Author: lpsf

Supervisor Jane Kim is at it again. Not content to rest on the laurel of her “victory” of making San Francisco City College tuition-free by introducing last year’s successful ballot measure W (dubbed the Mansion Tax), she’s found another way to make San Francisco more “affordable.” She recently asked the city controller to analyze the costs of providing universal childcare in San Francisco, and she plans to introduce a ballot measure for the November 2018 election that will offer “affordable” childcare for all. Kim wants a system that would reduce childcare costs for San Francisco families to just 10% of their income. According to the Children’s Council San Francisco, a beneficiary of the largesse, the average cost of full-time childcare for families with an infant in San Francisco ranges from $16,800 to $22,800 per year, and for 4-year-olds, the range is $14,400 to $18,000. San Francisco’s current universal preschool program is not truly universal—yet. While funding covers 100% of the tuition for low-income children, middle and upper income families get only 25% off the cost of childcare. Grandstanding for the proposed measure, Kim said, “If we truly believe that families are the backbone of our city, then we all have to do what we can to hold onto them. We can do better, and we have to.”

The City’s involvement in the childcare business goes way back to 1991 when San Francisco voters approved the creation of the Children’s Fund, which was funded by a property tax set-aside of 3 cents per $100 of assessed property value. This fund provided services for some childcare programs, as well as health services, job training, social services, and delinquency prevention programs. In 2004, The City’s voters approved the creation of the Public Education Enrichment Fund (PEEF), which allocated one-third of the set-aside to the Preschool For All (PFA) program for 4-year-olds. The City went deeper into the childcare business in 2014 with the passing of Prop C, which increased the set-aside to 4 cents per $100 of assessed property value, extended the set-aside to 2041, and extended the age group for “children” up to age 24. (The LPSF was the official opponent to Prop C and also the only voice raised against it.) Notably Prop C extended funding for universal preschool to include 3 to 5-year-olds, but gave priority to 4-year-olds, and The City could now use the funding for programs for children from birth to 3 years old. The proponents’ argument signed by the Mayor and every member of the Board of Supervisors said, “We can’t stop now. We need to do everything we can to provide high quality education and enrichment opportunities for all of our children and youth, make San Francisco livable for our families, and ensure that those with the most need are given the best opportunities to thrive.”

Indeed, they can’t stop now. As the premise has already been touted and widely accepted that those little creatures now belong to society as they are our children, why should the parents be the ones responsible for providing for the children’s needs? As Supervisor Norman Yee, also a cosponsor of the measure, pointed out, “Whether the child is a 4-year-old or a 3-year-old or a 1-year-old, it doesn’t really matter.” Once a nice-sounding idea creeps in, all the statists need is a tiny little opening to get started, and the idea comes to fruition in stages. First the Children’s Fund, then PEEF, then PFA, and now finally “affordable” childcare for all. If “affordable” childcare turns into anything like “affordable” housing, then it will definitely be time for The City’s residents to hide their checkbooks from the government.

Then there’s the unpleasant business of how to pay for these freebies. Since The City can’t print money out of thin air like the federal government, it will have to take it from someone. Supervisor Kim hasn’t identified a firm “revenue stream” (tax) for her proposal yet. She has said that it may be modeled after an Alameda County ballot measure being prepared for the June 2018 election which is asking the voters to approve yet another sales tax increase. Amazingly, San Francisco voters have rejected the last two sales tax ballot measures, so it will be interesting to see how Kim’s measure fares if it involves a sales tax increase. There surely will be a major “outreach” (propaganda) campaign to “Save The Children” or a catchy slogan with the word “Children” in it and in the ballot measure’s title to prey on the voters’ emotions.

