• No categories

Politics Blog

Time for journalists to organize

-
0
Time for journalists to organize

Will journalists be forced to include a “tip jar” logo next to their online work? Or is there some other way to save an industry in crisis?

Alan Mutter has a cool post on his ‘Reflections of a Newsosaur’ blog today: he advocates that we stop the exploitation of journalists. And he includes a handy way to calculate your own worth as a reporter, including the notion of establishing a basic hourly rate (which he calculates as four times the minimum wage in your state, so that would be $32 an hour in California, and then factor in everything else.)

Mutter’s is a desperately needed message and tool– in this age where freelancers are apparently expected to feel honored just to get their byline in an online publication, or a pittance instead of a professional salary.

Since the Chronicle drastically cut its newsroom last year and the California Media Workers alliance set up a Freelancers Unit (which, abbreviated, fittingly says “FU”) I’ve read countless rants about the piss poor wages, or lack of them, that employers seem to think are OK to offer reporters, in the post-print, mobile-phone dominated age.

And so far, no one has figured out a way to turn around this depressing trend. Will reporters be forced to include a “tip jar” logo, alongside the “share” and “email” and “print” buttons that typically frame their online work? I don’t know, but if you are prepared to give a dollar to a barista for making you a cup of joe, why not do the same for someone who just spent months of their life digging up the dirt on the rich and powerful, so that members of the public could have a clue as to what is really going on? And why don’t the aggregators, like Google and Yahoo and Dogg, who profit handsomely from displaying reporters’ work, pay writers a small fee (even a percentage of a cent) everytime someone clicks on this so-called ‘free’ content?

There may be very good reasons why none of the above approaches will work (it’s easy to slip a dollar in a real jar, but less appealing when you have to log in and give someone your credit card number). But if human kind can figure out a way to get to the moon and cure cancer, then we can figure out a way to fairly compensate reporters.
Especially since these are the very folks who alert you when earthquakes hit and wars break out and seemingly wholesome politicians turn out to be cheating, daughter-denying, self-promoting sleaze bags. Yes, we can imagine a world without newsprint, but a world without news? That’s called a dictatorship.

Back to the mat for Ting and the Catholics

-
0

By Ryan Thomas Riddle

What city officials called the “second largest transfer tax event in our city’s history” is set to go back before the Transfer Tax Review Board. The Catholic Archdiocese of San Francisco has filed an appeal, contesting the delinquent tax value of the board’s Dec 4. ruling that states an estimated $14.4 million in transfer taxes are owed to the city.

Last month, the board ruled 3-0 in favor of Assessor-Recorder Phil Ting’s assertion that the church has to pay transfer taxes for its extensive 2008 property shuffle. Ting told the Guardian that particular decision isn’t what’s being challenged here. While the church has threatened to challenge the basic ruling in court, it is also contesting the exact value of the delinquent transfer taxes owed, he said.

In fact, Ting went before the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, Jan. 26, to begin lien proceedings against the Archdiocese for the money owed. However, the church’s recent appeal has tabled that for now.

Source switch clouds SF’s water

-
0

By Jobert Poblete

If you’ve noticed that your water has been looking a little off recently, you aren’t the only one. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) is warning Bay Area residents that tap water may look cloudy for the next few weeks while maintenance and construction work is completed on the pipeline that delivers pristine water from the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir in Yosemite National Park.

Work on the pipeline shut off the flow from Hetch Hetchy, which normally supplies around 85 percent of San Francisco’s water. In the meantime, residents will be drinking water sourced closer to home from reservoirs in the Peninsula and East Bay.

SFPUC officials assure consumers that the water is safe. The cloudiness is caused by the presence of air bubbles introduced in the pipelines by the construction work and by an increased rate of flow at an East Bay
treatment plant. The department recommends letting drinking water stand for a few minutes to give the air bubbles a chance to break apart.

SFPUC is taking advantage of low seasonal water demand to perform regular maintenance and to complete work as part of the Water System Improvement Program, a multi-year, $4.6 billion upgrade of the region’s water infrastructure. The Hetch Hetchy pipeline is expected to be back on-line by February 19.

How bad does Muni have to get

-
1

By Tim Redmond

Before Gavin Newsom is willing to consider extending parking meter hours to make drivers pay their fair share?

The budget picture is increasingly bleak, and Muni’s talking about some very unpleasant cuts that may wind up to be ineffective; if buses are slower, dirtier and cost more, then fewer people will ride, and Muni will collect less fare money.

So how bad does it have to get? Does the system have to reach total collapse before Newsom is willing to take a little political risk and raise some money from people who drive downtown and park their cars?

