user experience happens IRL, too

Hi folks, it’s that time again. The short voter guide is just below, the long version’s at the bottom Feel free to skip down, but for those with the time and patience, I ask your indulgence in the editorial following the short guide.

As usual, I read the voter pamphlet, rifled through various voter guides and endorsements, both progressive and conservative, checked out what I could from the CA Attorney’s site, and completely missed/ignored all TV commercials and junk mail flyers. I have no government experience personally, am just an amateur democracy enthusiast. This guide is, as always, an SF-centric amalgam of armchair policy analysis and my own bleeding heart and sense of justice. My endorsements are mostly limited to my districts, with the odd standout in someone else’s.

As usual, please feel free to distribute to your friends, enemies, coworkers and family as you please. Read, grok, comment, thumb wrestle, correct me, and discuss with your peep over the next 8 days, but please go vote!!

SHORT GUIDE

Federal

Senate: Barbara Boxer

Congress, 8th district: Nancy Pelosi

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

State Offices

Governor: Edmund “Jerry” Brown

Lt. Governor: Gavin Newsom

Secretary of State: Debra Bowen

Controller: John Chiang

Treasurer: Bill Lockyer

Attorney General: Kamala Harris

Insurance Commissioner: Dave Jones

State Board of Equalization: Betty Yee

Superintendent of Education: Tom Torlakson

State Assembly, District 13: Tom Ammiano

State Assembly, District 14: Nancy Skinner

State Measures

Prop 19, Legalize Marijuana YES, but don’t expect miracles overnight

Prop 20, Congressional Redistricting Appt NO

Prop 21, License Vehicle Fee YES

Prop 22, Local Redevelopment Funds NO

Prop 23, Suspending Air Pollution Control NO FREAKIN’ WAY

Prop 24, Business Taxes YES

Prop 25, Simple Majority Passage YES, with serious reservations

Prop 26, 2/3 Vote for Fees NO FREAKIN’ WAY

Prop 27, Eliminate Redistricting Commission NO

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SF Offices

SF School Board: Kim-Shree Maufas, Margaret Brodkin, Emily Murase

Community College Board: John Rizzo

Assessor-Recorder: Phil Ting

Public Defender: Jeff Adachi

Sf Superior Court: No endorsement

SF Measures

Prop AA Yes

Prop A Yes

Prop B No

Prop C No

Prop D Yes

Prop E Yes

Prop F Yes

Prop G No

Prop H No

Prop I Yes

Prop J Yes

Prop K No

Prop L NO NO NO

Prop M Yes

Prop N Yes

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Apoplexy used to be a funny way to communicate during an election cycle, and everyone who knows me knows how much I loooooooove to rant. But now that the astroturf campaign media has co-opted inflammatory outrage as its base emotion, apoplexy has jumped the shark. Once the Tea Partiers are on it, it’s already over.

So what’s an amateur election commentator to do? I’m sorry to say it, folks, but I have no choice: I’m going rational. (Well, mostly.)

Which is, coincidentally, exactly what I do in my day job. Some of you know what I do for a living: I am a User Experience Designer for software and websites. My goal is create the sweet spot where a company’s business goals, its technical capabilities, and its users’ satisfaction can meet. I find out where the problems are, what frustrates users, what company objectives and workflow aren’t being supported, what previous ideas turned out to be ineffective or unfeasible. Then I design a system of solutions which work together to eradicate those problems with the ultimate result of satisfying users, which allows for the company’s success. My process is domain-agnostic, meaning that I don’t have to have special insight into the industry involved; my clients are my domain experts, I provide the rational steps to guide us to consensus about what we need to accomplish and the design expertise to best achieve the goals upon which we’ve agreed.

I do a lot of redesign work, because our experience with technology changes rapidly, and businesses have to revisit what they think about their users, the way they communicate, and how their products work. Basically, whatever solution you have now will only scale to a point, and then you need to reconsider your approach. The smaller the company, the easier this is. The larger the client, the less feasible it is to get the stakeholders to agree on changes en masse, so we focus on one area and hope that the end result will inspire other departments to emulate the success we create there.

California is, and has been, in need of a serious redesign. And California is a very large client with many big problems.

