5 ms·

You say it’s exclusively the government’s job to preserve affordable housing, not the tech industry. Ok. We just passed Prop C, a comprehensive measure to preve

You say it’s exclusively the government’s job to preserve affordable housing, not the tech industry. Ok. We just passed Prop C, a comprehensive measure to prevent homelessness. Guess who opposed it?

twblalock 8y ago
> You say it’s exclusively the government’s job to preserve affordable housing, not the tech industry. Ok. We just passed Prop C, a comprehensive measure to prevent homelessness. Guess who opposed it? The mayor of San Francisco and a bunch of other individuals and businesses, including tech companies, who don't want to throw more money away pursuing the same bad policies as before. There were also major tech CEOs in favor of the measure, including Benioff who pushed hard for it. I predict that it will have very little impact on the homelessness problem or housing affordability in San Francisco.
- abalone 8y ago
  It was mostly tech funding the opposition (Stripe, Lyft, Dorsey) and the mayor’s campaign also was funded by tech. I love how you think it’s the government’s job to solve homelessness but then don’t want to fund the government.
  - twblalock 8y ago
    > I love how you think it’s the government’s job to solve homelessness but then don’t want to fund the government. That's an uncharitable interpretation of my views and I don't think you're arguing in good faith. I have no problem funding good government policies. San Francisco's policies are not good. The homeless services are a total administrative and bureaucratic disaster and pumping more money into that system is not going to help homeless people.
    - komali2 8y ago
      Well, I'm curious, and the question is being begged - how are San Francisco policies an administrative and bureaucratic disaster?
      - twblalock 8y ago
        There are already more 70 agencies and other organizations spending over $200 million per year of city money with little to no accountability for their spending or their results. That's before the Prop C tax takes effect. That will add another $300 million or so.
        abalone 8y ago
        Prop C has extensive accountability mechanisms and is directly overseen by the mayor: OVERSIGHT & ACCOUNTABILITY This initiative requires an Oversight Committee comprised of nine experts on homelessness, supportive housing, mental illness, substance use disorder, and development, who will recommend funding priorities, promote transparency and cultural competence, and produce regular reports about who has been served by this fund and what still needs to be done for the Board of Supervisors. The body will also conduct a needs assessment to direct recommendations. Four seats will be appointed by the Board of Supervisors, four seats appointed by the Mayor, and one seat by the Controller’s office. Funding will be allocated into three City agencies: the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing, the Mayor’s Office on Housing and Community Development, and the Department of Public Health. That funding contracted out to non-profits will be carefully overseen by contracting managers in said department. Contract managers will carefully scrutinize budgets, check receipts, payroll records, perform audits and ensure funding is spent appropriately. They will also review units of service, types of services rendered, and review client satisfaction surveys. Contracting organizations will only get paid for actual services rendered. Funding for programs that are city run will have similar oversight and accountability measures.[1] I will not accuse you of making a bad faith argument, but it’s pretty clear to anyone who actually looks that there are accountability mechanisms. The root problem is that SF spends a fraction of what other major cities do per homeless person, because budgets are stretched thin keeping people housed. SF spends just $3.8K per homeless person.[2] “No accountability” is a political lie calculated to appeal to people’s biases about government. [1] https://www.ourcityourhomesf.org/san_francisco_prop_c_2018_explained https://www.ourcityourhomesf.org/san_francisco_prop_c_2018_e... [2] https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/heatherknight/article/Businesses-must-contribute-more-to-city-s-13178743.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/heatherknight/article/Bu...
  - alonmower 8y ago
    My understanding was that most of the tech opposition came from 'lower' margin businesses as it's a tax on gross receipts (revenue) vs profit so it disproportionally hurts high volume low margin businesses (like stripe, square, lyft) vs high margin software businesses (like salesforce). I think it's a little unfair to demonize Dorsey and others who do seem to genuinely want to help solve the issue, but took issue with the specifics of this measure. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-19/square-s-dorsey-sees-unfairness-in-san-francisco-homeless-tax https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-19/square-s-...
    - abalone 8y ago
      Dorsey campaigned for the gross receipts tax in 2012. In his capacity as Square CEO. Here’s a video of him doing it.[1] He had no problem with the gross receipts structure for a low margin business. He only flipped his position when it became about helping the homeless. Again this is just another superficially plausible sounding argument (along with “no accountability”, etc.) that’s just cover for opposing anything suggesting the tech industry bears some responsibility for exacerbating the homelessness situation and should pay to help. [1] https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/SF-Citi-video-plugs-in-tech-Prop-E-3930793.php https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/SF-Citi-video-plugs-...
      - alonmower 8y ago
        I didn't realize that, thanks for sharing!
      - jtmcmc 8y ago
        He was for it in 2012 and opposed it in 2018 because he thought that the 2018 prop was out of whack vs. the 2012 one. It had nothing to do with "because it was helping homelessness" in 2018.
        abalone 8y ago
        What's your source?
komali2 8y ago
The executive government, so I'm not sure what your point is. Meanwhile the dude that owned the biggest tower in SF supported it... It pretty much is the perfect example of my post.
- Kalium 8y ago
  Just FYI, Salesforce Tower is actually owned by Boston Properties and Hines Interests. Salesforce just rents there.

