Author: lpsf

Join the Libertarian Party of San Francisco for our 5th annual panel discussion. We will be discussing the pros and cons of school choice.

Click here to reserve your tickets on Eventbrite

This event has already passed. Join us next year for another great panel discussion!

Date and Time
Thu, June 21, 2018
5:30 PM – 8:30 PM PDT

Location
Mechanics Institute – Meeting Room
57 Post Street, San Francisco, CA 94104

Panelists:

Vicki E. Alger is a Research Fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland, California and holds Senior Fellowships at the Fraser Institute, headquartered in Vancouver, British Columbia, and the Independent Women’s Forum in Washington, D.C. Her research focuses on education reforms that promote a competitive education marketplace and increase parents’ control over their children’s education. Alger has advised the U.S. Department of Education on public school choice and higher education reform. She is the author of more than forty education policy studies and four books, most recently, Failure: The Federal “Misedukation” of America’s Children.

Carol Kocivar has worked to improve public education ever since her two children attended public schools in San Francisco. She is a past President of the California State PTA and has advocated for adequate school funding, small class sizes, arts for all children, special education funding, physical education and counselors, civics education, and the defeat of vouchers. She has worked as a journalist, and attorney, and ombudsperson for special education. She hosts “Looking at Education” on KALW radio 91.7 FM in San Francisco and is a writer for Ed100.org, a web resource to create informed parent leaders.

Moderator: Allen Saakyan, founder of Simulation

Simulation is a multidisciplinary daily show and live event series featuring some of the greatest scientists, entrepreneurs, technologists, and educators of our time discussing humanity’s most thought-provoking questions.

Website: simulationseries.com
YouTube: youtube.com/simulationseries
Donate on Patreon: patreon.com/simulationseries

Schedule
5:30-6:30 Reception
6:30-7:45 Panel
7:45-8:00 Audience Q&A
8:00-8:30 Reception

Refreshments will be served.

For all inquiries or to submit a question to the panel, e-mail Rebecca Lau at vicechair@lpsf.org.

I’ve been meaning to write this article for years, and it’s only the addition of Prop G to the June ballot for a new parcel tax for San Francisco’s government teachers that prompted me to think about my experience with teachers when my son was growing up in The City.  I must add, first of all, that my experience with teachers in both government schools and religious schools was very positive. Almost without exception, I found all the teachers I had contact with were dedicated, loved the kids, and worked long and hard to make sure the kids actually learned something in school.  They weren’t just overpaid babysitters watching the kids so both parents could work, as often happens these days.

But what do you do about the occasional bad apple?  How a government school and a religious school handled the problem illustrates the essential difference between government and voluntary schools.  

I was one of the lucky ones who got my first choice on the school assignment lottery system used in San Francisco.  The Japanese Bilingual Program at Clarendon was my first choice, and through some stroke of luck, I got it. I remember well attending a tour of the school a year before my son entered kindergarten, and there was so much tension in the air that the principal noted that you could cut it with a knife.  With close to 1,000 families vying for, at most, 100 slots between the two programs at Clarendon, and the cost of $20,000/year in tuition per child (at that time) at stake if the lottery system didn’t pan out, you can understand the anxiety of the parents.

The teachers at Clarendon were excellent, not the least of the reasons being that parental involvement was required, not requested.  However, my son’s second grade teacher was not well-liked, and already there were grumblings about her teaching from the parents that year.  She was old-style teaching, and that didn’t fit in well with today’s modern, progressive San Francisco parenting. I thought she was OK—perhaps not the best or the warmest, but I wasn’t particularly concerned.

By the time my son was in the fourth grade, the situation definitely deteriorated to the point that many parents were complaining to the administration about her.  Of course, the union was involved and defended her vigorously in the numerous meetings about the teacher. According to one parent I spoke to, he said that the parents were so up in arms that they organized a strict timetable schedule amongst themselves to ensure that at least one parent was in the classroom at all times every day during school hours.  That’s how unhappy the parents were with this teacher. By the end of the school year, amazingly the teacher was flat out of luck and options, and even the union could no longer defend her with all the parents’ complaints. She was advised by the administration to retire gracefully or risk losing all her retirement benefits. She retired—and the parents celebrated.

Now here’s how a similar situation ended differently when my son moved on to a religious school for middle school.  I met his homeroom teacher at “Back to School” night, and she seemed OK to me—nothing out of the ordinary that would have evoked the brief storm that quickly followed “Back to School” night.  Sometime in the fall (either in October or early November—certainly well before Thanksgiving) on the way home from school one day, my son told me that his homeroom teacher had been replaced with another teacher.  Not a substitute—completely replaced. What happened? Apparently, the teacher was also of the old-style method of teaching and had taken to calling the kids “losers” and other non-positive names if their work did not measure up.  Her style was probably more suited for physical education and sports than academics and outraged the parents who heard about it (I hadn’t). Needless to say, progressive San Francisco parents paying good money directly out of their own pockets raised a big stink with the administration—and she was out.  Just like that.

