vote_lede_template.jpgPreviously: Final SF Proposition Results: Sit/Lie, Muni Reform Wins, Pension Reform Loses

San Francisco voters Tuesday rejected a controversial proposal to make city workers pay more for their health care and pensions in order to reduce their growing impact on the city’s budget.

Proposition B, placed on the ballot by Public Defender Jeff Adachi, lost 57.6 percent to 42.4 percent, according to complete unofficial results from the Department of Elections.

The measure could have saved the city an estimated $120 million annually, but public employee unions waged a fierce campaign to defeat it, arguing higher health care costs would hurt working families.

Another controversial item, Proposition L – which would ban sitting or lying on public sidewalks during daytime hours, with certain exceptions – was approved by voters by 53 percent.

The measure was backed by merchants, particularly in the Haight-Ashbury neighborhood, who complained of aggressive street youth harassing passersby.

Homeless advocates worry police will use the law to target all homeless people on the streets.

Police have said enforcement of the law would be complaint-driven. Violators could be cited if they fail to heed an initial warning from officers.

Proposition M, which would have required police to beef up their foot patrols and which also could have invalidated Proposition L if it received more votes, was rejected by 52 percent of voters.

Voters also rejected a proposed two-percent hike in hotel room tax rates, but approved raising the tax rate on the sale or leasing of real estate valued at $5 million or more.

A $46 million bond measure to finance earthquake retrofits on affordable housing in the city, which required a two-thirds vote to pass, lost narrowly.

Also losing was a measure that would have allowed non-citizen residents to vote in school district elections.

About 64 percent of voters approved Proposition G, eliminating a provision that Muni drivers be the second-highest-paid public transit operators in the country.

Ari Burack, Bay City News

Please make sure your comment adheres to our comment policy. If it doesn't, it may be deleted. Repeat violations may cause us to revoke your commenting privileges. No one wants that!
  • HonestAbe

    San Francisco city workers have already agreed to pay their own fair share of retirement contributions in full and on schedule, July 01, 2011 [eight (8) months from now].

    The “big savings” hoped for by attempting to pass this poorly thought out piece of written scapegoating and bullying came from the lesser emphasized “healthcare” component.

    The wealthy authors along with greedy bankroller venture capitalist and billionaire backers of this divisive proposition sought to use this “hidden” aspect of HEALTHCARE CUTS to boost their “savings” figure which they shamelessly touted knowing full well that such drastic cuts would displace the most vulnerable, namely children and retirees needing healthcare who cannot otherwise afford PREVENTIVE healthcare.

    San Francisco voters recognized that cuts to PREVENTIVE healthcare at minimal savings to the city fund would end up costing tax payers double, triple and quadruple -when REACTIVE healthcare like urgent care and emergency room services at the medical industry’s skyrocketing rates and exorbitant costs and fees would be factored in as the only remaining viable options for the many who could not afford or qualify for any other type of reasonably priced medical coverage!
    -and indeed voted NO on B!

  • HonestAbe

    San Francisco city workers have already agreed to pay their own fair share of retirement contributions in full and on schedule, July 01, 2011 [eight (8) months from now].

    The “big savings” hoped for by attempting to pass this poorly thought out piece of written scapegoating and bullying came from the lesser emphasized “healthcare” component.

    The wealthy authors along with greedy bankroller venture capitalist and billionaire backers of this divisive proposition sought to use this “hidden” aspect of HEALTHCARE CUTS to boost their “savings” figure which they shamelessly touted knowing full well that such drastic cuts would displace the most vulnerable, namely children and retirees needing healthcare who cannot otherwise afford PREVENTIVE healthcare.

    San Francisco voters recognized that cuts to PREVENTIVE healthcare at minimal savings to the city fund would end up costing tax payers double, triple and quadruple -when REACTIVE healthcare like urgent care and emergency room services at the medical industry’s skyrocketing rates and exorbitant costs and fees would be factored in as the only remaining viable options for the many who could not afford or qualify for any other type of reasonably priced medical coverage!
    -and indeed voted NO on B!