Mayor Lee's call for more hearings gets wary reception

|
(41)

Labor and the Left came out strongly against Mayor Ed Lee’s proposed charter amendment to require all city legislation be delayed and subjected to hearings by the Small Business Commission and other commissions if it might cost private sector jobs, putting its prospects of making the ballot in doubt.

 “This legislation is one, unnecessary; two, unbalanced; and three, divisive,” Mike Casey, president of the San Francisco Labor Council – whose executive committee voted unanimously to oppose the legislation – said during today’s Rules Committee hearing on the measure.

He and other labor leaders noted that members of the business community have plenty of opportunities to weigh in on legislation it opposes, but Lee’s proposal would elevate employers’ interests far above those concerning the environment, consumers, public health, or workers. “This legislation gives one stakeholder undue power in the democratic process, which is undemocratic,” said Kate Hegé of La Raza Centro Legal, which represents day laborers and other immigrants.

Teacher Ken Tray of United Educators of San Francisco said, “Often times ‘jobs’ is used as a red herring to divert the city from doing what it needs to do.” It was a common theme, as opponents of the proposal noted that paid sick leave, the local minimum wage, and requiring employee health benefits were all fiercely opposed by the business community. “Anything that raises workers up, we’re told it’s a job killer,” said Larry Bradshaw of SEIU Local 1021.

Small business representatives – a bit sheepishly, given the tenor of the hearing, and without support from their downtown brethren – said they were simply looking for the ability to express their concerns. “We’ve tried to let small business have a voice at the Board of Supervisors,” said longtime small business advocate Scott Hauge, a regular at City Hall.
Keith Goldstein of Potrero Dogpatch Merchants Association said, “We feel we don’t have a say in this process.”

Mayor’s Office board liaison Jason Elliott emphasized that Lee’s charter amendment would create a delay and an extra hearing or two, but that supervisors would still be free to approve the legislation anyway. “This is about public participation and feedback,” Elliott said.

But Sup. David Campos, who led the questioning of Elliott, wasn’t buying it. “What’s the reason behind this? Is there a specific reason the Mayor’s Office has decided to do this now and through a charter amendment?” Campos said, probing for instances in which the Mayor’s Office thought the business community hadn’t been heard.

Elliott continued to say it was about emphasizing jobs and taking more public input, but he couldn’t explain what’s lacking currently or what’s muting employers. Campos thanked the Mayor’s Office for being willing to work with supervisors and accept amendments – including many introduced today, which delayed the vote on the measure until next week.
But Campos questioned the need for the legislation, comparing it to the hollow jobs rhetoric from the current field of Republican presidential candidates. “It’s not just the number of jobs you have, it’s the quality of those jobs,” Campos said.

(Side note: the Mayor’s Office issued a press release today celebrating the first two businesses to take advantage of last year’s controversial mid-Market payroll tax exemption, Zendesk and Pearl’s Deluxe Burgers, which created 56 jobs between them. And to help create those great burger joint jobs, Pearl’s got Redevelopment Agency assistance, a low-interest city loan, and an exemption from the payroll tax. For hiring burger flippers that probably make minimum wage. But I digress…)

Campos said that everyone in City Hall wants to see more good jobs in the city, “but I don’t believe this is a constructive approach.” Sup. Jane Kim echoed the sentiment, saying private sector job creation isn’t the only imperative. “Lowering our minimum wage to $3 or $1 an hour would create plenty of jobs in San Francisco,” she said.

Even the more conservative third committee member, Sup. Mark Farrell, said he tends to agree with his committee colleagues and made the motion to continue the item until next week, when its prospects for passage look weak unless Lee can convince them that there’s more to this measure than just political grandstanding.

Comments

more public input?

A Bay Guardian progressive opposes a city commission.

A Bay Guardian progressive complains about red herrings.

A Bay Guardian progressive complains about a politician grandstanding.

Posted by matlock on Jan. 27, 2012 @ 1:58 am

San Francisco already has more jobs than residents.

We need jobs that 1) employ unemployed San Franciscans and 2) pay taxes.

That is all.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 27, 2012 @ 7:36 am

Any downtown business area will have "more jobs than residents". That's why we have downtown areas and business areas in the first place!

And generally speaking, cities with more jobs than residents are successful - just look at Emeryville.