In the government school, the parents fought long and hard for two years to get rid of a teacher they were unhappy with.  In the voluntary school, a similar situation was handled in about two months. The parents raised Cain and fearing a loss of their “customers”—and the dollars they bring—the reaction of the administration was immediate.  That’s why you never hear about “rubber rooms” for teachers when parents pay for their children’s education directly themselves.

California’s primary election is quickly approaching– it’s time to make sure you are prepared to go to the polls! The LPSF has made official recommendations on all the county-wide ballot measures to help inform you on the issues. We consider these very seriously and judge each based on the answer to the question “does this measure advance liberty or restrict it?”. Here are our recommendations, in brief:

You may have seen these already– on May 10, we mailed out 2,678 postcards to registered Libertarians in the city with this same information. We also have 4 arguments published in the city’s voter information pamphlet and spoken about many of these issues at other organizations’ events.

For more explanation on these, check out this article from our April newsletter: Both Sides Now

We’re always happy to offer more information on our positions for these and answer your questions. Please feel free to contact us, and remember to vote on June 5!

On Sunday, at the California Libertarian Convention in Long Beach, delegates voted for two candidates to share the party endorsement in the Governor’s race. What follows is a recounting of events and an explanation of why that’s healthy for the party.

When the Chair, Ted Brown, opened the call for endorsements, our own Tim Ferreira approached the podium with an unorthodox motion. Rather than moving for the party to endorse either Nickolas Wildstar or Zoltan Istvan for Governor, Mr. Ferreira made his motion to endorse both of these candidates. Although the delegates were caught by surprise, the motion passed by a majority vote, and both candidates were endorsed.

However, it didn’t end there.

An hour or so later, our business was disrupted with a motion to suspend the rules in order to reconsider the earlier endorsement. Soon, we were back to where we started with the understanding that we should consider each of these endorsements separately.

What quickly followed was a motion for the party to endorse Mr. Wildstar. In a 10 minute speech, Nickolas Wildstar’s resounding optimism had the convention ballroom fired up, and the delegates echoed this by voting unanimously an emphatic “yea” for his endorsement. It all felt so right. Spirits were soaring and the energy level was high, but it quickly dropped off as the Chair surveyed the delegates for other endorsements. The crowd fell silent and for several seconds we sat waiting nervously for the moment to pass. Just as the call was about to close, I stood and made the motion for the party to endorse Zoltan Istvan.

Zoltan was not present to speak for himself. He had not attended the second day of the convention. On his behalf, Tim Ferreira again addressed the delegates with a simple message:

“Do what is best for the party.”

At this point, it bears mentioning that these candidates are both staunch Libertarians and, put to the test, they are aligned on 99% of the issues. Despite their similar beliefs, the way they lead their campaigns could not be more different. In the Governor’s debate which took place on the first night of the convention, the two held the stage like yin and yang. Wildstar’s unrelenting positivity neatly juxtaposed Istvan’s stalwart pragmatism. Nickolas is a man of the people, and his spirit and enthusiasm will lead us to victory through igniting a grassroots movement to #BringBackLiberty. Zoltan is a high profile entrepreneur who is focused on garnering as much media attention for himself as he can, speaking on technology and transhumanism and peppering in the Libertarian message when it makes sense. At the conclusion of the debate, the crowd had a clear favorite. Nickolas Wildstar is the one who will lead us to victory.

Having spent time with both candidates and gotten to know them personally, I know that both are intelligent, passionate, and firm believers in Libertarianism. I, personally, like and support both of them. But, for the party to endorse both sends a more powerful message. For the delegates (having just voted to endorse Nickolas Wildstar) to vote to endorse another candidate seems absurd. If they believe that Wildstar is the answer and that he can win the election, it would be foolish for us to encourage Libertarians across the state to split the vote and reduce our chances of making it past California’s awful top two primary.

However, the vote was counted with 45 delegates voting “yea” versus only 35 “nay”. The party had once again settled on endorsing both candidates.

So then, are these 45 delegates fools? Have they contradicted themselves? Have they sabotaged their own goals? I think no. I think this is healthy. The vote tells me that we are becoming more pragmatic and are carefully evaluating our priorities.

As that same morning kicked off with Nick Sarwark addressing the crowd  with the message that we need to start looking outside the party— to invite others in and find out why they are coming and how we can help them realize they belong— the Libertarian Party of California delegates took a close look at themselves and came to terms with the harsh reality that we don’t have a shot of winning the Governorship in 2018. As painful as it is to admit, all the energy and optimism in the room after Wildstar’s speech does not extend far beyond those walls— not nearly far enough to garner much of a share of the vote.

