Author: lpsf

“Color Our World With Pride,” the 44th Annual Pride Celebration and Parade will take place on Saturday, June 28, and on Sunday, June 29, 2014.  As always, Outright Libertarians, in collaboration with the Libertarian Party of San Francisco, will be there.  Each year, our booth is a success, thanks to fantastic teamwork among Outright, LPSF, neighboring Libertarian Party affiliates, and libertarian grassroots group such as Golden Gate Liberty REvolution.  We libertarians stood up for gender freedom, marriage equality, LGBT pride way before any of these principles were mainstream.  We remain committed to liberty for all.

You will enjoy the Annual Pride Celebration, as do thousands of locals and out-of-town visitors, families, students, regulars and newcomers.  There will be over 200 parade contingents, 300 exhibitor booths, and 20 community-run stages and venues. 

Saturday, June 29, 2014:  Noon to 6:00 pm, San Francisco Civic Center Plaza, McAllister and Polk Streets

Sunday, June 29, 2014:  11:00 am to 6:30 pm, San Francisco Civic Center Plaza, McAllister and Polk Streets.

The Parade is on Sunday.  It starts at Beale and Market 10:30 am, and proceeds along Market Street to 8th Street.

Our booth is numbered PNE5, and is located on the northeast quadrant of the Plaza; closest street is Fulton.  Look for our high-flying balloons!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

 

Supervisor John Avalos’ Proposal

 

San Francisco Board of Supervisor John Avalos, along with co-signing Supervisors David Campos, Eric Mar, and Jane Kim, sponsored the above proposed resolution.  The Board voted on July 8, 2014, to postpone a decision.  This proposal has been around since September of 2013, when Supervisor David Campos urged the Board to adopt a similar measure.  You can see our analysis of that 2013 proposal in our article, Supervisor Campos to Explore Underwater Property Eminent Domain. 

The idea of seizing underwater mortgages from private lenders is not going away.  To the contrary, according to what Supervisor Avalos indicated during the meeting of July 8, he is looking forward to working with the rest of the Board, the Controller’s Office, and the City Attorney to craft a Joint Powers Authority Ordinance to be introduced later in 2014 – note the reference to an ordinance, not a mere resolution.

The forging ahead with this proposal is occurring in spite of investors giving every indication that they stand ready to flood every entity involved with lawsuits.  Wells Fargo, Deutsche, and Mellon banks have already sued, although, as the court decided, prematurely, since the plaintiffs had not yet been harmed.  No doubt, everybody will be back in court as soon as any actual seizing of mortgages is attempted!

Although these investors are powerful corporations, they are not voters, upon whom Supervisors depend at election time.  Therefore, as always, we encourage voters – ordinary citizens – to get acquainted with the issues, contact their government representatives, and vote wisely.

File No. 140709 starts out by proposing that San Francisco commend the City of Richmond for “their work on creating a Local Principle Reduction Program…” – emphasis ours – and gets worse with each “Whereas.”  Here are our primary concerns with Supervisor Avalos proposal:

Applies only to homeowners who are still making payments on their mortgages.  It does not apply to borrowers who are no longer able to pay, and are truly facing foreclosure.

Applies only to securitized mortgages.  Traditional mortgages still being held by original lenders are not included, no matter how underwater they are.

Applies to a relatively small percentage of borrowers, but will have a negative effect on all borrowers as well as on some investors.  Lenders will have to increase the price of all mortgages in order to offset possible and actual government seizure of some of their loans.  Savers will suffer losses if their savings instruments are 401K’s or annuities invested in the mortgage-backed securities targeted by eminent domain.

The likelihood that investors will sue under attempts to seize their investments by force is high.  This proposal seeks to form a Joint Powers Authority in hopes the Authority will shield the member cities from liability.  However the ultimate victim, regardless of what entity is determined liable, is the taxpayer.

The language of this proposal includes several references to “predatory lending” perpetrated by big banks.  It makes no reference to Mortgage Resolution Partners LLC, who designed this eminent domain plan, and who will be handsomely paid for their role in funding the plan.  Funds used, will most likely come from “Wall Street.”  This situation coming full circle seems evident to us.

