Category: Uncategorized

Although City planners have generated a great many ideas and goals within the past three years or so, they do not seem to be developing a cohesive and credible plan. One day they speak of the urgent need for affordable housing, below-market-rate units, or safeguards against evictions. The next day they promote high-end ecodistricts, transfer of capitalization and control of public housing to the private sector, and high density areas catering to higher-income workers.

  

We would like to offer three samples of San Francisco’s current planning and development projects as examples of our point of view.

 

Central SoMa Eco-District Task Force Recommendations – Released November 2013.

 

These recommendations call for massive transformation of a 24-block area south of Market Street, from Market Street to Townsend, and from 2nd Street to 6th Street: “This once-industrial area is now positioned to become a growing center of the city’s and region’s high-tech industry. With the construction of the Central Subway (scheduled to begin operation in 2019), undeveloped or underdeveloped parcels in the area offer significant development opportunity. The Central SoMa Plan will propose rezoning this area for dense, transit-oriented, mixed-use growth and hopes to capitalize on rezoning to incorporate district-level energy and water infrastructure.”

 

To us, this sounds like the normal gentrification that naturally occurs when higher-income workers or residents move in. But the planners say, not so: the plan calls for “Equitable Development,” to “Promote Equity and Local Opportunity,” by establishing a “Locally-based employment program with specific focus on low and medium income workers, to be incorporated into Eco-District project development.” Wherever there is massive gentrification, would anyone not expect the need for custodians, gardeners, security guards, fast food handlers, street cleaners – not many of whom able to live in the area?

 

You will want to see the report yourself, as well as the extensive list of other similar projects:

http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=3051

 

Ellis Act Displaced Emergency Assistance Ordinance – Sponsors, Chiu; Campos, Kim, Mar, Breed, Farrell and Cohen. On Agenda of December 10, 2013, for Board of Supervisors final vote.

“Ordinance amending the Administrative and Planning Codes to provide a preference in occupying units or receiving assistance under all affordable housing programs administered or funded by the City, including all former San Francisco Redevelopment Agency affordable housing programs administered or funded by the City, to certain tenants being evicted under the Ellis Act, California Government Code, Section 7060 et seq.; and making environmental findings, and findings of consistency with the General Plan, and the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1.”

As gentrification expands, owners of older buildings, housing long-term tenants under rent control, naturally see the benefits of getting out of the rental business (at least temporarily) and entering into more lucrative arrangements. And our leaders, who signed off on the City’s plans, fight, probably fruitlessly, some of the plans’ inevitable results.

https://sfgov.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=1486111&GUID=3A99918F-607A-423A-9B2C-53B58DAF2F42

 

 

Emerging Issues: Sustainable Development – Central Corridor Eco-District Framework.

 

The Ellis Act ordinance shows the progressive side of planning and development; however, the other side is exemplified by the Eco-District Framework, which discusses the sharing of energy infrastructure across multiple buildings, resulting in savings produced by economies of scale, “The potential cost savings, in addition to the environmental benefits, from an appropriately planned community-scale energy system (efficiency gains and GHG reductions) can translate into higher property values.”…“Based on the benefits just described, a community-scale energy system will help catalyze development from a private sector perspective. The benefits to the public sector from this include increased revenue opportunities through system development charges and/or increased property tax revenue from higher property values that community-scale energy can bring.”

 

Plans do call for increased numbers of high-income workers, who want higher-priced housing, which push up both housing prices and property taxes. We assume that these events displace lower-paid workers, who then become recipients of some of the “benefits to the public sector” mentioned above. We wonder if the effort to remedy higher housing costs with public sector benefits constitutes a credible and achievable goal.

 

http://www.sf-planning.org/ftp/files/plans-and-programs/emerging_issues/sustainable-development/Central_Corridor_EcoDistrict_Program_Framework_10-23-2012.pdf

 

Our Conclusion.

 

The City does not feel comfortable with the direct benefits of the free market, the natural evolution of cities, and the free movement of populations in and out of areas. Planners seem to be caught in a cycle of needing increasing numbers of higher-income workers, who displace lower income workers, and who at the same time support unrealistic below-market-rate housing needed to carry out the City’s goals to keep lower-income workers in the City.

 

We like to remind voters that often one law acts as a chain reaction necessitating more and more laws.  The same holds true for micromanagement of City living.  One plan, especially an artificial one that attempts to manipulate basic market forces, will lead to the necessity of more plans.  Soon, we are faced with a situation nobody likes!

