Connect with us

San Francisco, CA

How All Americans Are Paying for San Francisco’s Pork-Barrel Spending

Published

on

How All Americans Are Paying for San Francisco’s Pork-Barrel Spending


Washington is once again facing a potential shutdown. Funding for the federal government will run out in early March unless the House and Senate can bridge their differences and pass spending legislation.

At the same time, the city of San Francisco seems to have few problems doling out huge amounts to well-connected activist groups and hard-left ideologues.

While those two realities might seem disconnected, there are important links between them.

Disagreements over federal spending focus on how to divide taxpayer dollars between national defense, veterans’ benefits, and the bureaucracies that operate a nearly endless array of social and economic programs.

Advertisement

While spending bills crafted by House Republicans would impose common-sense cuts to many wasteful and unnecessary programs, the Senate’s bills are loaded with budget gimmicks and pork-barrel projects.

>>> Scranton Joe and the Temple of Doom Spending

The federal government isn’t the only source of political pork. Many states and localities also play fast and loose with public resources.

A recent series of stories from San Francisco have highlighted the wealthy city’s severe mismanagement.

  • On Feb. 3, the San Francisco Chronicle revealed that an elementary school paid $250,000 to a group called Woke Kindergarten. This group’s “educational” materials are not only predictably biased on issues such as race and genders, but also completely inappropriate for toddlers.
  • On Feb. 8, the city celebrated that they had lowered the cost of a public bathroom from $1.7 million to $725,000, when a more reasonable fee would be a fraction of that amount.
  • On Feb. 9, the website Pirate Wires released an expose on San Francisco’s $100 million-per-year web of bureaucrats and left-wing nonprofit groups that focus on political crusades such as gender ideology, “racial equity” and identity-based cash handouts.
  • It would be one thing if these were purely paid for by residents of the high-wealth city. However, San Francisco benefits from the more than $1.2 trillion in transfers that the federal government gives to state and local governments every year.

For example, the Chronicle story notes that the payment to Woke Kindergarten came from federal education funds. This is far from an anomaly: The federal Department of Education has overseen surging growth for bureaucrats but stagnant test scores for the nation’s children.

Other federal programs for localities are similarly captured by ideologues.

Advertisement

The Highway Trust Fund now pays for frivolities such as hiking trails and bike lanes, and the Biden administration has added inappropriate carve-outs for “environmental justice” and “diversity, equity and inclusion” to infrastructure projects.

Tens of billions of federal dollars per year for social services, welfare and “community development” provide means for local politicians to dole out favors while trapping poor neighborhoods in cycles of dependency.

>>> The Senate’s Security Supplemental Budget Bill: Key Provisions

The Biden administration has gone out of its way to exacerbate this problem, illegally extending a “COVID” program that is little more than a slush fund for state and local governments.

Freebies from Washington make space for mischief in local budgets. Without Uncle Sam’s payola, cities would either have to raise taxes (which is already driving waves of people out of California) or focus their spending on real responsibilities.

Advertisement

As members of Congress convene to discuss the federal budget, they would be wise to prioritize spending bills on core priorities such as the military while streamlining less-necessary parts of the federal behemoth.

Trimming or eliminating the multitude of government-to-government transfer programs would provide much-needed savings, make it easier to reach agreement on funding levels, and reduce the amount of nonsense in places like San Francisco that is subsidized by taxpayers from across the country.





Source link

San Francisco, CA

What’s Worth More Than Cash in San Francisco Real Estate? Anthropic Stock

Published

on

What’s Worth More Than Cash in San Francisco Real Estate? Anthropic Stock


Few things are more valuable in the Bay Area than real estate. In San Francisco, the median house price is now over $2 million. Last month, at least seven houses in the city sold for $1 million over the asking price, and buyers regularly offer to pay in cash or waive contingencies to stay competitive. Yet there is one thing that remains even more valuable than a house, and possibly more valuable than money itself: stock in Anthropic or OpenAI.

