Author: lpsf

Libertarians are of the opinion that government creates problems for which it then creates solutions, and the solutions always result in more government control and less individual initiative.  Examples abound, but let’s just look at two of Mayor Ed Lee’s recent proposals.

1.  Short terms rentals

Property owners got tired of the yards-long list of rental regulations and ventured into short term rentals, which until recently thrived as agreements between willing participants.  That’s over. 

On July 2, 2015, Mayor Ed Lee announced the creation of the new Office of Short-Term Rental Administration and Enforcement, “funded in the Mayor’s FY 15-17 budget, to create a ‘one-stop’ shop and centralized location to streamline applications for the City’s short-term rental registry and more aggressively coordinate complaints and enforcement of the City’s short-term rental regulations.”

Simple private agreements between willing participants in a business arrangement have morphed into yet another “streamlined” bureaucratic maze.

2.  Support for Small Businesses

On June 15, 2015, Mayor Ed Lee announced $6.7 million over the next two years to “expand services for small businesses and strengthen neighborhood commercial corridors.”  Services will include a long laundry list of “technical assistance, access to capital, business counseling, loans, physical improvements to storefronts, and capacity-building.”

Maybe City taxpayers would better benefit if government just got out of the way and saved $6.7 million.

Cancelling out one objective with another is what government does best!

Thank you to the volunteer team that staffed the annual Libertarian booth at Pride, June 27 and 28, 2015.  We are grateful to Outright Libertarians, other Bay Area Libertarian Party chapters, and Golden Gate Liberty Revolution for continuing their collaboration with the LPSF on San Francisco Pride. Members of the team gave it their all, talking to hundreds of people, giving numerous World’s Smallest Political Quizzes, distributing a pile of liberty literature, and – most importantly – listening to what folks wanted to say.  So what did we hear?

We heard from the many who cannot fathom how a libertarian social order would work.  It won’t, as long as a belief prevails that the best model is one of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”  So we ask, “Do you see a similarity between our culture of wealth distribution and that of the former Soviet Union, or that of Greece today?  One is gone, and in the other there is great suffering.”

We heard from some who are beginning to see the drawbacks of big government, mostly thanks to major revelations such as the practices of the NSA, but are finding it difficult to see alternatives to “necessary government benefits.”  Although we try our best to explain that these “benefits” translate into detrimental consequences and that the private sector is the best source of prosperity for everyone, we realize that it is difficult to let go of assistance once obtained.

We heard from the already Libertarians who are glad to see our booth. Our appreciation for their stopping by is limitless.  Some simply dash over to say hello.  Others stay and chat, about their feelings on libertarianism or about what they are doing back home to promote liberty.   Of the latter group, we especially enjoyed our chat with a young woman from Calaveras County, who is determined to convince a handful of liberty-leaning colleagues of “Liberty on the Rocks” to follow up discussing with organized activism.

We always come away from our Pride outreach certain that we made a dent on the statist model.  Whether that dent is very small, as in the case of the folks who pick up pin-back buttons or stickers and are aware of our warmly saying “thank you for stopping by,” or the dent is a little bigger, such as with near converts who after heartfelt talks leave their email address.

San Francisco will celebrate Pride the weekend of June 27 and 28.  Libertarians will join the celebration to help commemorate a day on June 28, 1969, when members of the LGBT community said “Enough is enough.”  Here is a description of that day from the San Francisco Pride website:

 

“In the early hours of the morning of June 28, 1969, a police raid on the Stonewall Inn in New York’s Greenwich Village sparked the Stonewall riots, one of the first well-known instances of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rebellion against government-sponsored oppression of LGBT people.”

 

Libertarians have always stood against government-sponsored oppression of anyone and everyone. 

 

Whatever your political affiliation, whatever your creed or color, we Libertarians ask you to stand for the idea of individual liberty – the kind of liberty that craves space to be without doing harm to anyone.

 

The Libertarian booth at Pride 2015 is once again represented by Outright Libertarians, and it will be located on #PNE5, that’s on the Civic Center Plaza’s north east quadrant across from the Asian Art Museum.

 

We would love it if you stopped by the booth to say hello, and to pick up some of our free literature, buttons and stickers deliberately designed to spread the word of liberty.

 

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

 

 

 

June 15, 2015, marks the 800th anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta at Runnymede, southern England. From this “Great Charter” emerged the concept of a written social contract spelling out freedoms. 