Lastly, a bastion of progressive politics, San Francisco is intentionally becoming a government-owned town.  Private property and the Constitutional protections associated with it are carelessly cast aside as inconvenient institutions.  Witness the endless list of rules as to what a property owner can, cannot, and must do with his property; proposed legislation on the November 2014 ballot intended to curb the development of market-rate housing; the threats hurled at in-law apartments and Airbnb’s; and the vast amount of “affordable” (non-private) housing being built or planned.  The further expansion of the powers of eminent domain to seize privately-held mortgages by force is viewed by City leaders as one more hammer in the tool box of government ownership.  Every City resident needs to be concerned where the money is coming from to finance all this government ownership, and where the relentless loss of private property will lead us. 

Of course we at the Libertarian Party of San Francisco are painfully aware of the devastation caused by the bursting of the housing bubble.  We are also aware of the pivotal role federal agencies had in promoting the bubble by encouraging liberal and increasingly risky credit expansion to support a vision of home ownership by all.  As expected, lenders, some of them unscrupulous, did not shy away from taking advantage of this scenario, thereby making a bad situation untenable. 

However, attempting to correct one government-inspired mess with another one does not strike us as an optimal path.  Perhaps it is time to dial back on government intervention on the inexorable rules of the marketplace.

 

We have not given out our two Libertarian Party of San Francisco awards for a while. We find it difficult to pick one recipient for our “Nanny of the Month” award among so many candidates. Our “Sensible Suggestion” award is rare. The last one went to Supervisor Mark Farrell in December 2012 for his support of entrepreneurial food truck vendors.

 

Therefore, we are delighted to have a new “Sensible Suggestion” award recipient: Katy Tang, City Supervisor for District 4. Thanks to San Francisco Examiner columnist Joel Engardio for acquainting the public with Supervisor Tang’s thoughts on the “housing crisis” in his San Francisco Examiner article of March 2, 2014, “Knowing When $4 Toast Signals S.F. Salvation, not Apocalypse.”

 

In his article, Mr. Engardio relates his conversation with Supervisor Tang about the transformation of San Francisco’s Outer Sunset district from a traditional residential neighborhood to a “trendsetter” community, featuring “urban murals, destination restaurants, art galleries and a food co-op.” He quotes Supervisor Tang:

 

“What you see just sprang up and has a life of its own. I love that it is so organic. People have a more independent attitude out here. They don’t like bureaucracy and government intervention.”

 

“For so long we made it difficult to grow neighborhoods. Now we just keep going in circles with sensational eviction stories and legislation against property owners.”

 

“I worry that we’re ignoring the unintended consequences of all the legislation in the pipeline. Instead of solving our housing problems, we may end up hurting more tenants in the long run.”

 

All well said, Supervisor Tang! As long as City Hall allows neighborhoods to grow organically, without picking winners and losers, without demonizing groups, the market, like nature, will find a way to prosper and thrive.

 

Read Joel Engardio’s article: 

http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/knowing-when-4-toast-signals-sf-salvation-not-apocalypse/Content?oid=2717253

 

 Full Disclosure: Ours are no-prize, for-fun-only awards, without any tax consequences.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

The Housing Crisis and the City’s Miracle Workers:

 

We at LPSF have written and spoken ad infinitum about how San Francisco politicians are committed to performing the miracle of attracting folks with money that will pay high property taxes and astronomical business fees, while keeping the lower-income population in place. This is not an easy feat, since any rational human being would rather rent or sell  at market rates to a newly arrived higher-income worker than keep a middle class family in a rent controlled space. It appears that the easiest path to accomplishing this feat is to encourage frequent use of a catchphrase, housing crisis, as if this economic event were the result of evil capitalism that just appeared, unwanted, on the scene, and then follow up with proposals on the November ballot to “strengthen renter protections.”   One such proposal will be to encourage state legislators to place restrictions on the Ellis Act, since landlords of unprofitable rent-controlled housing are predictably evicting tenants in order to seek newly emerged opportunities. Perhaps Mayor Lee and the Board of Supervisors are counting on the newly arrived better paid workers to scoop up any formerly rent-controlled buildings abandoned by landlords who find themselves prohibited from making the most out of their investment? Of, course, if that is the case, we must ask how this scenario helps the lower-income families at all.

