San Francisco Wants to Charge $3 Per Trip To/From City

People in the San Fransisco Bay Area are beside themselves, after hearing the news that the city of San Fransisco is contemplating charging commuters $3 to leave and enter the city during rush hour:

Peninsula residents are upset about a proposal to charge commuters $6 each weekday to enter and exit San Francisco to the south, calling the plan "a slap in the face," "a crazy idea" and "ridiculous."

Already dealing with some of the nation's highest gas prices and, in some cases, hefty parking fees, drivers crossing the San Mateo County-San Francisco border would pay rush hour tolls to fund local transportation upgrades and, in theory, reduce traffic jams, under a proposal by San Francisco officials.

Officials said they would spend $60 million to $100 million to set up the electronic system, coupled with local transit improvements, starting in 2015. It would be the first local "congestion pricing" system in the country and could begin as a 6-to-12-month pilot program that, if successful, could become permanent.

Under the plan, drivers leaving or entering San Francisco at the southern border would pay $3 from 6:30 to 9:30 a.m. and another $3 from 3:30 to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays, with a daily cap of $6. Commuters would pay up to $130 per month, or $1,500 in a year, if the tolls last that long.

It'll reduce traffic jams during rush hours, for sure, because no one will want to pay. Instead, rush hour will be moved to 4am-6am and 6:30-8pm, or it'll move the traffic jams off the highways and onto the residential or commercial streets, as people exit off the highway, in order to go around and avoid the toll booths.

Really, this is about three things. First, they are trying to get money to pay the bills and debts that they are racking up with all of their wild spending and create an end-around to raising taxes. Second, they are trying to limit carbon emissions.

This would be a huge business and jobs killer for San Fransisco. Some people who cannot afford to pay yet another bill/tax and, because of family obligations, can't change their schedule to avoid the toll times may end up quitting the jobs that they have in the city and find jobs elsewhere. Plus, those that go into the city to do business and/or go shopping will shy away from going into the city and take their business elsewhere, if they are charged a toll. This is an example of the type of economy-killing ideas that are driving people away from such lunacy.

This could, also, start a toll war in between San Fransisco and the surrounding cities:

Daly City Councilman David Canepa said he thought the worst part of the plan was that it was being done "under the guise of trying to get people to take public transportation."

"It's absolutely nonsensical," said Canepa, who also called the plan terrible, atrocious and egregious. "It's a slap in all of our faces. They're trying to make San Mateo County residents pay a tax because over the years they haven't made proper investments in their infrastructure."

Locals also wondered why San Francisco would be getting all the money even though the border is shared by both counties, and what would stop other cities from copying them.

"We could do the same thing; it'd be a nightmare," warned Assemblyman Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, of a toll at the same border to fund Peninsula projects, or tolls at each of the borders of all the local cities. "It sounds like another crazy idea. Where do you stop nickel and diming people? You should be able to travel from city to city without paying a toll."

This will not end well, if it is implemented. However, because of all of the negative reactions to this idea coming from just about everyone and the high cost of $60-100 million just to start the program, I doubt that this will get off of the ground, but then again, this is the city that Pelosi is from and where ultra-liberal idiocy abounds and thrives without restraint. So, who knows?

Happy Meals Are Happy Again After San Francisco Mayor Newsom Surprisingly Vetoes Happy Meal Ban

Kids all across the Bay area can rejoice. The stand-off between Ronald McDonald and the City of San Francisco is finally over:

San Francisco, California, Mayor Gavin Newsom vetoed Friday the city's ban on most McDonald's Happy Meals with toys.

In making the veto, the mayor released a new report on how a public-private partnership is combating childhood obesity and how San Francisco's more than 55,000 public school students are now eating fresher and healthier foods.

"Parents, not politicians, should decide what their children eat, especially when it comes to spending their own money," said Newsom. "Despite its good intentions, I cannot support this unwise and unprecedented governmental intrusion into parental responsibilities and private choices."

