Skip to comments.S.F. mayor proposes big raises in city fees
Posted on 06/11/2009 7:36:52 AM PDT by SmithL
Mayor Gavin Newsom has repeatedly boasted of balancing San Francisco's dire budget deficit without raising taxes - but has quietly introduced hundreds of new fees and fee increases that would make living, working and traveling in the city more expensive.
Some of them are likely to be controversial, including charging youths a daily fee if they're detained at juvenile hall, charging poor people a monthly fee if they need help managing their welfare money and charging tourists - including those who live as close as Daly City - more to enjoy Golden Gate Park facilities.
The mayor has widely discussed some of the proposed fees, including slapping smokers with a 33-cent-per-pack tax and raising Muni fares and parking meter rates.
But most of the fee increases have not made it into the mayor's budget book or speeches. That's standard practice among California politicians who will do anything to avoid raising taxes - even if it means tacking on fees instead, said Barbara O'Connor, director of the Institute for the Study of Politics and Media at California State University Sacramento.
"Certainly, the mayor's doing the same thing - he doesn't want to go around the state saying, 'I've raised taxes to balance the budget,' " she said, referring to Newsom's gubernatorial campaign. "It's much more politically correct to say, 'I've balanced the budget without raising taxes.' And the footnote is, 'I've raised fees a bunch.' But that's never in the speech."
Nathan Ballard, Newsom's press secretary, said the fee increases are necessary to help the city balance its budget during grim economic times. Newsom submitted a $6.6 billion budget to the Board of Supervisors last week that bridged a $438 million deficit.
..."With cities all around us threatened with bankruptcy, this modest increase in fees is a small price to pay...
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
I am going to go slightly off-topic here, so please forgive me.
I have never vistied SF, but I understand it is a beautiful city. From what I have heard and read, though, there are parts of it, particularly on the water, that are infested with bums who sleep, urinate, and defecate right out on the street.
Recently, I was wondering why a city would allow itself to become so unattractive. Surely, I thought, there are many desireable waterfront homes and businesses whose value is plummeting because these homeless people are driving everyone away. Then, I had a flash of insight. Could it be that there are people in power with a vested interest in snapping up some wonderful real estate at bargain prices. Buy it cheap, clean up the area, and then sell at an enormous profit.
I think someone should look into this. The politicians in power would be too smart to leave a paper trail on this, but I’ll bet they have surrogates or they have friends willing to give them a big reward.
...hasn't anyone in SF ever noticed what has happened in Zimbabwe, Detroit, California...hell, just about anywhere the hard left has total power, and linked up the cause of their misery???
If we cannot keep the welfare class from controlling things thru "voting themselves largess" from the public treasury, we are in for a hard time.
SF, while a beautiful city, is infested with howling, barking, slobbering, gibbering, lunatic moonbat liberals who are now reaping what they've sown since 1968.
It ought to be just as difficult to raise fees as it is to raise taxes. The politicians are always looking for new ways to get into the citizens pocket.
San Francisco's dirtiest areas are actually away from the waterfront - the Market Street corridor, the Tenderloin, and other heavily bum-infested zones are inland a bit. So tourists who stick near the still relatively clean and new waterfront areas may never become fully aware of the problem.
It's really about the Leftists on the Board of Supervisors getting a two-for-one deal - encouraging nationwide bum immigration to make a statement about the evils of global capitalism, then shaking down local corporations for ever-greater tax revenues and donations to deal with the problem the Board has created.