|
From the January 2007 Newsletter:
By David Fix
It seems like forever since the November elections. Perhaps it is because some of the local results were disappointing, and I just wanted to put it out of my mind. Passage of Prop H was a disappointment but not a big surprise; Rob Black’s loss was a very big disappointment. Many of us worked for and donated to his campaign. Rob worked really hard in the campaign, and it was a very close race.We had great hope that he would go to City Hall and we would see civility and reasonableness return to politics. However, that was not to happen this year.
I would like to congratulate Supervisors Ed Jew, Michela Alioto-Pier, and Bevan Dufty on their wins. I look forward to working with them in the coming year. Congratulations also to Assemblywoman Fiona Ma—she will be a great addition to the State Assembly—and to Senator Leland Yee. I look forward to working with both of them on issues that affect us at the state level.
I want to thank Senator Feinstein, Mayor Newsom, and Supervisors Elsbernd, Alioto-Pier and Ma for their endorsement of a NO vote on Prop H. They recognized the unfairness and the bad public policy of this measure.
Prop H: a tough measure to beat
The passage of Prop H was not a surprise. I said from the outset that it would be difficult to defeat. When people can vote to give themselves money, it is very difficult to convince them not to. The other side saw the passage as a big victory. It clearly was not. Prop H was the closest of all the local ballot measures; less than 53% of San Francisco voters voted for its passage. The other local propositions passed by a much larger percentage. Only one ballot initiative—the increase in the parking tax—failed. The opposition to the parking tax measure spent more than three times as much on its campaign as we did to fight Prop H. If we had had that kind of money, we most certainly would have prevailed as well. We raisedmore than $60,000 from almost 450 members, mostly in small amounts of $50 to $100 per member. Clearly this issue resonated with our members.
This was not the “real estate industry” fighting the initiative, but the “mom-and-pop” property owners that this legislation was targeted to harm. We sent out 180,000 pieces of mail directly to voters, plus another 20,000 postcards to our members for them to deliver to their friends and neighbors. If all of our members sent out their postcards, we would have delivered 200,000 pieces of mail to the voters. This represents almost 50% of the registered voters in San Francisco–a very good result on a small budget. One interesting statistic of the outcome is the breakdown of the Prop H vote by supervisorial district. Prop H was defeated in five of the eleven districts; districts 1 (McGoldrick), 2 (Alioto-Pier), 4 (Ma/Jew), 7 (Elsbernd), and 11 (Sandoval). I hope that Supervisors McGoldrick and Sandoval take note of this fact. Both supervisors endorsed Prop H. However, their constituents were against the ballot measure. In Districts 8 (Dufty) and 11 (Maxwell), Prop H passed, but by a much smaller margin than in the other four districts. I hope that both supervisors see this as a sign from their constituents for moderation in their votes on landlord–tenant and homeownership issues.
What could we have done differently?
What could we have done differently to defeat this measure? If we had more money we could have educated the voters better. The campaign was all about educating the voters about the negative ramifications of the proposition, something that could not be done with a simple sound bite. The political consultants with whom we spoke said that we needed $200,000 or more to run a “serious” campaign against this initiative. Also, if we had more volunteers we would have been able to reach more voters. Only about ten people offered to work on the campaign against Prop H. SPOSF’s strength has always been its activism and ability to get people out and involved. That was not the case on Prop H. Perhaps it is fatigue of our members. We have taken too many hits from City Hall lately. Given all that, we did very well with the election outcome. Clearly, many tenants understand and also believe that these laws are unfair and counterproductive. However, as President Kennedy once said, “victory has a hundred fathers, but defeat is an orphan.” I still think about what I could have done differently to defeat this measure, especially given the close results. However, we lost, and now we have to live with the outcome.
A legal challenge to Prop H a costly endeavor
So the question is, where do we go from here? I received a number of emails asking if we are going to mount a legal challenge to Prop H. Two came from the very people we were trying to protect from Prop H. Please see the answers to the "Question of the Month" for just a few examples. The Supervisors claim that they want to keep families with children in the City and protect seniors, but the evidence says otherwise: Less than two months since passage of Prop H, and we already hear pleas from one family and one senior clearly hurt by this legislation. No doubt, there will be many more in the future. A lawsuit would be costly endeavor. Are the members willing to write checks to fund a legal challenge? Besides money, we will need plaintiffs for any court challenge. We cannot just sue the City. Please see the Question of the Month. If Prop H has directly affected you or someone you know, please contact us. We need your stories and potential plaintiffs if we do decide to file a lawsuit. If you want to hear about our plans regarding Prop H or operating under Prop H, please attend our January meeting; attorney Andrews Zacks will be discussing these issues.
Join SPOSFI now to receive our complete newsletter each month, as well as access to our on-line newsletter archive located in our Member Area.
Back to Sample Our Newsletter 
|