If this measure makes it to the ballot box, you can be sure the LPSF will be opposing it. In the first place, one of the main reasons childcare is so expensive is the oppressive list of regulations and licensing requirements governing setting up and maintaining a childcare center. That alone deters many potential childcare providers from even attempting the costly and frustrating process, which then limits the supply and pushes costs upwards. The list of regulations includes such requirements as “Must have 35 square feet of indoor space and 75 square feet of outdoor space per child,” “Hot water must be kept between 105 degrees and 120 degrees,” and “Signs must be posted at the entrance of the childcare center that provide the telephone number of the local health department and information on child passenger restraint systems.” More important, since when is it the proper role of government to provide any childcare at all? Who is responsible for the welfare of each child—the government or the parents? Who cares about the child more—the government or the parents? Due to the wide availability of contraceptives these days—they even distribute them to middle schoolers in government schools—is there any good reason for the parents not to assume the full cost of providing for their children which they chose to have? Did they not know that childcare would be one of the major costs of choosing to have children? If they chose to reproduce, why should their neighbors be forced to help pay for their childcare costs? In the end, does providing yet another free ride encourage personal responsibility or the forced generosity of others?

The next time you head down to The Embarcadero you may notice that Justin Herman Plaza will now be called Embarcadero Plaza.  While San Francisco activists have no Confederate statutes to dismantle, the desire to “clean house” in a historical sense is sweeping the country, and San Francisco officials don’t want to be left in the dust.  In July Supervisor Aaron Peskin introduced a resolution proposing to temporarily rename the plaza, citing Herman’s role in the displacement of minority residents, until a new replacement name can be decided on.  The rest of the Board of Supervisors quickly supported the resolution by voting unanimously to rename the plaza.  The late poet Maya Angelou, who was the first black female streetcar operator in San Francisco, is the name mentioned most often as the likeliest candidate to have the plaza named after her.

Justin Herman certainly earned a place in San Francisco history, and it’s easy to see why current government officials are anxious to distance themselves from his legacy.  He was the person most responsible for the Western Addition redevelopment fiasco that decimated the predominately black neighborhood.  Herman was appointed Executive Director of the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency in 1959 and stayed in that position until his death in 1971.  Herman had extensive experience working with the federal government and knew all the tricks to leverage more federal funding for redevelopment.  While the Fillmore was declared “blight” in 1948, and the first phase began in 1956, it was Justin Herman who really got the (wrecking) ball rolling in 1964.  He expanded the redevelopment area to 60 square blocks using the government’s power of eminent domain to purchase Victorian homes and buy out local businesses.  According to city records, 883 businesses and 4,729 households were forced out of the area, and 2,500 Victorian homes were bulldozed in one of the largest urban renewal projects in the western half of the United States.  Employees of the agency went door to door in the Western Addition and gave the head of each household a certificate of preference that stated they would be given preference for future housing built in the area.  However, in what reminds us of a similar travesty in the Kelo case in Connecticut 12 years ago, broken promises resulted in large patches of the Western Addition lying vacant for years and, in some cases, decades, so the certificates of preference became worthless.  The cost of all this turmoil:  $50 million.  And all this time Herman was building a little kingdom of his own at City Hall as the number of bureaucrats working for the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency mushroomed from 60 before he took office to 462 after his death.  Is it any wonder that Herman has fallen from grace as we look back?

Unfortunately renaming the plaza will remove this piece of shameful San Francisco history from current and future generations’ opportunity to learn about the mistakes of the past.  With his name gone, there will be no reminder of the misery he created and why government shouldn’t be in the housing business in the first place.  Just because a piece of history is unsettling—even embarrassing—is that a good reason to pretend it didn’t happen?  Are today’s members of the Board of Supervisors learning from the mistakes of the past?  Judging from the number of schemes they support—from “affordable” housing to rent control to inclusionary housing requirements to zoning restrictions to a million and one developer requirements and fees—it looks like the current batch of supervisors is doing a better job of driving poor folks away from The City than Justin Herman ever did.  The African American community in particular has fared extremely poorly under current San Francisco housing policies, with the percentage of blacks in San Francisco dropping from 13.4% in 1970 to 6.5% in 2005 to 5% (or less) today.  Rather than passing symbolic resolutions trying to erase the memory of previous shameful governmental programs, the Board of Supervisors should recognize that “redevelopment” was nothing more than corruption, cronyism, and property rights abuse.  Another lesson to be gleamed from the entire program should be for residents to be wary of government promises to “be taken care of.”  Furthermore, one person alone could not have caused all this harm by himself, as there were plenty of other government officials who were also complicit in the whole misadventure.  Scapegoating serves no purpose and can never change the past.  Move on—and remember that past.

