Author: lpsf

This past Valentine’s Day, while most people were busy sending valentines, flowers, and chocolates to their loved ones, San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors were dreaming about what they love the most—more taxes. Seven of the eleven supervisors (Peskin, Fewer, Ronen, Kim, Yee, Safai, and Cohen) voted for Resolution No. File 170161, which urged the California state legislature to amend the Revenue and Taxation Code to allow local California jurisdictions to collect personal and corporate income taxes as a “sustained source of funding for transportation and public health priorities.” The resolution cites AB1690 introduced by then-State Assemblyman Mark Leno in 2003 (which thankfully died in committee) as a model for this latest effort “to look for progressive revenue sources…in a menu of options.” And we’re not talking about chump change here—they want a full 10% of an individual’s state income tax liability. That’s on top of the federal income tax and the California state income tax, which at 13.3% is the highest rate in the entire country. Triple taxation!

The reasons cited for the necessity of this new tax are the threatened loss of federal funding due to Sanctuary City policies and the intended repeal of Obamacare. Is the loss of federal funding serious enough to The City’s budget to require two new taxes? What will become of President Trump’s executive order to identify funds the federal government can withhold to punish Sanctuary Cities? Will Obamacare be repealed and not replaced? Why don’t the politicians consider cutting costs when confiscations are down?

First let’s take a serious look at the cutting of federal funding to Sanctuary Cities. Regardless of what the President says, cutting off federal funds is not as easy as it sounds. The first problem is that it’s unconstitutional to use federal funds to force local government agencies to cooperate with the federal government. The second problem is that the President’s power to withhold federal funding is limited without the help of Congress. There are three federally funded programs all administered by the Department of Justice that could be blocked without Congress’ approval: The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program (JAG), the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), and the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAPP). However, since the President’s executive order included language protecting federal grants “deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes by the Attorney General or the Secretary,” it might not be so easy to block even these three grant programs. Furthermore, to maintain funding, jurisdictions must be in compliance with U.S. Code 1373, which says that state and local governments can’t forbid employees from sharing information regarding the citizenship or immigration status of any person. The Department of Justice could block the grants without Congressional approval, but it must first refer each jurisdiction’s case to the non-partisan Office of the Inspector General, and because over 300 jurisdictions have Sanctuary City policies, it’s a typical convoluted government process that could take months or even years for approval before actual fund-cutting occurs. In actuality, many of the Sanctuary Cities are already in compliance with U.S. Code 1373, so it might not even make sense for the Trump Administration to waste resources on this effort. The federal government could issue new regulations redefining what “compliance” with 1373 is, but even that would necessitate a 30-day public response period and numerous challenges in court. It seems apparent that even President Trump for all his bluster would take a long time—possibly years—before being able to actually cut any of the federal funding.

As for Obamacare, anyone following the hot air rising in Washington should be able to see that it’s not going away anytime soon. For years the Republicans have railed that it must be repealed, but now that they’re in control of both houses, they’re getting cold feet. Some Republicans are now cautioning against moving too fast to dismantle the current system without something better to replace it. There is absolutely no consensus on the replacement, which became especially obvious recently when Republican lawmakers had to shelve legislation that would have dismantled Obamacare due to a lack of supporting votes. Most certainly the Republicans do not want to get blamed for widespread disruption in health insurance coverage. Furthermore, despite the general unpopularity of Obamacare, some parts of it, like coverage for pre-existing conditions and allowing “children” 25 or younger to remain on their parents’ policy, have gone over well with the voting public, so any replacement plan would have to retain those features or offer something similar. The Republicans are petrified that if people start losing coverage, the media will spring into action with gut-wrenching stories about cancer victims or disabled people suddenly losing coverage. Most Republicans lack the backbone to actually get rid of Obamacare and replace it with more market-based approaches like tax credits (not deductions) for individuals for healthcare costs and getting rid of the restriction on selling insurance across state lines, which would greatly increase the types of plans available and lower costs. Getting rid of Obamacare’s thousands of pages of rules would also be a good place to start, but the recent effort by the Republicans did not even attempt that. In short, Obamacare—or something very similar to it—will be with us for the foreseeable future.

So that brings us back to the question of why additional taxes need to be levied in San Francisco when there is no immediate or even short-term chance of major funding cuts from the federal government. There is no impending “crisis”—the leaders of “The Resistance” are just using it as yet another excuse for increased taxes and more bloated government. They have no shame.

