Category: Uncategorized

At their meeting of “July 18”, after several hours of listening to public comments, the joint Executive Boards of ABAG/MTC started the voting to determine adoption of Plan Bay Area — at around 12:15 am. Although some public comments at this meeting were positive, most used terms that ranged from “unconstitutional” to “abomination.” However, the Plan was adopted, as expected.

At least one member of the public who offered a comment indicated that lawsuits were being filed against Plan Bay Area. The Post Sustainability Institute/Democrats Against UN Agenda 21 and Freedom Advocates are launching a legal challenge to Plan Bay Area, pointing to several violations of the Plan, such as those against the 5^th Amendment of the US Constitution (taking of private property without just compensation), the 14^th Amendment of the US Constitution (equal protection clause), the voter-approved Urban Growth Boundary ordinances (plans encouraging growth in the periphery of cities), etc. Visit the Post Sustainability Institute website for details of the lawsuit, and to pitch in to help fund the lawsuit should you agree with its premise; see link below.

Although the vote to adopt Plan Bay Area sailed through, some Commissioners expressed concern about funding for the two key features of the Plan, housing and transportation. Those concerns are well warranted! The 28-year horizon and the projected revenues of the Plan are both on the ambitious side.

 

 

The forecasts prepared by MTC, the transportation mastermind, are “used to plan investments that fit within the financially constrained envelope of revenues that are reasonably expected to be available.” Couple that constraint with the volatile times in which we live, and we might be in for some challenges. See the link below to “One Bay Area, Chapter 4, Investments.”

 

And how about funding for “affordable housing,” the other major component of Plan Bay Area? As one Commissioner said at the July 18 meeting with some exasperation, it is one thing to be in charge of planning and zoning but it is another thing to have funding. “California Housing Element law (Article 10.6 of the California Government Code) requires each jurisdiction to plan for housing for all income levels by ensuring that local zoning and planning support the production of a diverse range of new housing.” And the money for that comes from where? San Franciscans should expect to see displacement of low-income communities, as investment pours into the “Priority Development Areas,” which happen to be corridors where residents of modest means now live. See the link below to an interesting set of Plan Bay Area “FAQ.”

 

Noteworthy legislation should continue to emanate from the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and the Mayor’s office. The Board approved “Micro-Units” last December, tiny stack & pack 220 square-feet apartments, which are estimated to rent for $1,300-$1,500. The full Board is expected to adopt in late July the Board’s Land Use & Economic Development Committee requirement that new and renovated construction provide bike racks or face a $400 fee for each spot not provided; presumably this legislation applies to senior housing? The plan to remove parking spaces from Polk Street has received enough push back from merchants to delay its implementation temporarily.

 

Commissioners at the July 18 meeting characterized Plan Bay Area as a work in progress. As always we Libertarians are encouraging San Franciscans to pay attention to the legislation, regulations, and tax increases in the works. Doing so will indeed make Plan Bay Area a work in progress where residents of San Francisco have a say in what progresses.

http://www.postsustainabilityinstitute.org/lawsuit-to-stop-agenda-21.html

http://onebayarea.org/pdf/Draft_Plan_Bay_Area/04-Investments.pdf

http://www.onebayarea.org/about/faq.html

 

Plan Bay Area: A boon to “Affordable Housing?”

 

As libertarians have been saying for a while now, Plan Bay Area comes with some serious challenges, such as micromanagement of the economy and the people, and a colossal appetite for funds. Concerns most often heard are about private property and transportation preferences. Property owners located in the Plan’s “unpopular” locations outside the Priority Development Areas worry about their property’s loss of value and their community’s loss of services. Property owners located inside the desirable PDA’s owning “unpopular” single-family homes worry about unequal treatment at best and eminent domain at worst. Automobile lovers are livid over the Plan’s bike-centered, parking-space-removing strategies.

 

Plan Bay Are also comes with a lot of promises — clean air, plentiful jobs, mass transportation, beautification, and affordable housing. Environmentalists are delighted and pushing for more regulation, developers are salivating over the thought of homes for an additional 280,000 people to be crammed into San Francisco’s PDA’s. Students seem to be particularly pleased with the prospect of an economical, maybe even free, way to get to school. However, the magic word, the ace in the hole, is “affordable housing.” Young workers, students, families of modest means are hopeful that Plan Bay Area will bring relief to the ever-increasing housing costs. Especially in San Francisco, is this hopeful expectation warranted? We offer a few thoughts to ponder on this subject.