Obama to base: “Continue to fight”

-
0
Obama to base: “Continue to fight”

Tosca in North Beach was packed last night for the State of the Union watch party that was thrown by Organizing for America, President Barack Obama’s grassroots organizing operation, and the crowd was predictably supportive of the president despite his political difficulties and declining popularity.

Karen Buchanan — who volunteered on Obama’s presidential campaign and has continued to do so since then, including phone banking to support his health care reform effort – responded positively to the speech’s call for renewed activism, even though she was less than thrilled with some of Obama’s policy prescriptions.

“I don’t agree with him 100 percent, but I’m not going to join the circular firing squad. I continue to support him,” Buchanan said. “He had a nice tone of optimism and we needed that.”

That may be true. Obama’s poignant call for the country’s political, corporate, and media institutions to make strong, good faith efforts to regain the public’s trust was the emotional high point of this speech. But unfortunately, Obama’s muddled and often contradictory policy priorities are frustrating to progressives who have been turning away from this president.

Howard Zinn has died

-
0

By Steven T. Jones

Historian and social justice advocate Howard Zinn – whose work inspired me and countless others to look at history and the world from the people’s perspective, rather than that of the conquerors and power-brokers – has died.

Zinn’s People History of the United States was performed at Mission High School last year, and my preview of that prompted criticism on his scholarship. But he is truly one of the great progressive thinkers of the 20th Century, someone who took courageous actions on behalf of his ideals, and he’ll truly be missed.

Alioto-Pier drops out of insurance commissioner race

-
0

By Steven T. Jones

Michela Alioto-Pier has withdrawn from the race for insurance commissioner. “Michela suffered an injury to her leg which required surgery and will entail additional time in the hospital time to heal,” her husband Tom Pier said in a public statement. “The necessary recuperation, as well as the demands of her duties as a San Francisco Supervisor and as a mother of three young children, make a statewide run for Insurance Commissioner impractical at this time.”

We’re sorry to hear about her poor health. But like most of her progressive colleagues on the board, who already endorsed Assembly member Dave Jones for insurance commissioner, we’re not disappointed that her candidacy has come to an end.

At a time when insurance companies like the truly malevolent Mercury Insurance are brazenly pushing deceptive profit-making schemes and actively corrupting politicians of both major parties, we need a strong and independent defender of the public interest in this job.

And based on her well-established record of coziness with corporations and hostility to progressive causes, Alioto-Pier just isn’t that person.

ACORN-hater O’Keefe arrested in Louisiana Watergate

-
0
ACORN-hater O’Keefe arrested in Louisiana Watergate

We don’t know why O’Keefe targeted Louisiana’s Landrieu, but we do know he led the attack on ACORN in 2009

Last year, we wrote about how Karl Rove targeted ACORN in 2006 as part of a concerted Republican campaign to attack progressive organizations that were registering low-income voters and helping them fight corporate power.

Those attacks came to a seemingly salacious climax in 2009, when James O’Keefe, a conservative videographer, secretly taped some ACORN employees saying stupid things—an incident that somehow became one of the biggest political stories of the year.

And now O’Keefe is back in the political headlines, only this time as one of four men charged Jan. 26 with trying to illegally access and manipulate the phone system in a district office of U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.

We don’t yet know why O’Keefe targeted the Democratic senator from Louisiana. But his arrest has a fortunate side effect: it’s keeping the focus on the results of an official investigation into ACORN—a story that otherwise probably wouldn’t have got much coverage but is now being widely reported.

Take CNN’s coverage of O’Keefe’s arrest. It notes that, “a review by former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger, who was hired by ACORN to examine the issue, found no wrongdoing by ACORN employees.”

It also notes that O’Keefe and a female associate were named in a lawsuit that an ACORN worker in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, filed Jan. 21, accusing the pair of illegally videotaping an interview with her last July and distributing it on the Internet.

“That video and others by O’Keefe and his associate led to the dismissal of four ACORN employees who appeared to offer advice to the couple and to federal legislation barring the group from receiving federal funds,” CNN notes.

Now, I don’t expect the right-wing attack machine to stop its assault on progressive organizations and individuals, any time soon, but there’s hope the truth will eventually out.

LA’s pot war shows SF did it right

-
0
LA’s pot war shows SF did it right

Yesterday’s vote by the Los Angeles City Council to impose strict new restrictions on the city’s medical cannabis dispensaries – an unenforceable approach likely to cause a legal and political backlash – validates the proactive and cooperative approach that San Francisco has taken to the clubs, which I discuss in this week’s cover story.

