• No categories

Politics Blog

SF officials tap corporate cash

Sasha Cuttler
-
2
SF officials tap corporate cash

San Francisco’s $500 campaign contribution limit makes it tough for rich individuals and corporations to curry favor with local politicians, right? Well, not really. Actually, politicians can still tap wealthy interests for tens of thousands of dollars for their special events and pet projects, as long as they fill out a form called “Payments Made at the Behest of an Elected Officer” within 30 days.

Traditionally, those forms have been buried in the files of the Ethics Commission, but the agency recently put them online, a rare bit of user-friendly sunshine from this often-toothless watchdog body. A Guardian review of the forms shows it is almost exclusively the city’s most fiscally conservative elected officials who use this tactic, tapping a relatively small pool of downtown power brokers.

When Sup. Michela Alioto-Pier wanted to support a Bizworld Foundation event in December, she had Pacific Gas & Electric donate $5,000 on her behalf. Sup. Sean Elsbernd throws a big annual crab-feed fundraiser in February, with proceeds going to the Laguna Honda Foundation. The form for this year’s event isn’t in yet, but last year he got $5,000 each from all the top anti-progressive funders: Don Fisher, Dede Wilsey, Charles Schwab, Warren Hellman, Platinum Advisors, and the San Francisco Association of Realtors.

But far and away the biggest beneficiary of these kinds of corporate donations is Mayor Gavin Newsom, who submitted more than half the forms on file. For last year’s Sunday Streets events, he tapped the Hellman family for $30,000, Blue Shield for $10,000, his favorite developer Lennar for $10,000, and Lennar subcontractor CH2M Hill for $5,000. The year before, the top Sunday Streets donors (at $20,000 each) were California Pacific Medical Center (which is seeking city approval to build two new hospitals) and Catholic Healthcare West.

For his swearing-in events in 2008, Newsom tapped old family friends Gordon and Ann Getty for $30,000, the Fisher family for $20,000, and Charles Schwab, Dede Wilsey, and Marc Benioff for $15,000 each. And, of course, PG&E gave him $10,000.

When Treasurer Jose Cisneros was starting his Bank on San Francisco program in 2008, he had Wells Fargo donate $20,000. When Sup. Bevan Dufty wanted to create Mission High School scholarships in his name, he called his friends Denise and John York, owners of the 49ers, to cut a check for $19,000.

Only one official from the progressive side of the local political spectrum turned to these big donations for help, and that was then-Sup. Aaron Peskin in 2007, when he wanted to raise $84,000 to buy a Telegraph Hill property to turn into open space. His top donors were the Gerson Bakar Foundation for $34,000 and 1301 Sansome LLC for $15,000.

So if you want to find out how downtown corporations are supporting the politicians they favor, keep your eye on this valuable new online resource.

The progressive communist conspiracy

Zelda Bronstein
-
5

This city’s seen such heated discussions about what the word “progressive” means, it’s fun to watch Glenn Beck proclaim that progressives are a disease facing America, really just Communists who don’t have guns.

Jon Stewart had a lot of fun with this on his show the other night. And it’s worth watching, just to remember what the progressives have done over the years.

“The State of Black SF”

Sasha Cuttler
-
2

By Adrian Castañeda

To support those living in public housing, the Osiris Coalition is hosting an event called The State of Black SF this Sunday (Feb. 28) at the Main Library’s Koret Auditorium from 2-4:30 pm. It will feature a short film and a panel discussion on the plight of the city’s African American population, a topic discussed in this week’s Guardian cover story.

One of the items the panel is sure to discuss is the mayor’s Hope SF initiative to renovate eight public housing projects around the city. City officials, residents, and developers agree that housing projects like Hunter’s View and Alice Griffith are dilapidated. But while plans have been made for revitalization and rebuilding, some community groups are worried that current residents, an already marginalized population, will be overlooked.

With this in mind, the Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco is drafting The Right to Remain Act that aims to assign accountability and protect current tenants during the construction process.

If passed by the Board of Supervisors, the ordinance would provide for the establishment of a monitoring committee comprised of residents and community leaders to approve plans and keep the public informed.  The aim, says Julian Davis of the San Francisco Housing Development Corporation, is to guarantee that current residents benefit from revitalization and will be allowed to remain in their neighborhoods. “They’re all just stated policy goals at this point,” he said of the effort to provide stronger guarantees.

Under the ordinance, existing provisions in the Hope SF plan would be enforced by limiting city funding for future projects until appropriate conditions for relocation and construction are met. The current Hope SF plan includes specific one-to-one placement and phased development provisions, where residents will be moved to on-site housing if possible.

However, there is no guarantee the developers will abide by these plans, so the Right to Remain Act will fill in gaps in federal and state housing laws and hold the Hope SF plan to its goals by ensuring every resident will receive a contract for their home and can sue if their rights are not upheld. Sara Shortt of the HRCSF told us, “No matter what kind of rhetoric is thrown around by officials during all of this, there’s something real on paper that can be enforced.” Shortt, who served on the mayor’s Hope SF task force, says there is a long history of broken promises in communities like Hunter’s View and tenant’s fear being pushed out of their homes.

Many city officials, including District 10 supervisor Sophie Maxwell and those in the Mayor’s Office of Housing, are receptive to the general idea behind the act but few have assured their support. “I don’t think the mayor’s office is particularly keen on it,” Davis said of the proposed residential committee. Shortt said, “It’s not just about logistical issues. We believe you can’t guarantee that without having accountability and oversight.” She adds that the act should be “in the spotlight,” for the November District 10 elections, “so all the candidates are aware this is something that they’re going to have to take a position on.”

