Nice article that brings up several valid points: why does a city this size have so many government workers, why continue to give government workers better benefits than the private sector gives, and the unrealistic rate of return that politicians count on getting for city investments. Do we really get more for our tax money by having more government workers? I called the 311 number 3 times over the last 2 months to get all the street lights in front of CCSF fixed only to be told on the last call that it's in the "Work in Process" stage and a city planner has to tend to it. 27,000 workers and more than 2 months to fix street lights?! As for the compensation for city workers, in the olden days their salaries were on the lower side, so it was not unreasonable to give them better benefits, but not so today. An article in the Chronicle 3 years ago cited 1 in 3 city workers making over $100K per year--and I expect it's even higher now. As for the rosy projections for investments by bureaucrats, while SF is doing well today during the high tech and construction booms, there's no guarantee this will continue forever. Detroit looked great in the 50's and look at it today. Lastly Joel has one blooper in his mention of Prop A: it will not stop the bureaucrats from raiding the fund since health care costs already exceed the 10% threshold this year and are expected to exceed the 10% mark every year in the near future.
Nice to hear about a new business trying to make a go of it in this city that is hostile to new businesses. And if this restaurant succeeds, it will create new real jobs, not those government jobs "created" out of taxpayer money. I hope this business makes it!
Lockbox, really?! If this ballot measure were truly fiscally responsible, why did they include the exception that the politicians can dip into the "lockbox" when retiree health care costs exceed the 10% threshold? While the City is doing quite well now during the current high tech and construction booms, things could change quite quickly into yet another fiscal "crisis." It's a sad joke implying that needing a consensus for different government bureaucrats to all agree on the necessity of dipping into the fund would be a difficult feat. The moment any branch of government runs into fiscal problems--they all agree very quickly to take money from wherever they can get it. If they had left the 10% exception out, I might have voted for A.
Refreshing to read a rare article here in San Francisco where the rich aren't being bashed just for being rich. It's all about envy when people bash the rich for being able to afford things the rest of us can't. (I'm solid middle-class, not one of them.) Nice to hear the words "free market capitalism" used in a positive light for a change. Say what you want about the rich, but without their money where would the jobs be?
Rather than wasting a lot of energy trying to stir up the political drums for CCSF, how about the unions and management of CCSF get to work on fixing the problems cited at the school in the accreditation report? That should be the main focus right now if indeed they really want to save the school--finger pointing and bellyaching is pointless.
Amazing to read so many anti-immigrant comments in the Bay Area. If the person being held initiated violence against another person or their property, then they deserve to be held and deported, just like any other common criminal. However, just being here illegally does not make them a criminal in my mind, though by law they are a criminal. Most immigrants take jobs that the rest of us would never do and work at the lower end of the economic scale, so they are only "taking jobs" that nobody wants anyway. Yes, the expansion of the welfare state has encouraged some deadbeat immigrants to sneak over here looking to be on the dole, but the solution is to reduce the welfare state which encourages dependence on the government, not attack those seeking a better life for themselves and their families who are willing to take a chance in a new country through hard work.
Perhaps the voters didn't have time to read the 15 very long pages at the back of voters handbook filled with tons of complicated rules that only a bureaucrat would understand. Rather they trusted our enlightened Board of Supervisors and almost every interest group in this city pushing this tax as more fair and sure to bring jobs to the city. The only thing we can really be sure of now is that 5 more very highly paid government employees will be hired to make life more miserable for companies trying to survive in this city.
All Comments »
The San Francisco Examiner
Website powered by Foundation