Moreover, there is a significant mismatch between the jobs skills needs in SF and the skills of those who live here. That's why we have a large population that commutes into SF every day, and also why we have a lot of SF residents who travel down to Silicon Valley to work.

The real problem here is your NIMBY attitude towards jobs. We shouldn't be pitting cities against each other at all. We want vibrant economic activity in the Bay Area and invariably that means people going to where the jobs are that match their skills, and not engaging in socila engineering projects.

Lee is correct here, and was elected on a jobs mandate. He's just doing what he told us he would do if elected, and we elected him.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 27, 2012 @ 8:55 am

San Francisco as a City has more jobs than residents, not just the downtown core. Adding more jobs to San Francisco means putting more load on overburdened transportation networks, both Muni and regional. Better to put unemployed San Francisco on Muni to get to their new jobs than to cater to the bridge and tunnel crowd.

If these jobs don't pay taxes, then the costs of subsidizing those systems falls to the rest of us.

Your cliche words "NIMBY" and "vibrant" don't work anymore. We know that NIMBY is coded dog whistle to marginalize public participation.

And we know that "vibrant" is booster speak for more people than are here now, only nicer and with more money.

I'm just saying that government is being run as an extraction enterprise where the residents of San Francisco are being leeched and fleeced by the already wealthy to become more wealthy. We need government that acts by and for our interests first. I can see who boosters that get rich off of extraction via rent seeking might oppose this.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 27, 2012 @ 9:52 am

think only about the city, rather than take a broader Bay Area wide perspective.

There is little point to SF fighting Oakland, San Jose, Marin and other places just a few miles away. We are all part of a much larger, 5 million strong community, and it's time to start thinking that way rather than small fiefdoms.

Some cities will be business centers and some will be residential communities. Doesn't matter, and 'twas ever so.

And SF government is being run the way it is because that is exactly what we voted for. We just sent a message that we want strong pro-jobs policies. We don't want the city run for unions, activists, non-profits and protestors. We want it run for the silent majority who want to see successful businesses creating more jobs, with all the prosperity that that brings.

Avalos offered an alternative but the voters rejected that. So why would we now implement Avalos policies anyway? That makes no sense

Posted by Guest on Jan. 27, 2012 @ 10:10 am

Your rhetoric doesn't match the policies that your guy is advocating, Guest, which are all about San Francisco competing with these other cities in a race to the bottom that only benefits employers, not workers. If we're all in this together, why are we slashing taxes to prevent local businesses from moving down the peninsula. It's a transparent scam by neoliberal corporatists, plain and simple. "Jobs" is indeed a red herring.

Posted by steven on Jan. 27, 2012 @ 10:35 am

The world has gotten more competitive at every level. And meanwhile, more and more work is knowledge work, that only requires an internet connection and so can be done anywhere. Outsourcing, immigration, cloud computing and international networks means that it matters less and less where something is done.

Even so, while it makes some sense for the US to compete with Europe and Asia, and California to compete with Taxes. It makes little or no sense for SF to compete with, say, Oakland on cost. We can't do it. But we can compete by offering an attractive tax and regulatory environment, and this is what I think Lee is seeking to achieve.

You may not like his polcy on jobs but you can't complain given that he stood on exactly such a platform, and won easily.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 27, 2012 @ 11:12 am

Voters did not vote to subsidize the wealthy and race to the bottom because no candidate ran on that. Running on jobs does not grant the winner license to fleece San Franciscans in order to deliver SPUR's metropole fantasies.

San Franciscans want jobs that employ those of us who are unemployed and which don't require constant subsidy.

Housing and land use patterns already put into place by the free market have determined that there will be many job centers and many housing centers.

Why are you using state power to challenge the magic of the marketplace? Did Ed Lee run for mayor stating that he was going to make San Francisco the employment center for the entire bay area, adding more fuel to a bad planning fire? Or did he just run on creating plain, vanilla jobs?

Posted by marcos on Jan. 27, 2012 @ 10:52 am

Everyone knows that and everyone voted accordingly. There was a clear contrast with Avalos who could not bring himself to utter a single pro-business statement. He paid the price by losing easily.

And now Lee is enacting policies that reflect what the voters told him that they wanted - more emphasis on real, welath-creating, private sector jobs. And less "fake work" goivernment jobs that just mean higher taxes.

