Author: lpsf

November 6:  The San Francisco Department of Elections reported that Propositon A passed with a “Yes” vote of 68.77% and a “No” vote of 31.23%.

 

August 19:  The Libertarian Party of San Francisco filed its Rebuttal to the Argument in favor of Proposition A submitted by the Proposition’s supporters.  Public employees’ retirement benefits is a most important issue facing state and local governments all across America, including San Francisco.   In LPSF’s constant effort to encourage voters and taxpayers to be mindful of what they vote for, we will continue our discussion on Proposition A until Election Day on November 5, 2013.

Also, we would welcome your comments and views.  In addition to the contact information provided by the article below, we invite you to leave a message on the LPSF Voice Mail (415) 775-5773, join our Facebook Page, and/or join our Yahoo Groups Discussion List.

 

 

UPDATES:

On September 12, 2013, SB1 was ordered to Inactive File at the request of its author, Senator Darrell Steinberg.  Strange development, but perhaps an interesting move, considering Senator Steinberg is hoping for Governor Brown’s favorable reception of two other of his bills:  Bill Prohibiting Detachable Magazines on Rifles (SB 374), and CEQA Modernization Bill (SB 743).

The bill was ordered on September 4 to a third reading in the Assembly, after passing Committee with 12 Yes and 5 No on August 30.  SB1 may not turn out to be the slam-dunk Steinberg may have been hoping for.  Even if it eventually passes the Legislature, it needs the approval of Governor Brown.  By way of background, in 2011 Governor Brown led the push to dismantle the California Redevelopment Agency, based on the Agency’s dubious cost effectiveness.  But bureaucrats never cease in their efforts to bring this monster back from the dead.  SB1 is the latest effort.

Earlier, on August 21, 2013, SB1 was referred to the Suspense File to be evaluated again at a later date.  The Bill had passed Assembly Committee on August 14, 2013.  Votes were YES 6 (Levine, Alejo, Bradford, Gordon, Mullin, and Rendon), and NO 3 (Achadjian, Melendez, and Waldron). 

ANALYSIS AND OPPORTUNITY FOR ACTION:

SB1, “Sustainable Communities Investment Authority,” written by CA Senators Darrell Steinberg and Mark DeSaulnier, is scheduled to be heard in California Assembly Local Government Committee On August 14, 2013, 1:30 pm (See Update above).

Why does the Libertarian Party of San Francisco care whether this bill passes?

We have been speaking out against Plan Bay Area for a couple of years. SB1 is PBA’s major funding mechanism.

Why should you care whether this bill passes?

• If you said good riddance to the old Redevelopment Agency (remember the razing of the Fillmore District!), you will be disappointed to have mini-Redevelopment Agencies all over the Bay Area.
• If you think your neighborhood could not possibly be declared blighted and therefore subject to eminent domain, you will be shocked to learn that it might be, under the guidelines for “blight” this bill contains.
• If you believe We the People have control over the taxes we pay, you will be disuaded of that when faced with the “incremental financing” determined by your local bureaucrats which fund this bill.
• If you think Plan Bay Area’s extensive redevelopment plans will bring a better standard of living to your family via plentiful jobs and “affordable housing” (all promised by this bill), you might be disappointed to find yourself embroiled in union labor disputes and priced out of a dense housing market (see LPSF’s article below discussing displacement of low-income families).
  

What can you do?

Whether you support or oppose this or any other bill is your right. We can only tell you what we believe based on the research we do. Call, write, e-mail, fax – get involved.  We have listed telephone numbers to call at the end of this article.

What has the Libertarian Party of San Francisco done?

We have called, written, e-mailed, faxed, and gotten involved.  Aubrey Freedman, our Chair, has written to the Assembly’s Local Government Committee stating the Libertarian Party of San Francisco’s opposition to SB1.  The text of his letter is reproduced below.

