MOVE OVER MISSION IMPOSSIBLE III
With Nathan Nayman
DALY PLOT LINE SILLIER
THAN DUMB AND DUMBER
June 1, 2006
Move over Mission Impossible III! San Francisco
voters looking for a good summer thriller need look no further
that City Hall, where the tax-payer financed Daly
Blog is spinning fantastic tails of conspiracy and collusion
that not even a Hollywood director could ever dream up.
Daly's newest potboiler?
His analysis of the Proposition I lawsuit recently filed by the
Committee on Jobs and the Chamber of Commerce - the proverbial
"downtown special interests" as he calls it.
Supporters of the lawsuit include the Building Owners and Managers
Association, the Hotel Council of San Francisco, the San Francisco
Taxpayers Union, the San Francisco Apartment Association, the
San Francisco Association of Realtors, The Coalition for Better
Housing, the San Francisco Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and the
Geary Boulevard Merchants Association; suddenly downtown stretches
from the Mission to the Legion of Honor.
Like the Da Vinci Code, Daly implores people to follow the clues,
claiming that Prop I was a "crafted mechanism" to delay
policy initiatives by progressive, or rather "regressive"
supervisors like him. He touts the "universally respected"
budget analyst Harvey Rose as the fiscal watchdog over the budget.
Yes, Mr. Rose, having held a solesource contract with the Board
of Supervisors for over 30 years does do fiscal analysis on legislation
as it applies to the City's budget - not the economy of the city.
Somehow voters managed to recognize that difference when they
voted to approve the measure in 2004.
Prop I was supported by about 150,000 voters. By contrast, a
whopping 6,645 voters elected Chris Daly in 2002, which makes
Proposition I a blockbuster idea as far as I'm concerned.
Proposition I passed in November, 2004, and became law in December,
2004; but them Office of Economic Analysis (OEA) was only created
on March 1, 2006 - 18 months after the law was enacted. Even with
the creation of the OEA, the City has only completed economic
analysis of two pieces of legislation despite a backlog of legislation
pending at the Board which could have major financial implications
for residents and businesses. He claims that the OEA has "indicated
that economic impact reports would be issued". Well, that's
not good enough. The law is clear
.the report is due prior
to the Board voting on legislation.
Chris Daly describes "the bungling on implementation"
by the sponsor of Prop I, Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier. But
the truth is that Supervisor Alioto-Pier continually attempted
to have the Rules Committee hear her legislation. In the end,
she was forced to sit by as her colleagues adopted rules implementing
the new law that ignored the will of the voters. Now that is a
plot line Supervisor Daly doesn't want anyone to know about.
The lawsuit asks the court to invalidate these rules passed by
the Board of Supervisors related to Proposition I. As passed by
the voters, the ordinance urged the Board to only waive economic
analysis in time of crises with a two-thirds majority of the Board
supporting the action. However, in August 2005, the Board of Supervisors
passed a set of rules that gives the President of the Board the
power to waive economic analysis of any legislation; and exempt
certain kinds of legislative documents such as resolutions from
being subject to analysis under Proposition I. The lawsuit asks
for all of these rules to be invalidated.
Finally, Daly alleges that the intent of Prop I is to dislodge
"socially critical proposals" such as charging all businesses
for enforcing the minimum wage ordinance, even though they are
not guilty of wrongdoing. This seems like pure science fiction
to me; as the Chair of the Budget Committee about to review a
$5.7 billion budget I find it difficult to believe Daly can't
find a few dollars to do this. And the health care mandate introduced
by Supervisor Ammiano? How could anyone in their right mind not
agree that there are economic consequences to this legislation?
Anyone who has seen Freaky Friday knows it is amazing things
when the progressive wing, or should I say, "regressive wing"
of the Board of Supervisors is actively trying to avoid open debate
and scrutiny of legislation. Daly and his allies would have us
all believe that asking how much something costs and making the
fiscal price tag a part of the debate is tantamount to killing
Not since the movie Dumb and Dumber have we been asked to swallow
such a silly plot line.
Nayman serves as executive director to the Committee on Jobs,
a coalition of San Francisco's largest employers dedicated to
improving the City's economic vitality.