The meta-issue is that the rules governing our budgeting, spending and taxation work at cross purposes, wasting an appalling amount of taxpayer money and creating perhaps the most hostile partisan state government in the country. When special interests, corporate and private, could not achieve their goals via the existing legislation budget process, they created (and still turn to) the initiative process. This is both unique and recent, happening over only the last 25 or so years. (you can learn more about it from the Public Policy Institute of California http://ppic.org/). The initiative process has been used, or misused, by progressives, regressives, and conservatives alike to take proposals that failed in the legislature straight to a public which is sometimes more easily swayed. Can’t get the vote you want in the state legislature? There’s a prop for that!

It’s a double-edged sword: Prop 8 is an example of the process gone wrong, its success coming via out-of-state interests dominating the election cycle with money and demagoguery. But it’s also the only way we’ll ever get to see high-speed rail or be able to create funding without going through our impossible 2/3 taxation circus. It’s an end-run, no matter who’s doing it, but we keep it up because the rest of our system is stalled.

As Joe Mathews of the New America Foundation wrote so incisively in his LA Times editorial:

“This is the peculiar hell of California now: The establishment of even worthwhile policy ideas is risky because they must be constructed on the toxic sand that is the state’s governing system. That system doesn’t work because it can’t. It is an unholy mix of three irreconcilable parts: an election system designed to produce majorities; a legislative system that requires so many two-thirds votes that it nearly amounts to minority rule; and an inflexible initiative process that permits voters to create a special set of laws outside the checks and balances of legislation and budgets. Though elements of these systems exist in democracies around the world, no other place is so foolish as to combine them.”

To look at it in less emotional terms: our state government has scaled poorly, rising to meet the diverse demands of our California constituents in a way that promotes neither fairness, nor efficiency, nor ethical behavior, nor an adequate amount of civic participation. Many different solutions have been tried over the years, but not with a holistic design plan, so it does not all work together and is in fact easily exploitable with enough money. But I disagree with Mr. Mathew’s position to vote no on everything, because while I might spend hours wistfully fantasizing about conducting a full-scale redesign of our state government, (and I do! Oh, do I.) I simply don’t see us being able to make that happen any time soon, and in any case it’s not a matter of doing one or the other. I do believe there has to be a groundswell movement to change the initiative process as a whole, but voting (or not) on the current initiatives is neutral to that effort. I believe it is far more responsible in the short term to be judicious about what we approve, until we make that groundswell surge.

We have only three tools we can exercise as US citizens to affect our government: money, communication, and our votes. If you are a liberal like me, then no matter how much money you have to spend, conservatives will always have more. Communication is very powerful, exercised as calls, emails and letters to your representatives, participation in public hearings, campaigning for candidates, and encouraging our apathetic friends and family to go to the polls. Voting is, quite simply, the very least you can do to affect your government.

LONG GUIDE

Federal

US Senate: Barbara Boxer

Boxer’s record is more of a progressive moderate, but she has really stepped up to the opposition in Washington now, which is why she’s got a target on her back. Compared with the climate there, she is a super-liberal. She’s led or supported some of the most important legislation in California: she led the override of Bush’s veto of the Water Resources Development Act, which authorized $1.3 billion for 54 flood control, ecosystem restoration and navigation projects in California. She’s still fighting against offshore drilling in California. She’s done more for vets than many of her Republican counterparts, establishing the West Coast Combat Care Center and securing millions in funding for burned servicemen and servicewomen. She pushed the Small Business Jobs Act, supports the DREAM Act, and is the only sitting Senator with two committee chairmanships, which is another reason why the Republicans have spent tens of millions to defeat her. She has a 100% record on abortion rights and labor issues. Her opponent Carly Fiorina, by contrast, is anti-choice, anti-immigration, anti-environment corporate hack with no public policy experience.

California

Governor: Jerry Brown

This is a gimme. Brown is, as the League of Young Voters notes, “Meh.” But Meg Whitman is another anti-choice, anti-immigration, anti-labor, anti-environment, and is trying to buy her way into an office for which she has no qualification. She has no education or experience in law, economics, or public policy, and has famously not voted for the majority of her adult life. Her ethos is one of profit, and as much as people may buy into it, California can not and should not be run like a business. A business’ only goal is to stay profitable. A state has a great deal more responsibility to its citizens.

