top of page

Quality Always Beats Quantity When it Comes to Legislation!


From the streets and communities of this great city a curious observer asks, "Is it possible that some of this new legislation being passed by City Counsel, may just not be legislation?" Are City Leaders feeling a bit short in performance, where it matters most? Much the way forty-something year old men, whom suddenly buy expensive sports cars and date their fake breasted 22 year old secretaries, are often questioned about the motivations behind their sudden lifestyle changes as being an "Over-compensating for something they lack!” To that end, it would appear to the casual viewer that the same thing could be said of the current legislative body of the City of San Francisco.

Merely open any local newspaper, be it the San Francisco Examiner to the San Francisco Chronicle, and what quickly jumps off the pages is the amount of "busy-body legislation" proudly being passed and even bragged about by City leaders. However, as the City Counsel smugly congratulates itself on passing legislation that caused a local small business to close its doors after 35 years of serving San Francisco's sporting and gun enthusiasts (High Bridge Arms; Last SF Gun Shop) to legislation requiring drug testing on Taxi Cab Drivers (Soon to be Uber and Lift Drivers as well.), the current City Council is developing a record of ever larger and more intrusive government influence into the once private domain! However, what one never hears, or sees very little of mentioned, is any attempts to fix the housing problem in San Francisco. A problem that is and has been at crisis levels that cause the cost of even the most humble of SRO's in the City to cost at least $1300 a month in rent. That is of course if one can even find a vacant and rentable room.

However, as opposed to addressing the issue aggressively with zeal and quality legislation geared towards immediate solutions to the crisis, the San Francisco legislature continuously wastes its energies on un-needed regulations that literally cause more harm than good. One such current example is the drug testing of Taxi Cab Drivers. And why? No, seriously, why? Is there an epidemic of Taxi Cab accidents or taxi-driver criminality? Has anything changed in SF, other than the elected official’s apparent new policy of passing unneeded regulation, as a means and way to look busy and productive?

That question was rhetorical, and the answer is "No." Another fine example of this current trend toward needless idiocy is the legislation that required a video taping of the purchasing of fire arms at the Cities last gunsmith shop. The legislation successfully put a lawfully ran local business, with at least five employees, out of business for good. The sane and rational San Francisco voter has to ask themselves; “Wait, why did they do that again?” Do they believe or think that the criminals who they seek to disarm, are actually making purchases of firearms at sporting-goods stores and waiting the three day cool-off period? I can assure you they are not! So why then this insistence on what I call "busy-body legislation?"

No one likes a busy-body! They're at your job, or maybe an annoying neighbor whom simply can't mind their own business! They are always armed with their pocket size Home Owners Association or Company Policy Rule Book, so they may whip it out, and cite just the right ordinance or rule that they caught you breaking (No matter how small.). Ever ready to tell others what they may or may not do, and how they may do it. They never do any one a lick of good, as they peer over shoulders, and act like they're an odd mix of want-to-be Sherlock Holmes, 007, and obnoxious brown-nosing teacher’s pet. Always concerned about things other people are doing, even though what other people are doing has zero to very little effect on themselves, the body they are apart of, or society as a whole. A busy-body is just that annoyingly over-insistent tattle-tale, who demands every single T is crossed and I is dotted!

And now, as if being a member of City Counsel of San Francisco isn't enough power for them or to over-compensate miserably by enacting these supposed Ferrari and Lamborghini (Sports car) laws, containing all the bells and whistles needed to create an even more bureaucratic cluster-fuck and months of backlogs for individuals merely seeking a lawful means of income generation. The irony shouldn’t be lost to none that as the majority of these individuals merely seeking to work and earn a living without more needless and useless government hoops to jump through and regulations to get around, it is the same elected people that pass legislation making a living that much harder, are also the ones who refuse to pass any legislation that would make it a possibility to earn less, and still live in SF a civic reality! Moreover, the primary question of "Why," seems to be routinely ducked, dodged, and ignored by the City Leaders. Seriously, "Why, are you passing legislation that makes the MTA (A famously mismanaged and inefficiently ran agency.) the new "Pee-Police" for San Francisco Cab drivers? Moreover, why are you working on any other issues, besides the housing problem?

In SF Small Claims Court over 70% of all cases are unlawful detainers, or other real-estate related issues. Mostly all of those cases are spawning from landlords seeking to cash in on this real-estate bonanza in SF, by illegally ousting long time and rent controlled tenants! The number of Homeless to couch-surfing individuals grows daily, and I am sorry but paying $1300 a month for a single room, with shared bathrooms, isn't exactly fair or acceptable either!!! What the City Council needs to be doing is to shut down AR B&B, as it does (WITHOUT ANY DOUBT) cause people whom would otherwise rent rooms for periods of 6months to a year, to keep those rooms off the renters market, and treat those rooms as hotels instead apartments! Seek more incentives to apartment buildings, to hold more apartments open for low income citizens (which in San Francisco is actually about $50,000 annual.), so you're not even asking landlords to take on some super ghetto morons!). Establish an investigations and recommendations committee to look at both the current stock of available, filled, and being built rental units, and see if anything can be done what-so-ever to fix the current situation. Look into whether the current small number of "management companies and their control over such vast amounts of the rental market in San Francisco constitute any monopoly or anti-trust laws? If so can the City Attorney do anything with those anti-trust and monopoly laws, to break the stranglehold these handful of property managers (whom don't even own the buildings they manage) have of the rental market.

I mean the City Council should get serious, and do the job people elected them to do! Not the job they want to do!!! Stop with the busy-body legislation that results in nothing but added and unneeded government controls at every level of society, and take at least a few whacks at the 800 pound gorilla in the City Council Chamber room called “The rental market,” and see if you put your mind to it if can’t do something about it. Then maybe, just as Freud said "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar," this legislative body will have earned the stripes and street credit to tell the public sometimes "Legislation is just legislation, and the laws they pass are passed on a belief in the laws usefulness; not in an attempt to prove the usefulness of City Counsel.

bottom of page