After six years of trying to influence other states to adopt its far-left agenda through its Chapter 12X boycott, San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors asked the city’s administrator to see if it was working.
From the report released on February 10:
In response to this inquiry [by the board], this report finds that:
12X’s policy impacts are not clear; the CAO [City Administrator’s Office] was not able to find concrete evidence suggesting 12X has influenced other states’ economies or LGBTQ, reproductive, or voting rights.
Instead, most of the impact has been negative, falling on San Francisco itself:
12X has created additional administrative burden for City staff and vendors, and unintended consequences for San Francisco citizens, such as limiting enrichment and developmental opportunities.
In other words, allowing its political pique over red states not following in San Francisco’s footsteps due to its boycott has not only cost the city’s taxpayers serious dollars — contracting costs have risen between 10 and 20 percent since the boycott began in 2016 — it has accelerated the exit of citizens from the City by the Bay.
Specifically, the 12X boycott banned city-funded travel to 30 states that have failed to line up with San Francisco’s radical policies over gay rights, abortion rights, and voting rights. It also prohibited the city from doing business with any company with headquarters in any of those 30 offending states.
In fact, the number of “offending” states more than quadrupled following 12X’s inception. The report stated: “Since 12X became operative, the number of banned states has grown from 8 states in 2017 to 30 in 2022. This increase suggested that the City’s threat of boycott may not serve as a compelling deterrent to states considering restrictive policies.”
There is a movement among members of the board to repeal, or at the very least remove the most onerous of, the 12X limits. Putting distance between himself and the 12X ban, Supervisor Matt Dorsey said:
There has been a lot of frustration over the years about how cumbersome and expensive and labyrinthine our contracting processes can be.
I am convinced if San Franciscans had any idea how much money, how much of their taxpayer dollars we are wasting on processes and the performative things we do with our contracting, they would be furious about it and rightfully so.
Another supervisor who has seen the light is Rafael Mandelman, who told the San Francisco Chronicle:
It’s an ineffective policy that complicates the business of San Francisco government and makes it very likely that we pay more than we should for goods and services.
This is how far-left politicians apologize for making such a stupid move.
Many of the states on San Francisco’s banned list are enjoying the exodus of unhappy San Franciscans who have had a bellyful of such nonsense. They include, not surprisingly, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
