Category: Uncategorized

CONSOLIDATING ODD-YEAR MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS.  We have no recommendation.

HOUSING TRUST CHARTER AMENDMENT:   Creates a Housing Trust Fund by setting aside general fund revenues to create, acquire and rehabilitate affordable housing and promote affordable home ownership programs.  $20 million would be set aside in 2013.  An additional $2.8 million would be set aside each year after that, for the next 11 years.  NO.

 

With this measure City government is attempting to subsidize a much greater portion of residents.  As always, the gains of those who receive subsidies are made at the expense of those who do not.

What changed:

Most of the City’s construction projects were funded by the Redevelopment Agency, which received money from the state. The Redevelopment Agency was intended to combat urban blight.  California dissolved the Redevelopment Agency December 2011.  The Housing Trust is intended not only to continue the Redevelopment Agency’s efforts to eradicate blight, but also expands these efforts into funding middle income rental and ownership,

Who benefits from Proposition C:

1.  Households earning up to 120% of the local median income (around $86,000 per year).  The Trust will fund homeownership down payments; assistance to homeowners at risk of losing their home; help in making homes “safer, more accessible, more energy efficient, and more sustainable.”

2.  Households including a first responder, such as fire fighter or police officer, “subject to Area Median Income Limits designated by the Mayor.”

3.  Renters of low and moderate income.  The Trust will authorize “private sponsors with financial assistance from any public body to develop, construct or acquire up to 30,000 dwelling units of low rent housing” to serve “low and moderate income” households.

4.  Users of public spaces:  The Trust will design and administer a “Complete Neighborhoods Infrastructure Grant Program,” which will provide public facilities such as streets and parks in project areas.

How will the Housing Trust Fund be paid for:

1.  Transition over 5 years from the City Payroll Tax to the Gross Receipts Tax.  The Gross Receipts tax is anticipated to provide more revenue than the Payroll Tax.

2.  Recapture of the funding the Redevelopment Agency used – incremental increases in property tax.

3.  Bonds.  The Housing Trust Fund has bonding authority.  “The Board of Supervisors may authorize the issuance, without limitation, of revenue bonds, lease financing, notes, or other evidence of indebtedness or other obligations.”

Why is Proposition C not the best solution:

1.  Proposition C is a significant expansion of City government’s involvement in subsidizing housing.   The uncertain economy seems to be here to stay; taxpayers need to be aware that proposals such as the Housing Trust Fund transfers financial risk from individuals to taxpayers in general.

2.  First responders are selected to special treatment, prompting the anticipation that other public employees, such as teachers and nurses, will demand special treatment in the future, further increasing the obligations of the Trust.

3.   Again, the Housing Trust expands the role of government housing from providing dwelling to very low-income families to subsidizing middle class families.  Those funding this and other portions of the Housing Trust (property tax and gross receipt tax payers) are not necessarily “rich”, but could conceivably be home and business owners struggling to pay their taxes.

4.   Although obviously streets, parks and other public structures kept in good repair are good to have, we would like to alert voters of the magnitude of the “Complete Neighborhoods Infrastructure” program, and the accompanying price tag to be funded from yet uncertain sources.

5.  It is not clear at this time how any of the Housing Trust programs will be paid for.  Incremental tax increase depends on voters approving tax proposals and on property tax assessments increasing as a result of property value increases; neither a sure thing.  The Gross Revenue Tax proposal may or may not pass in November.  It is not clear how new projects by the Housing Trust will be impacted by the existing development projects (Bayview Hunters Point, Mid-Market, Visitation Valley, SOMA).

6.  Although revenue bonds are a tried and true method for financing projects, they are often issued to excess and used for on-going general maintenance.  Inability to keep up with excessive debt obligations such as bonds is often the reason for serious financial difficulties.

What do we suggest instead:

Let the market (undisturbed by government interference) determine the supply and demand of housing. Let individuals find their own opportunities by taking their own risks.  Focus on basic services for the “general welfare”, as mentioned in the United States Constitution, not on grandiose projects forever seeking to make more individuals dependent on government.

CLEAN AND SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD BONDS:  This proposal incurs a bonded debt of $195,000,000 for the construction, reconstruction, renovation, demolition, environmental remediation, and/or improvement of park, open space, and recreation facilities.  It authorizes landlords to pass-through 50% of resulting property tax increase to residential tenants. NO.

 

A bond issue is a tax on future taxpayers to pay for what present day voters want, and should be used more cautiously than done in this proposal.

