-
-
San Francisco County Bar Association ranking: QUALIFIED
Pang Ly’s family fled Vietnam in 1979, and after almost a year in a refugee camp, were able to settle in Missouri. Ly received her undergraduate degree and law degree from the University of Missouri. She worked as a prosecutor in Jefferson County, Missouri before moving to the Bay Area in 2000.
Upon her return to the Bay, Ly was in civil litigation from 2000-2008. She returned to Missouri for a short period before returning to the Bay Area, where she joined the San Francisco Superior Court Asbestos Department as a settlement officer in 2010. In 2016 Ly was named commissioner pro tem, and works on a variety of cases including asbestos, probate and complex litigation. Recently, she oversaw the negotiations between the city, developers, community groups, and private citizens to resolve issues around the Central SoMa Plan that impacted the San Francisco Flower Mart and San Francisco Tennis Club.
Last updated: 2023-04-05San Francisco County Bar Association ranking: QUALIFIED
Pang Ly’s family fled Vietnam in 1979, and after almost a year in a refugee camp, were able to settle in Missouri. Ly received her undergraduate degree and law degree from the University of Missouri. She worked as a prosecutor in Jefferson County, Missouri before moving to the Bay Area in 2000.
Upon her return to the Bay, Ly was in civil litigation from 2000-2008. She returned to Missouri for a short period before returning to the Bay Area, where she joined the San Francisco Superior Court Asbestos Department as a settlement officer in 2010. In 2016 Ly was named commissioner pro tem, and works on a variety of cases including asbestos, probate and complex litigation. Recently, she oversaw the negotiations between the city, developers, community groups, and private citizens to resolve issues around the Central SoMa Plan that impacted the San Francisco Flower Mart and San Francisco Tennis Club.
-
-
San Francisco County Bar Association ranking: QUALIFIED
Pang Ly’s family fled Vietnam in 1979, and after almost a year in a refugee camp, were able to settle in Missouri. Ly received her undergraduate degree and law degree from the University of Missouri. She worked as a prosecutor in Jefferson County, Missouri before moving to the Bay Area in 2000.
Upon her return to the Bay, Ly was in civil litigation from 2000-2008. She returned to Missouri for a short period before returning to the Bay Area, where she joined the San Francisco Superior Court Asbestos Department as a settlement officer in 2010. In 2016 Ly was named commissioner pro tem, and works on a variety of cases including asbestos, probate and complex litigation. Recently, she oversaw the negotiations between the city, developers, community groups, and private citizens to resolve issues around the Central SoMa Plan that impacted the San Francisco Flower Mart and San Francisco Tennis Club.
Last updated: 2023-04-05
California
Not in California? Click here to choose your customized guide.
-
VOTE YES
Vote YES On Prop 13, School and College Facilities Bond
-
This proposition would provide $9 billion for desperately needed renovations to public preschools and grade schools throughout the state, and $6 billion for construction to community colleges, the Cal State system, and the UC system. This will allow the state of California to use tax revenue to pay for improvements that local communities cannot afford.
The funding would come from bonds the state would pay back over 35 years, totaling an estimated $26 billion, which includes $15 billion in principal and $11 billion in interest. This investment is well worth the costs. It takes money, after all, to ensure that students -- especially those in districts that can’t afford major capital improvement projects -- do not have to learn in dangerous environments.
The vast majority of Democrats in the state legislature support it, as does Gov. Newsom, and the only major opposition is a group called the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. This is the group famous for destroying California’s school funding system in 1978 through another proposition, ironically one that was also dubbed Prop 13. The group spends most of its time lobbying to reduce tax rates. It has never shown any interest in supporting California’s children, at least if that means wealthy individuals or giant corporations would pay their fair share in taxes.
