Tax Breaks

In Wisconsin, it’s all about jobs–249,865 of them

-
1

 

By Jess Brownell

(Jess Brownell is a freelance writer in Milwaukee who keeps a sharp eye on job-creating events in Madison, Wisconsin.)

  According to our new Governor, Scott Walker, his budget – which includes big tax breaks for the private sector and strips public employees and teachers of their collective bargaining rights – will engender a business climate that will soon produce 250,000 new jobs in Wisconsin.  Right now the outcome remains uncertain.  The battle is on, and after the battle the war will continue.   Yet who can argue with the need for jobs?  And what state couldn’t use 250,000 new ones?  So in the interest of fairness, let us put aside our differences for a moment and peer into this rosy future . . .

(The Governor of Wisconsin and an aide are showing a prospective factory site to a manufacturer who is considering moving his production facility to Wisconsin.)

WisGov:  I’m sure you’ll like it here.  We are all very proud of our natural beauty.  Why, not far from here Frank Lloyd Wright built his dazzling Taliesin.  With no help from the state, I might add.  And with my new budget and laws governing bargaining and employment we’re attracting attention all over the world.  You could lose out on this prime location if you don’t move quickly.

Mfr:  Very nice, the beauty and the Frank-What’s-His-Name and all that, but what about the nitty-gritty?  What about taxes?

WisGov:  No taxes.

Mfr:  No taxes?

WisGov:  None at all.  We’ve eliminated all taxes on business.  I would point out that even Alabama and Mississippi still collect some taxes, or try to.   We’ve given that up. So there you go.  Moving to Wisconsin just makes economic sense.

Mfr:  It’s very tempting, I must admit.  Could you tell me a little about the public school system?

WisGov:  Don’t have one.

Mfr:  No public schools?

WisGov:  Nope.  We used to have them, but after I gave the teachers the ass-kicking they had coming our damn test scores kept going down.  So we closed the public schools and now we give every kid a voucher for a private school instead.

Mfr:  And the test scores are better? 

WisGov:  That’s the beauty part.  There’s no requirement for testing private school students.  We are totally off the hook on education.  Saves a ton of money.

Aide:  We’re pretty sure that a lot of those kids can read and write.

WisGov:  And do simple sums.

Mfr:  Well, our jobs aren’t terribly demanding in that way.  But it could cause some problems in assembling a competent work force.

WsGov:  We’ve got that covered, too.  Our new laws say that you don’t have to pay any employee until you are completely satisfied with his or her performance.  It’s part of what we call the Wisconsin Idea.

Mfr:  Wow.  How long does that provision last?

WisGov:  There’s no time limit.  (Laughs.)  Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

Mfr:  Got ya.  I have to hand it to you folks in state government here.  You really do have your people on the run.  Talk about desperation!

WisGov:  I said I was going to create a business-friendly climate, and with the help of the good Lord and a Republican majority, that’s what I’ve done.

Mfr:  You’ve convinced me.  I’m moving the business to Wisconsin.  Uh, you wouldn’t throw in a sign, would you?

WisGov:  You bet we would.  Neon, if you want.  I can see it now, right out on the highway.  The H. Allen Smith Putty Knife Factory.

Mfr:  Big letters?

WisGov:  As big as you want.  By the way, how many jobs are we talking about?

Mfr:  Oh, 25, maybe 30.

Aide:  That’s really great.  (To WisGov, looking at his clipboard.)  Only 249, 865 to go.  Or 249,870, as the case may be.  (To Mfr.)  That’s counting the 105 new state workers we hired to run the Business Development Department, of course.

Mfr:  (Glancing up at the sky.)  What was that?

WisGov:  That?  Just a snowflake.

Mfr.  You have snow?

Wisgov:  It’s Wisconsin.  You have to expect a little snow in the winter.

Mfr:  There wasn’t anything in your brochure about snow.  Or winter.

WisGov:  We didn’t really think it was necessary.

Mfr:  I’m not moving anyplace that’s got winter.

WisGov:  You don’t have to live here, for God’s sake.

Mfr:  Yeah, but what if I have to come here in the wintertime for a meeting or something.  I could get snowed in.  I could slip and fall on the ice and hurt myself.

WisGov:  We’ve got snowplows.  We’ve got salt.

Mfr:  That’s just it.  I don’t want anything to do with any place that needs snowplows and salt.

WisGov:  Look, we’re burning coal and oil as fast as we can.  We buy it at a discount from the Koch brothers.  At least they assured me over the phone it was a discount.  But climate change doesn’t happen overnight, you know.

Mfr:  But you do expect a winter this year?

WisGov:  Yes.

Mfr:  And next year?

Wisgov:  Probably.

Mfr:  Sorry, but that’s a deal-breaker for me.  I’m outa here.  (Shivers, puts up his collar and hurriedly departs.)

Aide:  Well, I guess we’re back to 249, 895.

WisGov:  Goddamn wimp.

Aide:  Don’t take it so hard, Governor.  We’ve got that delegation coming in from Fiji tomorrow.  They’re sure to love it here.

Okay, the above is admittedly fanciful.  Given its current poisonous political climate, not even a putty knife manufacturer would consider moving to Wisconsin.   Also, I know the reference to H. Allen Smith is pretty obscure.  Anyone who recalls H. Allen Smith reveals a lot about both his age and his taste in literature, but I always thought that his Life in a Putty Knife Factory was one of the great American book titles.  I never thought that as a concept it would be preferable to life in Wisconsin, though.

 

Divergent views on Chiu’s challenge

Sasha Cuttler
-
86
Divergent views on Chiu’s challenge

The political season is definitely upon us, and despite all the sunny statements coming from mayoral hopefuls, I predict is going to get ugly. One gauge was the split reactions to my stories on David Chiu getting into the mayor race and how his belief that “there’s always common ground” to be attained on big issues will be tested this year.