The act is still being drafted, but the relocation of residents at the Hunter’s View projects has already begun. The pre-existing surplus of hundreds of empty units has made the on-site relocation simple, and Jack Gardner of the John Stewart Company says demolition will begin in March. While the Right to Remain Act would not retroactively cover current projects, it will protect residents in future redevelopment plans.

“Wouldn’t it be great to have it happen like Hunter’s View at the other sites?” says Davis.

Local CEO arrested in bribery sting

Sasha Cuttler
-
0
Local CEO arrested in bribery sting

By Nima Maghame

San Francisco-based High Com Security owner Yochanan Cohen was one of 22 CEOs and presidents of security companies that make everything from bullets to bullet-proof vests who were arrested by the Federal Bureau of Investigation under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act for illegally bribing foreign officials to win weapon defense contracts.

“This ongoing investigation is the first large-scale use of undercover law enforcement techniques to uncover FCPA violations and the largest action ever undertaken by the Justice Department against individuals for FCPA violations,” said Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer. All except one of the 22 heads of companies from across the country were arrested together on Jan. 19 when they met in Las Vegas for the 2010 Shooting, Outdoors Trade Show convention. The remaining CEO was apprehended the same day in Miami.

The undercover operation was designed by the FBI, which set up a sales agent representing the defense ministry of an undisclosed African nation. The agent was set up to inquire about purchasing arms for the presidential guard with the intention of being bribed. Once both sides met, the agent invited the CEOs and presidents to the country’s capital city.

Reportedly, the agreement was that the companies would pay a 20 percent commission for a slice of a  $15 million dollar venture that the African nation would use to outfit the presidential guard. Then, 10 percent of the commission was to go to sales agent with the other 10 percent going to the African nation’s defense ministry. The sales agent wined and dined the private business owners who then emailed the agent overpriced quotes for M4 carbines, body armor, and illegal purchasing agreements according to the indictment, and wired the bribe money to his overseas bank account. Dealings went so far that crates of weapons and armor were showing up in the African country.

In a FBI press release that came out shortly after the arrest, the bureau reported they had set up the operation after several undercover agents in the field had made allegations that foreign ministries were being bribed by the law enforcement products industry. 

“Corrupt payments to foreign officials to obtain or retain business erode public confidence in our free market system and threaten to undermine foreign governments,” said U.S. Attorney Channing Phillips. “These indictments set forth serious allegations and reflect the Department’s commitment to aggressively investigate and prosecute those who try to advance their businesses through foreign bribery.”

So far none of the indicted have any set trial date but the dependents will be heard by the federal court in Washington D.C.

 

Gascon’s remarks at press conference are stunning

Zelda Bronstein
-
4
Gascon’s remarks at press conference are stunning

By Brady Welch

Police Chief George Gascon held a press conference Feb 25th to discuss his desire to arm his officers with Conducted Energy Devices (known to you and me as Tasers or stun guns) — and his comments demonstrated that the chief still doesn’t get it.

Gascon is arguing that Tasers could prevent some deadly police shootings. But there’s a much larger issue that he seems to be ignoring.

On December 28, 2009, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals right here in San Francisco affirmed the decision of a lower court that an unarmed man shot with a Taser can sue the city of Coronado, just outside San Diego. The zapping caused Carl Bryan to fall face first into the pavement, thus knocking out his four front teeth. To add insult to injury, one of the Taser probes lodged in the man’s flesh, requiring a doctor’s scalpel to remove it.
And what was this citizen’s crime? Getting upset with himself for being pulled over twice in the same day for routine traffic infractions. According to court records, the 21-year-old Bryan was driving home on a Sunday morning after a long night with friends and got pulled over for speeding. Later that same morning, he got stopped again, this time for not wearing a seat belt (which he forgot to put back on after initially getting stopped).

Bryan pulled to the curb and started punching the steering wheel, shouting expletives at himself for being so careless. He then got out of the car “yelling gibberish and hitting his thighs,” the court decision reports. The officer yelled at Bryan to get back in the car, but Bryan apparently didn’t hear him. Then the cop, without warning, shot the kid with his Taser gun.
Bryan didn’t die. He also wasn’t on drugs (Tasers are particularly dangerous to people under the influence of stimulants). But he was hurt — and at least according to the court files, there’s good grounds to argue that he should never have been zapped in the first place.

Gascon acknowledged that Tasers can be dangerous, although he offered a somewhat morbid justification of taser-implicated deaths—loosely paraphrased, he suggested that if you ask a crackhead to run around the block, that person would probably suffer cardiac arrest anyway. And he talked about special training to avoid police Tasing of drug-addled and mentally ill people.

But what he’s missing — and what has a lot of community activists concerned — is the situation in Coronado: The Taser shooting of someone who should never have been shot with anything. Two police commissioners, Petra DeJesus and Vincent Pan, have expressed concerns over whether people can trust a San Francisco police department armed with semi-lethal weapons that officers might feel inclined to used in decidedly less than semi-lethal situations. The Ninth Circuit’s opinion is only the most recent and ballyhooed case.

What was particularly galling during the chief’s press conference was when Taser-supporting commissioners Tom Mazzucco and Jim Hammer came forward to plead the case for using Tasers on the mentally ill — as opposed to real bullets — almost as if to say, Certainly, we can all agree on this.

Well, maybe not. Here’s what the Ninth Circuit had to say:

A mentally ill individual is in need of a doctor, not a jail cell, and in the usual case—where such an individual is neither a threat to himself nor to anyone else—the government’s interests in deploying force to detain him is not as substantial as its interest in deploying that force to apprehend a dangerous criminal. Moreover, the purpose of detaining a mentally ill individual is not to punish him, but to help him. The government has an important interest in providing assistance to a person in need of psychiatric care; thus, the use of force that may be justified by that interest necessarily differs both in degree and in kind from the use of force that would be justified against a person who has committed a crime or who poses a threat to the community.

