Remember that unlike San Jose and Oakland, SF doesn't have to spend 20% of its general fund on retirements for people who no longer work there because it has so many business HQs to generate tax revenue to offset pension liabilities and it's also a city-county.https://twitter.com/hknightsf/status/1134563915621265408 …
-
-
Are pensions dead
-
No, not at all. We just have to be aware of their costs and that they’re a major reason Californian cities and the state can’t expand services meaningfully right now.
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
And remember when San Jose's mayor was like, "Hey, we'll just break the promises we made to a generation of workers, that'll fix it!" And then all the cops quit and went to work in neighboring cities. And then all the San Jose people were like, "Wait, we want police!"
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
I'm also curious about this. On a related note, I where can I find the slides or at least a report from the Oakland budget meeting a few weeks ago where Schaaf said something like "nothing will get the funding it deserves"?
End of conversation
-
-
-
Another factor: I don't think most ppl realize cities and counties across CA are given different shares of local property taxes. Where I live, Fullerton (0.155) Orange County (0.048) gets about 1/3 SF's (0.59) share of locally generated property taxes. http://www.boe.ca.gov/annual/2016-17/table_17/Table15-16-17.pdf …pic.twitter.com/7ILxnFM0E6
-
We need a history lesson l... Why is this? Certainly doesn’t seem fair, especially when each city is being asked to provide a homeless shelter and equally bear the social costs of the housing shortage.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.