13 Thoughts on “So how much is this costing taxpayers?”

  1. Ghost of Dude on March 2, 2009 at 3:52 pm said:

    A 14 year old kid put together a much better website for a new EC – focused on putting it downtown. My guess is that it didn’t cost him anything.

  2. John on March 3, 2009 at 5:59 am said:

    The biggest shock is that they are proposing adding a 3rd penney to the sales tax to pay for the events center. It’s a Bill Peterson plan. That will launch his mayoral campaigne.

  3. l3wis on March 3, 2009 at 7:32 am said:

    Funny how it jumped from Corporate sponsorship and a bed and booze tax to that? Isn’t it? They tried that with a paltry $35 million dollar Rec Center and it went down in flames. I don’t know what kind of Mongolian they are smoking but if they think residents will be hoodwinked into paying higher taxes on food and utilities to build a $150 million dollar event center, they are freaking crazy. If they really want this, they need to find corporate sponsorship and raise entertainment and bed and booze taxes, it is the only way it will fly. Sometimes I wonder if they know their asses from a hole in the ground when it comes to fair taxation? How can you be that outta touch with the citizens of this city?

  4. John on March 3, 2009 at 7:59 am said:

    They should propose an income tax on people making more than $100K. People like Kelby, or the Mayor, or his cheif of staff…

  5. Ghost of Dude on March 3, 2009 at 8:07 am said:

    What they’re looking at (and I’m not saying they’re right) is other cities where the tax is waaaaay higher. The places I can think of off the top of my head are my college town (8.75%) and my wife’s home town (9%). So we still have relatively low taxes in SF compared to a lot of places.
    That doesn’t make taxing everyone to pay for a new EC right. Most of the tax increases in my college town were “temporary tax increases for a specific project” that ended up staying on the books. What happens to this one when the EC is paid for?

  6. Costner on March 3, 2009 at 8:42 am said:

    Pushing an Events Center at this current time shows just how out of touch our city leaders are.

    Just like the initial public vote, and then the vote on the indoor pool, I predict if the city council continues to press the issue someone will initiate a drive to get this on the ballot where it will go down in flames once again.

    Is it just me, or does it seem like the city leaders have this “we know whats best for you” attitude?

  7. l3wis on March 3, 2009 at 8:48 am said:

    Costner- I sometimes wonder what planet these folks are from, watching city government in SF is like watching a rerun of 3RD Rock.

  8. l3wis on March 3, 2009 at 8:49 am said:

    From the sun (oops)

  9. Costner on March 3, 2009 at 11:10 am said:

    I still enjoy some of the shenanigans from Staggers however. I know he has a way of offending a certain portion of the populace, but I swear he is the only one of them who ever has successfully taken and passed an Econ101 course.

  10. l3wis on March 3, 2009 at 12:20 pm said:

    Well he teaches civics, history and taxation history at USF, so yes he is qualified. I also appreciate Costello’s econ arguments (the only one smart enough to vote against the levee bond because the interest rate was a boondoggle).

  11. Ghost of Dude on March 3, 2009 at 4:14 pm said:

    Econ isn’t the class they should all take. It’s financial management 101 that should be required. That way they can see how much more it will end up costing to continue taking out bonds instead of waiting for the money to come in.

  12. Ghost of Dude on March 3, 2009 at 4:14 pm said:

    Maybe Management Accounting should be another required course. That was a really fun one.

  13. l3wis on March 4, 2009 at 7:42 am said:

    Maybe brain pills.

Post Navigation