Newspaper Article Assignment
Jim Carlton: “City Tax Would Aid Homeless…" Ben Kesling: “More U.S. Veterans Are Off the Streets” Wall Street Journal, November 1, 2018. Print
San Francisco residents and the government are faced with the high rate of homelessness, neighborhoods that have been overrun with homeless encampments, and the opposition to Proposition C - a ballot measure on November 6 that would impose a tax increase on large businesses making over $50 in revenue annually for money to help the homeless.
The ballot measure will tax against big businesses earning $50 million, raise about $300 million in 2019 to aid homelessness, one of such biggest budgets in the U.S, the report by Jim Carlton from San Francisco says. Another report by Ben Kesling from Washington on how the number of homeless Veterans had declined in 2018 is published on a sidebar along with the report about how “City Tax” would aid Homeless.
The issues about the homeless problem in San Francisco is linked to “Public Administration: An Indispensable Part of the Society” - a chapter in Marc Holzer and Richard W. Schwester’s “Public Administration: An Introduction”. Aside from the essence of Public Administration to the society in tackling issues that need attention in the society, it also highlights issues of accountability and performance by public agencies.
Notably, the lack of impact from the annual $380 million on homelessness in San Francisco and the cry to help the homeless spare headed by a private citizen casts a pall on the performance of the office of the city’s mayor to adequately address the Augean Stable in the city, while the reduction in the homeless veterans shows a positive performance rating, and that if there is a reduction in the number of homeless veterans, it is also not impossible to get a reduction in the city’s homeless population.
The development compels a study on how Public Administration is an indispensable part of the society, taxation as a source of funds for public organizations and how Proposition C features in the system. And what is Proposition C as a form of taxation? Why was Mayor London Breed of San Francisco against the measure proposed by some social services nonprofits, some civil and businesses leaders?
First, Mayor Breed’s opposition to taxing big businesses for money to help homeless people is unexpected, when it is known that it is the duty of government to provide the services and ameliorate hardship as a foundation element of government and public administration. Is it because the Proposition C is not part of statutes?
Although, the reasons for Mayor Breed’s opposition is due to what she calls concern about accountability for the new spending and how higher taxes would affect the economy. She has the support of some big business leaders like Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and the city’s chamber of commerce among others. Reports also show that Mrs. Gwen Kaplan, owner of a direct marketing firm fears that affected companies would spend less and the taxation will hurt thousands of small businesses like her own.
But the mayor or any leader of the city government has no power to stop the proposition, meaning that like other taxations, the proposition is legal as a source of revenue for the government to get funds to meet its monetary needs, like other taxes collected by local, state, and federal agencies for a broad range of services to meet citizens’ needs. But governments not only levy taxes, it also must be accountable about how it spends the money.
Like every other city, San Francisco has huge taxes, even though like other California cities, it must seek approval from residents before levying tax. It is the reason that the proposal and the election for November 6 come into context with expectation of 51 percent of residents vote to approve the proposal, while anything lesser than 51 percent vote will defeat the proposal, according to ABC 7 News.
The city is reported as already having an annual budget of $380 million for the aid of the homeless in the city that does not seem to show enough impact on the state of the homeless. Therefore, the mayor does not think an additional $300 million will make any difference. Yet the responsibility to aid the homeless and make the environment habitable falls on the city government’s shoulders. What type of leadership is she foisting on the city?
Does Mayor Breed approves seeing the mass of homeless sleeping in cardboards and a proportional part of the environment taken over by the homeless encampments? Would that not affect his reelection bid and make her lose the election? Although Mayor Breed did not categorically approve the proposal. Nonetheless, she was on the side of the people who thought the proposal will adversely affect business growth. But after the proposal had sailed
through with 60 percent approval votes, the city and the mayor’s office threw their support behind the success of the proposal.
It means that with the election’s result, residents of San Francisco have spoken in support of aiding the homeless. News reports said that before midnight on the election day, San Francisco Department of Elections reported that Proposition C led 59.87 percent to 40.13 percent, said to be a margin of more than 40,000 votes. The city’s economist Ted Egan reportedly confirmed in a news report that the proposition will add up to $250-$300 million annual boost to the city’s homeless services budget.
Reports show that Egan estimated some minor job losses as some companies tried to dodge the new tax. However, the attention immediately shifted to Marc Benioff, the Salesforce chief executive officer, who had endorsed the proposal, ploughed millions into the campaign, even though the company that he is leading itself will end up paying higher taxes under the new plan, the Curbed reported.
Benioff triumphed against Jack Dorsey, chief executive officer of Twitter and Square, who opposed Benioff in the public describing Proposition C as unfair. Dorsey said the result may be some companies will pay much more than others. What made Benioff to be so optimistic in the face of powerful opposition to Proposition C? Is Benioff not a typical example of the story of “Bill Gibson and the art of leading across boundaries?”