twblalock 8y ago

> You say it’s exclusively the government’s job to preserve affordable housing, not the tech industry. Ok. We just passed Prop C, a comprehensive measure to prevent homelessness. Guess who opposed it? The mayor of San Francisco and a bunch of other individuals and businesses, including tech companies, who don't want to throw more money away pursuing the same bad policies as before. There were also major tech CEOs in favor of the measure, including Benioff who pushed hard for it. I predict that it will have very little impact on the homelessness problem or housing affordability in San Francisco.

abalone 8y ago
It was mostly tech funding the opposition (Stripe, Lyft, Dorsey) and the mayor’s campaign also was funded by tech. I love how you think it’s the government’s job to solve homelessness but then don’t want to fund the government.
- twblalock 8y ago
  > I love how you think it’s the government’s job to solve homelessness but then don’t want to fund the government. That's an uncharitable interpretation of my views and I don't think you're arguing in good faith. I have no problem funding good government policies. San Francisco's policies are not good. The homeless services are a total administrative and bureaucratic disaster and pumping more money into that system is not going to help homeless people.
  - komali2 8y ago
    Well, I'm curious, and the question is being begged - how are San Francisco policies an administrative and bureaucratic disaster?
    - twblalock 8y ago
      There are already more 70 agencies and other organizations spending over $200 million per year of city money with little to no accountability for their spending or their results. That's before the Prop C tax takes effect. That will add another $300 million or so.
      - abalone 8y ago
        Prop C has extensive accountability mechanisms and is directly overseen by the mayor: OVERSIGHT & ACCOUNTABILITY This initiative requires an Oversight Committee comprised of nine experts on homelessness, supportive housing, mental illness, substance use disorder, and development, who will recommend funding priorities, promote transparency and cultural competence, and produce regular reports about who has been served by this fund and what still needs to be done for the Board of Supervisors. The body will also conduct a needs assessment to direct recommendations. Four seats will be appointed by the Board of Supervisors, four seats appointed by the Mayor, and one seat by the Controller’s office. Funding will be allocated into three City agencies: the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing, the Mayor’s Office on Housing and Community Development, and the Department of Public Health. That funding contracted out to non-profits will be carefully overseen by contracting managers in said department. Contract managers will carefully scrutinize budgets, check receipts, payroll records, perform audits and ensure funding is spent appropriately. They will also review units of service, types of services rendered, and review client satisfaction surveys. Contracting organizations will only get paid for actual services rendered. Funding for programs that are city run will have similar oversight and accountability measures.[1] I will not accuse you of making a bad faith argument, but it’s pretty clear to anyone who actually looks that there are accountability mechanisms. The root problem is that SF spends a fraction of what other major cities do per homeless person, because budgets are stretched thin keeping people housed. SF spends just $3.8K per homeless person.[2] “No accountability” is a political lie calculated to appeal to people’s biases about government. [1] https://www.ourcityourhomesf.org/san_francisco_prop_c_2018_explained https://www.ourcityourhomesf.org/san_francisco_prop_c_2018_e... [2] https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/heatherknight/article/Businesses-must-contribute-more-to-city-s-13178743.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/heatherknight/article/Bu...
- alonmower 8y ago
  My understanding was that most of the tech opposition came from 'lower' margin businesses as it's a tax on gross receipts (revenue) vs profit so it disproportionally hurts high volume low margin businesses (like stripe, square, lyft) vs high margin software businesses (like salesforce). I think it's a little unfair to demonize Dorsey and others who do seem to genuinely want to help solve the issue, but took issue with the specifics of this measure. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-19/square-s-dorsey-sees-unfairness-in-san-francisco-homeless-tax https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-19/square-s-...
  - abalone 8y ago
    Dorsey campaigned for the gross receipts tax in 2012. In his capacity as Square CEO. Here’s a video of him doing it.[1] He had no problem with the gross receipts structure for a low margin business. He only flipped his position when it became about helping the homeless. Again this is just another superficially plausible sounding argument (along with “no accountability”, etc.) that’s just cover for opposing anything suggesting the tech industry bears some responsibility for exacerbating the homelessness situation and should pay to help. [1] https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/SF-Citi-video-plugs-in-tech-Prop-E-3930793.php https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/SF-Citi-video-plugs-...
    - alonmower 8y ago
      I didn't realize that, thanks for sharing!
    - jtmcmc 8y ago
      He was for it in 2012 and opposed it in 2018 because he thought that the 2018 prop was out of whack vs. the 2012 one. It had nothing to do with "because it was helping homelessness" in 2018.
      - abalone 8y ago
        What's your source?

komali2 8y ago

The executive government, so I'm not sure what your point is. Meanwhile the dude that owned the biggest tower in SF supported it... It pretty much is the perfect example of my post.

Kalium 8y ago
Just FYI, Salesforce Tower is actually owned by Boston Properties and Hines Interests. Salesforce just rents there.