League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
	San Francisco County, CA November 4, 2008 Election
	Proposition A San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center Earthquake Safety Bonds, 2008 City of San Francisco Bond - 2/3 Approval Required Pass: 300,595 / 83.81% Yes votes ...... 58,049 / 16.19% No votes See Also: Index of all Propositions

Arguments For Proposition A

Arguments Against Proposition A

Save San Francisco General Hospital — Vote Yes on Proposition A San Francisco General Hospital, the heart of our city's healthcare system, needs to be rebuilt to ensure that it is able to remain open, caring for all those patients who need it, during and after a major earthquake. As the only trauma center in San Francisco, General Hospital is the only acute-care facility in the city whose staff is equipped, trained and prepared to respond to any life-threatening injury or catastrophic illness, from car accidents to natural disasters to public health emergencies. It is also San Francisco's hospital for all. Dedicated doctors and nurses deliver state-of-the-art medicine to all needing care. It is at the center of our city's pioneering initiative to provide universal health-care to our uninsured residents. It treats 1,500 patients daily and nearly 100,000 per year — from delivering babies, to HIV/AIDS care, to brain surgery. Now is the time to ensure General Hospital remains open and continues to serve generations to come. State law requires that it be able to withstand an earthquake or shut down as early as 2013. Independent studies have found General Hospital falls far short of that mark and the most care hospital building on the SFGH grounds. Proposition A will rebuild General Hospital — and without a net increase in the city's debt load or property tax burden as the city will be retiring bonds for other construction projects. We all have a stake in General Hospital. Vote YES on A. Mayor Gavin Newsom Board President Aaron Peskin Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier Supervisor Tom Ammiano Supervisor Carmen Chu Supervisor Chris Daly Supervisor Bevan Dufty Supervisor Sean Elsbernd Supervisor Sophie Maxwell* Supervisor Jake McGoldrick Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization. Rebuttal to Arguments For COMPLIANCE WITHOUT ACCOUNTABILITY San Francisco does need SFGH seismically safe; not the overpriced, poorly located "trophy" hospital being presented to voters. The Civil Grand Jury's 6/26/2008 report documents horrendous City bond oversight, concluding: "The ultimate response to the lack of accountability and oversight is for the voters to demand better governance from City officials. In the meantime, there are no standard operating procedures to hold departments and commissions accountable [for bonds] and, by extension, no accountability by the Board of Supervisors, [the Controller], or the Mayor's Office." The $1.7 billion hospital contains insufficient beds to serve future needs and is too big to construct between two 85', nonretrofitted, 93-year-old brick buildings. State law requires both seismic safety and continued operations following earthquakes. The proposed glass walled hospital, in the fall zone of both brick buildings, will be damaged and non-operational if they collapse. The hospital was designed before the Lewin report projected San Francisco's 24% shortage of acute hospital beds. The oval hospital design costs $265 million over the original rectangular design, including $7 million for art. A dangerous helipad remains under consideration. Renters: 50% pass-through erodes rent control. Homeowners: $59 for every $100,000 in assessed value for 23 years. Construction costs will exceed City estimates. Laguna Honda Hospital's delayed, rebuild is $241 million (60%) over budget and 420 beds (35%) smaller than originally promised. Voters deserve accountability. Vote "No" on Proposition A! George Wooding, West of Twin Peaks Central Council* Mara Kopp, Good Government Alliance* For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

We support SFGH's healthcare mission; however, SFGH's proposed rebuild project is poorly planned. The proposed hospital sits within the fall-zone of two brick buildings built in 1915 not scheduled for seismic retrofit before 2015; a catastrophic earthquake could crush the new hospital. After 12 years of planning, DPH rejected a rectangular design, substituting a circular design, adding $265 million to the cost. Bed capacity is insufficient for future needs: The project adds 32 beds, increasing 19 neonatal ICU and pediatric beds, and eliminating 16 medical/surgical beds. The 2007 Lewin report cited a citywide shortage of 533 acute hospital beds by 2030, 24% below projected needs. The project's minimum cost is $1.7 billion, including planning; construction; debt service; and furniture, fixtures, and equipment. Property owners will be annually taxed $59 for every $100,000 of property assessments over the next 23 years. Due to a 50% pass-through clause, renters face annual $100 to $300 rent increases. Hospitals in other jurisdictions, including San Diego, chose, and/or completed, seismic retrofits, but San Francisco inadequately explored retrofitting SFGH. DPH officials offer conflicting a viable option, wasn't considered. The City's final project report doesn't discuss Emergency Room capacity. Estimated construction costs may reach $943 million, possibly under-funding the bond by $55.6 million, even before inevitable cost overruns. Supplemental funding will be used without voter approval. A 2008 Grand Jury Report concluded fiscal accountability and oversight of capital projects remain ongoing problems. The 2013 deadline is man-made: Senate Bill 306 (October 2007) provides extensions to 2020. We recommend taking time to correct project flaws and increasing bed capacity. Vote "No" on Proposition A. George Wooding, Vice-President, West of Twin Peaks Central Council* Mara Kopp, Good Government Alliance* For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization. Rebuttal to Arguments Against WE CANNOT AFFORD TO WAIT--YES ON A TO SAVE SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL HOSPITAL In their argument against Proposition A, the opponents acknowledge they support the mission of San Francisco General Hospital and the need to rebuild it. The doctors and nurses who work at San Francisco General Hospital know that it is critical that this hospital, the only trauma center in the city, be rebuilt now. We have spent the last eight years planning how to comply with the state's seismic laws. We have considered four different sites and a number of different configurations. We have chosen a design that will provide the best possible medical and nursing care for our patients for generations to come. Finally, this project won't increase the city's debt load or property tax burden because the city will be retiring debt from other projects. Delaying the rebuild will only increase the costs of a new hospital and risk closure of the existing hospital due to an earthquake is supported by a broad coalition that includes the Democratic and Republican parties, business and labor, the Mayor and the entire Board of Supervisors, and hundreds of doctors, nurses, and healthcare providers. Yes on A! http://www.savesfgeneral.com Dr. Mitch Katz, Director — San Francisco Public Health Department* San Francisco General Hospital Physicians and Nurses: Dr. Jeff Critchfield, Chief of Medical Staff* Kathryn Fowler, RN — Emergency Department Nurse Manager* Dr. Robert Mackersie, Trauma Director* Ocean Berg, RN — Perinatal Clinical Nurse Specialist* For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.