The Bay Guardian Calls For A City Tax Overhaul - Among Other Things

Ron,

  As I noted at our meeting yesterday, I would strongly support a salary cap initiative. Although I would still rather see us address a civil liberties issue (depending on the particular initiative of course), for an economic liberty initiative this would be an excellent choice, because it will appeal to many on the left. Indeed I raised the idea of capping salaries at $100,000 a year in the argument I wrote against 2004's Proposition D, and such a measure was among the possibilities I raised when I first suggested we pursue a ballot initiative.

  You mention below a "Small Business Tax Free Zone"; by that do you mean ending the payroll tax for small businesses in San Francisco? I thought that's what we'd been talking about. For those who weren't at the meeting, the sense of the group was that we should focus on this measure and not the other ideas of repealing the wage restriction (aka "minimum wage") law or the hotel tax.

  It remains my view that this measure (a payroll tax repeal) is one that the SF Taxpayers Union would be willing to take on, and that we should seek that outcome and while supporting their effort, focus our own energies primarily on drafting, qualifying and passing an LPSF initiative on a topic which we would not be likely to find another group willing to champion for us.

Yours in liberty,
        <<< Starchild >>>

Dear Everyone;

Apparently the Bay Guardian editors are on the same track as we are with their recommendation as I highlighted in the editorial below. Of course, the Bay Guardian's idea of an overhaul of the City tax system and our idea are probably just a little bit different.

How about including with our San Francisco Small Business Tax Free Zone initiative a parallel concurrent initiative to put a $100,000 salary cap on City employees starting at the Mayor and down? This will certainly go a long way towards reforming the City tax system by cutting a couple hundred million out of the budget which won't be needed for a bloated City payroll.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

Post-Peskin progressives

THE DEFEAT OF Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's agenda Nov. 8 was a victory not only statewide but also in San Francisco, where a remarkable alliance of progressive groups pulled together to organize an effort that helped get out the vote and make sure the Bay Area's voice was heard. But looking forward, toward next fall, it's hard to argue that local progressive leadership is on top of its game.

Three of Mayor Gavin Newsom's allies – Sups. Bevan Dufty, Fiona Ma, and Michela Alioto-Pier – will be up for reelection, and at this point there are no obvious opponents for any of them. Sup. Sophie Maxwell, who has been at best a shaky member of the progressive majority and recently led the fight to bring Home Depot to town, could also use a challenger.

Three members of the Community College board – a corrupt and incompetent agency if there ever was one – will be trying to keep their seats, and there's a desperate need for new blood. The school board remains bitterly divided and may wind up overseeing a strike not only by classified staff but also by teachers.

Four years ago, even two years ago, the Board of Supervisors presidents (Tom Ammiano and then Matt Gonzalez) seemed to be thinking about recruiting candidates, pulling together coalitions, and preparing to move the progressive agenda forward. But the current president, Aaron Peskin, has been badly, perhaps fatally, damaged by his support for Home Depot and no longer has the credibility to lead any kind of coalition.

In another kind of political system, Peskin would simply step down (or be ousted as leader) and progressives would find someone else to play his role. That's a good idea, but unlikely to happen – under the City Charter, the board presidency is a two-year term, and for better or for worse, we may be stuck with Peskin until 2007.

It's not too early to think about his replacement: The mayor and his allies will almost certainly be pushing for Dufty or even Maxwell, neither of whom can do what the head of a district-elected board needs to do: stand up to and challenge the mayor and ensure that the board has at least an equal role in running the city. So the progressive bloc needs to be united behind another candidate – and the obvious choice is Ross Mirkarimi. Although he's still new to the job, he's proven himself a reliable, productive, and level-headed legislator who isn't about to sell out to the big chain stores, the developers, or anyone else.

But the more important thing right now is to start thinking about the next year – and there's a lot on the table. From the budget (the deficit will again surpass $100 million) to housing policy, the southeast neighborhoods, energy, the waterfront, violent crime, and Muni, the supervisors need to be actively seeking broad policy solutions that amount to more than tinkering. We've already offered a lot of ideas: a moratorium on new market-rate housing. A complete overhaul of the local tax system. A renewed effort for public power. After the Home Depot fiasco, we'd add a city-wide ban on all chain stores of more than 25,000 square feet. These are real initiatives that can make a real difference in the lives of San Franciscans.

Then there's the matter of finding, grooming, and promoting good candidates for supervisor, the school board, and the Community College board.

The San Francisco People's Organization, formed with the help of Sup. Chris Daly, was supposed to be playing this kind of role, but we haven't heard much out of SFPO lately. And nobody else is stepping up to the plate.

The Board of Supervisors is falling in popularity, in part because of in-fighting and a lack of a visible agenda to counter the mayor. There's not a whole lot of time left to turn that around.

SPONSORED LINKS

<image.tiff>

<image.tiff>

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

+ Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.

+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

<image.tiff>

Ron,

Would you mind giving us a brief summary of the meeting?

Best, Michael

Dear Dr. Mike;

Veni Vici Vidi - too brief?

Okay here's a brief report:

The LPSF will initiate a ballot initiative not a charter amendment to have all of the City declared a: San Francisco Small Business Tax Free Zone. Businesses in the Tax Free Zone will not have to pay payroll taxes or the SF minimum wage. As a side note the SF min wage goes to $8.82 in January for all profit and non-profit businesses the Cal state min is $7.75. The tax free zone will be for all small businesses with less than 50 employees. This is some 40,000 businesses and about 275,000 employees or a potential reduction for the small business payroll tax of some $125,000,000. Total City Payroll Tax is $281,740,000.

This means collectively about $125,000,000 for the small businesses of San Francisco to use in hiring and being able to afford to hire un-skilled a lightly skilled labor, becoming more efficient and more competitive.

Based on the Dec. 6 filing and legal requirements deadlines for approval of a ballot initiative to circulate for signatures we will place the initiative on the Nov. 2006 ballot not the June 2006 ballot.

The Hotel Tax will still be considered but will be a side issue for the meantime for fuller discussion. The Hotel Tax repeal to use a phrase: would break a lot of rice bowls. And we don't have the needed immediate support to force the issue. It will still be done as repeal of a tax. As an example of the Rice Bowl see the list below of who gets what and how much.

There is a 14% Hotel Tax on all room rentals. From Marcy�s investigation of the Mayors Budget the Hotel Room Tax is $164,561,000.

The funds are allocated as follows:

General Funds - $.33

Convention Facilities - $.22

Moscone Center - $.15

Grants For The Arts - $.08.5

Cultural Centers - $.05

War Memorial Special Fund - $.05

Convention Bureau - $.04

Low Cost Housing Yerba Buena Center- $.03

Monster Park - $.03

Fine Arts Museum - $.03

Cultural Equity Endowment - $.01

Asian Art Museum - $.01

Total 100.05

More in depth details to follow at the regularly scheduled LPSF meeting on Dec. 10 where a very full report will be made.

In addition; we are meeting as a sub-committee at Round Table at 2:30 before the 3:00 regular meeting where all visitors and kibitzers and other interested parties are invited to please COME ON DOWN!

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

dredelstein@... wrote:
Ron,

Would you mind giving us a brief summary of the meeting?

Best, Michael

As Ron alludes to, we apparently reached a consensus at the initiative committee meeting Tuesday that we should not pursue the hotel tax repeal, or that it should be relegated to the back burner at best. However *if* the LPSF definitively voted at the November meeting to pursue *both* initiatives, then arguably we do not have the authority to do this -- even if dropping the hotel tax measure is a good idea (which it certainly is in my opinion).

  My recommendation as a committee member continues to be that *neither* of the two proposed initiatives are wise choices, especially if the payroll tax measure includes a wage restriction repeal, but even if it does not. It is my impression that the measures were voted on hastily and were poorly thought out, and that this is evidenced by the fact that we have already essentially decided to drop one of the two measures as non-viable at present.

  While I have no objection to Ron or anyone else doing further research or work on a payroll tax/wage restriction measure if he or she wishes to, I object to rushing forward as if it's written in stone that we must pursue this particular measure, when that clearly is not the case if we can simply sideline the companion measure that was similarly voted on.

  I think the best thing for us to do is reexamine the whole issue at the December meeting when we can have a more careful discussion of what goals we are seeking to achieve in backing an initiative, and what strategy we should take to achieve those goals. Once we have decided on goals and strategy, then it will become more clear what kind of initiative would best reflect that strategy and give us the best shot at achieving our goals.