Genius: SF Mayor Newsom Thinks It's OK To Be Sued In Order to Raise Soda Fees While Running For Governor

Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco has a brilliant idea: add new "fees" on sodas in the middle of a falling economy where California, as a whole, has seen unemployment reach 12.2%, East Bay and San Francisco/San Mateo regions has risen to11.9% and 9.5%, respectively.

Newsom would need voter approval to tax individual cans of soda and sugary juice, but only needs approval from the Board of Supervisors to levy a fee on retailers. His legislation would charge grocery stores like Safeway and big-box stores, but would not affect restaurants that serve sodas.

Newsom wouldn't say how much the stores would have to pay or how the city would spend the fees. When he first floated the idea in 2007, he said the money would go to his Shape Up San Francisco exercise program and for media campaigns to discourage soda drinking.

The mayor said the city attorney's office has warned him the city would probably be sued over the matter, but he said it is worth the risk to try to curb a leading cause of obesity and diabetes.

"We know we'll be sued," he said. "But I really believe this is important to do."

Let me get this straight, he's willing to waste millions of taxpayer dollars to fight a lawsuit in order to raise taxes that he will use to pay for healthcare. Why? Depending on how the court case goes, he could spend more on lawyers and court fees than he'll get in new tax revenue. Liberal math strikes again.

Another thing is that in California it is the law that voters must ok all taxes raises. So, Gavin must instead institute new "fees" to find a way around that law. In reality, "fees" are really taxes by another name. So, he is theoretically violating California law by not allowing voters to vote on whether they want their taxes raised or not.

Why would he do such a thing? He knows that no one in their right mind would vote for higher taxes, not even in ultra-liberal San Francisco. History has shown that to be true.

Liberal democracy in action?

He says that he's doing this for San Franciscans to "Shape Up San Francisco". Apparently, he thinks there are too many fat people that don't know what's good for them. So, he's going to decide what's good for them.

"It makes sense for the government to help people to make the right choices, and it makes sense to use dollars from charges on sweetened beverages on health programs," he said.

It doesn't make sense to me or to most Americans. They are very wary of nanny states and of federal interventions into their everyday lives. Where will it all stop? New taxes on doughnuts? Fried chicken? Pizza?

He is doing in the middle of his campaign to become the next governor of California. Is this really the best thing to do to win in 2010? Is raising taxes on people who have repeatedly voted down tax raises in a bad economy while trying to institute a "nanny state", interventionist policy a successful formula for a win next year? Probably not. Not even in the liberal state of California.

San Francisco Passes Law Forcing Everyone to Recycle Or Be Fined

The heavily Democratic city of San Francisco has intruded in the lives of every one of their citizens once again:

The Board of Supervisors has approved legislation requiring all residents and businesses to recycle and compost or face hefty fines.

By its own estimation, the city already has the highest recycling rate in the country at 72 percent. But Supervisor Bevan Dufty said it can do more.

The new law approved Tuesday will force landlords and commercial building owners to sign up for recycling and composting services or face fines of up to $500, he said.

While I believe that recycling should be done by everyone, I don't believe that it should be forced on us by the goverment. It is not their place to be our parents.

Great News: SF Mayor Newsom Running For CA Governor: Just When We Thought California Couldn't Go Further Left

Great news is coming in fresh off the presses:

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has made it official—he's running to become California's next governor.

Mayor Gavin Newsom is a ultra-liberal Democrat. He has led the city of San Francisco into a liberal wonderland of universal healthcare, all but totally legalized pot, sanctuary city policies on steroids, and same-sex marriage. He did all this while bulding a amazing deficit of $576 million This respresents the "worst fiscal crisis in the city since the Great Depression". Now, he wants to do the same with the state of California.

Yeah!

California is on the verge of bankruptcy now. If elected, Newsom will just go ahead and push California the rest of the way into the Pacific.

With regards to the universal healthcare plan, he said this to say in a recent interview:

In fact, last week we just announced we’ve increased the opportunity for people earning up to $106,000 for a family of four. Expanding our universal health plan for people earning up to 500 percent of poverty.

Does a family making over $100 K a year really need socialized healthcare, or is it a waste of money? Considering that San Francisco is over half of a billion in the hole every year, I would go with a waste of money.

