[sfbarentersfed] $18,000 for a banner and other government waste

Seriously Jane Kim, $18,000 for a banner!? What if voters just drew a line and said no more voting for any new taxes, bond measures, or fee increases until politicians showed they were serious about rooting out such government waste?

  Speaking of spending and accountability, community college board candidate (and former Harvey Milk Club head) Tom Temprano had some interesting things to say at the Brownie Mary Democratic Club meeting last night. In response to my question in which I asked him to elaborate on a reference he made to parcel tax money being misspent, he related how voters passed a parcel tax in November 2012, but that "It took over three years for that Citizen Oversight Committee to meet", with the first meeting of the body charged with overseeing the spending of funds taken from voters by that tax not meeting until "late June 2016".

  Furthermore, Temprano added, "it took tremendous pressure from the community" to get them to finally meet and exercise their responsibility, and "after one meeting we (still) don't have anything near a clear picture what happened with that money." The "oversight" of such voter-approved spending appears to be a bit of a joke.

  London Breed's $35,000 subsidy of groups obtaining street fair permits is another good example of how government works: Jack actual fees up to outrageous levels, and then award exemptions to politically favored groups. I'm reminded of the Ronald Reagan quote, "If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."

  What does all this have to do with building more housing?

  Nothing, if government waste has no impact on other spending priorities, and taking money out of the voluntary sector economy by taxing people to pay for this stuff has no impact on their ability to afford housing.

Love & Liberty,
                               ((( starchild )))

As former head of one of the most liberal Democratic clubs in SF, Temprano doesn't fit the profile of someone I would expect to support for an office mostly concerned with making budgetary decisions, like the board in charge of running City College. He supports raising teacher salaries, and presumably doesn't have any philosophical issues with imposing higher taxes to pay for that, or to pay for cutting student tuition, etc. Nevertheless, he is a fairly young guy, and also mentioned being a small business owner (of Virgil's Sea Room bar on Mission Street). It's not impossible that the experience of running a business in the city may be affecting his views. He also attacked the community college board's spending money hiring consultants. Given the typical views of college board candidates, he might turn out to be a lesser evil.

Love & Liberty,
                              ((( starchild )))