What would you say if someone figured out a way to reduce congestion by taking vans off the roads, reduce pollution, increase convenience, and reduce costs while helping the elderly and disabled by delivering groceries and meals to their doors?  Maybe a gesture of gratitude or a pat on the back for making life better for more people?  No, here in San Francisco in the heart of the tech capital of the world, not only is such technology not being welcomed with open arms—one member of the Board of Supervisors has proposed a total ban on robot deliveries.  According to Supervisor Norman Yee, “Our streets and our sidewalks are made for people, not robots.  This is consistent with how we operate in the city, where we don’t allow bikes or skateboards on sidewalks.”  On the positive side, San Francisco’s Small Business Commission voted 5-1 against the ban, but ultimately the entire Board of Supervisors will decide if the proposed ban will become law.  If past experience is any indicator, San Francisco will continue its role to “lead the nation” as The Banning Capital of the Country. 

First and foremost are the safety concerns of ban proponents.  At least that’s what they say.  The robots, which travel at around the mind-boggling speed of four miles per hour, are said to pose a danger to vulnerable populations like children, seniors, and folks with disabilities.  Notwithstanding the fact that autonomous delivery robots are highly visible and easy to avoid, they are equipped with sensors and cameras specifically designed to avoid running into pedestrians.  Furthermore, right now while the technology is relatively new, each robot is chaperoned by a live human being who could step in and take control in an emergency.  Absent any rules, regulations—or $1,000 fines plus a jail sentence as proposed by Yee—what business is going to let its robots wander the sidewalks, run amok, and mow pedestrians down?  What insurance company would insure a robot delivery company that didn’t have a safety plan in place, especially in today’s sue-happy society?  Since the insurance company would have to pay out big bucks if anyone were hurt, chances are very high that its safety standards would be more stringent than lax government safety standards with no accountability.  And, despite the fact that several states have passed laws allowing the robots to deliver food, flowers, and other small packages, and tens of thousands of pavement miles in cities around the world have already been logged by the robots, not one single robot accident has ever been recorded.  We assume that the possibility than an accident could occur is reason enough for the ban.     

The next biggest concern of the banners is the prospect of taking away “many entry level jobs that are shrinking away every day.”  The hypocrisy of the Luddites is breathtaking considering that it’s these very same folks who push for minimum wage increases and more mandated employee benefits and then suddenly are concerned about “shrinking” jobs.  Furthermore, while indeed some mundane delivery jobs would be lost to the delivery robots, other new jobs will be created.  Two robot companies named Dispatch and Marble are already operating in the Bay Area—and creating new jobs of their own.  After all, designing, building, testing, and improving robots requires someone to come up with a better and better product, and ultimately those high-tech jobs are more satisfying (and pay more) than delivery jobs.  Small Business Commission Chair Mark Dwight, who opposed Yee’s ban, owns Rickshaw Bagworks, which makes custom bags, noted, “There would be a lot of things in society that were based on technology that wouldn’t exist today if we were just concerned about people losing their jobs.  We wouldn’t have sewing machines.  What would I be doing?  Sewing all my bags by hand?  That’s a 150-year-old technology that made it a lot easier to make the things we wear and carry.”