Last week, 160 Noe Street, an Edwardian home in San Francisco’s desirable Duboce Triangle neighborhood, was listed for sale at $2.9 million—or the equivalent amount in Anthropic or OpenAI shares, as based on those companies’ current valuations. Rachel Swann, the listing agent, says she was inspired to set these unusual terms after meeting several Anthropic employees at an open house for a different property. “These people have a lot of paper wealth, but they don’t always have the liquidity to do things they want,” Swann says. Some of these employees were expecting to come into as much as $50 million from their Anthropic shares, and wondered if they could use that as leverage to buy a house, according to Swann. “This kept coming up over and over again.”

Swann’s listing is unconventional, but not singular. In April, an investment banker named Storm Duncan offered to exchange his Mill Valley home and an adjacent parcel of land for Anthropic shares. And in May, Vijay Chattha, who owns an agency that does PR for tech companies, listed his Healdsburg home for $2.5 million, or $2 million in Anthropic stock. “I want to sell my house, and I want to invest in Anthropic,” Chattha says. “Why not combine the two?

Chattha’s house—a three bed, three bath with a pool and a bocce court in a part of Sonoma County that abuts some of the region’s most famous wineries—also comes with coveted short-term rental status, allowing the owner to list it on platforms like Airbnb. Only a handful of properties in Healdsburg come with that status, and only about a dozen come up for sale in a given year.

Advertisement

Chattha is offering a $500,000 discount to Anthropic employees because he believes the value of Anthropic shares will grow faster than any other investment, and his vacation home in wine country is the best bargaining chip he has to try to access them. “If you look at Anthropic’s growth last year, it’s insane,” he says, noting the $380 billion valuation the company claimed in February. “Now they’re raising at $965 billion. That’s three X in like three months.” He added that he was open to exchanging the house for shares in Anthropic, but not OpenAI, because he prefers using Anthropic’s products.

The real estate listings come at a time when investors are salivating at the record-high valuations of Anthropic and OpenAI, and even those considered wealthy by Bay Area standards are feeling FOMO about the affluence that could come from these companies’ debuts on the stock market. (On Monday, Anthropic submitted paperwork for its initial public offering; OpenAI is also reportedly preparing to file in the coming months.) Despite the unprecedented valuations of these companies, many people believe their stock prices will only go up, and that anyone who gets a piece now could win the jackpot.

People are clamoring to buy equity in OpenAI and Anthropic on the secondary market, leading to a frenzy of transactions that may or may not be legitimate. As a result, Anthropic updated its policy around “unauthorized Anthropic stock sales” this spring, which notes that “if someone purports to sell Anthropic shares without proper board approval, that transaction is invalid.” A spokesperson for Anthropic pointed back to this policy when asked about the possibility of exchanging company shares for real estate.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

San Francisco, CA

Live Updates: San Francisco Primary Election 2026

Published

on

Live Updates: San Francisco Primary Election 2026


Welcome to our running tally of Election Night results. Or, as this is California, well beyond tonight, as results continue to trickle in.

The first batch of results should arrive at 8:45 p.m., with three more to follow tonight. The Department of Elections has the breakdown.

San Francisco is voting in three special elections, for District 2 and District 4 supervisors and for a Board of Education member. Both supervisor races are referendums on housing, especially District 2, while the main backdrop of the D4 race is all the hot feelings around the fate of the Sunset Dunes Park (nee Great Highway).

The winners of all three special races will have to compete again in November for their seats.

Advertisement

Keeping it local, SF is also voting on four ballot measures. Prop A is for a bond to pay for an emergency water-system. B is for term limits. C and D are dueling measures related to the “overpaid CEO” tax. (Links go to our reporting on each race or issue; or click here for our Election 2026 page.)

Vote local, think national: Which two candidates will advance to the November election to replace Nancy Pelosi?

Statewide races include the primaries for governor, education superintendent, lieutenant governor, and much more.

Polls close soon. If you haven’t voted yet, find your polling station here.