Yours in liberty,
        <<< Starchild >>>

Dear Dr. Mike;

Veni Vici Vidi - too brief?

Okay here's a brief report:

The LPSF will initiate a ballot initiative not a charter amendment to have all of the City declared a: San Francisco Small Business Tax Free Zone. Businesses in the Tax Free Zone will not have to pay payroll taxes or the SF minimum wage. As a side note the SF min wage goes to $8.82 in January for all profit and non-profit businesses the Cal state min is $7.75. The tax free zone will be for all small businesses with less than 50 employees. This is some 40,000 businesses and about 275,000 employees or a potential reduction for the small business payroll tax of some $125,000,000. Total City Payroll Tax is $281,740,000.

This means collectively about $125,000,000 for the small businesses of San Francisco to use in hiring and being able to afford to hire un-skilled a lightly skilled labor, becoming more efficient and more competitive.

Based on the Dec. 6 filing and legal requirements deadlines for approval of a ballot initiative to circulate for signatures we will place the initiative on the Nov. 2006 ballot not the June 2006 ballot.

The Hotel Tax will still be considered but will be a side issue for the meantime for fuller discussion. The Hotel Tax repeal to use a phrase: would break a lot of rice bowls. And we don't have the needed immediate support to force the issue. It will still be done as repeal of a tax. As an example of the Rice Bowl see the list below of who gets what and how much.

There is a 14% Hotel Tax on all room rentals. From Marcy’s investigation of the Mayors Budget the Hotel Room Tax is $164,561,000.

The funds are allocated as follows:

General Funds - $.33

Convention Facilities - $.22

Moscone Center - $.15

Grants For The Arts - $.08.5

Cultural Centers - $.05

War Memorial Special Fund - $.05

Convention Bureau - $.04

Low Cost Housing Yerba Buena Center- $.03

Monster Park - $.03

Fine Arts Museum - $.03

Cultural Equity Endowment - $.01

Asian Art Museum - $.01

Total 100.05

More in depth details to follow at the regularly scheduled LPSF meeting on Dec. 10 where a very full report will be made.

In addition; we are meeting as a sub-committee at Round Table at 2:30 before the 3:00 regular meeting where all visitors and kibitzers and other interested parties are invited to please COME ON DOWN!

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

dredelstein@... wrote:

Ron,

Would you mind giving us a brief summary of the meeting?

Best, Michael

From: Starchild
To: LPSF Activist List
Cc: jedgreenwald@...
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 12:58 PM
Subject: [lpsf-activists] Re: [lpsf-discuss] The Bay Guardian Calls For A City Tax Overhaul - Among Other Things

Ron,

As I noted at our meeting yesterday, I would strongly support a salary cap initiative. Although I would still rather see us address a civil liberties issue (depending on the particular initiative of course), for an economic liberty initiative this would be an excellent choice, because it will appeal to many on the left. Indeed I raised the idea of capping salaries at $100,000 a year in the argument I wrote against 2004's Proposition D, and such a measure was among the possibilities I raised when I first suggested we pursue a ballot initiative.

You mention below a "Small Business Tax Free Zone"; by that do you mean ending the payroll tax for small businesses in San Francisco? I thought that's what we'd been talking about. For those who weren't at the meeting, the sense of the group was that we should focus on this measure and not the other ideas of repealing the wage restriction (aka "minimum wage") law or the hotel tax.

It remains my view that this measure (a payroll tax repeal) is one that the SF Taxpayers Union would be willing to take on, and that we should seek that outcome and while supporting their effort, focus our own energies primarily on drafting, qualifying and passing an LPSF initiative on a topic which we would not be likely to find another group willing to champion for us.

Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>

Dear Everyone;

Apparently the Bay Guardian editors are on the same track as we are with their recommendation as I highlighted in the editorial below. Of course, the Bay Guardian's idea of an overhaul of the City tax system and our idea are probably just a little bit different.

How about including with our San Francisco Small Business Tax Free Zone initiative a parallel concurrent initiative to put a $100,000 salary cap on City employees starting at the Mayor and down? This will certainly go a long way towards reforming the City tax system by cutting a couple hundred million out of the budget which won't be needed for a bloated City payroll.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

Post-Peskin progressives

THE DEFEAT OF Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's agenda Nov. 8 was a victory not only statewide but also in San Francisco, where a remarkable alliance of progressive groups pulled together to organize an effort that helped get out the vote and make sure the Bay Area's voice was heard. But looking forward, toward next fall, it's hard to argue that local progressive leadership is on top of its game.

Three of Mayor Gavin Newsom's allies – Sups. Bevan Dufty, Fiona Ma, and Michela Alioto-Pier – will be up for reelection, and at this point there are no obvious opponents for any of them. Sup. Sophie Maxwell, who has been at best a shaky member of the progressive majority and recently led the fight to bring Home Depot to town, could also use a challenger.

Three members of the Community College board – a corrupt and incompetent agency if there ever was one – will be trying to keep their seats, and there's a desperate need for new blood. The school board remains bitterly divided and may wind up overseeing a strike not only by classified staff but also by teachers.

Four years ago, even two years ago, the Board of Supervisors presidents (Tom Ammiano and then Matt Gonzalez) seemed to be thinking about recruiting candidates, pulling together coalitions, and preparing to move the progressive agenda forward. But the current president, Aaron Peskin, has been badly, perhaps fatally, damaged by his support for Home Depot and no longer has the credibility to lead any kind of coalition.

In another kind of political system, Peskin would simply step down (or be ousted as leader) and progressives would find someone else to play his role. That's a good idea, but unlikely to happen – under the City Charter, the board presidency is a two-year term, and for better or for worse, we may be stuck with Peskin until 2007.

It's not too early to think about his replacement: The mayor and his allies will almost certainly be pushing for Dufty or even Maxwell, neither of whom can do what the head of a district-elected board needs to do: stand up to and challenge the mayor and ensure that the board has at least an equal role in running the city. So the progressive bloc needs to be united behind another candidate – and the obvious choice is Ross Mirkarimi. Although he's still new to the job, he's proven himself a reliable, productive, and level-headed legislator who isn't about to sell out to the big chain stores, the developers, or anyone else.

But the more important thing right now is to start thinking about the next year – and there's a lot on the table. From the budget (the deficit will again surpass $100 million) to housing policy, the southeast neighborhoods, energy, the waterfront, violent crime, and Muni, the supervisors need to be actively seeking broad policy solutions that amount to more than tinkering. We've already offered a lot of ideas: a moratorium on new market-rate housing. A complete overhaul of the local tax system. A renewed effort for public power. After the Home Depot fiasco, we'd add a city-wide ban on all chain stores of more than 25,000 square feet. These are real initiatives that can make a real difference in the lives of San Franciscans.

Then there's the matter of finding, grooming, and promoting good candidates for supervisor, the school board, and the Community College board.

The San Francisco People's Organization, formed with the help of Sup. Chris Daly, was supposed to be playing this kind of role, but we haven't heard much out of SFPO lately. And nobody else is stepping up to the plate.

The Board of Supervisors is falling in popularity, in part because of in-fighting and a lack of a visible agenda to counter the mayor. There's not a whole lot of time left to turn that around.

SPONSORED LINKS

<image.tiff>

<image.tiff>

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

+ Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.

+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

<image.tiff>

<image.tiff>

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

+ Visit your group "lpsf-activists" on the web.

+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

<image.tiff>

For clarification only: At the November meeting I specifically asked
that the vote include the words "pursue" the possibilities of one or
both of the proposed initiatives. The vote was never to have both
initiatives, but one *or* both.

As most of you know, I strongly favor formulation of goals and
stretegies. However, these are not issues that can be resolved in
one monthly meeting. I suggest that those interested in formulating
those issues write out their view of what the LPSF goals should be,
and what strategies are most effective in pursuing those goals. Then
perhaps there can be meaningful discussion at one of our monthly
meetings.

As to formulating goals and strategies with respect to the current
initiatives, I believe Ron is committed to that.

Marcy

  As Ron alludes to, we apparently reached a consensus at the

initiative

committee meeting Tuesday that we should not pursue the hotel tax
repeal, or that it should be relegated to the back burner at best.
However *if* the LPSF definitively voted at the November meeting to
pursue *both* initiatives, then arguably we do not have the

authority

to do this -- even if dropping the hotel tax measure is a good idea
(which it certainly is in my opinion).