By simply ignoring the issue, Los Angeles created a lax environment where more than 800 clubs opened shop, prompting a community backlash. And now that they’re attempting to put that genie back in the bottle, they’re using tools that most likely run afoul of the rights created by Prop. 215, which legalized medical marijuana.

While LA City Council members, national political commentators, and even the latest issue of Harpers Magazine have parroted the point that LA now has more pot clubs that Starbucks, legalization advocates say it’s a bogus point. “It’s bullshit the way they compare it to Starbucks. How about comparing that to all the coffee shops, or the number of places that sell alcohol,” said Richard Lee, founder of Oaksterdam University and a key proponent of a proposed fall initiative to legalize weed for even recreational uses.

BTW, marijuana activists have made that comparison, calculating that Los Angeles has about 15,000 liquor stores, and even more stores where cigarettes are available. So which drug is really threatening the neighborhoods?

Wednesday: MTC’s $70 million question, plus the return of the Bay Bridge west span bike path

-
0

By Rebecca Bowe

Sustainable transit advocates are rallying the troops for two back-to-back meetings tomorrow in Oakland: The Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). While they’re technically separate bodies, BATA and the MTC are comprised of the very same people, wearing different hats at each meeting.

Bike advocates packing the BATA meeting will voice support for a bike path on the west span of the Bay Bridge, a possibility that has been studied but not yet funded. (Plans for the new east span include a bike and pedestrian pathway, but it would end at Treasure Island.) Since the toll authority will be discussing raising bridge tolls at tomorrow’s meeting (up to $6 during rush hour on the Bay Bridge), bike advocates want some of the possible new revenue to go toward a bike path. But there’s a catch: BATA has said it might be prohibited from allocating funding for this type of project.

Andy Thornley, program director at the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, says this detail is crucial because until it’s clear whether BATA could use those possible funds, “everything is a little bit paralyzed.” The message bike activists plan to deliver tomorrow, he said, is this: “Don’t forget — you must finish this bridge for everybody, not just people in cars.”

Those turning out for the MTC, meanwhile, plan on urging commissioners to reallocate $70 million in federal stimulus dollars to cash-strapped Bay Area transit agencies, instead of taking the chance of losing it.

The $70 million had been earmarked for the Oakland Airport Connector, a proposed link between the BART system and Oakland International Airport. But the project, which has gone forward with no shortage of controversy due to the $500 million price tag, was dealt a blow in mid-January that threw the $70 million into question.

The truth behind the Prop. 8 lies

-
0

By Tim Redmond

Another day of amazing evidence in the Prop. 8 trial. Check out Robert Cruickshank’s report here. I’m still not so sure that this will turn out to be a smart legal strategy; even if we win at the trial court level and the 9th Circuit, I’m not sure I want this current Supreme Court to make law on same-sex marriage. But the trial has absolutely and positively produced evidence showing the bigotry behind Prop. 8.

Jerry Brown’s in big trouble

-
0

By Tim Redmond

When the friendly, progressive, Democratic politics blogs like Calitics start comparing Brown to Martha Coakley, you know there’s a big problem. I like Jerry Brown personally; he’s always fun to talk to and be charming and captivating in small-group discussions. I also think he’s been wrong on a whole lot of issues, and is really squishy on taxes and the state budget.

But if he thinks he’s going to be governor, he better get on the stick, and soon.

The Taser problem

-
0

By Tim Redmond

12510taser.jpg

Still not a lot of details on the machete-wielding man shot and killed by the SF cops this weekend, but the incident is once again renewing the discussion of Tasers.

In the wake of a study written by Assistant Chief Morris Tabak that says that some fatal shootings could have been avoided if the cops had less-lethal alternatives, the Police Commission is going to look at the use of the high-voltage stun guns. Chief George Gascon favors equipping officers with the weapons.

It’s probably true that Tasers would have saved lives if the cops had zapped some suspects instead of shooting them. In the Asa Sullivan case, for example, an unarmed mentally ill man died when officers opened fire; a less-lethal alternative would have been more than adequate to subdue the guy.

But Tasers have their own problems — particularly if officers are authorized to use them in situations where drawing a firearm would be prohibited. Consider the case of Oscar Grant, killed by a BART police officer who later argued that he thought he was pulling a Taser, not a pistol.

Grant clearly wasn’t enough of a threat that the BART police should have used lethal force to subdue him. But using a Taser apparently seemed just fine. See, once you give the cops Tasers, they’re going to see them as a simple way to incapacitate unruly people — unless there are very clear rules. Tasers can kill people, too, and should be treated as an alternative to lethal force — not an alternative to handcuffs.