So, if safety isn’t really the issue and lower-level jobs will be replaced by better, high-paying jobs, why even suggest a ban?  We suspect a darker motive here as voiced by Yee:  “I see the value of innovation for public and private good; however, let’s be honest about how some emerging technologies have been operating as if no rules apply to them.”  Hmm…“some emerging technologies”?  That can only mean the evil and hated (by politicians, not the riding public) Uber and Lyft.  The tech busses could also be added to the list, though by this time they’re more accepted by the bureaucrats (who don’t mind the millions paid out in fees).  The politicians have definite concerns about not repeating past “mistakes” when not regulating tech services at the first sign of their existence meant having to play catch up.  Thus, Yee taking the proactive approach, noted that in meetings with representatives from the robot delivery companies, safety was discussed and their claims “weren’t convincing.”  Coupled with this obsession to micromanage every activity in The City is the lack of enforcement that the bureaucrats fear in this “Wild West.”  At the end of the day, without laws—and enforcement—on the books, the bureaucrats have absolutely no control over citizens’ voluntary choices, and nothing infuriates a power-lusting bureaucrat more than inadequate enforcement.  As the only member of the Small Business Commission to vote for the ban noted, “The enforcement factor in this town is the weakest link in our administration.  There is just not the manpower to do that properly.”  Of course they could hire more city employees to “help” with enforcement, but there goes that $10.1 billion budget again. 

One interesting footnote to this issue is a robot company called Starship Technologies, which is based in Estonia.  It’s been pre-empting the type of ban Yee is proposing by working with lawmakers in states across the country to pass legislation to allow autonomous robots to make deliveries, and it’s been successful in Virginia, Idaho, and Wisconsin.  Unfortunately, Starship helped guide the new laws that specify acceptable robot sizes and shapes.  Needless to say, the laws “happen to” match the very same dimensions of Starship’s robots, so what a neat way to eliminate the competition from other robot companies.  Another example of crony capitalism, not the Real McCoy. 

Finally, we find a certain irony in Yee’s proposed ban in that he claims to want to “help” those with less resources, like older residents and the disabled, yet his ban would eliminate an opportunity to cut costs for these folks who rely on delivery services to bring them food, medicine, and other essentials.  By cutting delivery fees and tipping, deliveries by robots could eventually cut the cost of local, same-day delivery to $1.  Now, that would actually help those who could use a break, and it wouldn’t involve another useless ban, fines, enforcement—and hypocrisy.

It’s a unique property in the city. Not a public housing project, but controlled by the city government, which collects rent from the folks living there.

Resident tenents say their units are supposed to have been transferred to tenant ownership, and according to a 2015 SF Weekly story, they are correct:

“The Midtown Park Apartments, a block of unremarkable buildings in the Fillmore District, were built in 1964 atop land cleared during San Francisco’s ‘Urban Renewal’ projects. Transformations of Edwardian and Victorian neighborhoods into concrete blocks were hailed by anti-‘blight’ groups. Critics, like author James Baldwin, had another name for the improvements: ‘Negro removal.’

“At Midtown’s ribbon-cutting ceremony, then-Mayor Jack Shelley waxed optimistic, calling Midtown a “successful experiment” on the way to ‘our ultimate goal…a home for all who wish to live in San Francisco.’

“The 139-unit, three-story project was unique in that it was financed by the city. Once the city’s mortgage was paid off, the residents — members of a nonprofit cooperative — would own their places outright. ‘Own your own,’ as the original sales brochure hyped.

According to the residents’ website, “Mortgage on property residents did not own was paid off by Midtown Park in 2007 in hopes that the city promise and later a  Board of Supervisors Resolution 070858 calling for a long-term ownership structure would come to fruition.”

The city government’s promise to these modest income residents should be kept (better a decade late than never). An upgrade to newer, nicer housing than what they live in now (if the building project goes through and they are given title to units therein) seems like appropriate recompense in lieu of paying them their backrent for the past 10 years during which time they already should have been owners.

But what’s happened instead is that Supervisor London Breed and nonprofit Mercy Housing are reportedly planning to demolish the complex and build new housing there, and residents have been given 14 days notice to pay rent or quit (there’s been a rent strike).