By endorsing both candidates, the delegates signal their understanding that our endorsement just doesn’t mean all that much right now and that our candidates have a slim chance of making it into the top two either way. We admitted that the primary objective of these campaigns— what we can realistically hope to achieve— is to spread the message of liberty as far as we can possibly reach. Nickolas Wildstar’s ground game of hitting the streets and engaging citizens directly, and Zoltan Istvan’s national media reach introducing curious minds to Libertarian ideas through speaking on technology and futurism— both of these strategies serve the party’s goals and both of these candidates are worthy and capable of spreading our message. And we are very fortunate to have both of them leading the charge to promote us.

I am not optimistic that we will get much of a showing in the Governor’s race this June primary, but nor am I discouraged. I will vote for and campaign for Nickolas Wildstar. I will help spread the message that there is another option. The efforts of these two candidates and their volunteers will continue to inspire a new wave of voters and activists and grow our party. One day, maybe not too far from now, if we are patient and determined, we will turn California gold. Our day may not be today, but it will come.

They can’t beat you if you never give up.

With the June election just around the corner, expect to see the LPSF’s arguments all over the Voters Handbook that will be mailed out next month. There are 10 local propositions on the ballot for San Francisco County, and we covered most of the major ones either as the official opponent or in our paid arguments. Here’s a short synopsis of our arguments that you won’t hear about in the local media.

Prop A—Public Utilities Revenue Bonds. This measure would give the SFPUC the authority to issue revenue bonds for power facilities, in addition to the authority they currently have to issue revenue bonds for water delivery and sewers. The politicians definitely want PG&E out of The City, and Prop A gives them the power to incur debt without voter approval to force all residents to get all our power needs from The City and no one else. We are no fans of PG&E—and we say so in our argument—but will a government-owned and run monopoly serve residents any better? We also questioned the wisdom of the SFPUC’s current practice of mixing groundwater in with our drinking water, despite the current campaign to “educate” the public with paid consultants regarding safety and the necessity of rate increases. Lastly, we had something to say about the ongoing “slamming” of all San Francisco residents into the CleanPowerSF program—how tacky can they get?! We recommend a NO vote on A.

Prop C—Additional Tax on Commercial Rents Mostly to Fund Child Care & Education. Heavens to Betsy 

—it’s another “crisis” in San Francisco! The City that spends more money per resident than any other city in the country except Washington D.C. is facing one “crisis” after another. This time it’s an “early education crisis.” It is true that child care is outrageously expensive in The City, but why is that so? Could it be all the regulations that make it so expensive and burdensome to open a child care center? Could there be other reasons for families choosing to move to the suburbs like better schools, lower housing costs, larger living spaces, and less traffic and parking woes for which “universal child care” won’t make a bit of difference? Prop C will tax commercial businesses that rent out spaces to other commercial businesses. Are the politicians so silly to think the additional costs of the tax won’t be passed on to the businesses leasing out the spaces and they won’t increase their prices to their customers? Is there no relationship between higher taxes and higher living costs? The politicians prefer to ignore reality and just tax “commercial landlords” hoping for “free” money to dispense. However, they’re not completely in the dark since Prop C exempts commercial landlords that rent space to small businesses, government tenants (we love this one), and nonprofits from the higher gross receipts tax, so they’re admitting that costs do matter. We would have liked to mention in our argument why is government funding any child care at all—let alone more—since it’s the job of parents to provide for their children (which includes all education, not just early education), not the taxpayers and those who choose not to have children, but this is a leftist city and “children” are a sacred cow, so we contained ourselves. Prop C will do nothing to lower child care costs—in fact, with more government funding, it probably will drive prices up—but it will make more parents dependent on the politicians to “help” them. We recommend a very strong NO vote.

Prop E—Ban on Flavored Tobacco Products. This measure is a referendum on the ban on flavored menthol cigarettes, hookah tobacco products, and E-cigarettes. Shamefully every member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to ban the sales of all of these products in San Francisco. This is not even an issue of protecting “the children” because the banners already banned the sale of all tobacco products to anyone under 21 (in San Francisco and statewide too), so the ban is truly about treating adults as children since our leaders know what’s best for us all. Even more shameful is banning E-cigarettes since they are supposed to help people kick the smoking habit, but the banners don’t approve of any smoking at all. Of course, none of these bans do any good as prohibition never works and folks will continue to get the products they want—either through online purchases, purchasing them in nearby cities, or the reliable good ol’ black market. We advise a strong NO vote on E to send a message to the Board of Supervisors to end their busybodyism and let us make our own decisions for ourselves.