City Hall, aka “The Man”, never had the warmest relationship with the hippies who were questioning their authority, violating their rules, etc., and this fact was demonstrated again yesterday. Political appointees on SF’s Recreation and Parks Commission backed the decision of department staff to deny a permit to a promoter seeking to hold a free festival in Golden Gate Park to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the legendary “Summer of Love”, the 1967 apex in San Francisco of the mid-1960s to early 1970s countercultural revolution.

According to the SF Examiner (Friday Feb. 17), the grinch-like commisars were dissatisfied with what department permit director Dana Ketchum said were promoter Boots Hughston’s alleged lack of “security, police and medical plans” for the event planned to be held June 4 in the Polo Field. No word on why “security” and “police” were listed as two separate items. If the police are not there to provide security, what would they be there for? To provide some period atmosphere by making oinking noises at attendees, or posing for photos wearing pig masks?

“Rec and Park turns down request due to concerns about safety”, read the Examiner’s subhead. But that’s taking the bureaucrats’ justification at face value. If it’s an official dignitary visiting, or a high-profile sporting event like football’s Super Bowl or the America’s Cup yacht race, the City government seems to bend over backward to be accommodating, spending taxpayer money freely to make the event happen. But apparently no such luck if you just want to throw a free celebration for the people in commemoration of some history the authorities would probably secretly prefer to forget.

Do you ever wonder what sets legislators’ hearts aflutter? Is it a desire to pander to where the most votes are? Do they really believe that passing more laws and mandates will improve the lot of the masses? Do they ever consider that their constant attempts to “help” will actually backfire and hurt those who are supposed to be helped the most? Do they really believe that force—backed by the heavy hand of government—will make this a more civil society?

The latest attempt by California State Assembly Members to tell California employers how to run their businesses is AB-5, the Opportunity to Work Act, which was introduced in Sacramento on December 5, 2016. This latest in an unending series of laws to micromanage the relations between employees and employers would require all California employers of 10 or more to offer additional hours of work to an existing nonexempt employee (by law must be paid overtime) before hiring an additional employee or subcontractor. Of course there’s more: the employer would be required to post a notice of employee “rights” and also the requirement of additional documentation proving compliance.

Needless to say, this latest intrusion in the hiring process will do little to improve relations between employees and employers, but it will help to increase labor costs in California and be one more reason to set up shop elsewhere. First of all, the law assumes that employers are silly enough to incur unnecessary (and not insignificant) recruitment costs by looking for green pastures outside the company when they have more qualified workers in-house. This doesn’t make much sense, especially since in the “real” world, most employers are looking to keep costs low so they can lower their prices to their customers to be competitive. The only reason they would look to the outside is because they don’t have in-house employees with the necessary skills or expertise to get the job done. In an increasingly specialized workplace, it is unrealistic to assume that all jobs are easily interchangeable. It is also unrealistic to think that government bureaucrats—many of whom have never worked outside of government—would have knowledge enough of the particulars of a business to make a judgement call as to who would be the best person to get the job done.

Secondly the law would add to the already contentious environment that California businesses face by encouraging the not-the-cream-of-the-crop employees in their organizations to run to the government, file complaints against the hands that feed them with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement Police in the Department of Industrial Relations, or bring civil lawsuits against their employers. What business is it of the employees to dictate who, what when, or why their employer hires other employees? They were hired to do a particular job at a voluntarily agreed upon rate of pay dictating the pay, benefits, hours, and working conditions, and if something changes within the organization that rubs the employee the wrong way, they should just move on. Encouraging busybodyism, as this bill does, is not one of the proper functions of government.

Yet another aspect of this outrageous bill is, “An employer shall use a transparent and nondiscriminatory process to distribute the additional hours of work among existing employees.” They make it sound like who’s going to take out the trash this week. In the real world, skills and effort really do count, so of course it would be perfectly logical to “discriminate” and “distribute” additional hours to your best employees, not everyone equally. If some urgent orders come in unexpectedly and someone’s going to need to work extra hours to get them out, of course you’re going to choose your best employees to work extra, not your marginal employees. You would be wasting company money if you did otherwise. By trying to force employers to act as if all workers were created equal—that’s a slap in the face to those employees who produce the most.

