Paul Kozakiewicz: Look out: Election Trojan Horse

There are a couple of Trojan Horses on the Nov. 6 ballot, born with skulduggery and fostered in the dark underworld of San Francisco politics.

Proposition H was put on the ballot by a group of San Franciscans the old fashioned way - by going to the people and getting enough signatures to put it on the ballot. The proposition would require developers build more parking, in most cases one parking space for each unit, and would work to free up and develop more parking in areas where it is most needed. The measure would help and support small merchants, who need their customers to be able to park to shop, and seniors and families, which oftentimes need a vehicle to take care of business.

But SF Supervisor Aaron Peskin worked behind the scenes to thwart that effort. Never mind that families and seniors and many others depend on their vehicles to survive in our urban jungle.

Peskin, along with the other regressive groups that call themselves progressive, put a last-minute proposition on the ballot with the signatures of four supervisors - no public hearings, meetings or light of day on his prop. - just the furtherance of the socialist agenda in San Francisco.

Peskin's proposition is designed to defeat Prop. H, in case both propositions pass. Even if Prop. H gets thousands more votes than Prop. A, the latter would win because of Peskin's lawyerly savvy.

Prop. A would throw another $26 million a year at Muni. The current budget for Muni is about $780 million a year. The assault on San Franciscan's preferred mode of transportation has been ongoing for the past several years. The removal of parking spaces citywide, the easing of restrictions on building parking spaces, and the removal of traffic lanes and restrictions on driving have been coming non-stop.

Some measures include: Removing two traffic lanes on Arguello Boulevard; Closing a part of JFK Drive in Golden Gate Park on Saturdays; The closing of Concourse Drive in Golden Gate Park to through traffic, rerouting a major Richmond to Sunset traffic route; The proposed removal of two traffic lanes on Geary Boulevard to accommodate buses only; The proposed removal of two traffic lanes on 25th Avenue, a major connector between the Presidio and Golden Gate Bridge and the Sunset District; Citywide, The proposed removal of traffic lanes on Van Ness and Potrero avenues; The proposals to charge a toll to drivers who enter the downtown area or Treasure Island; A proposal to charge a second toll at the Golden Gate Bridge to pay for Doyle Drive improvements.

The argument that these measures must be taken are a red herring. The population of San Francisco is not increasing substantially. In the westside, we are growing at a very small pace and that is expected to stay the same.

The Transportation Authority, which is working on a Geary Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system, said increased ridership on the Geary #38 bus line would come from convincing people who currently drive to use the mass transit system. A good, clean, fast ride would help the cause. Trying to make it as difficult as possible to drive as an effort to intimidate people to use mass transit does not help the cause. Not everyone can ride a bicycle to work every day or afford the time it sometimes take to cross town with the current system of buses, streetcars and cable cars.

For the regressives in this City, the solutions for reducing traffic congestion are in search of a problem.

Please vote "NO" on Peskin's misguided Proposition A and vote a resounding "YES" on Proposition H.

Government Transgressions
Peskin's insertion of a poison pill for Proposition H in his so-called transit initiative is not the first time this troubling tactic has been used, but it does seem to mark a trend.

In 2003 proponents for mass transit snuck language into a 10-page Proposition K to extend the sales tax for transportation projects that allowed for traffic lanes to be taken for dedicated mass-transit-only lanes. In the case of Geary Boulevard, a single paragraph on page 6 was enough to give the SF County Transportation Authority a voter mandate to confiscate traffic lanes on Geary Boulevard. (Potrero and Van Ness avenues were also marked for lane seizures.)

The group charged with selling the proposition to San Francisco voters didn't bother to tell anyone about the provisions, because opposition to Prop. K was likely. Secrecy triumphed when Prop. K was passed.

On this November's ballot, the library measure Proposition A is being touted as an extension of the current Library Preservation Fund passed by voters in 1994. But this year's Proposition D has one major change. It gives the Library Commission and the SF Board of Supervisors the power to issue revenue bonds on behalf of the library. The bonds, with interest, have to be paid back from the city's limited General Fund. Additionally, payback of the bonds is prohibited from coming out of the Library's annual budget.

Normally, the question of taxes would go to the people, who would vote the measure up or down. Prop. D would change that historic equation.

There is no doubt that the Library Preservation Fund has been good for the City. Its furtherance is a noble goal.

But, adding the revenue bond provision takes the right to approve or disapprove of new taxes away from the people.

So, be vigilant. Read all of the propositions and determine for yourself if the "fine print" makes a difference in your decision making.

Paul Kozakiewicz is the editor of the Richmond Review and Sunset Beacon newspapers.