The Imperial Valley Staff sums it all up nicely:

We applaud anyone for stepping up and running, and are pleased to see some youthful energy. But we believe Newsom represents the exact thing that has gotten California into such a financial hole. We need someone who will make tough choices in serving the people, not embrace huge new government programs and taxes, which could certainly happen under Newsom if his record is any indication.

Pelosi: Gitmo Alums, Not in My Backyard

Pelosi Shrugs off Alcatraz as Possible Terror Detention Facility Republicans opposing an Obama administration order to close Guantanamo Bay prison facility within a year suggest sending terror detainees to House Speaker Pelosi's district.
FOXNews.com
Sunday, January 25, 2009

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Sunday shrugged off Republican suggestions that the federal government reopen Alcatraz prison in her San Francisco district to house detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

President Obama this week signed an executive order calling for the closure of the prison at Guantanamo within the year. Republican Rep. Bill Young then suggested to White House counsel Greg Craig that the prisoners who could not be released back to their home countries or sent to a third country be put up in "the Rock," the famous military installation and prison that closed down in 1963 and is now part of the National Park Service.

Asked whether that was a serious proposal, Pelosi said, "It is -- no."

"Perhaps he's not visited Alcatraz," Pelosi said of Young while displaying little sense of humor. "Alcatraz is a tourist attraction. It's a prison that is now sort of like a -- it's a national park."

That explanation didn't stop House Minority Leader John Boehner from repeating the suggestion on Sunday, making that point that closing down Guantanamo by year's end may not be the best plan considering the recidivism rate of terrorist detainees is about 12 percent. 

"If liberals believe they ought to go, maybe we ought to open Alcatraz," Boehner, R-Ohio, told NBC "Meet the Press." Being reminded that Alcatraz is a national park, Boehner responded, "It's very secure."

The argument is just the latest iteration in an ongoing dispute over what to do with the remaining 245 enemy combatants who were to be tried in military commissions until a stay was ordered by the president last week in one of his first official acts.

Boehner said the promise to close Guantanamo by year's end is impractical. 

"Unilaterally saying it without knowing how were going to deal with them keeps a campaign promise, but may be irresponsible," he said.

But Pelosi called the plan to use the next year to review the case of each detainee is "brilliant." 

"What the president put forth was very wise. He said he's going to close Guantanamo, take the time to do it. You can't just go down there today and say, 'Everybody out,' and lock the door. They're going to review the cases, narrow it down and then go from there. ... It's brilliant," she said on ABC's "This Week."

Vice President Biden, speaking on CBS' "Face the Nation," said the prison must be closed because the symbolism of Guantanamo around the world has resulted in the growth of terrorist organizations, not their reduction. 

"There's no question it has to be closed. And we don't think it's inconsistent to deal with our national security and our Constitution. ... That's why we have the White House counsel -- Mr. Craig is now going through this meticulously, deciding what we're going to do with each and every prisoner," he said.

Biden added that if the detainees went through the civilian court system and were somehow released, they still would not be sent out into the United States because all but one is an American citizen.

"If they are not a U.S. citizen or if they are not here legally, then, even if they were released by a federal judge, they would not be able to stay here in the United States. They would be sent back to their country of origin. They would not stay here," Biden said. 

"They have no legal status to stay here, I don't anticipate that happening. What I anticipate happening is that those people who are in a situation where it is either the evidence is in question or it's going to be hard to make a case, we will most likely be rendering them back to their countries of origin or another country," he continued, adding that some countries have already agreed to establish prison facilities for the detainees.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/25/pelosi-shrugs-alcatraz-possible-terror-detention-facility/
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

This sounds like a good idea to me. Alcatraz was a military and maximum security prison for almost 100 years. The island's building will have to be renovated because of decades of salt water erosion. However, this will "stimulate" the economy in San Francisco. Since the far left wing is the main opponents of the terrorists being taken out of Cuba, they should be the ones to take them in. Now, you can't get any further left than Nancy Pelosi and her San Francisco district.