Sunday, October 9, 2011

Mayor Forum on Family Issues: Will you be there? Tues, Oct. 11 at 6:30


Hi Friends - 

The Candidates will be there! Will you? Don't miss this chance to hear about how they are addressing your issues. 
We have great moderators and have put together excellent questions designed to dig below the surface of campaign slogans and empty sentiments. 

PLEASE RSVP AND PLEASE SEND THIS ABOUT MADLY! 

MAYORAL FORUM (sponsored by SF Parent PAC, SF Family Support Network, Teach for America, Parents for Public Schools & Congregation Sherith Israel)
Tuesday, October 11
6:30pm-8:30pm

Congregation Sherith Israel
2266 California Street (at Webster)
Refreshments

The following questions were sent to the candidates ahead of time. Answers will be posted at www.sfparentpac.org.  Moderators at the forum will base their follow up questions on candidates' answers. 
These questions do not necessarily reflect the positions of the Parent PAC. Rather, these are questions about issues affecting families and children on which we think voters should know the candidates’ views. 

Questions for the candidates:  

1. As mayor, will you commit to appoint parents raising kids in San Francisco to City commissions and committees to ensure that the concerns of families, children and students are adequately voiced and addressed? Please answer Yes or No.

 2. Parent PAC is an organization formed to be the voice of parents in San Francisco politics – a voice that is often sorely underrepresented or missing entirely from conversations about public policies that directly affect children and families. In addition to the above priority (appointing parents to commissions and committees), please tell us specifically how you plan to bring parents’ concerns into the mix of considerations when setting your policy agenda. Please limit your answer to 200 words.  

3. Will you advocate for the renewal of Prop H (the Public Education Enrichment Fund) and use your position as mayor to renew and expand the Prop H funds? Please answer Yes or No.  

4. What role do you think the mayor can and should play in the school district, if any?  Please limit your answer to 200 words.  

5. Do you support the recommendations for Rec & Park funding outlined by the SPUR September 2011 (pgs. 9-10) report: 
• Doubling the Open Space Fund from 2.5 cents to 5 cents per $100 of valuation, which would generate $37.5M. Please answer Yes or No.
• Forming a citywide assessment district (or multiple small districts) to fund ongoing operations and enhance services, which would generate $15M. Please answer Yes or No. 
• Taxing unhealthy behaviors (such as a soda tax) to benefit recreation activities, which would generate approximately $16.8M. Please answer Yes or No.  

6. Will you lead and support a campaign for a new graduated parcel tax of at least $100M dedicated to schools, parks and libraries that provides support beyond Prop H for schools and also provides for funding to staff and programs for Rec & Park and Libraries? Please answer Yes or No. 

7. What do you believe to the be cause(s) of the lack of housing stock appropriate for families and what specifically do you propose to do about it? Please limit your answer to 200 words.  

8. Do you support free MUNI for all youth (under 18)?  Please answer Yes or No.


66 comments:

  1. If you only want them to answer yes or no, it's going to be a very boring forum.

    ReplyDelete
  2. These questions are what candidates are asked on paper to be posted. The forum is obviously not "yes/no"

    ReplyDelete
  3. Could you also ask if their children attend or attended public schools, and if not, why not?
    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sorry, but this is not the "family friendly" ticket I am interested. Luckily, the mayoral candidates also know that.

    I intend to vote for mayoral candidates that have a broad and common sense platform, and ones who are promoting fiscal responsibility. I will not vote for parcel tax candidates will further undermine family incomes by increasing taxes.

    I will also look for candidates that believe in returning to a pure neighborhood assignment system.

    So this Mayor Forum is a trojan horse. Most parents in San Francisco don't want to pay for more parcel taxes. The only ones I know that do are those who have bullet proof access to a good local school like the parents who send their kids to Sherman or Grattan.

    I'm sorry, but I do not live in a $1,000,000+ home so that I can send my kids to Grattan, CIS, or Sherman. I do not want to pay for yet another parcel tax.

    What happened to the last parcel tax, Prop A. Remember that? I remember every time I pay my property tax. What happened to the "rainy day" fund. How about those college savings accounts, and those SIG grants? It never ends for you guys.

    ReplyDelete
  5. How about that?

    The Mayor Forum, sponsored by San Francisco Parent Action Committee is going to be held at Congregation Sherith Israel synagogue over there on ritzy California street at Webster.