Some in his camp were mad at how I characterized the problems progressives have with Chiu, believing it was unfair to blame two years worth of bad budget compromises and aborted progressive initiatives on him (indeed, some of his progressive colleagues did go along with some of those decisions). Then again, Green Party activist Eric Brooks was outraged that I went too easy on Chiu, writing in an online comment that Chiu has “totally betrayed and stabbed in the back the progressives who got him elected.”

As for Chiu, he was a little more circumspect about his role, and he basically agreed with the premise of my article that he’s uniquely positioned to prove or disprove his theory on governance as the board wrestles with some big issues this year.

“We have a lot of decisions coming up before us at the board on which I’ll be working with our colleagues to see if we can bridge differences and address everyone’s concerns,” Chiu told me, citing the upcoming debates over pension reform and the CPMC and ParkMerced projects as examples that will test his consensus-building approach.

An even earlier test will be the mid-Market tax breaks that he’s pushing with Sup. Jane Kim and the Mayor’s Office. All three entities have been trying to cast that vote as an unavoidable fait accompli, but many progressives and union activists are gearing up for a fight when that measure is heard by a board committee, probably on March 16.

In his campaign kickoff speech on Monday, Chiu alternatively sounded progressive themes and those of the fiscally conservative corporate Democrats. “We need to stop being a bedroom community for Silicon Valley and actually compete with Silicon Valley,” Chiu said.

Now, if competition means getting into a bidding war over which cities can offer tech companies the lowest taxes and most taxpayer-subsidized benefits, Chiu’s problems with progressives are only going to get worse. But if he’d like to address the “bedroom community” problem by building more affordable housing that working class San Franciscans can afford – rather than all the luxury condos favored by the Google set – that’s something progressives could get behind.

But Chiu’s actions this year will speak far louder than his words. And with lots of chatter still rippling through progressive circles about someone else jumping into the mayor’s race – a play that would probably come in mid-to-late summer – the clock is running for Chiu or someone else to win over the left.

The future of the San Francisco left

Zelda Bronstein
-
72
The future of the San Francisco left

That, at least, was the title of the Milk Club forum March 1. Quite a panel, too: Sups. Avalos, Campos, Chiu, Kim and Mar. Tim Paulson from the Labor Council. Former Milk Club Prez Jef Sheehy. Tiny from Poor Magazine. And me.


I told the assembled that it was worth reminding ourselves how far we’ve come — when I started in this business, in 1982, Dianne Feinstein was mayor, there was exactly one reliable progressive on the Board of Supervisors (Harry Britt) and it was impossible for grassroots types without big gobs of money to get elected to high office. I’ve lived through Feinstein, Agnos, Jordan and Brown, all (until the end of the Brown Era) with at-large boards. It was awful trying to get anything good done; all we could do was fight to prevent the truly horrible from happening. Under Brown, as Sheehy noted, San Francisco politics was locked down, tight; the machine ruled, the Democratic Party was not a force for progressive issues and only a few exceptional leaders, like Tom Ammiano, kept the spirit alive.


Today, the very fact that five supervisors showed up at a Milk Club event to talk about progressive politics shows how district elections has transformed the city and how far we’ve come.


That said, we’ve still failed to make much progress on the most important issue of the day — the gap between the rich and the poor, the fact that this city has great povery and great wealth and the utterly unsustainable economic and tax system that has made us the most socially unequal society in the industrialized world.


Sheehy talked about the schools (both he and are are parents of kids in the public schools). Good schools, he said, are one of the most important socialequalizers; with a good education, poor kids have a chance. But while our local billionaires enjoy nice tax breaks, we’re starving the schools.


Kim talked abou the need for summer school and longer school years (I would add longer school days). These are things San Francisco can do — if we’re willing. “We’re talking about taxes,” Sheehy said, and he’s right.


In the past five years, I think we’ve cut about a billion dollars out of the General Fund, labor has given back more than $300 million — and we’ve raised $90 million in new taxes. Not good enough, not even close.


Yes, the bad economy is to blame for our fiscal problems, but so is the fact that we have a tax structure that systematically underfunds the public sector. (And yes, my conservative friends, cops shouldn’t retire with $250,000 a year pensions. Got it.)


Tiny made a strong statement about the essential problem facing the city when she asked, “who isn’t here?” She didn’t just mean that there were too many white people in the room (althought that was true); she meant that there were were too many working-class and poor people who can no longer live in San Francisco.


Sheehy was even more blunt: “In five years,” he said, looking out at the room, “none of us are going to be here.”
And my essential message to the crowd (and the elected officials on the panel) was: We don’t have to accept that. These are problmes we can address, right here in San Francisco. If we want to, we can shift the burden of paying the costs of society at least a little bit off the backs of the poor and middle class and onto the rich.


Nobody directly disagreed with me. In fact, Chiu announced that “income inequality is something all of us care about.”
How agressively he and others try to turn that concern into legislation will tell us something.


Two other interesting moments:


1. Every single person on the panel talked about how important Tom Ammiano was to the modern progressive movement. One by one, every panelists described the 1999 Ammiano for Mayor campaign as a defining moment in their lives and in the emergence of today’s progressive politics. Good to see the guy get the recognition he so richly deserves.


2. Campos, who was sitting next to Chiu, made a point of saying that there’s no longer a progressive majority on the board, and he pointed to the committee assignments that gave conservatives control of some key panels. Chiu responded: “At the end of the day, we have a progressive majority on the board that will serve as a backstop” to anything bad that comes out of committees.


It was curious; it sounded almost as if Chiu was disappointed in his own assignments. Why would you need a “backstop” if the committees were good in the first place?


