Article on the Examiner today. Owning anything in SF these days is a challenge!!
Marcy
Damn, I forgot to call this guy today -- I also got his email.
I'm fairly sure the building owners are in the right on this dispute, narrowly construed, but I'd like to find out more details of the situation before weighing in on their side. For instance, what city rules may be pitting both sides against each other unnecessarily? Presumably the building owners would be willing to have the bar stay if the bar owners were willing to pay the higher rent that the landlords want. Presumably the bar owners feel they can't afford to do so. Would they be able to do so if they were burdened with fewer taxes, fees, and city government regulations (e.g. I recall the co-owner of the 50 Mason Street bar telling me that a hard liquor license costs $100,000).
The guy who contacted us is with a public relations firm. Probably they are just hired guns, not principled supporters of property rights. I'm wondering whether anybody connected with this affair *is* a principled property rights supporter, or whether they are only interested in invoking whatever is in their interest. I feel better about investing time and energy supporting people who aren't just opportunists, but actually share some libertarian values -- especially when their cause is unpopular (as forcing the Gold Dust bar and its elderly proprietors out of their long-time space almost certainly is).
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Hi Starchild! My feeling on this is that the building owners are in the right because it's their property to do with as they please. That's what private property is all about--doing what you choose with your own property, unless you are engaging in fraud or initiating force against others. If you are not free to use your property, then property rights don't have much meaning. Without property rights, all other rights don't have much meaning (or use). As Libertarians, we should support property rights, especially when others are using government (in this case the Historic Preservation Committee) to limit someone else's property rights.
The tricky angle on this one is that Libertarians are already viewed as cold, mean Monsters who don't care about the underdogs and the disadvantaged, and if we support the owners, it just adds to the view that we support the rich and not the downtrodden. Perhaps you can call this PR guy tomorrow and get some more information from him? Thanks for pointing out the nuances such as what government actions already caused or added to the dispute in the first place. I am very busy at work tomorrow morning finishing up some work, but I will try to call the guy in the afternoon to also get additional information. Maybe we can put our heads together and figure out something tomorrow night. He sure didn't give us much time to work on this, which I don't like.
Thanks for your insight, great as always!
Aubrey
Hi Starchild,
In your posting, you said, partly:
The guy who contacted us is with a public relations firm. Probably they
are
just hired guns, not principled supporters of property rights. I'm
wondering
whether anybody connected with this affair *is* a principled property
rights
supporter, or whether they are only interested in invoking whatever is
in their
interest. I feel better about investing time and energy supporting
people who
aren't just opportunists, but actually share some libertarian values --
I understand your concern. But whether the guys are "hired guns, not
principled supporters of property rights," don't you find this situation
an ideal venue to present your principled libertarian values concerning
property rights? And who knows, perhaps your passionate presentation
might "trickle down" to these possible "hired guns."
Another thing. I saw in the article e-mailed to you, this passage:
"Using the landmark process for political purposes to save a bar is bad
enough but an all out moratorium is another issue entirely."
It seems you guys at the City on the Bay have the "Historic Preservation
Committee" to do the "dirty work" of "land marking" private property.
Here in the Big Apple, we have the "Landmarks Commission" for that
purpose. The purpose, however, is the same: Use government to steal
private property from owners for the use of politically connected
beneficiaries. Gee, doesn't that sound like "eminent domain," or its
abuse, thereof?
And when you said,
Would they be able to do so if they were burdened with fewer taxes,
fees, and city government regulations (e.g. I recall the co-owner of the
50
Mason Street bar telling me that a hard liquor license costs $100,000).
I found that $100,000 figure for a hard liquor license amazing, to say
the least. In NYC, such a license costs only $4,352
(http://www.sla.ny.gov/fee-schedule). And that license is good for two
years, which works out to $2,176 per year. To pay $100,000 in license
fees, the licensee will have to be in business for around 46 years. I
don't suppose the Mason Street license is good for 46 years, is it?
But despite the "bargain" NYC bar owners pay for their hard liquor
licenses (which includes beer), relative to SF bar owners, the bargain
is offset when NYC bar owners must go through "pre-licensing" procedures
before they get a license. This include multiple appearances before
Community Boards, the State Liquor Authority, NYC Dept of Consumer
Affairs, Health Dept, NYPD, Buildings Dept and Dept of Environmental
Protection, among others. These pre-licensing procedures cost expensive
fees, and that doesn't include the "fees" paid for "strategic greasing"
everywhere along the way.
(What's that? SF bar owners must go through a similar "pre-licensing"
procedures and pay similar fees? Really. Then, please excuse me.)