    Beth, maybe instead of asking the Mayor Candidates if they went to public school or not, we should ask the SF Parent Political Action Committee parents which public schools they send their kids to, what the current assessed value of their home is, and how much property tax they pay.

    You can bet that they're not sending their kids to Cobb, Hillcrest, Junipero Serra or El Dorado.

    Face it. The boondoggle is over for you guys. You're gonna have to pay for private just like the rest of us poor schlubs that care about education.

    FYI: I suggest Jeff Adachi for mayor. And for the record, Beth, he did go to public school.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jeff Adachi's child went to private school so I will not vote for him. I want a Mayor who believes in equality of opportunity and educational integration.

    ReplyDelete
  7. These questions look great. As a home owner, I do support more taxes to support civic spaces for families and I am not a grand-fathered prop 13 home owner. People want a wonderful city that is clean and full of amenities that are free and accessible without any cost to them; that is an impossible economic reality. I would also support a tax on renters so that people who rent in San Francisco could contribute toward the services they use. If everyone who rented an apartment paid $10 a month toward public services, it would help fund the public services they use and enjoy. Many buildings owned by long-term landlords are paying taxes well below current valuations. Tenants are paying high rents to landlords but the City does not see any tax benefit in this arrangement because the taxes they collect on a building are based on old valuations. We need everyone who uses and expects public services to pitch in toward the services they use on a daily basis. I would also support a 5 cent tax on every caffeinated beverage sold in San Francisco with the proceeds going toward teacher's aides in public schools and the recreation and parks department.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Does an left-leaning person out there understand the fundamentals of taxation? The more you tax the less money there is in the private sector. That means less jobs, less opportunity and untimately lower tax revenues. This is not rocket science. The neverending call to add yet another tax on is just so much leftist uniformed baloney.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @8:04 PM

    Yeah!

    Are you running for mayor?

    Yeah, that's why jobs keep heading outta San Francisco. More tax, more this and that, and less city tax revenue.

    Oh, but if we're lucky, we might be left with overpriced restaurants for those who live here and work in the south bay.

    I don't even get my health care in San Francisco anymore, even though I live here. Absolutely abyssmal care, attitude and long lines.

    ReplyDelete
  10. If you look at economic history, higher taxation actually increased economic stability. Currently, our nation is in a period of historic lows in terms of tax rates. Bush was the first president who did not raise taxes in a time of war. In the 1950s and 1960s, times of robust job growth and the rise of the middle class, the tax rate was progressive with the top portion of the top earner's income taxed at over 90%. How do you think we got all of our infrastructure, public college and university systems, bridges, damns, and highway system. If you want to look at countries with a low tax rate, there are plenty of nations to study, but I doubt you would want to live there.
    So yes, to have public works which support the middle and working classes, you need taxes. Entrepreneurs rely on public infrastructure, a healthy and educated working population, and some modicum of civil society to function and those are all supported by taxes. If you want to keep America a place for entrepreneurs, you will need to have taxes.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Why should anyone invest in a business when 90% of whatever is earned has to be paid in taxes? It is hard enough to make a profit without the government taken
    9/10ths of what you earn

    The top 1% of earners already pay 40% of all income tax. Even if you did tax the rich at 90% it would hardly make a dent on the yearly deficit. What needs to change are the loopholes.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Yes, loopholes need to be closed.
    I believe that entrepreneurs will be entrepreneurs as long as its more profitable to work for themselves and the basic premise of capitalism is that it is most likely more profitable to work for yourself.
    The biggest challenge we face is that there is a huge divide being created between the wealthiest Americans, those in the top 3-5%, and the rest of Americans. The wealth divide does nothing to benefit our country as a whole. We gain nothing as a nation if 95% of the population is struggling economically, living in financial insecurity, and without a functioning public education system, a stable social safety net, a working judicial system, and public infrastructure. Having 5% of the population becoming extraordinarily wealthy and holding the majority of the capital and assets does absolutely nothing for the country as a whole. In fact, the country begins to look much more feudal than democratic.
    The anti-tax anarchist republicans have no political agenda except for the destabilization and dismantling of government. If it were a different time, they would simply be called anarchists.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The entrepreneurs will continue to leave the country to produce where tax rates are lower. The US has the world's highest corporate tax.

    Your stated - "The anti-tax anarchist republicans have no political agenda except for the destabilization and dismantling of government. If it were a different time, they would simply be called anarchists."

