Measure M supporters claim heatedly that the supposed bugs in their measure are not there, and that claims of their existence are disinformation spread by evil opponents. But the opponents have a neutral authority behind their position, the report filed to the city by city-manager consultants, and the supporters' declarations on their website and literature offer no authority saying that they're right.

So I wrote to the supporters e-mail, asking who told them that their measure lacked these flaws, and how they knew that this person knew more than the consultants did. I got back a reply referring me back to the website declarations. So I wrote back again and repeated that I wanted to know how they knew this. No answer. (It's been well over a week.)

So I can best conclude that they know nothing: they just looked it over with their laymen's eyes and said "It looks fine to me." If it passes, and the city decides not to put some leases on the ballot, we'll just have to hope nobody files suit against the city for not following the other interpretation.

So, a "No" on this one, even though I support the measure's stated goals.

It reminds me of the uncertainty of whether 65 would invalidate 67, if they both pass but 65 gets more votes. The voter guide chart says 67 would still go into effect, but there's a footnote saying there could be a suit to invalidate 67. Well, I'm not taking that chance.
It reminds me a lot