• Both houses approved a bill Wednesday that would reverse the new 19% state excise tax rate on cannabis products back to 15%, which took effect in July. The measure was introduced by Assemblymember Matt Haney who says the new hike has impacted sales negatively statewide. [KPIX]
• The Associated Press awarded Golden State Valkyries Coach Natalie Nakase “Coach of the Year” Friday, and Vs guard Veronica Burton received “Most Improved Player.” With Nakase’s guidance, the team has “wildly outperformed expectations” and is the first expansion team in history to make it to the playoffs in its first year. [ESPN]
• Tesla board chair Robyn Denholm is pushing shareholders to approve Elon Musk’s nearly $1 trillion pay package, while critics point to Tesla’s falling sales, shrinking profits, and the flopped Cybertruck. [New York Times]
• Legislators have approved a bill that would ban local, out-of-state, and federal law enforcement officers from wearing face masks, which awaits Newsom’s decision. [NBC Bay Area]

• Here’s a reminder that not too long ago a large number of cities in the Bay Area were once considered sundown towns where Black, Latino, and Asian Americans were strictly allowed to enter for work during daytime hours and then escorted out by police at dusk. [Paralegal_ via Bay Area Alert]

National:

• In some strange news, two Cornell students legally hunted a black bear and brought it back to their dorm to skin and butcher, prompting complaints but no charges. Bears have long been part of Cornell tradition, appearing in school imagery and on fan gear, though not as the official mascot. [NBC News]
• A new study suggests that allergy nasal sprays containing the ingredient azelastine may significantly reduce the risk of contracting COVID-19 and other respiratory infections, though it’s not FDA-approved for that use. [CNN]
• A federal judge in Arizona has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from deporting dozens of Guatemalan and Honduran children in U.S. shelters and foster care, extending the order until September 26. [Associated Press]

Video of the Day:

The clowns are yucking — and mucking — things up in front of the SF Immigration Court at 100 Montgomery Street every Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday. Join them!

Image: Leanne Maxwell/SFist

With the SFMTA looking at a $214 million deficit and potential service cuts, a ragtag band of riders came up with Prop L, which would tax Lyft, Uber, and Waymo rides to effectively bail out Muni.

The SF Municipal Transit Agency (SFMTA), which oversees Muni, is looking at a likely $214 million deficit come the year 2026. That could likely lead to services being cut, or parking meter hours being extended. So an informal group of transit activists called the SF Transit Riders got together over the summer, gathered thousands of signatures, and got the Prop L tax on rideshare companies onto your November ballot. The proposed measure would tax Lyft, Uber, Waymo, and any other rideshare company, and direct that money to support Muni.

“​​The proposed measure would create a new gross receipts tax on transportation network companies and autonomous vehicle businesses,” according to the ballot measure’s text. “This new tax would be on passenger transportation service gross receipts in San Francisco above $500,000.”

So if the company pulls in $500,000-$1 million on rides that originate in San Francisco per year, they’d pay an additional 1% tax on those rides. If the company makes $1 million - $2.5 million on those rides, that tax goes up to 2.5%. The tax is 3.5% for $2.5 million to $25 million in rides, and 4.5% for more than $25 million worth of rides.

Prop L supporters say this would just be rideshare companies paying their fair share.

“Right now, San Francisco taxes ride-hail and robotaxi companies at a lower rate than other big cities,” they say in their ballot arguments. “If Prop L passes, SF ride-hail taxes will still be lower than those in NYC, DC, and Chicago. This is a small, common-sense tax on those companies to help keep Muni running and accessible for all.”

Meanwhile, opponents say in their rebuttal that “Mismanagement and lack of accountability, not just plunging ridership, have contributed to Muni’s whopping $214 million debt. This tax raises only a tiny fraction of the funding Muni needs, with no plan to spend it.”

Thanks to Uber and Lyft money, Prop L opponents have raised three times the campaign contributions ($912,000) as Prop L supporters have ($301,000). As seen above, their PAC called SF for Muni Accountability and Reliable Service - No on Prop L has pulled a $750,000 cash donation from Uber, and $103,000 from Lyft. But Lyft has carried most of this PAC’s “nonmonetary contributions” (which are still monetary), by paying the PAC’s staff, consultants, and its various other costs.  

If passed, the Prop L tax would be added on top of the 3.25% tax on single rides and 1.5% tax on pool rides that SF voters passed in 2019.

Related: Muni Somehow Scores Its Highest Rider Satisfaction Rate In 23 Years [SFist]

Images: (Left) YES on L: Community Transit Act via Facebook, (Right) Demand Muni Reform

A new law requiring online retailers to collect California sales tax from shoppers has stirred up controversy, and now Amazon.com Inc. is saying they are looking for voters to take the matter to the ballot. "A petition for a referendum was filed Friday with the state Attorney General's Office so that voters can decide on the requirement, which was included in a state budget signed into law in late June," explains the Sacramento Bee.

The issue isn't so much pure sales tax for Amazon, but rather how it broadens what that tax means, and asks of the business to do:

The new law forces online retailers to collect California sales taxes by expanding the definition of having a physical presence in the state. The requirement now kicks in if an online retailer has a related company, such as a marketing or product-development arm, or affiliates in the state - individuals and companies that earn commissions by referring visitors to Amazon from their websites.