  My recommendation as a committee member continues to be that

*neither*

of the two proposed initiatives are wise choices, especially if the
payroll tax measure includes a wage restriction repeal, but even if

it

does not. It is my impression that the measures were voted on

hastily

and were poorly thought out, and that this is evidenced by the fact
that we have already essentially decided to drop one of the two
measures as non-viable at present.

  While I have no objection to Ron or anyone else doing further

research

or work on a payroll tax/wage restriction measure if he or she

wishes

to, I object to rushing forward as if it's written in stone that we
must pursue this particular measure, when that clearly is not the

case

if we can simply sideline the companion measure that was similarly
voted on.

  I think the best thing for us to do is reexamine the whole

issue at

the December meeting when we can have a more careful discussion of

what

goals we are seeking to achieve in backing an initiative, and what
strategy we should take to achieve those goals. Once we have

decided on

goals and strategy, then it will become more clear what kind of
initiative would best reflect that strategy and give us the best

shot

at achieving our goals.

Yours in liberty,
        <<< Starchild >>>

> Dear Dr. Mike;
>
> Veni Vici Vidi - too brief?
>
> Okay here's a brief report:
>
> The LPSF will initiate a ballot initiative not a charter

amendment

> to have all of the City declared a: San Francisco Small Business

Tax

> Free Zone. Businesses in the Tax Free Zone will not have to pay
> payroll taxes or the SF minimum wage. As a side note the SF min

wage

> goes to $8.82 in January for all profit and non-profit businesses

the

> Cal state min is $7.75. The tax free zone will be for all small
> businesses with less than 50 employees. This is some 40,000

businesses

> and about 275,000 employees or a potential reduction for the
> small business payroll tax of some $125,000,000. Total City

Payroll

> Tax is $281,740,000.
>
> This means collectively about $125,000,000 for the small

businesses of

> San Francisco to use in hiring and being able to afford to hire
> un-skilled a lightly skilled labor, becoming more efficient and

more

> competitive.
>
> Based on the Dec. 6 filing and legal requirements deadlines for
> approval of a ballot initiative to circulate for signatures we

will

> place the initiative on the Nov. 2006 ballot not the June 2006

ballot.

>
> The Hotel Tax will still be considered but will be a side issue

for

> the meantime for fuller discussion. The Hotel Tax repeal to use a
> phrase: would break a lot of rice bowls. And we don't have the

needed

> immediate support to force the issue. It will still be done

as repeal

> of a tax. As an example of the Rice Bowl see the list below of

who

> gets what and how much.
>
> There is a 14% Hotel Tax on all room rentals. From Marcy's
> investigation of the Mayors Budget the Hotel Room Tax
> is $164,561,000.
>
>
>
> The funds are allocated as follows:
>
>
>
> General Funds - $.33
>
> Convention Facilities - $.22
>
> Moscone Center - $.15
>
> Grants For The Arts - $.08.5
>
> Cultural Centers - $.05
>
> War Memorial Special Fund - $.05
>
> Convention Bureau - $.04
>
> Low Cost Housing Yerba Buena Center- $.03
>
> Monster Park - $.03
>
> Fine Arts Museum - $.03
>
> Cultural Equity Endowment - $.01
>
> Asian Art Museum - $.01
>
>

Total 100.05

>
>
> More in depth details to follow at the regularly scheduled LPSF
> meeting on Dec. 10 where a very full report will be made.
>
> In addition; we are meeting as a sub-committee at Round Table at

2:30

> before the 3:00 regular meeting where all visitors and kibitzers

and

> other interested parties are invited to please COME ON DOWN!
>
> Ron Getty
> SF Libertarian
>
>
> dredelstein@t... wrote:
>
>
> Ron,
>
> Would you mind giving us a brief summary of the meeting?
>
> Best, Michael
>
>
> From: Starchild
> To: LPSF Activist List
> Cc: jedgreenwald@c...
> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 12:58 PM
> Subject: [lpsf-activists] Re: [lpsf-discuss] The Bay Guardian

Calls

> For A City Tax Overhaul - Among Other Things
>
> Ron,
>
> As I noted at our meeting yesterday, I would strongly support a

salary

> cap initiative. Although I would still rather see us address a

civil

> liberties issue (depending on the particular initiative of

course),

> for an economic liberty initiative this would be an excellent

choice,

> because it will appeal to many on the left. Indeed I raised the

idea

> of capping salaries at $100,000 a year in the argument I wrote

against

> 2004's Proposition D, and such a measure was among the

possibilities I

> raised when I first suggested we pursue a ballot initiative.
>
> You mention below a "Small Business Tax Free Zone"; by that do

you

> mean ending the payroll tax for small businesses in San

Francisco? I

> thought that's what we'd been talking about. For those who

weren't at

> the meeting, the sense of the group was that we should focus on

this

> measure and not the other ideas of repealing the wage restriction

(aka

> "minimum wage") law or the hotel tax.
>
> It remains my view that this measure (a payroll tax repeal) is

one

> that the SF Taxpayers Union would be willing to take on, and that

we

> should seek that outcome and while supporting their effort, focus

our

> own energies primarily on drafting, qualifying and passing an

LPSF

> initiative on a topic which we would not be likely to find

another

> group willing to champion for us.
>
> Yours in liberty,
> <<< Starchild >>>
>
>
>
> Dear Everyone;
>
> Apparently the Bay Guardian editors are on the same track as we

are

> with their recommendation as I highlighted in the editorial

below. Of

> course, the Bay Guardian's idea of an overhaul of the City tax

system

> and our idea are probably just a little bit different.
>
> How about including with our San Francisco Small Business Tax

Free

> Zone initiative a parallel concurrent initiative to put a

$100,000

> salary cap on City employees starting at the Mayor and down? This

will

> certainly go a long way towards reforming the City tax system by
> cutting a couple hundred million out of the budget which won't be
> needed for a bloated City payroll.
>
> Ron Getty
> SF Libertarian
>
>
> Post-Peskin progressives
>
> THE DEFEAT OF Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's agenda Nov. 8 was a

victory

> not only statewide but also in San Francisco, where a remarkable
> alliance of progressive groups pulled together to organize an

effort

> that helped get out the vote and make sure the Bay Area's voice

was

> heard. But looking forward, toward next fall, it's hard to argue

that

> local progressive leadership is on top of its game.
>
>
>
> Three of Mayor Gavin Newsom's allies – Sups. Bevan Dufty, Fiona

Ma,

> and Michela Alioto-Pier – will be up for reelection, and at this

point

> there are no obvious opponents for any of them. Sup. Sophie

Maxwell,

> who has been at best a shaky member of the progressive majority

and

> recently led the fight to bring Home Depot to town, could also

use a

> challenger.
>
>
>
> Three members of the Community College board – a corrupt and
> incompetent agency if there ever was one – will be trying to keep
> their seats, and there's a desperate need for new blood. The

school

> board remains bitterly divided and may wind up overseeing a

strike not

> only by classified staff but also by teachers.
>
>
>
> Four years ago, even two years ago, the Board of Supervisors
> presidents (Tom Ammiano and then Matt Gonzalez) seemed to be

thinking

> about recruiting candidates, pulling together coalitions, and
> preparing to move the progressive agenda forward. But the current
> president, Aaron Peskin, has been badly, perhaps fatally, damaged

by

> his support for Home Depot and no longer has the credibility to

lead

> any kind of coalition.
>
>
>
> In another kind of political system, Peskin would simply step

down (or

> be ousted as leader) and progressives would find someone else to

play

> his role. That's a good idea, but unlikely to happen – under the

City

> Charter, the board presidency is a two-year term, and for better

or

> for worse, we may be stuck with Peskin until 2007.
>
>
>
> It's not too early to think about his replacement: The mayor and

his

> allies will almost certainly be pushing for Dufty or even

Maxwell,

> neither of whom can do what the head of a district-elected board

needs

> to do: stand up to and challenge the mayor and ensure that the

board

> has at least an equal role in running the city. So the

progressive

> bloc needs to be united behind another candidate – and the

obvious

> choice is Ross Mirkarimi. Although he's still new to the job,

he's

> proven himself a reliable, productive, and level-headed

legislator who

> isn't about to sell out to the big chain stores, the developers,

or

> anyone else.
>
>
>
> But the more important thing right now is to start thinking about

the

> next year – and there's a lot on the table. From the budget (the
> deficit will again surpass $100 million) to housing policy, the
> southeast neighborhoods, energy, the waterfront, violent crime,

and

> Muni, the supervisors need to be actively seeking broad policy
> solutions that amount to more than tinkering. We've already

offered a

> lot of ideas: a moratorium on new market-rate housing. A complete
> overhaul of the local tax system. A renewed effort for public

power.

