Elsbernd's $4 billion question. Daly's million dollar answerSup Sean Elsbernd says that the City's pension and retiree health care obligations are, “The most crushing fiscal issue facing this City," a crush he estimates will amount to $4 billion over the next 30 years, and growing.
"If we don’t act, people are going to kick us and throw mud in our face, 20 years from now," says Elsbernd, who, along with Mayor Gavin Newsom introduced a June 2008 charter amendment today that Elsbernd claims is a "small attempt to make sure that this it stops at $4 billion."
"I look forward to future discussions with labor on this," Elsbernd says.
But Newsom and Elsbernd are proposing to reduce retirement benefits for those hired after Jan. 10, 2009, increase years of service required to qualify for health benefits at retirement and adjust the formula for calculating retiree health benefit subsidies. Which is why labor may well decide to back a dueling charter amendment that Board President Aaron Peskin introduced today with Sups. Ross Mirkarimi, Geraldo Sandoval, and Tom Ammiano as co-sponsors.
That's because, the way SEIU 1021's Robert Haaland sees it, Newsom and Elsbernd's proposal is a “takeaway."
"We want to create incentives to recruit and retain people," explains Haaland of why his organization is backing Peskin's proposal: "If they are going take something away, we want something in return."
Peskin's charter amendment seeks to establish a health service system trust fund. And while it is proposing to reduce employer contributions for retiree medical benefits for people hired after June 30 08 and those with less than 15 years of service, it is however seeking to improve benefits for retirees and employees who stay in service to age 60.
Admitting that health and retirement benefits are a "large liability" for the City and County of San Francisco, Peskin says "I want to be fair to the 28,000 people who work for us, along with many retirees and future employees."
Meanwhile, Sup. Chris Daly's affordable housing charter amendment, which already had the backing of Sups. Ammiano, Mirkarimi and Peskin, picked up Sups. Geraldo Sandoval, Jake McGoldrick and Sophie Maxwell as additional co-sponsors, and Sup. Bevan Dufty signaled his support, making Daly's proposal a virtual shoe-in for the June (oops, I should have written , November) 2008 ballot (see Daly's comment below). Which is huge news for all those struggling to make housing more affordable in this City.
But a vote was delayed until January 8, 2008, after Maxwell asked for an amendment to clarify that some of the baseline funding could be used for affordable housing out of Hope SF.
"I'm feeling like a million dollars," Daly said of the Board's support for his proposal, which would be the first significant funding set aside for affordable housing in this city in a decade.
Daly's charter amendment sets aside the equivalent of two and one-half cents per $100 dollars of assessed property tax for the next 15 years, requires the Mayor's Office of Housing to prepare an affordable housing plan every three years, plus an annual affordable housing budget. It also affirms CIty policy urging the Redevelopment Agency to use at least 50 percent of its tax increment funds for low and moderate income housing.
digg •
del.icio.us •
sphere •
google
•
Comments (3)
It is true that the Affordable Housing Charter Amendment appears to be headed to the ballot. However, it will be on in November 2008, not June.
Also, I said I feel like $100, which I think is still pretty good.
Posted by Chris Daly | December 11, 2007 09:42 PM
i don't know how they calculated the $4 billion number, but assuming that this is in current dollars, it amounts to only about 2% of the city's current $6billion annual budget over that time period. its a sizable amount of money, but is the sky really falling enough to justify such a takeaway? that question hasn't really been asked by the guardian or other media (kinda like some questions don't get asked or are simply ignored in the whole social security debate).
Posted by wideye | December 12, 2007 11:55 AM
before we spend any additional taxpayer money on affordable housing, has anyone ever tried to figure out how many rentals are not on the market because of our rent control laws and heavily renter friendly judicial system? just curious.
Posted by james | December 14, 2007 07:57 AM