 

Income Inequality and Pretending to Fix it

 

When there is a rapid change in technology – say, automobiles replacing horse-drawn carriages – those who do not adapt to the new realities are left economically behind. The more disincentives there are to adaptation, such as long-term unemployment benefits, “job training” for activities that are one generation behind, and rental controls that render lower-income individuals fearful of moving in search of better economic opportunities, the more income inequality there will be. The progressive solution is to raise the minimum wage, which will affect a relatively small number of workers and will not affect those without a job at all. Mayor Lee and the Board of Supervisors are expected to predictably place such a minimum wage proposal on the November ballot. Their argument is that one can’t live in San Francisco on the current minimum wage. Indeed, one cannot.

 

Expect our Equally Predictable Response in November

The way we see it, politicians will buy votes in exchange for the illusion of safety. The subject of this post is the illusion of safety from displacement. When economic conditions change structurally and drastically, the only way safety from displacement can be guaranteed is to render individuals who do not adapt to the new conditions dependent on public assistance. Libertarians do not see that situation as real and meaningful safety. We would prefer that City government were honest about the consequences of giving tax and regulatory incentives to picked and chosen industries.

 

Although City planners have generated a great many ideas and goals within the past three years or so, they do not seem to be developing a cohesive and credible plan. One day they speak of the urgent need for affordable housing, below-market-rate units, or safeguards against evictions. The next day they promote high-end ecodistricts, transfer of capitalization and control of public housing to the private sector, and high density areas catering to higher-income workers.

  

We would like to offer three samples of San Francisco’s current planning and development projects as examples of our point of view.

 

Central SoMa Eco-District Task Force Recommendations – Released November 2013.

 

These recommendations call for massive transformation of a 24-block area south of Market Street, from Market Street to Townsend, and from 2nd Street to 6th Street: “This once-industrial area is now positioned to become a growing center of the city’s and region’s high-tech industry. With the construction of the Central Subway (scheduled to begin operation in 2019), undeveloped or underdeveloped parcels in the area offer significant development opportunity. The Central SoMa Plan will propose rezoning this area for dense, transit-oriented, mixed-use growth and hopes to capitalize on rezoning to incorporate district-level energy and water infrastructure.”

 

To us, this sounds like the normal gentrification that naturally occurs when higher-income workers or residents move in. But the planners say, not so: the plan calls for “Equitable Development,” to “Promote Equity and Local Opportunity,” by establishing a “Locally-based employment program with specific focus on low and medium income workers, to be incorporated into Eco-District project development.” Wherever there is massive gentrification, would anyone not expect the need for custodians, gardeners, security guards, fast food handlers, street cleaners – not many of whom able to live in the area?

 

You will want to see the report yourself, as well as the extensive list of other similar projects:

http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=3051

 

Ellis Act Displaced Emergency Assistance Ordinance – Sponsors, Chiu; Campos, Kim, Mar, Breed, Farrell and Cohen. On Agenda of December 10, 2013, for Board of Supervisors final vote.

“Ordinance amending the Administrative and Planning Codes to provide a preference in occupying units or receiving assistance under all affordable housing programs administered or funded by the City, including all former San Francisco Redevelopment Agency affordable housing programs administered or funded by the City, to certain tenants being evicted under the Ellis Act, California Government Code, Section 7060 et seq.; and making environmental findings, and findings of consistency with the General Plan, and the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1.”

As gentrification expands, owners of older buildings, housing long-term tenants under rent control, naturally see the benefits of getting out of the rental business (at least temporarily) and entering into more lucrative arrangements. And our leaders, who signed off on the City’s plans, fight, probably fruitlessly, some of the plans’ inevitable results.

https://sfgov.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=1486111&GUID=3A99918F-607A-423A-9B2C-53B58DAF2F42

 

 

Emerging Issues: Sustainable Development – Central Corridor Eco-District Framework.

 

The Ellis Act ordinance shows the progressive side of planning and development; however, the other side is exemplified by the Eco-District Framework, which discusses the sharing of energy infrastructure across multiple buildings, resulting in savings produced by economies of scale, “The potential cost savings, in addition to the environmental benefits, from an appropriately planned community-scale energy system (efficiency gains and GHG reductions) can translate into higher property values.”…“Based on the benefits just described, a community-scale energy system will help catalyze development from a private sector perspective. The benefits to the public sector from this include increased revenue opportunities through system development charges and/or increased property tax revenue from higher property values that community-scale energy can bring.”

