By Tim Redmond
Okay, I promise this is my last post on Gavin Newsom today, unless he resigns or something.
By ya gotta love this comment, by a smug and smiling Nathan Ballard, about Newsom’s attitude toward the media; “The mayor loves to talk to the media,” Ballard proclaims. “Just not today,” noted Channel 7’s Teresa Garcia.
“Maybe later,” Ballard says, slinking away.
By Rebecca Bowe
A couple of news items related to California’s most powerful utility company caught our attention this week.
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. is planning to raise electricity rates for the customers who use less — in order to slash costs for big-time energy hogs, Mission Local reported this morning.
In an application filed with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) on Oct. 14, PG&E explained that typical residential customers paying $74.14 a month would see their average monthly bill rise to $76.63, a 3.4 percent hike. Meanwhile, consumers using 1,500 kilowatt-hours per month could see their average monthly bill drop from $434.98 to $419.66, a discount of 3.5 percent. If approved, the change could take place Jan. 1, 2010 along with a bundle of other rate hikes.
It isn’t the only PG&E request to raise eyebrows recently.
A trio of environmental organizations filed formal letters of protest with the CPUC this week against PG&E’s application for two new gas-fired power plants.
The facilities, which would generate up to 1,300 megawatts of power, would be constructed in Oakley and Antioch, and PG&E expects them to be in operation by 2013 and 2014, respectively. According to the application, the utility would purchase the power generated by one facility, which would be owned and operated by Mirant. It would enter into a deal to purchase and operate the second facility once it was up and running.
By Steven T. Jones
In his cover essay for this month’s Harper’s Magazine, “Final Edition: Twilight of the American newspaper ,” writer Richard Rodriguez (an editor at New American Media here in SF) describes the demise of newspapers as a byproduct of our declining sense of a common civic purpose and sense of place.
And by “our,” I and he mean San Francisco, because his essay focuses almost entirely on the San Francisco Chronicle, which was reportedly losing $1 million a day until its multiple waves of layoffs and recently was dropped by a quarter of its readers.
“If the San Francisco Chronicle is near death – and why else would the editors celebrate its 144th anniversary? and why else would the editors devote a week to feature articles on fog? – it is because San Francisco’s sense of itself is perishing,” he wrote.
He makes a good point. The Bay Guardian has long labored to help San Francisco define itself as a city of immigrants and outsiders brought together by shared progressive values and the proud desire to create a unique culture in this strange, dysfunctional country. I’m always amazed to hear “only in San Francisco” get used as an epithet, even by people who live here, for I can think of no higher praise.
By Tim Redmond
Melissa Griffin thinks Gavin Newsom should run for …. U.S. Senate!
Actually, that’s not really news, since most political observer think it’s his only choice at this point (either that, or lose his celebrity status altogether, which I don’t think he could tolerate). Problem is, neither Dianne Feinstein nor Barbara Boxer seems ready to retire anytime soon, so he’ll have to wait a while — and what the hell will he do in the meantime?
There are all sorts of fun things to speculate on — Feinstein could decide to run for governor (highly unlikely, unless Jerry Brown decides not to run, which is also highly unlikely, unless Feinstein agreed that if she won, she’d appoint her old friend Jerry to her Senate seat, which would leave Newsom out in the cold.)
Or something could happen to one of the two (Feinstein is 76, Boxer 69), but both are in pretty good health, and it’s ugly for a politician to have to sit around hoping that someone dies so he can have the job.
I don’t think Feinstein’s running for governor, but if she does, she’ll win and choose the next senator, and it won’t be Gavin Newsom. So I’m afraid he’s going to be flailing around for a while (and at a certain point, after he’s termed out as mayor, maybe the Lt. Gov. job won’t look quite so bad).
Gavin Newsom’s long, long political honeymoon is crashing — and his recent secret escape to Hawaii hasn’t helped him a bit. Even the Chron is now getting a little snippy with the mayor, who showed up back at work today but wouldn’t talk to the press.
