The San Francisco Business Times dusts off some old, tried and true canards in this critical article about the new San Francisco Enterprise Zone. You need to have a paid subscription to read the whole thing. For starters:

Aside from its wider reach, San Francisco’s redrawn enterprise zone is noteworthy for another reason: It includes moneyed neighborhoods such as the Financial District even though enterprise zones are designed for areas in need of economic revitalization. Critics have pointed to the contradiction as evidence that guidelines for the state’s enterprise zone program are too lax.

This is so unoriginal. Take a look at this post citing a Contra Costa Times article from April 2005:

But a Times investigation has found that enterprise zones in Oakland and San Francisco pockmarked years ago by poverty, unemployment and crime now encompass some of the Bay Area’s priciest real estate and the nation’s wealthiest companies, yet businesses there are still getting tax breaks.

This argument is the equivalent of saying that a homeless person who sleeps on the sidewalk in front of a bank should be considered wealthy by virtue of his address. For journalists who can spare the time for a little research into the actual mechanics of the program, one of the things I would recommend would be to read the “Application Guidebook for Enterprise Zone Designation” available on the HCD website. Enterprise Zones must be geographically located where the businesses are, but the eligibility criteria of a zone are based on factors related to where the residents are. Except in my homeless example, the normal case is that commercial and industrial areas do not overlap residential areas.

Predictably, the California Budget Project makes an appearance:

Even as businesses in San Francisco and elsewhere have enjoyed tax breaks, the state’s enterprise zone program has come under scrutiny. A 2006 study by the California Budget Project concluded that the state’s enterprise zones “miss the mark.” The program “fails to effectively target areas most in need of assistance,” the report stated. Among other criticisms, the group said enterprise zone criteria are overly broad, leading to too many zones and zones in areas that are not disadvantaged.

Also predictably, neither Dr. Bradshaw’s thorough response to the CBP report, nor the more recent report commissioned by HCD make an appearance.

As an active member of CAEZ, I was surprised to read:

A representative from the California Association of Enterprise Zones did not respond to calls for comment. According to state labor data, San Francisco’s unemployment rate in June was 4.4 percent — well below the state average of 5.2 percent and eighth-lowest among California counties.

Is that true? If so, that was a mistake we shouldn’t make again.