> After the Home Depot fiasco, we'd add a city-wide ban on all

chain

> stores of more than 25,000 square feet. These are real

initiatives

> that can make a real difference in the lives of San Franciscans.
>
>
>
> Then there's the matter of finding, grooming, and promoting good
> candidates for supervisor, the school board, and the Community

College

> board.
>
>
>
> The San Francisco People's Organization, formed with the help of

Sup.

> Chris Daly, was supposed to be playing this kind of role, but we
> haven't heard much out of SFPO lately. And nobody else is

stepping up

> to the plate.
>
>
>
> The Board of Supervisors is falling in popularity, in part

because of

> in-fighting and a lack of a visible agenda to counter the mayor.
> There's not a whole lot of time left to turn that around.
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
>
> <image.tiff>
>
>
>
> <image.tiff>
>
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> + Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
>
> + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of

Service.

>
>
> <image.tiff>
>
>
>
>
<image.tiff>
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> + Visit your group "lpsf-activists" on the web.
>
> + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of

Service.

Dear Everyone;

As Marcy notes I am committed. Very shortly the guys in white coats will be leaving me at Napa State so I can have a wonderful sojourn there along with the other wonderful inmates there who are also committed there.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

P.S. As an aside about Napa State. For those of you who do not know this Napa State is the California State Department of Corrections medical facility for the criminally insane.

I had met an MD Doctor to be from UC Davis Med at a party who was doing her rotations at Napa State. She said one of the women patients told her that she liked her a lot because she reminded her so much of her daughter.

The Doctor to be made a bee line to the medical records files and pulled this womans med records. This woman was in Napa State because she had knifed her daughter to death!!!!!

The Doctor to be was given an immediate transfer to another rotation facility. Not the kind of story you see on ER or Grays Anatomy or Dr. House is it?

"Amarcy D. Berry" <amarcyb@...> wrote:
For clarification only: At the November meeting I specifically asked
that the vote include the words "pursue" the possibilities of one or
both of the proposed initiatives. The vote was never to have both
initiatives, but one *or* both.

As most of you know, I strongly favor formulation of goals and
stretegies. However, these are not issues that can be resolved in
one monthly meeting. I suggest that those interested in formulating
those issues write out their view of what the LPSF goals should be,
and what strategies are most effective in pursuing those goals. Then
perhaps there can be meaningful discussion at one of our monthly
meetings.

As to formulating goals and strategies with respect to the current
initiatives, I believe Ron is committed to that.

Marcy

      As Ron alludes to, we apparently reached a consensus at the

initiative

committee meeting Tuesday that we should not pursue the hotel tax
repeal, or that it should be relegated to the back burner at best.
However *if* the LPSF definitively voted at the November meeting to
pursue *both* initiatives, then arguably we do not have the

authority

to do this -- even if dropping the hotel tax measure is a good idea
(which it certainly is in my opinion).

      My recommendation as a committee member continues to be that

*neither*

of the two proposed initiatives are wise choices, especially if the
payroll tax measure includes a wage restriction repeal, but even if

it

does not. It is my impression that the measures were voted on

hastily

and were poorly thought out, and that this is evidenced by the fact
that we have already essentially decided to drop one of the two
measures as non-viable at present.

      While I have no objection to Ron or anyone else doing further

research

or work on a payroll tax/wage restriction measure if he or she

wishes

to, I object to rushing forward as if it's written in stone that we
must pursue this particular measure, when that clearly is not the

case

if we can simply sideline the companion measure that was similarly
voted on.

      I think the best thing for us to do is reexamine the whole

issue at

the December meeting when we can have a more careful discussion of

what

goals we are seeking to achieve in backing an initiative, and what
strategy we should take to achieve those goals. Once we have

decided on

goals and strategy, then it will become more clear what kind of
initiative would best reflect that strategy and give us the best

shot

at achieving our goals.

Yours in liberty,
                        <<< Starchild >>>

> Dear Dr. Mike;
>
> Veni Vici Vidi - too brief?
>
> Okay here's a brief report:
>
> The LPSF will initiate a ballot initiative not a charter

amendment

> to have all of the City declared a: San Francisco Small Business

Tax

> Free Zone. Businesses in the Tax Free Zone will not have to pay
> payroll taxes or the SF minimum wage. As a side note the SF min

wage

> goes to $8.82 in January for all profit and non-profit businesses

the

> Cal state min is $7.75. The tax free zone will be for all small
> businesses with less than 50 employees. This is some 40,000

businesses

> and about 275,000 employees or a potential reduction for the
> small business payroll tax of some $125,000,000. Total City

Payroll

> Tax is $281,740,000.
>
> This means collectively about $125,000,000 for the small

businesses of

> San Francisco to use in hiring and being able to afford to hire
> un-skilled a lightly skilled labor, becoming more efficient and

more

> competitive.
>
> Based on the Dec. 6 filing and legal requirements deadlines for
> approval of a ballot initiative to circulate for signatures we

will

> place the initiative on the Nov. 2006 ballot not the June 2006

ballot.

>
> The Hotel Tax will still be considered but will be a side issue

for

> the meantime for fuller discussion. The Hotel Tax repeal to use a
> phrase: would break a lot of rice bowls. And we don't have the

needed

> immediate support to force the issue. It will still be done

as repeal

> of a tax. As an example of the Rice Bowl see the list below of

who

> gets what and how much.
>
> There is a 14% Hotel Tax on all room rentals. From Marcy's
> investigation of the Mayors Budget the Hotel Room Tax
> is $164,561,000.
>
>
>
> The funds are allocated as follows:
>
>
>
> General Funds - $.33
>
> Convention Facilities - $.22
>
> Moscone Center - $.15
>
> Grants For The Arts - $.08.5
>
> Cultural Centers - $.05
>
> War Memorial Special Fund - $.05
>
> Convention Bureau - $.04
>
> Low Cost Housing Yerba Buena Center- $.03
>
> Monster Park - $.03
>
> Fine Arts Museum - $.03
>
> Cultural Equity Endowment - $.01
>
> Asian Art Museum - $.01
>
>

Total 100.05

>
>
> More in depth details to follow at the regularly scheduled LPSF
> meeting on Dec. 10 where a very full report will be made.
>
> In addition; we are meeting as a sub-committee at Round Table at

2:30

> before the 3:00 regular meeting where all visitors and kibitzers

and

> other interested parties are invited to please COME ON DOWN!
>
> Ron Getty
> SF Libertarian
>
>
> dredelstein@t... wrote:
>
>
> Ron,
>
> Would you mind giving us a brief summary of the meeting?
>
> Best, Michael
>
>
> From: Starchild
> To: LPSF Activist List
> Cc: jedgreenwald@c...
> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 12:58 PM
> Subject: [lpsf-activists] Re: [lpsf-discuss] The Bay Guardian

Calls

> For A City Tax Overhaul - Among Other Things
>
> Ron,
>
> As I noted at our meeting yesterday, I would strongly support a

salary

> cap initiative. Although I would still rather see us address a

civil

> liberties issue (depending on the particular initiative of

course),

> for an economic liberty initiative this would be an excellent

choice,

> because it will appeal to many on the left. Indeed I raised the

idea

> of capping salaries at $100,000 a year in the argument I wrote

against

> 2004's Proposition D, and such a measure was among the

possibilities I

> raised when I first suggested we pursue a ballot initiative.
>
> You mention below a "Small Business Tax Free Zone"; by that do

you

> mean ending the payroll tax for small businesses in San

Francisco? I

> thought that's what we'd been talking about. For those who

weren't at

> the meeting, the sense of the group was that we should focus on

this

> measure and not the other ideas of repealing the wage restriction

(aka

> "minimum wage") law or the hotel tax.
>
> It remains my view that this measure (a payroll tax repeal) is

one

> that the SF Taxpayers Union would be willing to take on, and that

we

> should seek that outcome and while supporting their effort, focus

our

> own energies primarily on drafting, qualifying and passing an

LPSF

> initiative on a topic which we would not be likely to find

another

> group willing to champion for us.
>
> Yours in liberty,
> <<< Starchild >>>
>
>
>
> Dear Everyone;
>
> Apparently the Bay Guardian editors are on the same track as we

are

> with their recommendation as I highlighted in the editorial

below. Of

> course, the Bay Guardian's idea of an overhaul of the City tax

system

> and our idea are probably just a little bit different.
>
> How about including with our San Francisco Small Business Tax

