South San Francisco Election 2022 Recommendations: NO on Measure AA, NO on Measure T, YAY/NAY on Measure DD

South San Francisco, CA  October 10, 2022

Overview: This November, South San Francisco voters have important issues to consider on their ballots and it is important to realize that there are a lot of outside interests, efforts and big money working to influence our votes.

 

For over a decade Everything South City has been a sounding board for our neighbors and this writing is a reflection of what has been discussed over and over again.

 

We offer these recommendations and the opportunity for our own local South City community to respectfully share opinions in the comment section below. We ask all commenters to identify themselves by name.  {please note it may take up to 12 hours for comments to appear}

 

When we look at our ballot, we must remember this is not a high school test requiring all the spaces be filled in – if a voter is not completely versed on an issue, it’s better to either educate oneself, or pass on that item.

 

Your ballot is YOUR ballot with voting done in private to allow each of us to express ourselves every few years without fear of reprisal. While many residents complain about some of the issues brought forth in these Measures, we must dig deeper to understand exactly what will, or will not, be accomplished, and at what cost. Even more so, that we follow up demanding accountability for any and all taxes that are imposed on us all.

 

We cannot add more taxes on the backs of our residents.

 

It is important to understand any taxes added, no matter where they land, will impact us all.

Some believe increases to property taxes only affect property owners not realizing those costs are add to rents.

Taxes imposed on businesses might become part of a company’s write off while also increasing the cost of the end product/services to the user.

There is no free lunch, and we all will be paying for whatever we vote for one way or another – so do your due diligence and study the issues thoroughly.

Do not rely on the glossy flyers or endorsements from others, not even ESC recommendations.

Your work, your vote.

We get what we vote for

NO Measure AA

Measure AA:   The City of South San Francisco Article 34 Authorization Ordinance 

  • Without increasing local taxes, shall the City of South San Francisco be authorized to develop, construct, and/or acquire affordable, decent, and safe rental housing for low-income persons, including families, seniors, people with disabilities, and veterans, in an amount up to 1% of the total number of existing housing units in the City of South San Francisco annually for an eight (8) year period, with any year’s unused units being carried over each year?

What’s not to love about this measure? It seems a win/win for everyone, no increase in local taxes to provide housing for those most vulnerable in South City.

 

*However, this Measure is giving our City Council the right to approve any and all “affordable” housing anywhere in the city without voter approval. California state law says the voters must vote on any affordable housing measure, but Councilmember Coleman, promoter of this measure, wants you to agree to bypass this regulation.

*Further, this Measure uses the Rotary Plaza, Rotary Terrace, and the Magnolia Plaza Senior Complex as examples of ‘successful’ affordable housing, and rightfully acknowledge these are not City owned or public housing developments.

*The Measure states no ‘local’ taxes will be used, yet it will be County/State/Federal taxpayers, both property owners AND renters who will be required to carry this burden.

*This Measure is poorly written and leaves too many unanswered questions including where exactly the funds will come from.

*Our City has not been able to keep up with many of the basic responsibilities they are tasked with and they are in no position to take on the role of public housing owner/ landlord.

 

YES/NO Measure DD

Measure DD: Initiative Ordinance of an Annual Parcel Tax on Some Commercial Office Properties for Early Care and Education and Childcare and Development Programs 

  • Shall the measure imposing an annual tax on parcels of land in South San Francisco that are developed and used as commercial office parcels, as defined in the measure, and 25,000 square feet or larger, at a rate of $2.50 per square foot of parcel size, generating approximately $55,900,000 annually, not expiring automatically, to fund early learning and care for children (primarily aged 2.5 to 5) of families living or working in the South San Francisco Unified School District boundaries be adopted?

Yes? No?

*First off, we have heard from a number of residents, who signed the petition to have this Measure on the ballot, express dismay that they were lead to believe different information from the person soliciting their signature at their front door.  Had they known better they would not have signed this, which is exactly why residents must do their due diligence and really study the issues before casting a ballot, or signing a petition no matter how good it may sound.

