Who is Funding the Campaign for Prop B? (And, Ooops!)

find the moneyYou’re probably going to see lots of material in support of Proposition B (the 30-year, $4.65 billion set-aside for park funding with very little oversight on how it’s spent). They have a war-chest of nearly $400 thousand to promote this measure. Where’s the money coming from?

More than half of it is from two sources:

  • The San Francisco Parks Alliance ($101 thousand) and
  • “Committee to Expand the Middle Class, Supported by AirBNB Inc.” ($100,000).

Other funders include  developers, investors, and construction companies. Here’s the list, provided by a San Franciscan who obtained it from the Ethics Commission.

Person or organization Employer Contribution
25-Apr-16 COMMITTEE TO EXPAND THE MIDDLE CLASS, SUPPORTED BY AIRBNB, INC. 100,000
11-Jan-16 SAN FRANCISCO PARKS ALLIANCE 75,000
26-Apr-16 SAN FRANCISCO PARKS ALLIANCE 26,000
10-May-16 OSL BISON, LLC 25,000
26-Apr-16 THOMAS COATES JACKSON SQUARE PROPERTIES 25,000
14-Apr-16 WILLIAM S. FISHER X INVESTOR MANZANITA CAPITAL 16,666
14-Apr-16 JOHN J. FISHER X PRESIDENT, PISCES, INC. 16,666
14-Apr-16 Robert Fisher managing director, Pisces 16,666
11-May-16 RONALD CONWAY INVESTOR, SV ANGEL, LLC 12,500
18-May-16 SUPERVISOR MARK FARRELL FOR SAN FRANCISCO COMMITTEE  11,492
6-May-16 THE RELATED COMPANIES OF CALIFORNIA & AFFILIATES 10,000
12-Apr-16 THE CALIFORNIA CONSERVATION CAMPAIGN (ID# 10,000
19-May-16 PG&E CORPORATION 5,000
12-May-16 BRIAN BOTHMAN VICE PRESIDENT, BOTHMAN CONSTRUCTION 5,000
9-May-16 VIVEK KHULLER CEO, CLEARFLY COMMUNICATIONS 5,000
5-May-16 UA LOCAL 38 COPE FUND 5,000
4-May-16 ROSELYNE SWIG 5,000
2-May-16 BOSTON PROPERTIES, LP 5,000
18-Apr-16 BAUMAN LANDSCAPE & CONSTRUCTION 5,000
4-May-16 ELLEN HARRISON ACCOUNTANT,  ROSS 2,500
8-Apr-16  JONATHAN NELSON X CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OMNICOM DIGITAL 2,500
31-Mar-16 SF FORWARD (ID# 891575) 2,500
16-Apr-16  JOHN CLAWSON DEVELOPER/CONSULTANT, EQUITY COMMUNITY BUILDERS 1,500
28-Apr-16 SAN FRANCISCO POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION 1,000
9-May-16 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP, INC. 750
9-May-16 ARG CONSERVATION SERVICES 750
4-Apr-16  HELEN RAISER X CHAIR RAISER ORGANIZATION 750
11-Apr-16  DEBORAH ROBBINS 100
15-Apr-16 HELEN RAISER X CHAIR RAISER ORGANIZATION -500
Total 391,840

OOOPS! ERROR IN THE VOTER PAMPHLET
In related news, the Controller’s Office made an error in its statement in the Voter Pamphlet. It says that the spending would be overseen by the Board of Supervisors. It won’t. Here are the details (from the No On B campaign):

specman-mdMany of us have been concerned about the Controller’s Statement in his letter in the Ballot Pamphlet, in which the next to the last paragraph reads:

“The proposed amendment requires Recreation and Parks to set goals and measures, develop a five year strategic plan and set operational and capital spending plans. The plans must be approved by the Recreation and Parks Commission, the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors.”

However, the legislation actually states:

  1. 7  lines 21-25  “Following Commission approval of the Strategic Plan [also Capital Plan], the Department shall submit the Strategic Plan to the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors. The Boards of Supervisors shall consider and by resolution express its approval or disapproval of the Plan, but may not modify the Plan. If the Board expresses its disapproval of the Plan or makes recommendations regarding the Plan to the Department, the Department may modify and resubmit the Plan.”

After being contacted about this error, the Controller issued a correction (attached):

” Upon further review of the proposed amendment, I would like to clarify the approvals required for the five-year strategic plan and annual capital expenditure and operational plans as outlined in my March 11, 2016 letter. The Recreation and Parks Commission must approve these plans prior to submitting them to the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors for review and comment. The Board of Supervisors can approve or disapprove the five-year strategic and annual capital expenditure plans, but may not amend the plan. If the Board disapproves, the Recreation and Parks Department can modify the plans. ”

“This clarification does not impact my earlier assessment of the proposed amendment’s cost to government, as outlined in my March 11, 2016 letter. ”

As we all know, “can” is not the same as “shall” and so under Prop B Rec and Park has the freedom to create and modify their plans, without BOS authority to modify those plans.

 

Advertisements

Support for “No on Prop B” (2016)

sack of goldAs we near the elections, more and more organizations are opposing Proposition B (including San Francisco Forest Alliance – mainly because it’s a 30-year $4.65 billion set-aside with very little accountability).  We are asking supporters of the No on B campaign to write to the San Francisco Examiner, requesting them to oppose Prop B. (Information below.)

Here’s a current list of those (besides the SF Forest Alliance) supporting “No on Prop B.”

*  mclaren park sign 2015Sierra Club, SF Bay Chapter
*  League of Women Voters, SF
*  CSFN – Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods (a coalition of over 40 neighborhood groups)
*  SEIU Local 1021
*  San Francisco Tomorrow
*  San Francisco Tenants Union
*  HANC – Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council
*  D5 Action
*  Tenant Associations Coalition Political Action Committee, TAC PAC
*  Save the Palace of Fine Arts
*  SF Taxpayers Association
*  SF Ocean Edge
*  Golden Gate Park Preservation Alliance

POLITICAL CLUBS
*  Central City Democrats
*  District 3 Democratic Club
*  District 8 Progressive Democratic Club
*  Potrero Hill Democratic Club
*  SF Green Party
*  SF League of Pissed Off Voters
*  SF Libertarian Party
*  SF Republican Party

 MEDIA
* SF Bay Guardian
* SF Chronicle
* SF4ALL progressive blog
* Westside Observer: May 2016 – features 3 articles explaining different aspects of NO ON B.

Now we’re asking you to write to the SF Examiner and ask them to join the list. As far as we know, they are still undecided.This is the letter from the No on B campaign:

Hi fellow No on B supporters:

The article in today’s SF Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/prop-b-pump-money-city-parks/

My prior information on the SF Examiner board may be wrong — they are no longer interviewing people for Pro and Con, but IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THEY HAVE NOT YET COME TO AN ENDORSEMENT DECISION.

PLEASE WRITE TO THE SF EXAMINER. Do letters to the Editor. Write to Mr. Howerton. Give the reasons for NO on B and ask them to take that position! Include your name, phone number and city of residence.

Michael Howerton
Editor-in-chief
415.359.2868
mhowerton@sfexaminer.com

PLEASE DO IT TODAY!

Kathy H.