In other words: Cops shouldn’t be shooting mentally ill people anyway, with Tasers or with pistols.

And if you give the cops Tasers, it’s almost certain that they’ll zap a whole lot of people who were, as one critic put it, “guilty of nothing more than mouthing off to a cop on the bus.”

BTW, there’s an interesting Amnesty International report on Tasers here

 

 

 

On Feb. 26, the cab industry changes, radically

Zelda Bronstein
-
16
On Feb. 26, the cab industry changes, radically

The San Francisco taxi industry will undergo a major change starting Feb. 26, when the Municipal Transportation Agency is expected to adopt a complete transformation of how cab medallions — the permits needed to operate a taxi in the city — are allocated. You can read the proposal here. In essence, it would allow cab medallions — which are now allocated to individual drivers on the basis of seniority on a waiting list — to be sold on the open market.

It’s a tricky proposition. But the mayor appoints the MTA board, and the mayor wants this — both to help with the city’s budget problems and because, well, he’s always supported privatization of some public assets, and that’s what this proposal amounts to.

And here’s a little stinker that’s part of the deal: The MTA currently has 30 of the valuable medallions just sitting around in a desk. Those are permits that could be issued to the top 30 drivers on the waiting list — many of whom have been driving for 15 years or so while they slowly rose to the top of the list.

Instead, if the proposal passes, those medallions — or at least some of them — will be sold off, over the counter, at prices that could reach $400,000.

Judson True, the MTA’s spokesperson, confirmed that there were 30 unallocated permits on hand right now and that at least half would likely be sold at market rate. The MTA is budgeting $15 million for direct permit sales.

So if you’re, say, number 16 on the waiting list, and 15 people ahead of you get permits that are currently available — and the next 15 are sold, and you can’t afford it — you’re SOL. Until someone else dies and another permit comes up — unless that permit is sold, too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is Chevron lying about its crude plans?

Sasha Cuttler
-
1
Is Chevron lying about its crude plans?

By Adam Lesser

William Rostov, the Earthjustice lawyer who represents three Bay Area environmental groups, broke it down: “The question is: will it be heavier and will that result in more pollution?” He was speaking about crude oil refining at Chevron’s Richmond refinery as he addressed California’s First Appellate Court in San Francisco this morning. Heavier crude oil is usually less expensive for oil companies to purchase but generates more pollution during the refining process.

Environmentalists, labor unions, lawyers and Chevron representatives packed the courtroom to hear opposing counsel spar over the project’s environmental impact report, which was invalidated by a Contra Costa Superior Court judge last June. The ruling stopped the refinery expansion that Richmond has approved.

Chevron attorney Ronald Van Buskirk hammered the point that “the project didn’t propose a crude switch.” When pressed on why Chevron declined to disclose the data behind the conclusion that there would be no switch to heavier grade crude, Van Buskirk countered that the data constituted “trade secrets” that are protected under law.

Rostov argued that “refinery experts showed this project allows the use of heavier crude” and that Chevron “misled the public” in its EIR. A key component of the environmentalists’ argument rests on the 2007 Chevron annual report to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which specifies that “design and engineering for a project to increase the flexibility to process lower API-gravity crude oils at the company’s Richmond, California, refinery continued in 2007.” API gravity is a measure of how heavy or light petroleum is. Lower API gravity corresponds to a heavier crude oil. But Van Buskirk countered that the plaintiff’s evidence amounted to “one sentence in a 10K report.”

Justice Patricia Sepulveda questioned Van Buskirk about whether the $61 million Community Benefits Agreement that Chevron offered to contribute to the city of Richmond gave the city “bias to approve the project.” But Van Buskirk said, “It wasn’t a quid pro quo, if that’s what you’re suggesting,” before ultimately conceding that it was fair suggest to that the gift had played a role in the approval.

Judge Ignacio Ruvolo presided over Chevron’s appeal. At the end of oral arguments, he spoke to the efforts the court has taken to expedite the case, pressing attorneys on whether there was any chance of a settlement.

“The parties are still very far apart,” said Van Buskirk, and Rostov nodded the same. For the first time all morning, everyone was in agreement.

The court will rule within 90 days.

The attack on the SF left

Zelda Bronstein
-
20
The attack on the SF left

If I were a political consultant hired by the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce and the big developers and the landlords and Mayor Newsom, and my job was to launch an effective attack on the progressive movement in the city and undermine progressive control of the Board of Supervisors, here’s what I’d do:


1. I’d attack district elections. See, every time the downtown folks have tried to run candidates in swing districts under the existing system, they’ve lost. That’s in part because the business types can’t seem to find decent candidates, and part because money doesn’t rule in districts, so progressives who can mobilize at the grassroots level have a better chance.


So when you can’t win the game you try to change the rules. You can’t do it too directly, because the polls show that people like having district supervisors, so I’d come up with a “hybrid” plan — say, seven districts and four at-large supervisors. Since anyone who runs at large in this city needs gobs of campaign cash, that would pretty much guarantee that four board members would be accountable to downtown. Then draw the districts to create two moderate-conservative seats, and the progressives have lost control.


I’d launch this by planting stories in the San Francisco Chronicle about a “growing movement” to change the way the supervisors are elected — even thought there is no real grassroots movement.


