Set the record straight
Your recent Proposition G story by Jessica Kwong misleads readers into believing I “abandoned” my efforts to reform the Ellis Act for San Francisco in the California Legislature this year.
That could not be further from the truth. The bill unfortunately died in the Assembly in June after not receiving enough votes to pass a key committee and could not move forward this year.
To The San Francisco Examiner’s credit, previous reporting on this issue (“Leno declines to seek reconsideration of Ellis Act reform bill,” June 24) was accurate. The bill died without critical votes.
We may have lost this year’s fight in the Legislature, but I remain committed to closing the loophole in the Ellis Act that allows real estate speculators to evict longtime San Francisco tenants.
State senator, D-San Francisco
Other side to the story
Your recent article tells only the tenants’ side of the story. Proposition G is a punitive surtax that should be called the Anti-Housing Tax. It will raise the cost and decrease the supply of housing.
Owners will not want to be saddled with low-paying tenants when they finally are able to sell. The money raised from the surtax will go to the general fund and will not benefit tenants.
Prop. G bears very little resemblance to late Supervisor Harvey Milk’s anti-speculation proposal. Milk’s proposal, for example, taxed the profit, not the entire sales price. It allowed for deductions for capital improvements. And Milk’s legislation exempted buildings of three units or less. None of the above is part of Prop. G.
Illogically, Prop. G exempts millionaire-owned buildings of 30 units or more from this onerous tax while penalizing middle-income property owners of buildings with as few as two units. If passed, Prop. G is sure to lead to expensive legal action against The City.
➤ “Future of piers on shaky ground,” The City, Tuesday
Nobody wants pier project
What developer do you work for?
Lots of people — with jobs, roots, money and property — think that building something on Piers 30-32 is not required. The Warriors arena there was a terrible idea.
The tourists and the locals (of which I am one) love the view of the Bay Bridge, Yerba Buena, the ships, etc. Proposition B — which I did not support — is proof of that. Wake up.
➤ “Deputies receive expanded duties,” The City, Wednesday
Shrink Sheriff’s Department
Duties of our sherriff’s deputies are shrinking and they don’t have enough to do?
So we have to invent tasks, namely, help expand the U.S. Marshals?
How about putting them on foot patrol in our neighborhoods to stop crime and deal with low-level calls that sometimes seem beneath our public police?
Now here’s a novel idea: How about diminishing the size of the Sheriff’s Department?
If this isn’t proof positive of how bureaucracy lives to perpetuate itself, I don’t know one.