Libertarian Party of San Francisco Chair, Aubrey Freedman, helped staff the "NO on Prop I" booth at the Castro Street Fair today. Voters have not yet had a chance to read their Voters’ Pamphlets, which started arriving in San Francisco mailboxes yesterday, so many stopped at the booth to inquire what Proposition I was all about. We were happy to have the opportunity to explain!
Proposition I on the November ballot will prohibit the construction of new housing – except 100% subsidized – in the Mission District for 18 months, with the option by the Board of Supervisors to extend that moratorium for another year. From our point of view, however well-intentioned this proposal might be it is still misguided. Limiting the supply of housing will cause rents to climb even higher, and will do nothing to prevent evictions from existing housing. Building 100% subsidized housing in the Mission district to any extent remotely near what is currently needed to accommodate neighborhood growth, will not only elicit howls of “Unfair!” from other districts, but also considerably strain taxpayers’ wallet.
Here is what we have done so far:
o Carefully studied all the propositions that will appear on the ballot.
o Submitted 4 arguments to the Department of Elections (NO on A, B, F, and J).
o Presented our views on several of the propositions at elections forums.
o Posted a “yes or no” recommendations box on our website, with a link to the “Why.”
Here is what we will do between now and November:
o Continue to participate in elections forums.
o Promote our recommendations on social media.
o Send postcards containing our recommendations to registered Libertarians.
o Distribute literature at tablings.
It would be great if you joined us. Here is what you could do:
o Visit our Page and “Like” us on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/LPSF1.
o Join our Facebook Group and participate in our positive, good-vibes discussions.
o Help us to distribute literature at tablings.
o Give us your feedback, suggestions, and ideas. Click “Contact Us" on the Main Menu.
In early July, the Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) unveiled the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule (AFFH). Government believes that making a plan that does not work bigger, then it will work. The segregated inner cities of today attest to the uselessness of Lyndon Johnson’s Fair Housing Act of 1968 (FHA). Such evidence only prompted the current federal administration to enact a supersized version of the 1968 FHA. This “new and improved” version carries a worrisome twist, which popular radio host Mark Levin does not hesitate to ascribe to the actions of a “police state.”
“The AFFH can’t affect me,” you might say, “My home is not HUD guaranteed and is located in a nice little community in the outskirts of town.” Such nice little communities should expect to be the first affected by the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule.
Thanks to loyal supporters of the Libertarian Party of San Francisco, the LPSF had enough funds in its modest treasury to file four paid ballot arguments which will appear on the November 2015 voters’ pamphlet. If it were not for our commitment to serve as sometimes a lonely voice standing in opposition to government overreach, the many egregious proposals forever appearing in the voters’ pamphlet would go unchallenged. That commitment is only possible because of supporters who, not only keep our lights on, but also enable us to make our case in favor small Constitutional governmentS at the local, state and federal levels.
Please check out our soon-to-be-published recommendations for the November elections and our upcoming posts. We will offer our views on what really makes communities prosper -- which is not mountains of government subsidies that shackle initiative and mortgage our future.
Libertarians view progressive government policies such as the minimum wage, subsidized student loans, and subsidized housing as the equivalent of trying to put out a fire by dousing it with lighter fluid.
When there is a rise in the mandatory minimum wage, businesses can either raise the price of their goods or lay off workers. To think that businesses will absorb the extra cost without taking action is naïve.
The workplace used to be a lot more professionally diverse thanks to different types of instruction, such as vocational institutions, apprentice shops, and inexpensive certificate classes. Then government decided everybody needs to go to college, and poured money into subsidized student loans. Now we have sky-high tuition and college graduates taking orders at McDonalds. To think colleges will not raise tuition to capture the large amounts of government money available is naïve.
Up until the 1960s, owning a little house in which to raise a family was possible for members of a thriving middle class. There was help from the GI Bill and Fannie Mae, but most homes were privately built and privately owned. Then government decided that if a little subsidy was good, lots of subsidy would be even better. So we have a lot more people competing for housing where the subsidies are the most generous. To think that housing subsidies do not contribute to high housing prices is naïve.
Pricing mayhem is not the only result of subsidies. They grow and grow and grow, as government programs are likely to do, crowding out other investments and producing great opportunity costs. Taxpayer money that flows into government coffers to support subsidies is not available for private investments, such establishing new businesses or hiring employees.