*Daycare is not required by the State of California and is a voluntary decision made by parents who have chosen to have children and live in an area that is known to be expensive. As with other life decisions, covering expenses should not be pushed onto others, including the ‘big bad corporations’

*The City already has a daycare program in place and have already accepted this responsibility to offer more affordable options. Yet the four year wait list proves these programs are not sustainable, no matter who foots the bill.

*Outreach against this measure has stated this would make South San Francisco less attractive to large corporations and perhaps even cause some to move to other cities. For those who see the political pandering to these big businesses while ignoring resident needs, say good – let them go.

*Any taxes imposed on any business will be passed onto the end user. That is how businesses stay in business.

 

NO Measure T

Measure T:   On June 23, 2022, the SSFUSD board of education voted to place a local school improvement bond measure on the November 2022 ballot that could generate up to $436 million to repair and improve local schools. This measure would cost 6 cents per $100 of assessed value (not market value) per year, while bonds are outstanding.

*Property owners and renters cannot absorb yet another tax being paraded to accomplish the same items Measure J was required to do, but didn’t due to mismanagement.

*Measure J and Measure C are still being funded by taxpayers without having done the work they were meant to do and achieving the results they were promised without asking for yet another bond measure.

*A letter to the editor by a former member of SSFUSD Measure J Citizens Bond Oversight Committee explains his position citing multiple examples of how Measure J failed and how Measure T is no better.

*Housing for teachers should not be covered by taxpayers as one neighbor said, “The teachers are educated with degrees and have opportunities many of us do not have including their salary and benefits not given to everyone else. Why should they receive special favors paid for by others?” Similar comments were offered by another individual, All citizens must have housing. All forms of honest labor is valuable in our economy. So, if you aren’t a teacher, you are left out in the cold by your own local government?

*In 2016, 31% of the School District workforce were surveyed if they would live in workforce housing. Less than 50% of those questioned stated they would be interested in living in workforce housing.

*District Accountability: Another neighbor brings to light the need for our School District to use their funds responsibly and to be held accountable, which has not been done in the past, thereby giving no credibility that it will be done in the future. We must all live on a budget and focus on the priorities, which the District has proven it cannot do. More money thrown at this problem will not result in new behavior. It will result in more burdens on the back of the generation they say they are working to help.

*Another resident shares, “Building a ‘company town’ specifically for a targeted group of citizens is wrong for several reasons:
1) institutionalizing housing discrimination based on occupation.
2) using taxpayer dollars for the benefit of one specific group – government employees
3) immersing government into the property management business
4) high probability of cost overruns; financial mismanagement and long-term obligations”

 

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

6 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Michelle
Michelle
1 month ago

Wasn’t the original purpose of the City of SSF offering reduced rates for childcare to help those in need short term?

Was this childcare aka preschool subsidies meant for everyone long term?

Michelle
Michelle
1 month ago

NO ON DD….

LET’S NOT SPEND MONEY ON PRESCHOOL AND SUPPORT OUR K-12! Let’s double those real teachers’ salaries! Let’s fix up the schools and really impact a huge portion of SSF residents and not dang preschool.

Avalon Park Homeowner
Avalon Park Homeowner
1 month ago
Reply to  Michelle

You’re a loser

Avalon Park Homeowner
Avalon Park Homeowner
1 month ago
Reply to  Michelle

And Michelle, you are a corporate relations worker at Genentech. Please log off and let the community make their decision

Phil
Phil
1 month ago

Neighbors I do not know about your paycheck but mine doesn’t have extra money to spare for more taxes – stay out of my wallet! Inflation is going up more and the government says we need more unemployment to fix the problem they created Yes you heard that right- more unemployment to fix it Google that
Idiots keep taxing themselves and everyone else

Maria G
Maria G
1 month ago

The reasons given against Measure T would also be reasons against Measure AA

*Another resident shares, “Building a ‘company town’ specifically for a targeted group of citizens is wrong for several reasons:
1) institutionalizing housing discrimination based on occupation.
2) using taxpayer dollars for the benefit of one specific group – government employees
3) immersing government into the property management business
4) high probability of cost overruns; financial mismanagement and long-term obligations”