But that creates the appearance that’s needed to begin raising money and preparing for a ballot initiative. It’s not hard to get the Chron to bit on something like this; C.W. Nevius, the local columnist who lives in the East Bay suburbs, never liked district elections, so he’ll play along and the Chron’s corporate ownership, which is close to the Chamber folks, never liked the system either. You can expect an editorial from the Chronicle Feb. 28th calling for a partial repeal of district elections.


The argument won’t have anything to do with the fact that the Chron doesn’t like the policies this particular board has passed; it will be all about the need for a “citywide perspective.” Now, that’s just horseshit, since the district boards have done an immense amount of work on citywide issues (like mininum wage and health care) that the at-large boards would never do.


But “citywide perspective” is a term that’s been focus-group tested and sounds good.


2. I’d look for a nice wedge issue for the November elections — something that could be used against progressives in swing districts. When Newsom ran for mayor the first time, he used “care Not Cash” — a well-funded attack on homeless people.


And gee, guess what? There’s another nice anti-homeless measure that’s recently been floating around, and it comes from the media-savvy police chief, George Gascon. It’s called a “sit-lie” law — legislation that would criminize the act of sitting on the sidewalk. It’s got a lot of populist zing to is, particularly since Gascon is talking about the need to clean up Haight Street, where some ill-behaved young people have been bothering the merchants and shoppers.


A November ballot initiative on a sit-lie law would allow downtown to raise a lot of money — and attack people like Rafael Mandelman and Debra Walker, candidates for supervisor in districts where a simplistic attack on the homeless might play. 


3. I’d try to split the city’s labor movement and drive labor away from the progressives. The obvious tactic: Construction jobs. I’d get every construction trade union member to campaign in District 10 for a supervisor who will support Lennar Corp.’s redevelopment project, and I’d attack any supervisor or candidate who supports limits on, say, buildings that shadow the parks and call them anti-jobs.


4. I’d launch a quiet effort to raise a big chunk of money to push pro-downtown candidates for the Democratic County Central Committee. The DCCC used to be something of a political backwater, but under progressive control, it’s become a significant force in local elections. The DCCC controls the local Democratic Party endorsements and money — which can be a big factor in district supervisorial races.


Now: I have no evidence that any individual consultant has created any such plan — but it’s sure an interesting coincidence, isn’t it?


What I see right now is a coordinated, orchestrated attack on the left — and I’m getting a little nervous that our current leadership on the Board of Supervisors isn’t doing enough about it.


 

John Yoo’s torturous book tour

Sasha Cuttler
-
1
John Yoo’s torturous book tour

By Adrian Castaneda and Steven T. Jones

John Yoo – the infamous author of legal memos justifying torture for the Bush Administration and a controversial UC Berkeley law professor – continued his surreal book tour yesterday, stopping in San Francisco yesterday to appear on KQED’s forum.

And while host Michael Krasny did little to challenge Yoo’s tortured logic, including the ludicrous assertion that tactics like waterboarding are legal because they weren’t specifically outlawed by Congress, two callers who are lawyers correctly noted that the U.S. is bound by several treaties that bar torture, as well as inhumane or degrading treatment of prisoners, which the U.S. clearly engaged in based on Yoo’s legal advice that only pushing a prisoner to the brink of death or major organ failure constitutes impermissible torture.

One of those callers specifically asked Yoo why his memo to the White House – written in the wake of 9/11, which Yoo considers an “unprecedented” event that conveyed great new powers to the president – didn’t cite the U.S. constitutional provision that makes Congressional-approved treaties the “supreme law of the land,” comparable to any other laws Congress approves.

Yoo never answered that question, and Krasny quickly dropped the issue to quote an e-mail that was supportive of Yoo, the only such comment during the hour-long show. It’s a shame that Krasny was far easier on this locally infamous figure than the Daily Show’s Jon Stewart, whose interview with Yoo last month was far tougher and more revealing.

That’s particularly galling given that is was just last week that the Department of Justice issued its final report criticizing Yoo’s “flawed legal reasoning” even though it stopped short of finding professional misconduct that would warrant criminal sanctions or disbarment. That final report by David Margolis of the Justice Department overruled a preliminary report by the Office of Professional Standards that did find professional misconduct based on the fact that Yoo “knowingly provided incomplete and one-sided advice” to justify the Bush Administration’s desire to torture detainees that it dubbed “enemy combatants.”

Protesters with World Can’t Wait and other groups have been hounding Yoo on his tour to promote his new book, “Crisis and Command: A history of executive power from George Washington to George W. Bush,” calling him and Jay Bybee (another Bush Administration lawyer who approved torture and is now a judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco) to be tried for their role in facilitating war crimes.

“These are men covered with the blood of countless victims of unspeakably cruel torture, rendition, and imprisonment without any recourse to trial in hell hole dungeons across the planet,” reads a World Can’t Wait missive.

For his part, Yoo is unrepentant and dismissive of critics, repeatedly citing unnamed polls that he says indicate most Americans support the so-called “enhanced interrogation methods” and believe they have prevented terrorist attacks. “I don’t think the majority of the American people think we went too far,” Yoo told Stewart.

On Forum, Yoo criticized the Office of Professional Responsibility’s finding as “shoddy,” saying that the investigators did not take into account the pressure and national urgency of the months just after the 9/11 attacks. Yoo placed blame for the torture scandals not on the one-sided misinformation in his legal briefs but on the fact that Congress didn’t create specific laws to define torture technique after adopting international torture treaties into American law. Yoo also blamed Congress for its inability or unwillingness to reign in the President’s broad wartime powers. “Congress still has enormous authority over national security matters when it chooses to use them,” he said.