    This is the kind of far left nonsense that makes SF the laughing stock of the nation. Conservatives believe in limited government, not anachy, and government that can only spend as much as it takes in. You have extremist who say Obama is a socialist and extremists who say Republicans are anarchists. Go read a history book.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I actually own a business and earn in the top 5%. The reason why I want taxes are so that my children can have a place where they, too, can start a business and have the infrastructure necessary to be successful. I can honestly say that if I was taxed more per year, that it would not discourage me from running my business. What is more important to me, at this point, is having a country where my children could also have successful careers, have a safe a environment to live in, and not be isolated in gated communities. I personally do not want my children to inherit a third world country. By the way, San Francisco is not the laughing stock of the country. It is a highly desirable place to live. In terms of the current economic situation, San Francisco has faired relatively well with stable real estate prices and the growth of some local industry. I would say places like Arizona and Nevada that have faired much worse economically than San Francisco.
    I apologize to the person who started this thread. It's admirable that you are doing something positive for parents and families in San Francisco and I'm sorry to have gone off on this tangent.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Just to clarify, I did not mean that traditional republicans were anarchists. I specifically meant Sarah Palin and some of the other tea party politicians who are financed by the Koch brothers. These "politicians" do not have any real social or civic obligation toward the greater good because they are being bank-rolled by the Koch brothers, billionaires who started the so-called grassroots organization of the tea party for the single purpose of destabilizing and dismantling the government. I do believe the Koch brothers are anarchist because they want to dismantle the government and do not have any proposals for the public education of children, a social safety net for the disabled and elderly, and a role for government in protecting the environment.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "The top 1% of earners already pay 40% of all income tax."

    The top 1% of earners own almost 40% of all the wealth, according to the WSJ, so it makes sense they pay that much in taxes. Please stop using this argument, it doesn't hold water.

    ReplyDelete
  17. What does this discussion about the wealthiest 1% have to do with schools in San Francisco.

    Answer: nothing.

    San Francisco provides public school for only 40% of its families, so of the 99%, 59% cannot access a San Francisco public school.

    So . . .

    As one of those disenfranchised middle class 59%ers, I will vote against any parcel tax increase.

    Oh . . . and I'm tired of reading about the parents "who could afford to send their kids to private school but *believe* in public school and have their kids in Presidio Middle School."

    Believe my ass.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Parent PAC, so you think the voters should know the views of the candidates on these issues, but you do not offer your own views on these issues? You ask them to do something that you will not do yourself. What position do you take on issues if you have not taken a stand on the issues listed here?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Can you please report on the forum held last night for those of us who had to stay home and take care of children?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Charlie (er, Don?) said...
    Parent PAC, so you think the voters should know the views of the candidates on these issues, but you do not offer your own views on these issues? You ask them to do something that you will not do yourself. What position do you take on issues if you have not taken a stand on the issues listed here?
    ------------

    The SF Parent PAC has a spread of views - there are everything from progressives to liberals to moderates to, well, conservatives by SF standards (still left nationally.) But we are all parents and work to address family issues in SF.

    We asked these questions of the mayor candidates because they are RUNNING and want our VOTE. We want parents and families to hear what they had to say so that these voters can make up their own minds based on the issues that matter to them.

    Interesting you'd like us to be more dogmatic - isn't that what the problem is in the US and in SF?

    I found the forum very helpful -even helped me finalize my votes.

    Note who chose NOT to come to a forum on family issues:
    Mayor Ed Lee cancelled at the last minute (hmm, think his Education Advisory might have encouraged him to come? He lost my vote based on his no-show.)

    Alioto-Pier confirmed she was not able to make it ahead of time.

    Who WAS there?
    Adachi, Dufty, Herrera, Hall, Avalos, Chiu, Reese, Ting and Yee.

    Frankly, except for Tony Hall who seems a bit crazy, I thought they all did quite well. Some I don't agree with - like Joanna Reeses stance on Prop H or NIMBY issues on Rec & Park fields - but I could see supporting her in another role, like BOS. Leland Yee talks but says nothing - he wasn't impressive in this forum, IMHO.

    Herrera seems smart, Dufty seemed passionate and knowledgable and Chiu made it to my list of 3 based on last night.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Well, you may *think* Tony Hall is crazy, but he did spearhead the rebuild of the Ocean Avenue business corridor.

    He's earned high marks from Treasure Island residents to neighborhood issues.

    He's an advocate for fair development.

    He supports the idea of allowing parents more access to their neighborhood schools.