If you agree the current residents should be given units in the new buildings if the city government destroys their apartments to create upgraded housing on its land there, come to Wednesday’s organizing meeting and voice your support! It’s happening across the street from the apartment complex:

Gateway High School auditorium, 1430 Scott Street,
Wednesday October 18 (6:30 – 8:30pm)

Please RSVP on the LPSF Meetup site so we know you’re coming.

District 5 residents (London Breed is “your” Supervisor) are especially encouraged to attend.

When is your property not really your property? If you don’t pay your property taxes, you’ll soon discover a lien has been placed on your property by the county assessor, so in a sense, your property is only yours if you pay your property taxes. Now, what if you decide to rent out your property? By becoming a housing provider, a whole new nightmarish world is created whereby control over your property is severely limited by law: who you must rent to, the amount you charge, when you can change the amount of rent, how many roommates the renter can bring in, and most important when you can terminate the agreement and get the renter to vacate. And let’s not forget the outrageous amounts mandated by San Francisco law that must be paid to tenants if you decide to get out of the rental business period. Just when you thought respect for property rights couldn’t get any lower in San Francisco, the statists have another trick up their sleeve—a vacancy tax. If you own your property and—sin of sins—decide not to live in it or rent it out, under a vacancy tax, you would now have to pay an additional tax over and above the regular property tax. Theoretically, this is not a case of “takings,” but you’d have to pay through the nose if you chose to leave it vacant.

Just last month, Supervisor Aaron Peskin requested the City Attorney “to explore legislation that would allow The City & County of San Francisco to impose a vacancy tax on property owners to help mitigate the impacts of the widespread practice of warehousing valuable residential and commercial units.” He stated that he has gotten reports and complaints from constituents about “the overwhelming number of vacancies both commercial and residential that continue to contribute to our housing crisis as well as the displacement and struggles of small businesses.” The issue of vacant units of housing came up at City Hall last month when the Planning Commission was discussing a report on The City’s housing supply. One commissioner noted that vacant units appear to be on the rise, adding to the perennial “housing crisis.” According to SPUR’s 2014 data research, there are 30,000 vacant units in The City, of which 8,900 are in the process of being rented; 2,400 units are in the process of being sold; 9,100 units are used for vacation or seasonal use; and 9,700 units don’t fall in any of the above categories.

If you think that a vacancy tax for not using your property is another harebrained dream of San Francisco politicians to “lead the nation” yet again that can’t possibly become law, think again. Vancouver, British Columbia recently enacted a vacancy tax which has set our local politicians’ hearts aflutter. They consider it a successful model and are keeping a close eye on how it works out in Vancouver. The vacancy tax applies to all residential properties in Greater Vancouver which are occupied for less than 180 days of the year, and the annual tax is calculated at a rate of 1% of the assessed value. Since Vancouver strangely enough is also in the midst of a “housing crisis” and houses priced at $1 million or more are not unusual, a vacancy tax of $10,000 or more each year is likely for many homeowners, and the redistributed collections are set to go to “affordable housing” in the city. The exemptions to the tax are limited to cases where the owner is in long-term medical care, is doing major renovations on the property, is unable to rent due to building-specific restrictions, or has expired. The government is sending out declaration forms to all property owners this December, which they are required by law to fill out, and the new tax will be collected next February. The bureaucrats are not in any mood for hanky panky and are promising severe penalties and fines to those property owners who don’t comply or lie on the declaration forms. Inspections and enforcement are going to be major facets of this tax.

Aside from the constitutionality of such an outrageous tax, enforcement will obviously be a major challenge for The Vacancy Police (and we’re glad about that). Short of turning the city into a complete police state, how would you know just who lives in a residence, when they come and go, and how many nights per year someone is sleeping there? (We heard many of these same privacy concerns when the Airbnb measure was on the ballot a few years ago.) Privacy might become a thing of the past. Of course, neighborhood snoops are always a good source of surveillance, but we prefer them for keeping the neighborhood safe, not helping the government with tax extraction and spying on its own citizens. Perhaps the bureaucrats may even offer a reward for snitching on your neighbors.