 

 

August 10, 2013

Assemblyman Katcho Achadjian, Chairman

Assembly Local Government Committee

1020 North Street, Room 157

Sacramento, CA 95814                   

Re: SB1 – Sustainable Communities Investment Authority

 

Dear Assemblyman Achadjian:

 

The Libertarian Party of San Francisco is very concerned about and has voted to oppose SB1, which is currently in committee in the California State Assembly. In addition to bringing back redevelopment, which has a history of racism and corruption, this bill will only contribute to the environment of ever-increasing taxes in California. It also includes a dangerous definition of “blight” that will enable governmental bureaucrats to declare almost any piece of private property subject to eminent domin. Lastly there is a lack of accountability in this bill since unelected bureaucrats will be making all the decisions and the citizens will have no say in how their taxes are spent.

 

Scattered throughout this bill are numerous references to “new sources of revenue.” This can only mean higher taxes, new taxes, or more governmental debt. Since local and state governments can only operate by collecting taxes from productive citizens, or borrowing money by indebting future taxpayers, this bill intends to create new government agencies with lofty, ambitious, and overreaching goals in mind. The end result will inevitably be more government and higher taxes. Aren’t taxes high enough in California? In some cities and counties, already the sales tax rates are almost 10%, the highest in the nation. Several cities in California have already gone bankrupt. Why increase the opportunities for higher taxation? Isn’t enough enough already?

 

This bill includes a new definition of “blight” that puts all property owners in California at risk. Traditionally property could only be taken when government was going to build something for the common good like a dam or highway. Then the Kelso ruling came along and government could now seize property and give it to private developers if it could be shown that such action would create more “revenue.” This bill goes even further by declaring that “inefficient land use patterns” can now be considered as “blight.” Chapter 2, Section 34191.20 (c) on page 5 of the bill says, “An authority created pursuant to this part may rely on the legislative determination of blight and shall not be required to make a separate finding of blight or conduct a survey of blight within the project area.” The bureaucrats don’t even have to go through the formality of investigating if the property really is a public health hazard or the sight of criminal activity—a mere determination is good enough. And who will decide what is “efficient” or “inefficient” use of the land? Obviously the unelected bureaucrats will. Since this bill is all about encouraging densely packed living in large cities, rural and suburban property owners will be most at risk—at first. However, once governmental bureaucrats have the legal power to declare any property as “blight,” under such loose and vague wording, any property owner anywhere in California may find the force of governmental authority used against him or her. Clearly government should be protecting property rights, not decimating them.

 

Finally there is a tremendous lack of transparency and accountability in this bill. These Sustainable Communities Investment Authorities will all be staffed by bureaucrats appointed by government officials. They will not be elected by the public. There will be no voting by the taxpayers on who serves on these agencies and no recourse if the taxpayers are displeased with the actions of the bureaucrats, especially when it comes to new taxes or governmental debt. In a democracy, as a last resort at least the taxpayers can always vote an elected official out of office. Can they do so when they didn’t even get to vote for the bureaucrat? In yet another example of total disregard for the taxpayers in SB1, Chapter 5, Section 34191.35 (a) on page 15 states, “The questionnaires and financial statements shall not be public records and shall not be open to public inspection.” This refers to the prequalification requirements of private developers bidding for the dense housing projects that are planned for all the urban areas of California if SB1 passes. These private developers stand to make millions off these projects—what are they hiding? Since these are all taxpayer monies, why shouldn’t the public have a right to know about their financial dealings and connections? Why shouldn’t this all be open to public scrutiny? If everything is all on the up-and-up, then what’s wrong with full disclosure? Something is amiss here.

 

Please vote NO on SB1. It spells disaster for the taxpayers of California.

Sincerely,

Aubrey Freedman

Libertarian Party of San Francisco – Chair

 

Who To Call:   Talk to someone, or just call after work and leave a message!

