S.F. needs more housing 

click to enlarge Mayor Ed Lee at Monday's TechCrunch conference. - COURTESY TECHCRUNCH
  • Courtesy TechCrunch
  • Mayor Ed Lee at Monday's TechCrunch conference.

"Mayor faces tough questions on tech impact," The City, Tuesday

Government money warping economy

Mayor Ed Lee and investor Ron Conway rosily cited the tech boom as the main driver of the phenomenal economic growth in The City. However, you can't tell me the San Francisco economy miraculously bounced back from the Great Recession by the tech industry alone.

Lee and Conway didn't mention the main factor: The huge amount of government money flowing into The City's economy. The Federal Reserve is pumping $85 billion per month into the national economy and California is getting a huge slice of the pie. It's also well-known that San Francisco has given tax breaks to high-profile tech businesses. This corporate welfare has only resulted in hyper-inflated rents and home prices.

Critics from TechCrunch rightly question the credibility of the tech boom and the effects on The City. This is a prime example of what happens when government starts monkeying in socio-economic affairs: artificial economic growth that is unsustainable.

Galen L. Dutch,

San Francisco

S.F. needs more housing

I wonder if Supervisor John Avalos and Ted Gullickson would prefer it if San Francisco's economy was depressed with high unemployment and the budget deficits that go along with it. Perhaps Avalos and Gullickson should visit Detroit, where the housing is much cheaper due to the high unemployment rate.

The influx of tech companies is putting a squeeze on housing, but the solution to that is not to demonize the tech industry whose job creation is producing tax revenue that is filling The City's coffers, but rather on building housing for everybody.

But Avalos and Gullickson are also full-time development bashers, vilifying the very people who build housing. So in reality, Avalos and Gullickson are in large part responsible for the very problem they complain about.

E.F. Sullivan,

San Francisco

"Sit-lie failure is a warning," Letters, Opinion, Tuesday

Sit-lie law a success

A recent letter to the editor on park-closing hours declared the sit-lie law a failure, stating that the Civil Sidewalks Ordinance was "enacted to 'solve' the problem of homeless sidewalk campers."

Wrong! The ordinance gave the police a tool with which it could deal with violent, anti-social behavior by groups of itinerant thugs colonizing The City's sidewalks. Since its passage, that problem has disappeared in the Haight and other neighborhoods. The ordinance restored the ability of the public to safely and comfortably use our sidewalks, free from intimidation and harassment.

Ted Loewenberg,

San Francisco

"High hopes for state pot regulations," The City, Tuesday

Wrong answer for pot

I found your story informative, but lacking the perspective of those within the marijuana reform community who do not think putting the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control in charge of overseeing the medical cannabis industry is a good idea.

Given the Obama administration's inconsistency and mixed signals, a "suggestion" in a memo by a federal deputy attorney general seems like a less-than-reliable basis for the creation of a new state regulatory apparatus, to put it mildly.

For another, ABC has a history of plaguing the nightlife community and liquor stores with undercover sting operations in which they pay police to send minors in to buy booze under false pretenses. We do not need more police resources diverted and money wasted on this kind of entrapment with relation to marijuana sales.


Libertarian Party of San Francisco San Francisco

About The Author

Examiner Readers

Pin It

More by Examiner Readers

Latest in Letters to the Editor

© 2018 The San Francisco Examiner

Website powered by Foundation