 

Prior to the Magna Carta, kings governed under the principle of force and will, justified by the view that kings were above the law.  Force and will have a way of being financed by heavy taxation, be the currency bushels of wheat, silver coins, or fiat money.  King John of England undertook a perpetual quest to regain possession of Normandy, which contributed to his relentless imposition of taxes and other arbitrary burdens on the kingdom’s barons.  There was no tea party to protest the taxation, but there was armed rebellion that forced King John to sign the Magna Carta. 

 

The concept of liberty that arose out of the Magna Carta is like a genie that cannot be forced back into its bottle, no matter how much it is at times disdained or battered.  At least that is what Libertarians firmly believe.

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

 

San Francisco Supervisor David Campos had his chance to present his proposal for a moratorium on market rate housing in portions the of Mission during the June 2nd Board of Supervisors meeting.  Without doubt this was the longest Board Meeting in recent memory, 2:00 pm through 12:00 am, mostly taken up by public comment, most of which as expected in favor of the moratorium as a way to 1) stop displacement, 2) preserve culture, 3) respond to the human right of subsidized housing.  The few that spoke against the moratorium addressed 1) failed housing policies that go back decades, 2) years’ long planning that finally gave developers the go ahead to invest in projects that are now threatened, 3) rules approved by voters being changed in the middle of the game.  A few of the comments involved extreme suggestions, such as appropriating private property, but most relied on a presumption of right to live in the Mission.

After the public comments, Supervisor Campos urged his fellow supervisors to “do the right thing” and vote in favor of the moratorium – this was 11:14 pm.  Supervisor Cohen stopped the voting called by President Breed to ask questions.  She asked, if the moratorium passes:  Will any subsidized housing projects be negatively affected:  Yes.  Would “impact fees” that support parks and transportation be negatively affected:  Yes.  Would matching federal funds be negatively affected:  Yes.  What is the process for acquisition of the 13 parcels in question for affordable housing:  Willingness of the owners to sell and availability of funds from a variety of financing plans now being considered.  11:39 pm by now. 

Supervisor Campos argued that based on what he heard from economists, there would be no impact, and Supervisor Cohen’s questions can be discussed if/when the moratorium is passed.  11:45  pm by now.  Supervisors Kim and Avalos chimed in about how proud they were about the Mission residents that spoke.  Supervisor Mar expressed concern about the “ethnic cleansing” taking place.  11:48 pm by now. 

President Breed called the vote.  Kim:  Yes.   Mar:  Yes.  Tang:  No.  Cohen:  Yes. 

Wiener:  No.  Yee:  Yes.  Avalos:  Yes.  Campos:  Yes.  Breed:  Yes.  Christensen:  No.  Farrell:  No.  Seven Yeses.  Four No’s.  Nine Yeses needed to pass.  Measure fails.   

Supervisor Campos indicated during the meeting that affordable and diverse neighborhoods in San Francisco “is an idea whose time has come.”  It appears that four of his colleagues disagreed, or at least disagreed with his strategy.  We will probably be seeing these same arguments again on the November ballot.

 

Charles Murray, of The Bell Curve and Losing Ground fame, has a new modest proposal, which he discussed during his presentation at the Commonwealth Club on May 18th.  The proposal, outlined in Dr. Murray’s latest book By the People:  Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission, suggests that ordinary people who are aware of how far this country has moved from the original intentions of its founders start the process of return by creating and using a legal defense “Madison Fund.”  We pay into this fund like we pay for insurance.  When we are annoyed enough with a really useless and detrimental government rule, we break the rule and use the Madison Fund to pay for our legal defense.  The idea is to make it costly for government to enforce useless rules, some of which have profound effects on ordinary people’s lives.

Some examples of this type of civil disobedience are the strategies of Uber, Lyft, and AirBnb. The non-aggression principle is followed as no one is being harmed, the public benefits from an efficient service, and the government is left with the difficult task of trying to undo a popular practice that voters are happy with.  Murray suggests that everyone who is concerned with government overreach break at least one rule that enjoys a consensus of being useless and detrimental.  Rules that stand in the way of our running a business or raising our families as we see fit are good choices.

The impetus of Dr. Murray’s proposal is his concern that the unique “American project,” in which government is limited and the individual is sovereign, is almost gone.  Courts and legislators have corrupted the role of the enumerated powers, the commerce clause, and the general welfare, thereby reversing the powers between people and government.  The Founding Fathers intended the individual to be sovereign, but today, government sees itself as sovereign.  The individual, once the boss, is now the servant.  Instead of the very special American project, we now have a maze of bureaucrats regulating every aspect of our lives.