 

Assembly Appropriations Commitee:

Mike Gatto (Chair)   916 319-2043

Diane Harkey (Vice Chair)   916 319-2073

Franklin Bigelow   916 319-2005

Raul Bocanegra   916 319-2039

Steven Bradford   916 319-2062

Ian Calderon   916 319-2057

Nora Campos   916 319-2027

Tim Donnelly   916 319-2033

Susan T. Eggman   916 319-2013

Jimmy Gomez   916 319-2051

Isadore Hall   916 319-2064

Chris R. Holden   916 319-2041

Eric Linder   916 319-2060

Richard Pan   916 319-2009

Bill Quirk   916 319-2020

Donald Wagner   916 319-2068

Shirley N. Weber   916 319-2079

 

State Assembly:
Katcho Achadjian  (916) 319-2035

Marc Levine  (916)319-2010

Luis A. Alejo  (916) 319-2030

Steven Bradford  (916) 319-2062

Richard S. Gordon  (916) 319-2024

Melissa A. Melendez  (916) 319-2067

Kevin Mullin  (916) 319-2022

Anthony Rendon  (916) 319-2063

Marie Waldron  (916) 319-2075

 

 

 

 

 

UPDATES:

On October 1, 2013, AB351 was appoved by Governor Brown.

As of September 3, 2013, AB351 passed both houses of Legislation.  The next step is for Governor Brown to sign it into law.  Please call or write the Governor to show support for his signing the bill.  To call:  (916) 445-2841. 

On August 12, 2013, AB351 was ordered for a third reading in the State Senate.  So, the Bill is still alive, but needs your help in getting it passed.  Please call the legislators listed at the end of this article to express your views.

BACKGROUND AND OPPORTUNITY FOR ACTION:

California Assemblyman Tim Donnelly’s AB351, a bill which starts the process of stopping “Indefinite Detention” under the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act), has passed the State Assembly by a vote of 71 – 1, and the State Senate Public Safety Committee as well.  The next step is a hearing and vote in the Senate Appropriations Committee, where the bill is scheduled to be heard on August 12, 2013. (See Update above)

On February 26, 2013, thanks to efforts of groups opposing the “Indefinite Detention” clause of the NDAA, including the Libertarian Party of San Francisco, the San Francsico Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a Resolution declaring San Francisco’s opposition to the clause.  The same can be accomplished at the California Legislature’s level.

Action Steps for California Residents:

 

Contact members of the Appropriations Committee:

Senator Kevin de Leon (Chair) (916) 651-4022

Senator Mimi Walters (Vice Chair) (916) 651-4037

Senator Ted Gaines (916) 651-4001

Senator Jerry Hill (916) 651-4013

Senator Ricardo Lara (916) 651-4033

Senator Alex Padilla (916) 651-4020

Senator Darrell Steinberg (916) 651-4006

 

 

At their meeting of “July 18”, after several hours of listening to public comments, the joint Executive Boards of ABAG/MTC started the voting to determine adoption of Plan Bay Area — at around 12:15 am. Although some public comments at this meeting were positive, most used terms that ranged from “unconstitutional” to “abomination.” However, the Plan was adopted, as expected.

At least one member of the public who offered a comment indicated that lawsuits were being filed against Plan Bay Area. The Post Sustainability Institute/Democrats Against UN Agenda 21 and Freedom Advocates are launching a legal challenge to Plan Bay Area, pointing to several violations of the Plan, such as those against the 5^th Amendment of the US Constitution (taking of private property without just compensation), the 14^th Amendment of the US Constitution (equal protection clause), the voter-approved Urban Growth Boundary ordinances (plans encouraging growth in the periphery of cities), etc. Visit the Post Sustainability Institute website for details of the lawsuit, and to pitch in to help fund the lawsuit should you agree with its premise; see link below.

Although the vote to adopt Plan Bay Area sailed through, some Commissioners expressed concern about funding for the two key features of the Plan, housing and transportation. Those concerns are well warranted! The 28-year horizon and the projected revenues of the Plan are both on the ambitious side.