OMG those Prop. 8 backers are looney

-
0

By Tim Redmond

And if you didn’t already know that, check this out. There’s more in the trial transcripts (pd):

And you say:
15 “The San Francisco city government is under
16 the rule of homosexuals.”
17 Do you see that?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Did you believe that, sir?
20 A. Yes, I believed that.
21 Q. Who are the homosexuals that San Francisco is under the
22 rule of?
23 A. Uhm, at that time, supervisor Tom Ammiano was a supervisor
24 there.
25 Q. And there was also a mayor, right?

1 A. Yes.
2 Q. The mayor was a homosexual, was he, according to you?
3 A. I don’t think so.
4 Q. You don’t think so? No, I don’t think so either

,

And

Well, let’s see, as we go through this, how you use words.
25 You go on to say that:

1 “After legalizing same-sex marriages they
2 want to legalize prostitution.”
3 Do you see that?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Did you think the people who were opposing Proposition 8
6 wanted to legalize prostitution?
7 A. Uhm, that was a Proposition K at that time, on the
8 San Francisco ballot. And I saw several homosexual
9 politicians, they supported that. So I draw from that — from
10 their support that they want to legalize prostitution.
11 Q. But that didn’t have anything to do with Proposition 8;
12 did it, sir?
13 A. No.
14 Q. No, it didn’t.

And

Now, the second paragraph refers to Mayor Newsom. Do
8 you see that?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. It says:
11 “The mayor says homosexuals are minorities
12 and should not be discriminated against.”
13 Do you see that?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Now, you would agree that homosexuals are a minority,
16 correct?
17 A. I — I don’t believe they are minorities.
18 Q. You don’t believe they are the minority?
19 A. I am a minority.
20 Q. You are a minority.
21 What percentage of the population do you think are
22 homosexuals?
23 A. My understanding of minority is —
24 Q. What percentage of the population —
25 A. — based on skin color.

1 Q. What percentage of the population is homosexual?
2 A. I — what I read is, about from 2 to 4 percent.
3 Q. 2 to 4 percent?
4 A. Right.
5 Q. Is that a minority, sir?
6 A. In terms of their sexual practice, it is.

I don’t even know what to say.

Norm Rolfe, a sane voice for transportation planning

-
0

Norm Rolfe, a voice for sane transportation planning

By Jerry Cauthen and Mary Anne Miller

For almost 50 years Norman Rolfe, transportation activist and dedicated San Franciscan, was a strong and consistent champion of a more pedestrian-oriented and less car-oriented San Francisco. He died on Friday, January 15 at the age of 84.

Norm Rolfe could be called the voice of sane transportation planning in San Francisco. With his well reasoned and strongly voiced arguments, he helped save the cable cars and the Muni J-Line. He helped prevent upper Market Street from being converted into a San Jose style, 8-lane “boulevard.” He also helped block the Second Crossing, an ill-conceived scheme to build another transbay automobile bridge.

In the early 1960’s, Rolfe joined others to keep a freeway from running through the Panhandle and Golden Gate Park, and thus became an influential part of San Francisco’s campaign to prevent the California Division of Highways from ripping the city to shreds in deference to the almighty auto. Later he helped block the scheme for building an auto tunnel under Russian Hill. And he was one of the first people to call for the removal of the Embarcadero Freeway.

After the Central Freeway was damaged by the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, Rolfe was also part of the successful campaign to tear it down and replace it with a new Octavia Boulevard. In recent years, he strongly opposed the grandiose plan to build an unnecessary, full-sized freeway through the Presidio of San Francisco. He also fought against the Metropolitian Transportation Commission’s unaccountable desire to expand Bay Area freeways under the guise of its so-called HOT lane program.

In 1970 Rolfe became one of San Francisco Tomorrow’s original members and has long served on its Board of Directors as chair of its Transportation Committee. In 1971, he helped write San Francisco Tomorrow’s transportation policy, which remains largely intact and current today. He also was active for many years on the Sierra Club’s Bay Chapter transportation committee.

Rolfe studied every issue thoroughly and usually got to the crux of the matter while everyone else was still on the first page. He strongly supported the return of streetcar service to Market Street and later the extension of the line along the Embarcadero (a service now highly popular with tourists and San Franciscans alike). In public hearings and in meetings with public officials, he never minced words. He expected other people to be persuaded by his voice and was impatient when they did not see things as clearly and with as much farsightedness as he did. He was incapable of sugar-coating an issue, or spinning it or making it more palatable for his audience.

He was a strong and consistent but nevertheless fair-minded advocate of passenger rail. While a long time supporter of the vitally important Tranbay Terminal/Caltrain Extension Project, Rolfe correctly foresaw major weakness in the ill-conceived BART/SFIA extension, now widely recognized as a short-sighted and money losing failure. More recently he opposed the squandering of scarce Muni capital on an ultra-expensive, virtually useless short piece of subway a third of the way into Chinatown.