 

A. Upward Market Pressure: Plan Bay Area’s Equity Analysis Report speaks of vulnerable neighborhoods that “may face” upward market pressure. We learn in Economics 101 that upward market pressure, or to use another term for the same phenomenon, cost of living increase, is inevitable when investment and population pours into any area.

http://onebayarea.org/pdf/final_supplemental_reports/FINAL_PBA_Equity_Analysis_Report.pdf [Pg 17]

 

B. Land vs. number of dwellings: As a rule, increased supply of any item for consumption will reduce its cost. However, in the case of real property we need to consider both number of dwellings (to increase under Plan Bay Area) and availability of desirable land (to decrease under Plan Bay Area). In Evaluation of Plan Bay Area, Wendell Cox indicates the following:

There is considerable evidence that urban containment policies drive up the price of land for residential development, especially by rationing land. This is consistent with the economic principle that rationing of a good or service tends to lead to higher prices. Urban containment policies are in wide use in the Bay Area, especially urban growth boundaries, while house prices have escalated far out of proportion with the increase in household income…

Brookings Institution economist Anthony Down attributes such residential land cost increase to the failure to maintain a competitive market for land. The difference between house prices in the Bay Area and those in liberally (traditionally) regulated markets are principally the cost of land.

As it affects San Francisco, a relatively small land area, the restrictive land policies inherent in Plan Bay Area will have magnified effects. Land prices will skyrocket, raising the price of property (regardless of supply of dwellings), and displacing low-income communities. Try as it may, Plan Bay Area cannot escape the laws of economics – no more than it can escape the laws of gravity.

http://www.pacificresearch.org/california/california-article-detail/new-pacific-research-institute-study-finds-that-plan-bay-area-will-drive-housing-prices-higher/

 

C. “Issue 4: Facilitate Permanently Affordable Housing”:   In all fairness to San Francisco planners, it is important that this section, be included in any analysis of displacement of low-income communities under Plan Bay Area.   Planners intend to make concerted efforts to find financing for development of affordable housing, advocate for affordable housing, find financing for maintenance of subsidized housing, implement land subsidy trusts, implement “zoning accommodations,” etc.   Sounds like an all-consuming effort that threatens to impact low-income households who depend on other publicly-financed programs, such as public schools and health departments. Displacement of those who can afford to leave potentially deteriorating school districts, for example, would be a blessing in comparison to the fate of those who cannot afford to leave.

http://www.sf-planning.org/ftp/general_plan/I1_Housing.html

 

D. Unequal “Equal Protection”: Plan Bay Area’s Equity Report indicates that focused growth increases displacement potential by approximately two-thirds, but the effect is not disproportionately high for communities of concern when compared to the reminder of the region (Pg 4-20). This “equal protection” view is hardly comforting, since vulnerable communities do not have the resiliency to withstand increases in costs of living nor the easy mobility of other communities.

 

E. Removal of rent-controlled housing. Libertarians are no fan of rent control as means to provide affordable housing; however, transparency calls for mentioning Plan Bay Area’s potential for leaving a lot of low-income families without it. If planners want to cram 280,000 more people in San Francisco obviously building new housing will not be sufficient. Existing single-family housing will need to be replaced with multi-family housing. The first salvo in San Francisco is The Parkmerced Mixed Use Program Development or “Parkmerced Vision” in San Francisco’s Parkmerced residential community. This plan calls for the demolition of 1,583 existing single-family units and the building of multi-family units that would house an equal number of residents. The 2010-2011 Civil Grand Jury issued a report on this plan entitled “The Parkmerced Vision: Government-By-Developer.” The report’s Conclusion states, “The Parkmerced Mixed Use Program Development Agreement, for all its complexity, fails to mitigate the most significant risk it creates: the direct loss of statutory rights by Parkmerced tenants.” The same surely holds true of Plan Bay Area — on a scale larger than “Parkmerced Vision” by magnitudes!

http://www.sfcourts.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2838 [pg 11]