Lastly there are the additional posting of signs and paperwork burden that accompany AB-5. OK, the signs won’t cost that much—and nobody will read them anyway—but the real problems are the soft costs of complying with this proposed law. Per Section 559 (e), “An employer shall retain all of the following:

(1) For any new hire of an employee or subcontractor, documentation that the employer offered additional hours of work to existing employees prior to hiring the new employee or subcontractor

(2) Work schedules of all employees

(3) If applicable, the written statement of an employee pursuant to subdivision (k) (welfare-to-work person can opt out)

(4) Any other records or documents that the division requires the employer to maintain to demonstrate compliance with this section.”

So every time an employee or subcontractor is hired, an employer must document that the company offered the additional work to be done to the current employees. This sounds to us like the existing employees must “sign off” that it’s OK to hire from the outside—they grant their employer “permission.” Suppose the employee does not agree to hire a new employee and requests the additional work him/herself. This would create disruption in the workplace as the employee’s skills may not be a good fit for the job functions required. Indeed the employee may be getting in over his/her head and may be doomed for failure—a situation that makes everyone worse off.

Again we marvel at how those in Sacramento feel they know better how to micromanage all businesses in the state (with 10 or more employees) simply by passing a law. This particular bit of top-down legislation is yet another feel-good attempt to pander to employees (and not always the best ones) to “help” them. The better way to “help” would be to loosen up regulations so employees unhappy with their employers can start a business of their own, rather than setting them up for failure with their current employers. Also since busybody politicians are always interested in “creating” more jobs, we find this bill to be particularly hypocritical since it would make it harder to hire new employees. But then again it’s apparent that the politicians have no consistent agenda to increase individual liberty, but rather just pass laws with nice-sounding names that make it worse for everyone. We hope Busybody Bill AB-5 dies a deserving death in committee in Sacramento.

Like the blob, beware the rollout of CleanPowerSF (CPSF)! It’s coming to your neighborhood soon. Recently service was rolled out to 7,400 commercial customers in the Bayview, Haight, and Castro neighborhoods, and they just added in residents in districts 5 and 8. There is another major rollout planned for this spring.

The history of this not insignificant change in service providers actually goes back to 2002 when state legislators passed Assembly Bill 117, which was ironically heralded by its proponents as the Community Choice Law. Otherwise known as a CCA (Community Choice Aggregation program), the law allowed any city or county to supply its own power to its residents, businesses, and municipal facilities in a “community wide electricity buyers’ program.” In 2007 San Francisco formed CPSF’s 2007 Implementation Plan with the ambitious goals of building 210 megawatts of in-city energy efficiency and new renewable generation capacity and a 150 megawatt regional wind facility, as well as reaching a 51% renewable energy portfolio within 10 years. Two factions of government bureaucrats have been battling each other for a decade on how to accomplish these goals. CPSF is administered by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) and monitored by the San Francisco Local Agency Formation Committee (LAFCo), which was most recently chaired by former Supervisor John Avalos. The SFPUC—hardly an ensemble of liberty-leaning officials—at least seems to have been more cautious about what is basically a government takeover of PG&E’s electricity grid, while San Francisco LAFCo officials are 100% gung-ho for the rollout—no matter what the cost is. While of course climate change, the carbon footprint, and “clean” energy are all part of the implicit motivation for getting CPSF off the ground, there’s more at work here: the evil “P” word must be removed from the mix. Paul Fern, the Grand Poobah of the clean power movement in California who was instrumental in getting AB117 passed, has advised the San Francisco LAFCo, “It’s about moving away from a 19th century model—the Rockefeller model to maximize profits. It’s about managing demands, not profits, because the program is owned by customers. It’s about democratization, not just clean power.”

What really irks us about CPSF more than anything is the way the bureaucrats are implementing it with their opting-in shenanigan. Otherwise known as “slamming” when companies in the voluntary sector do it, but somehow when government officials do it, it becomes part of a Community “Choice” Aggregation program and it is now government-blessed. When a community signs on to a CCA, all of the customers are automatically enrolled in the new program. No one asks you if you prefer CPSF or PG&E—the default is the government-owned and run utility. On the Sonoma Clean Power website (similar arrangement CCA with everyone opted in) in FAQ, to the question why have I been opted in without my consent, the smug answer is that the state mandated that everyone be opted in, plus PG&E is a monopoly anyway and they never asked you if you wanted to be their customer. Of course AB117 was specifically designed by those who are foisting government electricity on us, and they knew that slamming everyone in would give the CCA’s an expected advantage over staying with PG&E. The “Choice” part of a CCA is complete hypocrisy. Yes, all customers do have the option of opting out of CPSF, and CPSF claims that it will mail you four paper notices—knowing very well that most folks toss most, if not all, of their junk mail out without opening it. You can bet that most customers will have no idea that they’ve been slammed and scammed since their bills will still be from PG&E, even after the changeover. Since most consumers don’t review their bills that closely these days—if they even look at them at all—and with online bill paying and automatic debit payments, it’s likely the switch will be the opposite of transparent. Again we say this is all by design.