So I called him the next day and asked him about it. First he said he thought the commitees were balanced and it was all going to be fine. But when I asked him directly — why not appoint progressive majorities on the key committees? — he responded:


“I wish the board presidency vote hadn’t turned out the way it did.”


In other words: If the progressives had all voted for Chiu, he wouldn’t have appointed conservatives to key posts of power. Instead, some progressives voted for Avalos, and Chiu won with the votes of Carmen Chu, Scott Wiener, Sean Elsbernd and Mark Farrell (along with Kim and Mar). The payback, the deal, the whatever you want to call it, means that bad decisions will be made at Land Use and Rules and maybe in the Budget Committee, and Chiu as much as admitted that the progressive majority will have to go to unusual lengths to undo them.


I know how politics works; I know you have to dance with the ones that brung you and all that. But it would be nice if every now and then someone would do something just because it was the right thing to do, and to hell with the political consequences.


I suppose that’s too much to ask.


 

The mayor’s race: beyond compromise

Jesse Hawthorne Ficks
-
0
The mayor’s race: beyond compromise

EDITORIAL The race for mayor is now fully underway, with eight candidates declared — and at least four are fighting for the progressive vote. It’s a remarkably open field — and the fact that there’s no clear frontrunner, no candidate whose money is dominating the election, no Willie Brown or Gavin Newsom, is the result of two critical progressive reforms: public financing and ranked-choice voting.

In fact, those two measures — promoted by the progressive, district-elected supervisors — have transformed the electoral process in San Francisco and undermined, if only somewhat, downtown’s control.

As Steven T. Jones points out in this week’s issue, the leading candidates are all sounding similar, vague themes. They all say the city can work better when we all work together. That’s a nice platitude, but it reminds us too much of President Obama’s promise to seek bipartisan consensus, and it’s likely to lead to the same result.

On the big issues, the Republicans don’t want to work with the president, and big downtown businesses, developers, and landlords don’t want to work with the progressives. In the end, on some key issues, there’s going to be a battle, and candidates for mayor need to let us know, soon, which side they’re going to be on.

Sup. David Chiu, who entered the race Feb. 28, may have the hardest job: he actually has to help balance the city budget. As board president, he’ll be involved in the negotiations with the Mayor’s Office and the final product will almost certainly carry his imprimatur. It’s unlikely the progressives on the board will agree with the mayor on cuts; it’s much more likely that some will seek revenue enhancements as an alternative. Whatever Chiu does, he’ll be on the record with a visible statement of his budget priorities.

We’d like to hear those priorities now, instead of waiting until June. But either way, the remaining candidates, particularly those who want progressive and neighborhood support, need to start taking positions, now. What in the city budget should be cut? What new revenue should be part of the solution? What, specifically, do you support in terms of pension reform? How would you, as mayor, deal with the budget crisis?

Every major candidate in the race has enough familiarity with city finance to answer those questions. None should be allowed to duck or resort to empty rhetoric about everyone working together.

The same goes for community choice aggregation and public power. There is no consensus here, and will never be. Either you’re for public power and against Pacific Gas and Electric Co., or you’re opposed, weak, or ducking — all of which put you in PG&E’s camp.

There are many more issues (condo conversions, tax breaks for big corporations, housing development, help for small business, etc.) on which there has never been, and likely never will be, agreement. The people who make money building new condos will never accept a law mandating that 50 percent of all new housing be affordable (although the city’s own Master Plan sets that as a goal). The landlords will never accept more limits on evictions and condo conversions.

We’re all for working together and seeking shared solutions, but the next mayor needs to be able to go beyond that. When the powerful interests refuse to bend, are you ready to fight them?

Editorial: The mayor’s race: beyond compromise

-
0

 

The litmus test issue: Either you’re for public power and against Pacific Gas and Electric Co., or you’re opposed, weak, or ducking — all of which put you in PG&E’s camp.

The race for mayor is now fully underway, with eight candidates declared — and at least four are fighting for the progressive vote. It’s a remarkably open field — and the fact that there’s no clear frontrunner, no candidate whose money is dominating the election, no Willie Brown or Gavin Newsom, is the result of two critical progressive reforms: public financing and ranked-choice voting.

In fact, those two measures — promoted by the progressive, district-elected supervisors — have transformed the electoral process in San Francisco and undermined, if only somewhat, downtown’s control.

As Steven T. Jones points out on page 11, the leading candidates are all sounding similar, vague themes. They all say the city can work better when we all work together. That’s a nice platitude, but it reminds us too much of President Obama’s promise to seek bipartisan consensus, and it’s likely to lead to the same result.

On the big issues, the Republicans don’t want to work with the president, and big downtown businesses, developers, and landlords don’t want to work with the progressives. In the end, on some key issues, there’s going to be a battle, and candidates for mayor need to let us know, soon, which side they’re going to be on.

Sup. David Chiu, who entered the race Feb. 28, may have the hardest job: he actually has to help balance the city budget. As board president, he’ll be involved in the negotiations with the Mayor’s Office and the final product will almost certainly carry his imprimatur. It’s unlikely the progressives on the board will agree with the mayor on cuts; it’s much more likely that some will seek revenue enhancements as an alternative. Whatever Chiu does, he’ll be on the record with a visible statement of his budget priorities.

We’d like to hear those priorities now, instead of waiting until June. But either way, the remaining candidates, particularly those who want progressive and neighborhood support, need to start taking positions, now. What in the city budget should be cut? What new revenue should be part of the solution? What, specifically, do you support in terms of pension reform? How would you, as mayor, deal with the budget crisis?

Every major candidate in the race has enough familiarity with city finance to answer those questions. None should be allowed to duck or resort to empty rhetoric about everyone working together.

