It's almost like the system of permits for concessions is actually a corrupting force in cities! In my city many development projects went ahead because of various promises (low income housing, cultural venues, etc) and the developer didn't follow through in any meaningful way - i.e. a theater was built, no shows ever took place there. Or low income housing was transitioned to market rate housing within 5 years.

But at least these things happened in public, through a semi-transparent process of development permits with public consultations. The process is semi-fixed, the incentives are off, but it's not a straight up bribe behind closed doors.

When it's the commissioners driving the negotiation, the sunlight angle is true. Often, though, it's the activist group which rallies speakers against the project and then negotiates with the developer privately. The developer makes a donation to the activist group, and then members appear at the next meeting to withdrawn their objection. I've seen the tail end of one of these in 3 or 4 of the ~25 planning meetings I've watched.

Issuing CCW permits isn't a negotiation of city land or development. It is literally a Driver's License for carrying a firearm in public. Should the DMV counter person get to haggle with every person trying to get a driver's license in the name of the public good?

Not against individuals, but against companies? Absolutely. There was a big push to do more "value capture" from the Big Tech commuter shuttle buses in exchange for permission to run on San Francisco streets. It was largely stymied by state law, which SF activists didn't quite have the momentum to change, but it was a big thing in local politics for a while.

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/san-francisco-accused-...

The problem with San Francisco’s “value capture” ideas as seen on 48hills.org is that they often want to capture the value of the choice that has positive externalities (e.g. riding a bus down highway 101, or building housing) while not capturing the value of the choice that has negative externaltities (e.g. driving a private vehicle, or underutilizing land during a housing shortage). This blind spot often undermines their self-proclaimed label of “Progressive”.

Ironically, the article also compares buses to a “$250,000 fee San Francisco charges taxi operators for a medallion”. That’s a payout to the previous owner with an initial 5% transfer tax, not a fee, and it was actually a big mistake for the city to have made it a payout rather than “value captured” rent to the city (which could be adjusted), since the city is being sued and is about to go to trial for it (https://webapps.sftc.org/ci/CaseInfo.dll?CaseNum=CGC18565325).

Agree, and targeting a very small subset of companies would be a pretty hard bar to pass when they should be crafting laws that treat all commercial traffic fairly. I remember it all well, I follow bicycle and transportation stuff.

These are individual licenses, not corporate licenses.

Nooooo.

You’re making up stuff about things you don’t know about. Accepting gifts is always an issue in government, and often a serious crime for the employee, regardless of who benefits. Accepting or demanding compensation for official action is corruption, regardless of the beneficiary.

Negotiating public contracts, seeking public benefit, or enforcing requirements related to permitting is not bribery or corruption. You may not like poor people, public access to urban space, or union labor, but community standards based on law are not corruption.

Officials administrating the permitting process have discretion to act. The appointing authority ultimately controls them, and the people ultimately hold them accountable.

Go back to the original city council meeting where Jobs announces the new Apple headquarters. The council asks if they’ll be getting free Wi-Fi with the campus or anything. Not a straight up pay to play, but things like the above commenter described DO happen.

"Officials administrating the permitting process have discretion to act."

City councils are political bodies, and within their jurisdictions are the ultimate authority on what should and should not be allowed.

LEOs are employees of the state, and are meant to follow the dictates of the legislature or other political body that governs them.

If you want to negotiate a legitimate trade of public donation in exchange for a CCW, that needs to be done publicly through democratic and legal processes.

Go back to the recording of the meeting where the undersheriff asks for a large donation to the Sheriff's department to compare.

Better/cheaper municipal IT is the same kind of public benefit as more urban space or services for poor people. The sheriff's discretion over CCW is the same as the planning commission's discretion over construction.

I think both are slimy but neither are corruption, per se, both institutions are serving the public interest.

This is a California thing, or at the very least a rich city thing.

Where I live building permits are basically shall issue. They're happy to have the development.

Quid pro quo for CCW permits is definitely bribery. Yes, there is a lot of negotiation and back scratching in govt, and a lot of it is unethical and illegal as well.