Congress also has the power to subpoena Yoo and hold public hearings on the latest Justice Department report, which critics say whitewashed what many consider to be blatantly illegal activities by Yoo and other Bush Administration officials – or to formally support the indictment of Yoo and others by a Spanish judge investigating U.S.-approved torture — if it chooses to do so.

Sunday parking in the Mission

Zelda Bronstein
-
15
Sunday parking in the Mission

I’m not surprised that merchants in the Mission want to retain free parking on Sundays. Times are tough for neighborhood businesses, and anything that would seem to discourage customers is frightening.


Of course, if the city doesn’t expand parking meter hours, it’s going to have to make even further cuts in Muni, which could impact the merchants even more.


But the thing that always kills me about this discussion is all the illegal parking that goes on every Sunday all over the Mission. The entire center of Valencia Street is a big parking lot — and nobody ever gets a ticket. That’s because the cops have an unwritten, uncodified, long-standing policy of letting people park in the middle of the street if they’re going to church.


If we’re going to turn the streets into parking lots, fine: Let’s allow people to park there and go to breakfast at a local restaurant, or go shopping at a local store, or go to yoga at a local studio. Ofrelse — much better, in my mind — let’s start charging the churchgoers for the right to clog up the streets. Then maybe we won’t have to extend meter hours.


Nothing against churchgoers, of course. But if they don’t want to pay for parking, they can ride the bus to services. It’s far more holy to take the bus, anyway.


Now, let’s see: Which San Francisco supervisor wants to take on THAT political nightmare?


 


 


 

Just what we need: Guns in the park

Zelda Bronstein
-
23
Just what we need: Guns in the park

Okay, here’s some excellent news: You can now carry a concealed weapon in a national park. So when I’m hiking in Muir Woods or the GGNRA, I can look forward to running into a gun toter. I hope my dog doesn’t pee on his leg.

 

Hey Matier & Ross — PG&E is no security blanket

Sasha Cuttler And Mary Magee
-
8
Hey Matier & Ross — PG&E is no security blanket

Today’s San Francisco Chronicle piece by Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross brought to mind a Pacific Gas & Electric Co.-sponsored Web site that was set up to undermine the city’s fledgling Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) program.

That’s because one of the key points in the story was that San Francisco’s CCA could result in higher customer bills. According to the Chronicle:

“A 2007 city controller’s report concluded that a typical residential utility bill under this type of plan could go up by 24 percent if only half the purchased energy is green. The cost would almost certainly go even higher if the city went totally green, the report said.”

This city controller’s report is referenced on the PG&E-funded Web site, too, and this supposed 24 percent increase was splashed prominently across colorful outsized postcards that the PG&E-sponsored “Common Sense Coalition” sent to businesses and residences throughout the city last December. However, San Francisco’s Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo), a city commission responsible for setting CCA in motion, maintains that the claim is misleading.

Why?

The controller’s was drafted in 2007, making it an outdated and unreliable source for an economic-impact projection at this time, according to LAFCo Senior Program Officer Jason Fried.

“PG&E is trying to confuse people now … because they know that in a month or two more, we’ll have a contract” with actual figures to go by, Fried told the Guardian. The city is still in negotiations with Power Choice LLC, the firm selected to handle power purchases, and so it has yet to determine a long-term pricing plan. Fried also pointed out that the 24-percent increase noted in the controller’s report only pertains to electricity generation charges, and not the entire customer bill.

While the report did caution against a potential increase in prices, it also made it clear that the figures were preliminary. Here’s an excerpt:

“San Francisco’s CCA process has not yet advanced to the stage where any definitive economic impact statement can be made. A detailed economic impact assessment will not be possible until the RFP process is complete, a structured long-term rate plan has been submitted, and an opt-out penalty has been set. [NOTE: As of February 2010, the RFP process is complete, but the other two steps haven’t been definitively nailed down yet.]

The proposed implementation of CCA could lead to greater competition in the City’s electricity markets, lower rates for consumers, and a greater reliance on local sources of renewable energy and conservation. Such an outcome would benefit the San Francisco economy and the global environment.”

Since this PG&E-sponsored propaganda campaign got underway, a figure unearthed from this three-year-old report is popping up everywhere, including in the Chronicle.

More importantly, the focus on a potential rate increase under CCA ignores an important question: Is the status quo any better?

Even if CCA did drive up prices, it seems that sticking with PG&E as the region’s sole electricity provider might not be any cheaper in the long run. For example, the following appeared a Feb. 19 article in the Wall Street Journal:

“In December, [PG&E] asked state regulators for permission to raise customer rates 19% or $1 billion in 2011, with additional rate hikes of about $550 million from 2012-13. … The outlook for the increases is unclear, as consumer advocates have vowed to fight them, citing PG&E’s already higher-than-average utility rates, California’s relatively high 12.4% unemployment rate and the state’s ailing economy.”

There are other factors to think about, too, like the dynamic environment we live in and how the cost of a finite energy resource will fluctuate in the long run. The Chronicle piece quotes Severin Borenstein, co-director of the Energy Institute at UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business, as saying San Francisco’s CCA is “fraught with danger.” This statement seems to ignore what environmentalists have been saying for years, which is that the status quo itself is a treacherous path to go down.

A key difference between San Francisco’s CCA and PG&E’s energy mix is that CCA would rely more heavily on green energy sources, with a goal of offering 51 percent of its energy from renewable resources by 2017 with the plan to transition eventually to 100 percent renewable power. Meanwhile, PG&E is making snail-like progress toward a 33 percent renewable-energy standard by 2020 that is mandated by state law.

