There are 15 propositions on the San Francisco ballot this November, but only six are high-profile and will attract much attention. Yesterday, Beyond Chron analyzed the ballot arguments for those six measures. Today, we look at the nine other propositions that voters will be weighing on – even if they never hear about them until Election Day. Four are so non-controversial, that only Republican Terrence Faulkner penned (literally) the official “no” argument. Three are progressive measures with some organized opposition – but the ballot arguments still show broad support. And two measures – one that revamps the Health Service Board elections, while the other bans elected officials from serving on the DCCC – are surprisingly contentious, even if both deal with fairly obscure bodies.

“It’s Like Motherhood and Apple Pie”

I hate to always give Terrence Faulkner so much attention in these articles, but the Republican gadfly – who hand-writes his ballot arguments and uses all caps – plays a prominent role in the Voter Handbook. He’s the default nay-sayer when everyone else supports a proposition, a role that used to be played by gay Libertarian escort Starchild. Here, Faulkner makes four appearances.

Proposition AA is a Vehicle License Fee with wide support. Assemblymembers Tom Ammiano and Fiona Ma penned the official “yes” argument, along with most of the Board of Supervisors, the Sierra Club, Walk SF and the SF Democratic Party – who say it’s the “first new local funding for transportation in decades” that is “critically needed at a time when state and federal transportation funds are being cut.” SF Tomorrow weighed in with a paid ballot argument in support; Faulkner opposes it as “another fee increase.”

Proposition A is a bond measure that gives loans for seismic retrofit of “soft-story” buildings with affordable units. Mayor Newsom, Fire Chief Joanne Hayes-White, David Chiu, City Administrator Ed Lee and Gabe Metcalf of SPUR wrote the official “yes” argument – with the question: “remember Hurricane Katrina?” Paid arguments by the Chamber of Commerce, DBI Commissioner Debra Walker, and Mike Theriault of the Building Trades also support it. Faulkner and the SF Republican Party come out against it: “San Franciscans should not be forced to foot the bill for a select few landlords.”

Campaign consultant Alex Tourk gives an informative explanation as to why we have elections on Tuesdays, in the official “yes” on Proposition I argument. Prop I would create a pilot program for the 2011 election, where San Franciscans can go to a polling place on Saturday. Nobody I’ve ever talked to opposes this concept, except for Terrence Faulkner – whose official “No on I” argument calls it a “big economic waste.”

While the above three measures should pass easily, I was pleasantly surprised to see that Proposition D – which would allow non-citizen parents to vote in School Board elections – has wide support. Voters narrowly rejected this measure in 2004, but now the main opponent is Terrence Faulkner, with the SF Republican Party and the SF Young Republicans as the sole paid “No on D” ballot arguments. In a highly offensive screed, Faulkner says Prop D allows “illegal aliens and those about to be deported from the United States to vote in School Board elections.” He also mentions international treaties.

Nine of the 11 Supervisors (including Michela Alioto-Pier) signed the official “Yes on D” argument, along with the Democratic Party and the League of Young Voters. “Prop D gives all parents a voice,” they say. “One out of three children in San Francisco public schools is an immigrant parent.” Paid ballot arguments in favor come from Immigrant Rights Commission Chair Angus McCarthy, the United Educators of SF, Coleman Advocates for Youth, and an argument by Mark Leno, Tom Ammiano and Bevan Dufty.

But the most powerful “Yes on D” paid ballot argument came from all seven members of the School Board – who unanimously say Prop D is “fundamental for democracy.” Keep in mind that these are the electeds who stand to be most directly affected by its passage.

Mild Opposition to Progressive Measures

Three low-profile measures are by no means a done deal for passage, and some should expect to face heavily funded opposition. But the ballot arguments show wide support for these progressive propositions – and if voters read the handbook, they should pass.