 

 

Either the designers of the drastic regional upheaval, commonly known as “Plan Bay Area” or “One Bay Area,” thought they could work around the fact that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, of they did not connect this physical law with human behavior, as most common-sense folks do.

 

The Libertarian Party of San Francisco, as well as many other groups, sprang into action, as should have been expected, as soon as Plan Bay Area started to take form. We began disseminating information, attending public meetings, and reaching out to form coalitions. See our articles “Plan Bay Area: Vision or Micromanagement?” and “Plan Bay Area Adopted Under the Cloak of Midnight, Literally!”  In the second article, we joined many other groups in sounding the alarm that Plan Bay Area would be a factor in the disappearance of affordable housing, loss of property values in some areas, increased use of eminent domain, and loss of livability and transportation choices.

 

The second round of reaction came soon after Plan Bay Area was adopted on July 18, 2013, in the form of lawsuits from the right and the left, aimed at the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the architects of Plan Bay Area.  Here is a list of current lawsuits, all of which could use the public’s moral and financial support.

 

 

BAY AREA CITIZENS vs. ABAG AND MTC: Filed in Alameda Superior Court on August 6, 2013, represented in court by attorneys from the Pacific Legal Foundation. This petition for a writ of mandate, seeks a court order telling ABAG and MTC to cease their violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and consider alternative plans.

 

Bay Area Citizens, a non-profit, was co-founded by Peter Singleton, a Larkspur resident and attorney.   The Pacific Legal Foundation’s motto is “Rescuing Liberty from Coast to Coast.” 

 

A press release by the Pacific Legal Foundation announcing the lawsuit describes their objections to Plan Bay Area:

 

“Plan Bay Area would foist a one-size-fits-all vision of ‘transit oriented development’ on the region,” said PLF Principal Attorney Damien Schiff.

 

“In this planner’s dream environment, everyone would complacently agree to a regimented lifestyle, living in multi-family housing, and walking, bike-riding, or taking public transit to work. The drafting agencies have come up with an ambitious strategy to micro-manage people’s lifestyle choices. All that’s missing is the legally required justification for doing so. Instead, they’ve studiously ignored data that contradict their agenda. They’ve cherry picked facts to create a false need for their draconian development prescriptions.”

 

http://www.pacificlegal.org/Release/Lawsuit-says-Plan-Bay-Areas-drafters-wore-blinders

 

BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION BAY AREA vs. ABAG AND MTC: Filed in Alameda Superior Court on August 16, 2013, represented in court by their own attorneys. This petition for a writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief seeks an official declaration of the legal status of Plan Bay Area, and charges ABAG/MTC with violating California Senate Bill 375 and CEQA.

 

The Building Industry Association Bay Area is a non-profit association representing builders, developers, and other professionals, both individuals and organizations, involved in the residential development and construction industry in the Bay Area.

 

Portions of the Petition read as follows:

 

“Instead of delivering a realistic and feasible plan, Respondents [ABAG/MTC] have prepared an SCS [Sustainable Communities Strategy, mandated by SB375], called “Plan Bay Area,” that fails to solve the Bay Area’s bad habit of exporting its housing needs to outlying areas, condemning more of its workforce to lengthy communities.”

 

“Respondents did not consider the environmental impacts of their proposed SCS until [the] second phase of the process, which helps explain why the environmental impact review violates the most basic tenets of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQUA).”

 

“Respondents, however, refused to give adequate consideration to alternatives actually grounded in real world assumptions, and they failed to honor CEQA’s purpose of ensuring informed decision-making.”

 

http://www.biabayarea.org/bay-area-builders-sue-regional-agencies-over-failure-to-comply-with-landmark-state-housing-law/

 

COMMUNITIES FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT AND THE SIERRA CLUB vs. MTC AND ABAG. Filed in Alameda Superior Court on August 19, 2013. They are represented in court by Earthjustice. This petition for writ of mandate challenges the environmental review conducted by Plan Bay Area under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

 

Communities for a Better Environment is an environmental justice organization, whose mission is to build people’s power in California’s communities of color and low income. The Sierra Club is a non-profit founded by conservationist John Muir.  Earthjustice is a non-profit, public interest law organization, dedicated to litigating environmental issues.