 

 

The forecasts prepared by MTC, the transportation mastermind, are “used to plan investments that fit within the financially constrained envelope of revenues that are reasonably expected to be available.” Couple that constraint with the volatile times in which we live, and we might be in for some challenges. See the link below to “One Bay Area, Chapter 4, Investments.”

 

And how about funding for “affordable housing,” the other major component of Plan Bay Area? As one Commissioner said at the July 18 meeting with some exasperation, it is one thing to be in charge of planning and zoning but it is another thing to have funding. “California Housing Element law (Article 10.6 of the California Government Code) requires each jurisdiction to plan for housing for all income levels by ensuring that local zoning and planning support the production of a diverse range of new housing.” And the money for that comes from where? San Franciscans should expect to see displacement of low-income communities, as investment pours into the “Priority Development Areas,” which happen to be corridors where residents of modest means now live. See the link below to an interesting set of Plan Bay Area “FAQ.”

 

Noteworthy legislation should continue to emanate from the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and the Mayor’s office. The Board approved “Micro-Units” last December, tiny stack & pack 220 square-feet apartments, which are estimated to rent for $1,300-$1,500. The full Board is expected to adopt in late July the Board’s Land Use & Economic Development Committee requirement that new and renovated construction provide bike racks or face a $400 fee for each spot not provided; presumably this legislation applies to senior housing? The plan to remove parking spaces from Polk Street has received enough push back from merchants to delay its implementation temporarily.

 

Commissioners at the July 18 meeting characterized Plan Bay Area as a work in progress. As always we Libertarians are encouraging San Franciscans to pay attention to the legislation, regulations, and tax increases in the works. Doing so will indeed make Plan Bay Area a work in progress where residents of San Francisco have a say in what progresses.

http://www.postsustainabilityinstitute.org/lawsuit-to-stop-agenda-21.html

http://onebayarea.org/pdf/Draft_Plan_Bay_Area/04-Investments.pdf

http://www.onebayarea.org/about/faq.html

 

Plan Bay Area: A boon to “Affordable Housing?”

 

As libertarians have been saying for a while now, Plan Bay Area comes with some serious challenges, such as micromanagement of the economy and the people, and a colossal appetite for funds. Concerns most often heard are about private property and transportation preferences. Property owners located in the Plan’s “unpopular” locations outside the Priority Development Areas worry about their property’s loss of value and their community’s loss of services. Property owners located inside the desirable PDA’s owning “unpopular” single-family homes worry about unequal treatment at best and eminent domain at worst. Automobile lovers are livid over the Plan’s bike-centered, parking-space-removing strategies.

 

Plan Bay Are also comes with a lot of promises — clean air, plentiful jobs, mass transportation, beautification, and affordable housing. Environmentalists are delighted and pushing for more regulation, developers are salivating over the thought of homes for an additional 280,000 people to be crammed into San Francisco’s PDA’s. Students seem to be particularly pleased with the prospect of an economical, maybe even free, way to get to school. However, the magic word, the ace in the hole, is “affordable housing.” Young workers, students, families of modest means are hopeful that Plan Bay Area will bring relief to the ever-increasing housing costs. Especially in San Francisco, is this hopeful expectation warranted? We offer a few thoughts to ponder on this subject.

 

A. Upward Market Pressure: Plan Bay Area’s Equity Analysis Report speaks of vulnerable neighborhoods that “may face” upward market pressure. We learn in Economics 101 that upward market pressure, or to use another term for the same phenomenon, cost of living increase, is inevitable when investment and population pours into any area.

http://onebayarea.org/pdf/final_supplemental_reports/FINAL_PBA_Equity_Analysis_Report.pdf [Pg 17]

 