Prop G—Parcel Tax for the San Francisco Unified School District. Another parcel tax for “the children”? No, actually this time it’s for the teachers, and the earlier title of the measure was the “Living Wage for Educators Act of 2018,” but they were probably forced to change it to the more honest parcel tax that it is. That’s $298 extra per household—no chump change especially with the recent $99 parcel tax for CCSF, the $12 parcel tax to “Save The Bay,” and the current parcel tax of $244.10 that still has ten years left on it. Considering that about 1/3 of San Franciscans with children choose private schools over “free” government schools, despite the tremendous costs of private schools, it’s going to take a lot more than yet another parcel tax to attract better teachers and improve the outcome at San Francisco’s government schools. It’s no secret that when the school district negotiated their last contract with the teachers’ union when they were threatening another strike, part of the settlement was a salary increase of 11% over the next 3 years, an overall compensation boost of 16%, and that both sides would work together to push for a parcel tax for the June election for an additional 2% salary increase at least. Voila Prop G. I had my own son in a government elementary school here in The City years ago—one of the good ones—and from my own experience, I can tell you that almost all of the teachers were dedicated and hard-working, but there was always the constant worry of all the parents of the teachers going out on strike.

This never happened when my son was in religious school later on, despite the government teachers getting better pay and benefits. The one time there was a big dispute between a husband and wife teaching team and the administration at the religious school—they just quit at the end of the school year and that was that. If the government schools need to offer better compensation, we suggest they cut out the administrative fat and get back to teaching basics like algebra and the Constitution in middle school, rather than burdening property owners even more, despite such a poor record. We recommend a strong NO on Prop G.

Prop H—Use of Tasers by San Francisco Police Officers. While taser use could be preferable to the tragic killing of civilians by police officers that we read about in the news often these days, tasers have their own problems too. Hundreds of people in this country alone have died after being tased by the police. Prop H would specifically let officers tase anyone who is actively resisting, and when “active resistance” is so loosely defined as even “tensing,” this creates a dangerous situation for anyone stopped by the police for any reason. While being a police officer can’t possibly be an easy job, perhaps better training regarding explosive confrontations would serve and protect the public better than more deadly weapons. Because we prefer to see more restraint when government’s ultimate agents of deadly force do their jobs, we recommend a NO vote on H.

There are also 3 other measures that we submitted arguments against for the “free lottery,” but we did not win the lottery for these measures or submit them as paid arguments due to budget constraints.

Prop D—Additional Tax on Commercial Rents Mostly to Fund Housing & Homelessness Services. This is a competing measure to Prop C, and if both measures pass, then the one with the most votes becomes the law. Again, the emphasis is to tax rich “commercial landlords” and exempt small businesses and nonprofits. Again, we point out these taxes will be passed on to the ultimate consumers in the end, as always. The San Francisco Tax Collector is currently enjoying record collections due to San Francisco’s hot real estate market, but still it’s never enough. Increased subsidies will only increase the “need” for more housing subsidies. The City currently spends around $300 million per year on the homeless—and the problem is getting worse, not better. Higher taxes on “landlords” will do nothing to solve either problem, but they do make good sound bites for politicians to claim they are “doing something.” We also recommend a very strong NO vote on this one.

Prop F—City-Funded Legal Representation for Residential Tenants in Eviction Lawsuits. There are already plenty of protections in place in this city where 70% of the residents are renters. In fact, it is already so hard to get a tenant out of one’s private property that many potential housing providers simply forego the potential earnings and leave their properties vacant rather than deal with politicians and bureaucrats who have zero respect for private property. Renting a place to live and providing a place to live—this is a completely voluntary transaction by both parties, and the only proper role of government is to enforce the terms of the agreement signed by both parties. Now, if it were a criminal matter where the government is threatening the loss of one’s liberty, then it’s reasonable for the government to provide a lawyer if the accused has no resources. But renting is a civil, not a criminal matter, so why should the taxpayers have to pay for more lawyers at City Hall? Worse still, a housing provider faced with a problem tenant would be forced through taxation to pay for a lawyer for the tenant in order for the lawyer to deny the housing provider their property rights to their own property. This is ludicrous! This measure is pandering at its worst to appeal to all the renting voters in a renters’ city, so it deserves a very strong NO.

