January 14, 2010
By Rick Jacobs
Good morning! The judge just sat down and is talking, but there’s no sound in the overflow room! Mr. Cooper is talking. I have heard that there is going to be further effort to keep the lid on this trial, but let’s see.
A few minutes ago, someone walked in to ask if everyone in this room is from the media.
Sounds is on.
[UPDATE] 8:51 Edwin A. Egan is up now. He’s Chief Economist, City and County of SF, director of the office of economic analysis within the controller’s office of SF. Was and still is Adjunct Prof. at UC Berkeley where he teaches grad students, teaches course “Urban and Regional Economy” to masters and PhD students. Before joining the county in 2007, worked on Toronto economic plan and before joining SF worked on SF plan. Published a series of articles on economic policy and analysis. Has PhD from UC Berkeley.
[UPDATE] 9:03 E: Exhibit 2324 is CV, which represents his academic experience. [It’s placed into evidence.] Describes his work in office of controller wherein they determine economic impact of any proposed SF Board of Supes legislation to insure that Board has full understanding of economic impact on legislation before they act. We look to see if legislation has real regulatory power to affect behavior of individuals, businesses to see how legislation would impact. If greater than $10 million of economic impact, we prepare written and verbal reports.
Reports are called economic impact reports. Reliant on government statistical data from state and federal governments as well as from city departments, information from people who work in the city and private sector sometimes.
We rely on research.
[Witness accepted as an opinion witness in the field for which designated.]
Have you undertaken analysis on the impact of same-sex married couples in SF?
Similar to other analysis?
Yes, except we usually do not include state law.
Conclusions fro research?
E: Yes. Concluded negative economic impact on ban of same-sex marriage on SF.
Could this be applicable to other jurisdictions?
E: Yes, but I cannot say specifically.
[Slide that shows Lifetime Wealth Generation: Impact on City Revenue]
E: If marriage for same-sex marriage couples legalized, I believe we’d see an increase in married couples in SF. Married individuals tend to accumulate more wealth than individuals, which means there’d be more wealth in the city. People with higher wealth spend more which leads to higher consumer spending and higher real estate prices. Higher consumer spending leads to an increase in sales tax revenues (more spending, more tax) and higher real estate prices yield higher real estate taxes.
Challenging exercise to project amount of money that would come from increase in married couples. Have not tried to do that.
Other jurisdictions in California would benefit from the SF effect because state gets its share and so do other entities.
[Slide: Healthy Behaviors: Impact on City Revenue]
E: Legalizing same-sex marriage would create healthier behaviors of individuals. A number of articles in economic literature show that married individuals behave in more healthy ways and are more healthy. There’s a well known economic principle of healthy work force which yields higher wages due to higher worker productivity and this leads to higher payroll tax revenue for city.
Healthier behavior yields less reliance on healthcare system including public healthcare system which results in cost savings for county/city.
City’s general fund contribution to public health is $364 million per year.
[UPDATE] 9:08 E: Cost impact of legal same-sex marriage could be estimated, but we have not tried to do so.
E: in other jurisdictions where there is not payroll tax, higher business tax income would be present.
Does Domestic Partnership have same healthy affect on behavior as marriage? Would we still expect to see this impact with domestic partnership as marriage?
E: Some positive impact, but not as great as marriage because more people would marry than domestic partner so more people would have healthy behavior.
[Chart: Reduced Uninsured Population: Impact on Public Health Expenses]
E: Legalizing same-sex marriage would decrease cost of public health. In my opinion if same-sex marriage legal and folks marry and more companies extend benefits to same-sex couples, companies would cover partners who are now not covered. So if people can marry, they get insurance and that’s going to save the county money.
[UPDATE] 9:21[Looking at exhibit that is from Mr. Greg Sass, who is a person on whom Dr. Egan relies. It’s PX 2260. Prop. 8 objects to entering because it was not available to us. Our side says that document did not exist until a few days ago. Prop. 8 (Patterson) says they can’t verify that it’s legitimate. Judge says you were provided copy of document on Sunday evening and since document appears to have been produced on 30 December, hard for you to have had it much before Sunday evening. So let’s proceed and then I’ll rule on objection.]
[Questioning now proceeds on document.
Back and forth about whether Mr. Sass had previously provided E with information in preparation of testimony. Mr. Sass sent this email to me thinking it would help with my preparation for this. It’s the kind of information I would usually rely upon.
Judge admits document for what value it has. It appears to be from that national elevator industry association.]
E: My understanding that this document demonstrates a change in policy by the national elevator industry that used to provide benefits only for opposite sex partners in marriage but now offer to same-sex, but do not offer to domestic partners. Demonstrates that this shows that companies will offer benefits to same-sex married partners than to domestic partners. If more individuals are covered by married spouse’s plan, saves the county money by not having to provide publicly financed healthcare to one partner not covered.
[From Rick: Imagine how this applies to whatever we get finally for national healthcare. Think of Social Security, all the stuff that is provided to married couples, but gay and lesbian couples don’t get anything so they are a burden on the system and screwed.]
E: I think this principle would apply to all jurisdictions. You’d see this reduction in cost to uninsured. Every county in California spends a lot of money on healthcare for uninsured, which costs the state money, too.
[Chart: Reduced Discrimination: Impact on Need for Behavioral Health Services]
E: I believe legalized same-sex marriage would reduce discrimination against LGBT people. Prohibition of marriage against same sex couples is a form of discrimination. If that prohibition is removed, over time less discrimination against LGBTs. When I prepared my report, I spoke with someone in health department who said that use of public health services is disproportionately high due to discrimination. Consequently, reducing discrimination would reduce city costs. Can’t quantify exactly. We also don’t know exact amount gay and lesbians require of behavioral health services. Know city spends $2.5 million on LGTB specific programs, but cost is much broader, because we do not break out all costs. $360 million total spent on healthcare.
[Chart: Costs of Bullying: Impact on Local School District Funding.]
[UPDATE] 9:28 PX 810 shows that more that nearly 109,000 school absences are based on harassment based on actual or perceived sexual orientation. $39.9 million per year in funding from state does not come due to these absences because schools get state money for days attended. To the extent that excessive absences reduce the quality of education, leads to long term negative economic consequences. Additional cost for enforcement.
[Looking at exhibits PX672-676. Prop. 8 says that they cannot use these for testimony on hate crimes because we did not have the chance to depose him on hate crimes because he is not an expert in hate crimes. Our side says these documents will back up what he says. Judge says he can cover topic of hate crimes generally, but not sure it opens door to putting into evidence. Our side argues that these documents were introduced by AG after Mr. Egan’s depo. Judge says the court can take judicial notice of the documents since they are official documents of the Dept. of Justice. Patterson says that he was not deposed on hate crimes. Judge says have to move on, then because you did not cover the subject in his report or depo, say can’t open up a whole new subject. ] ((No way to introduce hate crimes!))
[NOTE]: I’ve moved over to a second thread for the rest of Mr. Egan’s testimony.