Stripe donates $19,999 to “No on Prop C”, avoiding ethics disclosures
noplansf.com
noplansf.com
If you are a business that depends on a given payment processor, when they suddenly stop processing your payments and/or hold back funds without warning, it can be a deathblow if you're bootstrapping. I wouldn't be so cavalier when you're talking about taking away people's livelihoods, especially because these things often happen without explanation or evidence of clear violations of TOS by the merchant.
> Everyone agrees that homelessness in SF is a crisis, but we care more about our Trump corporate tax breaks.
is intended to appear as though this is speech made by the SF Chamber of Commerce, it's except it's not.
What's more, it has 3 quotations attributed to real people (such as Jim Lazarus, on the SF Chamber of Commerce) that aren't real.
Even the footer text doesn't disclose that it's run by Our City Our Home. It instead claims to be run by "No Plan SF".
I can tell it's "obviously not run by them" because the SF Chamber of Commerce would have to be fundamentally lacking in self-awareness to write the things on that site. But I can't find anywhere on the site that it actually admits to being satire.
Looking forward to your legal analysis of SNL.
It's actually win-win: if they move town, rents drop. (Yes, unemployment will rise short term too)
> Proposition C, called Our City Our Home on the November 8, 2018 San Francisco ballot would generate $300 million per year to address San Francisco's homelessness crisis by increasing the business tax on San Francisco's wealthiest corporations.
> Only businesses making over $50 million a year would be affected, and their first $50 million in revenue is exempt. Their tax rates would increase between 0.175 and 0.69 percent, depending on the type of business. (Compare that to Prop D, which will increase the tax on large cannabis businesses by 5%!)
ETA: Prop C would add a 0.175%-0.325% tax to large companies, which would go to: administering the taxes, permanent housing (short-term rental subsidies, construction/acquisition of apartment buildings for the homeless, operation of buildings for very low income households), homeless shelter expenditures, homelessness prevention expenditures, mental health expenditures for the homeless.
Not really. SF already spends more than $250 million annually on programs for the homeless[0]. That's about $33,333 per homeless (7,499[1]). And yet, the problem is worse than ever.
[0]: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/29-million-incre...
[1]: https://projects.sfchronicle.com/sf-homeless/2018-state-of-h...
Trying to acquire more low-income housing without increasing the overall housing supply is not a good idea. That's just going to make the overall housing market even worse, not to mention it will be quite expensive. I would be much happier if this proposition explicitly set aside money to be used for construction of new housing.
Seems like Stripe has every right to oppose something that they aren't causing and are going to wind up paying for just because they've got the obvious pockets.