 

Earthjustice’s claims against Plan Bay Area are summarized as follows,

 

Increases the time people will be spending in their car and on the road.

 

Does not spend enough on shoring up inadequate public transportation systems.

 

Proposes housing developments without committing to investments in public transportation serving those developments.

 

Fails to protect the communities closes to major transportation hubs, highways, and ports from increased toxic air pollution, as the region increases freight movement around them.

 

Fails to address population growth and rising housing costs, which cause more people to move to areas with inadequate public transportation and rely more on cars, worsening air pollution, quality of life, and traffic.

 

http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/PlanBayAreaPetition(8-19-13).pdf

 

THE POST SUSTAINABILITY INSTITUTE, ROSA KOIRE, MICHAEL SHAW vs. ABAG AND MTC: Filed in Alameda Superior Court on October 15, 2013. They are represented in court by Timothy V. Kassouni, a constitutional property rights attorney. This petition for writ of mandate seeks to overturn Plan Bay Area on grounds that the plan violates constitutional rights as well as voter-approved ordinances.

 

The Post Sustainability Institute is a non-profit, non-partisan, non-governmental think tank, established to study the impacts that United Nations Agenda 21/Sustainable Development and Communitarianism have on liberty.

 

A summary of the violations cited by The Post Sustainability Institute reads as follows:

 

Violates the 5th Amendment by taking property rights without just compensation:  By the creation of Priority Development Areas, this Plan restricts 80% of residential development and 66% of commercial development to just a few small areas of your city–until the year 2040.  If your property is outside of the PDA (96% of property is outside) you will likely not be able to build or expand your building–and you won’t be paid for this loss.

 

Violates the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause: Owners of properties in the Priority Development Areas will receive development permits at a rate of approximately 80 times more than owners of property outside of the Priority Development Areas.

 

Violates voter-approved Urban Growth Boundary ordinances:  Because the Priority Development Areas are within the UGBs but are much smaller restricted areas they are in violation of ordinances that clearly state that development must be encouraged out to the limits of city services

 

Violates the development rights of rural properties in the nine-county Bay Area:  Plan Bay Area is effectively taking conservation easements on all rural lands without paying for them. 

 

Restricts development rights of property within the Priority Development Areas: Construction will be limited to mixed-use
high density Smart Growth development.  Existing buildings are likely to be out of compliance with your city’s General Plan (legal non-conforming) and permits to make additions or changes will likely not be granted.

 

http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/lawsuit-against-a21.html

 

CHANCES FOR A GOLDILOCKS EFFECT?

 

It seems to us laypeople that Plan Bay Area cannot survive this plethora of lawsuits unscathed. If the plan is taking punches from both the left and the right, what could possibly be good about it? However, at the same time, how about a Goldilocks effect working against the lawsuits? The essence of left-leaning lawsuits calls for more regulation; while that of right-leaning lawsuits want all the regulations to go away and leave everybody be. Might not the courts declare Plan Bay Area “Just right?”

 

We better support the lawsuit of our choice!

Voting is a right written in our Constitution, but as all the other rights, never to be taken for granted:  “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.”  We urge you to show up, vote, and be counted!  Your voting place is shown on your voter handbook; or you can call the San Francisco Department of Elections at (415) 554-4375 for assistance.  If you have a vote by mail ballot, but did not have a chance to mail it in on time, fill it out and bring it to your voting place.  The Libertarian Party of San Francisco makes the following recommendations:

 

Propostion A – NO

Proposition B – YES

Proposition C – YES

Proposition D – NO

 

The three local city officials on the ballot, City Attorney, Treasurer, and Assessor-Recorder are running for reelection unopposed.  We do not recommend any of these three candidates.  Supervisor Katy Tang of District 4 is running against Ivan Seredni.  We we do not make a recommendation for or against the candidates for District 4.