Lieutentant Governor: Gavin Newsom

Newsom’s obviously being groomed for greater things, and while he’s not my favorite mayor ever, I believe, in my deepest and most sincere cynical heart, that he could be an unstoppably charming force for the moderate left. And let’s face it, as wrong as it is, personalities win elections. He may not be liberal enough for San Francisco, and his whole “no new taxes” loop is discouraging, but he is a stalwart proponent of progressive social issues and we need that kind of nerve. The Republican incumbent, Abel Maldonado, is known as a fiscal moderate who got in trouble with his on party for supporting tax increases, but he is a social conservative who is opposes marriage equality and is endorsed by a lot of people I’d like to see voted out of office.

Prop 19 Changes California Law to Legalize Marijuana and Allow It to Be Regulated and Taxed: YES

I’ve seen a lot of discussion about this, and my overall take is this: there is no such thing as perfect legalization legislation, and it’s all going to end up in court. This is still the BEGINNING of marijuana legalization in and the US, and it provides some flexibility around refining it later. Some worry about the impact on small growers – sorry dudes, you are going to have to pull on your big boy pants and fight for your businesses, too, and it’ll be easier to do when corporate pot farm interests get their feet in the door. There is much fighting to come, and no matter who starts it, there will be a federal response of some kind that we’re not going to like. It will not be a sudden reversal of fortune for the disproportionate number of African-Americans who are harassed and incarcerated. Our economy will not turn around overnight because of pot revenue. Sure some corp weed will be lame, but the price will most likely drop back to my high school prices and aficionados will always have their own sources. Legalization is inevitable, and this doesn’t hand out joints to preschoolers like some would have you think. This is a marathon, not a sprint. Why not start now?

Prop 20 Redistricting of Congressional Districts: No

Two years ago we voted to no longer have the state legislature be responsible for redrawing their districts. We replaced them with a Citizens Commission who has not yet done that work., so the jury is still out on whether a 3 person panel really can draw up fair lines. This proposition adds the redrawing the state’s Congressional districts to the same committee. How about you do the first job, and see how that goes? This feels like a plan to stack the deck before the 2012 election, which comes after the deadline to redrawing the lines. Let the citizens’ commission do their job at the state level, then let’s see if it’s a good idea to hand over congressional redistricting.

Prop 21 Establishes $18 Annual Vehicle License Surcharge to Help Fund State Parks and Wildlife Programs and Grants Free Admission to All State Parks to Surcharged Vehicles: YES

Less than a sawbuck per car provides us an independent, dedicated funding source for the state’s parks and wildlife programs. It would also grant free park entry to vehicles that pay the surcharge. Yeah, it’s like a tax, but a small one. Yeah, those rascally cyclists don’t have to pay it. Get over it so we can open our parks back up.

Prop 22 Prohibits the State from Taking Funds Used for Transportation or Local Government Projects and Services: NO

Right now, the state can borrow from some categories of what are meant to be local funds during fiscal emergencies. This is meant to stop that. And if that happens, what will the state do? As I understand it, the state will just take more from public schools, like Schwarzenegger did. I commiserate with cities wanting the state to keep its mitts off their cash, but I reckon a lot of cities can weather the sacrifice better than a lot of school districts.

Prop 23 Suspends Air Pollution Control Laws Requiring Major Polluters to Report and Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions That Cause Global Warming Until Unemployment Drops Below Specified Level for Full Year: NO FREAKIN’ WAY

This is a blatant misinformation campaign attempting to destroy California’s climate-change legislation by tying it to fears and anger around unemployment. The campaign to get this measure on the ballot was bankrolled by millions from two huge oil corporations, Valero Energy Inc. and Tesoro Corp. That would be the Koch boys who, coincidentally, are funding The Tea Party astroturf movement. Big oil is willing to sacrifice the very future of California, economically and environmentally, to keep their record-high profits, the vast majority of which leaves our state and goes back to Texas. And here’s where I lose my rationality: FUCK TEXAS, FUCK BIG OIL, AND FUCK THE IGNORANT HYSTERICS WHO BUY INTO THEIR FEAR-MONGERING BULLSHIT.