Who benefits from Proposition B:

This project is city-wide so all residents benefit from the beautification provided by this project.

Why is Proposition B not the best solution:

1.  This is an ambitious project, and residents who are already struggling financially will find increases in property taxes (either direct taxes or those passed through by landlords) difficult.

2.  Our concern regarding the assumption of excessive debt mentioned under our discussion of Proposition C above, applies equally here.

What do we suggest instead:

Libertarians prefer manageable, private, imaginative projects to grandiose taxpayer-funded ones.  The more local the projects, the better.  We would prefer neighborhood associations that include individuals and businesses deciding what local parks, playgrounds, and other amenities they would like to have, and bearing the shared costs of those amenities.

CITY COLLEGE PARCEL TAX:  Authorizes the Community College District to levy a special property tax of $79 per parcel for eight years for the purpose of funding City College.   NO.

 

A parcel tax is always a compulsory payment which must be made without regard to the quality or value of the output.  This is especially true in the case of Proposition A.  Insisting in a full reform of serious, long-standing structural failings affecting City College would benefit students, teachers, and San Francisco more than accepting band-aid solutions.

Who benefits from Proposition A:

The funds generated from this parcel tax offers a temporary benefit to the college’s 90,000 students, 2,800 staff and teachers, Board of Trustees, and Chancellor.  The college leadership claims that California has cut funding to community colleges by over half a billion dollars in the past several years, which has resulted in the college’s revenues being inadequate to fund its costs.

Why is Proposition A not the best solution:

City College’s major troubles do not arise from cuts in funding.  The Accreditation Commission Evaluation Report of 2012 (http://www.accjc.org) has pointed to the college’s lack of planning, failure to live within its means, ignoring growing costs of retiree liabilities, clinging to “shared governance” which precludes effective decision-making, spending 92% of its budget in salaries and benefits, failure to allocate funds to technology and other infrastructure, lack of effective assessment of student learning.  These are structural failings, not funding challenges.

The college was advised of serious shortcomings during their 2006 evaluation, some of which was corrected, most was not.  California has 112 community colleges; except for two others besides City College, all have survived the difficult economic times we are all experiencing without a threat to their accreditation.  This situation calls into question the competency of the college’s leadership, and its ability to provide on-going, decisive organizational management.

What do we suggest instead:

The Libertarian Party of San Francisco has consistently maintained that if voters insist on having taxpayer-funded public education, voters need to demand efficiency  at all levels of public instruction, instead of accepting the usual claims that all problems are caused solely by a lack of funding.  If this oversight is not taken seriously, everybody suffers from hard-earned money falling into bottomless pits of dysfunctional management.  The quality of community colleges, including City College, is worth fighting for.  Community colleges have been given the thankless task of rescuing a good number of public school graduates from near illiteracy, teaching the bulk of college-age immigrants with limited English-language skills, and serving families with scarce financial resources.

Therefore, voters need to demand that structural changes to remedy the weaknesses enumerated by the Accreditation Commission be implemented in fact not just on paper before any funding is granted.  We believe that band-aid proposals will be made on paper that are good enough to satisfy the Accreditation Commission by the October deadline, but that alone should not be enough for voters.

We believe that our suggested strategy is an extremely difficult one for students, since we are certain that leadership’s first reaction if Proposition A does not pass will be to cut classes.  However, we believe that a combination of pressure from the Accreditation Commission and from voters will cause the college’s leadership to understand their role as managers of scarce resources better; as a result, City College will emerge from this dark period a stronger institution able to serve its students much better than it does now.

 

The annual San Francisco Pride Festival is probably The City’s biggest event.  Locals, tourists, kids, families, all colors and preferences have great fun watching the Parade and visiting the hundreds of Exhibitor Booths.  As has been the case for the past decade, Outright Libertarians will host an Exibitor Booth.  Outright’s mission is to “serve as a two-way bridge between the Libertarian Party and those people with differing sexual orientations.”  Through activism and outreach, Outright introduces to the LGBT community Libertarian principles of individual rights, inclusiveness, equal rights, equal responsibilities.   The Sunday Parade is along Market Street.  The booths, food and drink, and entertainment stages are at Civic Center, for both Saturday and Sunday, 10:00 am to around 5:00 pm.  For more information, please visit the SF Pride 2012 website. 

 

 

 

Elections Update: 

 

Local Measure A – Garbage Collection and Disposal:  Folks in San Francisco chose to stay with Recology, possibly because “If you love MUNI, you will love a City-owned Waste Management Center.”