Like Gibson, Benioff exuded confidence and he rallied support for the success of Proposition C. He is a champion and facilitator of collaboration. He doggedly pursued the public good by shifting attention away from a preoccupation about himself. Despite massive opposition, he did not abandon the idea of ensuring that his own organization and others owe it as a duty to lift people out of homelessness.
Benioff demonstrated the type of leadership attribute expected of public servants selflessly seeking the good of the people against massive opposition. He has shown that he is an entrepreneur creating public value, rather than be defined in market terms. Benioff rekindles the following memory about Gibson’s spirit of “We can do it.”
“While there clearly were many stakeholders in the Whittier community with a strong interest in sewer service - there was no movement to do anything about it because the costs seemed insurmountable. A sewer for a community of 90 households would still cost several million dollars. Gibson recognized the community’s need and the stakeholders’ shared interests, initiated a process to explore options for getting a sewer treatment facility in Whittier and feasibility study led to a grant application that was developed by South Western Commission staff.”
There are reports of legal intrigues that could impede the money from the taxation of the Proposition C from getting to the homeless for several years. Nonetheless, something that has begun will have an end. At least the $300 million will eventually be ploughed toward addressing the homelessness in San Francisco and the money will not be thrown in the waste basket.
The positive story of reduction in the number of homeless veterans gives hope that it is possible to achieve reduction in the number of homeless. According to the report, the number of homeless veterans in 2018 has declined in response to long-established federal efforts and a push by dozens of local communities, according to the departments of Housing and Urban Development and veteran Affairs.
The report shows that the number of homeless veterans fell to about 38,000 based on the total population in January, representing 5.3 percent and about half the 73,367 veterans recorded in 2009. “A year and a half ago we were just on the cusp of a few communities being able to say we ‘ve ended veterans homelessness, now we are up to 64,” said HUD Secretary Ben Carson.
The tax from Prop C will be the biggest to be raised through businesses for homeless. One of the interviewees on the television said that the $300 million expected to be generated from this effort doubles the entire San Francisco budget for tackling homelessness, believed to be San Francisco’s most pressing problem.
Not many observers in the city believe that help can come for anyone to rent a place to live in the city by asking the businesses to put money down for this purpose sounds to them like an impossible dream. Now that the proposition has sailed through, many of such observers are saying the effort could make a difference.
The Board of Supervisors and the mayor’s office would decide how the money would be spent. At least half of the money to be raised would be spent on permanent housing for
homeless people, while 25 percent will be for mental health services for homeless people with severe behavioral problems, the SFChronicle reported. It shows part of the work that the public service offers and how tax money is expended.
For the homeless in San Francisco, the coming year 2019 will be a new year with elusive home they can call their own coming their way.
San Francisco residents and the government are faced with the high rate of homelessness, neighborhoods that have been overrun with homeless encampments, and the opposition to Proposition C - a ballot measure on November 6 that would impose a tax increase on large businesses making over $50 in revenue annually for money to help the homeless.
The ballot measure will tax against big businesses earning $50 million, raise about $300 million in 2019 to aid homelessness, one of such biggest budgets in the U.S, the report by Jim Carlton from San Francisco says. Another report by Ben Kesling from Washington on how the number of homeless Veterans had declined in 2018 is published on a sidebar along with the report about how “City Tax” would aid Homeless.
The issues about the homeless problem in San Francisco is linked to “Public Administration: An Indispensable Part of the Society” - a chapter in Marc Holzer and Richard W. Schwester’s “Public Administration: An Introduction”. Aside from the essence of Public Administration to the society in tackling issues that need attention in the society, it also highlights issues of accountability and performance by public agencies.
Notably, the lack of impact from the annual $380 million on homelessness in San Francisco and the cry to help the homeless spare headed by a private citizen casts a pall on the performance of the office of the city’s mayor to adequately address the Augean Stable in the city, while the reduction in the homeless veterans shows a positive performance rating, and that if there is a reduction in the number of homeless veterans, it is also not impossible to get a reduction in the city’s homeless population.
The development compels a study on how Public Administration is an indispensable part of the society, taxation as a source of funds for public organizations and how Proposition C features in the system. And what is Proposition C as a form of taxation? Why was Mayor London Breed of San Francisco against the measure proposed by some social services nonprofits, some civil and businesses leaders?
First, Mayor Breed’s opposition to taxing big businesses for money to help homeless people is unexpected, when it is known that it is the duty of government to provide the services and ameliorate hardship as a foundation element of government and public administration. Is it because the Proposition C is not part of statutes?
Although, the reasons for Mayor Breed’s opposition is due to what she calls concern about accountability for the new spending and how higher taxes would affect the economy. She has the support of some big business leaders like Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and the city’s chamber of commerce among others. Reports also show that Mrs. Gwen Kaplan, owner of a direct marketing firm fears that affected companies would spend less and the taxation will hurt thousands of small businesses like her own.
But the mayor or any leader of the city government has no power to stop the proposition, meaning that like other taxations, the proposition is legal as a source of revenue for the government to get funds to meet its monetary needs, like other taxes collected by local, state, and federal agencies for a broad range of services to meet citizens’ needs. But governments not only levy taxes, it also must be accountable about how it spends the money.