Free

> Zone initiative a parallel concurrent initiative to put a

$100,000

> salary cap on City employees starting at the Mayor and down? This

will

> certainly go a long way towards reforming the City tax system by
> cutting a couple hundred million out of the budget which won't be
> needed for a bloated City payroll.
>
> Ron Getty
> SF Libertarian
>
>
> Post-Peskin progressives
>
> THE DEFEAT OF Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's agenda Nov. 8 was a

victory

> not only statewide but also in San Francisco, where a remarkable
> alliance of progressive groups pulled together to organize an

effort

> that helped get out the vote and make sure the Bay Area's voice

was

> heard. But looking forward, toward next fall, it's hard to argue

that

> local progressive leadership is on top of its game.
>
>
>
> Three of Mayor Gavin Newsom's allies � Sups. Bevan Dufty, Fiona

Ma,

> and Michela Alioto-Pier � will be up for reelection, and at this

point

> there are no obvious opponents for any of them. Sup. Sophie

Maxwell,

> who has been at best a shaky member of the progressive majority

and

> recently led the fight to bring Home Depot to town, could also

use a

> challenger.
>
>
>
> Three members of the Community College board � a corrupt and
> incompetent agency if there ever was one � will be trying to keep
> their seats, and there's a desperate need for new blood. The

school

> board remains bitterly divided and may wind up overseeing a

strike not

> only by classified staff but also by teachers.
>
>
>
> Four years ago, even two years ago, the Board of Supervisors
> presidents (Tom Ammiano and then Matt Gonzalez) seemed to be

thinking

> about recruiting candidates, pulling together coalitions, and
> preparing to move the progressive agenda forward. But the current
> president, Aaron Peskin, has been badly, perhaps fatally, damaged

by

> his support for Home Depot and no longer has the credibility to

lead

> any kind of coalition.
>
>
>
> In another kind of political system, Peskin would simply step

down (or

> be ousted as leader) and progressives would find someone else to

play

> his role. That's a good idea, but unlikely to happen � under the

City

> Charter, the board presidency is a two-year term, and for better

or

> for worse, we may be stuck with Peskin until 2007.
>
>
>
> It's not too early to think about his replacement: The mayor and

his

> allies will almost certainly be pushing for Dufty or even

Maxwell,

> neither of whom can do what the head of a district-elected board

needs

> to do: stand up to and challenge the mayor and ensure that the

board

> has at least an equal role in running the city. So the

progressive

> bloc needs to be united behind another candidate � and the

obvious

> choice is Ross Mirkarimi. Although he's still new to the job,

he's

> proven himself a reliable, productive, and level-headed

legislator who

> isn't about to sell out to the big chain stores, the developers,

or

> anyone else.
>
>
>
> But the more important thing right now is to start thinking about

the

> next year � and there's a lot on the table. From the budget (the
> deficit will again surpass $100 million) to housing policy, the
> southeast neighborhoods, energy, the waterfront, violent crime,

and

> Muni, the supervisors need to be actively seeking broad policy
> solutions that amount to more than tinkering. We've already

offered a

> lot of ideas: a moratorium on new market-rate housing. A complete
> overhaul of the local tax system. A renewed effort for public

power.

> After the Home Depot fiasco, we'd add a city-wide ban on all

chain

> stores of more than 25,000 square feet. These are real

initiatives

> that can make a real difference in the lives of San Franciscans.
>
>
>
> Then there's the matter of finding, grooming, and promoting good
> candidates for supervisor, the school board, and the Community

College

> board.
>
>
>
> The San Francisco People's Organization, formed with the help of

Sup.

> Chris Daly, was supposed to be playing this kind of role, but we
> haven't heard much out of SFPO lately. And nobody else is

stepping up

> to the plate.
>
>
>
> The Board of Supervisors is falling in popularity, in part

because of

> in-fighting and a lack of a visible agenda to counter the mayor.
> There's not a whole lot of time left to turn that around.
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
>
> <image.tiff>
>
>
>
> <image.tiff>
>
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> + Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
>
> + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of

Service.

>
>
> <image.tiff>
>
>
>
>
<image.tiff>
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> + Visit your group "lpsf-activists" on the web.
>
> + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of

Service.

>
>
<image.tiff>
>
>

SPONSORED LINKS
U s government grant Libertarian party U s government student loan California politics

Marcy,

  I meant goals and strategies as they relate specifically to a ballot initiative or initiatives, not just LPSF goals and strategies in general. As you may recall, I haven't been keen on spending time just sort of talking about goals and strategies in a broad, general sense, as I think that tends to get little accomplished and we're better off focusing on getting things done. But in the context of a specific project, it does make sense to have some idea of what we're trying to achieve with that project, and to try to pursue it in such a manner as to meet those goals.

  As for the vote at the meeting, there seems to be some disagreement among those who were present. Jawg told me earlier this week that, "The motion, which I proposed and wrote down, was to pursue both initiatives." But regardless of whether you or Jawg are correct, I'm not exactly sure what "pursue" means. Does "pursue" mean "put on the ballot," or does "pursue" mean "look into further, with the possibility of getting on the ballot," or something else?

Yours in liberty,
        <<< Starchild >>>

For clarification only: At the November meeting I specifically asked
that the vote include the words "pursue" the possibilities of one or
both of the proposed initiatives. The vote was never to have both
initiatives, but one *or* both.

As most of you know, I strongly favor formulation of goals and
stretegies. However, these are not issues that can be resolved in
one monthly meeting. I suggest that those interested in formulating
those issues write out their view of what the LPSF goals should be,
and what strategies are most effective in pursuing those goals. Then
perhaps there can be meaningful discussion at one of our monthly
meetings.

As to formulating goals and strategies with respect to the current
initiatives, I believe Ron is committed to that.

Marcy

>
> As Ron alludes to, we apparently reached a consensus at the
initiative
> committee meeting Tuesday that we should not pursue the hotel tax
> repeal, or that it should be relegated to the back burner at best.
> However *if* the LPSF definitively voted at the November meeting to
> pursue *both* initiatives, then arguably we do not have the
authority
> to do this -- even if dropping the hotel tax measure is a good idea
> (which it certainly is in my opinion).
>
> My recommendation as a committee member continues to be that
*neither*
> of the two proposed initiatives are wise choices, especially if the
> payroll tax measure includes a wage restriction repeal, but even if
it
> does not. It is my impression that the measures were voted on
hastily
> and were poorly thought out, and that this is evidenced by the fact
> that we have already essentially decided to drop one of the two
> measures as non-viable at present.
>
> While I have no objection to Ron or anyone else doing further
research
> or work on a payroll tax/wage restriction measure if he or she
wishes
> to, I object to rushing forward as if it's written in stone that we
> must pursue this particular measure, when that clearly is not the
case
> if we can simply sideline the companion measure that was similarly
> voted on.
>
> I think the best thing for us to do is reexamine the whole
issue at
> the December meeting when we can have a more careful discussion of
what
> goals we are seeking to achieve in backing an initiative, and what
> strategy we should take to achieve those goals. Once we have
decided on
> goals and strategy, then it will become more clear what kind of
> initiative would best reflect that strategy and give us the best
shot
> at achieving our goals.
>
> Yours in liberty,
> <<< Starchild >>>
>
> > Dear Dr. Mike;
> >
> > Veni Vici Vidi - too brief?
> >
> > Okay here's a brief report:
> >
> > The LPSF will initiate a ballot initiative not a charter
amendment
> > to have all of the City declared a: San Francisco Small Business
Tax
> > Free Zone. Businesses in the Tax Free Zone will not have to pay
> > payroll taxes or the SF minimum wage. As a side note the SF min
wage
> > goes to $8.82 in January for all profit and non-profit businesses
the
> > Cal state min is $7.75. The tax free zone will be for all small
> > businesses with less than 50 employees. This is some 40,000
businesses
> > and about 275,000 employees or a potential reduction for the
> > small business payroll tax of some $125,000,000. Total City
Payroll
> > Tax is $281,740,000.
> >
> > This means collectively about $125,000,000 for the small
businesses of
> > San Francisco to use in hiring and being able to afford to hire
> > un-skilled a lightly skilled labor, becoming more efficient and
more
> > competitive.
> >
> > Based on the Dec. 6 filing and legal requirements deadlines for
> > approval of a ballot initiative to circulate for signatures we
will
> > place the initiative on the Nov. 2006 ballot not the June 2006
ballot.
> >
> > The Hotel Tax will still be considered but will be a side issue
for
> > the meantime for fuller discussion. The Hotel Tax repeal to use a
> > phrase: would break a lot of rice bowls. And we don't have the
needed
> > immediate support to force the issue. It will still be done
as repeal
> > of a tax. As an example of the Rice Bowl see the list below of
who
> > gets what and how much.
> >
> > There is a 14% Hotel Tax on all room rentals. From Marcy's
> > investigation of the Mayors Budget the Hotel Room Tax
> > is $164,561,000.
> >
> >
> >
> > The funds are allocated as follows:
> >
> >
> >
> > General Funds - $.33
> >
> > Convention Facilities - $.22
> >
> > Moscone Center - $.15
> >
> > Grants For The Arts - $.08.5
> >
> > Cultural Centers - $.05
> >
> > War Memorial Special Fund - $.05
> >
> > Convention Bureau - $.04
> >
> > Low Cost Housing Yerba Buena Center- $.03
> >
> > Monster Park - $.03
> >
> > Fine Arts Museum - $.03
> >
> > Cultural Equity Endowment - $.01
> >
> > Asian Art Museum - $.01
> >
Total 100.05

