It’s more complicated than that. In the base case scenario, SF is running $640M deficits every year in five years because expenses are rising faster than revenues. https://sfcontroller.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Budget/Five-Year%20Financial%20Plan%20FY19-20%20through%20FY23-24%20FINAL.pdf …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
The net pension liability was $5B last year (after a good stock year) and under an assumption that the pension fund can return 7.5%, which few in the private sector would think is reasonable. https://mysfers.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/SFERS_AnnualReportwCover_FY17_Website.pdf …
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
California cities can’t renege on their obligations if the fund doesn’t return as much bc of “California Rule,” so they otherwise have to cannibalize their annual spending to pay the difference. You could raise taxes to drive employers away, but you’d be risking
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
jeopardizing tens of thousands of public sector workers’ retirements or totally cannibalizing the city budget just to pay those obligations.
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
This is what people don’t understand about why, Ed Lee, a 1970s tenant lawyer who grew up in public housing, welcomed tech into SF at the beginning of the decade. It was to run in place against the city’s ever growing financial obligations, which it cannot renege on.
0 replies 0 retweets 10 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
Case in point. The nation's largest public pension fund can't make the 7% return that voters & the govt expect of it on its $356B AUM... so its governing board is going to put $20 billion more in private equity! https://www.wsj.com/articles/calpers-wants-to-double-down-on-private-equity-11552834800 …
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.