Heather Knight goes so far as to bring up the issue Sup. Ross Mirkarimi has been pushing for months:
Ballard wouldn’t say whether the SFPD’s mayoral security detail accompanied the Newsoms to Hawaii. The cost of guarding the mayor and his family has been a dispute at City Hall recently because the mayor’s office and police department won’t say how much taxpayer money is used on it.
But we’ve got to say, if the choice is going to gubernatorial fundraisers or lounging on the beach in Hawaii, we bet his security staff was pleased with the latter.
Think about that sort of press: The public gets the image of the mayor ducking comment, ducking his responsibilities, ducking the whole damn city — while his bodyguards lounge on the beach on the taxpayer dime.
It probably didn’t go down that way, but still: Lookin’ bad, Gav.
By Tim Redmond
Lots of people are analyzing what happened in Maine, and the fight goes on.
But I think Paul Hogarth, who just got back from Maine, hit on the most important (sadly) point:
The single most important factor in the politics of same-sex marriage is demographics. The younger the voters, the more likely they support same-sex marriage. Maine has the third-oldest population in the country; California has the seventh youngest.
I hate to be dissin’ old folks (I’m getting closer and closer to that particular demographic myself) but it’s the hard, cold reality: Get young people to vote in large numbers, and we win. In fact, in some ways this debate is already over — in ten years, passing a same-sex marriage measure will be far easier, and most states will have already taken that step. The demographic train only goes one way.
Which is of limited confort to people who want to get married now, not in ten years — but it’s important to understand, especially when we debate when to go back to the ballot in CA.
I’m for trying again in 2010, with a better-run campaign that doesn’t try to hide queer people from the voters. I also recognize that 2012 will be easier than 2010, and 2014 will be easier than 2012, and 2020 will be a slam dunk. So I don’t buy the argument that you can only go back to the voters once.
We need to start a statewide effort to register young voters and activate them in huge numbers. They’re out there, and thousands upon thousands turn 18 every day. When they go to the polls in larger numbers than their grandparents, then this battle is over.
By Ryan Thomas Riddle
The message was clear from the demonstrators and speakers at last night’s (Nov. 4) equality rally at Harvey Milk Plaza: Fuck this, we demand equality right now! Even though two demonstrators were cited, the rally was considered peaceful and a success.
The major source of disappointment was Maine’s voter ban on same-sex marriage , as well as the first anniversary since Proposition 8 passed here in California, repealing marriage equality. However, there were a couple of victories on the equality front. A gay rights measure is leading in Washington and Kalamazoo overwhelmingly passed an anti-discrimination ordinance.
By Tim Redmond
It’s a little weird that Gavin Newsom just disappeared after dropping out of the governor’s race. I had a feeling that he wasn’t going to hold up well under the pressure; he loves celebrity, loves to be on the A-List and loves to hear himself talk, but he can’t take a punch. And getting hit, a lot, is a big part of statewide politics. So I suspect that when he realized that this particular dream was over — clunk! — and that in two years, he’s not going to be anything but Gavin Newsom, citizen, he had a little meltdown.
This ought to be cause for concern: Somebody has to run the city for the next two years, and either Newsom is going to buck up, get back to work and try to change the way he does business — or he’s going to be a bitter lame-duck who can’t get anything accomplished except to go all Nixonian and attack his enemies.
I’m really hoping it’s the former — and now that he’s off his statewide horse, I think it’s safe to say that most of the supervisors, including the progressives he so disdains, would be more than willing to start working with him. I’d love to see the mayor come back from Hawaii with a clear understanding of what went wrong with his campaign. As we point out in an editorial today:
If the real Gavin Newsom had been anything like the campaign picture his handlers tried to present, he would have been a serious candidate. Newsom the candidate was a leader who brought San Franciscans together to get things accomplished. He was a progressive thinker who created universal health care and an effective budget process with a rainy day fund that prevented teacher layoffs. He was bold enough to challenge federal and state law on same-sex marriage and demand equality for all.