We've got a real chance now to build a competitive platform for SF to grow and prosper. This policy is a reasonable start.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 27, 2012 @ 11:15 am

It's simply incorrect to say Avalos didn't support job creation, something he mentioned in just about every stump speech he gave during the election. Every candidate did and everyone wants to ensure San Francisco has plenty of good jobs for those who live here. That's not even a point of contention. But saying "jobs" when you really mean "business tax cuts" or "corporate welfare" is a different issue, and Lee only spoke about these things in code, for his wealthy backers like Ron Conway. It's a mistake to assume most voters were casting their ballots for corporate welfare programs or waiving the payroll tax for those who hire burger flippers. And it's ridiculous to argue that the business community doesn't have plenty of opportunities to weigh in on legislation, as it regularly does now. 

Posted by steven on Jan. 27, 2012 @ 1:00 pm

I can't recall him ever saying how how planned to cut taxes and regulations for the private sector. Can you recall him ever saying that?

The only policy I recall was a local hire ordinance, which doesn't really create jobs at all but merely steals them from neighboring counties. Moreover it can depress the quality of those hired by artifically restricting the pool of applicants.

Otherwise, Avalos's only other idea was, no doubt, more hiring for the public sector, which of course requires job-killing tax hikes.

Voters saw clearly who was the real pro-jobs candidiate and gave him an easy election. So why act surprised now?

Posted by Guest on Jan. 27, 2012 @ 1:07 pm

Progressive and liberal economists like Krugman, Stieglitz and Hudson all see a role for expanded state spending and employment to combat demand crimped by the credit crimes and the unemployment they've created.

All of this socialist mutual aid you keep suggesting where San Francisco should take care of other counties' workers before our own, can you pry open your wallet and give me some of your cash? Why are you stealing cash and not sharing it with me?

Posted by Guest on Jan. 27, 2012 @ 1:34 pm

government does not create prosperity. Somebody actually has to create the wealth that governments consume, and without a private sector, we'd have to slash government spending and services.

We don't have to take care of other counties but we also should not engage in petty beggar-thy-neighbor policies either. If Sf cannot grow jobs without stealing them from our neighbors then we're failing as part of our larger membership of the bay area community.

We need real jobs and that comes from the private sector. Lee and the voters get that.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 27, 2012 @ 1:42 pm

The government grew under Bush I and Clinton and the economy hummed. Clinton benefited from Bush I's tax hikes.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 27, 2012 @ 2:09 pm

situation vis a vis the rest of the world declined, the dollar declined, and the deficits grew massively.

That's why no serious economist believes that's the solution.

We need to contain public spending and encourage the creation of wealth. This idea is just one small step but it's in the right direction.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 27, 2012 @ 2:34 pm

Idiot. When the dollar declines, US exports are more competitive. The federal government ran surpluses in the mid 1990s.

Of course the us manufacturing base was hollowed out by deregulation of the finance sector at the same time, deregulation which made leveraged finance more attractive to investors than manufacturing because finance could generate 30-40% ROI while manufacturing in general has a hard time eclipsing 8% on a good day.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 27, 2012 @ 2:45 pm

If trashing the dollar could make us all rich, that would have happened by now.

And leveraged finance allows more effective investment in all spheres of activity. The US doesn't make thigns any more ebcause we pay ourselves too much.

The US came to reatest with a small government, and has declined with a large government. That tells you all you need to know. We've become the very things the founding fathers feared - we've become Europe.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 27, 2012 @ 3:29 pm

You think Americans are overpaid?

Posted by marcos on Jan. 27, 2012 @ 11:46 pm

But Avalos's message was that he was going to cater to his union masters and extort more money from the citizens.

Avalos's code words did him in.

Posted by matlock on Jan. 27, 2012 @ 1:34 pm

Anyone looking at this objectively can see what the practical effect of this would be. Any legislation opposed by the Chamber would be bottled up in obscure committees for months or years, effectively killing it. Health care, sick leave, minimum wage, chain store restriction, domestic partner legsilation, historic preservation laws, and many other progressive reforms that have enjoyed broad support over the years... none of it would ever have passed if we had this in place. The Chamber is effectively asking for permanent veto power, and that appears to be too embarrassing even for the likes of Mark Farrell to support.