Prop 24 Repeals Recent Legislation That Would Allow Businesses to Carry Back Losses, Share Tax Credits, and Use a Sales-Based Income Calculation to Lower Taxable Income: YES

The Women’s Foundation of California gives the most concise explanation of this endorsement, so I’ll just quote it here: “This proposition would close a variety of corporate tax loopholes that the state government approved in 2008. It is expected to generate $1.7 billion in annual revenue. The California Teachers Association is the main financial backer of the measure. The opposition, not surprisingly, is funded by the corporations that would benefit from the tax breaks, including media giants Time Warner, CBS, Fox Group and Viacom, which have all donated at least six figures. (With this lineup of corporate support, it will be interesting to see what kind of media coverage this ballot initiative does–or doesn’t–get.)”

note: In the interest of full disclosure, my dad was an officer in the CTA for many years.

Prop 25 Changes Legislative Vote Requirement to Pass a Budget from Two-Thirds to a Simple Majority. Retains Two-Thirds Vote Requirement for Taxes: Yes, with serious reservations

Our system of super-majorities being required to pass budgets or set taxes is clearly broken. It gives unfair control to the minority and has resulted in them basically holding the budget hostage every year. What we need is for both budgeting and taxing to be passable by simple majorities., so that the party which wins power can actually exercise it. This only gets us halfway there, and my reservation is that this makes spending easier, but taxing – or rather, funding – rules stay the same. If we pass this - and I think we should - we have to accept the responsibility to be vigilant about reducing spending and hold our leaders accountable for not deepening our state deficit. AND we have to get the funding process down to a simple majority, whatever it takes. If this and Prop 25 pass, we will have accomplished a significant step to funding the spending we already have. It’s a big if, but I don’t see us being able to take down the super majority system all at once so let’s do what we can now to properly empower the legislature to do their damn jobs.

Prop 26 Increases Legislative Vote Requirement to Two-Thirds for State Levies and Charges. Imposes Additional Requirement for Voters to Approve Local Levies and Charges with Limited Exceptions: NO NO NO

This is a severely regressive idea that takes the problems we have at the state level (see above) and recreates them to the city level. Nonsense.

Prop 27 Eliminates State Commission on Redistricting. Consolidates Authority for Redistricting with Elected Representatives: NO

Oh Democrats, how you try my patience with you. Dem incumbents sponsored this to get redistricting power back in their paws, after we voted it away from them in 2008. They claim its intent is to save money, because the state cannot afford to pay the small citizens commission to do it. Obviously a lie. It’s a clear conflict of interest, even if it benefits the side I am more closely aligned with. Any majority party basically can stack the deck in their own favor, which is, in my opinion, an extremely unethical, if legal, practice that robs us of accurate representation in the state legislature.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

San Francisco

San Francisco offices

The SF Bay Guardian is my go-to place for local candidate endorsements, and so I’ll let you know how I’m voting, based largely on their recommendations, here. I am afraid I can’t keep abreast of those outside my own district, District 5, sorry! But come on, you need to start getting to know the folks running in your own neighborhood, too. You can do it.

San Francisco School Board

These are very important seats, not just because of the children’s future being at stake, but also because the school system moves a LOT of money. We should not have amateurs making those education policy, staffing, curricula, and budgeting decisions.

There are 3 seats available:

Kim-Shree Maufas is a big supporter of restorative justice and is working for ways to reduce suspensions and expulsions. She wants to make sure advanced placement and honors classes are open to anyone who can handle the coursework. She supports the new school assignment process (as do all the major candidates), although she acknowledges that there are some potential problems. She told us she thinks the district should go back to the voters for a parcel tax to supplement existing funding for the schools.

Margaret Brodkin is a political legend in the city, the person who is most responsible for making issues of children and youth a centerpiece of the progressive agenda. She talks about framing what a 21st century education looks like, about creating community schools, about aligning after-school and summer programs with the academic curriculum. She wants the next school bond act to include a central kitchen, so local kids can get locally produced meals (the current lunch fare is shipped in frozen from out of state).

Emily Murase is where I break with the SFBG. They don’t like her because they feel she is too conservative and has shown support for charter schools. But her qualifications are stellar: she is the Executive Director of the San Francisco Department on the Status of Women, where she oversees a $3.5 million budget and a professional staff of 5 to promote the human rights of the women and girls of San Francisco. Previously, she served in the first Clinton White House as Director for International Economic Affairs (1993-1994), after working for AT&T Japan in Tokyo, and later worked in the International Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission. She is endorsed by several members of the SF Supes, the mayor, State Senators Mark Leno and Leland Yee, and Congresswoman Jackie Speier, among others.