But Newsom the mayor was actually a snippy politician who refused to work with the Board of Supervisors and would never engage his opponents. He was great at press releases but short on accomplishments — universal health care and the rainy day fund were projects put together by Tom Ammiano, one of the supervisors the mayor disdained, who is now a state Assembly member. He refused to take a lead role fighting Pacific Gas and Electric Co. to promote clean energy and public power. And for all his success in moving same-sex marriage forward, he never once managed to bring that kind of progressive energy or policy-making to economic issues. His budget this year was the same as Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s budget — cuts and fees only. No new taxes.
As a result, the progressives and independent voters in his own town didn’t support his campaign — and without the environmentalists, labor, tenants, and progressive elected officials from San Francisco behind him, there was no way he could generate an honest grassroots movement.
I’d love to see the mayor reach out to the folks who have been snubbed all these years. Let’s talk about making the city budget work for everyone — and if that means some new revenue sources (which lots of other cities seemed to be able to pull off), at least he doesn’t have to worry about running statewide after raising local taxes.
He can take a hard look at where his cuts have really hit and try to work with labor to spread the pain a little better and chop from the top, not just the bottom.
He can become a real, serious clean-energy leader by strongly supporting CCA and taking a visible public role in the campaign against PG&E’s anti-public-power initiative.
The city’s ready for a Gavin, Chapter Two. And he wouldn’t be the first politician to rebound from a defeat, learn his lesson and start his career up again.
Any bets on whether that’s going to happen?
By Marke B.
Already punished by paisley blouses, sweater vests, turtlenecks, stone-wash, feathered hair, and knee problems. Image via Towleroad.
Even lamer than the title of this post: the annoyingly real results of the Maine same-sex marriage thing. As a Facebook amigo said, voters in Maine are apparently more intolerant than voters in California by a factor of almost 1%, har-dee-har.
Obama or any other Democrats of note (other than Maine’s amazingly forthright and kudos-worthy governor) are obviously not gonna side with us on this “at this time.” Because having a sizable majority and huge influence is far too risky to do anything but play everything long and slow, obvs. Inching bulldozers are nice, but I’ll take a Hail Mary play when it comes to equal rights, Dems.
Pointing fingers — either at the gay establishment, the Catholic Church, or Obama — may be considered counter-productive, but it’s also a way to start getting our heads around what happened. Striving for an objective look is good, though, too. The one commentator that seems most enlightened to me, as usual, is the invaluable Ta-Nehisi Coates at the Atlantic. As a black, straight man he seems to have a deeper grasp on the issue than many of us do at this emotional moment. Here’s a sample:
Conservatives pride themselves on their skepticism, and generally dismiss liberals as soft-headed Utopians. But in so many ways, political conservatism is Utopianism for the powerful. It isn’t broadly skeptical of human nature, so much as it’s broadly skeptical of people its agents don’t particularly like. Hence the sense that Americans are intrinsically “good people,” that this country “is the best nation that ever existed in history,” that the South is home to “the greatest people that have ever trod the earth,” and that the murder of four little girls in Birmingham was the work of a “Communist” or “crazed Negro,” which had “set back the cause of white people.”
Hence the notion that those voting against gay marriage, are not actually, in the main, motivated by bigotry, but a belief in tradition and family.
I’m angry, sad, frustrated, etc. I hate having to comfort my fiance because some assholes 3,000 miles away told him he’s perverted. Sucks! It’s important to get together with others at these stupid times and know that we’re strong and will prevail. That’s the best we can do right now: regroup and win next time. I don’t think the state-by-state strategy is worth giving up yet in order to focus on the federal fight, which will be inordinately huger, but that seems to be the sway of things, judging from the title of tonight’s rally:
Full Federal Equality Now! Rally and Action for LGBT Rights
Wed/4, 6pm – 9pm
Harvey Milk Plaza
Intersection of Market Street and Castro Street
(More details on Facebook here)
By Steven T. Jones
San Francisco missed an important opportunity to pass new taxes yesterday, and it was an opportunity missed because of a lack of political leadership in this city, which failed to put any tax measures on the ballot. Because there are signs in yesterday’s votes that, while people may not like new taxes, they hate the drastic downsizing of government even more.
As the Chronicle reported, tax measures passed in several Bay Area cities that are far less politically progressive than San Francisco. And in Maine, voters rejected same-sex marriage, but they voted overwhelming against measures to lower the car tax and require voter approval for tax increases (the latest battle in a right-wing crusade that began in California).
