"There you go again."
Remember Ronald Reagan's famous line to then President Jimmy Carter during the 1980 presidential debates? Reagan used his irreverent phrase to ridicule Carter's spin on issues and positions.
The line is appropriate for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.
There you go again, San Francisco. Always trying to outlaw things with which you disagree. Always trying to act like you are a state with powers you don't have. Always stealing choice from consumers. Always playing the role of the nanny state. Always usurping power that is not yours.
One of the most liberal political entities in the so-called "land of the free," your panel operates on the premise that people don't know how to live so you feel you must babysit them. You're no different than ex-New York Mayor Bloomberg of New York City who promoted a March 12 ban on the sale of soft drinks greater than 16 ounces at all movie houses, fast-food eateries and restaurants, delis, food carts and sports stadiums. The people, after all, are too stupid and too reckless to make their own choices as to what they shall drink. Fortunately an appeals court on July 30 struck down that soda limit, saying Bloomberg's action violates "the principle of separation of powers" and the board "failed to act within the bounds of its lawfully delegated authority."
Can I hear an amen?
In the same vein, the socialist control freaks on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors - led by Chairman David Chiu - aims now to outlaw the sale of bottled water in plastic bottles of 21 fluid ounces or less, on public property including parks, concerts, large public events, and mobile food trucks.
How ironic that one coast fights sodas and the west coast fights bottled water.
It doesn't surprise me, given how you acted to outlaw the nutritional content of the Happy Meals served at McDonalds. Despite your noble intentions at healthier people, you are not health police.
"The big picture is to radically reduce the amount of plastic bottled water in the city," said Catherine Rauschuber, an aide to Chiu. "We see it as the direction that everyone has to go."
Pay attention to the operative words -- "We see" ("We know better than you") and "everyone has to go" ("you have no choice as you will do as we dictate.") In my book that makes them unconstitutional control freaks who fail to understand what it is to live in a free society.
The SF proposal is ridiculous, when you examine it. It does not ban the sale of bottled water citywide, just at public gatherings. No doubt this is just a precursor to a total ban on bottled water in the county like they have banned all plastic shopping bags.
I am not even going to use the argument of the International Bottled Water Association (IBWA) which argues that efforts to eliminate or reduce access to bottled water will force consumers to choose less healthy drink options such as soft drinks. I get their argument but arguing that consumers could pick "worse" liquids doesn't deal with my objections with such dictatorial decrees.
If the Board of Supes in San Francisco is concerned about waste, need I remind them that the state, through AB939, curbed the state's waste stream by more than half? Since 2009, San Franciscans have been mandated to separate their recyclables, compostables and landfilled trash and to participate in recycling and composting programs. According to Jack Macy, Commercial Zero Waste Coordinator for the City of San Francisco, if everyone in San Francisco participated in the program by separating all the materials accepted, a 90 percent diversion rate would be achievable. The goal, however, is zero waste by 2020.
Consider that the bottled water industry has made significant inroads in reducing the amount of plastic used to make bottled water containers by light-weighting its packaging. Between 2000 and 2011, the average weight of a 16.9-ounce ET plastic bottle has dropped to 9.89 grams, which has saved 3.3 billion pounds of PET resin since 2000.
Silly me, I had the understanding that we pay CRV deposits on bottled water to encourage us to recycle them if we want our money back. If we don't, we place them in a curbside refuse container and allow the garbage company to collect and profit from our stupidity or lack of diligence. If you want to encourage greater recycling, why not increase the deposit from 5 cents to 10 cents? You'd be crazy not to take your bottles in.
It's no secret that city water is not nearly as good tasting as bottled water. City water is used in most bottled water, but it is treated using a multi-barrier approach which may include one or more of the following: reverse osmosis, distillation, micro-filtration, carbon filtration, ozonation and ultraviolet (UV) light.
We should all be good stewards of our planet. I have always made a conscious effort in my personal practices, to re-use my soda cup for refills and to recycle every bottle I buy.
I say if the SF Board of Supervisors goes ahead with their restrictive plan that they had better make sure that the water goes through the best filtration system available, regardless of cost to local government.
It's too bad that some groups don't stand up to elected officials who raise their hands and take an oath to uphold the Constitution and then go on to take away people's liberty. If that isn't a reason for a recall then I don't know what is.
How do you feel? Let Jeff know at firstname.lastname@example.org