Tag: state assembly

  • No on AB 63 – An Authoritarian State Bill to Re-criminalize People for Loitering

    No on AB 63 – An Authoritarian State Bill to Re-criminalize People for Loitering

    There’s an authoritarian move afoot to re-criminalize “loitering with intent to commit prostitution”, by reimposing Section 653.22 of the California penal code, which was eliminated several years ago in decriminalization legislation sponsored by state senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and signed by governor Gavin Newsom.

    Now another Democrat, Michelle Rodriguez (D-Ontario), has put forward Assembly Bill 63 in an attempt to recriminalize this vague “offense” (how police officers are supposed to read the minds of persons on the street to determine what their “intent” is, has never been truly explained).

    Laws against loitering (like laws against nudity) are arguably among the most absurd, senseless, and offensive laws on the books, because they subject people to arrest, criminal records, and possible incarceration and prosecution for literally doing nothing.
    Sex work rights advocates posted this 20 minute video clip of the State Assembly Public Safety Committee’s hearing on AB 63 today. It’s worth watching, not only to hear what the proponents and opponents of this particular authoritarian bill are saying, but as a glimpse into how the legislative process in Sacramento typically works:
    Each side has a parade of people present to testify, many of them employees of government agencies, most probably there on the taxpayers’ dime. Even many of those not directly employed by government, work for non-profits that are probably receiving taxpayer funding, and again are likely being paid to be there.
    This is not to denigrate the staffers at Public Defenders offices, representatives of the ACLU, workers with sex work rights non-profits, and others who took the time to show up and speak against AB 63. We should appreciate them being there and speaking out against the expansion of government at the expense of civil liberties – if they are being paid in part with your stolen money, such harm reduction efforts are certainly among the least objectionable uses of taxpayer funds.
    Nevertheless, it is telling and notable that of the dozens who testified today, not one appeared to be simply a member of the general public, unconnected to any organization with an institutional interest in the matter. This is sadly typical, and a recurring feature of Big Government statism – few ordinary people have the time, resources, etc., to follow and weigh in on all the endless crap being generated in the governmental chambers of Sacramento, Washington, or even locally here in San Francisco.
    All the more reason why it does help to speak out as an ordinary person against bad bills like AB 63. Fewer people do so in a state of ~39 million residents than you might think. This bill was not passed out of the Public Safety Committee, but is on a 2-year track and will be taken up by the committee again, probably later this year following a committee hearing in Assemblymember Rodriguez’s district.
    Here are the email addresses of some of the staffers for members of the committee. I encourage you to take a minute to write to them (probably most effective to copy and past what you write into a separate email for each recipient, and not list your location unless you happen to live in their district), and let them know you oppose people being criminalized for doing nothing, and OPPOSE AB 63:
    Chair Asm. Nick Schultz
    Asm. Mark Gonzalez
    Asm. Matt Haney*
    Asm. John Harabedian
    Asm. Stephanie Nguyen
    Asm. Dr. LaShae Sharp-Collins
    *Represents District 17, encompassing eastern San Francisco (see https://a17.asmdc.org/district-map)
    If you want some talking points for your letter, or just dare to see a bit of how the sausage gets made, here again is the link to the short video clip from today’s hearing:
    If a phone call is more your style than a written letter, you can call and leave a message for members of the Public Safety Committee urging a NO vote on AB 63 by calling (916) 319-3744.
    Or if you want to go the extra mile for liberty, you can find the contact information (phone and email addresses) for all members of the State Assembly, and look up your representative, here – https://www.assembly.ca.gov/assemblymembers.
    Hopefully this anti-libertarian garbage will die in committee, but in case it doesn’t, and just to communicate how the public feels about their resources being wasted on this kind of nonsense fueling mass incarceration and the destruction of civil liberties, it doesn’t hurt to let “your” representative know how you feel about AB 63 even if they aren’t on the committee themselves.
    Love & Liberty,
    ((( starchild )))
    Chair, Libertarian Party of San Francisco
    (415) 573-7997

  • March 3, 2020 Ballot Recommendations

                Longtime freedom-oriented observers of politics in the City by the Bay won’t be greatly surprised that exactly none of the local measures on the March 3 ballot are worth supporting. The Libertarian Party of San Francisco recommends voting NO on all five. Here’s some brief thoughts on why:

     

    Proposition A – $845 million City College “Job Training, Repair and Earthquake Safety” bond

    According to a faculty union representing teachers at City College, spending on administration has grown to comprise 10% of the school’s personnel costs, up from 7% just five years ago.

    An October bulletin published by the union describes how students, teachers and community members recently had to “push back on exorbitant raises” for top administrators, “including a proposal to compensate Associate Vice Chancellors at $275K/yr.” Meanwhile, City College enrollment is down from 90,000 in 2011-2012 to 65,000 today, according to a piece by Marc Joffe of the Reason Foundation. “With so many San Franciscans living on the streets, investing in educational infrastructure seems to be an especially odd priority,” he writes. We agree. Vote NO on Prop. A.

    Proposition B – $628.5 million “Earthquake Safety and Emergency Response” bond

    Another massive tax-and-spend measure in the name of “safety”. San Franciscans have already voted time and again to appropriate money for earthquake preparedness and emergency services. Just last year voters adopted a $425 million bond measure billed as protecting the city from flooding and earthquakes. As with all bond spending, this measure is wasteful – the controller estimates that borrowing $628.5 million will end up costing taxpayers over $1 billion by the time the principal is repaid with interest to the companies financing the bonds. A nice deal for Wall Street financiers perhaps, but not so great for overtaxed residents including tenants, who could see up to half the cost of the measure passed along to them in the form of higher rents.