The same goes for community choice aggregation and public power. There is no consensus here, and will never be. Either you’re for public power and against Pacific Gas and Electric Co., or you’re opposed, weak, or ducking — all of which put you in PG&E’s camp.

There are many more issues (condo conversions, tax breaks for big corporations, housing development, help for small business, etc.) on which there has never been, and likely never will be, agreement. The people who make money building new condos will never accept a law mandating that 50 percent of all new housing be affordable (although the city’s own Master Plan sets that as a goal). The landlords will never accept more limits on evictions and condo conversions.

We’re all for working together and seeking shared solutions, but the next mayor needs to be able to go beyond that. When the powerful interests refuse to bend, are you ready to fight them?

 

Dick Meister: Scapegoating Public Empoyees

Maria Poblet
-
7

Dick Meister, formerly labor editor of the SF Chronicle and KQED-TV Newsroom, has covered labor, politics and other matters for a half-century.

Let’s pause for a moment to recognize some of our most important, yet most maligned workers. They are teachers and librarians. Police officers and firefighters. Bus drivers, doctors and nurses. Judges, lawyers, gardeners. They’re laborers and other maintenance and construction workers, and many others who provide us vital services.

They are public employees. There are millions of them, who every day do the essential work that keeps our country going.

It is they who keep our streets and highways, our parks and playgrounds safe and clean, who collect our trash. It is they who help educate our children, who provide emergency health care, who convey us to our jobs and back home after our day’s work, who sometimes risk their very lives to protect us from harm.

Yet despite all that – and more – public employees have come under heavy bipartisan attack by politicians who find them easy targets to blame for the budget shortfalls that have beset government at all levels.  Labor costs, after all, make up the bulk of government spending everywhere.

There’s no way around that basic fact. So if we want all those vital services public employees provide – and we do – that’s the price we must pay, and should be happy to pay. Certainly no group of workers has done more for us, none who are more important to our welfare, none more deserving of their wages.

Yet we seriously shortchange many of those workers. And some people, including political leaders who obviously know better, ludicrously cite public employees as a major cause of the economic recession that just won’t go away.

The blame, of course, clearly rests elsewhere. The culprits, as the Portside Labor website noted, include “the super-rich who will continue to enjoy immensely lucrative tax breaks enacted during the Bush administration,” and the Defense Department officials who want “a budget blowing $78 billion over the next year to fund the endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and maintain a military machine that spends more than all its rivals combined.”

No, it’s not obscenely wealthy tax-dodging greedheads or the war-happy folks at the so-called Defense Department who’ve caused  record budget deficits. Oh, no. It’s that “greedy public employee who pulls in an outrageous $19,000-a-year pension.” You know, one of those public employees Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana actually characterized as members of  “a new privileged class.”

Public employee unions are striking back at such foolishness. For instance, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is waging a nationwide “Stop the Lies” campaign. Union President Gerald McEntee has been arguing that “hundreds of thousands of public employees, just like private sector employees, have been laid off, and taken pay and benefit cuts – even as Wall Street executives lined their pockets with taxpayer money and took home huge bonuses.”

The union’s retirees, meanwhile, are getting rich on pensions of, indeed, $19,000 a year.

There’s this, too: Government workers generally get less in pay and benefits than workers holding similar jobs in the private sector. As Portside Labor and others have pointed out, public sector workers don’t seem to resent the fact that their pay lags behind pay in private employment, “because most choose public service for other reasons than pay.” That’s obvious, and another reason to quit scapegoating the under-compensated workers who are among our most valuable.

The latest and perhaps best defense of the scapegoated public employees has come from President Harold Schaltberger of International Alliance of Firefighters .

Schaltberger notes the attacks on public employees are “like a tsunami rolling across the country.” He says the attacks have never been greater, more serious or as vicious.”  As he says, “Wall Street’s recklessness, not public employee pensions, caused our nation’s financial collapse. Scapegoating workers won’t solve anything.”

In a full-page newspaper ad, Schaltberger noted that “Firefighters and paramedics are dedicated to the lives of our neighbors. Whether it’s a natural disaster, terrorist attack or another tragedy, we answer the call. We understand that many Americans are hurting because of the recession, but we will not apologize for putting our lives on the line, the dangerous work we do, or the pensions we’ve earned.”

Part of the reason for the strong attacks on public employee unions is that they have become the vanguard of the labor movement. They’ve been growing as unions in private employment have declined. Union membership overall dropped by about 600,000 last year, lowering the percentage of union members in private and public employment combined from just above12 percent to slightly below that figure.  The percentage of public employees belonging to unions also shrunk slightly, but still stood at about 36 percent.

So, more than one-third of the country’s public employees now belong to unions, but only about 7 percent of workers in private employment are unionized.  Which explains why the country’s anti-union forces are concentrating so heavily on public employees, and seeking to enlist broad public support for their anti-unionism by blaming public employees for our serious economic troubles.

Dick Meister, former labor editor of the SF Chronicle and KQED-TV Newsroom, has covered labor and politics for a half-century. Contact him through his website, www.dickmeister.com, which includes more than 250 of his columns.

Twitter tax break could help a well-connected landlord

Sasha Cuttler
-
34

Opposition to the proposal to give millions of dollars in city payroll tax breaks to Twitter and other companies that open for business in the mid-Market area has focused on the bad precedent of caving into demands for corporate welfare and the lead role that two people who call themselves progressives – Sup. Jane Kim and Board President David Chiu – are taking in pushing the deal.

But behind-the-scenes, there’s another aspect of the deal that is troubling to advocates for transparent government that acts in the broad public interest, rather than that of powerful individuals. And once again, the specter at the center of this insider deal-making is none other that former mayor Willie Brown, whose close allies seem to once again have the run of City Hall.