 

 

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

 

Opponent’s Argument Against Proposition A

Rebuttal to Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition A

There is a key sentence in this Charter Amendment that isn’t mentioned in the ballot summary. It appears twice, once with respect to employees hired on or before January 9, 2009, and once with respect to employees hired after that date. That sentence reads as follows: “In the event that the contribution rates set forth above do not cover the entire Normal Cost, the Employer shall contribute the balance into the RHCTF (Retiree Health Care Trust Fund).” What this means in plain English: If retiree health care costs end up not being fully covered by the 2% or less of their salaries that city employees are required to pay toward those costs, their employer – YOU, the taxpayer – will be required to make up the difference! Even if the city were near bankrupt, with schools closing, roads full of potholes, hospitals falling apart, parks full of trash and weeds, and police and fire protection virtually non-existent, it wouldn’t matter. The gold-plated health care plans provided to people who worked for the city decades ago, and their dependents, would still have first claim on your tax dollars if Prop. A passes. There’s no trust fund for MUNI maintenance. There’s no trust fund for the upkeep of San Francisco parks. There’s no trust fund to ensure our streets are properly paved. But well-paid government employees –  including the Supervisors who put this measure on the ballot – want to make sure THEY have a trust fund that will take care of them. We say let them share an uncertain future with the rest of us. Vote NO on Prop. A. Libertarian Party of San Francisco P.S. If a ballot measure is too long, unclear, confusing, or complicated, it’s best to vote it down. If you don’t understand it, it’s irresponsible to pass it.

5 Facts About A: 1. It’s no “lockbox”. The city can immediately draw against the trust fund, even though it’s underfunded. Currently, the trust fund is off limits until 2020. No more under Proposition A. Withdrawals are allowed if the city’s retiree health care costs exceed 10% of payroll, about $130 million. The SF Chronicle notes the city will exceed the target every year for the foreseeable future. 2. It won’t protect retiree health care money from misappropriation. RHCTF funds are reserved for retiree health care costs under today’s law. Proposition A doesn’t change that. 3. It won’t close the city’s retiree health care deficit, nor protect future generations. Proposition A won’t protect taxpayers from rising health care costs, and low withdrawal limits mean the supervisors will mismanage the RHCTF. 4. The savings from A benefit the city’s highest-paid employees, like the supervisors. Their health care plans will be off limits for budget cuts, meaning providers can bill city taxpayers excessively. Basic services like police and fire get no such protection. 5. Even the Author of A admits the city leaders backing it want to “raid” retiree health care money. Why should you trust them to protect what they’ve said they’d rather spend? Proposition A will protect health plans of imminent retirees like the supervisors, but threaten them for later retirees. Surely elementary teachers don’t want their students funding their retirement benefits. Please join us in voting NO on A. Libertarian Party of San Francisco

THE NOVEMBER 5TH ELECTIONS AND OUR LIBERTARIAN AIM

 

The Libertarian Party of San Francisco has upheld its record of recommending the exact opposite of what voters passed in any given election, and we are not at all disheartened!  Our aim is to shrink government to a constitutional and sustainable size, while politicians’ aim is to sink as much resources as necessary to convince voters to make government grow.  We intend to persevere in our aim.

 

Typically, voters do not turn out in good numbers in an off-year municipal election.  November 5th was no exception.  As of November 6, the San Francisco Department of Elections reported that ballots cast were 22.59% of registered voters (440,028 registered and 99,417 ballots cast).

 

Registered Libertarians in San Francisco make up a relatively small number of total registration (2,760 registered Libertarians).  However, dedicated small numbers can turn tides.  We urge Libertarians to get involved in the political process and promote libertarian ideals via the ballot box.  Of course, we also urge more Libertarian Party registration, especially since third parties like ours need to keep up our numbers to maintain our qualified political party status.

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE 

NOVEMBER 5TH, 2013 ELECTIONS
 

Proposition A: Retiree Health Care Trust Fund

Charter Amendment – NO

Supervisor Farrell’s Proposition A is an effort to protect the City’s Retiree Health Care Trust Fund (RHCTF) from under funding and mismanagement. Protecting taxpayers and the City’s promised services from exploding retiree health care costs is an excellent goal, but Proposition A is a step in the wrong direction.

 

Today, the retired public employees’ trust fund is protected from withdrawals until 2020. Proposition A ends that protection, and replaces it with the uncertain requisite that withdrawals from sub-trusts not be made until the sub-trusts are fully funded – unless City retiree health care costs exceed 10% of City payroll costs. We consider this bar too low to serve as protection against early withdrawals from the trust, since the City Controller’s Five-year Plan indicates City salaries will rise around 3.1% and “fringe benefits” will rise at a five-year average of 10.2%.

 

Proposition A adds the following, “In the event that the contribution rates set forth above do not cover the entire normal cost, the employer shall contribute the balance into the RHCTF.” We interpret this to mean that taxpayers carry ultimate responsibility for funding the Health Care Trust. Therefore, please vote wisely. Vote NO on Proposition A.

