Many progressive measures that raise revenue and/or reform City government have been talked about in recent months – but voters won’t get to weigh in on them this November. Last night was the deadline for Charter Amendments and tax measures to qualify, and the Board of Supervisors faced a cold, harsh reality. Throwing everything on the ballot was asking for trouble. A measure to raise the real estate transfer tax for multimillionaires is on the ballot, but hiking the parking tax and a clever business tax idea won’t be. Along with the Hotel Fairness tax (which qualified through petition signatures), both taxes on the ballot will target a revenue source on the rebound – without hurting everyday San Franciscans. Two Charter Amendments had failed to make the cut last week, and last night Muni Reform bit the dust – after David Chiu touted an agreement with Newsom and the MTA to restore service cuts. No doubt progressives are upset, but Chiu was just being pragmatic. “Split appointments” are good public policy, but we ain’t living in the Willie Brown Era – when voters understood the Mayor has too much power.

With Newsom having balanced this year’s budget on one-time funding sources and quick fixes, it’s clear San Francisco needs revenue – and the only way our state-mandated fiscal straitjacket allows for that is the ballot box. Local elected officials in California can propose creative proposals to raise money – but if you can’t convince the voters, it’s a waste of energy.

Three Supervisors – John Avalos, David Chiu and Ross Mirkarimi – each came up with their own revenue measures, but everyone knew all along that only one was going to make the ballot. And we saw an early warning sign two weeks ago of what lies ahead, when a poll by the SF County Transportation Authority showed all three measures losing. At that point, it’s not a policy question of which is the best one – it’s a political question of what can pass.

Mirkarimi’s proposal to raise the parking tax applies to all car owners (rich and poor), so I’m not surprised that it polled badly. And while Chiu’s business tax proposal was very intriguing, it took me a while to understand how it works – so don’t expect the voters to get it. Of the three measures, it fared the worst. Avalos’ measure to increase the real estate transfer tax also did badly, but the poll didn’t mention a big detail – it only affects transactions of over $5 million, and further raises it for properties of over $10 million.

Voters hate taxes, but even the SFCTA poll showed a generic understanding that some tax increases are necessary. And if it’s easy for voters to see that they’re not the ones who will pay them, it becomes winnable. For example, the Hotel Fairness Initiative (which raises the hotel tax for tourists by 2%, and was put on the ballot by gathering 10,000 signatures) is more popular than the other three tax measures, although it will still be a fight to pass.

So this November, we will have two revenue measures – the hotel tax and the real estate transfer tax, each of whom would generate about $25 million a year. It’s always hard to justify raising taxes in a bad economy – but as the Controller’s projections have shown, both of these revenue sources are on the rebound. Hotel revenue is on the rise (after a slump for several years), and the real estate transfer tax generated an extra $13 million in June – which saved the budget this year. Once again, downtown real estate is back to changing hands.

As for Charter Amendments, last week the Mayor and Board of Supervisors finalized a City budget – but it wasn’t pretty. The Mayor held up the process for days because he wasn’t happy that Supervisors were pushing some Charter Amendments, prompting some to hold mock hostage negotiations. “They’re just innocent Charter Amendments,” pleaded James Chionsini to Newsom aide Mike Farrah as he handed a pizza. “They don’t deserve to be dragged into all this.”

The Charter Amendments in question would have reformed 3 City Commissions – the Rent Board, Parks & Recreation and Municipal Transportation Authority (MTA) – all of whom are entirely appointed by the Mayor. Each Charter Amendment would have had the Board of Supervisors appoint roughly half of the Commissions, “split appointments” that the voters passed for the Police, Planning, Board of Appeals and DBI Commissions. But Newsom felt threatened by these Charter Amendments, calling them a “power grab.”

Last week, the Board tabled the Rent Board proposal – and voted down the Parks & Rec one. For last night’s meeting, it seemed like the MTA Charter Amendment would be safe – as six Supervisors had been co-sponsors, the minimum required to put it on the ballot.

But David Chiu (who was one of the six) announced he was taking his name off, after having cut a deal with Mayor Newsom and MTA Directors – and presented four Muni reforms: (a) a plan for service restorations, (b) written work order agreements, (c) a Governance Task Force and (d) the Mayor will appoint an Audit Compliance Director.

“We need to move immediately for MTA Reform,” he said, “and I don’t want to wait until November. We have a lot on the ballot, and must focus the voters’ attention.”

The other five progressives were unimpressed – as they pointed out there’s no guarantee these MTA reforms have any teeth. And they’re probably right. And with David Chiu’s history of brokering compromises on Muni, no doubt many will call this a “sell-out” to Mayor Newsom. With Chiu’s name off the MTA Charter Amendment, it went down to defeat by 6-5.

But is it? As much as “split-appointments” are a cause celebre for progressives, the voters would still have to pass a Charter Amendment. And while voters approved such reforms when Willie Brown was still Mayor, many of these same proposals have lost badly with Gavin Newsom in control. A similar MTA Charter Amendment got creamed in 2005, and during that campaign a gay activist told me: “if Willie Brown were still Mayor, I would vote for it. But because Gavin Newsom is Mayor, I will vote against it.”

Progressives can complain about what David Chiu did, but they need to ask themselves – what exactly did they lose? There was no guarantee such a proposal would pass, and the Mayor is a lame duck who will be out of office at the end of the year – if not, at the end of 2011. “Split appointments” are not new, and can always be taken up in the future.

When it came to both tax measures and Charter Amendments, the Board of Supervisors – often unfairly depicted in the media as ideologues – simply picked their battles last night.