Once upon a time, there were thousands of such affiliates in California, "which received fees varying from 4 percent to 15 percent of each sale they brought to the company." Now, not so much. Amazon "cut ties with them after the law's passage." Overstock.com has done the same.

The new law, and the possible ballot battle, could wind up pitting businesses against each other. California's shoppers might be compelled to make their online purchases from companies based in states where sales tax is not collected from internet sales. Major companies might wind up taking business away from smaller, Californian businesses. Plus, traditional brick-and-mortar retailers have long felt that online businesses who don't charge sales tax have an unfair advantage.

If Amazon doesn't collect tax, but the law requires them too, they could wind up in Uncle Sam's doghouse: "Under the law, if Amazon fails to pay any taxes owed to California, it would be required to pay penalties and interest, like any other tax scofflaw. Its first payment would be due by Oct. 31," notes the NY Times.

Of course, getting all the 505,000 signatures needed means beating the pavement and meeting some in-the-flesh people. Maybe they will stand outside, like, actual sales-tax-collecting stores with their clipboards to get 'em. Think they're going to make it work?

Every second, give or take, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors think of some new tax that will ruffle the feathers of its citizenry. Here's one folks are savoring like a fat Jolly Rancher: Supervisor John Avalos has proposed a booze tax as a means to payback the $17.7 million (or $18.1 million, per SF Appeal) "San Francisco spends yearly on emergency room visits, prevention programs, a sobering center, Fire Department ambulance transports and other costs linked to excessive drinking."

What does that mean for social drinkers like you? According to Eater, "the proposed fee will translate roughly to an additional 3 cents on a 12-ounce bottle of beer, 4.5 cents on a 6-ounce glass of wine and 3.5 cents on a standard cocktail."

Defending his idea, Avalos wrote a piece in today's Chron ("A nickel per drink will recoup medical costs of alcohol"), part of which reads:

The Alcohol Cost Recovery Fee I now have proposed will allow San Francisco to recoup previously un-reimbursed costs for alcohol-related services. To establish the fee, the city had to commission an extensive study to measure these costs. The study, which was conducted by an independent research firm, found that alcohol costs the city $17.7 million in ambulance, treatment, prevention and hospital services. This figure does not even include police and other nuisance costs to the city from excessive drinking.

And.

One thing I have learned is that during these hard times, the San Franciscans who are most affected by the economic crisis are those who need our public safety net more than ever. With our ongoing budget deficits, San Francisco taxpayers call on us to be more innovative. This fee is a strong remedy.

However. Almost everyone hates this idea. If it passes, it will go to Mayor Newsom. And Newsom? Probably won't sign the thing since he too hates it. Ta-da.

Oh, and the alcohol fee will not be read at today's BOS meeting expected. Probably later in the week or next Tuesday. Until then, cheers.

After the Governor tried to raid public transit funds and was stopped by the courts, he's after the money again, but with a different shell game. As pointed out by Damien Newton at Streestblog LA, the LA Times reports that "the governor would eliminate the sales tax on gas and, at the same time, impose a new per-gallon excise tax. Drivers would pay about 5 cents less per gallon at the pump. The excise tax would not be subject to voter-approved spending requirements for public transit." Ouch.

This morning, a fresh new ordinance went into effect: cigarette addicts now must pay 20 cents extra per pack "in order cover the costs of cleaning up discarded cigarette butts throughout the city." The very first tax of its kind in the U.S., KTVU says, "The fee will be collected from retailers and will go specifically to city departments that conduct street cleanup of cigarette butts."

Also, "[t]he mayor's office said that discarded cigarette butts account for a significant portion of the litter that has to be cleaned from sidewalks and gutters, and can leach toxins into the environment." He's also probably concerned for your health too. Or so you would be lead to believe.

This brings the price of an average pack of smokes of up to about $7.

Part effort to generate revenue and part Bay Area-esque statement, Oakland voters passed a tax on medical marijuana joints, making it the first taxed pot dispensary in the U.S. While the tax "could have the smallest budgetary impact for Oakland," it's a big step for people who want to puff marijuana legally. According to , "people believe it could help legitimize medical marijuana and possibly adult cannabis use in general." Measure F, it seems, "will create a new business class for the dispensaries, which will see a tax increase from $1.20 for every $1,000 in gross sales to $18 per $1,000. It could generate an additional $294,000 a year for the city when it takes effect Jan. 1." This tax, however, won't be nearly enough to help Oakland crawl out of its deep economic rabbit hole.

Since the Catholic Church is trying to shift property from one non-profit to another, San Francisco is now asking the ritual-heavy religious folks to pay up. Why? Well, according to San Francisco City Assessor Phil Ting, the move is considered "a change in ownership." The church, it seems, owes the city of San Francisco a whopping $15 million due to the transfer of more than 200 properties it owns between three separate nonprofit organizations. And the Archdiocese has three options: pay, fight the assessor in court, or leave the property as is. The church, however, claims it is being unfairly targeted.