> >
> >
> > More in depth details to follow at the regularly scheduled LPSF
> > meeting on Dec. 10 where a very full report will be made.
> >
> > In addition; we are meeting as a sub-committee at Round Table at
2:30
> > before the 3:00 regular meeting where all visitors and kibitzers
and
> > other interested parties are invited to please COME ON DOWN!
> >
> > Ron Getty
> > SF Libertarian
> >
> >
> > dredelstein@t... wrote:
> >
> > Ron,
> >
> > Would you mind giving us a brief summary of the meeting?
> >
> > Best, Michael
> >
> > From: Starchild
> > To: LPSF Activist List
> > Cc: jedgreenwald@c...
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 12:58 PM
> > Subject: [lpsf-activists] Re: [lpsf-discuss] The Bay Guardian
Calls
> > For A City Tax Overhaul - Among Other Things
> >
> > Ron,
> >
> > As I noted at our meeting yesterday, I would strongly support a
salary
> > cap initiative. Although I would still rather see us address a
civil
> > liberties issue (depending on the particular initiative of
course),
> > for an economic liberty initiative this would be an excellent
choice,
> > because it will appeal to many on the left. Indeed I raised the
idea
> > of capping salaries at $100,000 a year in the argument I wrote
against
> > 2004's Proposition D, and such a measure was among the
possibilities I
> > raised when I first suggested we pursue a ballot initiative.
> >
> > You mention below a "Small Business Tax Free Zone"; by that do
you
> > mean ending the payroll tax for small businesses in San
Francisco? I
> > thought that's what we'd been talking about. For those who
weren't at
> > the meeting, the sense of the group was that we should focus on
this
> > measure and not the other ideas of repealing the wage restriction
(aka
> > "minimum wage") law or the hotel tax.
> >
> > It remains my view that this measure (a payroll tax repeal) is
one
> > that the SF Taxpayers Union would be willing to take on, and that
we
> > should seek that outcome and while supporting their effort, focus
our
> > own energies primarily on drafting, qualifying and passing an
LPSF
> > initiative on a topic which we would not be likely to find
another
> > group willing to champion for us.
> >
> > Yours in liberty,
> > <<< Starchild >>>
> >
> > Dear Everyone;
> >
> > Apparently the Bay Guardian editors are on the same track as we
are
> > with their recommendation as I highlighted in the editorial
below. Of
> > course, the Bay Guardian's idea of an overhaul of the City tax
system
> > and our idea are probably just a little bit different.
> >
> > How about including with our San Francisco Small Business Tax
Free
> > Zone initiative a parallel concurrent initiative to put a
$100,000
> > salary cap on City employees starting at the Mayor and down? This
will
> > certainly go a long way towards reforming the City tax system by
> > cutting a couple hundred million out of the budget which won't be
> > needed for a bloated City payroll.
> >
> > Ron Getty
> > SF Libertarian
> >
> > Post-Peskin progressives
> >
> > THE DEFEAT OF Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's agenda Nov. 8 was a
victory
> > not only statewide but also in San Francisco, where a remarkable
> > alliance of progressive groups pulled together to organize an
effort
> > that helped get out the vote and make sure the Bay Area's voice
was
> > heard. But looking forward, toward next fall, it's hard to argue
that
> > local progressive leadership is on top of its game.
> >
> >
> >
> > Three of Mayor Gavin Newsom's allies – Sups. Bevan Dufty, Fiona
Ma,
> > and Michela Alioto-Pier – will be up for reelection, and at this
point
> > there are no obvious opponents for any of them. Sup. Sophie
Maxwell,
> > who has been at best a shaky member of the progressive majority
and
> > recently led the fight to bring Home Depot to town, could also
use a
> > challenger.
> >
> >
> >
> > Three members of the Community College board – a corrupt and
> > incompetent agency if there ever was one – will be trying to keep
> > their seats, and there's a desperate need for new blood. The
school
> > board remains bitterly divided and may wind up overseeing a
strike not
> > only by classified staff but also by teachers.
> >
> >
> >
> > Four years ago, even two years ago, the Board of Supervisors
> > presidents (Tom Ammiano and then Matt Gonzalez) seemed to be
thinking
> > about recruiting candidates, pulling together coalitions, and
> > preparing to move the progressive agenda forward. But the current
> > president, Aaron Peskin, has been badly, perhaps fatally, damaged
by
> > his support for Home Depot and no longer has the credibility to
lead
> > any kind of coalition.
> >
> >
> >
> > In another kind of political system, Peskin would simply step
down (or
> > be ousted as leader) and progressives would find someone else to
play
> > his role. That's a good idea, but unlikely to happen – under the
City
> > Charter, the board presidency is a two-year term, and for better
or
> > for worse, we may be stuck with Peskin until 2007.
> >
> >
> >
> > It's not too early to think about his replacement: The mayor and
his
> > allies will almost certainly be pushing for Dufty or even
Maxwell,
> > neither of whom can do what the head of a district-elected board
needs
> > to do: stand up to and challenge the mayor and ensure that the
board
> > has at least an equal role in running the city. So the
progressive
> > bloc needs to be united behind another candidate – and the
obvious
> > choice is Ross Mirkarimi. Although he's still new to the job,
he's
> > proven himself a reliable, productive, and level-headed
legislator who
> > isn't about to sell out to the big chain stores, the developers,
or
> > anyone else.
> >
> >
> >
> > But the more important thing right now is to start thinking about
the
> > next year – and there's a lot on the table. From the budget (the
> > deficit will again surpass $100 million) to housing policy, the
> > southeast neighborhoods, energy, the waterfront, violent crime,
and
> > Muni, the supervisors need to be actively seeking broad policy
> > solutions that amount to more than tinkering. We've already
offered a
> > lot of ideas: a moratorium on new market-rate housing. A complete
> > overhaul of the local tax system. A renewed effort for public
power.
> > After the Home Depot fiasco, we'd add a city-wide ban on all
chain
> > stores of more than 25,000 square feet. These are real
initiatives
> > that can make a real difference in the lives of San Franciscans.
> >
> >
> >
> > Then there's the matter of finding, grooming, and promoting good
> > candidates for supervisor, the school board, and the Community
College
> > board.
> >
> >
> >
> > The San Francisco People's Organization, formed with the help of
Sup.
> > Chris Daly, was supposed to be playing this kind of role, but we
> > haven't heard much out of SFPO lately. And nobody else is
stepping up
> > to the plate.
> >
> >
> >
> > The Board of Supervisors is falling in popularity, in part
because of
> > in-fighting and a lack of a visible agenda to counter the mayor.
> > There's not a whole lot of time left to turn that around.
> >
> > SPONSORED LINKS
> >
> > <image.tiff>
> >
> > <image.tiff>
> >
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > + Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
> >
> > + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
> >
> > <image.tiff>
> >
> <image.tiff>
> >
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > + Visit your group "lpsf-activists" on the web.
> >
> > + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
> >
> <image.tiff>
> >
>

SPONSORED LINKS

<image.tiff>

<image.tiff>

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

+ Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.

+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

<image.tiff>

Dear Starchild and Everyone Else;

Goals to be made and achieved by the LPSF for placing on the ballot an initiative I'm calling for the meantime the:

                    " Neighborhood Small Business Protection and Employment Act"

The reason for the title is based on reviewing literally dozens of past initiatives and their titles and what the initiative was trying to accomplish.