At the time of his death, Rolfe was a member of the Citizens Advisory Council for the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, Citizens Advisory Committee for the Transbay Joint Powers Authority, and the Octavia Boulevard Central Freeway Citizens Advisory Committee.

He will be missed.

Jerry Cauthen is a longtime environmental activist and former president of San Francisco Tomorrow. Mary Anne Miller is the editor of the San Francisco Tomorrow newsletter.

What an awful week

-
0

By Tim Redmond

I’m starting to feel as if we’re back in the Bush days, when reading the news was just depressing, all the time, every day. What a rotten fucking week: We lost the Senate supermajority (although I’d argue that we never really had it — as long as Joe Lieberman was one of the 60 “Democratic” votes, and the Democrats kept giving him everything he wants, there’s no way anything progressive was going to happen there anyway.) Health care reform is in serious trouble. Obama’s popularity is tanking, The unemployment figures are still alarming. Air America is shutting down.–

And we just lost one of the most important Supreme Court rulings in modern history, effectively giving big corporations the ability to even further control American politics.

Ick.

But at least this is funny, one of the better comments on the health care issue that I’ve seen:

Us v. SF Weekly et al: The real story

-
0

By Tim Redmond

The latest chapters in our ongoing legal battle with SF Weekly and its parent company have generated a lot of national press. We got Bloomberg News, The Wall Street Journal The San Francisco Chronicle and more.

The best coverage has been in the Stranger, the Seattle newsweekly, where Eli Sanders has been all over the twists and turns of the story.

Here, for the record, is what’s really going on. The Guardian has won the right to put a lien on the assets of the 16 papers owned by Village Voice Media. And we’re moving forward aggressively to collect the roughly $21 million the chain owes us.

Mike Lacey, the executive editor of VVM, has gone pretty ballistic over the latest court rulings and over our statements about the case. He argues that the judgment is still on appeal, which is true. Typically when a judgment like this is appealed, the party that’s on the hook for the money posts a bond; that guarantees that in the end, when all the appeals are exhausted, the creditor will get paid.

Lacey argues that his company can’t manage that:

The absurd amount of the judgment in the Guardian’s predatory pricing lawsuit means that an appeal bond would have to be secured with a staggering $30 million in assets. Neither of the two remaining defendants in the suit, SF Weekly or New Times Media, has assets even approaching that amount.

But what Lacey is really doing here is hiding behind VVM’s complex corporate structure. He claims that SF Weekly doesn’t have $30 million in assets, which is almost certainly true – but New Times Media owns the various limited liability companies that control all of the papers (and other assets). You can see how it all works here (pdf document introduced in court).

So it’s crazy to say that New Times can’t come up with the assets to cover a $30 million bond. The empire was valued at the time of trial at roughly $190 million. Lacey could get a bond if he wanted one. And let’s not forget – whatever the LLCs, LPs and other corporate instruments, everyone knows that Village Voice Media, New Times and all of the 16 papers are part and parcel of the same company, with the same management, same headquarters and same ownership.

In fact, Lacey’s position is schizophrenic: On the one hand, he says the company has no assets and can’t pay the judgment – and on the other hand says the company has plenty of assets and can fight off involuntary bankruptcy.

What Lacey is really doing here is exactly what our entire collection effort has been about – he’s using the VVM corporate structure to try to avoid paying. The jury in our case found that the Weekly was guilty of predatory pricing, and that the predatory intent came all the way from the top. Now Lacey wants to say that because there’s a complicated structure, the chain doesn’t have to pay its subsidiary’s debt.

He also claims that

Instead of aiding in an expeditious appeal, the Guardian has repeatedly sought to delay that process, asking for extensions of the deadline by which it must file its brief

Yeah, we’ve asked for some extensions – but Lacey fails to note that his own company lawyers took 150 days – five months – beyond the usual 30 days to file their opening appeal brief. If they were in such a rush for a speedy appeal, why did that opening brief take so long?

See, here’s what I think is really going on. VVM doesn’t intend to pay – now, or after the appeals are over. That’s why there’s no bond – it would guarantee that if we win the appeal we’d get the money. These guys want to drag this out, hide the money and refuse to pay until the end of time.

That’s why we’re mounting an aggressive collection effort. Because we have to.

Judge Rejects VVM Ploy To Avoid Collection

-
0

Federal Judge Rejects Village Voice Ploy To Avoid Collection Of Judgment

A United States District Judge has rejected the attempts of Village Voice Media LLC and Village Voice Media Holdings LLC to avoid a state court proceeding where they may be added to the $21 million judgment in favor of the Bay Guardian Company against the Village Voice chain’s holding company, New Times Media LLC.

The Bay Guardian Company won its judgment after a lengthy jury trial examined claims of predatory pricing against the San Francisco alternative news weekly, by one of the Village Voice chain newspapers, the SF Weekly.

On Wednesday, Federal judge Jeffrey S. White rejected the claims of the two Village Voice companies that the matter should be heard in federal court. The Bay Guardian had previously moved to add the two Village Voice companies to the judgment in state court.

Judge White also rejected a jurisdictional challenge by the two Village Voice companies.

In past weeks, the San Francisco Superior Court has allowed the Bay Guardian to seize and auction off two of the SF Weekly’s trucks, impound revenues that the SF Weekly was receiving from its subtenants, and place a lien on the 16 operating entities of the Village Voice chain that publish alternative news weeklys nationwide.

A hearing on the Bay Guardian’s original motion to add the two Village Voice companies to the judgment is expected soon.

Supremes’ ruling underscores need for Fair Elections Acts

-
0

Text by Sarah Phelan

Daniel Newman, co-founder and executive director of the Berkeley-based MAPLight.org, warned today that the
Supreme Court’s decision (Citizens United v FEC) will turn a preexisting river of campaign cash into a flood. Newman should know. His non-partisan non-profit connects the dots between campaign cash and votes. But as Newman points out in a statement (that’s posted in full, below) all is not lost: The California Fair Elections Act is on the June ballot, and support is building in Congress for the Fair Elections Now Act. So, according to Newman, the political weather forecast could be summed up, as, expect flooding, but vote often to avert a complete swamp.

Continue reading to see Newman’s statement, in full:

Who will fight corporate America?

-
0

By Steven T. Jones
corpflag.jpg
This morning’s U.S. Supreme Court landmark decision overturning a 103-year-old law limiting corporate spending on elections is a huge setback for the people’s ability to counter the power of Wall Street and multi-national corporations, a development exacerbated by signals that the Democratic Party is retreating from even its nominally left-of-center initiatives in the wake of Tuesday’s loss of its Massachusetts seat in the U.S. Senate.

If this morning’s front page San Francisco Chronicle story is to be believed, Democratic congressional leaders are essentially abandoning health care reform and climate change legislation, shifting instead to focus on “creating jobs and cutting the enormous federal deficit.”

And if Mayor Gavin Newsom’s recent initiatives here are any indication, job creation is synonymous with corporate tax breaks, while deficit reduction probably means the elimination of even more government jobs, further enabling private sector excesses. Yes, the political climate in this country is turning as bleak and stormy as the California weather this week.

But at least downpours provide needed water. With progressive institutions from the anti-war movement to minor political parties at their weakest point in many years, it’s unclear who will unite and lead a public that is growing increasingly frustrated with this country’s political dysfunction and uneven economic recovery (that is, corporations are recovering but most people aren’t).

There are a few faint glimmers of hope. The Chron reports on an alliance between UC students and administrators to push for a reversal of deep cuts to education spending. And spending by labor unions was also unshackled by today’s court decision, which could be helpful if that movement wasn’t in such disarray right now and was willing and able to help lead a broad people’s movement.

But the question facing the country right now is this: who can effectively fight corporate America, and who is willing to do so?

Why foot patrols make sense

-
0

By Tim Redmond

I had lunch with the chief of police yesterday. George Gascon is far sharper than the past few people to occupy that office, and seems to understand the need to reach out to the news media and to people who don’t agree with him. He’s actually a pretty skilled politician — which is a bit scary to folks who think he’s going in the wrong direction

And on a lot of things, I think he is.

We talked a lot about the sit-lie law that he’s been pushing, which I wrote about this week. Gascon insisted that he doesn’t want to use the law as a way to sweep homeless people off the streets; in fact, he told me, he doesn’t want to put anyone in jail, not at first, anyway. He’s rather use the law as a tool to get the young bullies and thugs (who are, by the way, a real problem on Haight St.) into the criminal justice system, where they might get access to services that could help them change their behavior.

I don’t see it working. What I see is either (a) the troublemakers will simply stand up when the cops arrive and walk to another part of the street or (b) some will get arrested, released, arrested, released, etc. — rejecting or ignoring all possible services — then ultimately, on the fourth or fifth offense, wind up in jail.

And all of of those arrests and court hearings are expensive.

In fact, Gascon and I agreed on two central points: (1) Putting two cops on foot patrol on Haight Street, between Buena Vista Park and Golden Gate Park, 13 hours a day, would end the problem pretty quickly and (2) the cost of doing that, which he put at close to $1 million a year (a bit high, I think), is probably lower than the cost of arresting, prosecuting, defending and incarcerating the Haight bullies.

This is something to look at.

Sup. Ross Mirkarimi wants to hold a hearing on the issue, and I think he ought to ask the controller or the budget analyst to examiner the real costs: What’s the price tag of foot patrols in the Haight? What’s the cost to the district attorney, the public defender, the courts and the Sheriff’s Office of implementing a sit-lie law? And could the foot patrols be a cheaper way of solving this problem?

And whatever Gascon says about his intent, once you pass a law like this — a law making it a crime to sit or lie on the sidewalk — it’s there, on the books, ripe for abuse. Gascon won’t be the chief forever. And he has to answer to the mayor, who may want to use the law a little differently.

So before we go that route, why not try foot patrols? According to Gascon, the department can’t afford it; with a huge budget deficit and cuts on the way for every agency, spending a million bucks on Haight Street doesn’t make sense. But the supervisors should look at this citywide; spending $1 million on preventing crime with foot patrols (if that’s what it would really cost) may be a lot more cost-effective than spending $2 million arresting, prosecuting, defending, sentencing and incarcerating people.

It’s at least worth a try.

Prison report: The early release scare

-
0

By Just A Guy

Editors note: Just A Guy was recently released after serving a sentence in a California state prison. He continues to comment on law-enforcement and public-safety issues.

Here we continue with the anti-release rhetoric, saying that all the people are “dangerous criminals” and the releases will cause a spike in crime.

Here’s Los Angeles Police Protection League President Paul M. Weber:

“We can expect crime to go up as a result of this massive release, considering California has the highest recidivism rate in the nation, with seven out of ten parolees reoffending then returning to the prison system.”

Of course you can expect an increase in crime — most of the people sent to county jails and prisons (especially county jails) have been given absolutely no rehabilitative programs. What is the real reason that seven out of 10 parolees return to jail, though? Is it from new crimes or parole violations? Why does California have the highest recidivism rate?

Maybe it’s because, for a long time now, parolees have been violated and sent back to prison for “technical violations” like leaving the county without permission or having contact with their significant other when they weren’t supposed to.

While it is certainly each individual’s responsibility to abide by the rules of parole, some of the things that parolees get violated for the first time are overwhelmingly ridiculous. Personally, I believe that parole should be eradicated except for truly violent offenders; parole is really a joke anyway, and it has never stopped someone that has the intention of committing new crimes from doing so. You think some parolee is going tell his/her parole officer, “I am going to go use drugs today and burglarize someone.” And, do you think all the cops know every parolee on their beat now? Give me a break.

Let’s talk about parole anyway. What is it? Really, it’s just an extension of your sentence. If you are sentenced to 4 years in prison for possession of drugs (or anything else), it’s really a seven year sentence. You could do all four years, be released and still have three years of parole and if you get violated and sent back you can wind up doing, on the installment plan, 3 more years in prison/jail.

Now, I don’t see parole as particularly difficult (just annoying) if you are really trying to get your shit together, but most people that are released on parole get out with significantly less than they went in with — i.e. no to live, no job, and a worse attitude. Then, they are released to 10% unemployment, have no real job training or life skills, have been tainted by the California Penal System and are ripe to come back. What difference does it make if they get out now or later? They’re all getting out eventually.

When are you Californians going to get tired of spending more on prisons than your kid’s higher education? But this is the progressive state that voted against gay marriage…

Finally, why don’t you seriously consider amending three strikes? There are people that were sentenced to 25 to life for possession of miniscule amounts of drugs and their previous offenses were many, years prior. Guys sentenced to life for stealing a pizza or a bike; that’s a reality.

And you want to reduce prison spending? Legalize drugs. Period.

Meet Gavin Newsom: whine clerk

-
0

Text by Sarah Phelan

newsomd.jpg
Sorry, Maureen, but you omitted more than a few details of the real trials of Mayor Gavin Newsom…

I’m usually a fan of Maureen Dowd’s finely pointed writing, but her interview with Mayor Gavin Newsom in today’s New York Times left me with the sinking feeling that she was writing with an uncharacteristically unsharpened pencil.

Yes, it was funny when Dowd wrote, “It’s easy to picture the lithe and charming Newsom–with the well-cut suits, the electric Telsa, the beautiful blonde wife and baby–advising a Pacific Heights couple on a cabernet with aromas of eucalyptus and mint.”

But beyond that delightful dig, Dowd kept her pencil on an unusually tight leash.

