Agenda for This Saturday's Meeting

Activists List
1

Hi All! Here's the agenda for this month's meeting. Please note that the focus of this meeting was to be on the upcoming ballot measures, but as of the Department of Elections' website this morning, there still aren't many issues to get excited about, so there won't be much ballot measure discussion in the meeting. However, the deadline for submitting ballot measures was Monday (July 8) at 5:00 PM, and since the Board of Supervisors and other city bureaucrats are notorious for turning in measures at the last moment, it is possible there are other measures that qualified that aren't up on the DOE website yet, so if I see any pop up before our meeting on Saturday, I will revise the amount of time allotted to each topic to allow more time for the ballot measures. Without the hoopla surrounding the ballot measures during the last few years that we have come to benefit from, we may be running into a bit of a dry spell for the next few months--that's
why I added #11 for fresh ideas that we could use for outreach. We want to continue our slow progress towards more visibility in city politics, so please bring ideas to the meeting.

Libertarian Party of San Francisco Agenda: Saturday, July 13, 2013
Meeting Location: SF
Main Library – 4th Floor Conference Room
  1. Welcome – Introductions 3:05-3:15
  2. Activist Reports – Past & Future 3:16-3:30
  3. Announcements 3:31-3:45
  4. Treasurer’s Report 3:46-3:48
  5. Activity Fund Report 3:49-3:50
  6. Website Report 3:51-3:55
  7. Nullify NDAA Update 3:56-4:00
  8. Report on Pride Booth 4:01-4:15
  9. Plan Bay Area Update 4:16-4:25
  10. Gun Show at Cow Palace September 14 & 15 4:26-4:30
  11. Ideas for Future Outreach Activities 4:31-4:40
  12. Ballot Measures-November Election 4:41-5:00

By the way, I ended up attending the Restore The Fourth event at UN Plaza on Independence Day, and it turned out to be a wonderful venue for outreach for the LPSF. Though someone on the group's website made fun of my idea of bringing a table to a protest, I did anyway and lots of folks stopped by throughout the day to chat, discuss, and pick up literature. There were at least 100 spirited folks who showed up to protest at the plaza, and after a while they decided to march to the Federal Building. Since I couldn't close up shop and march with a table, I decided to just stay put and ended up becoming a "greeter" for the Johnny Come Lately's who showed up late at the plaza looking for the protest in puzzlement and bewilderment. By this time the marchers had swelled and came back to Market Street and then headed down to the Embarcadero, so I directed the latecomers to where the march was going. Throughout the day I kept in touch with Dan The Man
from GGLR so I could advise folks where the march was at that point and where to head out. Later on in the afternoon some of the marchers returned to UN Plaza, and I found out that the march had swelled to an estimated size of over 500 folks as different waves of new marchers joined at different points. The march ended at the old AT&T building on Folsom Street, I believe. There were a lot of young folks who stopped by during the day, and several told me that they had never gone to a protest before. Also some of my liberty-leaning books and periodicals (from Reason and the Institute for Justice, for example) that I always have on our table got scooped up during the day (I always tell folks to please read it and pass it on to someone else), and 6 people filled out the LPSF sign-up sheet that I always give to new folks to leave their contact information. One kid who hung around our table for a long time discussing the issues even joined the few
of us who went out for a bite afterwards. All in all, a worthwhile and enjoyable way to spend the day and remember what the holiday is supposed to be all about!

Thanks!
Aubrey

2

Hi Aubrey,

Thanks for the Agenda; I will post it on the website by end of day today.

Your account of the 4th of July event was a joy to read! Thank you for your efforts.

Marcy

3

Yes, it was a pleasant surprise to return to the Civic Center on Thursday and find Aubrey there with an LPSF table all set up! Thanks as always Aubrey for your dedication.

  I think the "Restore the Fourth" protest was quite visible and successful. I got a chance to use the Bradley Manning Freedom Torch again, which I lit off in front of the protest crowd at the Embarcadero after people sung the national anthem (not everyone appreciated that unsanctioned expression of freedom for the holiday, but I think most did), and there were lots of volunteers to help carry that as well as use the drum and megaphone and chalk that I brought again (including the aforementioned activist the intrepid Dan The Man). Pat Lamken, George Gaboury and Catherine Knolls were among others I noticed there from our local Golden Gate Liberty r3VOLution group.

  I was among the handful of protesters who spoke by megaphone to the crowd of marchers in front of the AT&T building. I can't recall now whether I specifically mentioned the Libertarian Party -- I was a little distracted by the fact that one or two of the presumed march organizers were trying to prevent me from speaking, which wasn't very cool. Fortunately they had no real way to stop me. Since others had already made some of the obvious points about the surveillance state, and having just seen this MUST-READ article from the Guardian -- http://www.sfbg.com/2013/07/03/hungry-reform -- I made the plight of the wrongfully incarcerated the main focus of my brief remarks, attempting to tie that aspect of the police state in with the aspect that we were focused on, Edward Snowden and the NSA. Again not everyone appreciated it, but I think most did.