 

Plans do call for increased numbers of high-income workers, who want higher-priced housing, which push up both housing prices and property taxes. We assume that these events displace lower-paid workers, who then become recipients of some of the “benefits to the public sector” mentioned above. We wonder if the effort to remedy higher housing costs with public sector benefits constitutes a credible and achievable goal.

 

http://www.sf-planning.org/ftp/files/plans-and-programs/emerging_issues/sustainable-development/Central_Corridor_EcoDistrict_Program_Framework_10-23-2012.pdf

 

Our Conclusion.

 

The City does not feel comfortable with the direct benefits of the free market, the natural evolution of cities, and the free movement of populations in and out of areas. Planners seem to be caught in a cycle of needing increasing numbers of higher-income workers, who displace lower income workers, and who at the same time support unrealistic below-market-rate housing needed to carry out the City’s goals to keep lower-income workers in the City.

 

We like to remind voters that often one law acts as a chain reaction necessitating more and more laws.  The same holds true for micromanagement of City living.  One plan, especially an artificial one that attempts to manipulate basic market forces, will lead to the necessity of more plans.  Soon, we are faced with a situation nobody likes!

 

 

Either the designers of the drastic regional upheaval, commonly known as “Plan Bay Area” or “One Bay Area,” thought they could work around the fact that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, of they did not connect this physical law with human behavior, as most common-sense folks do.

 

The Libertarian Party of San Francisco, as well as many other groups, sprang into action, as should have been expected, as soon as Plan Bay Area started to take form. We began disseminating information, attending public meetings, and reaching out to form coalitions. See our articles “Plan Bay Area: Vision or Micromanagement?” and “Plan Bay Area Adopted Under the Cloak of Midnight, Literally!”  In the second article, we joined many other groups in sounding the alarm that Plan Bay Area would be a factor in the disappearance of affordable housing, loss of property values in some areas, increased use of eminent domain, and loss of livability and transportation choices.

 

The second round of reaction came soon after Plan Bay Area was adopted on July 18, 2013, in the form of lawsuits from the right and the left, aimed at the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the architects of Plan Bay Area.  Here is a list of current lawsuits, all of which could use the public’s moral and financial support.

 

 

BAY AREA CITIZENS vs. ABAG AND MTC: Filed in Alameda Superior Court on August 6, 2013, represented in court by attorneys from the Pacific Legal Foundation. This petition for a writ of mandate, seeks a court order telling ABAG and MTC to cease their violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and consider alternative plans.

 

Bay Area Citizens, a non-profit, was co-founded by Peter Singleton, a Larkspur resident and attorney.   The Pacific Legal Foundation’s motto is “Rescuing Liberty from Coast to Coast.” 

 

A press release by the Pacific Legal Foundation announcing the lawsuit describes their objections to Plan Bay Area:

 

“Plan Bay Area would foist a one-size-fits-all vision of ‘transit oriented development’ on the region,” said PLF Principal Attorney Damien Schiff.

 

“In this planner’s dream environment, everyone would complacently agree to a regimented lifestyle, living in multi-family housing, and walking, bike-riding, or taking public transit to work. The drafting agencies have come up with an ambitious strategy to micro-manage people’s lifestyle choices. All that’s missing is the legally required justification for doing so. Instead, they’ve studiously ignored data that contradict their agenda. They’ve cherry picked facts to create a false need for their draconian development prescriptions.”

 

http://www.pacificlegal.org/Release/Lawsuit-says-Plan-Bay-Areas-drafters-wore-blinders

 

BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION BAY AREA vs. ABAG AND MTC: Filed in Alameda Superior Court on August 16, 2013, represented in court by their own attorneys. This petition for a writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief seeks an official declaration of the legal status of Plan Bay Area, and charges ABAG/MTC with violating California Senate Bill 375 and CEQA.

 

The Building Industry Association Bay Area is a non-profit association representing builders, developers, and other professionals, both individuals and organizations, involved in the residential development and construction industry in the Bay Area.