Posted by Greg on Jan. 27, 2012 @ 9:22 am

so what else can he do?

If Avalos had won on an anti-business platform, would you be complaining if the unions were given a similar kind of "veto".

Sorry, Greg, but this is why we have elections - to establish platforms and mandates.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 27, 2012 @ 9:52 am

This is ridiculous. There was no mandate to give the Chamber a perpetual veto over any legislation they don't like. Even Mark Farrell, who's as conservative as they come in this town, is shying away from supporting that. This is overreach of Scott-Walker proportions. Progressives have never, and would never, support anything on this scale.

Posted by Greg on Jan. 27, 2012 @ 11:08 am

because the progressive candidiate lost easily.

And who are you to say what Lee was elected to do given that you didn't vote for him? I did vote for him and can tell you that this was exactly the kind of pro-jobs initiative I had in mind in doing so. He may not have specifically outlined this policy item but it is certainly consistent with what I believed he could, should and would do.

Speak for yourself and not for the majority that elected Lee.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 27, 2012 @ 11:17 am

Lee's platform was public. Where in Lee's platform did he propose giving the Chamber of Commerce, the people behind Citizens United, veto power over legislation?

Posted by marcos on Jan. 27, 2012 @ 11:25 am

Lee didn't prescribe exactly what policies he would pursue in minute detail. No electoral candidiate does. What he did was define the over-riding principle that would underpin his economic policies.

And every observor noted how much Lee focused on jobs and business. No shock there since that is precisely what most voters indicated was their number one issue.

So Lee listened to the voters and laid out his stall for all to hear. If the anti-business candidate lost, and he did, he can only blame his failure to listen.

That's a more general problem with the left - they'd rather talk to the voters and tell them what they should want, rather than listen to them about what they actually want.

Lee listened, put out his direction, got voted in on that and is now keeping his word. It takes a special kind of self-involvement to decry that.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 27, 2012 @ 11:42 am

Lee also repeatedly said that he agreed with the goals and worldview of the Occupy movement, even though he didn't like when it camped out in public squares. Politicians say lots of contradictory things. Do you think he has a voter mandate to increase taxes on the 1 percent and push legislation that refuses to recognize corporate personhood? I'd say so, probably more than his mandate for corporate welfare. That's the thing about "jobs" rhetoric, it's essentially meaningless by itself, but it's used by politicians to play off of people's economic insecurities and win votes. Only later -- in this case, during his inauguration when he proposed this dumb idea -- does it manifest in actual policies that we can judge on their merits.

Posted by steven on Jan. 27, 2012 @ 1:09 pm

Occupy is enjoying it's 15 minutes of fame, then leaders will pay lip service to it. while of course being careful not to identify too closely with it, like Obama deftly did the other day.

Occupy isn't going to create any jobs. The private sector will. Lee knows this.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 27, 2012 @ 1:44 pm

If Ed Lee would have run on the platform of I want to shift the burden for job creation exclusively onto the backs of San Franciscans, he would have lost.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 27, 2012 @ 11:48 am

Again, it was obvious that Lee was standing on a jobs growth platform. and since we all know the public sector must shrink, that means a pro-business policy.

Now I don't believe that governments can create jobs. but theyc an certainly get out of the way of job creation by advocating pro-prosperity policies like this.

If there were another mayoral election tomorrow, Lee would still win easily.

Ross, of course, would not.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 27, 2012 @ 12:37 pm

Ed Lee did not run on shrinking the public sector.

Government created millions of jobs the last time that the banks crapped all over Wall Street and the economy as a whole.

Progressives lost in 2011 because progressives declined to govern outside their shrinking comfort zone when they held power in the 2000s.

Declining turnouts indicate that voters are alienated, probably due to rampant corruption across the board.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 27, 2012 @ 12:50 pm

to tackle the public sector deficit and that of course means shrinking headcount. Lee may not have focused on that explicitly but it was clear Lee was the only real, credible pro-business candidate.

That is what the people wanted and that is what they are now getting. I'm very comfortable with his policies so far.

Progressives lost in 2011 for the same reason they lost in 2010 and almost every other year. they don't have a critical mass of support. Most Sf'ers are moderate, not "progressive".