    So, I don't see that he is crazy.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hmm - Ocean Avenue happened because of Elsbernd and more recently Avalos. Tony Hall hasn't been in the picture for ages.

    And is Treasure Island work was a joke - I certainly don't know TI residents praising him!

    Not sure what is meant by fair development - last night he told David Chiu that we'llnever see Park Merced or Treasure Island ever built, for what it's worth.

    My kids have attended schools in his former D7 for a decade - I never saw him in a school, or attend anything regarding famillies until last night. But he sure has a lot of spouting off about it.

    When he was my Supervisor, we he was nowhere to be seen. He wouldn't respond to requests and was a joke back then.

    If nothing else, he's great for entertainment in forums like last night. But there are no real solutions coming out of him.

    ReplyDelete
  23. 9:33 - Do you represent Parent PAC? If so, why do you start your comment by accusing Charlie of being Don? Are accusations of this sort the new role of Parent PAC? I have been reading this blog for two years and Charlie is one person, Don another. It is very unusual behavior for an organization like yours (if indeed you represent it) to engage in character assault.

    I was also taken aback by your assertion that SF Parents PAC is only liberal to moderate. When Todd David posted on this blog he said SF Parent PAC has people of from the left to the right. Are you saying that the PAC does not represent all parents including those with more conservative values, only moderates and liberals? If so, you should say so up front before you take their money.

    I can only hope that you are not representing the average views of your organization. My recommendation is to avoid this organization until they make clear who they represent.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Let me be clear. The Parent PAC Steering Committee is made up of Democrats and Republicans.

    It is my estimation that on the Democratic side, we have progressives and moderates.

    On the Republican side, we have fiscal conservatives.

    But, I believe the bigger point is that as parents, the political background we bring to the discussion pales in comparison to our desire to advocate for our children.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Hi Todd,

    I am a little disappointed to see that comment @9:33 from someone who purports to speak as a leader of the PAC. Do you think it is appropriate for your organization to go around accusing people on this blog? I don't know who Charlie is and I most often don't understand half of what Charlie is talking about.

    Regarding your post, I appreciate your response but I'm still not clear on the politic leanings of your political action committee. You accept members of any politic political persuation, I presume. Your steering committee is composed of progressives, liberals, moderates and fiscal conservatives. Why don't you have any social conservatives on your Board?

    ReplyDelete
  26. I meant to sign the last post.

    Don

    ReplyDelete
  27. Sorry for the typos. I have some kind of word processing problem where the cursor jumps around the page. I can't figure out what the problem is.

    ReplyDelete
  28. This is Charlie. I am not Don. However, I am Jerry.

    ReplyDelete
  29. SFPPAC - Are you for real?

    SFPPAC has come out with an endorsement against Prop H. That's funny because one of the members of their board is the attorney who filed the paperwork to get the measure approved. Does the SF Parents PAC have a genuine, principled interest in advocating against H or are they just pandering to the left for support?

    Michelle Parker is the 2nd District SFPTA president and is also co-founder of both edMatch and SFPPAC. She is using the local school PTAs listserves to promote this political action committee that she runs as well as to promote edMatch. As a supporter of Prop H I do not want my PTA to assist in promoting SF Parents PAC if they make political endorsements, especially ones that run counter to my personal interests, like their endorsement against Prop H. But they shouldn't be doing it at all, regardless of politics. The PTAs are there to support students and teachers and should not be engaging in partisan politics.

    Furtheremore, SFPPAC's reasoning against Prop H says the measure is vague, that it couldn't be implemented due to shortages of seats in certain neighborhoods. They don't seem understand that it is only a statement of desired policy. Do they mean to say that we should not put this on the ballot until SFUSD creates more classroom seats in the Southeast? The measure is not a student assignment policy, just a general statement of assignement policy preference. For that matter the current and recently adopted SAS required a buildout of infrastructure to implement. Any new assignment system takes time to implement in full.

    SFPPAC anti-endorsement also says that under Prop H parents would not be allowed to opt out for another school. This is totally false and I cannot understand how they could have taken this position when the attorney that helped to formalize the final language is on the SFPPAC board. The fact is Prop H only asks that neighborhood residents be given priority after siblings. The PAC also criticizes the measure for not providing any means for increasing school quality. Show me where in the new Board-approved SAS there are any improvements to school quality? We are still waiting on SFUSD to provide results of the Quality Middle School Initiative. All this begs the question, if Michelle Parker is so down on Prop H for not providing specific means towards school improvement, why doesn't she address these very same concerns to SFUSD, the organization that is actually in charge of our schools rather than picking on a grassroots group of parents who just want children to be able to walk to school? After all, Carlos Garcia sits on one or the other of her advisory boards.