 

Please see the Libertarian Party of San Francisco official Opponent’s Argument Against Proposition A  and Rebuttal to Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition A in the San Francisco Department of Elections Voter Information Pamphlet http://www.sfgov2.org/index.aspx?page=3979 

The Argument and the Rebuttal are reproduced in the “News” section of this website:  Argument Against Proposition A

 

Proposition B: 8 Washington Street Initiative Ordinance – YES

Proposition B allows development of upscale residential housing along the Embarcadero waterfront, which will also include a public park, open space, ground floor retail and cafes, and pedestrian and bicycle access to The Embarcadero.  Most of the site (80%) is private property currently being used as a private tennis/swim club; the remainder of the property is owned by The City and currently used as a surface parking lot.  The developers have secured from the Board of Supervisors an Ordinance to increase the legal building heights on approximately half-acre portion of the site. Proposition B was placed on the ballot to counter a Referendum seeking to overturn the Supervisors’ Ordinance.

 

As Libertarians we are encouraged to see the relaxation of rules and regulations that prohibit the owners of private property from doing what they choose with their own property.  Therefore we recommend a YES vote on this measure.

 

Proposition C: 8 Washington Street Referendum Ordinance – YES

Proposition C asks: Shall the City Ordinance increasing legal building height limits on approximately half-acre portion of the 8 Washington Street Site along Drumm Street take effect?

 

A YES vote would allow the Board of Supervisors Ordinance increasing the height limits to stand; thereby allowing for the development of 8 Washington Street. A NO vote would nullify the Ordinance; thereby preventing the development of 8 Washington Street.

 

Again, we like the easing of arbitrary government regulations which restrict choice; and we prefer that property owners not be prevented from doing what they choose with their own property. Following those preferences, we recommend a YES vote on the 8 Washington Street Referendum.

 

Proposition D: Prescription Drug Purchasing Declaration of Policy – NO

Proposition D makes it official City policy to use all available opportunities to reduce the City’s cost of prescription drugs.  While it obviously makes good economic sense for any organization or entity to always buy at the best prices, this measure takes the wrong approach to high pharmaceutical prices.  Rather than look at the root problem—heavy government involvement with and extensive regulation of the industry via the FDA—it rails against Big Pharma in this feel-good measure which will do nothing to actually bring the prices down. 

 

Only true competition can lower prices, and this can only be accomplished by loosening up the regulation of the industry so more companies can enter the field.  Rather than passing laws demanding lower prices, we prefer to see more companies creating the competitive environment necessary for prices to decrease. Therefore, we recommend a NO vote.

  

ELECTION NOTES:

The San Francisco Libertarian Party is the perennial loyal opposition to The City’s forever-proliferating rules and regulations. We endeavor to show how inevitably these rules and regulations are fraught with dueling needs of special interests, often resulting in unrealistic objectives, unintended consequences, and the need for more rules and regulations to “fix” the ones passed before. Our recommendations are always shaped by our view that divergent needs should be resolved at the negotiating table, the market place, and the mediation room.  We offer the following two instances as example of our view:

 

We have heard Propositions B & C characterized as David and Goliath. Proposition B, say its detractors, is the big Goliath robbing public space from the little people. Proposition C, say its supporters, is David personified, fighting to keep the Waterfront open for the average guy.  Well, another point of view is that these two propositions are a fight between the super rich who want multi million-dollar condos, and the super rich who own multi-million dollar condos whose property value would decrease when 8 Washington partially block their view of the Waterfront. For a good article on these two propositions see http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/a-big-tina-fey-eye-roll-for-8-washington/Content?oid=2591181

 

Proposition A is yet another attempt to “save” government employees’ health care. The list of supporters includes unions. One rank-and-file member eloquently questions that Proposition A will benefit the rank and file retirees, since the proposal removes control from the voters and the unions by giving the City Controller, Mayor, and Board of Supervisors greater control. Proposition A adds, among other provisions, section “(d) (3)” which states that these three entities can change disbursement limitations. Here again, we have conflicting needs that are difficult to reconcile via government edict. For a heartfelt presentation of a rank-and-filer see: SF Prop A- An Attack On Public Workers-SF City Workers Speak Out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q60h-aD6wA4&feature=youtu.be

 