Posted by Guest on Jan. 27, 2012 @ 1:10 pm

Idiot. San Francisco has no general fund debt because it runs no ongoing operations deficit. The California constitution prohibits that.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 27, 2012 @ 1:23 pm

SF runs a large debt, and carries a structural deficit that it is forced to paper over every year thru tricks and denial.

If you think sf is solvent, you're in never never land. The pensions deficit alone is probably at least a trillion and nobody on the left has a clue how to deal with it, so they ignore it.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 27, 2012 @ 1:46 pm

There are in general two types of municipal debt that San Francisco holds: revenue bonds and general obligation bonds. Revenue bonds pay interest to borrow against an interest stream so resources can be invested all at once. General obligation bonds are paid out of the general fund and can only be used for capital projects, to get the resources up front to invest at once and pay down.

The City has no structural deficit and as such has no structural debt. It has outstanding capital debt which is not budget debt and is well within accepted guidelines for a city with San Francisco's revenue profile.

I'm sure we can just cut taxes and the resulting economic bonanza will generate enough wealth for everyone that we'll all retire rich.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 27, 2012 @ 2:04 pm

other cities are in serious fiscal problems. You can dance around that but the evidence is sufficiently obvious that your sticking your head in the sand holds no credibility.

But of course if you really were right, then we could cut taxes since, according to you, there is no deficit. So what are we waiting for? Let's have more Twitter-style tax breaks.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 27, 2012 @ 2:31 pm

A trillion? That's excessive, even for hyperbole. You don't have to make up numbers, you know.

http://www.sfcontroller.org/index.aspx?page=467

Posted by Ed on Jan. 28, 2012 @ 4:14 am

The use of charter amendements to subvert democracy sets a dangerous precedent. We might learn a thing or two by studying what happened in San Diego when right wing pols and far right business associations attempted to change the city charter. It soon became clear that their real goal was to push back on progressive policies by using the charter to repeal living wage ordinances and local hire programs, privatize services and undermine unions.

Mayor Lee claims that he would like to be mayor for 100% of SFers, so why is he giving so much power to one group (the Chamber and business interests)? Sorry, I don't buy the jobs argument for reasons that others have already pointed out. But I can't think of anything more baldly, anti-democratic than this measure.

Here's the report from researchers from SD's Center on Policy Initiatives~

"Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of the new right wing agenda is that it seeks to make it harder to establish or reinstate progressive policies in the future by amending city charters. Examples include:

*A 2006 charter amendment encouraging privatization in San Diego.

*San Diego’s “Strong Mayor” amendments of 2008 and 2010 shifting power from city council members elected by district to a mayor elected citywide where developers and the wealthy have the advantage.

*A charter ban on Project Labor Agreements (PLAs)—the first in the nation—in Chula Vista, the second largest city in San Diego county with a population demographic that is quickly turning majority Hispanic.

"Charters adopted by Vista and Oceanside—two large cities in San Diego county—enable them to contract for public works without paying prevailing wages, or having union agreements. (On the ballot this November is a similar charter amendment for San Diego county.)

"Expensive ballot measures rather than grassroots power that wins votes on the city council are the only means to undo the damage done by the charter amendments. 'If they win here, they will have momentum going into other fights in California,' says Mark Ayers, president of the national Building and Construction Trades of the AFL-CIO. 'You can rest assured that we will see the strategy replicated in short order in other states.'”

http://urbanhabitat.org/17-2/Cohen-Baxamusa

Posted by Lisa on Jan. 27, 2012 @ 5:45 pm

Because local (and national) 'politics' and politicians, of all persuasions, are funded and controlled by corporate interests, primarily out of state - which is where they stash the loot they don't offshore.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Jan. 27, 2012 @ 6:41 pm

This is what one would expect. The best government money can buy!

Posted by Richard on Jan. 31, 2012 @ 1:33 pm

The Guest speaks like he elected someone and owns him.

You can donate all the money you want to a candidate - Citizens United saw to that.

Nothing the SCT said in that decision gives people who donate more money anymore RIGHT to be represented by their officials.

When a Mayor comes into office - regardless of who voted him in - or - like you, apparently, donated so much you have a sense of entitlement to his every action - he must represent ALL SF, not just you. Not just your interests.

If you don't like the people here, move elsewhere and buy your politicians somewhere else.

What Mayor Lee needs to be doing is clearing up the horrendous housing issue in this city, with people like you assuming you have greater right to this city than anyone else.

