3 ms·

It will all be spent, nothing will improve, and a few people will get rich. Guaranteed.

wahern 8y ago
Governor Newsom is more fiscally responsible than most. It will be more difficult for him than Governor Brown to say, "No". Newsom commands less respect, and has less experience, than Brown. But don't forget that Newsom was Governor of San Francisco during the Great Recession, and San Francisco was the only large city in the state to maintain a balanced budget. Part of that was a pre-existing mandate that SF maintain a rainy day fund; but part of it was Newsom's City Hall extracting major concessions from unions and interest groups, shrinking expenditures. And SF wasn't as filthy rich as it is now. The big migration of tech from South Bay to the city didn't really get moving until about 2011.
- masonic 8y ago
  "San Francisco is officially $10 billion in the hole" https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/san-francisco-is-officially-10-billion-in-the-hole/ https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/san-francisco-is-officially-...
  - wahern 8y ago
    This is mostly the result of (a) voter-mandated, retroactive benefit increases and (b) courts forbidding the city (and voters) from rolling back those retroactive increases. See https://calpensions.com/2017/07/03/san-francisco-pension-debt-not-curbed-by-voters/ https://calpensions.com/2017/07/03/san-francisco-pension-deb... The following case relates to just one particular benefits measure: https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/sf-loses-lawsuit-against-mayor-lees-pension-reform-measure-pays-out-750k-in-legal-fees/ https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/sf-loses-lawsuit-against-may... City leadership itself has been relatively fiscally responsible. For example, https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/SF-taking-steps-to-avoid-projected-future-budget-13509714.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/SF-taking-steps-... Which is actually quite impressive, IMO, because the pressures to spend are enormous, and the city does indeed spend quite a lot. The politics at the Board of Supervisors is intense and there's a large populist faction that would like to spend much more. But at the end of the day what really matters is who is elected to City Hall, and at least when it comes to fiscal responsibility Newsom, Lee, and now Breed put a strong emphasis on long-term budget viability. But sometimes--like with voter-mandated expenditures--their hands are tied. Mayor Breed opposed the recent Prop C which raised several hundred million in new revenue for spending on homelessness. (She supported a similar future ballot measure, but wanted to wait things out. Working under Mayor Lee she already had a sense of what was in the pipeline and wanted to see how those initiatives developed. And Lee and others were expecting another downturn very soon so were more concerned with shoring up the budget to avoid having to make deep cuts.) EDIT: Also, the growth in healthcare costs is eating everybody alive. What should really worry people is whether California voters mandate single payer. Because California is limited in how it can control cost growth--most policy control resides in Washington, e.g. pharmaceutical regulation--it'll be a huge problem. But we won't be able to blame politicians for it.
    - masonic 8y ago
      Calling these "voter mandated" is a serious stretch. It was the government agencies who put them on the ballots (as opposed to any voter initiative/petitioning), and it was those same government agencies who utterly lied about the fiscal effects in the ballot statements, as detailed in your own link. Quoting: 'The grand jury suggests voters may have been misled by official ballot pamphlet cost information on two of the three “significant” pension increases described in the report. A dozen retroactive retirement benefit increases between 1996 and 2008 are listed in a report appendix. Voters were told that even with a retroactive pension increase for most employees (Proposition C in 2000) the city is not expected to make an annual payment to the retirement system “for at least the next 15 years.” The eight-year period with no annual city payment to the retirement system, known as a “contribution holiday,” ended in 2004. For a police and firefighter pension increase (Proposition H in 2002) voters were told that with a “large surplus” city contributions should not be needed for at least 10 years — but if needed, police and firefighters would pay “all or part” of the added cost.'

Governor Newsom is more fiscally responsible than most. It will be more difficult for him than Governor Brown to say, "No". Newsom commands less respect, and has less experience, than Brown. But don't forget that Newsom was Governor of San Francisco during the Great Recession, and San Francisco was the only large city in the state to maintain a balanced budget. Part of that was a pre-existing mandate that SF maintain a rainy day fund; but part of it was Newsom's City Hall extracting major concessions from unions and interest groups, shrinking expenditures. And SF wasn't as filthy rich as it is now. The big migration of tech from South Bay to the city didn't really get moving until about 2011.

masonic 8y ago
"San Francisco is officially $10 billion in the hole" https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/san-francisco-is-officially-10-billion-in-the-hole/ https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/san-francisco-is-officially-...
- wahern 8y ago
  This is mostly the result of (a) voter-mandated, retroactive benefit increases and (b) courts forbidding the city (and voters) from rolling back those retroactive increases. See https://calpensions.com/2017/07/03/san-francisco-pension-debt-not-curbed-by-voters/ https://calpensions.com/2017/07/03/san-francisco-pension-deb... The following case relates to just one particular benefits measure: https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/sf-loses-lawsuit-against-mayor-lees-pension-reform-measure-pays-out-750k-in-legal-fees/ https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/sf-loses-lawsuit-against-may... City leadership itself has been relatively fiscally responsible. For example, https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/SF-taking-steps-to-avoid-projected-future-budget-13509714.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/SF-taking-steps-... Which is actually quite impressive, IMO, because the pressures to spend are enormous, and the city does indeed spend quite a lot. The politics at the Board of Supervisors is intense and there's a large populist faction that would like to spend much more. But at the end of the day what really matters is who is elected to City Hall, and at least when it comes to fiscal responsibility Newsom, Lee, and now Breed put a strong emphasis on long-term budget viability. But sometimes--like with voter-mandated expenditures--their hands are tied. Mayor Breed opposed the recent Prop C which raised several hundred million in new revenue for spending on homelessness. (She supported a similar future ballot measure, but wanted to wait things out. Working under Mayor Lee she already had a sense of what was in the pipeline and wanted to see how those initiatives developed. And Lee and others were expecting another downturn very soon so were more concerned with shoring up the budget to avoid having to make deep cuts.) EDIT: Also, the growth in healthcare costs is eating everybody alive. What should really worry people is whether California voters mandate single payer. Because California is limited in how it can control cost growth--most policy control resides in Washington, e.g. pharmaceutical regulation--it'll be a huge problem. But we won't be able to blame politicians for it.
  - masonic 8y ago
    Calling these "voter mandated" is a serious stretch. It was the government agencies who put them on the ballots (as opposed to any voter initiative/petitioning), and it was those same government agencies who utterly lied about the fiscal effects in the ballot statements, as detailed in your own link. Quoting: 'The grand jury suggests voters may have been misled by official ballot pamphlet cost information on two of the three “significant” pension increases described in the report. A dozen retroactive retirement benefit increases between 1996 and 2008 are listed in a report appendix. Voters were told that even with a retroactive pension increase for most employees (Proposition C in 2000) the city is not expected to make an annual payment to the retirement system “for at least the next 15 years.” The eight-year period with no annual city payment to the retirement system, known as a “contribution holiday,” ended in 2004. For a police and firefighter pension increase (Proposition H in 2002) voters were told that with a “large surplus” city contributions should not be needed for at least 10 years — but if needed, police and firefighters would pay “all or part” of the added cost.'