    Just to be clear, I'm a supporter of greater parental efforts to advocate for children. These efforts should not be political in nature. This is about child and education advocacy. OK, I know, that is really naive, so sue me.

    Don

    ReplyDelete
  30. (He says he isn't going to post under his name anymore but is such a megalomaniac that he lasted about one minute without signing his posts)

    Yes, he is Charlie, Jerry, Floyd and many other "pals" he has invented.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I am glad to hear that Parent PAC has taken a position on something. I disagree with it, but we can have our disagreements.

    I have a new Political Action Committee too. I am calling it the Motherhood and Apple Pie PAC. Candidates should be eager to get my endorsement because I am called the Motherhood and Apple Pie PAC. Voters should value my endorsement because I am called the Motherhood and Apple Pie PAC.

    As a PAC, I do not have a lot of issues, very few that I will let you know about, anyway, but my main issue is that I call myself the Motherhood and Apple Pie PAC, and who can be against that?

    ReplyDelete
  32. This blog is overrun by trolls.

    ReplyDelete
  33. An organization claiming to speak for parents should be nonpartisan. However, San Francisco Parents Political Action Committee is as the name implies a politically oriented lobbying group. Therefore, they should not use the PTA as an informational arm. That much seems clear.

    ReplyDelete
  34. @1:57

    If you feel that way why keep coming back?

    ReplyDelete
  35. I keep hoping the troll will get tired of talking to himself in 8 different voices. Silly me. Adios.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Don,

    You need to read what Prop H says. Just because you want it to mean something different than what is written, doesn't make it so. Write a policy statement that actually accomplishes what you imagine Prop H accomplishes and I bet you would get a lot more support.

    And attacking Michelle Parker for volunteering as the District PTA President, co-founder of edMatch, and President of the Parent PAC--all VOLUNTEER positions makes you a completely ungrateful blowhard.

    Get off your computer and run for something. . .volunteer for something. . .make a difference. Don't just attack people who are working their asses off for everyone's children.

    It's fine to disagree with people's opinion, but attacking their volunteering truly makes you an ass.

    Do me favor, don't join the Parent PAC, don't support edMatch, and don't join the PTA. It is clear, you are a toxic person and your involvement with any group simply destroys that organization.

    Please seek mental health help.


    Todd David
    Founder of edMatch
    Co-founder of the SF Parent PAC

    ReplyDelete
  37. This comment by Mike S. was on the SFPPAC facebook page-


    -Disappointed in the decision not to endorse Prop H. Moving more in the direction of neighborhood schools (while respecting sibling preference and choice for language immersion and other special programs - which Prop H does) is probably THE most important thing the school district could do lure back the families that are opting for private schools or leaving San Francisco. I know that this is an honest disagreement on principle, but I really think the PAC missed an important opportunity here on a key issue.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Todd,

    Usually it is a good idea to take a deep breath and cogitate a bit before posting. Your violent overreaction to my complaint indicates to me that I struck a nerve, otherwise a simple correction would be in order. I just don't like my local PTA being used as an avenue for advertising for a political action committee, the endorsements of which I do not even agree upon. This is a violation of the nonpartisan PTA. And where do you get off as a member of this PAC telling me not to join my PTA? Is this is the kind of attitude that the policy chair should have towards the legitimate complaints of parents?

    As for Prop H I know very well what's in it. I wrote most of it for Students First. The wording is very clear. It does not force parents into their neighborhood school as your PAC maintains. This is almost as bad as UESF's hysterical claim that it will cause students to be removed from schools midyear creating chaos.

    Don

    ReplyDelete
  39. Todd, a bit of advice: it is best to ignore him. He'll threaten to sue you for "defamation of character" or start calling your house 100 times a day.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Q: Do they(SF Parent PAC) mean to say that we should not put this on the ballot until SFUSD creates more classroom seats in the Southeast?
    ----

    A: IMHO, Yes.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Mike S. = Mike Sullivan who heads up Plan C and sends his kids to an exclusive private school. Didn't even try for public.

    Plan C is notorious for being a group that is ill-informed on education issues and weighing in when they haven't done their homework.

    I know - I'm a longtime paying member and public school parent.

    ReplyDelete
  42. ...Paying member of Plan C AND a public school parent (continued from above.)