Tuesday, June 2, 5:40 p.m.

Two and a half hours until our polls close. Before we go down the local rabbit hole, a reminder that other states have primary action today: New Jersey, Iowa, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Montana.

Advertisement

Why does it take so long to get results in California? CalMatters has you covered on that story. We shouldn’t expect a call tonight on the governor’s race.

The last big election was November 5, 2024. (Remember?) Ten days later, there were still races to call in San Francisco.


Advertisement

So if you’re waiting for the pundits (and maybe even us) to tell you What It All Means, you might have to wait a while.



Source link

Continue Reading

San Francisco, CA

San Francisco voters to decide on dueling measures on Top Executive Pay Tax changes

Published

on

San Francisco voters to decide on dueling measures on Top Executive Pay Tax changes


San Francisco voters weighed in Tuesday on two competing measures that seek to change the Top Executive Pay Tax, with one of the measures also including a change to the Gross Receipts Tax.

Should both measures pass, the one with the most votes will take effect, according to the propositions’ legal text.

Currently, the measures state that most businesses with San Francisco gross receipts up to $5 million are exempt from the Gross Receipts Tax. And businesses that use more than half of their city payroll for in-house administrative and management services pay an Administrative Office Tax instead of a Gross Receipts Tax.

The Top Executive Pay Tax is a tax some large businesses pay if their highest-paid managerial employee earns more than 100 times the median pay of their San Francisco employees. Businesses that have city gross receipts up to $5 million and are not subject to the Administrative Office Tax are exempt.

Advertisement

Proposition C

Proposition C states it would increase the number of businesses that could be exempt from the Gross Receipts Tax and would stop any further increases to the “Top Executive Pay Tax” after a final rate bump.

The proposed measure says it would raise the Gross Receipts Tax exemption ceiling to $7.5 million. The $7.5 million ceiling would also apply to the Top Executive Pay Tax exemption.

As for changes to the Top Executive Pay Tax, Proposition C states it would implement the 2028 tax rate increase in 2027, but then stop any future increases.

Supporting Proposition C are Rodney Fong, CEO of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, and Chris Wright, senior vice president of Advance SF, an organization of companies, which includes Bank of America, OpenAI, Waymo, the SF Giants CEO and others.

Fong and Wright, in their argument for the measure, say giving businesses more tax breaks would help keep more employees on payroll and would give companies the ability to “contribute to city services in a predictable and balanced way.”

Advertisement

Critics of Proposition C, such as the San Francisco Tenants Union, slam the measure as “billionaire-backed” and argue it would kill the Top Executive Pay Tax and would hand out more tax breaks to businesses at a time when the city is in a budget deficit and faces cuts to essential services.

Proposition D

Proposition D also seeks to change the Top Executive Pay Tax, which is collected from some large businesses where the highest-paid managerial employee earns more than 100 times the median compensation paid to other employees.

If approved, the measure would change the calculation of the tax using the compensation of all employees, not just employees based in San Francisco. Top Executive Pay Tax rates would also be increased for San Francisco gross receipts and payroll.

Supporters have billed the measure as a way to counteract federal cuts to Medicaid. A report by the City Controller’s Office said the measure could result in $250 million to $300 million in additional revenue.

“Proposition D is the solution to our budget deficit. It asks large corporations — not small businesses, not working families — to contribute a little more,” supporters said in the city’s official voter guide.

Advertisement

The measure has the backing of most of the Board of Supervisors, along with labor unions and Rep. Nancy Pelosi.

Opponents, including Mayor Daniel Lurie and state Sen. Scott Wiener, have argued Proposition D would negatively impact the city’s recovery following the COVID-19 pandemic. 

“San Francisco is already one of the most expensive cities in the country to live and do business. Adding extreme and unpredictable tax increases risks driving employers away just as we are trying to bring jobs, workers, and foot traffic back downtown,” said Supervisor Matt Dorsey in the city’s voter guide.



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending