SF Election Results
The votes are in. Four out of five propositions passed. Here's how things went down after yesterday's election:
Proposition A - Budget Process
*Yes 46,023 (68.88 %)
No 20,794 (31.12 %)
Proposition B - Aides to the Supervisors
*Yes 35,562 (52.42 %)
No 32,284 (47.58 %)
Proposition C - Renaming Candlestick Park
*Yes 39,065 (57.51 %)
No 28,861 (42.49 %)
Proposition D - Mid-Market Street Special Sign District
Yes 31,406 (45.91 %)
*No 36,995 (54.09 %)
Proposition E - Bans New Ads on City Owned Property
*Yes 39,039 (57.49 %)
No 28,868 (42.51 %)
Twin Peaks and Diamond Heights neighborhoods saw the highest voter turnout in SF, with 20.44% and 19.86% of registered voters receiving "I Voted" stickers, respectively. Bayview/Hunters Point saw the lowest turnout at only 9.99%.
More on yesterday's election results (Maine repeals gay marriage! Garamendi nabs East Bay House Seat!) later in the day.
Filed in News and tagged election, politics, results, voting
Yeah that voter turnout was crazy low. Solution: Have Obama run for office every election.
Thank goodness Prop D lost ... piss-poor written proposition with no accountability for the promised public benefits - and how do we make sure the Community Benefit Districts are controlled by a majority of resident stakeholders who live and experience the neighborhood 24/7? It is good to see that the voters of San Francisco weren't hoodwinked by the SF Democratic Party and all of the elected officials who endorsed this turd of a proposition as a favor to political consultant Jim Stearns.
^I noticed your NIMBY efforts to block the building next door because you personally would lose some sunshine were successful. Good job.
San Francisco status quo continues - do nothing anywhere to change anything ever.
Expect higher Muni fares thanks to Prop E, which bans additional ads on bus shelters. Thanks SF Beautiful!
I'm totally guilty of not voting. Still I am bummed that any measures that would actually create revenue were voted down. I mean why not cover 3 bombed out blocks with big ass billboards that would create advertising revenue that *could* fund making the building actually usable? And why not allow our bus shelters to generate advertising revenue that *could* be used to clean the streets or make muni a tad better?
Any argument about keeping things "beautiful" is bullshit. Bus shelters are ugly and that section of market, which I live on, is disgusting. I would welcome anything to look at other than hobo piss and boarded up buildings.
I should have voted... but I don't think one more vote would have changed the results.
"I should have voted... but I don't think one more vote would have changed the results."
That's exactly the kinda "bullshit" that goes through the empty heads of this city's residents. Not trying to attack you personally, but I think the rule goes: If you don't vote, shut the fuck up.
And yes, thank god Prop D didn't pass, but what about Prop C? Selling out for chump change? Seems to be a theme these days. And Prop E? Again, just shameless attempts at swindling the public out of taxpayer money and diverting said funds to the pockets of those in power.
Let's get it together, people. Where is this city going?
Chump change? The city received 3 million much-needed dollars so Monster could put its name for a few years to a homely utilitarian stadium that everyone kept calling Candlestick anyway.
And I have no idea what you're even trying to say regarding Prop E.
Sorry, I might've been a little reactionary in that last comment. My apologies to ianwelles. It is politics we're talking about after all...
So Prop C: So we change the name of the stadium. $3 million for 5 years? That's Bay Bridge tolls for a couple days, am I right? But any funds generated for the City from naming rights contracts would be General Fund revenue. Do we know for certain where this money is going? Who is it helping?
And Prop E: You're right, I wasn't very clear about where I stand. While I understand that this proposition merely reinforces previously passed legislation, advertising on transit shelters generates over $15 million every year. I don't like advertising either, but in times of severe financial crisis (i.e. now), I think the city could use a little extra revenue. I know the contract with ClearChannel is still valid, but I think it could've been expanded temporarily to provide us with more money.
Just voting No on D is not enough. Many like myself voted against it because we can do better than just raising a few bucks at the expense of bright, flashy signs.
The next step should be to begin planning for redevelopment of mid-Market into a community we CAN BE PROUD OF. As I posted before, to me this means mixed retail/residential housing that focuses on businesses that cater to residents as well as tourists that gather at Powell St.
Maybe next year we can get something like that on the ballot and San Franciscans will have a better choice on mid-Market.
Not only do you have the nerve to give the bullshit excuse of "one more vote wouldn't make a diff", but you actually LIVE in the area affected by Prop D. WTF!?
It took all of 5 minutes to vote for Christ's sake. I voted at lunch.
You are a lame, lame jackass.
It's people like you who gave us George W in 2000 because 200 or so people in Florida couldn't get off their lazy fucking asses to be bothered to vote.
you make me sick.
I respect the anti-D people who voted against it simply because they'd consider the "sign district" gaudy more than those who seem to be upset about someone lining their pockets off of it, be it local or beyond. [For what it's worth, I think the district could've been invigorating and brightly attractive, or a gauche loud bombardment, but either result is far better than what's there now]
News flash--any revitalization of that shithole (no offense intended, of course) is almost certainly gonna involve someone somewhere who you might not like lining their pockets.
I voted against prop D not because I care about signs on Market or because I care about building owners making money. I found the approval process, involving giving an unelected and unaccountable group of folk with a shady track record (the CBD) control over mid-market planning decisions, a disgusting subversion of the democratic process and a terrible precedent to set.
I also voted no on prop E and think it's a shame that we now can't put new ads on bus shelters.
Fair enough--although it was my understanding that any signage approved by the CBD people still needed to meet any standard delineated in the proposition as well as existing city law. The democratic process was there--yesterday.
Moot point though.
Former Mayor Art Agnos laid out the No on D position pretty well at Fog City Journal ... http://www.fogcityjournal.com/wordpress/2009/10/29/proposition-d-a-catastrophe-for-san-francisco/
Thank goodness indeed. Art Agnos's tenure as mayor was marked by the same kind of inaction that we have come to fetishize today.
Heaven forbid we dont spend 15 years debating the merits of a specific piece of legislation until the original proposers are dead and buried and each and every single person in every nook of the city is extensively interviewed.
We are entirely too precious to ever allow signs!
Granted, I haven't read Prop E to know what sort of legalese it contains, but it seems to me that all the city needs to do to maintain MUNI shelter ads and their revenue, is to dream up a way of making the shelter itself private property. Since property is a bundle of rights, there must be a legal expert out there somewhere who can figure out how to make MUNI shelters privately owned but somehow regulated/maintained by the city.
I appreciate minimalism, I do. But even an off-year, no-headline-grabbing-proposition election deserves more than the 325 words the Chron begrudgingly spared to cover yesterday's SF polling.
And really, page C-4? Too many ads hogging the layout? Oh, right...
Even SFist took the time to type up (err, copy/paste) the results.