The mid-Market property that Twitter wants to move into is San Francisco Mart, a million-square-foot building at Market and 9th streets, which sources say has been having a hard time finding tenants to fulfill its ambitious plan to “transition and reinvent” the old furniture outlet as a modern home for high-tech businesses. Most recently, they were unable to seal the deal with Twitter – until the tax break proposal popped up.

The building is owned by millionaire developer Alwin Dworman, founder of the ADCO Group and someone who has had a 30-plus-year friendship with Brown, who sang Dworman’s praises in this 2007 article from the San Francisco Business Times discussing this property and others. The property is also operated by Linda Corso, longtime partner of Warren Hinckle, a local media figure with close ties to Brown (as well as Gavin Newsom, who last year named Hinckle as his alternative representative to the DCCC). Reached by phone yesterday, Corso said she wasn’t directly involved in the negotiations with Twitter and would have someone call us, but nobody did.

Brown’s name has been popping up quite a bit in recent months as he and his allies re-exert their deal-making influence on the city, starting four months ago with his stealth support for Kim’s campaign and continuing with his role in elevating his protege Ed Lee to the interim mayor post (the way the pair ran City Hall when Brown was mayor is also the subject of an investigative report in this week’s Guardian) and placing ally Richard Johns onto the Historic Preservation Commission over progressive objections that he was unqualified.

Reached on his cell phone, Brown refused to comment, telling us, “I don’t want to talk to the the Bay Guardian ever in my life. Goodbye.” There is no indication that Brown or other representatives for Dworman lobbied the supervisors over the deal, and both Kim and Chiu say they weren’t contacted. “I’ve never spoken to the man and I don’t know much about his business,” Chiu said of Dworman, although he said that he was told by people in the Mayor Office, which brokered the deal, that Twitter was looking at moving into Dworman’s building.

Kim has maintained that she has very little contact with Brown and doesn’t know why he supported her candidacy. And she said the benefits for Dworman and other big mid-Market landlords who will profit from her legislation wasn’t a factor in her decision to sponsor it. In a prepared statement to the Guardian, she wrote, “I am not aware of any lobbyists for the Mid-Market legislation and therefore certainly have not met with any.  I have communicated directly with Twitter, who are [sic] excited to be a part of revitalizing the Mid-Market corridor and about partnering with community-based organizations and schools who serve the neighboring communities of SOMA and the Tenderloin.  Our office has convened neighborhood stakeholders who will be directly impacted by this legislation and they are currently committed to being a part of this dialogue over the next month.”

Kim told us last week that she philosophically opposes business tax breaks, but that she wanted to help stimulate the mid-Market area and keep Twitter from following through on its threat to leave town. Despite calling himself a progressive, Chiu has supported using targeted tax breaks as a economic development tool, including the biotech tax credit. And yesterday, he told us, “I would love to bring more companies in the mid-Market area…If we don’t do this policy, we will see future years of zero economic activity in that area.”

But progressives say these tax breaks are nothing but corporate welfare that will exacerbate the city’s budget deficit. During a benefit event for Lyon Martin Health Services last night at the Buck Tavern, which is owned by Kim predecessor Chris Daly, signs plastered throughout the bar urged the public to oppose the Twitter tax break in order to preserve public health and other vital city services.

Our Weekly Picks: February 9-15

Andrew Lam
-
0

WEDNESDAY 9

MUSIC

Turisas

I recently heard Turisas described as “Disney metal.” So before you run screaming in the other direction, hear me out when I claim that it was actually a compliment. Spearheaded by singer-founder Mathias “Warlord” Nygard, the band plays folk metal so lushly orchestrated that it sounds like a movie score, full of trumpet swells and epic organs. Onstage, it features an accordionist and a violinist; the latter is responsible for all the soloing that would traditionally be done on guitar. Turisas’ 2007 release The Varangian Way is an engrossing concept album whose eight tracks follow a group of Scandinavian travelers as they make their way across Russia by river and end up in Constantinople. New platter Stand Up and Fight is due Feb. 23, but you can get a sneak preview at the show. (Ben Richardson)

With Cradle of Filth, Nachtmystium, Daniel Lioneye

8 p.m., $27

Regency Ballroom

1300 Van Ness, SF

1-800-745-3000

www.theregencyballroom.com

 

DANCE

Eonnagata

Eonnagata comes with pretty impressive credentials, and promises to be unique. The work is a collaboration between maverick ballerina Sylvie Guillem, who has made waves ever since she dared to quit the Paris Opera Ballet to freelance; multi-whiz Canadian director Robert Lepage, whose Ex Machina company has redefined theater for the last 20 years; and dancer-choreographer Russell Maliphant, who mixes ballet with yoga and everything in between. The trio created and performs in a work that examines the in-between state of male-female sexual identity. Inspired by an 18th century French noble, spy, and diplomat who fluidly switched genders throughout his career, Eonnataga also acknowledges a debt to the onnagatas, the refined male actors in Kabuki who spent their careers playing female characters. (Rita Felciano)

Wed/9–Thurs/10, 8 p.m., $36–$72

Zellerbach Hall

Bancroft at Telegraph,

UC Berkeley, Berk.