In San Francisco there are some 46,414 business from 1 - 1,000 plus.

From this group there are businesses of from 1-4 employees of about 28,000 who are more or less too small to have to pay payroll taxes.

There are some 16,404 businesses of from 5 - 49 employees in our strike group of qualifying small businesses of under 50 who do pay payroll taxes.

There are some 1554 businesses from 50 - 1,000 plus employees. Of this last group there are some 869 banking, financial and insurance concerns who are exempt from paying payroll taxes. This leaves some 685 businesses above 50 employees paying payroll taxes.

This exemption also includes the Biotech Exemption for all biotech companies for the next 7.5 years.

This means there are a net 17,000 businesses paying payroll taxes totaling about: $281,740,000 in San Francisco.

95% of this number or 16,000 small businesses employing from 5-49 employees or about 230,000 employees shoulder some 95% of the payroll taxes in San Francisco.

Why do the majority employers have to pay the majority of the taxes paid into the general fund to be used any way the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors sees fit?

Our LPSF target is to get the San Francisco Board of Supervisors off the back of these small businesses. The payroll taxes paid by these small businesses is money they could better spend in hiring, productivity, competition and efficiency of their business operations.

This is what I believe the LPSF can achieve. I personally make the commitment to do whatever is needed to get the initiative placed on the ballot for the Nov. 2006 election.

Secondly, for the Hotel Tax. I have temporarily re-named it the:

" Hospitality Industry Employment and Competition Act "

I believe with the assistance of the SF Hospitality Industry there are some 465 hotels and motels covered by the tax and the Hotel Workers union it may be possible to place this on the Nov. 2006 ballot.

Thirdly, while not specifically charged with this issue but would be a concurrent issue is an initiative originally proposed by Starchild some time ago. The name would be:

" San Francisco Tax Payers Relief Act "

This un-discussed ballot initiative would be to cap the SF City employees wages at $100,000 starting with the Mayor and scaling on down from there. This initiative would be needed to cut the City budget in complement with the cut in payroll taxes.

More to follow at the next LPSF meeting of the Initiative sub-committee at 2:30 Dec. 10 at Round Table Pizza. And further discussion at the regularly scheduled LPSF meeting at 3:00.

Thank You and Good Night.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:
As Ron alludes to, we apparently reached a consensus at the initiative
committee meeting Tuesday that we should not pursue the hotel tax
repeal, or that it should be relegated to the back burner at best.
However *if* the LPSF definitively voted at the November meeting to
pursue *both* initiatives, then arguably we do not have the authority
to do this -- even if dropping the hotel tax measure is a good idea
(which it certainly is in my opinion).

My recommendation as a committee member continues to be that *neither*
of the two proposed initiatives are wise choices, especially if the
payroll tax measure includes a wage restriction repeal, but even if it
does not. It is my impression that the measures were voted on hastily
and were poorly thought out, and that this is evidenced by the fact
that we have already essentially decided to drop one of the two
measures as non-viable at present.

While I have no objection to Ron or anyone else doing further research
or work on a payroll tax/wage restriction measure if he or she wishes
to, I object to rushing forward as if it's written in stone that we
must pursue this particular measure, when that clearly is not the case
if we can simply sideline the companion measure that was similarly
voted on.

I think the best thing for us to do is reexamine the whole issue at
the December meeting when we can have a more careful discussion of what
goals we are seeking to achieve in backing an initiative, and what
strategy we should take to achieve those goals. Once we have decided on
goals and strategy, then it will become more clear what kind of
initiative would best reflect that strategy and give us the best shot
at achieving our goals.

Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>

I am suggesting we use the Activist list to iron out points on the
proposed initiatives, and leave the Discussion list for the purpose
it was intended: discussion on general topics of libertarian
interest. I am also suggesting that we not double post to both lists.

Thank you!

Marcy

Marcy,

  I meant goals and strategies as they relate specifically to a

ballot

initiative or initiatives, not just LPSF goals and strategies in
general. As you may recall, I haven't been keen on spending time

just

sort of talking about goals and strategies in a broad, general

sense,

as I think that tends to get little accomplished and we're better

off

focusing on getting things done. But in the context of a specific
project, it does make sense to have some idea of what we're trying

to

achieve with that project, and to try to pursue it in such a manner

as

to meet those goals.

  As for the vote at the meeting, there seems to be some

disagreement

among those who were present. Jawg told me earlier this week

that, "The

motion, which I proposed and wrote down, was to pursue both
initiatives." But regardless of whether you or Jawg are correct,

I'm

not exactly sure what "pursue" means. Does "pursue" mean "put on

the

ballot," or does "pursue" mean "look into further, with the

possibility

of getting on the ballot," or something else?

Yours in liberty,
        <<< Starchild >>>

> For clarification only: At the November meeting I specifically

asked

> that the vote include the words "pursue" the possibilities of one

or

> both of the proposed initiatives. The vote was never to have both
> initiatives, but one *or* both.
>
> As most of you know, I strongly favor formulation of goals and
> stretegies. However, these are not issues that can be resolved in
> one monthly meeting. I suggest that those interested in

formulating

> those issues write out their view of what the LPSF goals should

be,

> and what strategies are most effective in pursuing those goals.

Then

> perhaps there can be meaningful discussion at one of our monthly
> meetings.
>
> As to formulating goals and strategies with respect to the current
> initiatives, I believe Ron is committed to that.
>
> Marcy
>
> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Starchild <sfdreamer@e...>

wrote:

> >
> > As Ron alludes to, we apparently reached a consensus at

the

> initiative
> > committee meeting Tuesday that we should not pursue the hotel

tax

> > repeal, or that it should be relegated to the back burner at

best.

> > However *if* the LPSF definitively voted at the November

meeting to

> > pursue *both* initiatives, then arguably we do not have the
> authority
> > to do this -- even if dropping the hotel tax measure is a good

idea

> > (which it certainly is in my opinion).
> >
> > My recommendation as a committee member continues to be

that

> *neither*
> > of the two proposed initiatives are wise choices, especially if

the

> > payroll tax measure includes a wage restriction repeal, but

even if

> it
> > does not. It is my impression that the measures were voted on
> hastily
> > and were poorly thought out, and that this is evidenced by the

fact

> > that we have already essentially decided to drop one of the two
> > measures as non-viable at present.
> >
> > While I have no objection to Ron or anyone else doing

further

> research
> > or work on a payroll tax/wage restriction measure if he or she
> wishes
> > to, I object to rushing forward as if it's written in stone

that we

> > must pursue this particular measure, when that clearly is not

the

> case
> > if we can simply sideline the companion measure that was

similarly

> > voted on.
> >
> > I think the best thing for us to do is reexamine the whole
> issue at
> > the December meeting when we can have a more careful discussion

of

> what
> > goals we are seeking to achieve in backing an initiative, and

what

> > strategy we should take to achieve those goals. Once we have
> decided on
> > goals and strategy, then it will become more clear what kind of
> > initiative would best reflect that strategy and give us the best
> shot
> > at achieving our goals.
> >
> > Yours in liberty,
> > <<< Starchild >>>
> >
> >
> >
> > > Dear Dr. Mike;
> > >
> > > Veni Vici Vidi - too brief?
> > >
> > > Okay here's a brief report:
> > >
> > > The LPSF will initiate a ballot initiative not a charter
> amendment
> > > to have all of the City declared a: San Francisco Small

Business

> Tax
> > > Free Zone. Businesses in the Tax Free Zone will not have to

pay

> > > payroll taxes or the SF minimum wage. As a side note the SF

min

> wage
> > > goes to $8.82 in January for all profit and non-profit

businesses

> the
> > > Cal state min is $7.75. The tax free zone will be for all

small

> > > businesses with less than 50 employees. This is some 40,000
> businesses
> > > and about 275,000 employees or a potential reduction for the
> > > small business payroll tax of some $125,000,000. Total City
> Payroll
> > > Tax is $281,740,000.
> > >
> > > This means collectively about $125,000,000 for the small
> businesses of
> > > San Francisco to use in hiring and being able to afford to

hire

> > > un-skilled a lightly skilled labor, becoming more efficient

and

> more
> > > competitive.
> > >
> > > Based on the Dec. 6 filing and legal requirements deadlines

for

> > > approval of a ballot initiative to circulate for signatures we
> will
> > > place the initiative on the Nov. 2006 ballot not the June 2006
> ballot.
> > >
> > > The Hotel Tax will still be considered but will be a side

issue

> for
> > > the meantime for fuller discussion. The Hotel Tax repeal to

use a

> > > phrase: would break a lot of rice bowls. And we don't have the
> needed
> > > immediate support to force the issue. It will still be done
> as repeal
> > > of a tax. As an example of the Rice Bowl see the list below of
> who
> > > gets what and how much.
> > >
> > > There is a 14% Hotel Tax on all room rentals. From Marcy's
> > > investigation of the Mayors Budget the Hotel Room Tax
> > > is $164,561,000.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The funds are allocated as follows:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > General Funds - $.33
> > >
> > > Convention Facilities - $.22
> > >
> > > Moscone Center - $.15
> > >
> > > Grants For The Arts - $.08.5
> > >
> > > Cultural Centers - $.05
> > >
> > > War Memorial Special Fund - $.05
> > >
> > > Convention Bureau - $.04
> > >
> > > Low Cost Housing Yerba Buena Center- $.03
> > >
> > > Monster Park - $.03
> > >
> > > Fine Arts Museum - $.03
> > >
> > > Cultural Equity Endowment - $.01
> > >
> > > Asian Art Museum - $.01
> > >
> > >
>

