SF MUNICIPAL / SCHOOL DISTRICT joint elections?

Since the city decided to throw the school district’s Bev Chase under the bus (mini-van) in the last joint election. The school district drew up a contract with the city that asks them to handle entire joint elections in the future and the school district will reimburse them for 100% of their costs.

SOUNDS FAIR.

READ THE ENTIRE contract HERE: electioncontract

Problem is the city (mayor) have yet to sign the contract and the deadline is December 31, 2012. The bigger concern is how this may affect the joint school board election with the possible snowgates petition question.

As I understand the contract, if the city decides not to sign they would have to hold a ‘special election’ for snowgates. The other concern would be having ‘super precincts’ for a special election.

I think something as important as snowgates, ALL of the precincts need to be used.

I guess we will wait for the mayor’s John Hancock.

 

7 comments ↓

#1 Pathloss on 10.26.12 at 9:46 am

For a mayor who supports snow gates, there’s hardly no cooperation. Doyouting suppose the mayor is two faced?

#2 Pathloss on 10.26.12 at 9:47 am

Do you suppose … damn smart phones

#3 Detroit Lewis on 10.26.12 at 12:23 pm

I’m hoping the city doesn’t try to push this election until the Spring of 2014. The initiative is specifically written to have the snowgates go into effect in November of 2013. So either they join the school district this spring or a special election is called next year well in advance of November.

#4 Craig on 10.26.12 at 2:19 pm

I do have one concern about the snowgate issue and that is if (or rather when) it is put to a public vote, if the public votes it down it may mean the end to snowgates. The city council most likely would not vote to support the snowgates after the citizens vote against them… or least any council member who wants to be re-elected wouldn’t.

Could the petition drive end up harming the chances of actually getting them? I guess we will find out. During the run-up to the election it might be a good idea to start showing some of the Youtube videos of these gates in action.

I’ve had someone tell tell me they heard from city employees that instead of being able to drive 12-15mph with a plow they would only be able to drive 6-8mph with a snowgate. This conflicts with what I have seen and seems to be based upon rumor rather than fact. The other rumor included here was these same city employees claiming they result in narrow streets – yet my comment was how that is even possible.

I’m sure some city employees fear a bit of lost overtime, and some just fear anything new because they are of the mindset that if it was good enough last year, it is good enough this year too. However I think much of the negativity surrounding snowgates comes down to a simple misunderstanding of how they operate and what the results would be.

Funny how those people in the test regions have overwhelming support of snowgates. That should tell us something. I do think one legitimate point for opposition will be cost, and that is fair. However when it comes to operation and benefits, I really don’t see any negatives here.

#5 Testor15 on 10.27.12 at 9:14 am

There is not trust with anything the City Hall officials are doing on this issue and most everything else. SubPrime Mike and his cadre are up to something it is not to benefit the 99%.

#6 l3wis on 10.27.12 at 10:23 am

“Funny how those people in the test regions have overwhelming support of snowgates. That should tell us something.”

Right?!

“I do think one legitimate point for opposition will be cost, and that is fair. However when it comes to operation and benefits, I really don’t see any negatives here.”

Councilor Jamison made a great analogy, he figures it will cost each homeowner an average of $39 more per year for snow removal. But this isn’t an actual cost because that is just $39 in the 1st penny that will be allocated towards snow removal and taken from someplace else. I suggest the city stops spending so much in private legal advice and we would have snowgates up the yin-yang.

“There is not trust with anything the City Hall officials are doing on this issue and most everything else. SubPrime Mike and his cadre are up to something it is not to benefit the 99%.”

There is a fear that the city may be messing with when this can get on the ballot, they seem reluctant to partake in the school board election. If the city fails to sign this contract and chooses not to participate it would force us to recollect the signatures for the 2014 Spring municipal election. All I can say is that the almost 7000 people who have signed this petition would not be happy campers. I suggest that the city clerk and mayor sign this contract ASAP and agree to participate in the school board election this Spring, unless of course Huether likes pitchforks and torches outside of his office.

#7 Snowgates Election: It’s in the city council’s court now — South DaCola on 11.15.12 at 11:07 am

[...] district this spring, it will be the SF city council’s decision to do so, not the mayor. The contract that the school district has signed already has been deferred, again, to the December 4, city [...]

Leave a Comment