(510) 642-9988

www.calperformances.org

 

EVENT

“How to Write A Dynamic Online Dating Profile”

You’ve been on blind dates. You’ve tried speed dating. You’ve even have had your mother set you up. But you still can’t find love? Turn to cyberspace. (Don’t be embarrassed. According to those Match.com ads, one out of five relationships now begin online.) Take it from Carol Renee, a self-proclaimed “logophile,” English teacher, and aspiring novelist who found the love of her life using the handle “Fearlessly Compassionate.” She’ll hold your hand during the daunting tasks of coming up with a tantalizing user name, writing an attention-grabbing headline, and composing a succinct and yet true-to-life bio in this “how-to” class. (Jen Verzosa)

6:15 p.m., free

San Francisco Public Main Library

Latino/Hispanic Community Room B

100 Larkin, SF

www.sfpl.org

 

THURSDAY 10

MUSIC

Ensiferum

The Finnish metallers in Ensiferum span many styles, taking the best of everything they encompass. From folk metal, they learned the power of haunting, infectious melody and atmospheric texture. From thrash, they got the exultation and catharsis of breakneck tempos and relentless picking. And from power metal, they got the gleeful, empowering satisfaction that comes from singing about dudes with swords. The recent infatuation with Pagan stylings among American metalheads has brought the band stateside numerous times now, and Ensiferum never disappoints. Having donned their warrior garb, the five Finns who make up the band don’t leave the stage until everyone and everything is vanquished. (Richardson)

With Finntroll, Rotten Sound, Barren Earth

7:30 p.m., $25

DNA Lounge

375 11th St., SF

415-626-2532

www.dnalounge.com

 

EVENT

“Lusty Trusty Ball SF”

Not on the guest list for the annual Manus-Salzman Valentine’s Day Ball? No matter. Your photo won’t be gracing the pages of the Nob Hill Gazette or SF Luxe this time next week, but as least you don’t have to worry about breaking out the black tie. At the less-costly-but-no-less-classy Lusty Trusty Ball, in exchange for forgoing the ice sculptures, posh catered nosh, and a live gingerbread boy to nibble candy off of (he was holdin’ it down for Hasbro’s Candy Land in keeping with last year’s Manus-Salzman theme, “The Game of Love”) you’ll enjoy DJs, VJs, and live groups galore. Plus, with punk rock cabaret from the Can-Cannibals, Circus Finelli’s all-female antics, and Red Hots Burlesque, you can have a hot night without the haut monde. (Emily Appelbaum)

8:30 p.m., $10–$20

Submission

2183 Mission, SF

(415) 425-6137

www.sf-submission.com

 

EVENT

“Oilpocalypse Now”

Last April’s Gulf Coast-ravaging oil spill may have slipped from the headlines, but the region is still struggling to recover. “Oilpocalypse Now” takes aim at the corporations that cause (and cover up) environmental disasters — indeed, the event is subtitled “Time for a 28th Amendment for the Separation of Corporation and State” — featuring a talk by Dr. Riki Ott, a community activist and marine biologist. Ott will present the documentary Black Wave: The Legacy of the Exxon Valdez (remember that one? Big Oil hopes you don’t!) Other speakers include Lisa Gautier, who helped organize the “hair boom” effort to soak up Gulf Coast oil; former Guardian columnist Summer Burkes, who witnessed the Louisiana devastation first-hand, and more. Proceeds benefit the Gulf Coast Fund, Ultimate Civics, and the Coastal Heritage Society of Louisiana. (Cheryl Eddy)

7 p.m., $10–$20

Grand Lake Theater

3200 Grand Lake, Oakl.

(510) 452-3556

www.summerburkes.wordpress.com

http://communitycurrency.org/node/63

 

FRIDAY 11

DANCE

“Black Choreographers Festival: Here and Now”

For the next three weekends the “Black Choreographers Festival: Here and Now” throws the spotlight on the Bay Area’s African American voices. Now in its seventh year, the festival brings together professionals from a rainbow of perspectives on dance. If this were an ideal world, these choreographers would have their own companies and regular seasons. Some do — Raissa Simpson, Deborah Vaughan, Paco Gomes — but the festival offers all an opportunity to make themselves heard in the context of their colleagues. The Oakland lineup is different from the San Francisco one; the third weekend focuses on up-and-coming new talent. And as always, the youth ensembles at the family matinee will be a special high-energy treat. (Felciano)

Fri/11–Sat/12, 8 p.m.;

Sun/13, 4 p.m., $10–$20

Laney College

900 Fallon, Oakl.

Feb. 17–19, 8pm; Feb. 20, 7 p.m.

ODC Theater

3153 17th St., SF

Feb. 25–26, 8 p.m.; Feb. 27, 7 p.m.

Dance Mission Theater

3316 24th St., SF

1-888-819-9106

www.bcfhereandnow.com


PERFORMANCE

You’re Gonna Cry

Where better than 24th Street to watch a solo show about the real lives of Mission District residents at the height of gentrification? Touching on everyone from the techies and bohemians to the Latino locals and immigrants, HBO Def Poet and Youth Speaks cofounder Paul S. Flores performs his theatrical work about the human cost of gentrification in the neighborhood. In addition to masterful storytelling, get ready for a gangster puppet show and digital murals, illuminating the changes brought by the dot-com boom and bust, real estate bubble, immigration, and forced evictions. The Mission is loaded with characters and Flores’s dynamic fusion of urban culture and spoken word brings them all to life. (Julie Potter)

Fri/11–Sat/12, 8 p.m., $15

Dance Mission Theater

3316 24th St., SF

(415) 273-4633

www.dancemission.com

 

EVENT

California International Antiquarian Book Fair

Ever wonder what ephemera left by our generation will be pored over in a millennium or two? Parking slips, band posters, books like Lady Isabella’s Scandalous Marriage and 1001 Deductions and Tax Breaks, 2011? Whatever the items, they’ll surely be found at the 1000th annual California International Antiquarian Book Fair. The festival, now only in its 44th year, tempts bibliophiles with a menagerie of historical snippets and antique selections. The perusables include musical prints and manuscripts, rare codices, antique children’s literature, fine bindings, maps, trade books, miscellaneous historical scraps, and — vocabulary word — “incunabula,” which are books, pamphlets, or broadsheets printed (not handwritten) in Europe before 1501. A trove of timeworn tomes? Simply splendid! (Appelbaum)