Since when is it the business of government to dictate what you do or don’t do with your property? Folks might have perfectly legitimate reasons for not wanting to rent out their property—most of which have to do with the headaches associated with complying with government rent boards and all their onerous mandates and regulations. Or folks might have no compelling reason why they don’t want to go into the rental business—it doesn’t matter because it’s their business, not the government’s. We have no doubt that there are thousands of units in San Francisco that are rentable but property owners have chosen to keep them off the market, and we don’t blame them one single bit. They are shrugging. It’s one thing when a property owner decides to become a housing provider; it’s understood that there are many ridiculous rules which the housing provider is now subject to, and by deciding to enter the business, he or she will have to comply or face the law. However, with this latest proposal, the government is now going after even those who simply want to be left alone and are willing to forego the extra income that could have been earned (and pay a chunk to other tax collectors). This is a huge step away from freedom towards collectivism. It’s part of the creeping trend to consider all personal property to be “resources” available to all. Note Peskin’s wording when he said “warehousing valuable residential and commercial units.” Valuable to whom?

We hope the Vancouver property owners fight this latest encroachment on personal choice with everything they’ve got—in the courts, noncompliance, and of course all the many creative ways that people dream up to get around busybody laws. Local governments are getting increasingly bold—and desperate—when all their interventions make things worse, not better, for the average person, so they have to step on more toes to “do something.” We hope the Vancouver law is a total disaster since it is not an isolated anomaly. The mayor of Toronto, Canada’s largest city, is also considering a vacancy tax, and Peskin is trigger-ready to propose such a tax for San Francisco. When “for the good of all” becomes more important than individual rights, absolutely no one is safe from the government’s grasp.

What is the City & County of San Francisco’s solution to the problem of its bloated bureaucracy? Consider cutting back to essential services and lowering taxes and letting The City’s residents pick and choose the projects they choose to support? No, our leaders feel hiring more bureaucrats and paying them high salaries makes more sense. We’ve seen this pattern again and again over the years, and they just did it again. Last month the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to create the Office of Cannabis, which is supposed to be a “one-stop shop” to handle cannabis business applications, serve as a “conduit” to state regulatory departments, and handle complaints. The vote was completely expected as Mayor Lee had already earmarked $700,000 in his $10,106,950,947 2017-2018 budget for this purpose. The new Director of the Office of Cannabis will be paid $207,677/year, and 3 new helpers will be hired for a total of $472,465 to “issue, deny, condition, suspend, or revoke cannabis-related permits in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.” The mayor also earmarked $665,227 in the new budget for five new Department of Public Health employees for handling the permitting for medical cannabis dispensaries. All this flurry of activity precedes recreational sales of marijuana becoming legal on January 1, 2018 following the passage of Prop 64 last November. After all, without all the rules and regulations of government dictating to buyers and sellers of recreational pot how to conduct business, the sun just might not rise in the east on New Year’s Day of 2018.

If “one-stop shopping” was the goal, San Francisco’s officials are off to a poor start. San Francisco already has a 22-member Cannabis State Legalization Task Force and a separate Medical Cannabis Task Force. The Cannabis Legalization Task Force was scheduled to be terminated this month, but once created, government bureaucracies do not die an easy death, and this layer of redundant bureaucrats will now be around until at least the end of 2018, if not longer. Furthermore, the medical marijuana dispensaries in The City are being overseen by the San Francisco Public Health Department, and we know the health department will never go away. And of course, the Planning Commission is heavily involved in granting conditional use permits if cannabis businesses want to set up shop anywhere in The City, so it is unlikely the Office of Cannabis is going to get those bureaucrats out of a very crowded kitchen.