In the long run, many experts tell us that energy derived from fossil fuels will be more susceptible to price volatility than wind and solar — especially with added environmental pressures that scientists predict will result from climate change. A future characterized by less rainfall threatens to drive up energy prices, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, because California gets about 20 percent of its electricity from hydropower, and could be forced to purchase from an outside provider in years of extreme drought. Hotter summers are also expected, which could lead to a higher demand for electricity when everyone is running air conditioners.

Energy analyst Laura Wisland of the California office of the Union of Concerned Scientists put it this way: “We can’t afford not to take advantage of the renewable-energy resources in our own backyard. We will save money, because we will become less dependent on fuels that have more volatile prices.

“We know that we have an exhaustible supply of fossil fuels,” Wisland added. “We know that we have an inexhaustible supply of wind and sun. In the long term, we see renewable energy as investing in … more price certainty and cleaner air — and that can benefit all Californians.”

Why taxes need to be on SF’s budget table

Zelda Bronstein
-
18
Why taxes need to be on SF’s budget table

San Francisco missed an opportunity last fall. While communities around the Bay Area were approving new revenue plans, addressing devastating budget cuts in part by raising their own taxes, San Francisco’s mayor and supervisors were sitting on their hands, bewailing the fact that passing tax measures is tough.

But this year’s budget is even worse than last year’s, and the cuts are going to be even more brutal (particularly when you realize that the cuts will come on top of several years of previous cuts). And still, nobody at City Hall seems to be putting forward any plans to mount a campaign for new revenues in the fall.

It’s not that hard a sell, really. Brian Leubitz has an excellent report on Calitics about a new poll showing how people in California feel about pressing issues. Budget cuts are a serious concern; so is employment and the economy. Taxes don’t even rate.

In other words, even across California, where the population is far more conservative than it is in San Francisco, people worry more about budget cuts than about taxes.

If the supervisors and the mayor made even a half-serious effort to get the message out — you can raise these taxes or you can accept these cuts — I think more than half the voters (all you would need this November) would go for the new revenue, easy.

At this point in the budget cycle, this ought to be not only on the table but front and center. We should have half a dozen different revenue plans in the works; legislation should be floating around, the Budget and Finance Committee should be holding hearing, the Controller’s Office should be studying the impacts and issuing reports, and the supervisors should be preparing to include the potential revenue from a November ballot measure in their 2010-2011 budget calculations.

Why isn’t this happening? It’s almost March, and the mayor will be delivering a budget in less than three months, and at that point the supervisors will have a short few weeks to deal with devastating cuts. And it will be too late at that point to start the debate over new revenue sources.

This is the year, folks. Let’s get on the stick.  

This is what you get, Gavin

Zelda Bronstein
-
0

For hiring a scorched-earth guy like Garry South, who will turn on you in a second.

SF Weekly mangles Mexican politics

Zelda Bronstein
-
1
SF Weekly mangles Mexican politics

The SF Weekly, in its continuing effort to make everything the progressives in San Francisco do look stupid, just stepped in a major turd. A piece by Matt Smith seeks to trash the supes for passing a resolution supporting Mexican electricity workers against an effort by the Mexican government to privatize the nation’s electricity system.

He notes:

However, the government of Mexico felt this one to be so egregious as to warrant fact-checking. As it happens there was no privatization. The government transferred Luz y Fuerza del Centro to a much larger power utility called the Comision Federal de Electricidad — which is, you guessed it, also government-run.

 His single source for that information? The (utterly unbiased, of course) Mexican consulate.

Well, John Ross, our Mexico City correspondent, who has lived there more more than 25 years, has written several books on Mexican politics and is nationally known an expert in the area, has written about this issue extensively. I just sent him Smith’s blog post, and here’s how he responded:

Consul general Carlos Felix Corona’s response to the Board of Supervisors resolution re Felipe Calderon’s efforts to break the mexican electricity workers union (SME) is disingenuous. The Luz y Fuerza Company was forced to buy electricity from the federal electicity commission (CFE) at an exorbitant price, with the costs then passed along to the consumer by presidential fiat. The CFE itself now buys a third of the electricity it generates from private corporations — in violation of the Mexican Constitutionl, which ascribes electricity generation as a state function, thus privatizing electricity generation in Mexico City and five other states in the center of the country. According to the SME, whose workers were forced out of the generating plants and which the Mexican Labor Commission has now stripped of its authority to represent the workers, Luz y Fuerza lines will now be sold off to W Communications, a Madrid-based transnational represented in Mexico by two ex-energy secretaries (Calderon himself is an ex energy secretary). W Communications is expected to install fiber optic cables on the old Luz y Fuerza lines. The Calderon administration will no doubt wait several months to seal this deal until the clamor about priviatization recedes. But the contracts have been signed, so don’t be fooled by the consul’s disingenuous response that Luz y Fuerza has not yet been privatized. Now that US unions and the SF Board of Supes have expressed their solidarity with the electricity workers, Felix Corona, a shill for calderon, seeks to bamboozle San Franciscans that all is honky dory South of the border and that protest marches that regularly turn out a quarter of a million Mexicans are just the work of a few malcontents  

So there’s another side to this story, Matt, and the consulate is hardly a trustworthy source.

 

Newsom’s getting closer

Zelda Bronstein
-
19

There are really only two obstacles to Newsom’s jumping into the Lt. Gov.’s race. One is the possibility that he might lose, but he would be the instant front runner. The other is the supposed fear of leaving the city in the hands of whatever mayor the Board of Supervisors chose.

And according to the Chron’s politics blog, he’s gotten over the second hurdle:

“It’s no surprise I’m looking at running for another office,” he continued. “I’m out of here. I’m termed out anyway…I do take my job seriously, but I’m capable of doing a lot of things at one time. By definition, it’s a skill set I must have.”