RM3—Regional Measure 3. This is a regional ballot measure that all 9 nine counties of the Bay Area are  

voting on. It will increase the tolls on all Bay Area bridges, except the Golden Gate Bridge, by $3 over the next few years. We railed against this measure in the last newsletter, so there’s not much to add here. Our ballot measure argument emphasized the equity issue of having the less affluent working-class folks who can’t afford to live on the peninsula but have to commute to their jobs on the peninsula who will be paying the lion’s share of the higher tolls so the more financially comfortable can enjoy the (supposedly) better public transportation the tolls will pay for. Talk about wealth redistribution! This measure is clearly a tax, not a fee, since the payers will not enjoy much benefit since the bulk of the tolls (the part that isn’t wasted) is going to mass transit, not the roads. However, the proponents are getting away with calling it a “fee,” which only needs a 50% + 1 vote majority, rather than the 2/3 approval requirement for a “tax.” Our argument also took a few well-deserved pot shots at the MTC for its mishandling of earlier government boondoggles like the Central Subway, the Bay Bridge, the Oakland Airport Connector, and the Transbay Terminal, but it did not win the “free lottery” argument, and there are no paid arguments allowed on regional measures, so you will not see our argument in the Voters Handbook. Nevertheless, we recommend a very strong No on RM3.

As always, we expect the majority of San Francisco voters will probably vote the opposite of what we recommend on the ballot measures, but nevertheless we always make it a point in each election to see that the argument for more limited government is always presented to the voters, not just the statist side. We hope to be pleasantly surprised from time to time! In the last general election in 2016, San Francisco voters amazingly voted down another proposed sales tax increase with a 65% NO vote majority. Hope springs eternal!

Most judges’ races are anything but exciting. Unless you know the judge personally, they’re all pretty much the same when it comes time to vote. However, what would you say about a judge who imposed punitive attorneys’ fees on plaintiffs working in the public interest to improve election laws? Punitive to the tune of $243,279.50.

Judge Curtis Karnow up for re-election this spring is the judge who imposed the outrageous fees on the six plaintiffs suing to overturn “The Top Two” law the voters approved in 2010. The Top Two, as you probably know, essentially banned closed primaries in California and made it open season for all candidates in the June election but allowed only the top two vote getters to advance to the November election. Concocted in the dark of a winter night in 2009, the Top Two was a concession by Democrats in the California legislature to State Senator Abel Maldonado in exchange for his support of a state budget package. The Top Two was supposed to discourage extreme partisanship “so they (legislators) can meet in the middle and get things done,” per Governor Schwarzenegger in 2010. Indeed, they have gotten “things done” like increasing the overreach of state government in California by increasing spending, giving the Democrats a super majority in the state legislature, expanding the amount of money spent on state elections, and cutting third parties out of the November election completely. The change to the Top Two allowed two Democrats only to advance to the November election in the 2016 US Senate race, which was the first single-party Senate election since California began direct election of its senators in 1914. Both Washington state and California have “The Top Two,” and not one single time has a third- party candidate ever made it to the general election when both major parties fielded candidates. Incredibly, the Top Two doesn’t even allow write-in candidates, so no wonder so many voters just left the office of US Senator blank when they voted in 2016. The Top Two has not worked out the way it was envisioned, and most political analysts and politicians (including Democrats) would be happy to scrap it and, if not go back completely to closed primaries, at least allow each political party to have one candidate in the November election. After eight years, the experiment has failed.

The plaintiffs who challenged the law were actually visionary and were acting in the public interest. It’s easier to see that now. Perhaps it wasn’t so apparent back in 2010 when the original lawsuit started, but was this a frivolous lawsuit that warranted a punitive fee of almost a quarter of a million dollars? No evidence was ever presented that the lawsuit harmed the public interest or was frivolous, yet incredibly Judge Karnow slapped the six plaintiffs with the unprecedented fine.

Here’s what some commentators had to say about Karnow’s punishment. Election law professor Rick Hassen called Karnow’s ruling “absolutely outrageous.” Russell Mokhiber wrote in his “Corporate Crime Reporter,” “Judge Karnow’s order misapplies the law and punishes the voters in this case for exercising their First Amendment right to petition.” Joe Mathews wrote, “One consequence of the judge’s decision is the message it sends to those who might challenge California’s community of wealthy reformers and good government groups: if you get in our way, we’ll make you pay.” Los Angeles Times business reporter Michael Hiltzik who wrote about the case noted that “Charles Munger Jr.’s fee claim may chill

public interest suits.” Election Administration Reports noted in its August 13, 2012 issue, “This unusual award was viewed by knowledgeable California lawyers as having an intimidating effect on those who would bring voting right suits.” And finally, Thomas D. Elias, a California political consultant who actually supported the Top Two wrote, “This is just plain wrong. First it serves to intimidate the not-so-wealthy from even attempting to challenge rich folks like Munger and Maldonado (whose family farm employs about 250 people). And second, it is probably illegal.”

In the end, the six plaintiffs did not pay the outrageous amount imposed on them. When the plaintiffs obtained a pro bono law firm to challenge the amount of the punishment, Charles Munger Jr’s law firm dropped the amount to $100,000 if the plaintiffs agreed to drop their appeal. One of the plaintiffs had deep pockets at the time, so he paid the $100,000 fee himself and that was that.