  I won't be able to make our meeting on Saturday since I'll be driving to Las Vegas for the Libertarian National Committee meeting happening there on Sunday. Hope everyone has a fun and productive meeting without me! I do however have a suggested agenda item that I'd encourage be discussed in my absence, because it is time-sensitive -- lobbying to influence the future direction of the San Francisco Bay Guardian.

  Several weeks ago, I was somewhat shocked to read (I forget where -- it may have been in the Chronicle) that the Guardian, along with the SF Weekly, had both been bought by the San Francisco Newspaper Group, which already owned the San Francisco Examiner and now owns all three papers. I think I mentioned this at one of our meetings or here online. The more recent related news is that Tim Redmond, the long-time doctrinaire left-wing editor and recent publisher of the Guardian and perhaps SF's leading apologist for economic statism, is out -- see http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2013/06/18/guard-story-behind-bay-guardian’s-new-ownership-and-departure-editor-publisher-t for the dirt on how that happened.

  As evidenced by the prison strike story above, the paper has long been terrific on civil liberties and open government issues, and it would be a shame to lose that voice. The Guardian's new owners have made it clear that they are looking to make some changes, and have invited the public to weigh in (see http://www.sfbg.com/2013/06/27/guardian-dead-long-live-guardian ): "We want to hear from you, our readers and advertisers, about what you want from the Guardian. We want you to help us formulate the plan for achieving greater journalistic relevance and economic sustainability. This is the transition point where the Guardian charts its future or fades into the past."

  If they were to preserve their strongly pro-freedom posture on civil liberties while adopting a more pro-freedom (or at least less anti-freedom) perspective on economic issues, that would be a very good thing. Good enough that I think we ought to make a concerted group effort for them to hear as many libertarian voices as possible at this critical juncture. I've copied the comment I sent them below.

Love & Liberty,
                                ((( starchild )))

P.S. - For those of you reading this on the GGLR list, the LPSF meets this Saturday, and the 2nd Saturday each month, from 3-5pm at the SF main library at Larkin and Grove, upstairs in the 4th floor community meeting room (see http://www.meetup.com/the-LPSF/events/123668442/ ). At least several folks typically head to nearby Ananda Fuara restaurant at Market & Larkin afterward to eat and socialize. All of you are most welcome to join us!

4

Starchild wrote, in his usual digressionary style:

Several weeks ago, I was somewhat shocked to read (I forget where --
it may have been in the Chronicle) that the Guardian, along with the
SF Weekly, had both been bought by the San Francisco Newspaper Group,
which already owned the San Francisco Examiner and now owns all three
papers. I think I mentioned this at one of our meetings or here
online. The more recent related news is that Tim Redmond, the
long-time doctrinaire left-wing editor and recent publisher of the
Guardian and perhaps SF's leading apologist for economic statism, is
out -- see
http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2013/06/18/guard-story-behind-bay-guardian’s\-new\-ownership\-and\-departure\-editor\-publisher\-t
for the dirt on how that happened.

It is a real mistake for the _SF Weekly_ and the _SFBG_ to be in the
same hands.

It’s also a shame that the _SFBG_ seems to be dying; it was good to have
a paper with such a clear editorial voice, whether or not one agreed
with them.

However, I think that kind of activist journalism is dead in print,
because it’s often incompatible with selling the advertising that the
print infrastructure requires to survive.

~Chris

5

Hi Chris, Starchild, and All,

I just finished reading online Tim Redmond's,"Planning for Displacement," a very thorough and straight forward analysis of Plan Bay Area http://www.sfbg.com/2013/05/28/planning-displacement

Indeed, sound-bite snippets rule today's media, which is fine with today's ADD-ravaged readership. But, if print cannot support the likes of Tim Redmond, perhaps there are enough serious readers online that can keep good journalism alive.

Speaking of Plan Bay Area and serious reading, I also just read a Civil Grand Jury report entitled "The Parkmerced Vision: Government-By-Developer," dated 2011. The report points out, among other tings, that the Development Agreement the City approved, which calls for demolition of 1,583 rental units in Parkmerced, does not offer credible guarantee of continued rent control for displaced renters. Duh, of course it does not, since state law, which supersedes City agreements, states that municipalities cannot interfere with owners' right to raise rents once a unit is vacated. For the past year or so, there has not been a peep from Parkmerced regarding their "Vision;" even their fancy "Vision" website has been taken down. So it appears that the Grand Jury has put the kibosh on the plan, unless the Board of Supes has found a workaround which they wisely have kept under wraps.

So, my question would be: Would the Grand Jury Findings not apply to Plan Bay Area's intent to do a whole lot of displacement in Chinatown and The Mission? Or is Plan Bay Area's idea to implement eminent domain, an equally interesting subject to introduce to the Grand Jury.

I am not at all a supporter of rent control, even when it might affect me (I am a renter in Parkmerced). However, I see Plan Bay Area as a much larger economic and social mess than rent control; so if there is a way to get the Grand Jury to look at Plan Bay Area displacement in the same vein as it did Parkmerced, I would work on calling this to their attention!

Aubrey asked for ideas for LPSF to work on. This is my hare-brained contribution.

Marcy