Local Measure B – Coit Tower Policy:   A close call, but the Yes votes won. 

 

Candidates:

We are always proud of Gail Lightfoot’s efforts, since a third-party candidate wages an uphill battle against the established political machine.  Under the new Top-Two rules, it will be difficult for a third-party candidate to participate in the General Elections at all.

However, all is not lost, since libertarian (small “L”) John Dennins (U.S. Representative District 12/California District 8) will be on the November ballot . 

______________

Primary Elections are June 5, 2012.  Be informed, and make your voice heard.

 

• There are only two local ballot measures; here is a brief summary of each, and our recommendation.

 

Proposition A:  This ordinance makes changes to how the City contracts for and regulates rates for garbage collection, recycling, waste reduction and disposal.  Now we have one company (Recology, local employee-owned company that has been providing the services for around 70 years), who owns the processing facilities, pays no franchise fees to the City, charges residential rates set by the City’s Rate Board, charges commercial rates generally based on rates established by the Rate Board but not regulated, and charges the City for servicing City property.  Proposition A would replace this system with a competitive bidding process that would require 1) the Board of Supervisors to award five separate agreements for five separate waste management services, 2) the City own the waste management  facilities (by purchasing existing facilities or by building new ones),  and  3) the companies awarded the bids pay franchise fees to the City.  The competitive bidding part of this ordinance, although convoluted, is a good thing libertarian-wise.  The requirement that the City own the facilities and that the Board of Supervisors award the contracts not so much.  Based on the con part, the Libertarian Party of San Francisco recommends a NO vote.

 

Proposition B:  This proposal aims to provide dedicated funding for the maintenance of Coit Tower, its historic murals, and its surrounding park.  Now the Recreation and Park Department manages Coit Tower and its park, the Arts Commission maintains the murals, a private company runs a concession and manages special events at the Tower, and money generated by the private concession can be used for any City purpose but generally goes to the Recreation and Park Department.   This proposition seeks to,  1) strictly limit commercial activities and private events at Coit Tower, and 2) use money generated by the private concession solely to maintain the Tower, its murals, and its park.  Although from a Libertarian point of view he who makes the money should keep the money, it is important that the private concession make decisions without restrictions (other than common sense ones); therefore, the Libertarian Party of San Francisco recommends a NO vote.

 

• Libertarian Party candidates are scarce in this Primary race.  The major candidates are,

Presidential Candidate Nominated by the Libertarian Party:  Gary Johnson

United States Senator:  Gail K. Lightfoot

 

• There are times when non-Libertarians  earn the respect of Libertarians for their consistent fight for smaller government, fiscal responsibility, individual liberties, and a non-interventionist foreign policy.  Two such individuals whom the Libertarian Party of San Francisco salutes and supports in this Primary Election are Ron Paul and John Dennis, both Republicans.  As a 2008 and 2012 Presidential Candidate, Ron Paul has been a game changer, opening the general public’s eyes to the corrosive power of big government.  John Dennis, a local entrepreneur, is on his second campaign to defeat Nancy Pelosi in California’s 8^th Congressional District.  John Dennis’ courage in running as, to quote him, “an anti-war Republican” is legendary!

This wasn’t headline news, but should have been: In 2008, Deborah Vincent-James, former executive director of the Committee on Information Technology that qualified prospective city vendors, said in a court deposition that Ed Lee, then the city purchaser, told her to qualify a company called Government Computer Sales as a city contractor, after then-mayor Willie Brown had directed Lee to do an alternate evaluation process, according to a Feb. 14 article in the Chronicle.

The reason she was testifying about this is that the firm for whom Brown and Lee skirted the normal procedure for approving contractors, Government Computer Sales — which had hired a former legislative colleague of Willie Brown’s, Terry Goggin, as a lobbyist — was subsequently found to have done no work on improving the city’s building permit tracking system despite being paid $500,000 in fees for the job. Now it seems the head of the company has disappeared, after transferring a bunch of money to an offshore bank account.

The good news is that Lee has been called to testify as a witness at the trial that’s arisen out of all this. Dare we hope that the seemingly teflon-coated Brown will be forced to do so as well? The bad news is that Vincent-James is dead, according to the Chron — the article left unstated whether she died under suspicious circumstances or not — the $500,000 is gone, and the City and two other companies that may or may not have been innocently caught up in the mess are suing and counter-suing. So we may never get the full story, and taxpayers will likely be on the hook for more legal fees.