    Proposition C – Retiree Benefits for Former SF Housing Authority Employees

    The Housing Authority is a local agency, but has been funded by the federal government. Now some former SFHA employees are being hired by the city government. This measure would make them eligible for city government retirement benefits based not just on their time as municipal employees, but also based on the years they spent drawing federal government paychecks. This sounds like a recipe for double-dipping, and most government employees are already over-compensated compared to people doing similar work in the voluntary sector. Increasing government employee compensation also means stealing more money from the taxpayers to pay for it. We say Vote NO.

    Proposition D – Vacancy Tax

    This measure would tax owners of commercial storefront property for allowing it to sit vacant, incentivizing landlords to rush to fill leases quickly rather than taking the time to consult with community members and groups and seek out tenants who are a good match for their neighborhoods. The usually statist editors of the Bay Area Reporter newspaper correctly point out that retail vacancies are growing nationally “as a result of the convenience of online shopping, competitive prices, and speedy delivery”, and that “the challenges of doing business in San Francisco” , among them “bureaucratic red tape and a protracted permitting process, onerous taxes, scarcity of workers” make the problem even worse here. They note that instead of “doing the hard work of cutting the red tape that frustrates and discourages businesses from operating in our neighborhoods,” the Board of Supervisors “punted and placed Prop. D on the ballot.” We agree – please vote NO.

    Proposition E – Limits on Office Development

    This measure would limit the amount of office space that can be built in San Francisco unless the city government meets its goals for the development of “affordable” housing. More housing is urgently needed, but development of new office space should not be held hostage to this need. Creating laws like this based on guesses about what future needs will be is a bad idea. Limiting creation of office space will also pave the way for politicians to hand out special exemptions based on political favoritism and corruption. One such loophole already built into the measure would allow new office space development in exchange for affordable housing being built off-site, but would require such off-site housing to be located “within an economically disadvantaged community”. In other words, new housing for poor people would have to be located in places where poor people already live, further reinforcing the de facto segregation of the city into poor and wealthy areas, as driven by past government policies like redlining, rather than allowing market development to happen organically. Vote NO on Prop. E.

    Aside from voting to oppose the ballot measures, the LPSF also voted to support three candidates in this election:

    Starchild for State Assembly (write-in)

    Such is the lack of democracy in this largely one-party town that incumbent Assembly member David Chiu was the only candidate to fill for his District 17 seat that comprises the eastern half of San Francisco, leaving an opening for a write-in candidate to run in the primary and automatically appear on the November ballot without having to feed the State by paying a filing fee of hundreds of dollars. LPSF chair Starchild decided this was too good an opportunity to pass up, and decided to collect the signatures needed to be that candidate. The erotic service provider and freedom activist says the core of his campaign message will be the idea of a consent-based society in which government does not tell people what to do with their own bodies and resources, and you can live your life as you choose so long as it does not involve initiating force or fraud against others. “Consent is not just about sex, it matters in every aspect of our lives,” Starchild asserts. He also pledges to champion the rights of homeless people, immigrants, sex workers, independent and homeschool families, the kink and poly communities, people in the cannabis and psychedelic communities, and others who have been marginalized and harmed by the statist quo, while cutting the 6-figure salaries and lavish benefits of those in government who are profiting off the backs of the poor and the victims of government taxes and fees.

    Maria Evangelista for Superior Court Judge

    Like newly elected district attorney Chesa Boudin, Maria Evangelista is a public defender who has worked at the award-winning SF Public Defender’s Office built by the late Jeff Adachi. Her opponent, by contrast, is a former prosecutor. In a criminal justice system that has given the U.S. what is widely reported to be the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world, we need more judges whose background is in trying to keep people out of jail, rather than trying to lock them up. Evangelista’s parents emigrated from Mexico to work as farm workers and took refuge here in San Francisco as undocumented migrants, and her mother collected recycling to help make ends meet, so she has first-hand experience of being poor and on the wrong side of the authorities, if not the law (the Feds actually have no constitutional authority to criminalize or regulate who migrates to the U.S., only the process of becoming a citizen). “Every day I see how our courts have failed to meaningfully address homelessness, car break-ins, and violence”, she writes. “Everyday I see how the courts are disproportionately arresting and imprisoning people of color. We are stuck in a cycle of catch, imprison and release.” It is notoriously difficult to find solid information on the policy positions of candidates for judge, but from her background we believe Maria Evangelista is likely to be the more pro-freedom candidate in this race, and recommend Libertarians support her for Seat 1 on the Superior Court.

    John Dennis for Congress

    There was some dispute in our ranks as to whether we should be recommending a vote for a Republican in a partisan race, but John Dennis has a history of engagement with the freedom movement dating back to Ron Paul’s first campaign for president back in 2007, when he walked the streets alongside many of us canvassing for the libertarian Republican and lifetime Libertarian Party member. A plurality of our committee felt that history, and his positions aside from some regrettable stances on immigration and homelessness, make him a more pro-freedom choice than establishment incumbent Nancy Pelosi or any of her other challengers. John is against overseas wars and in favor of cutting Pentagon as well as other government spending, auditing the Federal Reserve, a return to sound money, and reining in warrantless spying on Americans by the federal government. While we cannot endorse candidates of other parties, we recommend a vote for John Dennis for Congress in District 12 as the best choice in a race without a Libertarian candidate.

    *       *       *