    ReplyDelete
  43. @5:31... I see you always giving out the same advice to ignore him, but you don't take your own advice. What's up with that?

    ReplyDelete
  44. 6:28,

    I don't get it. You were a long time member of an organization that you feel is uniformed? So what does that say about you?

    ReplyDelete
  45. 7:20 I'm trying to save people from being harassed.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I am a parent at Alamo and I can tell you that your allegations are unwarranted. There has never been any problems of the kind you are insinuating.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I'm 6:28 (Gee, 7:22 - snarky, much?)

    I like the more moderate stance Plan C takes on many other issues facing SF, so I continue to support them.

    I'm not a one issue voter (i.e. education only.) So I stay a member and try to weigh in when they take stances on education issues. I was mad they didn't take a stance on some past ballot measure (the parcel tax for teacher salaries) but if I recall, this is the first time they've taken a stance on an education ballot. But I don't just throw in the towel just because I think they are misinformed on this one issue - and I fervently believe in making your voice heard, so I will/do.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Explain how Plan C is uniformed on Prop H? Because you disagree with their position does not necessarily make Plan C uniformed. Your position will hold more water if you give examples of how it is they are uniformed. The reason why I ask is because Prop H seems pretty simple to me. Either you like the idea of the district moving towards a true neighborhood assignment system or you don't. All this talk of it being poorly written, bad policy and so forth just doesn't make any sense. It says right at the top of the ballot that it is only voters giving their advice. Prop H is not a student assignment system. Should the Board of Education want to abide by the will of the voters in the event that it passes, they would go ahead and make an assignment policy with those advisories as the guiding principle. But it would be up to them to figure out how to implement it.

    ReplyDelete
  49. I say Plan C is uninformed because none of the individuals that make their endorsements have kids in public schools, and those that are parents (again, I know these people) I have found to be half-informed on the facts. Things that "sound" great aren't matched with practical "how are you going to do that" actions.

    I am a parent who sends my kids to public schools, advocates on behalf of, and for improvement of, public education (and also advocates for better parent engagement) I am a vocal critic of many things in SFUSD - so it's not that I think everything is all roses when it comes to them.

    But I stand by my statement: The folks at Plan C don't follow public education issues, don't fully understand the trade offs and realities, and - yes - are more uninformed than many of us that are actively against Prop H.

    No apology from me on that.

    Don, people disagree with you. You can vote your way and I'll vote mine.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Still no answer for how Plan C is uniformed.

    ReplyDelete
  51. 6:24 (er, Don) - can you read?
    Just because it doesn't say what you want, doesn't mean I didn't answer your question.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Perhaps he needs to look in a dictionary to see what the word "uninformed" means?

    ReplyDelete
  53. It's a typo. I'm sure you're perfect. Still waiting to here what's wrong with Plan C's Prop H endorsement.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Uniformed? He wants everyone in uniforms, goose-stepping to patriotic music.

    ReplyDelete
  55. 2:11 -- Your personal animosity has no place on this forum. Alternative viewpoints deserve a rebuttal. Scorn is not a winning debate strategy.

    ReplyDelete
  56. 3:29, all he does is badger people, angrily, using several different names. It's hardly a debate, it's a sockpuppet monologue.

    ReplyDelete
  57. IMHO Todd's post which is out of line. And yours. It is you who are badgering people.

    ReplyDelete
  58. People who know her in real life know she's a consummate asshole. She must sit around her house all day sticking pins into her little dolls.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Thanks to the Parent PAC for saying

    NO ON H!

    it shows they are more in touch with SFUSD parent views than I thought they were.

    ReplyDelete
  60. I just got back from driving one child to school about 3 miles away. Now I have to get the other one packed up and ready and hurry off in another direction to make it within a minute or two of the bell.

    Yes on H. This is ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Are MS students too small for a citywide system? Are the feeder pattens close enough to a neighborhood system to satisfy you?

    ReplyDelete
  62. This is 8:16. My child was late again and we don't live that far from the school. There's no way we could walk and be on time and Muni would never work for us. Without a car it would be impossible.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Are you talking about ES or MS kids, or both? When you say the transportation is a problem, please add your solution.

    ReplyDelete
  64. With so many Republicans visably backing Prop H in the voter's guide, it's dead in the water, in this town :)

    ReplyDelete
  65. Do they think their endorsements HELP?
    Too funny!

    ReplyDelete
  66. VOTE NO on PROP H.

    ReplyDelete