A different kind of Conservative Blog

I live 45 minutes south of San Francisco, and when I go to visit the city, I give a sigh of relief and say to myself, "Am I glad I do not live here." 

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors have once again proved their ineptidude by leading the pack with another business unfriendly and moronic idea - Hey all you lefties, you must be proud of San Francisco because it knows how to keep you guys in the forefront of the media with any stupid idea in the book.

They want to follow Ireland's example (they charge 15 cents) by charging 17 cents on shopping bags.  How noble! They say, Ireland has reduced their garbage bag consumption by 90%, of course, they have no where else to go.  Look out!  This may be coming to a town near you.  According to the San Francisco Stupidvisors, this 17 cents represents the cost of ridding ourselves of these unfriendly environmental monstrosities - from clogging our drains to choking the lives out of our little children.  (When was the last time you heard of a child being suffocated by a plastic bag?).

They claim among other things it costs 5.2 cents per bag annually for street pickup and 1.4 cents per bag for extra recycling costs.  Of course, we know the San Francisco Board of Supervisors is mathematically challenged.  Let me guess - if they don't charge this 17 cents, they will stop cleaning up the streets.   These bags have to be among the other garbage, and if they are, there is no extra cost of cleaning these bags up (math 101).    I already recycle my grocery bags as do most people by using them as garbage bags, etc.

Assume, for the sake of argument, that despite San Francisco being a major urban area, its residents buy, on average, 10 bags worth of groceries every week. ($0.17) * (10 bags of groceries per week) * (52 weeks in a year) = $88.40 per year in grocery bag fees.

This means that, assuming you earn the average wage of $50,470, you will spend a grand total of .1752% of your yearly income on grocery bag fees. That an incentive does not make. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that grocery bag activism is a legitimate function of government (an assumption I do not make) we can only conclude that the "incentive" created is not an incentive at all but merely a trivial nuisance that will affect few, if any, consumers. It will not lead to substantive change in per capita consumptionrates of grocery bags

They also had the cost for the other  9.4 cents but I forgot what it was, but it was just as ridiculous.

If you go to downtown San Francisco, you are greeted with the homeless throughout the city.  Well, I have a way to clean up the city of the homeless and the bags with one shot.  The homeless collect bottles on the street for 6 cents each or cans for 3 cents each, but now they have the potential for a much more lucrative career - bags for 17 cents.  They are easier to manage, and worth twice as much, or in the case of cans more than 5 times as much.  Put them to work, and have them collect the bags - what a concept San Francisco!

What should we do about it?  They say they are not trying to increase revenue, well if you believe that - I have a Golden Gate Bridge I can sell you.  Well if I were a business in San Francisco, I would be packing my bags, and if I were a tourist, I think I would go elsewhere, and if I were a rational San Franciscan (believe me, they do have a few, but only a few), I would leave and I would leave the city to these enviormental-wacko morons.  We could sell the city to the terrorists, because most of their represantives come from there any way (like Barbara Boxer), and that way they wouldn't bomb us - maybe.

On a side note: 

Smoking in San Francisco parks, open squares, playing fields and gardens will be banned under an ordinance that gained initial approval from the Board of Supervisors Tuesday.

Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier introduced the ordinance in September following several community clean-up events, at which she described the inordinate amount of cigarette butts that volunteers found in city parks.

Hmmm - This sounds like the banning of smoking in the bars.  I am not a smoker, but this is another idiotic idea.  If you smoke, you might as well just stay out of San Francisco.  Maybe the San Francisco Board of Stupidvisors should just frisk everyone and charge them oh lets say 10 cents for discarding the butts of the cigarrettes, I am sure they can rationalize the cost.

Supervisor Chris Daly said

"Cigarette butts make up one-fourth of the pieces of litter in parks,''

Grocery bags are probably the other three-fourths.

Oh this is getting really good -

San Francisco Supervisors want to donate one-million dollars to the Tsunami relief efforts 

Another noble effort- at a time when San Francisco is 96 million dollars in debt and has been laying off police officers and firefighters.

That is only the tip of the iceberg

The Alameda County Board of Supervisors voted 4-0 at a contentious 90-minute hearing Tuesday to approve a resolution prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity.

The resolution applies to Alameda County employment, services and facilities.

Speaker Terry Thompson urged supervisors to vote against the resolution, warning them that "you're stepping into a minefield'' and there could be "unintended consequences'' such as girls in public bathrooms being frightened by transgender people.

A minefield - is that an understatement?  All you pedophiles - feeling a transgender moment - just put on a wig, and go into the female bathroom of your choice - it is now legal. 

OK - I am through, I really want comments from all you lefties out there.

I have one question for Arnold Schwarzenegger.  Arnold, I know you have been trying to make California a more friendly place in which to work, but how do you do it? when you have San Francisco's Board of Stupidvisors running it's city counter to any kind of business enviornment conducive to growing the economy?

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this