Democrat-run plantations with names like California or San Francisco have this notion that they have influence outside their political boundaries. They can’t help but try to project power to get their way in places where no one would ever elect them to public office.
The Left Coast is legion for banning business with or state travel to other states, but San Francisco, the poop-map city by the Bay, out-did even California. States that enacted any law they considered to be anti-LGBT*** were put on a no-fly list. No one in city government would be traveling there, doing business with them, none of it.
Thirty States earned a scarlet letter from San Francisco’s culture-war Pharisees but rather than cause those banned states harm, it made things more difficult and more expensive for San Francisco. While that’s hardly a game-ender for progressives, someone eventually realized it also hadn’t encouraged a single state to change any of the laws that offended San Francisco City Councilors.
No one gave a damn, including San Francisco, so the City Council voted last week to drop the ban.
The rollback comes after a report by the city administrator’s office found that no states ever appeared to change their own laws in response to the city’s boycott. A budget and legislative analyst’s report also found the city had done business with the states on the boycott list. A one-year period between mid-2021 and mid-2022 saw waivers for contracts and purchase orders totaling $791 million. Meanwhile, the budget and legislative analyst also found that the city had spent nearly $475,000 in staffing expenses to carry out the boycott.
The law “has created additional administrative burden for City staff and vendors and unintended consequences for San Francisco citizens, such as limiting enrichment and developmental opportunities,” according to the city administrator’s report. “Few, if any, other jurisdictions implement travel or contracting bans as expansive as the City’s.”
The law “has created additional administrative burden for City staff and vendors and unintended consequences for citizens, such as limiting enrichment and developmental opportunities.”
I guess my first question is, was anyone surprised by that?
Can anyone provide an example of a progressive rule, law, mandate, or intervention that is not an administrative burden with unintended consequences? I’m going to go with no because (and maybe I’ve been misled all these years) that’s the entire point. Administrative meddling is the foundation of progressive politics. Bureaucrats interpreting rules witht