Total 100.05

>
> > >
> > >
> > > More in depth details to follow at the regularly scheduled

LPSF

> > > meeting on Dec. 10 where a very full report will be made.
> > >
> > > In addition; we are meeting as a sub-committee at Round Table

at

> 2:30
> > > before the 3:00 regular meeting where all visitors and

kibitzers

> and
> > > other interested parties are invited to please COME ON DOWN!
> > >
> > > Ron Getty
> > > SF Libertarian
> > >
> > >
> > > dredelstein@t... wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Ron,
> > >
> > > Would you mind giving us a brief summary of the meeting?
> > >
> > > Best, Michael
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Starchild
> > > To: LPSF Activist List
> > > Cc: jedgreenwald@c...
> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 12:58 PM
> > > Subject: [lpsf-activists] Re: [lpsf-discuss] The Bay Guardian
> Calls
> > > For A City Tax Overhaul - Among Other Things
> > >
> > > Ron,
> > >
> > > As I noted at our meeting yesterday, I would strongly support

a

> salary
> > > cap initiative. Although I would still rather see us address a
> civil
> > > liberties issue (depending on the particular initiative of
> course),
> > > for an economic liberty initiative this would be an excellent
> choice,
> > > because it will appeal to many on the left. Indeed I raised

the

> idea
> > > of capping salaries at $100,000 a year in the argument I wrote
> against
> > > 2004's Proposition D, and such a measure was among the
> possibilities I
> > > raised when I first suggested we pursue a ballot initiative.
> > >
> > > You mention below a "Small Business Tax Free Zone"; by that do
> you
> > > mean ending the payroll tax for small businesses in San
> Francisco? I
> > > thought that's what we'd been talking about. For those who
> weren't at
> > > the meeting, the sense of the group was that we should focus

on

> this
> > > measure and not the other ideas of repealing the wage

restriction

> (aka
> > > "minimum wage") law or the hotel tax.
> > >
> > > It remains my view that this measure (a payroll tax repeal) is
> one
> > > that the SF Taxpayers Union would be willing to take on, and

that

> we
> > > should seek that outcome and while supporting their effort,

focus

> our
> > > own energies primarily on drafting, qualifying and passing an
> LPSF
> > > initiative on a topic which we would not be likely to find
> another
> > > group willing to champion for us.
> > >
> > > Yours in liberty,
> > > <<< Starchild >>>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear Everyone;
> > >
> > > Apparently the Bay Guardian editors are on the same track as

we

> are
> > > with their recommendation as I highlighted in the editorial
> below. Of
> > > course, the Bay Guardian's idea of an overhaul of the City tax
> system
> > > and our idea are probably just a little bit different.
> > >
> > > How about including with our San Francisco Small Business Tax
> Free
> > > Zone initiative a parallel concurrent initiative to put a
> $100,000
> > > salary cap on City employees starting at the Mayor and

down? This

> will
> > > certainly go a long way towards reforming the City tax system

by

> > > cutting a couple hundred million out of the budget which

won't be

> > > needed for a bloated City payroll.
> > >
> > > Ron Getty
> > > SF Libertarian
> > >
> > >
> > > Post-Peskin progressives
> > >
> > > THE DEFEAT OF Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's agenda Nov. 8 was a
> victory
> > > not only statewide but also in San Francisco, where a

remarkable

> > > alliance of progressive groups pulled together to organize an
> effort
> > > that helped get out the vote and make sure the Bay Area's

voice

> was
> > > heard. But looking forward, toward next fall, it's hard to

argue

> that
> > > local progressive leadership is on top of its game.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Three of Mayor Gavin Newsom's allies – Sups. Bevan Dufty,

Fiona

> Ma,
> > > and Michela Alioto-Pier – will be up for reelection, and at

this

> point
> > > there are no obvious opponents for any of them. Sup. Sophie
> Maxwell,
> > > who has been at best a shaky member of the progressive

majority

> and
> > > recently led the fight to bring Home Depot to town, could also
> use a
> > > challenger.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Three members of the Community College board – a corrupt and
> > > incompetent agency if there ever was one – will be trying to

keep

> > > their seats, and there's a desperate need for new blood. The
> school
> > > board remains bitterly divided and may wind up overseeing a
> strike not
> > > only by classified staff but also by teachers.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Four years ago, even two years ago, the Board of Supervisors
> > > presidents (Tom Ammiano and then Matt Gonzalez) seemed to be
> thinking
> > > about recruiting candidates, pulling together coalitions, and
> > > preparing to move the progressive agenda forward. But the

current

> > > president, Aaron Peskin, has been badly, perhaps fatally,

damaged

> by
> > > his support for Home Depot and no longer has the credibility

to

> lead
> > > any kind of coalition.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In another kind of political system, Peskin would simply step
> down (or
> > > be ousted as leader) and progressives would find someone else

to

> play
> > > his role. That's a good idea, but unlikely to happen – under

the

> City
> > > Charter, the board presidency is a two-year term, and for

better

> or
> > > for worse, we may be stuck with Peskin until 2007.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It's not too early to think about his replacement: The mayor

and

> his
> > > allies will almost certainly be pushing for Dufty or even
> Maxwell,
> > > neither of whom can do what the head of a district-elected

board

> needs
> > > to do: stand up to and challenge the mayor and ensure that the
> board
> > > has at least an equal role in running the city. So the
> progressive
> > > bloc needs to be united behind another candidate – and the
> obvious
> > > choice is Ross Mirkarimi. Although he's still new to the job,
> he's
> > > proven himself a reliable, productive, and level-headed
> legislator who
> > > isn't about to sell out to the big chain stores, the

developers,

> or
> > > anyone else.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > But the more important thing right now is to start thinking

about

> the
> > > next year – and there's a lot on the table. From the budget

(the

> > > deficit will again surpass $100 million) to housing policy,

the

> > > southeast neighborhoods, energy, the waterfront, violent

crime,

> and
> > > Muni, the supervisors need to be actively seeking broad policy
> > > solutions that amount to more than tinkering. We've already
> offered a
> > > lot of ideas: a moratorium on new market-rate housing. A

complete

> > > overhaul of the local tax system. A renewed effort for public
> power.
> > > After the Home Depot fiasco, we'd add a city-wide ban on all
> chain
> > > stores of more than 25,000 square feet. These are real
> initiatives
> > > that can make a real difference in the lives of San

Franciscans.

> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Then there's the matter of finding, grooming, and promoting

good

> > > candidates for supervisor, the school board, and the Community
> College
> > > board.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The San Francisco People's Organization, formed with the help

of

> Sup.
> > > Chris Daly, was supposed to be playing this kind of role, but

we

> > > haven't heard much out of SFPO lately. And nobody else is
> stepping up
> > > to the plate.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The Board of Supervisors is falling in popularity, in part
> because of
> > > in-fighting and a lack of a visible agenda to counter the

mayor.

> > > There's not a whole lot of time left to turn that around.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > SPONSORED LINKS
> > >
> > > <image.tiff>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > <image.tiff>
> > >
> > >
> > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > >
> > > + Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
> > >
> > > + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> > >
> > >
> > > <image.tiff>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > <image.tiff>
> > >
> > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > >
> > > + Visit your group "lpsf-activists" on the web.
> > >
> > > + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!

Terms of

> Service.
> > >
> > >
> > <image.tiff>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
<image.tiff>
>
>
<image.tiff>
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> + Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
>
> + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of

Service.