With 22 local propositions on the November ballot, voters will have a hard time reading the Official Ballot Arguments (never mind the paid ones), unless we break them down by category. Four measures deal with the City’s revenue – and have no opposition besides the usual suspects who always complain about “taxes.” Meanwhile, the Housing Charter Amendment (Prop B), Clean Energy Act (Prop H) and Community Justice Center (Prop L) are all more contentious – but their proponents did not oppose measures that appear designed to undermine them. Two ballot arguments omit crucial information about what they’re promoting – the one for Prop P (SF Transportation Authority) fails to say it takes power away from the Supervisors, while Prop V (which promotes JROTC) doesn’t even mention the military. The fate of four measures won’t be likely affected by the ballot arguments – as Props K, M, R and U all deal with emotional issues decided by turnout. Four others – C, E, F and G – are all basic house-cleaning measures that have unusual political alliances, while the last two – D and J – have no opposition so far.

Official ballot arguments that support or oppose local Propositions were due last week, and are now available for public view at the Department of Elections. While paid ballot arguments aren’t due until the end of today – and will offer a better idea of what types of coalitions are forming around each measure – the official ballot arguments tell us what basic talking points will be coming out of each campaign. Due to the sheer number of propositions this election cycle, I’m just dealing with the official ballot arguments today – and will address the paid ballot arguments later this week.

The Four Revenue Measures:

Four propositions deal with revenue – and enjoy wide support despite usual grumblings about “taxes.” Mayor Gavin Newsom and all 11 Supervisors signed the argument for Proposition A, an $887 million bond to retrofit and rebuild SF General Hospital. Calling the City’s only trauma center the “heart of our city’s health care system,” proponents argue that this bond measure is critical – or else the state may require the Hospital to be shut down by 2013. West Side activists George Wooding and Mara Kopp penned the official argument against it, calling the rebuild project “poorly planned.”

Practically everyone supports Proposition O, a tax to fund our 911 services. Newsom, D.A. Kamala Harris, firefighters, police officers, business leaders, unions, Democrats and Republicans all explain that a recent court ruling “has jeopardized the funding of 911 services” – and this measure would save it. Starchild, a male prostitute and Libertarian gadfly, wrote the opposing argument: “City Hall has been taxing your phone usage, but calling it a fee. Now politicians want voters to reward their dishonest maneuver.”

The SF Democratic Party, Assessor Phil Ting, Treasurer Jose Cisneros, Board President Aaron Peskin, SPUR, the firefighters and Sierra Club have endorsed Proposition N, an increase in the real estate transfer tax – which they say will plug a “serious loophole” that “allows multinational corporations to evade paying their fair share.” The argument notes that over 90% of residential transactions would be unaffected. Supervisors Carmen Chu and Michela Alioto-Pier wrote the opposing argument, saying that San Francisco “has a spending problem – not a revenue problem.”

Nobody submitted an argument against Proposition Q on the payroll tax – while many of the proponents of Prop N (along with small business owners) signed the official ballot argument in favor. Prop Q “helps small business by increasing payroll tax exemptions,” it said, “while closing the loophole for downtown firms that aren’t paying their fair share.”

Three Bigger Fights – and their Three Evil Twins:

The Housing Charter Amendment (Prop B), Clean Energy Act (Prop H) and Community Justice Center (Prop L) will generate much attention and controversy this cycle. Each of these measures’ opponents have placed a different proposition on the same ballot – No More Set-Asides (Prop S), Ratepayer Advocate (Prop I) and Treatment on Demand (Prop T), respectively. But unlike what we’ve seen in prior election cycles, there won’t be dueling ballot strategies. Proponents opted not to write arguments against their “evil twin” – which could mean their tactic is to just ignore them.

Eight Supervisors signed the argument for Proposition B, calling it an “investment in the next generation.” The proponents note that providing a regular source of funding for affordable housing at the local level would help generate more money from the federal and state levels. But Mayor Newsom and the 3 most conservative Supervisors call it a “money grab” in the opposing argument. While acknowledging that affordable housing is important, opponents say it’s not the City’s only obligation – and “we cannot afford to create any new set-asides.” Opponents also add that the levels of affordability would leave out “most San Francisco families – especially the working middle class.”