However, beyond the issue of the shortcomings of the Top Two or who paid the lawyers’ fees, the larger issue is a judge punishing public-interest plaintiffs with exorbitant attorneys’ fees for simply exercising a time-honored tradition of using the courts to redress a legitimate grievance. Karnow’s fine was in total disregard for federal and state laws and an extreme case of judicial overreach. The local media has been talking about the fact that four public defenders are now trying to unseat Karnow and three other incumbent judges because they were appointed by Republicans and are too conservative for progressive San Francisco. Establishment politicians are saying that’s nonsense because the four judges are all Democrats and the unusual run by the public defenders is politically motivated. We can’t speak for the other three judges, but they’re all missing the point when it comes to Karnow. He deserves to be “retired” from his job the old-fashioned way by being voted out of office and replaced with Maria Evangelista, one of the four San Francisco Public Defenders we expect to have more regard for the average person.

(A special thanks to Richard Winger, editor of Ballot Access News, and one of the six plaintiffs in the case, who provided the background information for this article.)

The folks at the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) have something “exciting” in store for the residents of the Bay Area’s nine counties.  SB 595, authored by Senator Jim Beall of San Jose, will “give the voters the chance” to approve a $3 toll increase in all Bay Area bridges, except the Golden Gate Bridge.  The bureaucrats make it sound like an honor for the voters to be given such an opportunity to tax themselves. Apparently we should be thankful they granted us this chance to give the bureaucrats more tax money to waste.  We note also that the MTC voted recently to hike the toll increases faster than was initially suggested, and the measure was moved up to the June 2018 ballot, rather than the November 2018 ballot, so as not to “interfere with other local measures planned for November.”  The lust for “revenue stream” was just too much to resist.

RM3, as the bureaucrats’ dream is called, includes a smorgasbord of impressive-sounding projects: expansion of BART’s railcar fleet to accommodate its extension to Milpitas and East San Jose; further extension of BART’s Silicon Valley service to downtown San Jose and Santa Clara; extending Caltrain to downtown San Francisco; expanding transbay bus services and AC Transit’s bus rapid transit lines; a freeway connector from northbound US 101 to eastbound I-580 in Marin County; improving the westbound approach to the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge and the I-580/Richmond Parkway Interchange in Contra Costa County; construction of a direct connector between I-680 and I-880 in Fremont; upgrading the I-680/State Route 4 interchange in Contra Costa County, the I-680/State Route 84 interchange in Alameda County, and the US 101/State Route 92 interchange in San Mateo; upgrades to the Dumbarton Bridge Corridor and improve Route 37 in Marin, Sonoma, Napa, and Solano counties; extend the new SMART rail system to Windsor and Healdsburg; expand San Francisco’s fleet of Muni rail cars; and adding more ferries to the San Francisco Bay Ferry Fleet.  The MTC notes that Bay Area voters have twice approved bridge toll increases for regional transportation as if it were an expected and obvious “no brainer” for them to do so again.

A closer look at the improvements for RM1 in 1988 and RM2 in 2004 shows a definite and disturbing trend these regional transportation measures are taking.  RM1 funded the new Benicia Bridge, the Carquinez Bridge replacement, the new I-880/92 interchange, the widening of the San Mateo Bridge, the Richmond-San Rafael Trestle and deck, and the widening of Bayfront Expressway.  RM2 projects included the Transbay Transit Center, extending BART to Warm Springs, the e-BART extension to Pittsburg and Antioch and widening of Highway 4, the Oakland Airport Connector, I-80 HOV lanes, SMART rail extension, AC Transit Rapid Bus, San Francisco’s Central Subway, Transit Center upgrades and new buses, regional ferries, and the BART tube seismic retrofit.  See any pattern here?  RM1 ended up being closer to a user fee, where those who are paying for the improvements get some benefit from it.  RM2, on the other hand, as regional government began to creep into the Bay Area, clearly had an emphasis on mass transit, not road improvements, so it was motorists paying for benefits going to others.  This is otherwise known as taxes or wealth distribution—a recipe for bloat.  We are not surprised at some of the shabby accomplishments of RM2.  The Central Subway in San Francisco—millions over budget, years behind schedule, it will end in Chinatown rather than Fisherman’s Wharf (which would have been more logical), and riders will have to exit the subway in one spot and walk several blocks to catch it again.  Then there’s the Transbay Center, another bureaucratic fiasco.  It’s only a 4-story bus terminal but has gone from a budget of $1.189 billon to $2.259 billion.  It was supposed to be a state-of-the-art transportation hub and hailed as the “Grand Central Station of the West,” but already they are substituting cheaper building materials to cut costs, and The City had to cough up $260 million to bail out the project in an embarrassing effort to complete phase one of this project.  They say the entire project will be completed in 2024—we won’t hold our breath.  The Oakland Airport Connector is yet another example of failure and waste.  The estimated cost was $232 million, but the final cost was actually $484 million.  The cost of the AIRBART service used to be $3, but the fare for the BART extension is $6.  Even though Oakland Airport’s passenger numbers are rising as more airlines are flying in to Oakland, ridership on the Oakland Connector should be picking up, but it isn’t.  Ridership on the BART extension is lower than predicted as those going to Oakland Airport are increasingly choosing the convenience and cost savings of the voluntary economy (Uber and Lyft). 