As to the reliability of whether the “new and improved” energy will actually be that much cleaner than PG&E energy, that remains to be seen. Originally The City contracted with Shell Energy North America in 2010 to create a program that achieved The City’s goals, and the SFPUC staff reported that the power purchased from Shell would be 100% greenhouse gas-free. However, it turned out that the Renewable Energy Certificates (REC’s) included a mix of “unbundled” credits (dirty energy from fossil fuels or other non-certified green sources). In the end, the contract with Shell was dissolved, and CPSF is now providing a base “green” package of energy that’s anywhere from 33%-50% renewable sources. At least that’s what CPSF claims. Mind you, let’s not forget that PG&E currently gets 22% of their power from nuclear sources, which is considered pretty “clean” energy, but that doesn’t count towards their 29.5% renewable score because the state doesn’t allow nuclear power to count as renewable.

Finally, what will all this cost? CPSF claims that the basic “green” package will not cost more than PG&E’s energy. But that’s only using PG&E’s transmission and distribution system. CPSF has a much more ambitious plan in store for us, which is to “build local.” It wants to start funding the construction of local renewable energy projects to “create jobs” and also boost the renewable energy supply. Even SFPUC commissioners are concerned that starting to build out could easily make CPSF’s costs—and rates—a lot higher. The City has a pretty poor track record, to say the least, of cost containment of anything it has delved into, and we see nothing but trouble ahead once CPSF has pushed out PG&E completely. That will leave San Francisco energy users with only the most expensive “choice” of all. While we’re no fan of PG&E—a government-protected monopoly—in this case, the lesser of two evils might be the better choice.

Cronyism is alive and well in San Francisco. Fourteen months have passed since San Francisco voters passed Prop J, the establishment of a Legacy Business Historic Preservation Fund. This is a government-sponsored and financial grant (giveaway) program cooked up by then-Supervisor David Campos to “help” San Francisco businesses keep their doors open with the high cost of doing business in The City. We recently checked the San Francisco Office of Small Business website, which lists all the companies that have been approved for “Legacy” status, and already 64 businesses qualify for the grant program. The bureaucrats certainly wasted no time acting like Santa Claus. Everything from music and book stores to hardware stores to non-profits such as Community Board and Precita Eyes Muralists Association were listed in there. Since up to 300 new businesses can be added to the giveaway program each year, it’s not going to take that many years for the number of businesses on the dole to grow like a fungus.

It’s actually rather easy for established companies to qualify for the registry and grant. The business must have operated in The City for 30 years or more and either was formed or is currently headquartered here. It has to show that it has “contributed to the neighborhood’s history or identity,” and it must be committed to maintaining the physical features or traditions that define the business. Here’s where the cronyism kicks in: it must first be nominated by a member of the Board of Supervisors or the Mayor and then approved by the Small Business Commission. If the application is submitted and is not rejected within 30 days, then it automatically joins the registry. So, by default, established businesses automatically qualify for the handout, unless there is outright fraud. The other part of the giveaway is for landlords of legacy businesses: if they lease to a legacy business for 10 years or more, they also qualify for an annual grant of up to $4.50/square foot of leased space.

 The size of these giveaways is no chump change—for the legacy business, it’s $500 per year for each full-time equivalent employee, up to a total of $50,000 per business per year, and for the property owners, it’s up to a limit of $22,500 per business per year. Due to the number of businesses involved in this scheme, it won’t take long for this program to cost the taxpayers millions. The City Controller estimated an annual cost of between $51 million and $94 million eventually. And once a business is granted legacy status, it will get the bailout each year. And as we all know by now, once you start these government programs, they are nearly impossible to shut down. Can you imagine the commotion at City Hall if the Board of Supervisors were to cut funding to this giveaway program once thousands of San Francisco businesses (the Controller estimated a total of 7,500 businesses) have been on the dole for years? While The City is in boom mode right now and the program is just beginning, it should have been obvious that there would be an inevitable downturn in the future. What could the voters have been thinking when they approved this bit of high-cost madness?