Fri/11, 3–8 p.m.; Sat/12, 11 a.m.–7 p.m.;

Sun/13. 11 a.m.–5 p.m., $10–$15

Concourse Exhibition Center

635 Eighth St., SF

(415) 551-5190

www.labookfair.com


SATURDAY 12

DANCE

Company C Contemporary Ballet

With a sampling of contemporary ballet from choreographers active across North America and Europe, Company C’s mixed-bill winter program includes a premiere set to the music of Elvis Costello by Artistic Director Charles Anderson in collaboration with Benjamin Bowman (both formerly of the New York City Ballet), and another by Maurice Causey, a former principal of William Forsythe’s Ballet Frankfurt. Also appearing from the diverse repertory of this vibrant company is Tovernon, a solo work by David Anderson, the father of Charles Anderson, and Daniel Ezralow’s Pulse, during which dancers take running starts to slide across stage wearing socks. (Potter)

Sat/12, 8 p.m.; Sun/13, 2 p.m., $18–$40

Yerba Buena Center for the Arts

701 Mission, SF

(415) 978-2787

www.companycballet.org

 

EVENT

“Woo At The Zoo”

Want to make things a bit more “wild” this year for Valentine’s Day? Then head on over to the San Francisco Zoo for “Woo At The Zoo,” the annual event that’s become a favorite activity for amorous humans looking to learn a bit more about our animal pals’ own mating habits and sexual behaviors. Make plans soon with your sweetheart for this special multimedia event that also includes a romantic brunch or dinner, along with drinks. Admit it — you’re already humming the words to the Bloodhound Gang’s “Discovery Channel” song, aren’t you? “You and me baby we ain’t nothing but mammals, so let’s do it like they do on the Discovery Channel!” (Sean McCourt)

Sat/12-Sun/13, 6 p.m.;

Also Sun/13, 11 a.m., $65–$75

San Francisco Zoo

One Zoo Road, SF

(415) 753-7080, ext. 7236

www.sfzoo.org

 

SUNDAY 13

MUSIC

High on Fire

How rad would it be to have an all-chick High on Fire tribute band called Pie on Fire? Though, yeah, that could go either way — hot cherry deliciousness or the evil feeling that makes your girlfriend chug sour pints of cranberry juice. And pulling off (literally) the shreddiness of Riffchild caliber is probably not gonna happen in this lifetime. In any case, join the real trio for a special one-off hometown show before they head out to tour New Zealand and beyond. An honorable way to ring in the annual holiday of love and lust, no? (Kat Renz)

8 p.m., $18

Slim’s

333 11th St., SF

(415) 255-0333

www.slims-sf.com

 

The Guardian listings deadline is two weeks prior to our Wednesday publication date. To submit an item for consideration, please include the title of the event, a brief description of the event, date and time, venue name, street address (listing cross streets only isn’t sufficient), city, telephone number readers can call for more information, telephone number for media, and admission costs. Send information to Listings, the Guardian Building, 135 Mississippi St., SF, CA 94107; fax to (415) 487-2506; or e-mail (paste press release into e-mail body — no text attachments, please) to listings@sfbg.com. Digital photos may be submitted in jpeg format; the image must be at least 240 dpi and four inches by six inches in size. We regret we cannot accept listings over the phone.

Editor’s Notes

Jesse Hawthorne Ficks
-
1
Editor’s Notes

You want a really bleak picture of the politics of California today? Check out the recent comments of Dan Schnur, GOP political consultant and director of the Jesse Unrush Institute for Politics at the University of Southern California.

In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Schnur discussed the disconnect between image and reality in this state: "Cut $1 billion out of Medi-Cal and most voters won’t notice," he said. "Take away some cell phones and make legislators sit on a picnic bench, and they pay attention."

Yeah, he’s a Republican who worked for the likes of George W. Bush and John McCain, but his point, while politically sick and wrong, is also sadly accurate. How much money will the state save by getting rid of 48,000 cell phones? About $20 million a year. That’s 0.08 percent of the state’s budget shortfall. What did Brown save by replacing a boardroom-style conference table in his office with a glorified picnic table? Probably a few thousand dollars. How much does the state continue to lose every year to the utter waste of corporate tax breaks? How much could we bring in with an oil-severance tax? Well into the multiple billions.

What got all the press? Jerry’s picnic table and cell phone crackdown.

I’m not against either of those moves. In tough times, it’s important to set the standards at the top, and living cheap and avoiding the imperial trappings of public office is a great way to instill voter confidence. And anything Brown can do to convince the voters that he’s serious about cutting waste — and that they can trust him enough with their money that they should vote yes on his tax plan — can only be good.

But it all seems so silly and shallow.

The truth is, when you cut Medi-Cal, people die. You can’t prove that any specific cut killed any individual, and most of them are poor anyway and the major media don’t make a big fuss every time a poor person dies. It’s not as sexy as some Caltrans worker having to give up a cell phone.

I think I’m going to throw up now.

Medi-Cal and cell phones: The ugly truth

Zelda Bronstein
-
3
Medi-Cal and cell phones: The ugly truth

There’s a chilling comment from political consultant Dan Schnur in the Los Angeles Times. In a fascinating story by Tony York, Schnur talks about the difference between image and reality in California’s budget wars:


“Cut $1 billion out of Medi-Cal and most voters won’t notice. Take away some cellphones and make legislators sit on a picnic bench, and they pay attention,” he said.