And who will pay for all these busybodies? The official word is that the taxpayers will not get stuck with the tab, but rather the fees for permits paid by the cannabis businesses will fund the new department’s operating budget. In principle Libertarians agree that user fees are a fairer way to pay for government services since only those who use the service will end up paying for the associated cost. However, in this case, we see a few problems. First of all, while the bureaucrats are expecting an explosion of new businesses coming this way on January 1, what if the anticipated stampede doesn’t materialize? They would already have hired all these new, highly paid bureaucrats with not enough business to fund their salaries and benefits. In a normal business, pink slips would be forthcoming, but government is immune to the normal rules in the real world, so in the end, it would be the taxpayers paying for the dead weight. The other likely scenario is that the fees will be passed along to the ultimate consumers, but the fees will be so high that the pot prices will not compare favorably with the black market. Already there is speculation that 29% of cannabis users will choose to continue to purchase under the radar if the cost of new regulation requiring testing, tracking, and taxes hits the 15% rate or more. This is precisely one of the major reasons the Libertarian Party of California, which has been staunchly opposed to drug laws for decades, nevertheless opposed Prop 64 last year. A golden opportunity to open up all kinds of business opportunities for a segment of the population that obviously wants to purchase this product will be squandered by crushing bureaucracy and regulation.

Some of the possible avenues legalization could have opened up would have been in the areas of delivery, cannabis events, cannabis online exchanges and marketplaces, on-site consumption, and branded merchandise. Just as many consumers these days prefer to buy online and have goods delivered to their residences, so it could have been with cannabis, but it is extremely unlikely the Office of Cannabis will allow such delivery services. Just a few years ago, cannabis events were very popular until state cannabis regulations (in states that legalized pot) put a stop to any sort of gifting of cannabis. Likewise, online exchanges could have been a great way to put willing buyers and sellers together, but no doubt the Office of Cannabis will feel its job is to “protect” unsuspecting consumers from “unscrupulous” sellers, so in-person transactions will most likely be the only way for consumers to get what they want. Many folks enjoy consuming pot in a social setting, but no state currently allows public consumption of cannabis, so it is unlikely the Office of Cannabis will allow such socializing (though of course you can currently walk downtown any day of the week and on most any street the strong scent of marijuana is clearly permeating the air). Lastly, selling branded pot merchandise could have been a way for cannabis businesses to earn a few extra bucks, but the State of California is trying to stop cannabis businesses from selling any branded merchandise, let alone branded merchandise with a pot theme. As always, at all costs, the “children” (including grown-up adult ones) must be protected from the poor choices they might make.

Supervisor Ahsha Safai’s comments when the Board of Supervisors voted to create the latest bureaucracy are telling: “So the idea is—how are we going to manage that growth? What’s the right number? What’s the right amount for San Francisco?” Our leaders actually think they’re smart enough to figure out the “right” amount of cannabis businesses needed to satisfy the demand coming on January 1. How typical of all central planners. The taxi medallion mess in all major US cities is a perfect illustration of the futility of trying to find “the right number.” For all their planning—and the havoc it caused—in the end, it was the free market that satisfied consumers the most, despite the non-stop attacks from the government bureaucrats and the government-sanctioned taxi companies.

For those who feel that if the Office of Cannabis had not been created, a “Wild West” might have ensued, indeed, that might have happened at the beginning, but if too many pot stores had popped up all at once, then those who served their customers the best would have survived and the others would have gone out of business before long. The market would have adjusted itself—without the unnecessary busybodies at City Hall. Furthermore, if cannabis businesses had been foolish enough to set up shop in hostile residential neighborhoods, angry residents of the neighborhoods could have solved the problem themselves the old-fashioned way by boycotting the businesses, without blocking the entrances to the businesses, rather than rallying government bureaucrats for “help.”

In the end, the new Office of Cannabis will just be more highly paid busybodies inviting unnecessary contention in the neighborhoods, wasting taxpayer money, and scaring away new business that could have brought in more commerce and value to the community. All this to “protect” the general population from something that any middle school kid can get hold of pretty easily these days.