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

 

 

 

 

San Francisco Supervisor David Campos introduced a resolution on September 9th, urging the Board of Supervisors to explore the feasibility of the City using eminent domain to seize underwater properties from lenders. Ostensibly, such a plan is designed to keep homeowners in their underwater homes when lenders do not readily cooperate in reducing mortgage principal to match what borrowers can pay. In reality, this resolution fits right in with the City’s relentless march toward “public” (as opposed to private) control of real property, by totally distorting the capital market via (1) promotion of home ownership regardless of borrowers ability to pay, (2) rent control, (3) passage of legislation such as the Housing Trust. The laws of economics are as immutable as the laws of nature. The more these laws are messed with, the more messing is required to keep things from imploding.

 

We need to remember, that the word “homeowner” represents a complex concept. Unless buyers pay the entire selling price of a property at time of sale, the real owners of the property are the lenders, as well as the investors behind the mortgages. Banks and other lenders employ a lot of folks in the City, supported by a lot of mortgage investors.  Is Mr. Campos remembering that? Or is he planning more legislation to force banks and other lenders to do business in the City?

 

And let’s not forget SB1 currently hatching in the State Legislature, expanding the use of eminent domain to include inefficient land use. Is your property safe from the proliferation of land grabs?  If you do not think it is, you might want to call Campos and the other Supervisors expressing your concern.

 

 

The version of eminent domain used in cities such as Richmond and proposed by Supervisor Campos often results in a lot of financial rewards: borrowers get their principal drastically reduced, city governments keep the difference between what they paid for properties and what they sell them for to their investors, investors get fees for handling the transactions, lenders might even benefit from short sales.   Add political benefits accruing from the expansion of power, and such plans become unstoppable.

 

However, from our perspective, although financial rewards are of course desirable, if they come with serious consequences, they should be rejected. Therefore, we encourage San Franciscans to consider the following:

 

Investors in mortgage backed securities (public employees’ pension funds, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, bequests funding various institutions) are likely to suffer losses as the securities get shuffled around.

 

States and municipalities, trying to find ways to overcome the challenge of ever increasing pension costs will find themselves with one more thing to worry about, the increased risk of MBS, rendered open to modifications due to property seizure.

 

Ordinary wage earners will see a loss of job opportunities as the more risk-averse lending institutions shy away from operating in localities with heightened eminent domain powers.

 

Borrowers might see a loss of borrowing opportunities from the more risk-averse institutions.

 

We all lose with any whittling away of the private property protections clearly spelled out in the United States Constitutions – there are good reasons why our Founding Fathers placed those protections there!

 

 

November 6:  The San Francisco Department of Elections reported that Propositon A passed with a “Yes” vote of 68.77% and a “No” vote of 31.23%.

 

August 19:  The Libertarian Party of San Francisco filed its Rebuttal to the Argument in favor of Proposition A submitted by the Proposition’s supporters.  Public employees’ retirement benefits is a most important issue facing state and local governments all across America, including San Francisco.   In LPSF’s constant effort to encourage voters and taxpayers to be mindful of what they vote for, we will continue our discussion on Proposition A until Election Day on November 5, 2013.

Also, we would welcome your comments and views.  In addition to the contact information provided by the article below, we invite you to leave a message on the LPSF Voice Mail (415) 775-5773, join our Facebook Page, and/or join our Yahoo Groups Discussion List.

 

 

UPDATES:

On September 12, 2013, SB1 was ordered to Inactive File at the request of its author, Senator Darrell Steinberg.  Strange development, but perhaps an interesting move, considering Senator Steinberg is hoping for Governor Brown’s favorable reception of two other of his bills:  Bill Prohibiting Detachable Magazines on Rifles (SB 374), and CEQA Modernization Bill (SB 743).

The bill was ordered on September 4 to a third reading in the Assembly, after passing Committee with 12 Yes and 5 No on August 30.  SB1 may not turn out to be the slam-dunk Steinberg may have been hoping for.  Even if it eventually passes the Legislature, it needs the approval of Governor Brown.  By way of background, in 2011 Governor Brown led the push to dismantle the California Redevelopment Agency, based on the Agency’s dubious cost effectiveness.  But bureaucrats never cease in their efforts to bring this monster back from the dead.  SB1 is the latest effort.