But while the possibility of a sitting mayor having to explain his corruption under oath remains enticing, we should perhaps be more concerned with watching the current big pots of honey sitting around that look ripe for raiding by the corrupt.

Current Honeypot #1 is undoubtedly the multi-billion dollar Central Subway project. But at least that boondoggle is highly visible, having been a major point of contention during the recent mayoral campaign. With any luck it may yet be cancelled. Honeypot #2 appears to be the one that Oracle billionaire Larry Ellison wants to get his fingers into, namely the rights to control and develop a bunch of valuable property owned by the Port of San Francisco as part of the America’s Cup deal. Fortunately, that too is attracting a lot of attention and controversy.

Significantly less well known is what may possibly be Honeypot #3 — the “emergency communications network” that the Board of Supervisors just approved last week at a cost of $100 million. Apparently $50 million of the cost will be paid for with “free”, use-it-or-lose-it federal funding, so of course the Board thought nothing of spending the money and letting the American taxpayers foot the bill. The obvious question of course is why it should cost $100 million to enable key people within our 49-square-mile jurisdiction to talk to each other in the event of an emergency.

But it gets better (or worse)…

 As reported by the Examiner's Josh Sabatini (Feb. 8, page 11), "Despite Tuesday's move, The City is still planning to pay for two other emergency radio systems worth tens of millions of dollars -- one is for MUNI and the other is an overhaul of the current push-to-talk radio system used by police and other first responders."

In other words, they’re spending tens of millions of dollars on radios and walkie-talkies. Special ones for different agencies, so that nobody steps on anybody else’s bureaucratic turf. Then a few years from now, we’ll read an article about how much time has gone by since 9/11, and how government personnel still can’t communicate with each other.

But wait, there’s more!

“The network infrastructure would be paid for through grant funding,” the Examiner article continues, “but San Francisco would pay about $260,000 annually for the antenna sites and staffing. The unknown cost is the purchase of radios and in-vehicle modems or computers, and a $43-per-month charge for each user.”

So they’re spending $100 million on an emergency communications system for which they will still have to pay $43 per user per month. And tens of millions more on two other emergency radio systems. Just in case the $100 million contract didn’t produce enough overhead to satisfy everybody on the take, I suppose.

Only Supervisor Kim voted against this travesty. Supervisor Campos was absent, and the other nine Supervisors — most supposed “moderates” — gave it the nod. Please remember this the next time you’re tempted to blame all the fiscal irresponsibility in San Francisco on the “progressives”.

The Libertarian Party of  San Francisco at its Aug. 13. 2011 busines meeting made the following recommendations on the San Francisco ballot initiatives on the November ballot.

 

A School Bonds – Vote NO

B Road Repaving and Street Safety Bonds – Vote NO

C City Retirement and Health Care Benefits – Vote NO

D Retirement Benefits for City Employees – Vote YES

E Amending or Repealing Legislative Initiative Ordinances and Declarations of Policy – Vote NO

F Campaign Consultant Disclosures – Vote NO

G Sales Tax – Vote NO

H School District Student Assignment System – No Recommendation

 

Ron Getty

Vice Chair

Chair Initiatives Committee

Traditionally, folks do not turn out in good numbers to vote in municipal elctions, so all kinds of interesting proposals turn into City law to the surprise of many.  Municipal elections are coming up on November 8, 2011.  Have no doubt that whatever local measures pass into law will affect each and every one of us one way or another.   Please make your voice heard — vote.  The Libertarian Party of San Francisco has made its recommendations — all on the basis of aiming for smaller government responsive to the voters, less bureaucracy, and more individual freedoms.

Pride Week is over, and Libertarians were there.  Over the years, Outright Libertarians have volunteered their time and resources to staff a vendor booth at Pride.  Not only to outreach, but also to listen.  How does a Libertarian respond to someone who says she would never vote Libertarian because she needs the protection from discrimination that government affords.  Not an easy question, and the most sincre response we could offer was to suggest that if she would want to marry her partner, the government would simply say “no.”  How much time does a staff at the booth dedicate to a teen who realizes that what we are saying is not taught at his school — all the time it takes to answer all his questions.  How about the comment that Libertarians are “all white and rich?”  Oh, that’s an easy one–just look closely at who you are talking to!!  So many stopped at the Outright booth, each with a story, a comment, a question.   We are grateful for the opportunity to meet and talk to all of them.

 

Pride Outreach Team