B. Land vs. number of dwellings: As a rule, increased supply of any item for consumption will reduce its cost. However, in the case of real property we need to consider both number of dwellings (to increase under Plan Bay Area) and availability of desirable land (to decrease under Plan Bay Area). In Evaluation of Plan Bay Area, Wendell Cox indicates the following:

There is considerable evidence that urban containment policies drive up the price of land for residential development, especially by rationing land. This is consistent with the economic principle that rationing of a good or service tends to lead to higher prices. Urban containment policies are in wide use in the Bay Area, especially urban growth boundaries, while house prices have escalated far out of proportion with the increase in household income…

Brookings Institution economist Anthony Down attributes such residential land cost increase to the failure to maintain a competitive market for land. The difference between house prices in the Bay Area and those in liberally (traditionally) regulated markets are principally the cost of land.

As it affects San Francisco, a relatively small land area, the restrictive land policies inherent in Plan Bay Area will have magnified effects. Land prices will skyrocket, raising the price of property (regardless of supply of dwellings), and displacing low-income communities. Try as it may, Plan Bay Area cannot escape the laws of economics – no more than it can escape the laws of gravity.

http://www.pacificresearch.org/california/california-article-detail/new-pacific-research-institute-study-finds-that-plan-bay-area-will-drive-housing-prices-higher/

 

C. “Issue 4: Facilitate Permanently Affordable Housing”:   In all fairness to San Francisco planners, it is important that this section, be included in any analysis of displacement of low-income communities under Plan Bay Area.   Planners intend to make concerted efforts to find financing for development of affordable housing, advocate for affordable housing, find financing for maintenance of subsidized housing, implement land subsidy trusts, implement “zoning accommodations,” etc.   Sounds like an all-consuming effort that threatens to impact low-income households who depend on other publicly-financed programs, such as public schools and health departments. Displacement of those who can afford to leave potentially deteriorating school districts, for example, would be a blessing in comparison to the fate of those who cannot afford to leave.

http://www.sf-planning.org/ftp/general_plan/I1_Housing.html

 

D. Unequal “Equal Protection”: Plan Bay Area’s Equity Report indicates that focused growth increases displacement potential by approximately two-thirds, but the effect is not disproportionately high for communities of concern when compared to the reminder of the region (Pg 4-20). This “equal protection” view is hardly comforting, since vulnerable communities do not have the resiliency to withstand increases in costs of living nor the easy mobility of other communities.

 

E. Removal of rent-controlled housing. Libertarians are no fan of rent control as means to provide affordable housing; however, transparency calls for mentioning Plan Bay Area’s potential for leaving a lot of low-income families without it. If planners want to cram 280,000 more people in San Francisco obviously building new housing will not be sufficient. Existing single-family housing will need to be replaced with multi-family housing. The first salvo in San Francisco is The Parkmerced Mixed Use Program Development or “Parkmerced Vision” in San Francisco’s Parkmerced residential community. This plan calls for the demolition of 1,583 existing single-family units and the building of multi-family units that would house an equal number of residents. The 2010-2011 Civil Grand Jury issued a report on this plan entitled “The Parkmerced Vision: Government-By-Developer.” The report’s Conclusion states, “The Parkmerced Mixed Use Program Development Agreement, for all its complexity, fails to mitigate the most significant risk it creates: the direct loss of statutory rights by Parkmerced tenants.” The same surely holds true of Plan Bay Area — on a scale larger than “Parkmerced Vision” by magnitudes!

http://www.sfcourts.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2838 [pg 11]

Another Pride Celebration has just gone by and we were there.  A collaboration of Outright Libertarians, Golden Gate Liberty rEVOLution, The Libertarian Party of San Francisco, and The Libertarian Party of Alameda made our exhibitor booth happen.  We are grateful for the hundreds of visitors who stopped by our booth, to take the Word’s Smallest Political Quiz, to browse or collect literature, to rummage the display basket for buttons and stickers (the favorite button by far was Rosie the Riveter appropriated to deliver the libertarian message “Tax this!”), and most importantly to talk to us.  Some stopped by just to say hello; some to ask questions, accompanied by puzzled looks as to who we were;  yet others to share concerns about unequal treatment of families, education, jobs.  We welcomed the opportunity to listen, and often to battle the stranglehold of a government posing as the sole provider of personal well being.  Interestingly, on the plus side, we all agreed that this year there were more stickers on the libertarian quadrant of the of the World Smallest Political Quiz! 