 

Portions of the Petition read as follows:

 

“Instead of delivering a realistic and feasible plan, Respondents [ABAG/MTC] have prepared an SCS [Sustainable Communities Strategy, mandated by SB375], called “Plan Bay Area,” that fails to solve the Bay Area’s bad habit of exporting its housing needs to outlying areas, condemning more of its workforce to lengthy communities.”

 

“Respondents did not consider the environmental impacts of their proposed SCS until [the] second phase of the process, which helps explain why the environmental impact review violates the most basic tenets of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQUA).”

 

“Respondents, however, refused to give adequate consideration to alternatives actually grounded in real world assumptions, and they failed to honor CEQA’s purpose of ensuring informed decision-making.”

 

http://www.biabayarea.org/bay-area-builders-sue-regional-agencies-over-failure-to-comply-with-landmark-state-housing-law/

 

COMMUNITIES FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT AND THE SIERRA CLUB vs. MTC AND ABAG. Filed in Alameda Superior Court on August 19, 2013. They are represented in court by Earthjustice. This petition for writ of mandate challenges the environmental review conducted by Plan Bay Area under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

 

Communities for a Better Environment is an environmental justice organization, whose mission is to build people’s power in California’s communities of color and low income. The Sierra Club is a non-profit founded by conservationist John Muir.  Earthjustice is a non-profit, public interest law organization, dedicated to litigating environmental issues.

 

Earthjustice’s claims against Plan Bay Area are summarized as follows,

 

Increases the time people will be spending in their car and on the road.

 

Does not spend enough on shoring up inadequate public transportation systems.

 

Proposes housing developments without committing to investments in public transportation serving those developments.

 

Fails to protect the communities closes to major transportation hubs, highways, and ports from increased toxic air pollution, as the region increases freight movement around them.

 

Fails to address population growth and rising housing costs, which cause more people to move to areas with inadequate public transportation and rely more on cars, worsening air pollution, quality of life, and traffic.

 

http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/PlanBayAreaPetition(8-19-13).pdf

 

THE POST SUSTAINABILITY INSTITUTE, ROSA KOIRE, MICHAEL SHAW vs. ABAG AND MTC: Filed in Alameda Superior Court on October 15, 2013. They are represented in court by Timothy V. Kassouni, a constitutional property rights attorney. This petition for writ of mandate seeks to overturn Plan Bay Area on grounds that the plan violates constitutional rights as well as voter-approved ordinances.

 

The Post Sustainability Institute is a non-profit, non-partisan, non-governmental think tank, established to study the impacts that United Nations Agenda 21/Sustainable Development and Communitarianism have on liberty.

 

A summary of the violations cited by The Post Sustainability Institute reads as follows:

 

Violates the 5th Amendment by taking property rights without just compensation:  By the creation of Priority Development Areas, this Plan restricts 80% of residential development and 66% of commercial development to just a few small areas of your city–until the year 2040.  If your property is outside of the PDA (96% of property is outside) you will likely not be able to build or expand your building–and you won’t be paid for this loss.

 

Violates the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause: Owners of properties in the Priority Development Areas will receive development permits at a rate of approximately 80 times more than owners of property outside of the Priority Development Areas.

 

Violates voter-approved Urban Growth Boundary ordinances:  Because the Priority Development Areas are within the UGBs but are much smaller restricted areas they are in violation of ordinances that clearly state that development must be encouraged out to the limits of city services

 

Violates the development rights of rural properties in the nine-county Bay Area:  Plan Bay Area is effectively taking conservation easements on all rural lands without paying for them. 

 

Restricts development rights of property within the Priority Development Areas: Construction will be limited to mixed-use
high density Smart Growth development.  Existing buildings are likely to be out of compliance with your city’s General Plan (legal non-conforming) and permits to make additions or changes will likely not be granted.

 

http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/lawsuit-against-a21.html

 

CHANCES FOR A GOLDILOCKS EFFECT?

 

It seems to us laypeople that Plan Bay Area cannot survive this plethora of lawsuits unscathed. If the plan is taking punches from both the left and the right, what could possibly be good about it? However, at the same time, how about a Goldilocks effect working against the lawsuits? The essence of left-leaning lawsuits calls for more regulation; while that of right-leaning lawsuits want all the regulations to go away and leave everybody be. Might not the courts declare Plan Bay Area “Just right?”

