San Francisco Stops Boycotting 30 States With Conservative Laws Because it Had Little Impact
“I think San Franciscans would be angry if they knew the amount of hoops that have to be jumped through and the added cost to city contracting.”
San Francisco, CA, got a harsh economic lesson after boycotting businesses with companies in 30 states and restricting travel to the states with so-called conservative laws. The boycotts started in 2016.
It turns out that people with common sense were right. The boycott hurt San Francisco and did nothing to force businesses and states to change.
The Board of Supervisors on Tuesday voted to repeal a local law that prevented city employees from traveling to or doing business with companies based in states that had passed laws limiting LGBTQ rights, voting rights and abortion access.
Supervisors rolled back the entire law in a 7-4 vote just one month after the board agreed to exempt construction contracts from the boycott. Mayor London Breed has already said she supports repealing or reforming the underlying law.
“It’s not achieving the goal we want to achieve,” said Supervisor Rafael Mandelman, who sponsored the legislation that repealed the whole boycott. “It is making our government less efficient.”
San Francisco officials truly thought the businesses and states would listen to them. The officials removed one state. The boycott added more bureaucracy, making contracting a hard and expensive process:
An earlier report from the board’s Budget and Legislative Analyst found that implementing the boycott had cost the city nearly $475,000 in staffing expenses. And the city was approving a large number of exemptions to the boycott anyway: Departments granted 538 waivers for contracts worth $791 million between mid-2021 and mid-2022, the report found. The legislative analyst said the full effect of the boycott on the city’s contract costs was difficult to pin down but pointed to past research that had found that a fully competitive process could produce savings up to 20%.
“We haven’t changed a single law. We have made competitive bidding less competitive,” said Supervisor Matt Dorsey. “I think San Franciscans would be angry if they knew the amount of hoops that have to be jumped through and the added cost to city contracting.”
I’m laughing so hard. These people don’t think. They live too much in the now and do not give a thought about the future.
State Sen. Scott Wiener pushed for the ban in 2016. But last year, his feelings changed to “mixed” because it didn’t have “any exceptions for businesses in the banned states that are owned by the very groups the city is trying to defend, such as LGBTQ people.”
Think, people, think.
I also find it funny that San Francisco thought it could change anything. You’re not New York City or Chicago or Los Angeles. Hush.
The plan to repeal the boycott began in February.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
InBev learned a lesson let’s see if San Fran does if this is turned around.
If San Francisco spent less time meddling in other’s people’s business and more taking care of their own business it would be a better place to live.
“…it would be a better place to live.”
it might be a better place to live.
doubtful, but worth a try
Probably just fig newton of my imagination.
30 States to SF: “You’re repealing the ban? Aww, man, and we were enjoying it so much. Any chance you can just keep it? Pretty please?”
I agree with papacelsus. It was nice there at one time, but those days are gone for good.
Because not only do they still need to do all that travel planning — but they also have to clean up the feces on the sidewalk!
Not sure about that. San Francisco Democrats concentrating on their city would be like a bully having only one victim to torture and torment. As long as city leaders obsess on “making the world a better place” (one of the most horrible phrases in modern language because of all the death and destruction it has caused) the proles in SF get a breather once in a while.
Well known for a long time, forget who said it.
They meddle with other people’s business PRECISELY BECAUSE they are so incompetent with their own business.
They scream about climate change, abortion, and boycotting conservatives states because if they didn’t do that, they would be forced to admit that they are utterly incompetent at their alleged jobs.
“I think San Franciscans would be angry if they knew the…added cost to city contracting.”
That statement implies the Board of Supervisors has known about and has been hiding those increased costs and inefficiencies from the citizens of San Francisco. That deception should anger those citizens, too.
They don’t care. They just want a tight puppy, loose shoes, and a warm sidewalk to s*t.
It’s not about effectiveness, it’s about feel-goodism.
Which observation can be extended to the entire Leftist/Dumb-o-crat ethos and agenda.
To be consistent they’d have to boycott France* and many other European countries as well, since France in particular gives less time to legally get an at-will abortion than Texas does, and most European countries also have a time limit of X weeks during which you can abort without having to justify it.
*Still amused by the fact when asked to comment on the Texas abortion law the French leader called it “barbaric” despite French law having the same ban even earlier in the pregnancy.
‘Hey, the rubes in those icky Red States aren’t paying us any attention’. That and it was costing them time and money to figure out how to apply for and grant exceptions to their foolish policies.
These sorts of things are stupid stunts and ultimately just like the Meme from Jurassic Park ‘see, no one cares’.
I say they should continue the Boycott in the name of climate change.
The pain was totally one sided and no one missed their patronage.
In case it wasn’t clear, they don’t want to do their own thing their own way, they really, really want everybody else to do their things, SanFran’s way. California’s way. Albany, in thrall to downstate’s way. DC’s way.
Perhaps the aggregations of govt should pay attention to their stuff, in their scope, where the are. How’s that world economy working out, DC? How’s NY State’s budget, economic development, population flows?(*) Cali’s? San Fran’s open air sewer system? I’d be a bit more impressed with LA & Las Vegas asking for us to buy them a train set if the Cali Big Train program were anything like working. It’s not even throwing patronage to builders well.
(*) NY did get a bit ahead on global warming, reducing the surplus population by killing a few tens of thousands of aged-out no longer economically usefful. Didn’t even cost them bullets. They did it indirectly.
They are dropping their boycott of places in America because a) it does not work, and b) it is too hard.
How about the boycott by choice by Americans not buying or visiting San Francisco? No reason that should not go on and be expanded.
If they were honest with themselves and their constituents, the entire Board of Supervisors would declare themselves unfit to serve the public and resign on the spot.
No! First they have to make sure every black person gets $5 million! THEN they can resign!
Since when do the taxpayers matter?
Perhaps the 30 states should ban visitors from San Francisco or perhaps require them to undergo physical examination for communicable diseases prior to letting them into the state.
Translation: “It backfired”.