So, what about RM3—is it going to be more user-fee based or tax-based?  Of the proposed projects, it is estimated that 62% will support mass transit, 31% will go towards roads and highway improvements, and 7% will go for bicycle and pedestrian projects.  When 69% is pegged for projects that have little to do with actual road work and those paying the “fees” are not those receiving the benefits, a 31% user-fee rates an “F” in our book.  If history is any indication, we can count on continued waste of toll payer “fees” by the MTC.  Where did the money come from for the MTC to purchase the palace at 375 Beale Street that is now the new headquarters for itself and other regional agencies that it rents out space to?  Toll fees.  Even an audit report by the State Auditor’s office questioned why the MTC bought a building that was twice the size of what it had before in Oakland.  The report also noted that the financial risk of being unable to repay all of the toll revenues significantly increased in May 2013 when the Bay Area Headquarters Authority announced plans to convert 101,000 square feet of the building into an atrium and building support space.  Since when was the MTC given the authority to jump into the real estate business and become a commercial landlord? Furthermore, by what right did the MTC invest toll revenues in risky ventures like interest rate swap investments?  In 2002 the MTC made an interest rate swap exchange deal with a Wall Street firm named Ambac, which was supposed to save the MTC millions of dollars for the toll payers.  Originally touted as a model way to obtain a marginally lower interest rate, after the financial meltdown in 2008, the MTC was forced to pay $104 million to cancel its interest rate swap with Ambac.  San Francisco Chronicle columnists Matier & Ross noted, “If you’re a bridge commuter, this might give you road rage—about a year’s worth of toll hikes, or $120 million thanks to a bond-credit swap gone bad.”  As a public agency entrusted with millions of dollars of toll fees, wasn’t the MTC supposed to act like a guardian of the public’s money and safeguard it carefully?  Is there any compelling reason to believe the MTC will be any more fiscally responsible  with the “fees” collected from RM3 than it was with RM1 and RM2?

We must point out one more disturbing trend in these regional measures that are popping up with more frequency lately.  RM1 and RM2 were only voted on by the voters in 7 Bay Area counties; however, RM3 will be voted on in all 9 counties (Napa and Sonoma will now “get the chance” to vote which they didn’t get earlier), and the 50% + 1 vote required majority will apply to all votes cast in all 9 counties.  Never mind the fact that in the last regional ballot measure ($12 parcel tax to “Save The Bay”), 4 of the 9 Bay Area counties did not get the required 2/3 vote to authorize the tax, yet it became the law anyway in all 9 counties.  So much for counties being the legal jurisdictions which answer to the voters.  Of course it’s the rural counties located furthest from the heavily urbanized counties like San Francisco and Santa Clara that are least likely to approve additional taxes and “fees,” but they’ll get stuck paying them anyway.  Never mind the fact that they are calling this extraction a “fee,” rather than a tax, which allows the measure to pass with only a simple majority rather than the 2/3 requirement for a tax when the largest chunk of the extraction will not go towards the roads.  Clearly regional government with its appointed bureaucrats and army of highly paid consultants is running amok in the Bay Area—and getting more powerful with each election.

Lastly in the huge and well-funded by special interests propaganda campaign that will be hitting the Bay Area over the next few months touting the benefits of RM3, you will hear little, if any, mention of the $1 million of bridge tolls which will go towards the creation of an Independent Office of the BART Inspector General.  After the first year of operation, the Bay Area Toll Authority “may increase the amount of funding allocated for this purpose.”  Why are we not shocked that more tax money collected needs another set of bureaucrats to oversee things?

Never content to rest until San Francisco’s government runs every aspect of our lives, supervisors Malia Cohen and Sandra Fewer recently requested the formation of a municipal city bank task force to study and advance the idea of a San Francisco public bank.  The idea has been around since the financial crisis of 2008 and is catching on more these days with the problem of legalized recreational pot in California and banking laws like the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 that obligate financial institutions to report suspicious activity, which includes pot financial transactions that are still illegal under federal law.  While it is understandable that the new law has created a problem with the incompatibility of current banking laws (a problem created by government), is it really necessary for one of the most bureaucratic bureaucracies in the nation—if not the entire planet—to stick its big nose into another industry?  The politicians think so, and their hearts are aflutter with even the mere thought of San Francisco becoming the first city in the country to launch a government bank. 

