17 Comments

  1. John

    1) No increases in teacher pay. With their gold-plated pension and healthcare benefits, they are already very well paid

    2) Stop throwing more money at our worst schools. Rewarding failure and punishing success is the exact opposite of what successful enterprises do.

    3) Abolish SF’s antiquated and borderline racist school busing policy, and allow kids to attend neighborhood schools

    4) Place any budget surpluses in a rainy day fund for future crises. We know they will happen.

    5) Start a program of subsidies, vouchers and bursaries to enable kids to attend private schools

    6) Expand the charter school system.

    All that said, I’d rather return any “windfall” revenues back to the taxpayers. It’s our money.

    • two beers

      Both: aid SF’s poorest schools _and_ give teachers a raise.

      1. Teachers are underpaid with respect to their contribution to society, especially considering how the banker/developer/landlord/realtor lobby has made almost it impossible for working people to live in SF

      2. The worst schools are underfunded by local property taxes. Beverly Hills High gets a lot more money than Compton High. This is explicitly elitist and classist, but we are only allowed to mention class warfare when the poor unfairly ask for a better standard of living from their economic masters.

      3. At 7 x 7, all SF schools are neighborhood schools.

      4. As long as the banker/developer/landlord/realtor lobby has undue influence over SF governance, future crises are guaranteed.

      5. No more welfare for the wealthy! Make the rich pay their own way!

      6.. Charter schools have proven to provide shoddy education. It’s a scandal to provide more welfare for the wealthy while starving public institutions.

      The rest of the world values education. All of the world’s successful school systems are public. Are there even any models of successful charter school systems anywhere in the world? Why must we continue to engage in this debilitating, top-down class warfare and coddling of the spoiled elites, while punishing the underprivileged and underserved workers who prop those elites up?

      • John

        Needless to say, i think your arguments are 100% wrong. But I really don’t care because I took my kids out of the failing SFUSD system and will keep them out until 1 thru 6 are fixed.

    • two beers

      I’d rather return any “windfall” revenues back to the taxpayers. It’s our money.
      Reply

      Elites want all the benefits that society produces, but they don’t want to pay for the goods they take and the services they use.

      • John

        There is very little I need from the city. Essentially just police and fire. Most of the rest is redundant as far as I am concerned.

        • two beers

          here is very little I need from the city. Essentially just police and fire. Most of the rest is redundant as far as I am concerned.
          Fine.

          1. Don’t use our streets: no driving, biking, or walking in our town for you. No bridges for you, either! Nor can you consume any product brought in to town.
          2. Don’t use our taxpayer-subsidized water, sewer, and energy infrastructures.
          3. Don’t use our courts and government offices when you evict a tenant, sue a contractor, or protest your neighbor’s building plans
          4. Don’t complain when disease runs rampant because there is no money for health services for the underprivileged
          5. Don’t complain when the street-sweeper skips your street
          6. Don’t complain that fires proliferate because building codes are lax
          7. SFO? Sorry, you’ll have to fly out of OAK. Tourism? Who needs that? Certainly not our economy.
          8. Forget about eating in our great, city-inspected restaurants. Your cook won’t need to wash his hands before returning to work!

          etc……

          Libertarians are deluded sociopaths who, while consuming all of society’s benefits, think did it all themselves.

          You love the benefits, John- you just resent having to pay for them.

          • landline

            Thanks two beers for reminding me that I left out the public health system from my list of excellent SF public services–top notch public hospital and community health clinics.

          • John

            Many errors there, twobeers

            Water and sewage can be private, as we have with gas and electric

            Courts are state and county, not city

            I have health insurance so dont need SFGH

            Street cleaning can and should be privatized, like garbage

            Many airports are privately owned

            Note: I didn’t mean I can do without certain services, only that it is not necessary for the city to run them

            Public safety is the one thing we cannot easily outsource, privatize or abolish

          • landline

            The city and county of San Francisco are the same entity. That’s why we have a Board of Supervisors instead of a City Council. two beers was referring to the present reality of service providers not to a privatized fantasy land. That distinction is common between your differing comments.

          • John

            no, the city and country of SF have the same borders, but they are most certainly not the same thing. It is entirely possible that in the future that may not be the case, and all 8 of the other Bay Area counties have both incorporated and unincorporated areas.

            As a simple example, cops are city but sheriffs are county.

            Generally I think that counties do a better job.

          • landline

            The city and county governments are the same. How does the fact that other counties have unincorporated areas apply to San Francisco? The police and sheriff departments perform different functions. Yes, the sheriff departments are generally a county function and police departments are a city or town function, and that is true here as well in the City and County of San Francisco.

            Rather than accept a correction, you reply with some weird fantasy explanation, like “it is entirely possible that in the future that may not be the case,” or “such and such could be privatized.” What a strange trait to go along with your last worditis.

          • John

            You corrected nothing. Municipal activities are separated into city and county functions regardless of whether they are geographically aligned or not.

            It’s usually city services that cause the problems, as previously noted.

  2. landline

    We are fortunate to live in a city with such good public amenities, especially the parks, libraries, recreational facilities, public schools, community college and water system. Even the punching bag Muni system is better than almost any other public transit system for an American city of similar size. Some people would rather complain than participate in the community spirit of San Francisco and especially the Mission District. Maybe they are here in search of personal wealth rather than for the special qualities that used to distinguish San Francisco from almost anywhere else in the country.

    • John

      The main thing that distinguishes SF’s city services from many other US cities is that SF has the good fortune to have a booming economy, and therefore gets da windfall in tax revenue available to few other cities.

      So while Detroit, Harrisburg, Vallejo, Richmond and Stockton work their way through chapter 9 bankruptcy, and other cities like Oakland, San Diego and Chicago teeeter on the brink, SF’s public finances are fairly healthy.

      In other words, tech is bailing out the city family and their insane pension and healthcare benefits. For now anyway. But even so, those massive unfunded future liabilities imply that services will erode in the future as austerity is imposed upon the municipalities.

      • landline

        All the ameneties I listed were good before tech and will be good after tech finds its actual place in the realm of the economy after the speculative phase of its development ends. Other cities with more rational economies have good public services as well, even some of the “distressed” cities you list.

        Your Wall Street buddies forced conversion of pensions to 401K’s with the help of their hired politicians so they could skim, steal and profit off unnecessary products like interest rate swaps. Thanks Goldman Sachs from the people of Oakland. And of course, a hater like yourself will find any reason to predict the demise of public services that most of us or our neighbors enjoy and use. Even worse, you look for ways to privatize such services for personal gain, like charter schools, vouchers and other subsidies to the profit seekers.

        • John

          I think we should city services but only the services that the voters agree to fully fund including the city employee benefits which you know are massively underfunded and will come back to bite us.

          So you’d better hope that the tech party carries on or,like Oakland, Richmond, Vallejo and Stockton, we’ll be laying off cops and shutting down libraries just to pay out pensions and healthcare benefits to city workers who retired a decade ago.

          If there are surpluses we need to commit them to the future unfunded liabilities and not fritter them on vote-attracting schemes to ensure re-election of spinless politicians.

Comments are closed.