Of course the program was touted as a first-in-the-nation way to “help” small businesses, but actually there’s nothing in the ordinance limiting the size of those on the dole, so even corporations like Levi’s Strauss and Ghirardelli Chocolates could apply for the giveaway. Furthermore, if our political leaders were really interested in helping small businesses, why don’t they lower taxes and fees and cut regulations and mandates, rather than doing just the opposite? As for the astronomical rents, indeed they are out of control, and while some contributing factors like loose money fueled by the Fed and urban growth boundaries around the Bay Area are beyond the control of our local politicians, the constant barrage of local laws making it more and more expensive to operate in The City fuels the fire even more. Indeed, with the unpredictability of fees, taxes, regulatory costs and compliance, it’s small wonder that commercial landlords currently prefer short-term leases. In addition, most local politicians support the idea of a split roll for Prop 13, which would greatly increase the property tax of all commercial properties, which would in turn increase the rents of many small businesses. So “help” from the politicians is totally hypocritical.

Totally missing from the ranting to “help” small businesses survive in this business-hostile city is any mention of all the small businesses just starting out or not even here yet that will not get the bailout from City Hall. They will not get the unfair advantage that the “legacy” businesses get. They will have to get all their revenue from their customers—and they better serve them well or they’ll be gone. A legacy business will not have to work as hard to please its customers because it will be partially subsidized by the taxpayers. Whether you as a taxpayer like or even utilize the services of a legacy business—you are forced to support them. Businesses come and go all the time—just like people choose to change jobs or move elsewhere. Since when is it the responsibility of the government (the taxpayers) to help some businesses “survive” while driving out the competition? We find a certain irony in this whole legacy scheme that one of the companies now listed on the registry is Luxor Cab Company. If that isn’t crony capitalism, then we don’t know what is.

Three recent articles in the San Francisco Examiner point to a disturbing trend in The City.  While it’s understood that the Bay Area leans left and the Examiner has gone completely leftist, nevertheless we see some new lows.

First is a featured article entitled “Climate change denial won’t stymie regional approach to sea level rise” (November 20).  The article describes the goings on of the San Francisco Bay Conservation & Development Commission, which meets and discusses how to prepare nearby communities for the impending (our emphasis) rising sea level.  Further it states, “The recommendations, which were approved by the commission on October 6, strongly emphasize educating the public (our emphasis) and improving current systems.  And despite the recent election of Donald Trump as the next U.S. President, who has said he does not believe in climate change, the efforts to address sea level rise are still expected by the commission staff to move forward in the Bay Area.”  So what does the President-elect have to do with yet another useless regional commission?  Would he disband them when he takes office?  We think not.  He will have his hands full and will be unlikely to care about such nonsense.  Just another cheap attempt to make fun of the President-elect.  What makes the whole thing almost laughable is that the commission noted that the actual sea level rise in the last decade has been fairly small and “this is a slow-moving emergency.”  However note the “educating the public” part.  There’s more:  “Another important part of the recommendations is an education campaign, which will allow museums and schools to spread the word about rising sea level concerns.  The education campaign would focus not only on raising awareness within decision makers and the general public, but possibly to a greater extent focus on younger people…The education component will include things like developing a digital game which will show kids what could happen and show the kinds of things that could be done to address that.”  We have a few problems with this—namely indoctrination of the young and government “education” campaigns.  There’s enough information out there on the internet these days—both good and bad—and we think the taxpayers can sort through it all just fine without any bureaucrats’ help.

Second and even more disturbing was an article regarding a lesson plan being offered to San Francisco government teachers that describes the President-elect and his supporters as racist and sexist.  The United Educators of San Francisco, which represents more than 6,000 government teachers and paraprofessionals in the San Francisco Unified School District, distributed the lesson plan to its members in mid-November.  In an introduction to the lesson plan, a Mission High School teacher wrote, “Let us please not sidestep the fact that a racist and sexist man has become the president of our country by pandering to a huge racist and sexist base.”  The union noted to its members, “Educators have a role to play to help (students) make sense of the new reality, especially those who come from communities who have been attacked by Trump, and who now face a very uncertain future.”  The lesson plan includes a clip of Michael Moore speaking about Trump on “Democracy Now!” and readings like W.E.B. Dubois on race in the 1800’s.  The only positive thing we see here is that the lesson plan was shared as an optional resource to high school principals.  Needless to say, this way oversteps the line between real teaching and pushing one’s politics on your students.  Of course this is nothing new in government schools, but they’re not even bothering now to hide this blatant attempt to “teach” political correctness.