Community College Board

There is only one seat open; the other two incumbents are running unopposed.

John Rizzo is an incumbent known for his work to get the district’s finances and foundation under control, and help tame the series of shenanigans by previous board members which he and the board have inherited. He is part of a 3-man progressive voting bloc on the current board. And before you ask, no, I’m not supporting him just because he has the same name as my cat.

Assessor-Recorder

Phil Ting is the incumbent, and he seems to be doing a pretty good job so far. As the SFBG puts it: “San Francisco needs an aggressive assessor who looks for every last penny that big corporations are trying to duck paying — but this is also a job that presents an opportunity for challenging the current property tax laws. Phil Ting’s doing pretty well with the first part — and unlike past assessors, is actually stepping up to the plate on the second. He’s been pushing a statewide coalition to reform Prop. 13 — and while it’s an uphill battle, it’s good to see a tax assessor taking it on. Ting has little opposition and will be reelected easily.”

Public Defender

Jeff Adachi is another incumbent who seems to be good at his job, though he’s become unpopular for his support of Prop B. But that does not affect his record as Public Defender. SF is the only city in California to elect their PD, which seems weird. Plus, the San Francisco-based Women’s Intercultural Network honored Public Defender Jeff Adachi with its 2010 Jedi Knight Award for “men of good will” who have supported women’s issues and social justice in California. Perhaps not the most rational of endorsements coming from me, but I admit it: I like that our PD is a Jedi. Only in SF, yo.

San Francisco Superior Court

No endorsement. The incumbent Ulmer has been on the bench only a year, and even though he is a Schwarzenegger appointee, he claims to have adopted the SF lifestyle and values as his own. SFBG likes Michael Nava, partially for his experience but also because he is a gay Latino. Our superior court is apparently already diverse, but I could not easily verify that. This one’s up to you.

San Francisco Measures

Prop AA Vehicle Registration Fee: YES

An extra $10 a year will bring in over $5M to be used to improve public transportation, bike and pedestrian infrastructure, and street repairs. No brainer, let’s git ‘er done!

Prop A Earthquake Retrofit Bond: YES

Anyone who’s read my previous voter guides knows that in general, I am not down with bonds as a means for funding our spending. It’s basically racking up our city’s credit card debt. But general obligation pledges tend to have very strong credit quality. And anyone who has ever taken our city’s terrific Neighborhood Emergency Response Team (NERT) training can give you an idea of just how not-ready we are for the big one, so I am in favor of this prop. Retrofitted buildings save lives.

Prop B City and Retirement Health Plans: NO

City employees have been targeted as the cause of budget problems due to public misperception of both their wages and their retirement plans. This prop is a poor solution to the real problem of pension and benefits reform, imposing detrimentally high required contributions from employees to their pension accounts – up to 10% of every paycheck, on top of what they already have to contribute. The problem is that it is flat - those making $200K can bear it far more easily than those making $40K, of which there are many more. We need pension reform but hitting the lowest paid employees like this isn’t just immoral, it’s bad economics. It’s the anti-stimulus, reducing the spendable income of a lot of people who can’t afford it.

Prop C Mayor Appearances at Board: No

Wait, didn’t we vote for this before? Yes, yes we did. I remember distinctly supporting it but being disgusted that wwe felt like we had to legally require the Mayor to meet with the Board of Supes on a regular basis. And I remember it won. That was in 2006. Mayor Newsom totally ignored it because it turns out that it’s unenforceable. I have no idea why its on the ballot again or why anyone thinks he’ll show up this time. I’m voting no so they will stop wasting our time with this nonsense.

Prop D Non Citizen Voting in School Board Elections: Yes

Before anyone gets hysterical, “non-citizen” is not the same thing as “undocumented worker”. One-third of San Francisco residents are foreign-born, and many of them are parents of public school children. We need to encourage parental involvement in schools to improve them for all kids. This measure only applies to elections for the Board of Education, no other voting rights will be granted.

