The Greenberg Brief: Proposition A – San Francisco’s Next Bond Fiasco

Learning of devious plans behind so much of San Francisco’s fiscal fiascoes, it’s hard not to notice familiar names who endorse ballot measures. It’s a clear pattern.

Coming to your mailbox next March, 2024, San Francisco voters will be asked to approve seven ballot propositions. Each election cycle, armchair pundits and activists dread what inevitably comes down the pipeline; there’s undoubtedly opportunity for socialists, ghouls and radical electeds to trick our city’s voters to vote yes. They’ve become bolder, their marketing is enhanced through enticing propositions’ approval with catchy, good-feeling ballot measure names.

We also are subject to a conga line of elected and retired politicians who’ve mastered writing proponent arguments followed by endorsements at the bottom of the printed voter guides. They exploit themselves via name recognition, attempting to legitimize their noble cause, even when the bottom line is entirely devious and detrimental.

Now before us is Proposition A, the “Affordable Housing Bonds” measure.  On March 5th, 2024, voters of San Francisco will be asked to approve a $300 million dollar bond for the purpose of, well, who really knows what.

Yes, the text of Prop A’s proposal and alleged intent explains what the monies are supposed to do, yet as we grow a little older and wiser each election, do our hard earned dollars really go where promised? Past results guarantee we really do need to be concerned.

Proposition A is being touted as yet another piece of the convoluted puzzle to bring us to Yimby Paradise: The magical goal to reach 46,000 units of “affordable” housing in the next eight years. Yet ask any elected official what affordable truly means – you’ll get a lot of throat-clearing, stares and uncomfortable stammered reasons they must get running off to a meeting.  If the politician truly knows the definition of “affordable” (via charts, calculations and percentages of area median income, etc.), a huge omission is how these affordable mandated units are not for the average Joe. Affordability housing is actually via city-managed lottery – and monitoring of applicants’ income to ensure their annual wages don’t rise above a threshold of disqualification.

Prop. A will be yet another fiscal mismanagement and promised expenditure of funds with no discernible results for the betterment of San Francisco. Yet promises will be many, and we need to ask seriously, why? Who is backing the measure, why such a hard push and which politicians are signing on to the pitch to voters in the voter’s guide? The clues are many.

I received an advanced copy of the written arguments in favor of Prop. A’s passage, the statements made by multiple community groups who added their names in support. Let’s have a look:

The biggest tell-tale sign is the city’s most “progressive” far-Left politicians. This should seal the fate right there. Big leftists include John Avalos, Jane Kim, Mark Leno, the Rev. Amos Brown, Honey Mahogany (forced to use legal name Alpha Mulugeta), Phil Ting, Gordon Mar and many others. This bunch is a who’s-who of anti-cop, pro-Reparations, crime victim-shaming, abolish ICE, socialist, anti-tent clearing, failed leaders in recent memory.  Many espouse antisemitic resolutions in city hall, are rabidly anti-Capitalist, Chesa Boudin loyalists and would (and have) gladly violate our Federal and California State Constitutions and Civil Rights Acts to award grants to, provide housing to, admit to schools, and deny a seat on a board to individuals via race, gender identity, national origin, and shun merit for victim hood level.

Before the warm, fuzzy feelings set in, hoping we San Franciscans have this chance to “finally” solve the puzzle to housing affordability, read the elephant in the room: Prop. A is yet another potential sham, a waste of taxpayers’ money on a pie-in-the-sky promise which the vast majority of the city’s households will never be capable of taking advantage of, nor will it solve homelessness.