ Ordinance.
As Libertarians we are encouraged to see the relaxation of rules and regulations that prohibit the owners of private property from doing what they choose with their own property. Therefore we recommend a YES vote on this measure.
Proposition C: 8 Washington Street Referendum Ordinance - YES
Proposition C asks: Shall the City Ordinance increasing legal building height limits on approximately half-acre portion of the 8 Washington Street Site along Drumm Street take effect?
A YES vote would allow the Board of Supervisors Ordinance increasing the height limits to stand; thereby allowing for the development of 8 Washington Street. A NO vote would nullify the Ordinance; thereby preventing the development of 8 Washington Street.
Again, we like the easing of arbitrary government regulations which restrict choice; and we prefer that property owners not be prevented from doing what they choose with their own property. Following those preferences, we recommend a YES vote on the 8 Washington Street Referendum.
Proposition D: Prescription Drug Purchasing Declaration of Policy - NO
Proposition D makes it official City policy to use all available opportunities to reduce the City’s cost of prescription drugs. While it obviously makes good economic sense for any organization or entity to always buy at the best prices, this measure takes the wrong approach to high pharmaceutical prices. Rather than look at the root problem—heavy government involvement with and extensive regulation of the industry via the FDA—it rails against Big Pharma in this feel-good measure which will do nothing to actually bring the prices down.
Only true competition can lower prices, and this can only be accomplished by loosening up the regulation of the industry so more companies can enter the field. Rather than passing laws demanding lower prices, we prefer to see more companies creating the competitive environment necessary for prices to decrease. Therefore, we recommend a NO vote.
ELECTION NOTES:
The San Francisco Libertarian Party is the perennial loyal opposition to The City’s forever-proliferating rules and regulations. We endeavor to show how inevitably these rules and regulations are fraught with dueling needs of special interests, often resulting in unrealistic objectives, unintended consequences, and the need for more rules and regulations to “fix” the ones passed before. Our recommendations are always shaped by our view that divergent needs should be resolved at the negotiating table, the market place, and the mediation room. We offer the following two instances as example of our view:
We have heard Propositions B & C characterized as David and Goliath. Proposition B, say its detractors, is the big Goliath robbing public space from the little people. Proposition C, say its supporters, is David personified, fighting to keep the Waterfront open for the average guy. Well, another point of view is that these two propositions are a fight between the super rich who want multi million-dollar condos, and the super rich who own multi-million dollar condos whose property value would decrease when 8 Washington partially block their view of the Waterfront. For a good article on these two propositions see http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/a-big-tina-fey-eye-roll-for-8-washington/Content?oid=2591181
Proposition A is yet another attempt to “save” government employees’ health care. The list of supporters includes unions. One rank-and-file member eloquently questions that Proposition A will benefit the rank and file retirees, since the proposal removes control from the voters and the unions by giving the City Controller, Mayor, and Board of Supervisors greater control. Proposition A adds, among other provisions, section “(d) (3)” which states that these three entities can change disbursement limitations. Here again, we have conflicting needs that are difficult to reconcile via government edict. For a heartfelt presentation of a rank-and-filer see: SF Prop A- An Attack On Public Workers-SF City Workers Speak Out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q60h-aD6wA4&feature=youtu.be
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~