Before we run every decision by the Business Community, I'd like to run every Real Estate Development Project by a group of nominated citizens. 'Hum, do we really need another 4 condominums when we can't even offer affordable housing to the people in SF?'

I see project after project with the same white construction trucks outside.

I don't give a hoot how much money you have or donated. I'm not going anywhere. This is America.

SF better get some balance to its priorities or its going to look like our pockmarked Market Street. This major trolly path for tourists littered with shuttered businesses that the business community - instead of investing - is very happy to let poor artists compete to decorate to cover up the lack of care.

I mean, when Occupy was here, what did the Hotel and Business Community threaten? Why? Because they had to see something they didn't like, homeless, people urinating. Oh yeah, too bad we don't have one of those hotels in every neighborhood. Maybe then someone would give a hoot that in the Bayview people can wait 50 minutes for the next bus to come around - in the plain of day while you speed off at the thumb, demanding what 'your' politicians should do.

Your describing and inserting your rights just for voting in Lee gives me creeps, its like you really believe whatever Lee said to get your vote is some ironclad promise.

Lee takes the oath to the city and all her people.

You can vote and you can donate, but our country has laws against corruption.

When SF hasn't an affordable housing system that works - check out the Affordable housing that requires one to be a 'student' - let's call it what it is - student housing - the last thing we need if for the business community like you to push the agenda any longer.

I'm not against business, not against jobs. I'm a smart person who is educated. I have nothing against Capitalism.

I have something against people who have bastardized the Capitalism system, and caused serious imbalance in our country.

Developers in the city have made a mint taking money from all kinds of public projects.

Learn a lesson from the changing tides, and pull yourselves together.

This is not your playground, you live in a democracy and you will have to live with the 99%.

Posted by Guest Needs a Lesson in Voting and Civics on Feb. 01, 2012 @ 2:51 am

The Guest speaks like he elected someone and owns him.

You can donate all the money you want to a candidate - Citizens United saw to that.

Nothing the SCT said in that decision gives people who donate more money anymore RIGHT to be represented by their officials.

When a Mayor comes into office - regardless of who voted him in - or - like you, apparently, donated so much you have a sense of entitlement to his every action - he must represent ALL SF, not just you. Not just your interests.

If you don't like the people here, move elsewhere and buy your politicians somewhere else.

What Mayor Lee needs to be doing is clearing up the horrendous housing issue in this city, with people like you assuming you have greater right to this city than anyone else.

Before we run every decision by the Business Community, I'd like to run every Real Estate Development Project by a group of nominated citizens. 'Hum, do we really need another 4 condominums when we can't even offer affordable housing to the people in SF?'

I see project after project with the same white construction trucks outside.

I don't give a hoot how much money you have or donated. I'm not going anywhere. This is America.

SF better get some balance to its priorities or its going to look like our pockmarked Market Street. This major trolly path for tourists littered with shuttered businesses that the business community - instead of investing - is very happy to let poor artists compete to decorate to cover up the lack of care.

I mean, when Occupy was here, what did the Hotel and Business Community threaten? Why? Because they had to see something they didn't like, homeless, people urinating. Oh yeah, too bad we don't have one of those hotels in every neighborhood. Maybe then someone would give a hoot that in the Bayview people can wait 50 minutes for the next bus to come around - in the plain of day while you speed off at the thumb, demanding what 'your' politicians should do.

Your describing and inserting your rights just for voting in Lee gives me creeps, its like you really believe whatever Lee said to get your vote is some ironclad promise.

Lee takes the oath to the city and all her people.

You can vote and you can donate, but our country has laws against corruption.

When SF hasn't an affordable housing system that works - check out the Affordable housing that requires one to be a 'student' - let's call it what it is - student housing - the last thing we need if for the business community like you to push the agenda any longer.

I'm not against business, not against jobs. I'm a smart person who is educated. I have nothing against Capitalism.

I have something against people who have bastardized the Capitalism system, and caused serious imbalance in our country.

Developers in the city have made a mint taking money from all kinds of public projects.

Learn a lesson from the changing tides, and pull yourselves together.

This is not your playground, you live in a democracy and you will have to live with the 99%.

Posted by SunshiningLight on Feb. 01, 2012 @ 2:53 am