The Other 3 Ballot Measures for the November Election

Hi All! We never did have time to review and vote on these other 3 measures at our last meeting, so I have summarized them and here are my thoughts on them. We need to take an official LPSF stand on them for our website. Please read, review, and see if you agree. D for sure had other viewpoints, so please present them so we can come to an official position on each measure. Feel free to edit any of my writing--I tried to present the Libertarian twist on things, but I'm far from perfect.

Prop B-8
Washington Street (initiative)-Allows development of upscale
residential housing along the Embarcadero waterfront and will also include a
public park, open space, sidewalk cafes, and pedestrian and bicycle access to
The Embarcadero. Most of the site is
private property currently being used as a private tennis/swim club and surface
parking lot. The remainder of the property
is owned by The City and is currently used as a surface parking lot. In exchange for “permission” to develop their
property, the developers have agreed to build a public park, open up part of
the site to the public, and contribute to The City’s “affordable” housing
fund. As Libertarians we are encouraged
to see the relaxation of rules and regulations that prohibit the owners of
private property from doing what they choose with their own property. Therefore we recommend a YES vote on this
measure.
Prop C-8
Washington Street (referendum)-Very similar to Prop B, except that this
measure allows two areas of the 8 Washington Street Project to change the
height and bulk district classifications so that the new development will be
higher and larger. Again we like the
easing of arbitrary government regulations which restrict choices, so we
recommend a YES vote.
Prop
D-Prescription Drug Purchasing-Makes it official City policy to use all
available opportunities to reduce The City’s cost of prescription drugs. While it obviously makes good economic sense
for any organization or entity to always buy at the best prices, this measure
takes the wrong approach to high pharmaceutical prices. Rather than look at the root problem—heavy
government involvement with and extensive regulation of the industry via the
FDA—it rails against Big Pharma in this feel-good measure which will do nothing
to actually bring the prices down. Only
true competition can lower prices, and this can only be accomplished by
loosening up the regulation of the industry so more companies can enter the
field. Rather than passing laws
demanding lower prices, we prefer to see more companies doing research on new
and life-saving drugs. Therefore we
recommend a NO vote.
Thanks!
Aubrey

Aubrey,

Wonderful summary and analysis, thanks!

I agree with your positions.

Warm regards, Michael

Hi Aubrey,

Nuts, I just posted my reply and all I got was a message that Sorry, trouble loading the page. Well, if you get this twice blame Marissa Mayer. So, let me know what your deadline is for posting this on the LPSF website if you want me to do it, or if you want to post it yourself.

Thanks for all the work!

Marcy

Hi All! We never did have time to review and vote on these other 3 measures at our last meeting, so I have summarized them and here are my thoughts on them. We need to take an official LPSF stand on them for our website. Please read, review, and see if you agree. D for sure had other viewpoints, so please present them so we can come to an official position on each measure. Feel free to edit any of my writing–I tried to present the Libertarian twist on things, but I’m far from perfect.

Prop B-8 Washington Street (initiative)-Allows development of upscale residential housing along the Embarcadero waterfront and will also include a public park, open space, sidewalk cafes, and pedestrian and bicycle access to The Embarcadero. Most of the site is private property currently being used as a private tennis/swim club and surface parking lot. The remainder of the property is owned by The City and is currently used as a surface parking lot. In exchange for “permission” to develop their property, the developers have agreed to build a public park, open up part of the site to the public, and contribute to The City’s “affordable” housing fund. As Libertarians we are encouraged to see the relaxation of rules and regulations that prohibit the owners of private property from doing what they choose with their own property. Therefore we recommend a YES vote on this measure.

Prop C-8 Washington Street (referendum)-Very similar to Prop B, except that this measure allows two areas of the 8 Washington Street Project to change the height and bulk district classifications so that the new development will be higher and larger. Again we like the easing of arbitrary government regulations which restrict choices, so we recommend a YES vote.

Prop D-Prescription Drug Purchasing-Makes it official City policy to use all available opportunities to reduce The City’s cost of prescription drugs. While it obviously makes good economic sense for any organization or entity to always buy at the best prices, this measure takes the wrong approach to high pharmaceutical prices. Rather than look at the root problem—heavy government involvement with and extensive regulation of the industry via the FDA—it rails against Big Pharma in this feel-good measure which will do nothing to actually bring the prices down. Only true competition can lower prices, and this can only be accomplished by loosening up the regulation of the industry so more companies can enter the field. Rather than passing laws demanding lower prices, we prefer to see more companies doing research on new and life-saving drugs. Therefore we recommend a NO vote.

Thanks!
Aubrey

Recent Activity:

Visit Your Group

Yahoo! Groups
Switch to: [Text-Only](mailto:lpsf-activists-traditional@yahoogroups.com?subject=Change Delivery Format: Traditional), [Daily Digest](mailto:lpsf-activists-digest@yahoogroups.com?subject=Email Delivery: Digest) • UnsubscribeTerms of Use • [Send us Feedback](mailto:ygroupsnotifications@yahoogroups.com?subject=Feedback on the redesigned individual mail v1)

.

Seeing as we have no official position, we might want to spotlight diversity of opinion.

Perhaps we should support the proposition calling for the city to negotiate with the Pharms in pricing.

first Reason. Republicanism. We believe in limited government , the more limited the better , until it is so small that it can't seen. One way to go down that road is to have governments local, state, and Federal fight among themselves. This is the foundation of the idea of a Republic.

Under such a system, if we still had one, california, and san Francisco would have powers to check federal power.

the Feds have seen to it that big Pharma gets to name it's own price when feeding at, I mean supplying , the public trough.

San Francisco could make a tiny step in restoring it's sovereignty versus the Feds by fighting the Feds gorging of big Pharma.

Reason Number 2.

We are for markets. Markets work. The fact is , wether we like it or not, The City is a market participant. It's dollars are as green as Ron Paul's dollars, in the practical sense, if nnot the moral.

The fact is the city may have some negotiating power, and if other cities and States followed, the power may be considerable.

for example, there are now a plethora of drugs for HIV. The most convenient get the mloins share of perscriptions. The city may tell it's perscribing persons to back off of the most expensive drugs whenever possible. The same can be done for cancer drugs, etc. Then the city cn tell the Pharmas, negotiate or we knock down your market share.

seems to me when the Marxists in this town call for market driven action, we should be standing up and cheering, not jeering.

Password

High prices are inevitable result of
1. a government subsidy to consumers who have no reason to care about the cost of what they are consuming
2. government regulations that limit the competition between drug suppliers

The appropriate remedies are to
1. stop subsidizing consumers and then the drug companies will have to sell their wares at a price consumers can afford to pay or go bankrupt and
2. get rid of regulations that make it costly to bring new drugs to market.

Government threats and extortions are NEVER "market driven activity". In a true market buyers can lower prices by refusing to buy at a high price.

Many people who babble and slobber about the high cost of drugs do not bat an eyelid about the high cost of government employees. Perhaps if the City were not paying such outrageous wages and pensions and fringe benefits to their it own employees, it would have some money left over to buy drugs for sick people.

The Marxists in this town are not calling for market driven activity; they are calling for still more market distorting interventions.

Thanks, Aubrey. I concur with these recommendations (yes on B and C, and no on D).

Love & Liberty,
                                ((( starchild )))