Pinning our hopes on electing a president or legislators who would return the country to its Constitutional roots is not realistic.  Special interests wield such power and command such immense amounts of campaign funds that change via the legislative process is unlikely.  Liberty is more likely to be rebuilt when action is initiated by the people without permission.

San Francisco Supervisor David Campos has introduced Ordinance #150461 “Zoning-Interim Moratorium on New Residential Uses and Elimination of Production, Distribution, and Repair Uses in a Portion of the Mission Area Plan of the General Plan.”  The progressive faction of the Board – Mar, Kim, Avalos and Yee – are co-sponsors.  This “Urgency Ordinance” prohibits the issuance of any permits to “demolish, merge, convert, or construct housing projects,” except 100% subsidized projects, “affirming the Planning Department’s determination under the California Environmental Quality Act..” 

This is an ordinance worthy of any NIMBY group on Pacific Heights, Telegraph Hill, or The Waterfront, right down to the CEQA card.  The difference, of course, is that the high-end NIMBY’s can afford their abodes, and there is no downside to their keeping newcomers out. 

The downsides of Campos’ moratorium should be obvious.  No building permit is needed to evict a current tenant.  Government funding for subsidized housing is not plentiful – that is why Mayor Lee pushed for developer-financed subsidies.  Residents of other lower-income neighborhoods would cry foul if more than allotted subsidized units are concentrated in the Mission District.  Subsidized housing does not generate high property taxes that can be applied to neighborhood schools.  Costs of development currently under construction or in the pipeline will increase as developers continue to experience resistance and delays, and those costs will be passed on to buyers and renters somehow.  Prospective developers will demand a higher return on their investment to account for the uncertainties inherent in building in The City, which will be reflected in even higher costs of housing or lower quality of housing.

If the Mission District’s real goal is to stay just as it is, no growth and no change, an iron-clad permanent injunction on all building would possibly work.  Other neighborhoods shunning growth could demand the same injunction, say Telegraph Hill.  Then the new San Francisco could be just like the old San Francisco we have known for decades.  Or, growth could be limited to “transit corridors.” Then we would have a Plan Bay Area scenario – the perfect NIMBY plan.

 

The new factories and machines of the late 19th century changed the world forever.  Craftsmen became obsolete and farmers left the land to work in cities.  Predictably, as cities became crowded with potential workers, conditions in factories deteriorated.  Fourteen-hour work days were common, as was child labor.  In this environment, workers organized, formed labor unions, and eventually won improved working conditions.

 

Unions continued to obtain real benefits for workers well into the 20th century.  Sally Field’s character in the 1979 movie Norma Rae, when she held the sign UNION, did what thousands of workers must have done since the 19th century.

 

However, what worked so well in the past, might not be working so well now.  National participation in labor unions has decreased steadily.  In 1990 16% of employed workers were union members.  The percentage in 2014 was 11.1%.  Perhaps market conditions changed as deeply in the 21st century as they did in the 19th century, but unions and their supporters have failed to adapt. 

 

Therefore, unions continue to make the same old demands, while businesses avail themselves of new options:  outsourcing work to cheaper and less restrictive markets, developing technologies to replace human workers, locating businesses where non-union workers can be hired, or contracting with flexible companies.

 

 

An example of the scenario described above is playing out in Parkmerced, the largest residential community in San Francisco, owned by an out-of-town LLC.  I attended a union rally in front of the Parkmerced administration building on Thursday, April 23, and spoke to a union member distributing flyers.  She indicated that she had been a maintenance worker in Parkmerced for 20 years.  She and her co-workers were summarily dismissed when Parmerced acquired a maintenance company that, according to the speaker, paid less in benefits.  The flyers asked people to contact the Parkmerced management and tell them that 1) the new contractor must sign the existing union contract for janitors and handymen, and 2) the new contractor must hire the existing janitors and handymen.  Common sense would ask why Parkmerced would agree to do that. 

