San Francisco starts shuttering courtrooms because of lack of money State, National, International, posted by Boner, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jul 18, 2011 at 3:31 pm
In what looks to be the wave of the future San Francisco starts to shutter courtrooms and lay off employees because of lack of funds. San Francisco promises further layoffs if the very rosy outlook for economic growth does not materialize.
Posted by Arnold, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jul 18, 2011 at 4:11 pm
Why do you think that is? And do you think it only SF?
With escalating employee costs (from the judicial system to the prison guards/prison system and every phase of government employment) virtually inflexible during the bubble bursting past decade, which has seen revenue decrease to what should probably be considered normal levels, what do people expect? Public sector compensation has increased over twice the rate of the private sector over the past decade, and revenue hasn't.
And why is that the only solution to the problem is to increase taxes or allow murderers & rapists to walk the streets, court cases to be delayed, street repairs to be shelved, parks to be put on hold, and police reports to be electronically filed by victims (not my words). We need to adjust compensation & benefit levels to pre- bubble levels or the SF story will be common to every city - in every department.
It is only the public-unions that are fighting against common sense reform. If you think it's bad now, just wait until you see the real public-employee pension & health care bill. Be sure to show it to your 10 year old child because they'll eventually being for services provided in 2011. That's one of the things that happens when you defer the cost of todays service. The other thing that happens is the city thinks they can afford to pay more than they actually can afford (or the unions convince city council that they can afford more than they can) which allows employees to earn more...which allows employees to earn bigger pensions...which CalPERS can't fund...which increases the cities cost per dollar of payroll...which compounds the problem that leads to higher taxes ...the need for parcel taxes...and the drive to double fees for everything from parking fines to permits.
Retiree health care costs are another looming issue. Pleasanton has made some steps in the right direction but they haven't gone far enough.
Posted by Holden , a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jul 18, 2011 at 8:41 pm
If the retirement salaries of Police Departments are examined, you'll find excessive funds squandered away. Police Chiefs walk away with a lot of money. They laugh all the way to the bank as we point fingers at Washington. SF is not Washington. It's our neighbor. And I bet if we look under the local covers, we might find the same abuses.
Posted by Betcha, a resident of the Del Prado neighborhood, on Jul 18, 2011 at 8:46 pm
No one will ever look in our fair city because our mayor and the council are in bed with the unions and do not care as long as they keep getting those endorsements from the unions. No, I believe firmly that we will need to go insolvent before this comes to a head.
Posted by b, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jul 19, 2011 at 12:12 pm
Judges and court workers earn FAR less than they would in private legal practice.
This is just the start of our Drowning by TEA Party. In a couple years, millions of middle-class jobs will have been eliminated, our streets will be full of potholes, our schools will employ any teacher who is willing to work for minimum wage--and our nation will still be bankrupt.
Posted by sock it to $250,000., a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jul 21, 2011 at 10:27 pm
Yes, SanFancisco is pretty much a result of it's own making.
This is PUBLIC UNION CENTRAL for the US. Eventually the SF Dem will get the connection,,,,,,EIther..... social benefits for their assorted weirdos,'sanctuary city' illegals, never did work groups, etc, OR PUBLIC UNION benefits and PENSIONS. CHOOSE ! WHICH ?
I know, the San FRAN wealthy yacht owners who tolerate sanctuary city status, etc, can pick up the tab. All those Dems who think $250,000. is RICH, should be able to pick up the slack for all the court costs,
Posted by Walmart Proud, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jul 22, 2011 at 8:07 am
You gimme yer 250 grand, I'll happily offer to pay a higher tax rate than you do. 250 grand isn't "rich?" How much more do you need Charley? Bigger plasma screen? Upgrade on yer last year's bmw? More to pay off the undocumented guy who does yer lawn? Somebody's priorities somewhere along the line got seriously twisted.... You poor thing!
Posted by b is a shill, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jul 22, 2011 at 8:21 am
b - I look forward to the day when you can be honest, but I keep waiting ...
Maybe this has something to do with the situation:
Controller: San Francisco Faces $4.36B Unfunded Liability for Health Care
San Francisco currently faces about $4.36 billion in unfunded liabilities for retiree health care, according to a new report from the San Francisco Office of the Controller, the San Francisco Chronicle reports (Knight, San Francisco Chronicle, 12/17).
San Francisco has set aside $9.7 million to cover the costs of providing lifetime health benefits to municipal retirees and their dependents.
Controller Benjamin Rosenfield said that if the city does not take action to address the obligation, San Francisco's unfunded retiree health care liability could increase to $9.7 billion by 2033.
Background on City's Health Benefits
All San Francisco workers hired before 2009 were promised lifetime health benefits -- including coverage of dependents -- after five years of employment. Such workers are not required to contribute to their health coverage.
Funny how you go from one boogeyman to another without ever acknowledging the underlying problem that we are providing rich public employee benefits that we can't afford.
Posted by sock it to $250,000., a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jul 22, 2011 at 10:34 am
Hey union blogger 'proud', I was agreeing, since SanFran is all union and all Dem, and Dems want to sock-it-to all the rich $250,000. crowd, and the high wagers paid in SanFran, means almost everybody would have to pay the $250k tax....San Fran's union pension cost problem should be solved easy. No need to shut down and curtail public services, and all those sanctuary and homeless programs...there are plenty of rich yacht owners in San Fran that should have no problem picking up the slack and keeping up on public services for the poor. Choices, choices, everywhere for that matter. What to do? services for the poor OR public pensions ? ?
Posted by cry me a river, a resident of another community, on Jul 22, 2011 at 12:57 pm
Pay back time - the court system was not interested my welfare when the company I worked at for 20 years went bankrupt. No severance, no vacation pay, no medical. Some employees had to pay their own way back home from overseas locations. Employees were out for company expenses. Some employees were not allowed to access their own 401K accounts.
But - the CEO got a 1.5 million golden parachute. The bank who forced the company into bankruptcy received TARP monies, which was partially used to give the COO and CFO bonuses. The bank has not yet paid back the TARP funds. Lawyers were allowed to charge 1000 dollars per hour to handle the bankruptcy. The orgy of lawyers in two months made more money then this company paid out in an annual wages to over 700 employees. This was all done with the blessing of the court system.
To the soon to be ex-employees of SF courts, don't let the door hit you on the way out. Good luck surviving on unemployment.