 

 

 

What secret sauce could be used to entice San Francisco voters to try libertarianism? Libertarians consider this a challenging recipe, since the City is a bastion of progressive politics. However, as a third party, forever battling the Twin Goliaths, we are no stranger to challenge.

Therefore, LPSF is continuing the outreach campaign started in earnest last November, as well as the deployment of activists to Town Halls and Board of Supervisor meetings to face City leaders on subject such as Plan Bay Area, the City budget, and gun control. We continue to staff booths, attend events, and promote other libertarian individuals and groups.

We are hoping to convince a larger portion of our electorate that protecting individual liberties and bringing prosperity via private resourcefulness will produce better results than keeping so many so tied to the whims of government largess. The Big Government paradigm fed to the populace can only result in eventual total dependence. We are confident that Libertarians are not the only folks figuring this out! Given the tremendous increase in voters who indicate “No Party Preference,” it would appear to us that the strength of the Twin Goliaths might be waning.

To better acquaint the general public with the benefits of libertarianism, we need you to help us. Please consider attending one of our monthly meetings or after-meeting socials (click Meetings on our Main Menu for information); join our Discussion List and give us your input and ideas (click Discussion List on the banner above); e-mail us to receive more information about libertarianism or the Libertarian Party (click Contact Us); support our efforts by contributing to our newly established Activity Fund (click Contact Us for where to send your donation); and/or join us as a Member (click Join/Renew on the banner to fill out a membership application).

If you are already a member of another Bay Area small-government group, advise us of your efforts. Coalitions are force multipliers!

Walking into Adobe Books, an old-fashioned neighborhood bookseller located down the street from me in the Mission at 3166 16th Street, feels like walking into a time warp. It’s one of a dwindling number of stores in the area with a real bohemian look and feel to it.

It would be a real shame for it to be replaced by some sterile purveyor of expensive luggage. But according to a piece in the Uptown Almanac, that just may happen. The bookstore, which has been there 25 years and was paying $4500 a month in rent, was first told the rent would be increased to $6000/month and is now being asked to pay $8000 in the face of competing interest from a deep-pocketed chain retailer formerly known as Liz Claiborne Inc., which wants the space for its Jack Spade brand of men’s bags, accessories, and apparel.

Unlike many of those who commented on the article, I don’t blame the landlord. If he/she is asking $8000 a month for the bookstore to stay, then obviously Jack Spade is willing to pay at least that much. The $2000/month difference between $6000 and $8000 is $24,000 a year.

As I asked in a version of this comment posted on Uptown Almanac, would you take a $24,000 a year pay cut in exchange for keeping your neighborhood funkier and less commercialized, if the workload for you was going to be essentially the same either way?

If you would, and you have the kind of money where you can afford to make $24,000/year less than you otherwise could, in dedication to your aesthetic sense of beauty, justice, and so on, then we may have an easy solution to this problem. Just buy $24,000 in Adobe Books gift certificates for Christmas this year, and promise them you’ll do the same next year in perpetuity or until the economy crashes and rents come down.

But in all likelihood you don’t have the money to do that, and wouldn’t do it if you did. If you would do it, that might well be why you *can’t* do it — because you haven’t lived a money-accumulating lifestyle that would enable you to step in with such a gesture. Nothing wrong with that, but it may mean that from the landlord’s perspective you’re all talk and no walk if you’re asking him/her to make the sacrifice.