Another Pride Celebration has just gone by and we were there.  A collaboration of Outright Libertarians, Golden Gate Liberty rEVOLution, The Libertarian Party of San Francisco, and The Libertarian Party of Alameda made our exhibitor booth happen.  We are grateful for the hundreds of visitors who stopped by our booth, to take the Word’s Smallest Political Quiz, to browse or collect literature, to rummage the display basket for buttons and stickers (the favorite button by far was Rosie the Riveter appropriated to deliver the libertarian message “Tax this!”), and most importantly to talk to us.  Some stopped by just to say hello; some to ask questions, accompanied by puzzled looks as to who we were;  yet others to share concerns about unequal treatment of families, education, jobs.  We welcomed the opportunity to listen, and often to battle the stranglehold of a government posing as the sole provider of personal well being.  Interestingly, on the plus side, we all agreed that this year there were more stickers on the libertarian quadrant of the of the World Smallest Political Quiz! 

 

 

 

What secret sauce could be used to entice San Francisco voters to try libertarianism? Libertarians consider this a challenging recipe, since the City is a bastion of progressive politics. However, as a third party, forever battling the Twin Goliaths, we are no stranger to challenge.

Therefore, LPSF is continuing the outreach campaign started in earnest last November, as well as the deployment of activists to Town Halls and Board of Supervisor meetings to face City leaders on subject such as Plan Bay Area, the City budget, and gun control. We continue to staff booths, attend events, and promote other libertarian individuals and groups.

We are hoping to convince a larger portion of our electorate that protecting individual liberties and bringing prosperity via private resourcefulness will produce better results than keeping so many so tied to the whims of government largess. The Big Government paradigm fed to the populace can only result in eventual total dependence. We are confident that Libertarians are not the only folks figuring this out! Given the tremendous increase in voters who indicate “No Party Preference,” it would appear to us that the strength of the Twin Goliaths might be waning.

To better acquaint the general public with the benefits of libertarianism, we need you to help us. Please consider attending one of our monthly meetings or after-meeting socials (click Meetings on our Main Menu for information); join our Discussion List and give us your input and ideas (click Discussion List on the banner above); e-mail us to receive more information about libertarianism or the Libertarian Party (click Contact Us); support our efforts by contributing to our newly established Activity Fund (click Contact Us for where to send your donation); and/or join us as a Member (click Join/Renew on the banner to fill out a membership application).

If you are already a member of another Bay Area small-government group, advise us of your efforts. Coalitions are force multipliers!

Walking into Adobe Books, an old-fashioned neighborhood bookseller located down the street from me in the Mission at 3166 16th Street, feels like walking into a time warp. It’s one of a dwindling number of stores in the area with a real bohemian look and feel to it.

It would be a real shame for it to be replaced by some sterile purveyor of expensive luggage. But according to a piece in the Uptown Almanac, that just may happen. The bookstore, which has been there 25 years and was paying $4500 a month in rent, was first told the rent would be increased to $6000/month and is now being asked to pay $8000 in the face of competing interest from a deep-pocketed chain retailer formerly known as Liz Claiborne Inc., which wants the space for its Jack Spade brand of men’s bags, accessories, and apparel.

Unlike many of those who commented on the article, I don’t blame the landlord. If he/she is asking $8000 a month for the bookstore to stay, then obviously Jack Spade is willing to pay at least that much. The $2000/month difference between $6000 and $8000 is $24,000 a year.

As I asked in a version of this comment posted on Uptown Almanac, would you take a $24,000 a year pay cut in exchange for keeping your neighborhood funkier and less commercialized, if the workload for you was going to be essentially the same either way?

If you would, and you have the kind of money where you can afford to make $24,000/year less than you otherwise could, in dedication to your aesthetic sense of beauty, justice, and so on, then we may have an easy solution to this problem. Just buy $24,000 in Adobe Books gift certificates for Christmas this year, and promise them you’ll do the same next year in perpetuity or until the economy crashes and rents come down.

But in all likelihood you don’t have the money to do that, and wouldn’t do it if you did. If you would do it, that might well be why you *can’t* do it — because you haven’t lived a money-accumulating lifestyle that would enable you to step in with such a gesture. Nothing wrong with that, but it may mean that from the landlord’s perspective you’re all talk and no walk if you’re asking him/her to make the sacrifice.