Like every other city, San Francisco has huge taxes, even though like other California cities, it must seek approval from residents before levying tax. It is the reason that the proposal and the election for November 6 come into context with expectation of 51 percent of residents vote to approve the proposal, while anything lesser than 51 percent vote will defeat the proposal, according to ABC 7 News.
The city is reported as already having an annual budget of $380 million for the aid of the homeless in the city that does not seem to show enough impact on the state of the homeless. Therefore, the mayor does not think an additional $300 million will make any difference. Yet the responsibility to aid the homeless and make the environment habitable falls on the city government’s shoulders. What type of leadership is she foisting on the city?
Does Mayor Breed approves seeing the mass of homeless sleeping in cardboards and a proportional part of the environment taken over by the homeless encampments? Would that not affect his reelection bid and make her lose the election? Although Mayor Breed did not categorically approve the proposal. Nonetheless, she was on the side of the people who thought the proposal will adversely affect business growth. But after the proposal had sailed
through with 60 percent approval votes, the city and the mayor’s office threw their support behind the success of the proposal.
It means that with the election’s result, residents of San Francisco have spoken in support of aiding the homeless. News reports said that before midnight on the election day, San Francisco Department of Elections reported that Proposition C led 59.87 percent to 40.13 percent, said to be a margin of more than 40,000 votes. The city’s economist Ted Egan reportedly confirmed in a news report that the proposition will add up to $250-$300 million annual boost to the city’s homeless services budget.
Reports show that Egan estimated some minor job losses as some companies tried to dodge the new tax. However, the attention immediately shifted to Marc Benioff, the Salesforce chief executive officer, who had endorsed the proposal, ploughed millions into the campaign, even though the company that he is leading itself will end up paying higher taxes under the new plan, the Curbed reported.
Benioff triumphed against Jack Dorsey, chief executive officer of Twitter and Square, who opposed Benioff in the public describing Proposition C as unfair. Dorsey said the result may be some companies will pay much more than others. What made Benioff to be so optimistic in the face of powerful opposition to Proposition C? Is Benioff not a typical example of the story of “Bill Gibson and the art of leading across boundaries?”
Like Gibson, Benioff exuded confidence and he rallied support for the success of Proposition C. He is a champion and facilitator of collaboration. He doggedly pursued the public good by shifting attention away from a preoccupation about himself. Despite massive opposition, he did not abandon the idea of ensuring that his own organization and others owe it as a duty to lift people out of homelessness.
Benioff demonstrated the type of leadership attribute expected of public servants selflessly seeking the good of the people against massive opposition. He has shown that he is an entrepreneur creating public value, rather than be defined in market terms. Benioff rekindles the following memory about Gibson’s spirit of “We can do it.”
“While there clearly were many stakeholders in the Whittier community with a strong interest in sewer service - there was no movement to do anything about it because the costs seemed insurmountable. A sewer for a community of 90 households would still cost several million dollars. Gibson recognized the community’s need and the stakeholders’ shared interests, initiated a process to explore options for getting a sewer treatment facility in Whittier and feasibility study led to a grant application that was developed by South Western Commission staff.”
There are reports of legal intrigues that could impede the money from the taxation of the Proposition C from getting to the homeless for several years. Nonetheless, something that has begun will have an end. At least the $300 million will eventually be ploughed toward addressing the homelessness in San Francisco and the money will not be thrown in the waste basket.
The positive story of reduction in the number of homeless veterans gives hope that it is possible to achieve reduction in the number of homeless. According to the report, the number of homeless veterans in 2018 has declined in response to long-established federal efforts and a push by dozens of local communities, according to the departments of Housing and Urban Development and veteran Affairs.
The report shows that the number of homeless veterans fell to about 38,000 based on the total population in January, representing 5.3 percent and about half the 73,367 veterans recorded in 2009. “A year and a half ago we were just on the cusp of a few communities being able to say we ‘ve ended veterans homelessness, now we are up to 64,” said HUD Secretary Ben Carson.
The tax from Prop C will be the biggest to be raised through businesses for homeless. One of the interviewees on the television said that the $300 million expected to be generated from this effort doubles the entire San Francisco budget for tackling homelessness, believed to be San Francisco’s most pressing problem.
Not many observers in the city believe that help can come for anyone to rent a place to live in the city by asking the businesses to put money down for this purpose sounds to them like an impossible dream. Now that the proposition has sailed through, many of such observers are saying the effort could make a difference.
The Board of Supervisors and the mayor’s office would decide how the money would be spent. At least half of the money to be raised would be spent on permanent housing for
homeless people, while 25 percent will be for mental health services for homeless people with severe behavioral problems, the SFChronicle reported. It shows part of the work that the public service offers and how tax money is expended.
For the homeless in San Francisco, the coming year 2019 will be a new year with elusive home they can call their own coming their way.
Comment Box is loading comments...