The real problem here is that efforts to save businesses like Adobe Books under the present arrangement are basically fighting against the law of supply and demand and against market incentives, which is like trying to keep water from flowing downhill…

 

 

 

Pursuing this metaphor a bit further, the left’s approach to this dilemma is basically to build dams. Since they don’t have the political power to build the equivalent of a massive Three Gorges dam by banning all chain stores from SF (which would be a huge disruption of the economy and people’s lives just as the real Three Gorges dam is a huge disruption to the environment and the people who live in that region of China), they seek to build a series of small dams by preventing the market from functioning, one development, one petition, one government hearing at a time.

Sometimes the dams get built, and sometimes they don’t, but the war is slowly being lost. San Francisco is clearly becoming more gentrified and less alternative, and the obvious corollary to this is that it is becoming more politically conservative and less hospitable to leftist values.

The irony is that the left is doing this to themselves with anti-development policies. The water is going to go downhill, sooner or later, one way or another. Simply trying to prevent the market from functioning is a losing battle and will ultimately result in San Francisco losing the cool qualities that have long characterized the city.

But there is another way. Instead of fighting the laws of nature, we could choose to unleash market forces in a way that would favor poor people, artists, mom-and-pop businesses, the counterculture, and so on. Sound impossible? It’s not. But it would take some radical changes, and mean abandoning the statism that has been the left’s flawed weapon-of-choice in the fight to keep the city cool and funky. 

Here’s a short outline of some of the changes that could make the city safe for places like Adobe Books to thrive — maybe not that particular bookstore in that particular space if monied interests want it too badly, but certainly changes that would allow it and similar home-grown establishments to thrive.

• Get rid of zoning laws. Let people run businesses out of their homes, live in the back of their workplaces, turn industrial spaces into residential spaces and vice-versa, without any government bureaucracy, permit fees, or other red tape.

• Let anyone sell their stuff on the sidewalks or other public spaces without a permit. Call it Occupy 2.0.

• Eliminate the sales tax and other regressive government takings such as building inspection fees that fall hardest on small businesses.

• Allow property parcels to be subdivided into parcels as small as an owner wishes, and sold piecemeal. This would lower the economic barriers to becoming a land owner and produce lots of smaller, more affordable venues for businesses, community, and the arts.

• Trim the excessive rules and regulations from building codes so that existing spaces could be more readily modified and configured to get the most effective use out of these subdivided parcels.

• Allow not just food trucks, but all kinds of vehicle-based retail sales. Cut the red tape and permit expenses currently associated with such. And get rid of the laws against people sleeping in their vehicles, and provide more places for people to be able to park for longer periods at a stretch without fearing the street cleaning/towing/ticketing extortion operation (this would also help the environment by reducing the need for people to be continually and unnecessarily moving their vehicles).

Any of the above changes taken individually would help. Implementing the entire list would produce a countercultural entrepreneurial renaissance the likes of which has never been seen. No longer would it take tens of thousands of dollars to go into business, let alone afford your own space for retail or manufacturing. The door would be open for every Burning Man theme camp, every group of friends with a cool idea, to be able to realize that dream and have a place of their own right here in the city. Young people, artistic people, the kind of people who make a city vibrant and diverse, would flock back to San Francisco.

The chain stores could still have their big, sterile spaces, but with all the micro-businesses sprouting up around them and in the streets, who would care? The city by the bay would be fun and exciting again.

Essentially, San Franciscans have a choice. We can embrace the kind of libertarian market revolution that would turn the tables on the soulless, corporate businesses by allowing them to be out-competed by small, nimble, artistic and dynamic alternatives, or we can keep the Big Government status quo that is slowly killing us, winning a battle here and there while slowly losinthe war.

What are Unelected Folks Serving YOU Here!?