Here in San Francisco, where voters don’t like advertising signs or corporate sell-outs, we nonetheless voted to sell naming rights to Candlestick Park. And the nearly 40,000 people who went that way, 57.5 percent of the voters, was almost identical to the number who approved Prop. E, which banned new general advertising on public property.
To me, that’s not a contradiction, but a clear sign that people desperately want local government to have more money, even if it means accepting things they don’t like. Such as signs, or taxes.
Prop. D, which would have allowed billboards along a stretch of Market Street, was another indicator. Even some progressives supported the measure out of desperation to address blight in mid-Market, but it ultimately failed by 10 percentage points. But we don’t need to be that desperate, not if our political leaders start making the argument now for higher taxes on the wealthiest individuals and corporations in the city.
The Right (and that includes all those San Francisco economic conservatives who call themselves “moderates,” such as Gavin Newsom) is wrong. People no longer buy the Reagan mantra “government is the problem,” and perhaps, just maybe, they’re starting to realize that we need to begin to rescue the public sector from these anti-tax zealots.
By Tim Redmond
Or at least, enough to call the election as far as I’m concerned. With about half the votes counted, nothing has changed from my last post : Prop. A wins, of course. But so does Prop. B — which may go down as the most significant outcome of the evening. It’s a vote of confidence in the Board of Supervisors, especially since there was no real Yes campaign and the No campaign played on the supposed mistrust in government, which apparently isn’t working in San Francisco.
Prop. C wins, of course. Prop. D loses, no surprise. Prop E was always a winner.
I honestly didn’t think Prop. B had a chance. Neither did a lot of its backers. So the district supes are more popular than the mayor or a lot of the established pundits think.
By Steven T. Jones
The referendum in Maine challenging same-sex marriage is starting to look like it’s going to pass, dealing another blow to the national marriage equality movement that San Francisco played such a key role in. It’s still close, but the gap is widening with about 70 percent of votes counted as I write this, so it’s not looking good.
By Tim Redmond
We won’t know anything for sure until tomorrow, but the bad guys have pulled (slightly) ahead in Maine. The Bangor Daily News seems to have the latest results, but there’s lot of talk and updates here.
If we lose in Maine, I think it will be even more imperative to go back to the ballot in CA next year — the “wait until 2012” crowd needs to realize that you can’t sit around and let the right wing keep the momentum on this. The only way same-sex marriage is going to be fully accepted around the country is when we start winning at the ballot.
By Tim Redmond
And a couple of surprises.
With just the absentee ballots in — traditionally the most conservative votes — Prop. A is cruising to victory. No surprise there — that one was going to win easy.
Prop. B, which would take out of the City Charter the mandate that the supervisors hire no more than two staffers — is actually ahead in the absentees. That’s a big surprise — I suspected that the more conservative voters would buy the argument that the supes will just run wild and hire armies of staffers.
But there’s a message here — people LIKE district elections, and for the most part (while the reputation of legislative bodies in general ain’t that great) people seem to LIKE the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. They seem to realize that the board members have a huge amount of work to do, and need more help to properly serve voth the city and their own districts.
Prop. C, allowing the city to sell naming rights to Candlestick, is winning and will will handily.
Prop. D — the controversial measure to allow electronic billboards in Mid-Market — is losing, narrowly — but as the more progressive votes come in, that will widen and Prop. D will go down.
Oh — City Attorney Dennis Herrera and Treasurer Jose Cisneros are getting re-elected.
By Tim Redmond
For results from San Francisco, where there’s nothing of monumental import on the ballot, gay marriage is too close to call in Maine and a gay-marriage-lite measure looks good in Washington.
If we win both of those — particularly if we win in Maine — I think it will be the turning point in the battle for marriage equality. Once voters in one state reject bigotry, the movement will spread — and California will repeal Prop. 8 next year.