The real problem here is that efforts to save businesses like Adobe Books under the present arrangement are basically fighting against the law of supply and demand and against market incentives, which is like trying to keep water from flowing downhill…

 

 

 

Pursuing this metaphor a bit further, the left’s approach to this dilemma is basically to build dams. Since they don’t have the political power to build the equivalent of a massive Three Gorges dam by banning all chain stores from SF (which would be a huge disruption of the economy and people’s lives just as the real Three Gorges dam is a huge disruption to the environment and the people who live in that region of China), they seek to build a series of small dams by preventing the market from functioning, one development, one petition, one government hearing at a time.

Sometimes the dams get built, and sometimes they don’t, but the war is slowly being lost. San Francisco is clearly becoming more gentrified and less alternative, and the obvious corollary to this is that it is becoming more politically conservative and less hospitable to leftist values.

The irony is that the left is doing this to themselves with anti-development policies. The water is going to go downhill, sooner or later, one way or another. Simply trying to prevent the market from functioning is a losing battle and will ultimately result in San Francisco losing the cool qualities that have long characterized the city.

But there is another way. Instead of fighting the laws of nature, we could choose to unleash market forces in a way that would favor poor people, artists, mom-and-pop businesses, the counterculture, and so on. Sound impossible? It’s not. But it would take some radical changes, and mean abandoning the statism that has been the left’s flawed weapon-of-choice in the fight to keep the city cool and funky. 

Here’s a short outline of some of the changes that could make the city safe for places like Adobe Books to thrive — maybe not that particular bookstore in that particular space if monied interests want it too badly, but certainly changes that would allow it and similar home-grown establishments to thrive.

• Get rid of zoning laws. Let people run businesses out of their homes, live in the back of their workplaces, turn industrial spaces into residential spaces and vice-versa, without any government bureaucracy, permit fees, or other red tape.

• Let anyone sell their stuff on the sidewalks or other public spaces without a permit. Call it Occupy 2.0.

• Eliminate the sales tax and other regressive government takings such as building inspection fees that fall hardest on small businesses.

• Allow property parcels to be subdivided into parcels as small as an owner wishes, and sold piecemeal. This would lower the economic barriers to becoming a land owner and produce lots of smaller, more affordable venues for businesses, community, and the arts.

• Trim the excessive rules and regulations from building codes so that existing spaces could be more readily modified and configured to get the most effective use out of these subdivided parcels.

• Allow not just food trucks, but all kinds of vehicle-based retail sales. Cut the red tape and permit expenses currently associated with such. And get rid of the laws against people sleeping in their vehicles, and provide more places for people to be able to park for longer periods at a stretch without fearing the street cleaning/towing/ticketing extortion operation (this would also help the environment by reducing the need for people to be continually and unnecessarily moving their vehicles).

Any of the above changes taken individually would help. Implementing the entire list would produce a countercultural entrepreneurial renaissance the likes of which has never been seen. No longer would it take tens of thousands of dollars to go into business, let alone afford your own space for retail or manufacturing. The door would be open for every Burning Man theme camp, every group of friends with a cool idea, to be able to realize that dream and have a place of their own right here in the city. Young people, artistic people, the kind of people who make a city vibrant and diverse, would flock back to San Francisco.

The chain stores could still have their big, sterile spaces, but with all the micro-businesses sprouting up around them and in the streets, who would care? The city by the bay would be fun and exciting again.

Essentially, San Franciscans have a choice. We can embrace the kind of libertarian market revolution that would turn the tables on the soulless, corporate businesses by allowing them to be out-competed by small, nimble, artistic and dynamic alternatives, or we can keep the Big Government status quo that is slowly killing us, winning a battle here and there while slowly losinthe war.

What are Unelected Folks Serving YOU Here!?

 

Plan Bay Area is a blueprint developed by the Association of Bay Area Government s (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), designed to implement high population density areas along public transit corridors, ensure income diversity in these high-population areas, and implement strict environmental restriction to decrease Bay Area levels of particulates and other pollutants. For more information on Plan Bay Area, see lpsf.org article, Plan Bay Area: Vision or Micromanagement, Bay Are Citizens’ Alliance for Property Rights website http://www.bayarealiberty.com/libertyblog/ , or One Bay Area website http://onebayarea.org

 

Plan Bay Area will release the Draft Plan Bay Area on March 22, 2013, and will start the public comment period which will extend until May 16, 2013. Comments will be accepted on the Draft Plan as well as on the companion Draft Environmental Impact Report to be released on March 29, 2013.