Critics of the measure have pointed out that the ballot measure’s language includes a provision that frees new multi-family developments around subway stops and bus stations from school impact fees. This provision will make it easier for developers to build apartment buildings within a half-mile of public transit but could also drive up the cost of new housing and take funds away from school districts across the state. Despite this provision, the measure is still supported by most education groups in the state, who believe the overall funding allocation to schools outweighs the impact of reduced funding to school districts located near transit hubs. 2020’s Prop 13 is worth the investment since it means children will soon be able to attend school in buildings that are retrofitted to withstand earthquakes and no longer have lead in their water.
We strongly recommend a YES vote on Prop 13.
Last updated: 2023-04-05This proposition would provide $9 billion for desperately needed renovations to public preschools and grade schools throughout the state, and $6 billion for construction to community colleges, the Cal State system, and the UC system. This will allow the state of California to use tax revenue to pay for improvements that local communities cannot afford.
The funding would come from bonds the state would pay back over 35 years, totaling an estimated $26 billion, which includes $15 billion in principal and $11 billion in interest. This investment is well worth the costs. It takes money, after all, to ensure that students -- especially those in districts that can’t afford major capital improvement projects -- do not have to learn in dangerous environments.
The vast majority of Democrats in the state legislature support it, as does Gov. Newsom, and the only major opposition is a group called the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. This is the group famous for destroying California’s school funding system in 1978 through another proposition, ironically one that was also dubbed Prop 13. The group spends most of its time lobbying to reduce tax rates. It has never shown any interest in supporting California’s children, at least if that means wealthy individuals or giant corporations would pay their fair share in taxes.
Critics of the measure have pointed out that the ballot measure’s language includes a provision that frees new multi-family developments around subway stops and bus stations from school impact fees. This provision will make it easier for developers to build apartment buildings within a half-mile of public transit but could also drive up the cost of new housing and take funds away from school districts across the state. Despite this provision, the measure is still supported by most education groups in the state, who believe the overall funding allocation to schools outweighs the impact of reduced funding to school districts located near transit hubs. 2020’s Prop 13 is worth the investment since it means children will soon be able to attend school in buildings that are retrofitted to withstand earthquakes and no longer have lead in their water.
We strongly recommend a YES vote on Prop 13.
This proposition would provide $9 billion for desperately needed renovations to public preschools and grade schools throughout the state, and $6 billion for construction to community colleges, the Cal State system, and the UC system. This will allow the state of California to use tax revenue to pay for improvements that local communities cannot afford.
The funding would come from bonds the state would pay back over 35 years, totaling an estimated $26 billion, which includes $15 billion in principal and $11 billion in interest. This investment is well worth the costs. It takes money, after all, to ensure that students -- especially those in districts that can’t afford major capital improvement projects -- do not have to learn in dangerous environments.
The vast majority of Democrats in the state legislature support it, as does Gov. Newsom, and the only major opposition is a group called the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. This is the group famous for destroying California’s school funding system in 1978 through another proposition, ironically one that was also dubbed Prop 13. The group spends most of its time lobbying to reduce tax rates. It has never shown any interest in supporting California’s children, at least if that means wealthy individuals or giant corporations would pay their fair share in taxes.
Critics of the measure have pointed out that the ballot measure’s language includes a provision that frees new multi-family developments around subway stops and bus stations from school impact fees. This provision will make it easier for developers to build apartment buildings within a half-mile of public transit but could also drive up the cost of new housing and take funds away from school districts across the state. Despite this provision, the measure is still supported by most education groups in the state, who believe the overall funding allocation to schools outweighs the impact of reduced funding to school districts located near transit hubs. 2020’s Prop 13 is worth the investment since it means children will soon be able to attend school in buildings that are retrofitted to withstand earthquakes and no longer have lead in their water.
We strongly recommend a YES vote on Prop 13.
CA Prop 13
This proposition would provide $9 billion for desperately needed renovations to public preschools and grade schools throughout the state, and $6 billion for construction to community colleges, the Cal State system, and the UC system.
Customizing the Progressive Voters Guide for your location...
Customizing the Progressive Voters Guide for your location...