By Steven T. Jones and Rebecca Bowe
With a unanimous vote by the Board of Supervisors today, San Francisco took a big step into the clean energy business, approving the issuance of a Request for Proposals for projects that will be part of the Clean Power SF program that will compete for customers with Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
The city’s version of the so-called Community Choice Aggregation program has involved “seven years of preparing San Francisco to get into the green energy business,” said Sup. Ross Mirkarimi, who has shepherded the program as chair of the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo).
While PG&E has relentlessly attacked CCA efforts, both locally and through a statewide initiative campaign for would require a two-thirds popular vote for counties to create them, the 11-0 vote here seems to indicate Clean Power SF isn’t as controversial as PG&E would like people to believe.
“This step is a very important step and it’s been an eye-opening experience to serve on LAFCo,” Sup. Bevan Dufty, referring to opposition from PG&E and some of its business community allies and adding, “When the public understands the issues, they like competition and a more sustainable city.”
By Rebecca Bowe
State lawmakers stayed up late last night working on historic legislation that will revamp California’s water system. The Senate OK’d a $9.9 billion bond, which includes $3 billion for the creation of new reservoirs, which would need to go to voters for final approval. It also approved a bill that establishes new statewide water conservation targets at 20 percent less water by 2020. Lawmakers are expected to continue debating other water policy proposals and could vote on the rest of the package today, but a deal isn’t certain yet.
The bills are meant to address a host of problems associated with the state water-supply system. Voluminous water pumping has wreaked havoc ecologically in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, but farms in the Central Valley have had to fallow fields due to less water becoming available for irrigation during the drought. Meanwhile, aging earthen levees throughout the Delta are highly vulnerable to the effects of a natural disaster, which could interrupt a huge portion of the state’s water-delivery system.
Even as the deal enters the final phase of negotiation, a host of local elected officials, organizations representing the salmon fishing industry, Delta interests, and other conservation groups say they’re unhappy with the way things are shaping up. A key concern is that environmental protections will take a back seat to water infrastructure projects.
By Melanie Ruiz
It’s not fair!…Or not equal, anyway.
A chart we’ve created — you can see it here (PDF) — shows how the city’s unions fared during the layoffs and forced givebacks of the last budget cycle. The cuts shown are for Fiscal Year 2009-2010. The layoff figures cover the past three fiscal years.
The figures show that Service Employee International Union (SEIU) Local 1021, representing many front-line workers, took by far the largest hit. For example, Local 1021’s city employees and per diem nurses gave back 3.22% of their total pay and benefits base, whereas the Municipal Executives’ Association (MEA), which represents higher-paid managers, only gave back 1.5%.
The chart, compiled from data provided by the Controller’s Office, seems to support the argument that Local 1021 members have been making for months: Mayor Gavin Newsom has balanced the budget by cutting front-line, lower-paid workers instead of skimming the fat from upper management corridors.
Ed Kinchley, a member of Local 1021’s health care division bargaining team, says he “doesn’t understand why the mayor doesn’t get it — that the people at our level, who are often providing services directly to the general public, need to be properly compensated and treated with some respect.” The numbers show that Local 1021 has been hit hardest by layoffs. Kinchley says it’s “blatantly unfair” that over the past three fiscal years, 82% of the city’s layoffs have been from SEIU bargaining units.
There are more managers than in the past, yet fewer line workers to manage. Kinchley doesn’t see any sensible explanation for these figures, “except for observing the mayor to be out to get us and our union.” For laborers on the front-lines, there is something important that the numbers don’t convey – the consequences of real people loosing their their livelihoods and San Franciscans losing crucial public services.
Nathan Ballard, Newsom’s press spokesperson, hasn’t yet responded to our request for comment.
The Board of Supervisors Budget Committee will hold a hearing tomorrow on legislation by Sup. John Avalos that would trim management positions to save health-care workers; Sup. Chris Daly has another bill to restore funding for front-line health workers. “We will be there,” says Kinchley. “We are looking with a lot of interest in supporting what Supervisors Avalos and Daly are doing at the board.”
By Steven T. Jones
The three-year-old injunction against any bicycle-related improvements in San Francisco has gotten downright surreal. There was a court hearing yesterday before Judge Peter Busch, at which city officials and bike advocates hoped the unusually broad injunction would finally be lifted.
