SF GOTV Yes on G, No on E

It is now the final four days of this November's election, commonly known as GOTV, Get Out The Vote weekend. Every single car of our freedom train must be loaded with EVERY SINGLE TENANT VOTER in San Francisco to save rent control with Proposition G. You can vote Saturday and Sunday, 11/1 and 11/2, 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. at City Hall, Registrar's Office in Basement, Grove Street entrance. You can also vote at the Registrar on Monday, 11/3, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., and on Election Day, 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. On Election Day, you can vote at your polling place stated on the back cover of your County Voting pamphlet. It is too late to mail an absentee ballot; please deliver it to any polling place in your County or the Registrar.

The San Francisco Elections Department has a polling place lookup at
http://sfelections.org/tools/pollsite/

If you are done voting, help those who are not get to the polls by driving them to the polls, babysitting their children, or translating the ballot. To save our homes, Proposition G must pass and that can only happen if we push EVERY SINGLE TENANT VOTER to the polls. The landlords have contributed over $1 million to defeat this proposition, as they always do with every pro-tenant proposition. See http://www.sfethics.org/ethics/ballot-measures-nov-4-2014-dashboard.html

The tenants do not have the money but we do have the votes as we are 50% of the voters in a high voter turnout election. Some property owners support us; most do not. The reason the workingclass in San Francisco must vote is to save rent control, voting Yes on G.

The other insidious anti-workingclass proposition on the ballot is Proposition E, which deserves our No vote. Prop E is a regressive tax on the workingclass, as all sales taxes are by definition. IT IS A SLUSH FUND. Households making less than $20,000 a year would pay 22% of the Prop E tax according to the Fiscal Analysis by the San Francisco Office of Economic Analysis. See
http://www.affordablesf.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/SanFran-Report-Sugar-Bev-Tax.pdf

For the entire San Francisco voter pamphlet, see:
http://sfgov2.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/elections/ElectionsArchives/2014/Nov/Nov2014_VIP_EN.pdf

Yes on G, No on E
Saying what it means to me!

Yes on H, No on I
Real grass and no stadium lights are the reasons why!

Recommendations:
NO ON ALL BONDS, SALES TAXES, PARKING METERS, TOWING FINES, ANTI-FOURTH AMENDMENT RED LIGHT RUNNING CAMERAS; DIVERSION SCHEMES AND GAMBLING.
CALIFORNIA: No on 1, 2, 48; Yes on all the rest.
SAN FRANCISCO: No on A, E and I; Yes on all the rest.
Propositions-SAN FRANCISCO
No on A-a bond. Tenants can be forced to pay for bonds.
Yes on B for public transportation.
Yes on C for education and youth programs
Yes on D for labor.
No on E-San Francisco-effectively a sales tax, regressive and anti-workingclass by definition, and a SLUSH FUND supported by most of the Board of Stupidvisors of San Francisco, all Democrats, demonstrating TOTAL CONTEMPT for the people of San Francisco. This city and its Democratic Party machine views the people of San Francisco and visitors as suckers to be milked dry.
http://www.affordablesf.com/
http://www.affordablesf.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/SanFran-Report-Sugar-Bev-Tax.pdf
Yes on F
http://www.pier70sf.com/
Yes on G-stop the evictions. There have been 10,000 evictions under the Ellis Act since 1997.
http://www.speculationfreesf.com/
Yes on H-No artificial grass and late night stadium lights in Golden Gate Park
No on I No artificial grass and late night stadium lights in Golden Gate Park
Yes on J-Minimum Wage Increase
http://ballotpedia.org/City_of_San_Francisco_Minimum_Wage_Increase_Referred_Measure,_Proposition_J_(November_2014)
Yes on K-suggestion of affordable housing-where have they been?
http://ballotpedia.org/City_of_San_Francisco_Additional_Affordable_Housing_Policy,_Proposition_K_(November_2014)
Yes on L. See p. 182 of the voter's handbook:
http://sfgov2.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/elections/ElectionsArchives/2014/Nov/Nov2014_VIP_EN.pdf
There is no adequate public transportation outside San Francisco, so almost 80% of San Franciscans have cars. If you want to change that fact, you have to transfer the entire military budget to all social services, including public transportation. Parking meters are by definition a REGRESSIVE TAX, and should never be used for funding a city, as they are now. Parking and towing tickets are also outrageous and REGRESSIVE TAXES. Paying $74 in downtown SF and $64 elsewhere AND UP for a parking ticket, making San Francisco the worst in the nation when it comes to parking tickets is outrageous. Paying the high cab fare and $557 for the towing fine to retrieve your car is GRAND LARCENY, and sends EVERYONE WHO CAN AWAY FROM SAN FRANCISCO. Another person on the website below paid $533 for the tow truck, which sit around like predators in the Financial District, plus $110 for a parking ticket IS DESPICABLE. THEY EVEN TOW SCOOTERS for $430. AVOIDING SAN FRANCISCO IS WHAT MOST PEOPLE IN THE BAY AREA DO. The rest of the Bay Area has excellent restaurants, stores; and entertainment. If you do not work, go to school or live in San Francisco, there is very little reason to be in San Francisco. See:
http://www.yelp.com/biz/autoreturn-san-francisco (Please read ALL the complaints on this site.)
and
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/San-Francisco-parking-fines-to-rise-Monday-4638367.php
and
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2013/09/san-francisco-autoreturn-tow-tourism.html?page=all
The Anti-Fourth Amendment Red Light Running Cameras can result in an outrageous $490 fine statewide, and most people who run the red light do so accidentally, if at all, since the equipment can be wrong. Basing an economy on tickets and meters is REACTIONARY since this is a REGRESSIVE TAX. Taxing the rich, those who make over $200,000 a year, with the progressive income tax, is how this city, state and country should function.
CALIFORNIA
No on Prop 1-a bond
http://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_1,_Water_Bond_(2014)#Opponents
No on Prop 2-theft of funds for schools
http://www.2badforkids.org/
From the No on 2 website:
This is a perfect example of why children always come last in Sacramento (lest we forget, we are 50th by a LARGE margin in student-teacher, student-counselor AND student-librarian ratios, not to mention at or near the bottom in the nation in per pupil funding - yes even AFTER Proposition 30). Children have no lobby, and no money. And they cannot vote. They need us to be our voice. Do you want to give children a voice? Vote NO on Prop 2, for starters.
Proposition 2 breeches the minimum guarantee Californians made to our schoolchildren – a guarantee that the Governor and the Legislature assured schools would protect them. Remember, the state diverts BILLIONS of local school property taxes that are allocated to public education each year -- $8.4 billion this year alone -- to pay its debts.
Now the State is saying it won’t necessarily replace those funds. That’s unfair. As if that were not already devastating to schools, the Legislature decided to require local school districts to spend all but three weeks of their savings the minute the state saves a nickel. It did this without public comment or LAO analysis. We see this as unfair to schools and schoolchildren and extraordinarily fiscally irresponsible.
Yes on 45 for healthcare
http://www.yeson45.org/yes-prop-45
Yes on 46 for healthcare
http://www.yeson46.org/facts/
Yes on 47
http://safetyandschools.com/
No on 48-another gambling initiative. Gambling is ALWAYS taking from the needy and giving to the greedy.
http://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_48,_Referendum_on_Indian_Gaming_Compacts_(2014)


ALL ABOARD LABOR'S FREEDOM TRAIN, Duke Ellington's A Train. Pack every car with tenant voters now! Ring the bell of freedom from exploitation, sing that song of liberation for the workingclass!