 

We better support the lawsuit of our choice!

Voting is a right written in our Constitution, but as all the other rights, never to be taken for granted:  “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.”  We urge you to show up, vote, and be counted!  Your voting place is shown on your voter handbook; or you can call the San Francisco Department of Elections at (415) 554-4375 for assistance.  If you have a vote by mail ballot, but did not have a chance to mail it in on time, fill it out and bring it to your voting place.  The Libertarian Party of San Francisco makes the following recommendations:

 

Propostion A – NO

Proposition B – YES

Proposition C – YES

Proposition D – NO

 

The three local city officials on the ballot, City Attorney, Treasurer, and Assessor-Recorder are running for reelection unopposed.  We do not recommend any of these three candidates.  Supervisor Katy Tang of District 4 is running against Ivan Seredni.  We we do not make a recommendation for or against the candidates for District 4.

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Opponent’s Argument Against Proposition A

Rebuttal to Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition A

There is a key sentence in this Charter Amendment that isn’t mentioned in the ballot summary. It appears twice, once with respect to employees hired on or before January 9, 2009, and once with respect to employees hired after that date. That sentence reads as follows: “In the event that the contribution rates set forth above do not cover the entire Normal Cost, the Employer shall contribute the balance into the RHCTF (Retiree Health Care Trust Fund).” What this means in plain English: If retiree health care costs end up not being fully covered by the 2% or less of their salaries that city employees are required to pay toward those costs, their employer – YOU, the taxpayer – will be required to make up the difference! Even if the city were near bankrupt, with schools closing, roads full of potholes, hospitals falling apart, parks full of trash and weeds, and police and fire protection virtually non-existent, it wouldn’t matter. The gold-plated health care plans provided to people who worked for the city decades ago, and their dependents, would still have first claim on your tax dollars if Prop. A passes. There’s no trust fund for MUNI maintenance. There’s no trust fund for the upkeep of San Francisco parks. There’s no trust fund to ensure our streets are properly paved. But well-paid government employees –  including the Supervisors who put this measure on the ballot – want to make sure THEY have a trust fund that will take care of them. We say let them share an uncertain future with the rest of us. Vote NO on Prop. A. Libertarian Party of San Francisco P.S. If a ballot measure is too long, unclear, confusing, or complicated, it’s best to vote it down. If you don’t understand it, it’s irresponsible to pass it.

5 Facts About A: 1. It’s no “lockbox”. The city can immediately draw against the trust fund, even though it’s underfunded. Currently, the trust fund is off limits until 2020. No more under Proposition A. Withdrawals are allowed if the city’s retiree health care costs exceed 10% of payroll, about $130 million. The SF Chronicle notes the city will exceed the target every year for the foreseeable future. 2. It won’t protect retiree health care money from misappropriation. RHCTF funds are reserved for retiree health care costs under today’s law. Proposition A doesn’t change that. 3. It won’t close the city’s retiree health care deficit, nor protect future generations. Proposition A won’t protect taxpayers from rising health care costs, and low withdrawal limits mean the supervisors will mismanage the RHCTF. 4. The savings from A benefit the city’s highest-paid employees, like the supervisors. Their health care plans will be off limits for budget cuts, meaning providers can bill city taxpayers excessively. Basic services like police and fire get no such protection. 5. Even the Author of A admits the city leaders backing it want to “raid” retiree health care money. Why should you trust them to protect what they’ve said they’d rather spend? Proposition A will protect health plans of imminent retirees like the supervisors, but threaten them for later retirees. Surely elementary teachers don’t want their students funding their retirement benefits. Please join us in voting NO on A. Libertarian Party of San Francisco

THE NOVEMBER 5TH ELECTIONS AND OUR LIBERTARIAN AIM

 

The Libertarian Party of San Francisco has upheld its record of recommending the exact opposite of what voters passed in any given election, and we are not at all disheartened!  Our aim is to shrink government to a constitutional and sustainable size, while politicians’ aim is to sink as much resources as necessary to convince voters to make government grow.  We intend to persevere in our aim.

 

Typically, voters do not turn out in good numbers in an off-year municipal election.  November 5th was no exception.  As of November 6, the San Francisco Department of Elections reported that ballots cast were 22.59% of registered voters (440,028 registered and 99,417 ballots cast).