 

One way Parkmerced would agree to the same terms they just got rid of would be for them to be found guilty of breaking a contract or a law.  Another way would be word for above, which was what SEIU United Service Workers West and union supporters are counting on.  The flyer announcing the rally encouraged Parkmerced residents to join “in solidarity for a demonstration with workers, community leaders, and elected officials.”  Progressive journalist Tim Redmond wrote in his 48 Hills Blog, “Among those who will be at the rally Thursday:  Jobs with Justice, Chinese Progressive Association, San Francisco Grey Panthers, San Francisco ACCE, California Faculty Association San Francisco State Chapter, United Educators of San Francisco, American Federation of Teachers Local 2121, SEIU 1021, California Nurses Association, and Supervisors Eric Mar, John Avalos, and David Campos.”  http://www.48hills.org/2015/04/22/union-workers-to-rally-at-parkmerced/. I estimated around 30 workers marching in the rally.  No Mar, Avalos, or Campos.  

 

It appears that labor unions would benefit from new paths and ideas.  Strong apprenticeships guilds could be of immense benefit to low income youth and the currently unskilled unemployed.  A focus on skill and competence rather than on seniority could do wonders for the union image.  A realistic view of what the market will pay for unskilled labor will also help. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee wants to resolve the high cost of housing in San Francisco by promising 30,000 residential units by 2020, that’s five years from now.  How realistic is that promise?  Let’s review.

June 2014:  Voters approved Proposition B requiring developers to seek voter approval prior to construction of any project on land under Port Authority jurisdiction that exceeds current heights limits.

February 2015:  Calle 24, a group of Mission District businesses, nonprofits and residents, proposed a moratorium on market-rate development projects in the district.  Supervisor David Campos, who represents the Mission, indicated he will propose legislation to achieve this objective.

March 2015:  Aaron Peskin, one of the backers of the No on Washington 8 campaign, declared he is in the race for Supervisorial District 3. 

April 2015:  On April 7, the Board of Supervisors spent time deciding whether to side with the owner-builder of a duplex in District 8 or side with the challenger under CEQA, a next-door neighbor living in a very similar duplex.  The owner’s initial plans were denied by the Planning Commission last November (duplex too big and out of neighborhood character).  After a number of modifications and approval by the Planning Commission, the project was stopped again by the neighbor.  The Supervisors approved the project, but there is no guarantee that the neighbor will not now bring a legal suit.

During the Board meetings’ public input period, a member of the LPSF asked the obvious question:  How long will it take for Mayor Lee to build 30,000 residential units when it takes seven months just to obtain approval to start the building of one little building intended to be owner occupied?    

Calle 24 dubbed a projected market-rate 10-story building in the  Mission District “Monster in the Mission,” and stopped it cold.  We are assuming Calle 24 would prefer that high-income newcomers to the City buy up currently affordable old buildings and renovate them as luxury residences.

SF Bay Area Renters’ Federation has made good use of the image that common sense brings to mind when visualizing the Monster in the Mission.

The Libertarian Party of San Francisco, host of “Tax Day Symposium 2015: Housing for All – The Supply, The Planning and The Realities,” wishes to thank everyone who gave freely of their time to help make this event a success. 

Panelists Randal O’Toole and Sonja Trauss, as well as moderator Starchild, kept the audience totally engaged throughout the two hours of presentations and audience participation.  The audience was still going strong with questions and comments all the way up to closing time.  We are immensely appreciative to our audience, who came in spite of the rain and in spite of the fact that we had no choice but to hold the event on a week that is traditionally reserved for family gatherings.

Much appreciation also goes to two of our partners in liberty who posted the event on their websites and sent out announcements to their group members:  Bay Area Citizens and Golden Gate Liberty Revolution.

Our panel discussion was not intended to be an echo chamber, but a forum where divergent views would be expressed, since out of divergent views often comes consensus and eventual solutions.  Some of the principal ideas presented by panelists and guests were:

*The Bay Area does not have a housing problem.  It has a zoning problem.

*People prefer to live in single-family homes rather than tall buildings.

*High multi-purpose buildings provide for good live-work-recreation spaces.

*Technology has reduced harmful emissions. 

*We can implement inexpensive local and intercity buses.

*Water allocation without pricing mechanisms encourages waste. 

*Farmers overuse water rather than lose their allocation.

*Density is the solution.  Only 5% of California land is used for people.

*Density destroys quality of life and produces dangers. 

*We live in earthquake territory.

*The current push for density is the result of the UN Agenda 21 mandate.

*Dense population corridors arose in early American urban planning.

In spite of all the seeming contradiction, the objective of creating livable — and pleasant — space by making more realistic land-use policy and by developing technology able to build safe multi-use high buildings seemed to win the day.

Lots was discussed, but so much more was left to discuss, such as the specifics of how we can modify current land-use policy (Plan Bay Area, for example) to allow for more realistic outcomes.