 

ABAG and MTC are “slated to adopt Plan Bay Area and the companion Environmental impact Report in June 2013.” Unless, of course, voters who do not buy into this plan change that slated adoption.

 

There are multiple ways to submit your public comments on Draft Plan Bay Area and on Draft Environmental Impact Report:

Make your oral comment at one of the public hearings

Submit your comment via e-mail to info@OneBayArea.org

Provide your comment on the online forum, Plan Bay Area Town Hall (on the One Bay Area website once the Draft Plan is released)

Send your comment via snail mail to MTC, Plan Bay Area Public Comment, 101 8^th Street, Oakland, CA 94607

 

Check the One Bay Area Website for dates, times, and locations of the public meetings. The San Francisco meeting will take place on April 11, 2013, 6:00 pm to 9:00 pm Whitcomb Hotel, 1231 Market St, San Francisco.

 

 

 

With no Libertarians seeking local office this year, the LPSF is not formally endorsing any candidates.  However, we have made a few recommendations in races where one or more candidates appear to be significantly more pro-freedom (or in some cases perhaps less anti-freedom!) than their opponents.

 

First and foremost, we proudly recommend a vote for John Dennis, the Ron Paul Republican opposing Nancy Pelosi for Congress. Pelosi’s longstanding statism and anti-democratic behavior in refusing to debate any of her challengers since first being elected in 1987 aside, John has shown himself to be a solid, principled advocate of both civil liberties and limited government, Libertarian in all but name.

 

In the race for District 1 Supervisor, we recommend a vote for Sherman D’Silva. A former laundromat owner, he is an independent non-politician who believes government is “definitely too big”. While he wins no points with us for supporting zoning laws, a proposed citywide ban on nudity, etc., he also supports not only RKBA but open carry, would allow voluntary market competition to MUNI and the SFFD, and opposes laws restricting chain stores, criminalizing people sleeping in their cars, etc.

 

In District 7, we recommend a first-place vote for Democrat Joel Engardio, and a second-place vote for Bob Squeri. With the exception of John Dennis, Joel impressed us as perhaps the best local candidate we encountered this year. A former journalist who worked for the ACLU and describes himself as a “civil liberties advocate,”  he fought for immigrant rights, same-sex marriage equality, and Guantanamo detainees. His campaign materials call for reining in government spending and less statist priorities, declaring for instance that “your house is not the city’s ATM machine” and that he is running for Supervisor because “City Hall likes to ban toys in Happy Meals but can’t fill potholes.” Bob Squeri’s positions on civil liberties issues are a bit of a question mark, at least to us – if he has addressed them to any extent, it has not come to our attention. However he takes a strong line on fiscal responsibility, slamming “government corruption” and pledging to “reduce the highest paid municipal salaries” among other things. He also has an admirable background of humanitarian work in the voluntary sector.

 

In the other Supervisorial districts, no candidates came to our attention as worthy of recommendation.

 

The fields for School Board and Community College Board appear to offer fairly dismal pickings. From the information we looked at, no candidates seem particularly strong on economic liberties, our primary criteria for these offices. But in accordance with the principle of harm reduction, for School Board we recommend votes for incumbent Sandra Lee Fewer and challenger Kim Garcia-Meza, and for Community College Board we recommend votes for Steve Ngo, Rodrigo Santos, and George Vazhappally (in no particular order).

Prop 30-Temporary Taxes to Fund Education-NO. California is already the sixth highest state in taxes.  By taxing everyone with a ¼ cent sales tax increase and also the wealthy with higher personal income tax rates, California will encourage consumers and companies to move to other lower-tax states.  Instead, the state should balance its budget by enacting pension reform and reducing bureaucracy.

