Imagine if Governor Brown said “We have to rein in drive through coffee kiosks in California. They pay low wages and we need more upscale coffee boutiques to service high-income people.” Now, imagine that President Obama said, “We necessarily have to raise the price of electricity,” and offered government loan guarantees to alternative energy companies. (Oh wait, he actually did say and do those things).
We’d call Brown and Obama centralized planners who arrogantly believe they somehow know how to plan the lives of free citizens better than the those free citizens can do for themselves.
I might even call Brown and Obama socialists, fascists, or communists if I wanted to score political points.
What then might we call the leaders of Escondido and Vista?
The UT-San Diego reports that city councils are restricting the number of “99-cent stores” . The Mayors of those cities are defending those confiscatory regulations with the type of Keynesian explanations spouted by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Paul Krugman. To wit:
Frustrated by the proliferation of 99 Cents Only Stores and other discount chains with fixed pricing, two local cities have taken the unusual step of limiting where the stores can open and how many they’ll allow.
Leaders in those cities — Escondido and Vista — say the stores can monopolize prime retail locations, cheapen commercial districts and discourage upscale businesses from opening nearby.
Another criticism is that the stores pay low wages and cater to low-income customers, possibly exacerbating problems with poverty in cities with an abundance of the fixed-price retailers.
This is actually stunning. By what authority do Mayors or Councils have to regulate which products a retailer can sell and the price which he sells them? Certainly, general plans give councils authority for broad land-use planning but when was it appropriate for councils to decide how prime real estate locations should be allocated? When was it appropriate for Mayors or Councils to determine who gets to do business on private property based on the wage rates they pay?
This isn’t Bob Filner, shaking down a hotel association to pay union workers more money, these are the Mayors of Escondido and Vista.
In Escondido:
“It’s not about getting rid of fixed-price stores, it’s about preventing a concentration of them.” he said, noting that all existing stores have been allowed to remain open. “You need to have stores and amenities for upper-income, middle-income and lower-income residents, not just lower-income. Our residents have shown strong support for upgrading the business environment.”
In Vista:
“It’s a very hard issue, but we’re oversaturated with 99-cent stores and we just don’t think we need any more,” she said. “It’s tough to say you’d rather have a vacant storefront than a 99-cent store. But once you have an overproliferation of them, some high-end businesses will refuse to come to town.”
These are the kind of statements from 60-s era apparatchiks. If they were said by Governor Brown, President Obama, or even San Diego Mayoral candidate Alvarez, we might call them socialists, fascists, or communists if we wanted to score political points. So, what should we call the Mayors of Vista and Escondido?
Comments 10
statists 🙂
Hey genius, if you think Escondido’s mayor is a fascist, you’re probably right. He was endorsed by a slew of Republicans, including Rostra’s own serial press release publisher Richard Rider, Duncan Hunter, Darrell Issa, and Brian Bilbray. Oh, and Vista mayor Judy Ritter! #Fail
http://www.samabedformayor.com/endorsements.html
Unbelievable, how do they not see the devastatingly clear logic that if the residents did not want to shop at these stores they would be gone and if property owners had the opportunity to rent to a higher rent tenant, they would be gone? Lets just let commercial space rot, landlords are the evil rich, not regular people trying to make a living. We should call them “former” mayors…
Can 501c3’s endorse candidates? I know a 501c3 I was involved in could in no way endorse candidates, or we’d forfeit our tax exempt status.
from the IRS:
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.
Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.
On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that
(a) would favor one candidate over another;
(b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or
(c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.
The Internal Revenue Service provides resources to exempt organizations and the public to help them understand the prohibition. As part of its examination program, the IRS also monitors whether organizations are complying with the prohibition.
Then why is the SDCTA endorsing in the Escondido race?
Bill:
SDCTA does not endorse in candidate races. I’m not sure where you’re seeing our endorsement, but if you do, please let us know. (619) 234-6423.
“…in the Escondido race?”
Shall we assume that means the mayor’s race? A web search comes up with nothing easily found related to the SDCTA or any other similar sounding taxpayer group endorsing in Escondido, either for Sam Abed, Olga Diaz — or any other candidate.
Please, do tell, Bill.
I had the SDCTA confused with another organization. My bad.
The organization Bill likely was thinking of was San Diego Tax Fighters — a grassroots taxpayer group which is NOT a 501(c)3. I’m the Chairman.
Moreover, the endorsement is incorrect, as that endorsement was for Abed’s 2010 race, not 2014. And, as I recall, it was my PERSONAL endorsement — not the endorsement of SDTF (an important distinction) — based primarily in the mayor’s efforts to control union dominance in the city.
The 2014 Sam Abed “endorsement” webpage has me and SDTF listed prominently as endorsers of his reelection race. That’s an honest mistake by the Abed campaign, I’m sure.
Since 2010, these Escondido central planning, anti-business, nanny policies have disappointed our organization. Neither myself nor SDTF will be endorsing Mayor Abed in his 2014 race for mayor.