Anyhow, it seems that to get a hard liquor license, whether in SF or
NYC, the government will make you go through hoops and pay through the
nose in fees and licenses. It's just that you will get less fleeced in
NYC than in SF.
As for the HPC meeting Wednesday (tomorrow, Mar 21?), I hope you and/or
one of your fellow travelers will attend. And when you do, knock 'em
dead!
Thanks for reading.
Alton
Damn, I forgot to call this guy today -- I also got his email.
I'm fairly sure the building owners are in the right on this dispute,
narrowly construed, but I'd like to find out more details of the
situation before weighing in on their side. For instance, what city
rules may be pitting both sides against each other unnecessarily?
Presumably the building owners would be willing to have the bar stay if
the bar owners were willing to pay the higher rent that the landlords
want. Presumably the bar owners feel they can't afford to do so. Would
they be able to do so if they were burdened with fewer taxes, fees, and
city government regulations (e.g. I recall the co-owner of the 50 Mason
Street bar telling me that a hard liquor license costs $100,000).
The guy who contacted us is with a public relations firm. Probably
they are just hired guns, not principled supporters of property rights.
I'm wondering whether anybody connected with this affair *is* a
principled property rights supporter, or whether they are only
interested in invoking whatever is in their interest. I feel better
about investing time and energy supporting people who aren't just
opportunists, but actually share some libertarian values -- especially
when their cause is unpopular (as forcing the Gold Dust bar and its
elderly proprietors out of their long-time space almost certainly is).
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))> Article on the Examiner today. Owning anything in SF these days is a
challenge!!
>
>
http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2012/03/landmark-move-may-keep-gold-dust\\
-biting-dust-heap#disqus_thread
>
> Marcy
>
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> >
> > > From: Alexander Freedman freedman@
> > > Date: March 19, 2012 9:51:51 AM PDT
> > > To: chair@, vicechair@, RealReform@
> > > Subject: SF Property Rights Issue/Legislation
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I represent the owner of the Elkan Gunst Building in Union
Square in a lease termination dispute with his subtenant, the Gold Dust
Lounge. The bar operators are trying to get the city to landmark the bar
so the owner can't lease the space to anyone else. The bar is not a
landmark and this is just a political ploy to pressure the building
owner.
> > >
> > > In addition to an Historic Preservation Committee hearing this
Wednesday at 12:30 there is now potential legislation by Supervisor
Christina Olague to essentially ban transfers from non-retail to retail
in the entire downtown shopping district which could halt all
development for multiple years,
> > >
> > > Using the landmark process for political purposes to save a bar
is bad enough but an all out moratorium is another issue entirely.
> > >
> > > Would someone from your party have time to speak about this
today or tomorrow? We are looking for letters of support and possibly
attendance at the HPC meeting Wednesday.
Alton,
I like your use of the word "strategic greasing." It's an American reality, despite the land-of-the-free myth.
By the way, New Orleans' French Quarter property owners have to deal with historical society-type ripoffs and impediments, I think, by way of the National Parks Service. Though I might be wrong about the department/agency name, some (if not several) department does enforce this ripoff against property owners. The way it worked when I lived there was the property owner had to maintain the exterior appearance of the building according to historical standards established by city bureaucrats, even if the exterior looked like a hellhole.
It's a shame the words "property owner" are so widely used in America when the reality of property ownership is more akin to renting with the additional burden of ever-increasing property taxes and an army of very unpleasant code enforcers.
All the best,
Don
Hi Don,
Thank you for your reply.
I'm glad you liked my "strategic greasing." It does wryly depicts an
"American reality," doesn't it?
I'm sorry to hear about "historical society-type ripoffs and
impediments" that occurred in New Orleans, though I'm not surprised. But
whether it's done by way of the National Parks Service, or a government
body such as The Landmarks Commission in NYC, the results are the same:
By "land marking" a property, property owners are denied the full use of
their property. This is because a group believes its esthetic tastes are
better than the property owners', and through government, this group
forces property owners to accede to their esthetic tastes, however much
it will cost the property owners and diminish their use of their
properties and their values.
Seen in this way, "land marking" is no different than the abuse of
eminent domain.
And I absolutely agree when you said, "It's a shame the words 'property
owner' are so widely used in America when the reality of property
ownership is more akin to renting with the additional burden of
ever-increasing property taxes and an army of very unpleasant code
enforcers."
Thanks again for your reply.
Alton
Alton,
I like your use of the word "strategic greasing." It's an American
reality, despite the land-of-the-free myth.
By the way, New Orleans' French Quarter property owners have to deal
with historical society-type ripoffs and impediments, I think, by way of
the National Parks Service. Though I might be wrong about the
department/agency name, some (if not several) department does enforce
this ripoff against property owners. The way it worked when I lived
there was the property owner had to maintain the exterior appearance of
the building according to historical standards established by city
bureaucrats, even if the exterior looked like a hellhole.