Prop 31-State Budget/State & Local Government-NO. This measure has several good features like requiring performance reviews of all state programs and performance goals in state and local budgets.  However, Section 2 (3e) encourages “local governments to collaborate to achieve goals more effectively addressed at a regional scale.”  This will not “move government closer to the people,” as the measure says, but rather the opposite.  Elected local government officials can be voted out of office, but appointed regional bureaucrats from organizations like ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments) and the MTC (Metropolitan Transportation Commission) are not accountable to the voters and can impose their “visions” on the people without fear of retaliation by the voters.

Prop 32-Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction-YES. As long as big government continues, vested interest groups will continue to fight for a share of favored treatment and taxpayer money.  This ballot measure won’t stop that practice, but it will be a step in the right direction by limiting the current practice of unions automatically deducting pay from employee paychecks for political purposes.  Such deductions will have to be voluntary and authorized yearly in writing by the employees—and as Libertarians we favor voluntary actions over coerced takings.

Prop 33-Auto Insurance Companies/Prices Based on Driver’s History -YES. Libertarians favor voluntary transactions between consumers and the companies that serve them.  While car insurance will continue to be heavily regulated—something we disagree with—this ballot measure is also a step in the right direction by removing regulations on discounts/surcharges based on past insurance coverage.  This will encourage more competition in the industry and ultimately lower rates for most consumers.

Prop 34-Death Penalty-YES. Few things can be worse than the state executing an innocent person for a crime he/she didn’t commit.  Especially in recent years DNA testing has exonerated a significant number of condemned prisoners for crimes they never committed.  Passage of this measure will ensure that no innocent person is ever executed again by the state in the ultimate miscarriage of justice.

Prop 35-Human Trafficking/Penalties-NO.  Harsher penalties for sex work under guise of “Human Trafficking.”  This measure purports to go after human trafficking and prostitution involving minors, but will potentially ensnare innocent friends, family, and associates of sex workers as “human traffickers”, with draconian penalties of up to twelve years in prison, $500,000 in fines (as much as $1.5 million in some cases), and registering as a “sex offender” for life, in addition to having to turn over all Internet profiles and passwords used by the person to the authorities, letting government get another toehold toward regulating and controlling Internet use. The measure further relies on previously debunked statistics such as the claim that “upwards of 300,000 American children are at risk of commercial sexual exploitation.”

Prop 36-Three Strikes Law/Repeat Felony Offenders-YES. When the voters passed the Three Strikes Law, the intention was to get violent criminals off the streets.  But as often happens with new laws, unintended consequences occur, and in this case offenders received much longer prison terms when their third offense was not violent.  This is a miscarriage of justice—the violent criminals deserve the really long sentences, not the nonviolent ones.  Under this measure, the nonviolent offenders may have their terms reduced to more reasonably match their crimes, but the violent offenders (for murder, rape, and child molestation) will not benefit from this correction of the law.

Prop 37-Genetically Engineered Foods/Labeling-NO. While Libertarians value transparency and honesty in all trading transactions between consumers and businesses, this ballot measure will only result in larger government through increased rules and regulations of food labeling laws.  The burden will be put on retailers, which is bound to increase food prices.  Passage of this measure will be great for ambulance chasers since consumers will be able “to sue without needing to demonstrate that any specific damage occurred as a result of the alleged violation.”

Prop 38-Tax to Fund Education & Early Childhood Programs-NO. Taxes are already ridiculously high in California and the educational results of its government schools are correspondingly low.  Increasing state income tax rates will not solve the problem of low performing schools.  Only competition and innovation in education can improve the results.  New Orleans, for example, switched mostly to charter schools after Katrina with remarkable improvements in scores and literacy.

Prop 39-Tax Treatment for Multistate Businesses/Clean Energy & Energy Efficiency Funding-NO. This is another tax increase, except this one is directed at multistate companies, rather than the taxpayers directly.  It will create yet another bureaucracy to oversee the confiscated taxes go to favored alternative energy projects.  (Remember Solyndra?)  It will hurt consumers through increased prices for the companies that stay in California and will hurt job seekers when other companies relocate to lower tax states.

Prop 40-Redistricting/State Senate Districts-YES. This measure will not likely have an impact on freedom in California since it is only about choosing between how the State Senate districts will be divided up—either by the Citizens Redistricting Commission or “special masters” (yes, it actually says that in the Voter Information Guide on page 75) appointed by the California Supreme Court.  Since the commission appears to be more impartial than “special masters,” a slight edge goes to the Citizens Redistricting Commission, which would tend to be less politically motivated.