 

Registered Libertarians in San Francisco make up a relatively small number of total registration (2,760 registered Libertarians).  However, dedicated small numbers can turn tides.  We urge Libertarians to get involved in the political process and promote libertarian ideals via the ballot box.  Of course, we also urge more Libertarian Party registration, especially since third parties like ours need to keep up our numbers to maintain our qualified political party status.

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE 

NOVEMBER 5TH, 2013 ELECTIONS
 

Proposition A: Retiree Health Care Trust Fund

Charter Amendment – NO

Supervisor Farrell’s Proposition A is an effort to protect the City’s Retiree Health Care Trust Fund (RHCTF) from under funding and mismanagement. Protecting taxpayers and the City’s promised services from exploding retiree health care costs is an excellent goal, but Proposition A is a step in the wrong direction.

 

Today, the retired public employees’ trust fund is protected from withdrawals until 2020. Proposition A ends that protection, and replaces it with the uncertain requisite that withdrawals from sub-trusts not be made until the sub-trusts are fully funded – unless City retiree health care costs exceed 10% of City payroll costs. We consider this bar too low to serve as protection against early withdrawals from the trust, since the City Controller’s Five-year Plan indicates City salaries will rise around 3.1% and “fringe benefits” will rise at a five-year average of 10.2%.

 

Proposition A adds the following, “In the event that the contribution rates set forth above do not cover the entire normal cost, the employer shall contribute the balance into the RHCTF.” We interpret this to mean that taxpayers carry ultimate responsibility for funding the Health Care Trust. Therefore, please vote wisely. Vote NO on Proposition A.

 

Please see the Libertarian Party of San Francisco official Opponent’s Argument Against Proposition A  and Rebuttal to Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition A in the San Francisco Department of Elections Voter Information Pamphlet http://www.sfgov2.org/index.aspx?page=3979 

The Argument and the Rebuttal are reproduced in the “News” section of this website:  Argument Against Proposition A

 

Proposition B: 8 Washington Street Initiative Ordinance – YES

Proposition B allows development of upscale residential housing along the Embarcadero waterfront, which will also include a public park, open space, ground floor retail and cafes, and pedestrian and bicycle access to The Embarcadero.  Most of the site (80%) is private property currently being used as a private tennis/swim club; the remainder of the property is owned by The City and currently used as a surface parking lot.  The developers have secured from the Board of Supervisors an Ordinance to increase the legal building heights on approximately half-acre portion of the site. Proposition B was placed on the ballot to counter a Referendum seeking to overturn the Supervisors’ Ordinance.

 

As Libertarians we are encouraged to see the relaxation of rules and regulations that prohibit the owners of private property from doing what they choose with their own property.  Therefore we recommend a YES vote on this measure.

 

Proposition C: 8 Washington Street Referendum Ordinance – YES

Proposition C asks: Shall the City Ordinance increasing legal building height limits on approximately half-acre portion of the 8 Washington Street Site along Drumm Street take effect?

 

A YES vote would allow the Board of Supervisors Ordinance increasing the height limits to stand; thereby allowing for the development of 8 Washington Street. A NO vote would nullify the Ordinance; thereby preventing the development of 8 Washington Street.

 

Again, we like the easing of arbitrary government regulations which restrict choice; and we prefer that property owners not be prevented from doing what they choose with their own property. Following those preferences, we recommend a YES vote on the 8 Washington Street Referendum.

 

Proposition D: Prescription Drug Purchasing Declaration of Policy – NO

Proposition D makes it official City policy to use all available opportunities to reduce the City’s cost of prescription drugs.  While it obviously makes good economic sense for any organization or entity to always buy at the best prices, this measure takes the wrong approach to high pharmaceutical prices.  Rather than look at the root problem—heavy government involvement with and extensive regulation of the industry via the FDA—it rails against Big Pharma in this feel-good measure which will do nothing to actually bring the prices down. 

 

Only true competition can lower prices, and this can only be accomplished by loosening up the regulation of the industry so more companies can enter the field.  Rather than passing laws demanding lower prices, we prefer to see more companies creating the competitive environment necessary for prices to decrease. Therefore, we recommend a NO vote.