He added that if people are so concerned about one of the supervisors becoming mayor for the year before the next scheduled mayoral election, maybe they shouldn’t have elected them to the board in the first place.

“If it’s just concern with me leaving, maybe they should look at who they elected,” he said.

 

 

Clean money campaign launches in SF

Sasha Cuttler
-
0
Clean money campaign launches in SF

The campaign for Prop. 15, the California Fair Elections Act, kicks off in San Francisco this Sunday afternoon. It’s an appropriate city to launch this effort, given San Francisco’s leadership on electoral reform, from our pioneering ranked choice voting system to our low political contribution limits to the public financing available in the races for mayor and the Board of Supervisors.

As I discussed in an article this week’s paper, the measure would create a pilot public financing program in the 2014 and 2018 races for the Secretary of State, funded by a $350 annual fee on lobbyists and their employers. It was placed on the ballot by legislation pushed primarily by Bay Area legislators Loni Hancock, Mark Leno, and Tom Ammiano.

Those legislators, along with Sup. Ross Mirkarimi, campaign chair Trent Lange, and California Nurses Association president Deborah Burger, are scheduled to speak at the event, with takes place at 1 p.m. outside the Main Library, 100 Larkin Street.

Berkeley’s mayor pushes anti-PG&E protester

Zelda Bronstein
-
3
Berkeley’s mayor pushes anti-PG&E protester

At least, that’s what Luke Thomas is reporting in Fog City Journal. He’s got photos, too.


The way the story goes, Bates was speaking at a PG&E-sponored forum, and Mark Toney, director of The Utility Refrom Network (TURN) came up uninvited to speak out against Prop. 16.  So the mayor of Berkeley physically pushed him out of the way.


Now, why Tom Bates was speaking at a PG&E-sponored forum (and saying nice things about the company) at a time like this is beyond me. And typically mayors don’t take it upon themselves to eject protesters from meetings.


I’ve got a call into Bates for comment, but his staff hasn’t gotten back to me.


 

Poll: Voters give $11 billion water bond thumbs down

Sasha Cuttler And Mary Magee
-
3

By Rebecca Bowe

There is very weak support across political and geographic boundaries in California for a proposed $11 billion water bond that will go on the November ballot, according to the results of a poll released yesterday.

Just 34 percent of respondents said they would vote yes on the proposed $11 billion bond, while 55 percent said they would vote no. A more detailed breakdown revealed that 32 percent of likely voters indicated that they would definitely vote no, while only 12 percent said they would definitely vote yes.

“This bond is in deep trouble,” said Ben Tulchin of Tulchin Research, the firm that conducted the poll. “No bond has ever won statewide that started with a majority against it. It faces a real uphill battle.” Tulchin Research conducted the poll at the request of groups opposing the bond. The poll surveyed 600 likely voters across California, asking respondents to share their opinions after reading them the title and summary.

Tulchin, who has conducted polls for bonds and ballot initiatives throughout California, said support for proposals typically start at a high point and then decline as the election date nears. “In this case, the bond is starting at a low point,” he said. “In general, you want to see support around 60 percent” to win on a proposal, he said. “This is nothing near that.”

The proposed bond would include funding for a variety of water-infrastructure projects including new dams and reservoirs. Its primary backers include Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who last year said he would reject any water bill that didn’t include a plan to fund new water-storage projects, and major agricultural interests who are concerned about secure water availability for irrigation purposes.

Mark Schlosberg, of San Francisco-based Food & Water Watch, opposes the bond.

“It’s the wrong bond, at the wrong time, and it does the wrong thing,” Schlosberg told the Guardian. He described it as a measure that could result in giveaways to corporate interests, such as developers of major desalination facilities. Some $1 billion of the bond is earmarked to go toward water recycling or desalination projects.

Schlosberg said he expects big agriculture and other backers to spend “tens of millions” in support of the proposed bond. But in the face of high unemployment and cuts to education, public safety and other services, “We can’t afford to spend $11 billion on this boondoggle,” he said.

Meanwhile, Congressional representatives have been airing concerns regarding water policy too. According to this post on Calitics, four members of the house recently sent a letter to Sen. Diane Feinstein blasting her plan to introduce legislation to speed pumping out of the Delta.

The war on suburbs? Huh?

Zelda Bronstein
-
10
The war on suburbs? Huh?

Joel Kotkin, the author and urban scholar, was on KQED’s Forum this morning talking about what he called “the war on the suburbs.” He’s got a new book out, called The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050, and he’s arguing, among other things, that the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts signals that the Democratic Party and progressives in America have lost touch with the suburbs and are being mean to the poor suburbanites.


He talked, for example, about Tracy, California, and noted that a suburbanite living in Tracy doesn’t want to pay taxes because he doesn’t see what he’s getting for his money. Kotkin sugggestes that the state ought to go back to the Pat Brown era, and focus on spending money on infrastructure, instead of on “state employee pensions.”


Never mind that when Pat Brown was governor, the population of California was less than half what it is today — and the state was far less diverse, had far fewer immigrants, far fewer residents whose primary language is not English and, frankly, was a lot more tolerant of poverty.


That was also before the passage of Prop. 13, so the state didn’t have to spend money on schools and local government; local property taxes covered those things.


In fact, I think what’s going on is just the opposite of what Kotkin is talking about. (He, by the way, says that suburbs are going to be more and more sustainable as more jobs relocate and we start using natural gas in our cars.) I realize that suburban voters can easily shift to the Republican party if the Democrats aren’t careful, but I also think that what’s happening in the United States today is not a war on suburbs but a war on cities.