In reaction to Prop B, Newsom has placed Proposition S on the ballot – which would ban future budget set-asides that have no funding source. The Mayor calls it a “common sense reform” in his ballot argument – but nobody penned an argument opposing it.

The Sierra Club, S.F. Democratic Party, Mark Leno, Fiona Ma, Aaron Peskin and Ross Mirkarimi all signed the official argument for Proposition H, saying it will make San Francisco “a world leader in the fight against global warming.” Prop H is not a public power measure per se, but proponents say its mandates for clean energy are “far beyond what the State requires of PG&E – and far beyond what they can deliver.” They also note that municipal power has helped ratepayers in other California jurisdictions.

Prop H opponents focus almost exclusively in their argument that it would allow the Supervisors and PUC to issue revenue bonds “without a vote of the people” – and PG&E has already paid for door-hangers (which were put up over the weekend) with that same message. Senator Dianne Feinstein, Mayor Newsom and Supervisors Alioto-Pier, Chu and Elsbernd signed the “No on H” argument. Leland Yee was listed in earlier drafts – but they didn’t get his signature, suggesting that he backed away from opposing it.

While Alioto-Pier, Chu and Elsbernd oppose Prop H, they all signed the ballot argument for Proposition I – which creates a Ratepayer Advocate to monitor the PUC. “Previous rate increases have been ill-conceived, unfair and excessive,” they write, and ratepayers need “an independent voice.” Supervisors Ammiano, Dufty and McGoldrick co-signed their argument, but nobody submitted an official “No on I” ballot argument.

Although many expect voters to pass Proposition L, six Supervisors (McGoldrick, Peskin, Ammiano, Daly, Maxwell and Mirkarimi) penned the official ballot argument against it – pointing out that the Community Justice Center has already been funded. Mayor Newsom, Assessor Phil Ting and D.A. Kamala Harris wrote the argument in favor, calling it a “long-term solution for frequent offenders” that would “break the cycle of crime.” In reference to Chris Daly, supporters write: “one Supervisor has announced his intention to ‘eliminate’ CJC when a new Board takes office next year.”

While not necessarily opposing Prop L, the Treatment on Demand Planning Council wrote the official ballot argument for Proposition T – which would mandate mental health treatment on demand. “San Francisco has a good community-based treatment system,” it says. “We need to make sure it’s available for everyone.” Nobody submitted an official argument against Prop T.

Ballot Arguments that Miss the Point:

Everyone knows that ballot arguments are inherently one-sided – after all, their purpose is to persuade a “yes” or “no” vote. But two propositions – Propositions P and V – have official ballot arguments in their favor that fail to mention a basic element of what they’re promoting. This could mislead voters who are unfamiliar with the subject material.

Mayor Newsom’s argument for Proposition P touts the “great strides” we have made to “get Muni back on track.” He says reforms are still needed at the County Transportation Authority – to bring “higher standards of transparency and accountability.” Never does he mention that Prop P kicks the Board of Supervisors off the Transportation Authority, replacing them with 5 elected officials (including the Mayor.) Jake McGoldrick alleges Newsom broke a deal to remove Prop P from the ballot, which will further cause tension.

All 11 Supervisors (including the Mayor’s strongest allies), both State Senators, both State Assembly members, BART Director Tom Radulovich, the SF Bicycle Coalition, Sierra Club, Harvey Milk Club and Democratic Party penned the “No on P” argument. The Transportation Authority, they write, is “the only watchdog agency keeping Muni from overrunning multi-billion dollar construction projects.” Prop P, they say, is “not about eliminating duplication – it’s about eliminating checks and balances.”

In a more high-profile measure, supporters of Proposition V – a policy statement to support JROTC in San Francisco schools – don’t mention the program is funded by the military. Michael Bernick, Doug Chan, Gwen Chan, Nelson Lumm and Quincy Yu say that Prop V is “a vote to give students and their families the choice to participate in a high school leadership program that works.” While supporters may mention the military in paid ballot arguments, someone who knows nothing about JROTC would read just the official “Yes on V” statement – and have no idea it’s a program run by the Pentagon.

Prop V opponents, naturally, make it the central point of their argument. Supervisors Ammiano, Dufty, McGoldrick, Daly, School Board President Mark Sanchez, tenant activist Ted Gullicksen, Milk Club President Rafael Mandelman, Rev. Glenda Hope and others penned the “No on V” statement – which features a quote from former Defense Secretary William Cohen: “JROTC is one of the best recruiting devices we could have.” Opponents also note that the program costs the City about $1 million a year.