Prop E Election Day Voter Registration: Yes

Frankly, if you can’t get your act together and register to vote a mere 15 days before an election, I have serious doubts about your ability or inclination to make informed choices. But as a sometimes phone party organizer, I can see the value is getting folks to the polls last-minute. It sticks in my craw that folks are so apathetic and lazy, but there it is.

Prop F Health Service Board Elections: Yes

This prop just creates a one-time change in the election cycle so that both seats on the board get elected at the same time. I’m breaking with most lefty sources here, who seem to think this is a shady move but don’t explain why. It could save $30k per year, which isn’t much, but still, that could be someone’s salary. People will have to vote less frequently for seats they barely understand. I see no compelling argument for keeping the staggered elections we have now. Our city can benefit from a lot more smaller, low-impact budget cuts like this.

Prop G Transit Operator Wages: No

While I agree that Muni drivers should have to negotiate salaries through collective bargaining, like every other union worker instead of being guaranteed the second highest salaries from comparable districts, this prop overshoots, adding a requirement that no other group has imposed on them: If they go to arbitration for compensation discussions, or whatever (they can not legally go on strike to get what they want) the arbitrator gets to say whether a proposed contract might negatively impact service . SOunds good onteh surface, but it’s unequal labor practice. As the SFBG says: “While that might seem benign or even appropriate, the reality is that everything from driver rest breaks to assisting those with disabilities to the expectations of how fast drivers can complete a route all potentially affect service, forcing the arbitrator into positions of agreeing with city officials who have been choosing the politically expedient path of trying to squeeze more out of Muni without trying to give it the resources it needs to operate safely, efficiently, and reliably.”

Prop H Local Elected Officials on Political Party Committees: No

Prop H would prevent any elected official from being able to serve on their own political party’s committees. This is being regarded by some as a petulant move by Mayor Newsom in retaliation for progressives serving on the committees then opposing his initiatives. Maybe it is, maybe it’s not, but the city does not get to say who a political party may elect to their committees. I call “shenanigans” on this one.

Prop I Saturday Voting: Yes

It’s a pilot program, funded privately, which gives me pause. But Tuesday voting is an anachronism, and I’m down with anything that will prevent a lot of people from having to lose hours of work. OK it might also be true that I just want an excuse to have brunch and go to the polls with my friends.

Prop J Hotel Tax Increase: Yes

This 2% additional tax will bring in an estimated $35M, and closes some loopholes (like the fact that airlines avoid the current tax altogether for their employees’ overnight stays). This translates to about an additional $3 per night per guest. I think they can handle it.

Prop K Hotel Tax Clarification and Temporary Increase: No

This closes the same loopholes as Prop j, but without the added tax, does not bring in nearly the same revenue. Sponsored by the hotel corporations, this is a “poison pill” meaning that if both J and K wins, K will supercede. So vote no.

Prop L Sitting or Lying on Sidewalks: NO NO NO

Let’s see: we already have laws against aggressive panhandling, public urination, and loitering. So what is the real point of this? It lays a foundation that give police an excuse to harass anyone on the sidewalk at any time. Oh wait, if they want to, they can pretty much already get away with that. So what is this for, again? It was an overreaction to legitimate complaints from some residents and shopkeepers in the Haight who were being harassed by some aggressive homeless kids. Someone tell me how doubling up on our laws will help? Ridiculous and reactionary.

Prop M Community Policing and Foot Patrols: Yes

A much better response to the issues supposedly addressed by Prop L, this would get cops out of cars and back on the beat, where they can create real relationships with residents, business owners, and the homeless folks on those sidewalks. This kind of contact can help encourage community policing, so that fewer cops are necessary and more folks can resolve issues themselves. This one is also a “poison pill” so if it passes, Prop L dies. So vote Yes.

Prop N Real Property Transfer Tax :Yes

This would increase the transfer tax paid by the super-wealthy when they buy properties $5M-10M from 1.5% to 2%. Properties over $10M would pay 2.5%. It will bring in an estimated $36M. I’d rather be raising property taxes on these so we could get a guaranteed annual increase rather than ve reliant on property sales, but it’s better than nothing.

That’s all folks. Thank you for making it all the way down here. Now go fill out that absentee ballot or print this out to take with you to the polls!

Happy voting,

~N~