The state and federal governments have systematically defunded urban America for more than 30 years now, and we’re paying the price. The hypothetical suburbanite in Tracy may think he’s not getting his money’s worth, but the truth is just the opposite; the suburbs — typically, not always but typically — have better-funded schools, better maintained streets, better sewage systems, less crime … and less of an income gap among residents.


Cities are, and will remain, America’s future, and we ignore that at our peril.  


 

Notes from the Sierra Club’s gala dinner

Sasha Cuttler
-
0

While I focused on Jerry Brown’s disappointing speech to the Sierra Club San Francisco Bay Chapter’s gala dinner on Wednesday night, there are a few more notable nuggets in my notebook worth posting here, starting with what appears to be the collapse of plans for a California Constitutional Convention.

The Guardian recently reported on the difficulties that the campaign was having, but consultant Clint Reilly told me that the effort is basically over, with fundraising shortfalls being the final nail in the coffin. That’s one more reason why “hope” seems to be in such short supply on the political landscape.

The event was held in the Merchant Exchange, a building owned by Reilly, who helped underwrite the gathering. So it was no surprise that the evening was MCed by his wife, Janet Reilly, who is running a strong campaign to replace Michela Alioto-Pier on the Board of Supervisors.

There were lots of political luminaries at the event (list to follow), but there was one particularly notable attendee and particularly notable absence. Los Angeles City Council member Janice Hahn was one of the few politicos from down south, making the rounds in support of her run for lieutenant governor. But Mayor Gavin Newsom, who is considering challenging her, didn’t show up.

Also a no-show was U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, who appeared by video to address the gathering and express appreciation for being the recipient of the Sierra Club’s first Phillip Burton Badge of Courage Award for environmental stewardship. Accepting the award on her behalf was California Democratic Party chair John Burton, who was his usual salty self, taking a dig at the San Francisco Chronicle by referring to someone who wrote “for the Chronicle back when that was a newspaper,” and describing the award’s namesake thusly: “My brother was an outstanding environmentalist who didn’t like the outdoors much.”

He also made this funny, self-effacing crack at the start of his speech: “I think a third of the people in this room would like to see the accelerator stuck on the rug of my Prius.” I was not among that third.

There was a strong turnout of local political leaders, but tellingly, only from the left side of the political spectrum. The members of the Board of Supervisors who turned out were David Chiu, Chris Daly, Ross Mirkarimi, Eric Mar, and John Avalos. Other political luminaries on hand included City Attorney Dennis Herrera, Sen. Leland Yee (Yee and Herrera are each running for mayor) City College trustee John Rizzo (who introduced Brown), Senator-turned-Oakland mayoral candidate Don Perata, District Attorney Kamala Harris, Rep. Jerry McNerney, and Sen. Loni Hancock.

This is embarassing

Zelda Bronstein
-
2
This is embarassing

Come on, folks.


Tiger woods just made international news with a 15-minute press conference in which he … apologized to his wife. Oh dear me, I’m so bad, I’ve let the whole world down, won’t you ever forgive me, I need more treatement, I need more therapy, please oh please I’m an awful human being but I’m trying to win back your respect …


Ladies and Gentlemen of the press: Tiger Woods didn’t kill anyone. He didn’t run over a child, or beat up a nun, or stab someone to death in a drunken bar fight. He didn’t steal money, or bankrupt the United States financial system. His dick just isn’t that important.


And Tiger, dude, get a grip: You cheated on your wife. You had affairs. I’m not condoning it, but Jesus: If every prominent person in the world who was unfaithful to his or her spouse had to take six months off, go into seclusion and act like a little spoiled baby, the world would come to a halt and nothing would ever get done.


Man up, Mr. Woods. The Masters starts in a month and a half. Quit whining and get back to work.


 


 

And speaking of pot…

Sasha Cuttler
-
3
And speaking of pot…

Just minutes after my last post on medical marijuana, Assembly member Tom Ammiano announced that he has reintroduced state legislation that would legalize and tax marijuana. Assembly Bill 2254 follows an earlier bill by Ammiano, AB 390, which made history in January by clearing the Assembly Public Safety Committee, only to die from failing to clear a second committee before the legislative deadline.

“Just look at what is happening in our state and it’s obvious that the existing model of prohibition has been a tragic failure. Our prisons are overflowing and it’s easier now for teenagers to get marijuana than alcohol. But yet we continue to spend our limited resources on a failed war on drugs instead of education, health care or job training. With this bill, California can finally have a policy towards marijuana that reflects reality,” Ammiano said in a prepared statement. “We simply cannot afford to continue keeping our heads in the sand and pretend that everything is fine.  It’s time for California to regain control of this issue by taxing and regulating marijuana.”

Marijuana really is medicine

Sasha Cuttler
-
5
Marijuana really is medicine

Just in time for Medical Marijuana Week comes word that the first U.S. clinical trials on marijuana in more than 20 years has found that it is effective in relieving pain and treating multiple sclerosis and other ailments, potentially opening the way for the federal government to revisit its longstanding claim that pot has no medicinal value.

Most significant are findings that even low levels of marijuana offer significant pain relief with minimal health consequences. Unfortunately, the San Francisco Chronicle also reports that the UC San Diego researchers have almost run out of funding before all its planned tests have been completed.

San Francisco has long been a leader in the medical marijuana movement, both with its proactive approach to regulating cannabis clubs, and with the sponsorship of efforts to decriminalize pot by state legislators Tom Ammiano and Mark Leno. Oakland’s pot-cultivation school Oaksterdam University also bankrolled an initiative aimed for the November ballot that would legalize weed for even recreational use.

1...148149150...258Page 149 of 258

48hills.org is the official publication of the non-profit San Francisco Progressive Media Center.
Contact us: info@48hills.org