DECLARATION OF POLICY OPPOSING CORPORATE PERSONHOOD.

Opposes artificial corporate rights and giving corporations the same rights entitled to human beings. Maintains that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are intended to protect the rights of individual human beings(“natural persons”).  Maintains that United States Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United vs the Federal Elections Commission (January 21, 2010) presents a threat to democracy by allowing unlimited corporate spending to influence elections. NO.

Corporate reform is needed, especially as they pertain to liability laws.  Our “no” recommendation arises from our preference to err on the side of free speech; and our observation that workers’ unions excercise similar spending to influence elections but there is no declaration of policy before the voters to curtain their activities.

WATER AND ENVIRONMENT PLAN:  This voter initiative was placed on the ballot by the “Restore Hetch Hetchy” group.  It calls for development of a long-term plan for creating a “more sustainable water system,” which would include development of local, as opposed to Hetch Hetchy, water sources.  It also calls for a plan of water recycling, reclamation, conservation, improved storm water capture, replacing hydropower with wind and solar energy, increasing salmon population on the Tuolumne River.  This plan must provide for sufficient water resources to “allow for the Hetch Hetchy Valley to be returned to the National Park Service and restored as part of Yosemite National Park.”  NO

 

Water conservation is a worthwhile endeavor.  However, there is no compelling reason for tearing down the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir.

Who benefits from Proposition F:

Environmental advocates.

What would we suggest instead:

Leave well enough alone.  The main objective of this proposal which is never spelled out is to tear down the dam that catches and stores most of the water that San Francisco uses, thereby returning the Yosemite Valley to its original state – eventually.  We see no point to this endeavor.   Water conservation, recycling, and reclamation are beneficial plans, that could be implemented without tearing down the dam.

GROSS RECEIPTS TAX:  This amendment to the Business Tax Regulations Code creates a new business tax based on gross receipts, and replaces the current business payroll tax gradually over 5 years, beginning in 2014.  Businesses with gross receipts of less than $1 million annually will be exempt from the gross receipts tax.  Rates will vary depending on the type of business and its annual gross receipts.  NO.

 

Proponents argue that a payroll tax is a tax on hiring and reduces employment in San Francisco.  By the same logic, a gross receipts tax is a tax on selling goods or services, and reduces the economic activity from which wages are paid.

Who benefits from Proposition E:

The Gross Receipts Tax is expected to bring in an additional $28.5 million in tax revenues – the registration fees included in this proposal are higher than those mandated by the Payroll Tax ($75 to $35,000, instead of the current $25 to $500), and the taxes pyramid as they are applied to receipts from wholesalers to end sellers.  The increased tax revenue is needed if the Housing Trust (Proposition C) is to be adequately funded.  Therefore, those that benefit from Proposition C, will benefit from Proposition E.

Why is Proposition E not the best solution:

1.  Proposition E is 70 pages long, and describes an impossibly complex system of progressive taxes, registration fees, and penalties for non compliance.  It will not be very difficult for businesses to “game” such a convoluted system, or make honest mistakes costing them money in penalties.

2.  The complexity of this tax could render it vulnerable to a court challenge.  In 2001, the City had to give up its dual system of gross receipts/payroll in response to a successful court challenge.  Should the Housing Trust proposal be approved by voters, and should subsequently this tax be declared unconstitutional, projects under the Housing Trust programs will become inadequately funded.

3.  Businesses, big and small, need as much certainty as possible to plan and operate successfully.  This proposal is “fluid:” if the gross receipts tax revenue exceeds the revenue the City would have received under the payroll tax then the gross receipts will be kept.  If the gross receipts tax revenue never equals the revenue the City would have received under the payroll tax then the payroll tax will be reduced but not eliminated.  Difficult to plan under such uncertainty!

What do we suggest instead:

Libertarians, who believe a small and efficient government is the ideal, prefer simple sales or excise taxes that apply equally to everyone.  We consistently point out to voters that the more grandiose projects and benefits voters approve, the higher and more complex the costs imposed on everyone.  These costs come in the form of taxes, fees, and penalties, either paid directly or paid indirectly through costs passed on to consumers by those taxed directly.