Instead, the judge indicated he may wait until early next year for a full hearing on whether the San Francisco Bicycle Plan’s Environmental Impact Report – developed over the last two years at a cost of more than $1 million – fully complies with the California Environmental Quality Act (the city originally didn’t do a full-blown EIR on the bike plan, which was what led to the injunction).
The city will prepare a list of planned near-term improvements for the judge by this Friday, and both sides will be submitting briefs before another hearing on Nov. 12, addressing whether changes could be undone if the injunction is partially lifted now and the judge later rules the EIR is inadequate. Streetsblog SF has a good discussion of the issue, including input from Rob Anderson, who brought the lawsuit that led to the injunction.
But there’s an even more basic absurdity here. Installing bike racks or painting sharrows on the road doesn’t hurt anyone, and it promotes activity that is unquestionably good for the environment, which was the intention of CEQA. Meanwhile, the Legislature and governor have waived CEQA entirely for a massive proposed football stadium in Southern California (which may be used to lure away the 49ers).
So, San Francisco has now completed and certified an EIR, but we’re still not allowed to even put in a single bike rack. Yet a massive new stadium and billions of dollars worth of federal spending on local freeway expansions get approved with no consideration given to their environmental impacts. Does this strike anyone else as surreal?
CITY ATTORNEY
Dennis Herrera
TREASURER
Jose Cisneros
CONGRESS, 10th DISTRICT
John Garamendi
PROP A: YES
PROP B: YES
PROP C: NO
PROP D: NO
PROP E: YES
By Tim Redmond
The mayor doesn’t like the Campos sanctuary legislation, and won’t even debate Campos over it (chickenshit; no wonder he couldn’t get elected governor).
So here’s what the mayor doesn’t want to talk about: Kids who are doing nothing wrong — good kids, San Francisco kids going to high school and getting good grades — winding up hauled off the streets and shipped to out-of-town detention centers for possible deportation.
in mid-september, an 18 year old client of mine, let’s call him carlos, went missing for two days. he was waiting for his uncle at a bus stop on 9th and market where a witness told his uncle that the police took him away. his family called the police to locate him, but could not find him. finally, carlos called his family and told them he was in an ICE detention center in arizona. apparently, an undercover police officer tackled him from behind and started asking him questions in english. he didn’t understand and this seemed to upset the police officer more. carlos said the officer hit him, put him in a police car, and took him to 850 bryant. he didn’t get a phone call until he was in arizona.
Thanks to MissionMission for that story. I can tell you, there are many, many more like it in San Francisco.
Story and photos by Steven T. Jones
Cops immediately shut down the street party outside the Ferry Building…
While there are some good things about the engaged style of new Police Chief George Gascon, it’s been a major disappointment to watch the SFPD take a zero tolerance approach to public partying in recent weeks, making San Francisco less hospitable to the fun, free, grassroots events that make this such a great city.
On Halloween night, the cops shut down the Take Back Halloween Flashdance party before organizer Amandeep Jawa even turned on his stereo (luckily, that resourceful crew stealthily relocated to Pier 7 and threw a great dance party that didn’t hurt or offend anyone).
…so Deep secretly moved it to nearby Pier 7.
The next day, the Brass Tax Halloween Renegade dance party – the highlight of Halloween for many lovers of the beat — got shut down by the cops in each of three remote spots, for no good reason.
The victimless criminals of Brass Tax covered a lot of ground yesterday.
By Tim Redmond
State Sen. Mark Leno is asking the leadershiop of the state Democratic Party to pass an emergency measure opposing Pacific Gas and Electric Co’s plans for a statewide initiative against public power.
Leno told me he will travel to San Diego Nov. 14th to personally introduced a resolution to the party’s Executive Board putting the party on record in opposition to the measure. The company has been paying signature gatherers to collect enough names to place the measure on next spring’s statewide ballot.
The board is meeting that weekend. Since this would be an emergency measure, Leno said, any member of the Resolutions Committee could block it. But Leno thinks that’s unlikely; “who,” he asked, “is going to stand up and defend PG&E right now?”