Proposition C (“Question Time”) would require the Mayor to appear once a month at a Board of Supervisors meeting, which will be the third time it’s been on the ballot in four years. Proponents (i.e., the six most progressive Supervisors) acknowledge this, and explain how Newsom defeated it by tying it to Chris Daly. “While this may have been a winning argument in 2007,” they say, “it now falls short. Supervisor Daly – and possibly Mayor Newsom – won’t be in City Hall when Prop C is implemented.”

Supervisors Sean Elsbernd and Michela Alioto-Pier wrote the official “no” argument that says: “Chris Daly is at it again.” They add the Mayor already has an “open door policy,” which proponents point out in their rebuttal that this “really equates backroom dealings.” But what I found most interesting is that opponents failed to submit a rebuttal argument.

Same-day voter registration – Proposition E – has a wider coalition in support. Eight Supervisors, Tom Ammiano, SF Democratic Party, the League of Women Voters and League of Young Voters all signed the official “yes” argument – “every eligible San Franciscan who wants to vote should have the opportunity.” Elsbernd and Alioto-Pier signed the main “No on E” argument – calling it “costly, redundant and opens the door to widespread fraud.” The Republican Party says people will use fake ID’s to vote twice.

Downtown is out in full-force to defeat Proposition N, which would increase the real estate transfer tax on properties that sell for over $5 million. “No on N” paid ballot arguments come from the Golden Gate Restaurant Association, BOMA, Hotel Council, the Small Business Network (who says it will mean “increased costs for renters, small businesses, commercial leases and other everday San Franciscans”) and the SF Realtors. Elsbernd and Alioto-Pier penned the official argument against it, calling it a “job-killer.”

But the ballot arguments show it has broad support. Supervisor John Avalos, the Sierra Club, SF teachers, Chinese Progressive Association and the SF Democratic Party signed the main “Yes on N” ballot argument – calling it “progressive tax reform that won’t cost the vast majority of San Franciscans a dime.” Many of the same community groups that are behind the Hotel Fairness Initiative (Prop J) likewise submitted paid ballot arguments for Prop N – with one saying that “big real estate investors should pay their fair share.”

Surprisingly Contentious Measures

Finally, there are two low-profile ballot measures that both deal with obscure, low-level elected commissions – but have gotten a surprising level of opposition. Proposition F would consolidate elections for the Health Service Board. In the main “Yes on F” argument, Supervisor Sean Elsbernd says it will save money and streamline the process. “It’s a one-time change with long-term cost savings,” he writes.

Elected officials have first dibs on writing the “main” argument for or against a measure, but sometimes – for strategic reasons – they assign that right to a third party. Supervisor Chris Daly gave up the official “No on F” space to the “Protect Our Benefits Committee” – who calls Prop F a “cynical attempt to politicize” the Health Services Board. Others have paid ballot arguments – such as a former member of the Board who says the four current members oppose it, because the body would lose experienced members. United Educators also weighed in – saying that “teachers understand the value of experience.”

Then there’s Proposition H – the Mayor’s measure to ban local elected officials from serving on the Democratic Central Committee. In the main “Yes on H” argument, Newsom explains it “preserves the integrity of city government” – as he recounts the campaign finance shenanigans we saw this year. “These problems have a simple solution – prohibit dual office holding,” he writes – calling it the “only way” to eliminate this conflict-of-interest. Plan C and the SF Chamber of Commerce likewise submitted paid arguments in favor.

Nobody has written about the campaign finance loopholes involved in DCCC races more than myself, and I beg to differ with Newsom’s assertion that prohibiting dual office holding is the “only way.” In fact, I’ve often argued another solution – regulate campaign contributions to DCCC candidates like we do for other local elected races, along with contribution limits.

Assemblyman Tom Ammiano penned the official “No on H” ballot argument – saying it was put on the ballot for the worst reasons: “the petty, partisan politics of personality.” Prop H, he goes on, creates a “discriminatory double standard that gives some elected officials greater power [because it doesn’t deal with ex officio members.]” Ultimately, Prop H is “about getting even, not good democracy. ‘H’ is for hypocrisy.”