The reasons touted for the necessity and advantages of a San Francisco city or county government bank are many.  First and foremost, private banks are motivated by profit (evil), while a public bank is non-profit (angelic), which means lower interest on loans to borrowers.  Secondly, the goal is to get away from the big banks, which are heavily invested in fossil fuels, a political no-no on the left.  The return of profits would go back to The City, not greedy shareholders, so it could mean lower costs for capital projects, which are usually funded by issuing debt through private banks.  Supervisor Fewer noted that a government bank will insure more social responsibility such as more loans to small businesses and more “affordable” housing.  A San Francisco government bank would also allow The City to increase its financial services and “help” residents and “underserved populations.” 

Currently the only government bank in the country is the state-owned and operated Bank of North Dakota (BND), which has been around for almost a century.  It is often cited as proof that a government bank can operate and still be profitable; thus BND is held up as a model to emulate.  All State of North Dakota funds are constitutionally required to be deposited in the bank.  Citizens may make deposits in the bank, but this is a small part of the bank’s business.  The bank only has one location and does not offer ATM services.  The BND partners with more than 100 North Dakota community and regional financial institutions that provide loans to local businesses and citizens.    While the bank is generally given high marks for being well-run and helping North Dakota maintain a local banking sector that is doing better than its neighboring states and the national average, it should be noted that much of its below-market lending is to the fuel fossil industry, and much of its credit risk has been shifted to the federal government through its federally guaranteed student loan program.

What has worked quite well in the heartland of America would likely be a disaster in San Francisco.  For one thing, BND has purposely made it a point not to compete with the voluntary banking sector, but rather to partner with voluntary banks on various projects.  This would not be the case in San Francisco, where there would be a big push to get rid of all the other banks in The City.  Secondly, for the most part, BND is run on a for-profit basis.  The bank evaluates lending according to how likely the loans are to be repaid.  As the BND’s President and Chief Executive Eric Hardmeyer noted, “If you are going to have a state-owned bank, you have to staff it with bankers.  If you staff it with economic developers, you are going to have a very short-lived very expensive experiment.  Economic developers have never seen a deal they didn’t like.  We deal with that every day.”  Clearly, politics, political appointments, “public-private” cozy arrangements, and cronyism would determine who would be running a San Francisco government bank—and how the taxpayers’ money would be disbursed.  It goes without saying that a government city bank would require a whole new “Department of Banking” in San Francisco’s already bloated government—as if over 41,000 (and growing every month) city employees weren’t enough already.  More foot soldiers would be needed to staff yet another bureaucracy. Already, the Tax Collector’s office, which does all the banking and investment activities for The City, recently hired a new staff member to help study a public bank and other investment strategies.  An excuse to hire even more employees is a tantalizing dream for those who want San Francisco government to be even more powerful.  The statists would use a public bank to allow The City to increase its financial services to, as always, select residents.  During the last fiscal year, The City spent $3,771,663 on financial services for “underserved populations,” including $1.5 million for a college savings program called “Kindergarten to College,” $832,000 for smart money “coaching,” and $756,000 for “technical assistance” to small businesses. As of July 2017, there were $86 million in loans outstanding for the current programs.  The report prepared for Supervisor Fewer pointed out that the current programs “could be enhanced or added to though the level of funding that could be made available for such purposes from City funds now deposited with The City’s commercial banks could significantly expand funding available for such purposes.”  “Expand” is an understatement if we’ve ever heard one—having a City bank would open the floodgates to fulfilling every social dream of the bureaucrats.  Short of having control of the printing press for money printing, a public bank is a statist’s Nirvana with untold possibilities.  And, as we’ve seen in other areas like transportation, energy, and education, The City’s leaders have done everything they could to drive out the voluntary sector until the government has a complete monopoly on all services.  Creating a public bank would be an ideal opportunity to rid The City of the evil, private banks.  OK, banking isn’t exactly laissez-faire these days, but would a government-run-and-owned bank be any less susceptible to politics rather than sound financial decision-making?  We think not.  Worse still, at least with private banks which make poor loan decisions and are facing default, they have to ask for a bailout from the government (unfortunately often given), but with a “public” bank, there would be no asking for bailouts, and the taxpayers, as always, would get stuck paying for the bureaucrats’ mistakes.  The pressure in a leftist city like San Francisco with embedded cronyism to fund every social program in town with new-found “free” money would simply be too great to pass up.  Rather than looking to expand its “carbon footprint” in the lives of its residents, San Francisco’s government should return to basics and save its taxpayers from one more misguided way to “lead the nation.”