Will Brown sign Leno's VLF bill?


We're still waiting. A bill that could bring San Francisco another $75 million a year -- just by restoring the vehicle license fee that people in this city paid before Arnold Schwarzenegger gutted it -- is still sitting on Gov. Jerry Brown's desk. And we have no idea what action he's going to take on Sen. Mark Leno's SB 223.

The good news is that he has already signed one bill that grants local governments in the East Bay to raise sales taxes with a vote of the people. So he's clearly open to the idea. Leno told us he remains hopeful. "We've been working on this for eight years," he told me. "And there's never been a time when local government needs it more."

Mayor Ed Lee has voiced his support; so has the Board of Supervisors. The SF Chamber of Commerce and the Labor Council are on board. "You can't get much more broad-based support than we have in San Francisco," Leno said.

There's a form to email the governor here.


Just a heads up to your readers~ follow the link and scroll down to SB 223 in the subject line. Here's what I wrote~

Dear Governor Brown,

I am writing to encourage you to sign Sen. Mark Leno's SB 223, which would restore the vehicle license fee. This would bring in millions of dollars to CA cities which are facing deficits and cut backs in social services. The bill has widespread, bi-partisan support, so there is no reason not to sign it. (Just do it, Jer...do it for me!) And if you really want to be a mensch, you can give us a state bank like North Dakota's ;-) Thank you.

Lisa Pelletier

Posted by Lisa on Sep. 29, 2011 @ 5:03 pm

Brown's hands in any future budget negotiations. It would also jeopardize the election prospects of Dem's in November.

Brown is right to sit on this. gouging ordinary working people with a regressive tax hike isn't sound policy.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 29, 2011 @ 5:16 pm

How has Willie Brown got anything to do with any bill Mark Leno might have?

Posted by Guest on Sep. 29, 2011 @ 7:28 pm

Oh great- the Dems want to gouge regressively again in the middle of a severe recession so they can flush more money down the toilet.

This is what I luv about you guys - cries of "tax the rich" when in reality, you always tax the poor.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 29, 2011 @ 11:24 pm

back in the 90's Pete Wilson gave the Bay Guardian a chance to pay it's "fair share" and Redmond and his pals down at the Bay Guardian had a shit fit over it, screaming about how fucked he and his pals at the Guardian were.

Now it's OK for him to remake his buzz word reality around the vehicle tax.

The vehicle tax was a state tax, in reality 2.0 it's a local tax?

Absolutely nothing is keeping the Bay Guardian from paying the tax that it went hysterical over in the 90's, nor is there any reason that Redmond can't pay the state vehicle tax to the city.

Hypocritical raping of language and the real world from a progressive who's studies outrage would freak out if PGE did same.

Posted by meatlock on Sep. 30, 2011 @ 12:51 am

The vehicle license fee was a state fee cut back by

Now it turns out to be a local fee?

What is wrong with you?

Posted by meatlock on Sep. 30, 2011 @ 12:16 am

If you're too poor to own a car, you don't pay. If you own nice fancy car, you pay more. If you own two or three, you pay even more. This is about the most progressive tax the city could levy.

PS... luv the classic concern troll "worrying" about the election prospects of Democrats when he himself is a Republican.

Posted by Greg on Sep. 30, 2011 @ 7:41 am

people who live in firther-out and more remote areas tend to be poorer AND are more reliant on a car.

While a millionaire in Nob Hill doesn't need one.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 30, 2011 @ 8:06 am

Well Paul you have to understand a unique philosophy-

That is, that every SF struggling lower middle-class family with or without a job and no health care or pension should pay more taxes to support the general fund; before City employees with an average wage and benefits of $134,000 with lifetime health care and a GUARANTEED pension pay a nickel more for their pension benefits...Truly unique indeed.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 30, 2011 @ 9:25 am

Interesting philosophy 'Guest'.

Why not simply give more, to the poor and working class that you are talking about (so they can spend it in the economy, thereby boosting that economy - in turn then boosting city revenues) instead of giving less, to City workers?

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 30, 2011 @ 9:38 am

Agree - and therefore do not support any new VLF tax. No taxes on the poor - period. Certainly support any programs for the poor/unemployed.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 30, 2011 @ 9:50 am