Category: Uncategorized

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

Julian Assange, founder and editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks spoke via live feed before the Green Party’s National Convention on August 6, and once again helped us understand the nature of government – there is a lot that is challenging.  In particular, during this presidential election, choosing between the two main candidates, Assange says, is like choosing between cholera and gonorrhea. 

However, the presidential candidates are not of main concern, since it matters not who is President.  In Assange’s view what matters is the environment around any particular President.  Is the press able and capable to investigate and report malfeasance?  Are there individuals and groups paying attention to what is going on, and crying foul when things do not seem right?  Is the economy healthy? 

The ability of individuals and groups to hold government power in check depends on how much information circulates freely and unaltered.  That is why Assange said he considers the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to be the key to all the other Amendments.  We need to know in order to act.  Thus, unholy alliances between government and corporate giants are today of special concern, since today’s behemoths are our means of communication. 

Communication is essential in exposing secrecy, untruths, influence peddling, as well as malfeasance and criminality.  Equally essential are individuals willing to risk life, limb, and freedom to provide unaltered information.  Assange mentioned with affection his many information contributors.  He had special words on behalf of Chelsea Manning, whose only act was to “communicate truthful information to the public.”

We are experiencing a remarkable moment, when there is a chance for a movement to grow that will curtail the unchecked power of today’s political system.  Assange sees Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, and Bernie Sanders as seminal to such a movement, main players with the capacity to build the pressure necessary to reign in abuses of power.

But for such a movement to grow and be useful keeping power in check, the main players, Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, and Bernie Sanders, need We the People to understand that individual rights are not something we just discuss, but something we put in practice every day by simply using those rights every day.  Assange reminded us that if we do not use them, we lose them.   

“I like things to look like what they are.”  Julian Assange is a remarkable man, who practices what he preaches.
His convention speech is well worth watching.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaTjIZA5G6Q

“The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program,” said Ronald Reagan.  Once established, regardless of the changing world around it and regardless of how many times it changes its official name, a government program is like The Blob – you can’t kill it. 

As elsewhere, here in San Francisco hundreds of programs obliviously forge ahead, clash with one another, and contribute to the City’s eye-popping $9.6 billion budget. We offer some observations which you might find of interest:

o  Back in January 2016, Major Ed Lee ordered all City departments to cut spending by 1.5% because a $100 million budget deficit was looming.  In May Mayor Lee announced that the budget grew by $700 million to $9.6 billion with no cuts, thanks to growing property values (and property taxes) and a sales tax increase of .75% in the November 2016 ballot – yes, the budget is balanced with revenues that may or may not materialize.

o  “Venture capitalists tightening their purse strings, startups shedding jobs and the continuing dearth of IPOs could be taking their toll on the Bay Area’s housing market.  By almost any measure, the Bay Area’s roaring economy is cooling. The region’s housing market is fueled by wealth creation and new jobs that have been hallmarks of the regional economy.”  So says The San Francisco Business Times.  No, we do not expect any programs to go away or any cuts to the City’s mega budget that relies on growing property values. Luxury Housing Market Cools as Economy Slows.

o  Remember back in 2012 when the LPSF warned voters that San Francisco City College needed extreme changes in its governing system if it hoped to survive?  Instead, protests and law suits discouraged meaningful reform, enrollment dropped by 1/3, and the college is back on the brink living mainly off a CA state “stabilization fund.”  They are planning to place an extension of the 2012 parcel tax on the November 2016 ballot – four years ahead of when the tax was supposed to expire. 

o  A bit of conspiracy never hurts.  Also we need to emphasize that The Blob is everywhere, not just in San Francisco.  In Agenda 21: The Inconvenient Truth About Mixed-Use Development, the author says, “Pick just about any Bay Area city and you will easily identify any number of RRMU projects that have been proposed, entitled and/or developed over the past ten years.  And with rare exception, these projects suffer the same ills…relatively high vacancy rates, substantially below market rents, poor credit tenancies and a high turnover rate of the brokerage firms that try, with little success, to lease what is un-leasable.”  RRMUs are “residential over retail mixed-use development,” one of the requirements of central planning programs such as our own Plan Bay Area.  We bet they won’t go away no matter what either.

Turning our attention to what is good often replenishes our strength to continue finding ways to counter what is bad.  In this spirit, we offer 4 Good Things – 4 events representing ordinary people getting together with neighbors and friends to present solutions to challenges:

o  Screening of “Class Dismissed” with filmmaker Jeremy Stuart Saturday, July 16, 2016, 11:00 am Michele Brown’s House, 2060 36th Ave, Oakland, CA 94601.  This is an event presented by Full Circle Family, a new homeschooling group that’s getting organized in Oakland.  The film opens eyes to the need to find the right fit in education for our children.  Event is free.  RSVP is required. http://www.meetup.com/FullCircleOakland/

o  A meeting with Dr. Helen Caldicott to discuss the question “Can Nuclear Weapons be Abolished?” August 13, 2016, 2:00 pm Koret Auditorium, San Francisco Main Library, 100 Larkin Street, San Francisco, CA 94102.
The event was organized and is presented by members of the War and Law League, to call attention to the dangers of U.S.’s undeclared wars.  Event is free.  RSVP appreciated. https://www.facebook.com/WarandLaw/

o  The growth of regionalism in the Bay Area, whereby planning and taxing decisions are made by regional agencies, has energized some Bay Area residents to organize and proselytize!  Members are attending public meetings, writing about the issue on their websites and Facebook pages, and meeting as a group to strategize.  Events might be coming up in the near future. http://nine-county-coalition.squarespace.com/

o  San Francisco’s Westside residents are tired of having their cars broken into.  “They figuratively shook their fists and let it be known they’re ‘mad as hell and not going to take it anymore;’” that according to Joel Engardio in his S.F. Examiner Op-ED of July 10.  So, Westsiders formed the Criminal Justice Accountability Coalition.  Read about it, http://www.sfexaminer.com/accountability-in-criminal-justice-sought-on-the-westside/

o  Ordinary people, who go to work every day, take care of their kids, and generally mind their own business at times do get “mad as hell,” and good things can come out of that.

Independence Day! A happy American ritual on July 4th since 1776, when the colonies walked out of the British Commonwealth.  This year, another country is celebrating its own walking out, Britain!  As it is good to remember why the colonies parted company with King George – a belief in a people’s right to self determination – it is good to understand the British exit from the European Union.  Brexit the Movie is available for free on Youtube and Vimeo, and we hope you will watch it. 

For fun, here are some quotes from our Founding Fathers and from the people interviewed in Brexit:

“That these united colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states.”  Richard Henry Lee

 “We’re being asked to give up the right to govern ourselves. What are we being offered in return that could possibly be worth it?” Narrator of Brexit

“I am well aware of the toil and blood and treasure it will cost us to maintain this declaration, and support and defend these states.” John Adams

“If I were told I would be stewing grass to feed my family because we left the E.U., I would still do it.” Simon Heffer

“The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.” Patrick Henry

“Democracy only works if you know who your representatives are.” Narrator of Brexit

“There is something very unnatural and odious in a government a thousand leagues off.  John Adams

“You should have the power to remove the people who govern you.”  Claire Fox

“Taxation without representation is tyranny.” James Otis

“If I am to pay taxes, I want to be told where the money goes and who spends it, so that if he spends it stupidly, I can throw him out of office.” Simon Heffer

Good Independence Day quotes from both sides of the Pond.