Most disturbing of all is a December 1 article by Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez entitled “37,000 San Franciscans voted for Trump, mostly in The City’s southwest.”  He not only rails about San Francisco’s nightmare that Donald Trump is our President-elect but cannot fathom that 37,688 citizens voted for him.  He goes beyond shaming to actually detail where “our local Nazi supporters hail from.”  First he lists Merced Manor as the worst offender and anoints it as “forever hereafter be known as Trumpland-SF.”  The homeowner-heavy Sunset District also gets a scathing review since it had more Trump votes than the rest of The City, and he even names a 10-block radius in The City that clearly voted wrong and a two-block section in District 4 that garnered 100 Trump votes.  Clearly he would have named the actual street addresses of individual voters if he had known them.  Considering the violence that has flared up on both sides this year, this kind of tar-and-feathering attitude goes way beyond the bounds of responsible journalism.  From our experience canvassing for Ron Paul and John Dennis (who ran against Pelosi) over the years, we know just how tolerant San Franciscans can be.  We heard from citizens who supported Paul and Dennis but were afraid to put up signs in their windows lest their properties be vandalized.  One supporter showed us where paint had been thrown on their property after putting up a sign for a Republican candidate.  Needless to say, that sign came down quickly.

Clearly Trump did not get much support from Libertarians, but the last time we checked, this was still America, where folks should be able to freely support the candidate they choose and not worry about being shamed—or worse.  Sadly, tolerant San Franciscans are not so tolerant after all, forgetting that tolerance is a two-way street.

On the issue of San Francisco’s mind-boggling budget, we decided to dig a little deeper to see how San Francisco compares to other American cities.  We were hardly shocked to find that San Francisco ranks as number two (Washington D.C. gets the booby prize), but by how much this city spends per citizen exceeded other major cities is truly breath-taking.  The average city budget in the 100 largest American cities is $2.146 billion with the average amount spent per citizen clocking in at $2,605.  San Francisco with a budget of $7.9 billion (using 2014 and 2015 fiscal data from Ballotpedia—the latest years available for comparison) and an estimated population of 837,442 shamefully spends $9,433 per citizen.  Since San Francisco is on a two-year budget cycle and we already know this year’s budget is $9.6 billion and next year’s will be $9.7 billion, and the population hasn’t increased that much, indeed the next time Ballotpedia updates the report, San Francisco stands to look even worse in comparison to other cities.  Here are the runners-up for most spent per citizen:  New York City-$8,690; Seattle-$6,744; Long Beach-$6,604; Honolulu-$6,036; Portland-$5,907; Boston-$4,180; and Chesapeake, VA-4,003.

OK, you might say, but San Francisco is a city and county, so we should allow for that.  We checked out other major US cities that are also a city and a county, and San Francisco doesn’t fare much better:  after San Francisco’s $9,433, next came Honolulu at $6,036, then Philadelphia at $2,903, then Nashville, TN at $2,837, and then Denver at $2,294.  What about comparing city-counties with similar populations as San Francisco?  San Francisco came out even worse when compared to two other city-counties:  Indianapolis, IN with a population of 843,393 spent $1,112/citizen, and Jacksonville, FL with a population of 842,583 spent $1,258/citizen.

We also looked at the spending power per city council/supervisor as compared to other American cities, and again San Francisco doesn’t fare so well, though at least it’s not in the number one position.  New York at $1.431 billion gets the booby prize this time.  Washington D.C. comes in second at $777 million per city council member, Portland at $720 million per city council member, San Francisco at $718 million per supervisor, and Los Angeles at $540 million closes out the top 5.  Since the recent election didn’t change the political leanings of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors much, it’s not a stretch to assume, sadly, that San Francisco will likely move up in the rankings in the upcoming years.

The possible good news is that San Francisco still has a ways to go to get to the number one position for most outrageously priced government in the country.  At a budget of $10.1 billion for 646,449 residents, which comes out to $15,624/citizen, Washington D.C. is still way ahead.  However, being the seat for the entire federal government, it is somewhat understandable that Washington would be in a category all its own.  Since 92.8% of Washington D.C. voters voted for Hillary (as opposed to 84.47% in San Francisco), we do expect a major changing of the guard, but whether any real reduction in bureaucrats or spending will occur, we’ll wait and see.