Earlier, on August 21, 2013, SB1 was referred to the Suspense File to be evaluated again at a later date.  The Bill had passed Assembly Committee on August 14, 2013.  Votes were YES 6 (Levine, Alejo, Bradford, Gordon, Mullin, and Rendon), and NO 3 (Achadjian, Melendez, and Waldron). 

ANALYSIS AND OPPORTUNITY FOR ACTION:

SB1, “Sustainable Communities Investment Authority,” written by CA Senators Darrell Steinberg and Mark DeSaulnier, is scheduled to be heard in California Assembly Local Government Committee On August 14, 2013, 1:30 pm (See Update above).

Why does the Libertarian Party of San Francisco care whether this bill passes?

We have been speaking out against Plan Bay Area for a couple of years. SB1 is PBA’s major funding mechanism.

Why should you care whether this bill passes?

• If you said good riddance to the old Redevelopment Agency (remember the razing of the Fillmore District!), you will be disappointed to have mini-Redevelopment Agencies all over the Bay Area.
• If you think your neighborhood could not possibly be declared blighted and therefore subject to eminent domain, you will be shocked to learn that it might be, under the guidelines for “blight” this bill contains.
• If you believe We the People have control over the taxes we pay, you will be disuaded of that when faced with the “incremental financing” determined by your local bureaucrats which fund this bill.
• If you think Plan Bay Area’s extensive redevelopment plans will bring a better standard of living to your family via plentiful jobs and “affordable housing” (all promised by this bill), you might be disappointed to find yourself embroiled in union labor disputes and priced out of a dense housing market (see LPSF’s article below discussing displacement of low-income families).
  

What can you do?

Whether you support or oppose this or any other bill is your right. We can only tell you what we believe based on the research we do. Call, write, e-mail, fax – get involved.  We have listed telephone numbers to call at the end of this article.

What has the Libertarian Party of San Francisco done?

We have called, written, e-mailed, faxed, and gotten involved.  Aubrey Freedman, our Chair, has written to the Assembly’s Local Government Committee stating the Libertarian Party of San Francisco’s opposition to SB1.  The text of his letter is reproduced below.

 

 

August 10, 2013

Assemblyman Katcho Achadjian, Chairman

Assembly Local Government Committee

1020 North Street, Room 157

Sacramento, CA 95814                   

Re: SB1 – Sustainable Communities Investment Authority

 

Dear Assemblyman Achadjian:

 

The Libertarian Party of San Francisco is very concerned about and has voted to oppose SB1, which is currently in committee in the California State Assembly. In addition to bringing back redevelopment, which has a history of racism and corruption, this bill will only contribute to the environment of ever-increasing taxes in California. It also includes a dangerous definition of “blight” that will enable governmental bureaucrats to declare almost any piece of private property subject to eminent domin. Lastly there is a lack of accountability in this bill since unelected bureaucrats will be making all the decisions and the citizens will have no say in how their taxes are spent.

 

Scattered throughout this bill are numerous references to “new sources of revenue.” This can only mean higher taxes, new taxes, or more governmental debt. Since local and state governments can only operate by collecting taxes from productive citizens, or borrowing money by indebting future taxpayers, this bill intends to create new government agencies with lofty, ambitious, and overreaching goals in mind. The end result will inevitably be more government and higher taxes. Aren’t taxes high enough in California? In some cities and counties, already the sales tax rates are almost 10%, the highest in the nation. Several cities in California have already gone bankrupt. Why increase the opportunities for higher taxation? Isn’t enough enough already?

 

This bill includes a new definition of “blight” that puts all property owners in California at risk. Traditionally property could only be taken when government was going to build something for the common good like a dam or highway. Then the Kelso ruling came along and government could now seize property and give it to private developers if it could be shown that such action would create more “revenue.” This bill goes even further by declaring that “inefficient land use patterns” can now be considered as “blight.” Chapter 2, Section 34191.20 (c) on page 5 of the bill says, “An authority created pursuant to this part may rely on the legislative determination of blight and shall not be required to make a separate finding of blight or conduct a survey of blight within the project area.” The bureaucrats don’t even have to go through the formality of investigating if the property really is a public health hazard or the sight of criminal activity—a mere determination is good enough. And who will decide what is “efficient” or “inefficient” use of the land? Obviously the unelected bureaucrats will. Since this bill is all about encouraging densely packed living in large cities, rural and suburban property owners will be most at risk—at first. However, once governmental bureaucrats have the legal power to declare any property as “blight,” under such loose and vague wording, any property owner anywhere in California may find the force of governmental authority used against him or her. Clearly government should be protecting property rights, not decimating them.