Maybe that’s because Dowd doesn’t know the ins and outs of San Francisco politics and was fooled into misrepresenting Newsom’s whining as the rueful ruminations of a man so very far ahead of his time.

But it’s hard to believe that the indomitable Dowd doesn’t know that Newsom’s political career has been short circuited for a million reasons above and beyond gay marriage.

Maybe the fact that Newsom slept with his campaign manager’s wife isn’t perceived as a deal breaker in circles where everyone always seems to be betraying every one else.

But how about Newsom’s failure to show backbone when then Sup. (and now State Assemblymember) Tom Ammiano was trying to launch San Francisco’s trailblazing health care program–yes, the same one that President Obama has recently and widely praised, and for which Newsom has been happy to take all the credit?

Instead of showing leadership on Healthy San Francisco, Newsom stood back and let Ammiano do the heavy lifting, in face of the threat of legal opposition from the Golden Gate Restaurant Association. Newsom’s cowardice on that issue seems entirely understandable, given that, as Dowd points out, “Before he got into politics, after all, he started a boutique wine shop in Napa Valley that blossomed into a multimillion-dollar business.” (Heaven forbid that the former owner of a wine boutique would be seen leading the charge to ensure that the restaurant industry helps employees go see a doctor instead of sneezing into the endive soup and eucalyptus-scented cabernet that the Pacific Heights mafia has come to enjoy.)

But Dowd doesn’t make that, or any other, connection.

Instead, she lets Newsom stick his not-so-subtle knives into Obama’s back on same-sex marriage, without pointing out that after Newsom rushed into gay marriage, he failed to launch a much needed statewide campaign to reach out, across the aisle of intolerance, and help defeat the Prop. 8 party poopers.

The final insult in Dowd’s puff piece is when she lets the current mayor of San Francisco get away unchallenged with his bogus claim that, “we’ve always fought for the rights of minorities and against the whims of majorities.” Try telling that to the immigrants whose families have been ripped apart because gubernatorial candidate Newsom failed to support giving undocumented kids their day in court, before reporting them to the feds for deportation.

But Dowd does at least gives us a preview of what to expect when we stumble unwittingly into a wine store, somewhere in the backwaters of Napa, and overhear the clerk complaining that no one really understood him, back when he was mayor of San Francisco. Meet Gavin Newsom: whine clerk.

Some Muni layoffs postponed for a month

-
0

By Rebecca Bowe

Two dozen Muni parking control officers (PCOs) can hold onto their jobs for another month, the Municipal Transportation Agency Board decided Tuesday. The PCOs are those ever-popular uniformed workers who go around issuing parking citations (maybe you’ve seen the bumper-sticker slogan — “Good people, Tough jobs” — just after getting slammed with an outrageous parking ticket). A round of 24 PCO layoffs was previously scheduled to go into effect at the end of this week, as part of midyear cuts made to balance the city budget. But the MTA Board agreed to push the layoff date back to Feb. 26, according to Steve Stallone, a spokesperson for Service Employees International Union Local 1021, which represents the workers. MTA spokesperson Judson True confirmed that the layoffs were postponed.

The PCO layoffs represented a hot topic at last Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting, when a long line of city employees formed during public comment to raise objections. Abraham Davis, a PCO, told supervisors that each officer issues an average of 30 citations a day, which he said brings in roughly $2,000 for the city. Accounting for all 24 workers, “that’s $960,000 a month,” he said, “and that’s a low average.” He described one of his own bad days: “That’s the day I got spit on, almost run over, and came back to the hall with 60 citations,” he said. “Do the math.”

Stallone says today’s MTA Board decision was made because SEIU Local 1021 presented new figures outlining why cutting city workers who generate revenue for the city is a bad business decision. “We crunched the numbers differently,” he told the Guardian. “[MTA] staff just plain had it wrong.” We haven’t heard back yet on how SEIU’s numbers differ from MTA’s numbers — but it’s clear that the MTA Board is willing to look at what the union brought to the table.

At Sup. Chris Daly’s request, a hearing will be held at Wednesday’s Budget & Finance Committee meeting to discuss Muni layoffs and “the impacts on public health and safety concerns,” according to the meeting agenda. Some of those concerns revolve around the fact that PCOs direct traffic in emergency situations or special events when they aren’t issuing parking tickets, Stallone explained. And since another group of affected Muni workers includes the people who clean the buses, maybe the case will be made that riding around in grimy buses won’t exactly help San Franciscans combat swine flu and other contagious maladies. That’s just a guess. “It’s a good guess,” Stallone said. But he took a broader view, saying, “You’re going to lose ridership if the buses suck.”

1...151152153...258Page 152 of 258

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