In the meantime though, any way you slice it, San Francisco has the most outrageous cost of government in the entire country.  What a way to “lead the nation” as they always like to brag about The City.  And we have to ask:  for all that extra cost, is San Francisco’s government providing that much better service to its citizens?  Are the streets cleaner and in better paved condition?  Is traffic moving smoother?  Is your neighborhood that much safer?  Police response times that much quicker?  Are your government schools turning out better-educated thinking kids?  How about Muni?  Is its on-time record that much better than other cities’ public transportation?  Is the justice system that much more fair than in other major cities?  Should you be in the unfortunate position of having to deal with a city bureaucrat, do you feel that the person was that much more pleasant and helpful than their counterpart in other major cities?  Do you feel that you’re getting close to 4 times the value of the national average of $2,605 per citizen?  We doubt it. 

While the final official vote counts are not all in yet, it’s still a bit of a disappointment for us Libertarians that our Presidential candidates did not fare as well as hoped in this zany election year.  At the latest count though, the Johnson-Weld ticket pulled in 4,429,013 votes this time (3.29%).  While drastically smaller than the 10% polling touted earlier in the year, still 4.4 million votes is nothing to sneeze at.  While we know that some voters chose the Libertarian ticket because of how bad the major party candidates were and will probably vote major party the next time, hopefully a significant number will stick with the liberty movement and vote their conscience again in future elections.  Meanwhile Johnson did pull in impressive numbers in some of the smaller states:  New Mexico-9.3% (where he was Governor for 8 years), North Dakota-6.3%, Alaska-5.9%, Oklahoma-5.7%, Montana-5.6%, South Dakota-5.6% and Wyoming-5.3%.  Statewide Johnson pulled in 478,499 (3.4%), and in San Francisco he got 8,883 (2.17%) as opposed to 4,096 (1.13%) 4 years ago.  Also noteworthy is the number of registered Libertarians in the state—about a year ago, it was around 120,000, but the latest official count is 139,805.  We’re moving in the right direction!

For the California ballot measures, as might be expected, we have very little good news to report.  All bonds and taxes passed easily, proving once again why California has such a high cost of living.  Increased gun control (need permission from the government to buy ammunition) and one of the plastic bag bans (the stores get to keep the 10 cents) also were approved by the voters.  The voters retained the death penalty and approved the other death penalty measure limiting the length of appeals, even though DNA discovery has vindicated convicted and condemned prisoners in recent years.  The only bright spots were the voters’ approval of Prop 54, which requires a 72-hour notice before bills can be voted on; Prop 57, which requires lighter sentences for rehabilitation, “good behavior,” and education; and the voters’ thumbs down (though not by much) of Prop 60, which would have regulated the porno industry by government voyeurs.

When it came to how San Francisco voted versus the rest of the state, there are few surprises: terrible on economic issues but much better on personal issues.  On the state school bond (Prop 51), despite many cities and counties voting on local school bonds of their own, as did San Francisco, San Francisco voters voted 66.75% for the state bond, but only 55.2% of the state voters voted YES.  On the extension of the “temporary” tax on high wage earners for education and healthcare (Prop 55), 63.3% of state voters voted YES, but 72.6% of San Francisco voters approved the extension for another 12 years.  We have no doubt that this tax will be renewed again and again due to a severe case of governmental tax addiction.  The $2/pack cigarette tax increase was approved by 64.4% of state voters but by a whopping 81.5% of San Francisco voters.  In complete disregard for the Second Amendment, 63.1% of California voters approved Prop 63, but in San Francisco 85.5% of the voters voted to limit citizens’ access to ammunition but not the government’s.  On the other hand though, San Francisco voters saw the folly in possibly executing the wrong person by voting to replace the death penalty with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole; Prop 62 was approved by 71.0% in San Francisco but only 46.8% statewide.  On Prop 66, which now makes it easier to execute a convicted person who might actually be innocent, San Francisco voted NO by 68.3% while statewide only 48.9% voted NO.  So, to change that Mae West quote around a bit, when San Francisco voters are good, they’re good, but when they’re bad, they’re not better but really bad!