Yep: Jerry Brown is saving the state a few million dollars by cutting cell phones for state workers and replacing a fancy conference table in his office with a cheap one. And that’s gotten a lot of press — as Jerry, the old master, knew that it would. We still live in a state, and a nation, where symbolism matters more than substance.


Republicans still get away with saying that the governor needs to cut state employee pay and benefits — although you could fire (that is, cut all pay and benefits) for every one of the state’s 240,000 employees and you wouldn’t be close to balancing the budget. (What nobody says is that the majority of state spending in California goes for local programs — what legislator wants to call on the governor to cut funding for his or her district? Not even the Republicans do that.) Little cuts like Brown’s mean nothing, and are easily wiped up by the daily, unpredictable ebb and flow of tax receipts.


And yet, Brown has to send a message that he’s being frugal, so he gets rid of his conference table (did he sell it? For how much?) And it works.


And, of course, nobody ever talks about how much the state wastes in corporate tax breaks; it’s much easier to take away some Caltrans worker’s phone.


I wish Brown could really tell the truth in his State of the State speech — that the stuff people get agitated about is chump change, that a huge cut to Medi-Cal means people dying (but not today, and you can’t prove the link, and poor people die all the time and the press never notices), that cuts to education mean more poverty (and crime, and public expense) in the future, that we’ve already cut (or pupt off with gimmicks) about $30 billion in spending, and that the state has a serious revenue problem.


But he knows he can’t do that. People won’t vote for his tax plan unless he looks like he’s somehow punishing state workers and flagellating himself. Good thing the Jesuits trained him.


 

Chiu and pragmatism win over the new board

Sasha Cuttler
-
13

Despite the re-election of David Chiu as president of the Board of Supervisors today, there was a palpable shift in the political dynamics at City Hall. “Ideology” has been deemed a dirty word by a majority of the Board of Supervisors, while the politics of identity and “getting things done” is the new imperative.
That shift was most evident in the 8-3 vote for Chiu, with progressive Sups. John Avalos, David Campos, and Ross Mirkarimi supporting Avalos for the post through two rounds of voting. Chiu won it on the second round after fiscal conservative Sup. Sean Elsbernd withdrew his nomination, with he and his other three backers – Sups. Carmen Chu, Scott Wiener, and Mark Farrell – all supporting Chiu in the second round.
“This year represents a changing of the guard, a transition,” Chiu told us, noting the departure of both Mayor Gavin Newsom and supervisors that include Chris Daly. “We’re going to have to get past the oppositional politics of personality.”
In place of a progressive politics based on principled positions and aggressively challenging the influence that powerful downtown interests still exert on City Hall, Chiu is advocating for more pragmatic solutions to the considerable challenges facing the city, starting with a projected budget deficit of almost $400 million.
“None of us were voted into office to take positions, we were voted into office to get things done,” Chiu said.
His approach has occasionally earned him the scorn of progressives over the last two years, particularly in Chiu’s high-profile compromises with Newsom over cuts to Muni and city programs, business tax breaks, and other issues, as Avalos noted. But as Avalos told Chiu, “Clearly today, you have been validated in your hard work.”
Chiu was backed in both rounds of voting by progressive Asian-American Sups. Jane Kim and Eric Mar, both of whom also struck pragmatic notes in their comments. But they also noted that the board’s new civility and diversity are progressive values. “I think this new board represents the evolution of the progressive movement in San Francisco,” Mar said.
Newsom has been pointedly criticizing the notion of ideology for years – apparently unaware that his anti-tax, pro-business philosophy is an ideology – and it was echoed by several supervisors, including Farrell, who said he wants “to turn City Hall into a place based on issues and ideas and not ideology.”
Now, we’re all left to wait and see what kinds of issues and ideas take root. We’ll have much more on an extraordinary week at City Hall – with a new board and new incoming Mayor-select Ed Lee – in next week’s Guardian.

Tax breaks we can’t afford

Zelda Bronstein
-
18
Tax breaks we can’t afford

The big front-page headline on today’s Examiner: “Workers we can’t afford.” It’s a classic story of the Ex genre, a look at how much labor costs are increasing and eating a hole in the city budget. But what gets me is thal it’s not just the Ex; the Chron takes this line, too, and so do news outlets all over the state (and all over the country). The problem is always labor.


You never see a big headline telling the other side of the story: “Tax breaks we can’t afford.”


The thing is, tax cuts and tax breaks are expenses, just like labor costs. The impact the budget in the same way. And at least city workers DO something; a lot of the tax cuts don’t.


I was watching the City Channel last night (yes, Mr. Mayor, I was one of the “ten people” you joked about who were actually watching) and Newsom was giving a speech out at Mission Bay, welcoming a new biotech outfit to the city. And he went on and on about how his administration has attracted all these companies by giving them tax breaks.


He said that, unlike South San Francisco, this city “taxes jobs.” (That’s just silly; we have a payroll tax because you have to have some form of business tax, and the state won’t let us tax corporate income, and a gross receipts tax also has problems, and a payroll tax is at least an approximation of the size of a company. If we taxed gross receipts instead he’d complain that we were “taxing success.”)


And then when he was done with his prattle, the guy from UC who sets up the Mission Bay incubator space for biotech businesses spoke, and talked about all the reasons busineses want to move into the area, mainly the direct connection with UC researchers and experts in business development and the quality of the workforce. He didn’t say a word about taxes.


Because taxes, particularly the very modest payroll tax the city charges, are such a minor factor in business location decisions that tax breaks like Newsom’s don’t do much good in attracting employers. But they do cost the city money.


And those are expenses — yes, expenses — that we can’t afford.


 

1...678...10Page 7 of 10

48hills.org is the official publication of the non-profit San Francisco Progressive Media Center.
Contact us: info@48hills.org