Dear Richard;
You are correct about developing a relationship with political
leaders who do espouse Libertarian principles like Ed Jew. Sadly in
San Francisco Supervisors like Ed Jew are far and few in between.
Based on my political experiences going back aways or two Ed Jew
types who get elected in San Francisco are an extreme rarity. I know
because in another lifetime I did work which did get a couple
supervisors elected who were fiscal conservatives.
As an example of the totally rocks in the head mentality of SF
current supervisors is the article below by Supervisor Jake
McGoldrick published in the Richmond Review in San Francisco. The
Richmond Review is a neighborhood free paper published monthly for
the Richnond District of SF.
I'll let the article speak for itself as indicative of the general
tenor of the SF supervisors less Ed Jew.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
Supervisor Jake McGoldrick
Public property, public benefits
Property is value. Our public infrastructure, such as public rights
of way, sidewalks and light poles, have been paid for and maintained
by our residents through taxes and fees. Public infrastructure is
held by government for the public's benefit.
Benefits can include revenue for public services, consumer
protections, public accountability and public access.
When an exclusive or near-exclusive use of public property is granted
to an individual, a company or a small group of interests, our public
property rights and the benefits we receive from these rights can be
at risk. When this happens, there is an imbalance between the public
good and the good of a few private interests.
The government's role is to ensure the equitable distribution of
these public benefits through public property rights. For example,
the city grants revocable permits to sidewalk flower stand vendors.
The permit grants vendors the right to operate their business in the
public right of way. The permit fee allows the City to monitor and
ensure that sidewalks are not obstructed from the use and that the
public can use the sidewalks safely.
Unfortunately, the abuse of publicly held property does occur. When
this happens, it is the government's role to protect public property
and its benefits. The practice of "selling" the right to use public
property from one private interest to another should not be allowed.
In one case, a former flower stand operator demanded nearly $100,000
from a new flower stand operator to "transfer" his permit.
Another example is the use of the city's white zones by valet parking
companies. These companies pay a one-time license fee ranging from
$384-$586 to operate at various white zones. While the public pays
for the maintenance of these sidewalks, our use is limited.
How do we make these uses more equitable between private interests
and the public interest?
In the case of sidewalk flower stands, the permit needs to revert
back to the City when a flower stand is abandoned or the permittee
dies. Then, the City can award the permit to another small business
person to operate a flower stand in the same location.
In the public realm, we cannot afford to grant the use of valuable
public property without receiving a significant public return on our
asset. What is the value conferred in such an exchange? Private
owners do not invest in their property and sell or lease at a lower
price than the cost of their investment. The city and county of San
Francisco should adopt this practice as well.
The City did not adopt this practice with its bus transit shelters.
Nineteen years ago, the City granted the exclusive right to advertise
at these shelters in exchange for the construction and maintenance of
the shelters. For 19 years, the contractor has made tens of millions
of dollars from the advertising on about 1,200 shelters while the
City has received a pittance. This must change.
Our public property rights in the granting of a contract must be
essentially the same as a private property right to receive an
equitable return for our valuable asset.
The mayor's office is currently proposing a sweetheart deal to lease
public property to EarthLink-Google in a WiFi deal. In this
unbalanced partnership, EarthLink-Google would use our public assets,
such as buildings and light poles. In this exchange, the only
guarantee is that the provider will dictate the quality and cost of
service.
Private use of public property for private profit can strip the
public of benefits (e.g., public access, accountability) and certain
rights. In the EarthLink-Google WiFi deal, consumer protection and
privacy rights are at stake since the companies will collect user
data. The contract does not limit data retention and fails to limit
the uses of such data by a third party. Therefore, consumers lose
privacy and the government loses its governance.
Taxpayers would subsidize EarthLink-Google's businesses by providing
our valuable infrastructure for very little. Not only do public
property rights protect consumer interests, but such rights serve a
common good by having any profit directly benefit the City's
residents.
The fees collected from white zone usage help pay for Muni.
Profits that are available to a private contractor for advertising on
bus transit shelters would be better spent to fund Muni.
Municipally governed WiFi could ensure that those less able to pay
can still have high speed, low cost services.
San Francisco Supervisor Jake McGoldrick represents District 1.
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Newell" <richard@...>
wrote:
Sarosh said:
>>It is important for Libertarians to connect with the Supervisor
closest to us in spirit, and show that we are practical, principled,
and can both be a cohesive and also a collaborative force in SF
politics.<<
Amen.
It's about time Libertarians start working the system form
the "inside" instead of only sitting outside complaining about the
government they get.
We have seen how getting to know the "friendly" local politicians
leads to great things in other counties. You learn about ballot
propositions and other political news much earlier, so you can join
the right coalitions and fight for or against them. This is also the
way that leads to comission appointments, and that is what leads to
ultimately to election.
Rich
From: saroshk@...
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] FW: ed jew
In a message dated 3/12/2007 2:08:47 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
acreem@... writes:
Thanks, Sarosh. Since the attachment hadn't come through on
Mike's 2/23 announcement, this was the first I had heard of the
suggested $500 contribution. I had been planning a $100
contribution; I hope I might still be welcome?
Mike,
You, and other Libertarians, are more than welcome, with or
without a contribution.
It is important for Libertarians to connect with the Supervisor
closest to us in spirit, and show that we are practical, principled,
and can both be a cohesive and also a collaborative force in SF
politics.