It's a shame the words "property owner" are so widely used in America
when the reality of property ownership is more akin to renting with the
additional burden of ever-increasing property taxes and an army of very
unpleasant code enforcers.
All the best,
Don
From: ay10038 ay10038@...
To: lpsf-discuss lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, Mar 20, 2012 3:00 pm
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Fwd: SF Property Rights Issue/LegislationHi Starchild,
In your posting, you said, partly:
The guy who contacted us is with a public relations firm. Probably
they are
just hired guns, not principled supporters of property rights. I'm
wondering
whether anybody connected with this affair *is* a principled property
rights
supporter, or whether they are only interested in invoking whatever is
in their
interest. I feel better about investing time and energy supporting
people who
One talking point that may help discussing issues like this with
"progressives" is the proposed mosque at Park Place 51, in the heart of
south Manhattan's financial district. While building anything in the
heart of New York is probably not easy, the only reason most of us have
heard about a project 3 time zones away is its proximity to the site of
ground zero, and lots of folks who've never even set foot in the
tri-state area feel they should have some say in how this privately
owned parcel is developed. In the process of trying to give legal force
to an anti-Islamic bigotry, the zoning laws and land use regulations
championed by local progressives have been evoked in attempt to halt
building. They even tried to have the Burlington Coat Factory on the
site declared a historical landmark
<http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/mosque-near-ground-zero-cl\\
ears-key-hurdle/> .
In cases like this, people may find a libertarian perspective
refreshing: A private developer bought a building in New York that they
want to replace with a new structure of their own design, covered by
their rights as property owners. They want to get people to gather there
and talk to their preferred deity figure, as is covered by rights to
religion, assembly, and speech. No cause for controversy whatsoever!
This case illustrates just how important property rights are, and how
laws that undermine those rights can be leveraged by religious bigots to
undermine freedom of speech and religion. Fortunately, it looks like NYC
will be doing the right thing this time around, but while these invasive
zoning ordinances and planning laws are in place, we are only left to
wonder, what about next time?...
Alton,
I like your use of the word "strategic greasing." It's an American
reality, despite the land-of-the-free myth.
By the way, New Orleans' French Quarter property owners have to deal
with historical society-type ripoffs and impediments, I think, by way of
the National Parks Service. Though I might be wrong about the
department/agency name, some (if not several) department does enforce
this ripoff against property owners. The way it worked when I lived
there was the property owner had to maintain the exterior appearance of
the building according to historical standards established by city
bureaucrats, even if the exterior looked like a hellhole.
It's a shame the words "property owner" are so widely used in America
when the reality of property ownership is more akin to renting with the
additional burden of ever-increasing property taxes and an army of very
unpleasant code enforcers.
All the best,
Don
From: ay10038 ay10038@...
To: lpsf-discuss lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, Mar 20, 2012 3:00 pm
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Fwd: SF Property Rights Issue/LegislationHi Starchild,
In your posting, you said, partly:
The guy who contacted us is with a public relations firm. Probably
they are
just hired guns, not principled supporters of property rights. I'm
wondering
whether anybody connected with this affair *is* a principled property
rights
supporter, or whether they are only interested in invoking whatever is
in their
interest. I feel better about investing time and energy supporting
people who
Mykl,
Good point. The NYC mosque controversy is indeed a good issue to touch on when discussing zoning laws with people on the left. Incidentally, I went by there when in Manhattan last summer, and it when you look at it on the ground, the controversy appears quite absurd. The proposed mosque site is quite non-descript looking, and in a densely developed area. Probably there are dozens if not hundreds of establishments physically closer to the World Trade Center site.
Alton,
Good points also. I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of San Francisco liquor regulations, but yeah I found the price of that permit as quoted shocking as well. Assuming the info is correct, I suspect that most current establishments are grandfathered in or something. Or perhaps there are other aspects of the regulatory burden that are lower than in other places. Or perhaps aspiring SF bar-owners are just fucked. I am willing to speak out for property rights in the Gold Dust Lounge case, just not as enthused as I might be. Unfortunately I have been playing phone tag with the PR guy, and didn't make the hearing. Did anyone else go, and if so, what happened?
I did briefly attend the Police Commission meeting last week, and put in a good word for the Patrol Specials while advocating greater police transparency and more emphasis on going after real crimes instead of victimless crimes. I also mentioned the Mirkarimi case in the context of not prosecuting people when there's no one who wants to press charges, and then had to backtrack and explain myself after the commission president (Larry Mazzucco?) made a brief lecturing comment to the effect that domestic violence is not a victimless crime.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))