Category: Uncategorized

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.

 

April 1, 2015

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The San Francisco Cemetery Association announced today that zombies will be rising en masse from the dead this coming April 15th in order to pay their taxes.

The group received a threatening letter from the IRS after the agency reportedly discovered that many of their residents have not paid taxes for years. An Association spokesperson said she and her colleagues decided to be proactive in addressing the issue, and not risk having revenue collectors come snooping around at night and digging up residents.

“They don’t leave you alone or cut you any slack just because you’re dead,” funeral director Morticia Addams said. “Unfortunately this situation has proven a bit challenging for us, because zombies don’t have Internet access to be able to file their taxes online, and it turns out our lawyers found some federal statute prohibiting dead people from sending stuff by mail. That leaves filing in person, but we decided it might be difficult to get them to go to the Post Office, because there aren’t enough brains there. We’re crossing our fingers and hoping that the combined brains of all the agencies and politicians’ offices in the federal building where the IRS office is located will be enough to entice a good zombie turnout for this mass filing. Zombies like to do things in groups.”

Starchild, outreach director with the Libertarian Party of San Francisco, said this news will come as a rude shock to a number of seniors. “Some of them apparently expected to be able to just pass along the bills for all this deficit spending onto their grandchildren, but this latest enforcement effort sends a clear message that the long arm of the IRS will reach beyond the grave and tap them to keep paying long after they’ve passed away. It’s sad and shameful — really just shows the troubling extent of the problem of government greed.”

He added that Libertarians are also concerned police may capitalize on fears of zombies as a threat to public safety as an excuse to revive their crusade to arm cops with Tasers, noting “it wouldn’t be the most implausible justification that’s been used to increase law enforcement powers in this country.”

Some experts believe Tasers will not affect zombies, but a police spokesperson downplayed that possibility.

Although Addams said zombies are often slow to rise to action, she also stressed that once they get going they can be difficult to stop, and cautioned members of the public not to get between the undead and the Federal Building at 450 Golden Gate Avenue in San Francisco, where zombies are expected to arrive at high noon on Tax Day.

“No one should underestimate the powerful sense of civic duty among the dead,” she said. “You might be surprised how many of our residents continue to vote in election after election.”

Libertarian Party of San Francisco • LPSF.org • (415) 775-LPSF • 520 Frederick Street #17, SF, CA 94117

 

In the old days people used to call it “Using OPM.”  Today the same phenomenon is called a “Voter Revolt.”  Or at least that is what Jon Golinger calls it in his Opinion piece in the S.F. Examiner of March 15.  Golinger was the driving force behind the wildly successful “No Wall on the Waterfront” campaign, which resulted in the canning of the Washington 8 luxury complex in San Francisco’s waterfront.  Equally successful was Golinger’s Proposition B, which requires voter approval of any structure over existing high limits to be built on Port of San Francisco property (the waterfront). 

In his Opinion piece, Golinger quotes the findings of a citywide poll of 602 likely voters conducted in February 2015 for the housing group TODCO, Tenants and Owners Development Corporation, focusing on South of Market.  The findings state that the voters polled would overwhelmingly support ballot measures that would accomplish the following:

* Dedicate City-owned land to be used only for subsidized housing.

* Zone City-owned land only for subsidized housing.

* Enact a temporary moratorium on new projects in the Mission District, until the City adopts a policy to protect against the displacement of small businesses and arts groups.

Golinger excoriates the City for approving “a glut of luxury condos to occupy our increasingly limited land instead of prioritizing the affordable [subsidized] housing we badly need.”  No mention in the article that Proposition C approved in 2012 would require that developers fork over the equivalent of 12% of those luxury condos in affordable housing.  And Proposition K approved in 2014 would make the pressure to bump up the 12% to 33% unavoidable.

We Libertarians are 100% in favor of voter revolts.  However, this revolt is starting to shape up as tons of expensive bonds (City IOU’s) and tax increment financing (future gains in taxes to subsidize current improvements).   The City does not “earn” any money, so any money it may have to pay principal and interest on bonds needs to come from the pockets of those who do.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/a-voter-revolt-is-brewing

Good job by Starchild, our Outreach Director, explaining the basic principles of libertarianism on Brian Donovan’s “Post News Hour” (KPR1.com).  Thank you to Brian for his interest!

Starchild’s crucial message:  The current political system is rigged in favor of insiders, leaving the majority of us victims of that system.  It does not have to be this way.

He touched upon the main challenges of our current system, and how libertarianism could remedy them.  The challenges affect our personal lives and our economic lives.  Therefore, solutions need to address both, which libertarianism does.

On the personal side, we live under policies that undermine individual liberties.  Challenges include invasive searches and seizures, detention policies skewed against minorities, rules on how people choose to live their lives, prohibition on what people choose to consume, application of resources on pursuing victimless crimes.

On the economic side, we deal with policies that prevent us from easily starting a business without jumping through interminable hoops, establishing private transportation systems that help people get to where they are going, have control of our monetary system via elected representatives not unelected Federal Reserve bureaucrats. 

Libertarianism pushes the balance of power towards the people and away from the insiders.  There are many groups, local and national, that promote power to the people, including the Libertarian Party.  However, we can exercise libertarianism every day on our own by insisting on making personal and economic informed choices without government coercion, and by believing in our hearts that we have unalienable rights that are ours to exercise while making sure nothing we do harms others

Libertarians are forever sounding alarms about the consequences of legislative decisions.  Besides challenges to individual self determination, property rights, and voters’ ability to hold accountable via the ballot box individuals who make decisions on our behalf, Plan Bay Area is predictably contributing to the housing crunch. 

As we noted in our article Priority Development Areas and Your Neighborhood, Plan Bay Area was designed to confine population, housing, and commercial growth to transit corridors, ostensibly in order to reduce travel distances to and from work and shopping (not much mention of schools, places of worship, or getting together with friends living outside of PDA’s).  Therefore, San Francisco is doing a lot of construction in the eastern corridors.  The Plan Bay Area map seen here shows the principal transit corridors highlighted in red, pink, and purple.

Apparently, the fallout has already begun.  As Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez says in his article Why Not Look to Westside to Build Homes?, the adage “Go West!” does not apply past the Panhandle; past the Panhandle it is more like, “Fat Chance!”

And the eastside residents are crying “Not Fair!”  So, our legislators are retooling. Supervisor Eric Mar says that growth can’t just be on the east side.  Supervisor David Campos may propose a moratorium on market rate housing development in parts of the Mission; which means no development at all unless taxpayers come up with boatloads of money to build even more subsidized housing than is already planned.

We Libertarians would like to remind our readers that Supervisors Mar and Campos were enthusiastic supporters of Plan Bay Area – and therefore its Priority Development Areas.  Perhaps look under the cushions for more taxpayer money to develop transit corridors in the western parts of The City ASAP?

We recommend Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez’ article in the San Francisco Examiner of February 17, 2014:  On Guard: Why Not Look To Westside to Build Homes?