Adachi Down, But Not Out, on Pension Reform

[Kate Moser]

“I don’t have any regrets,” said Jeff Adachi late last night at the party for his citywide pension-reform measure that was trounced at the polls.

Adachi, San Francisco’s elected public defender, seemed disappointed but not deterred that the measure – which would have required city employees to kick in more for their health and retirement benefits – lost, 58 percent to 42.

“By this time next year, our $400 million pension costs are going to be $500 million. I believe the wisdom of doing what we could have done will be borne out… It’s an issue I’m going to stick with.”

During the campaign for the measure, observers wondered at Adachi’s motives, as well as his political genius or folly in taking on pension reform in San Francisco.

Asked last night whether he’s going to run for mayor, Adachi said “no. People asked me that a lot [during the Prop B campaign]. The simple truth is I saw a problem that needed to be fixed as a public servant and I tried to fix it.”

Comments

[HonestAbe]

San Francisco city workers have already agreed to pay their own fair share of retirement contributions in full and on schedule, July 01, 2011 [eight (8) months from now].

The "big savings" hoped for by attempting to pass this poorly thought out piece of written scapegoating and bullying came from the lesser emphasized "healthcare" component.

The wealthy authors along with greedy bankroller venture capitalist and billionaire backers of this divisive proposition sought to use this "hidden" aspect of HEALTHCARE CUTS to boost their "savings" figure which they shamelessly touted knowing full well that such drastic cuts would displace the most vulnerable, namely children and retirees needing healthcare who cannot otherwise afford PREVENTIVE healthcare.

San Francisco voters recognized that cuts to PREVENTIVE healthcare at minimal savings to the city fund would end up costing tax payers double, triple and quadruple -when REACTIVE healthcare like urgent care and emergency room services at the medical industry's skyrocketing rates and exorbitant costs and fees would be factored in as the only remaining viable options for the many who could not afford or qualify for any other type of reasonably priced medical coverage!
-and indeed voted NO on B!