  

ELECTION NOTES:

The San Francisco Libertarian Party is the perennial loyal opposition to The City’s forever-proliferating rules and regulations. We endeavor to show how inevitably these rules and regulations are fraught with dueling needs of special interests, often resulting in unrealistic objectives, unintended consequences, and the need for more rules and regulations to “fix” the ones passed before. Our recommendations are always shaped by our view that divergent needs should be resolved at the negotiating table, the market place, and the mediation room.  We offer the following two instances as example of our view:

 

We have heard Propositions B & C characterized as David and Goliath. Proposition B, say its detractors, is the big Goliath robbing public space from the little people. Proposition C, say its supporters, is David personified, fighting to keep the Waterfront open for the average guy.  Well, another point of view is that these two propositions are a fight between the super rich who want multi million-dollar condos, and the super rich who own multi-million dollar condos whose property value would decrease when 8 Washington partially block their view of the Waterfront. For a good article on these two propositions see http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/a-big-tina-fey-eye-roll-for-8-washington/Content?oid=2591181

 

Proposition A is yet another attempt to “save” government employees’ health care. The list of supporters includes unions. One rank-and-file member eloquently questions that Proposition A will benefit the rank and file retirees, since the proposal removes control from the voters and the unions by giving the City Controller, Mayor, and Board of Supervisors greater control. Proposition A adds, among other provisions, section “(d) (3)” which states that these three entities can change disbursement limitations. Here again, we have conflicting needs that are difficult to reconcile via government edict. For a heartfelt presentation of a rank-and-filer see: SF Prop A- An Attack On Public Workers-SF City Workers Speak Out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q60h-aD6wA4&feature=youtu.be

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

 

 

San Francisco Supervisor David Campos introduced a resolution on September 9th, urging the Board of Supervisors to explore the feasibility of the City using eminent domain to seize underwater properties from lenders. Ostensibly, such a plan is designed to keep homeowners in their underwater homes when lenders do not readily cooperate in reducing mortgage principal to match what borrowers can pay. In reality, this resolution fits right in with the City’s relentless march toward “public” (as opposed to private) control of real property, by totally distorting the capital market via (1) promotion of home ownership regardless of borrowers ability to pay, (2) rent control, (3) passage of legislation such as the Housing Trust. The laws of economics are as immutable as the laws of nature. The more these laws are messed with, the more messing is required to keep things from imploding.

 

We need to remember, that the word “homeowner” represents a complex concept. Unless buyers pay the entire selling price of a property at time of sale, the real owners of the property are the lenders, as well as the investors behind the mortgages. Banks and other lenders employ a lot of folks in the City, supported by a lot of mortgage investors.  Is Mr. Campos remembering that? Or is he planning more legislation to force banks and other lenders to do business in the City?

 

And let’s not forget SB1 currently hatching in the State Legislature, expanding the use of eminent domain to include inefficient land use. Is your property safe from the proliferation of land grabs?  If you do not think it is, you might want to call Campos and the other Supervisors expressing your concern.

 

 

The version of eminent domain used in cities such as Richmond and proposed by Supervisor Campos often results in a lot of financial rewards: borrowers get their principal drastically reduced, city governments keep the difference between what they paid for properties and what they sell them for to their investors, investors get fees for handling the transactions, lenders might even benefit from short sales.   Add political benefits accruing from the expansion of power, and such plans become unstoppable.

 

However, from our perspective, although financial rewards are of course desirable, if they come with serious consequences, they should be rejected. Therefore, we encourage San Franciscans to consider the following:

 

Investors in mortgage backed securities (public employees’ pension funds, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, bequests funding various institutions) are likely to suffer losses as the securities get shuffled around.

 

States and municipalities, trying to find ways to overcome the challenge of ever increasing pension costs will find themselves with one more thing to worry about, the increased risk of MBS, rendered open to modifications due to property seizure.

 

Ordinary wage earners will see a loss of job opportunities as the more risk-averse lending institutions shy away from operating in localities with heightened eminent domain powers.

 

Borrowers might see a loss of borrowing opportunities from the more risk-averse institutions.

 

We all lose with any whittling away of the private property protections clearly spelled out in the United States Constitutions – there are good reasons why our Founding Fathers placed those protections there!