On the local ballot measures, as always, all taxes, bonds, and set-asides were easily approved here, except (happily) Props H, M, and K.  Prop H would have created another government bureaucracy (Public Advocate Department) to deal with the overblown and crushing bureaucracy we already have.  Wouldn’t it make more sense to start getting rid of some of that bureaucracy by laying off government employees rather than hiring more folks?  Well San Franciscans aren’t quite ready to go that far (though we could dream), but at least they had the good sense (though not by much) to vote NO on H by 52.24%.  Prop M was another attempt to create more bureaucracy by creating the Housing & Development Commission to oversee two new departments (the Department of Economic & Workplace Development and the Department of Housing & Community Development).  More bureaucrats doing a lot of nothing.  While the cost would have been a drop in the bucket with San Francisco’s gargantuan budget, it was a typical ballot measure touted by those who believe government bureaucrats actually help regular people.  These commissions and departments serve only a very small portion of special interests—and themselves.  Fortunately there are still some moderates in The City, and Prop M only got the backing of the left-of-center supervisors and received a NO vote of 55.8%.  Lastly we are very happy that Prop K (sales tax increase of .75%) went down to a resounding defeat of 65.29%.  A similar measure 5 years ago received a 53.87% NO vote.  We see two factors at work here.  First, statists love it when other people have to pay for their dreams, but when they have to pay for it themselves, as in a sales tax increase, they have to think twice.  Secondly, there has been a lot in the local news about San Francisco’s record $9.6 billion budget, which is larger than the budgets of some states and smaller countries.  Apparently 8 of the 11 supervisors (and most of them are the moderates) felt no shame about asking the voters to give more money to the government to waste when they already have almost $10 billion to waste per year.  The Mayor and Board of Supervisors are now scrambling to “rebalance” the budget because it was passed on the assumption that the sales tax increase would be approved by the voters.  We consider that almost 2 out of 3 San Francisco voters put their foot down and said NO to this moderate madness to be a saving grace to this election.  Maybe there’s hope for San Francisco after all!

By Starchild, LPSF Outreach Director

UPDATED NOV. 22 – A hearing on this issue has been scheduled for the November 30th, 10:00 a.m. Budget & Finance Committee hearing, Room 250, SF City Hall (see http://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/bfc113016_agenda.pdf , item #12).

In a libertarian society where property ownership was not artificially priced out of reach of many people by government regulations and landlords and tenants stood on an equal footing, it would make sense to allow landlords to dictate any terms whatsoever to their tenants.

But in a world where development is heavily restricted, renting via services like AirBnB is subject to time limits and other restrictions, it is difficult or impossible to divide real estate parcels and sell them off piecemeal as smaller lots, and leases are typically offered to prospective tenants on a take-it-or-leave-it basis rather than being subject to negotiation between parties operating on a more or less equal footing, I believe most Libertarians would probably want some protections in place to guarantee the kind of rights that we would naturally tend to enjoy if property rights were upheld as they ought to be.

Imagine a situation in which a big grocery corporation like Safeway made a deal with landlords:  Prohibit delivery persons from other online grocery services entering your building, and in exchange we’ll give you a lucrative kickback. Pure libertarianism holds that a property owner has an absolute right to control who comes onto his or her property, and thus would have every right to enter into such a deal with Safeway and enact rules binding tenants accordingly, so that they would have no ability to contract with competing grocery delivery services. But if we wish to maximize freedom and choice in the world we live in now, common sense suggests that we would not want to implement enforcement of that absolute right until other reforms have restored a more naturally level playing field no longer distorted by various government interventions.

The grocery example above is (as far as I know) hypothetical, but San Francisco is currently facing a similar situation regarding Internet service. According to local YIMBY activist Derek Slater, who works for Google Fiber, “cable and telephone companies have struck side-deals with many landlords to keep competition out of apartment buildings.” Most commonly, they use kickbacks to landlords and other underhanded tactics to keep people on their services. The company estimates that this impacts hundreds of buildings and tens of thousands of apartment units.
    
Derek explains how this is hitting residents in the pocketbook, and is spreading the word about a legislative effort to remedy the situation:

“San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors will soon be considering an ordinance that will expand apartment residents’ choices of Internet providers. This lack of choice impacts residents’ pocketbooks. Studies show when a new superfast provider like Webpass comes to town, the cost of internet drops almost $30 per month. The proposed ordinance would let residents select the provider of their choice, while respecting landlords’ legitimate interests in their property. The cable industry already benefits from this sort of law in 17 states and many localities across the nation. The ordinance would update the law and level the competitive playing field among all providers.”

You can sign a petition in support of this proposed ordinance to expand consumer choice and market competition here:
https://votervoice.net/Engine/campaigns/48219/respond

Gary Johnson
Presidential Campaign Rally
Friday, November 4, 2016  7:00 pm
Mirage Banquet Hall
2159 El Camino Avenue
Sacramento, CA