Ballot Arguments that Won’t Change Any Votes:

Some propositions are very technical – where the Official Ballot Arguments can make or break their passage. Others deal with issues that are very emotional, and whose outcome is more likely determined by who shows up to vote. Four propositions – Decriminalizing Prostitution (Prop K), Tenant Harassment (Prop M), George W. Bush Sewage Treatment Plant (Prop R) and De-Fund the War (Prop U) – fall in this latter category.

Maxine Doogan of the Erotic Service Providers Union and Starchild say the status quo isn’t working for prostitutes – whether they work voluntarily or involuntarily. Proposition K, they write, “would enable sex workers, clients and authorities to join forces and challenge abuses.” But Wendy Collins of the Mission Merchants Association says Prop K decriminalizes prostitution without any regulation. She also complains that there are no reasonable “time, place and manner” restrictions in the ordinance.

Seven Supervisors penned the argument for Proposition M – calling tenant harassment “unacceptable behavior.” Tenants have no remedy at the Rent Board, they complain, even if landlords wage a “war of intimidation.” But the San Francisco Apartment Association (a major landlord group) dubs Prop M the “Full Employment Act for Greedy Lawyers.” They argue it violates the First Amendment, citing the Action Apartments court decision.

Activist Brian McConnell wrote the ballot argument for Proposition R. George Bush has left us with a “gigantic mess,” he writes, and renaming our local Sewage Treatment Plant after him “symbolizes the City’s deft ability to clean up its share.” Colin Gallagher replied: “if we name a local sewage plant after Bush, what’s left to name after Jesse Helms?” Personally, the best argument I’ve heard on this measure is: “it gives shit a bad name.”

In recent years, San Francisco has passed policy statements to bring troops home, stop military recruiters, and impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney. But the City “needs to speak out again,” say Supervisors Daly, Ammiano, McGoldrick, Mirkarimi and Peskin by passing Proposition U – “even more forcefully.” Noting that the Iraq War has cost the state $68 billion and the City $1.8 billion, Prop U would call for de-funding the War – except for the safe withdrawal of our troops. The Republican Party wrote the argument against it: “Radical San Francisco Supervisors will not decide on funding for the War.”

House-Cleaning Measures With Odd Alliances:

Four propositions are relatively minor Charter Amendments – but that doesn’t mean they have unanimous support. And the opposition at the Board of Supervisors (where each measure originated) is not strictly on ideological grounds.

Supervisors McGoldrick, Chu, Elsbernd, Peskin and Mirkarimi penned the argument for Proposition C – which prohibits City employees from serving on commissions. Calling it simple “good government,” they argue a city employee “may be asked to vote on issues that concern the Department they work for.” But Supervisors Maxwell and Dufty argue that Prop C would prohibit a firefighter from serving on the Environment Commission.

Proposition E would make the City consistent with state law regarding the number of signatures required to recall a Supervisor. McGoldrick (who last year faced a possible recall) signed the “yes” argument – with Daly, Dufty, Ammiano, Maxwell and Mirkarimi – stressing the need to stop “frivolous attempts.” But Elsbernd, Chu and Sandoval say it’s a “solution in need of a problem” because the past three recall attempts all failed.

Most of the progressive Supervisors signed the argument for Proposition F – which would abolish City elections in odd-numbered years – citing the higher voter turnout in presidential and gubernatorial elections. But Ross Mirkarimi joined the 3 most conservative Supervisors – Alioto-Pier, Elsbernd and Chu – to oppose it, arguing it “prevents San Franciscans from focusing on local issues and risks damaging Elections Department operations.”

Seven Supervisors who span the ideological spectrum endorsed “yes” on Proposition G regarding retirement credit for employees who took unpaid parental leave before 2003. But two Supervisors – Peskin and Elsbernd – penned the ballot argument against it, saying it “undermines the integrity of the City’s retirement plan” by creating “the first time where an employee could purchase time not actually worked.”

Non-Controversial Ballot Arguments:

There’s only one thing you need to know about Proposition D (development at Pier 70) and Proposition J (beefing up landmarks preservation board.) Nobody penned a main ballot argument against them, and for now they appear pretty low-profile.