 

Finally there is a tremendous lack of transparency and accountability in this bill. These Sustainable Communities Investment Authorities will all be staffed by bureaucrats appointed by government officials. They will not be elected by the public. There will be no voting by the taxpayers on who serves on these agencies and no recourse if the taxpayers are displeased with the actions of the bureaucrats, especially when it comes to new taxes or governmental debt. In a democracy, as a last resort at least the taxpayers can always vote an elected official out of office. Can they do so when they didn’t even get to vote for the bureaucrat? In yet another example of total disregard for the taxpayers in SB1, Chapter 5, Section 34191.35 (a) on page 15 states, “The questionnaires and financial statements shall not be public records and shall not be open to public inspection.” This refers to the prequalification requirements of private developers bidding for the dense housing projects that are planned for all the urban areas of California if SB1 passes. These private developers stand to make millions off these projects—what are they hiding? Since these are all taxpayer monies, why shouldn’t the public have a right to know about their financial dealings and connections? Why shouldn’t this all be open to public scrutiny? If everything is all on the up-and-up, then what’s wrong with full disclosure? Something is amiss here.

 

Please vote NO on SB1. It spells disaster for the taxpayers of California.

Sincerely,

Aubrey Freedman

Libertarian Party of San Francisco – Chair

 

Who To Call:   Talk to someone, or just call after work and leave a message!

 

Assembly Appropriations Commitee:

Mike Gatto (Chair)   916 319-2043

Diane Harkey (Vice Chair)   916 319-2073

Franklin Bigelow   916 319-2005

Raul Bocanegra   916 319-2039

Steven Bradford   916 319-2062

Ian Calderon   916 319-2057

Nora Campos   916 319-2027

Tim Donnelly   916 319-2033

Susan T. Eggman   916 319-2013

Jimmy Gomez   916 319-2051

Isadore Hall   916 319-2064

Chris R. Holden   916 319-2041

Eric Linder   916 319-2060

Richard Pan   916 319-2009

Bill Quirk   916 319-2020

Donald Wagner   916 319-2068

Shirley N. Weber   916 319-2079

 

State Assembly:
Katcho Achadjian  (916) 319-2035

Marc Levine  (916)319-2010

Luis A. Alejo  (916) 319-2030

Steven Bradford  (916) 319-2062

Richard S. Gordon  (916) 319-2024

Melissa A. Melendez  (916) 319-2067

Kevin Mullin  (916) 319-2022

Anthony Rendon  (916) 319-2063

Marie Waldron  (916) 319-2075

 

 

 

 

 

UPDATES:

On October 1, 2013, AB351 was appoved by Governor Brown.

As of September 3, 2013, AB351 passed both houses of Legislation.  The next step is for Governor Brown to sign it into law.  Please call or write the Governor to show support for his signing the bill.  To call:  (916) 445-2841. 

On August 12, 2013, AB351 was ordered for a third reading in the State Senate.  So, the Bill is still alive, but needs your help in getting it passed.  Please call the legislators listed at the end of this article to express your views.

BACKGROUND AND OPPORTUNITY FOR ACTION:

California Assemblyman Tim Donnelly’s AB351, a bill which starts the process of stopping “Indefinite Detention” under the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act), has passed the State Assembly by a vote of 71 – 1, and the State Senate Public Safety Committee as well.  The next step is a hearing and vote in the Senate Appropriations Committee, where the bill is scheduled to be heard on August 12, 2013. (See Update above)

On February 26, 2013, thanks to efforts of groups opposing the “Indefinite Detention” clause of the NDAA, including the Libertarian Party of San Francisco, the San Francsico Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a Resolution declaring San Francisco’s opposition to the clause.  The same can be accomplished at the California Legislature’s level.

Action Steps for California Residents:

 

Contact members of the Appropriations Committee:

Senator Kevin de Leon (Chair) (916) 651-4022

Senator Mimi Walters (Vice Chair) (916) 651-4037

Senator Ted Gaines (916) 651-4001

Senator Jerry Hill (916) 651-4013

Senator Ricardo Lara (916) 651-4033

Senator Alex Padilla (916) 651-4020

Senator Darrell Steinberg (916) 651-4006