 

Plan Bay Area is a blueprint developed by the Association of Bay Area Government s (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), designed to implement high population density areas along public transit corridors, ensure income diversity in these high-population areas, and implement strict environmental restriction to decrease Bay Area levels of particulates and other pollutants. For more information on Plan Bay Area, see lpsf.org article, Plan Bay Area: Vision or Micromanagement, Bay Are Citizens’ Alliance for Property Rights website http://www.bayarealiberty.com/libertyblog/ , or One Bay Area website http://onebayarea.org

 

Plan Bay Area will release the Draft Plan Bay Area on March 22, 2013, and will start the public comment period which will extend until May 16, 2013. Comments will be accepted on the Draft Plan as well as on the companion Draft Environmental Impact Report to be released on March 29, 2013.

 

ABAG and MTC are “slated to adopt Plan Bay Area and the companion Environmental impact Report in June 2013.” Unless, of course, voters who do not buy into this plan change that slated adoption.

 

There are multiple ways to submit your public comments on Draft Plan Bay Area and on Draft Environmental Impact Report:

Make your oral comment at one of the public hearings

Submit your comment via e-mail to info@OneBayArea.org

Provide your comment on the online forum, Plan Bay Area Town Hall (on the One Bay Area website once the Draft Plan is released)

Send your comment via snail mail to MTC, Plan Bay Area Public Comment, 101 8^th Street, Oakland, CA 94607

 

Check the One Bay Area Website for dates, times, and locations of the public meetings. The San Francisco meeting will take place on April 11, 2013, 6:00 pm to 9:00 pm Whitcomb Hotel, 1231 Market St, San Francisco.

 

 

 

With no Libertarians seeking local office this year, the LPSF is not formally endorsing any candidates.  However, we have made a few recommendations in races where one or more candidates appear to be significantly more pro-freedom (or in some cases perhaps less anti-freedom!) than their opponents.

 

First and foremost, we proudly recommend a vote for John Dennis, the Ron Paul Republican opposing Nancy Pelosi for Congress. Pelosi’s longstanding statism and anti-democratic behavior in refusing to debate any of her challengers since first being elected in 1987 aside, John has shown himself to be a solid, principled advocate of both civil liberties and limited government, Libertarian in all but name.

 

In the race for District 1 Supervisor, we recommend a vote for Sherman D’Silva. A former laundromat owner, he is an independent non-politician who believes government is “definitely too big”. While he wins no points with us for supporting zoning laws, a proposed citywide ban on nudity, etc., he also supports not only RKBA but open carry, would allow voluntary market competition to MUNI and the SFFD, and opposes laws restricting chain stores, criminalizing people sleeping in their cars, etc.

 

In District 7, we recommend a first-place vote for Democrat Joel Engardio, and a second-place vote for Bob Squeri. With the exception of John Dennis, Joel impressed us as perhaps the best local candidate we encountered this year. A former journalist who worked for the ACLU and describes himself as a “civil liberties advocate,”  he fought for immigrant rights, same-sex marriage equality, and Guantanamo detainees. His campaign materials call for reining in government spending and less statist priorities, declaring for instance that “your house is not the city’s ATM machine” and that he is running for Supervisor because “City Hall likes to ban toys in Happy Meals but can’t fill potholes.” Bob Squeri’s positions on civil liberties issues are a bit of a question mark, at least to us – if he has addressed them to any extent, it has not come to our attention. However he takes a strong line on fiscal responsibility, slamming “government corruption” and pledging to “reduce the highest paid municipal salaries” among other things. He also has an admirable background of humanitarian work in the voluntary sector.

 

In the other Supervisorial districts, no candidates came to our attention as worthy of recommendation.

 

The fields for School Board and Community College Board appear to offer fairly dismal pickings. From the information we looked at, no candidates seem particularly strong on economic liberties, our primary criteria for these offices. But in accordance with the principle of harm reduction, for School Board we recommend votes for incumbent Sandra Lee Fewer and challenger Kim Garcia-Meza, and for Community College Board we recommend votes for Steve Ngo, Rodrigo Santos, and George Vazhappally (in no particular order).