Ed Lee and "job killers"


Every time I hear the word "job killer" I think of the California Chamber of Commerce, which loves to affix the label to anything that might hurt corporate profits. Most environmental legislation, most pro-labor legislation, most financial regulations, anything that improves employer requriements for health insurance -- the Chamber dubs it "job killers."

And now Ed Lee is using that word to slow down progressive taxes, regulations or business mandates. He's proposing a Charter Amendment to send any bills that might cause job losses to the Small Business Commission for a "jobs impact" public hearing.

That would give another weapon to downtown interests who want to kill, say, improvements to the Healthy San Francisco law, or any changes in the business tax.

Here's what kills me: How many jobs were destroyed by the LACK of regulations over the U.S. financial industry? How many jobs were destroyed by a tax system that keeps most of the wealth concentrated in the top one percent? How many jobs were destroyed by cutbacks and layoffs in the public sector (which were a direct result of a failure to seek new revenues that business leaders would have called "job killers"?)

But we don't have a special commission weighing in on tax cuts and tax breaks that cost the city money and kill city jobs.

Assemblymember Tom Ammiano, who has to deal with the California Chamber and its lackeys, told me that Lee "is talking like a Republican, or like the moderate Democrats in Sacramento." That's not where the mayor of San Francisco ought to be.




why wouldn't we have job reviews for new rules and regs that may lead to greater unemployment?

Lee just won an election with over 60% of the "runoff" votes on a platform of being pro-jobs. So he has a clear mandate to introduce this type of progressive thinking.

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 14, 2011 @ 2:49 pm

"why wouldn't we have job reviews for new rules and regs", we do, it's called the Rules committee.

Posted by Jerry Jarvis on Dec. 14, 2011 @ 5:45 pm

But if a policy helps create private sector jobs, then Tim opposes it. In his ideal world, everyone would have a government job.

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 14, 2011 @ 5:56 pm

According to her it's pretty liberal, not progressive though, she complains about big business as much as she complains about the goofy progressives.

It somehow bothers progressives to let there schemes be looked over by adults.

Posted by matlock on Dec. 14, 2011 @ 6:43 pm

legislation has to go through too many committees.

And then a string of false analogies.

It kills me that the progressives are just as sleazy as any other group in this city, Avalos scheming his Sharp Park business through before Mikirimi fails up to sheriff. While screaming when Newsom pulled same type of scheme when he failed up to Lt. Guv.

Everyday is the first day of year zero with our progressives.

Ammaiano and Tim seem to not know who won the election for mayor.

Posted by matlock on Dec. 14, 2011 @ 4:07 pm

doesn't like, even though it specifically targets reducing unemployment.

I think Tim knows who was elected Mayor. He just doesn't like it, nor understands it. The people are always right except when they're not, I guess.

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 14, 2011 @ 4:39 pm

Progressives speak for the people (the 99% this week), sadly the people keep letting them down and voting wrong.

Posted by matlock on Dec. 14, 2011 @ 5:06 pm

voted for Lee. It's almost as if, oh, never mind.

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 14, 2011 @ 5:33 pm

The most serious job killer in San Francisco history was the Eastern Neighborhoods Rezoning of 2008/09 which Tim and the SF Guardian strongly supported. It basically prohibits businesses that use computers across most of the commercial property around Mission Bay, NE Mission, Potrero Hill and the Bayview. This action was probably responsible for much of our current economic crisis.

Posted by Guest Judy on Dec. 15, 2011 @ 10:46 am

good for business and the private sector, Tim will oppose it. Quite simply, he hates any enterprise that isn't public.

The other big job killer, of course, is the taxes, regulations and fees that are a barrier to business in SF. Which is why you see so many spanking new office and retail parks just beyond the County line, in places like Serremonte/Colma, Emeryville and Corte Madera. It only takes 10 minutes to get to any of those, which is why the City has then to bribe successful enterprises like Twitter to not leave.

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 15, 2011 @ 11:07 am

Why would we want to commit millions on Sharp Park only to have it remain a poorly maintained, under performing golf course? There’s some talk of privatizing the management of the golf course but that would necessitate dumping union jobs - something the Labor Council has fought against mightily.
Higher user fees would lock out citizens who want low-cost public golf and leaving us with another expensive course only after we tax payers pick up the tab of the capital costs.

Even today you can’t get to the Sharp Park clubhouse on public transportation, it hidden away, out of sight, out of mind. The various stake holders including San Mateo County have moved forward even after a peer review by a distinguished group of scientists who looked at the plan concluded it was unworkable. The motives aren’t clear, and the process has been less then transparent, the dollars involved are huge.

The SF Labor Council passed a resolution against privatization of public golf so why are we in cahoots with San Mateo County trying to put together a sweetheart deal with the "friends of Willie Brown" to bring in a private concessionaire at Sharp Park?

Posted by Guest on Dec. 15, 2011 @ 12:32 pm

own or manage any property or land outside of the city boundaries?

I can see a case for the half-ownership of the airport. And maybe some of the water facilities if you really believe the city should be in that business (which I don't).

But a golf course? Why is the City in that business? And isn't there one in the Presidio anyway?

Not just our problem - near bankrupt Oakland owns and runs two golf courses. why, why, why?

Just get rid of the thing, and let the city focus on the handful of things it doesn't totally suck at.

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 15, 2011 @ 12:47 pm

in 2010. Bus lets you off by the 7/11 and you have to walk the length of probably two par fours to get there.

It was in OK shape then, in the same shape as Lincoln at least. It's in better shape than the one off Mansell.

Posted by matlock on Dec. 15, 2011 @ 1:21 pm

Try dragging your clubs to Bart or Muni to make a connection to Sam Trans walk hundred of more yards to the course - play a round, then do the whole thing in reverse. Yeah, that works!

Posted by Guest on Dec. 16, 2011 @ 1:15 pm

Job killing I would say. If it wan't for the private sector who will keep the public sector afloat. This has nothing to do Sharpe Park. Growth is the key to private sector and their taxes, yes a little tax break to keep businesses in the city, nothing wrong with that. If fact you pay a non profit money, why not someone who will put something into the city piggy bank. License Fees, Sales Tax, property tax or permit fees all them same thing, money for the city, workers pay tax, growth for city.

Posted by garrett on Dec. 19, 2011 @ 9:14 pm