• No categories

Politics Blog

Americans for Prosperity: another right wing attack dog

0

Text by Sarah Phelan

dad_big.jpg
Groups like Americans for Prosperity want to revive Reagonomics. At the cost of your public health care option.

Just got an email from Americans For Prosperity, which bills itself as “being committed to educating citizens about economic policy and a return of the federal government to its Constitutional limits.” In other words, AFP is yet another right wing pit bull that favors the free-for-all market economic philosophy, which brought us Enron and the subprime mortgage fiasco, in which the rich get richer with minimum accountability and responsibility to the very tax payers that they allegedly champion. Sweet.

And this time, AFP is announcing a National Call Congress Day (Oct. 5), which they claim is necessary, “As Democratic Leaders Continue to Rush Radical Health Care Reform,” as well as rallying folks to the 2009 Defending the American Dream Summit in Arlington, Virginia (see banner above), replete with pix of Ronald Reagan. Lovely.

AFP, which also champions “exposing the ballooning costs of global warming hysteria,” boasts as its current Vice President Ed Frank, a former Bush staffer, who last year described the congressional showdown over off-shore drilling as “a political fight the free-market guys actually can win.”

Hmm. In other words, the folks opposing public health care option are the same folks who supported Palin’s “drill, baby drill” mantra last year? Nice. No wonder APF raked in over $ 5 million in 2007 alone.

Yeah, well it sounds like Oct 5 is a good day to call Congress, and demand a public health care option by telling your local representative the simple truth: including a public health care option is the morally right thing to do. Period.

Pushing back against Newsom’s leaked memo war

3

Text and photos by Sarah Phelan

Remember how Mayor Gavin Newsom leaked a confidential City Attorney memo about the implications of Sup. David Campos’ proposal to extend due process to undocumented youth?

And how Newsom made everyone else wait two weeks before deigning to release said memo, even though he told the Guardian that he had every right to waive his attorney-client privilege and distribute the Campos memo to whomsoever he pleased?

Well, this week a number of folks are preparing to file complaints with the Sunshine Taskforce a) about the Mayor’s Office’s selective release of this memo and b) his office’s subsequent refusal to release any other communications related to the leak.

And today, a group of civil rights organizations released a legal brief that responds to City Attorney Dennis Herrera’s leaked memo on the city’s immigrant youth policy. (You can read the brief in full here.)

Also today, Sup. David Campos participated in a tele-press conference in which legal experts and professors explained why Campos’ proposed amendment, which has an Oct. 5 hearing before the Board of Supervisors’ Public Safety Committee, is legally tenable and defensible.

And along the way, Campos and these experts, who included Angie Junck of the Immigrant Legal Resources Center, Robert Rubin of the Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights, Julia Mass of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Northern California, Professor Bill Ong Hing of UC Davis Law School and Angela Chan of the Asian Law Caucus, succeeded in debunking a number of myths about the Campos amendment.

As the brief explains, the Campos’ proposal, “will allow immigrant youth to have their day in court and be heard by an impartial judge, ensuring due process is upheld for all of San Frnacisco’s youth,” “ensure that families are not torn apart because a youth is mistakenly referred for deportation,” “encourage cooperation between law enforcement and immigrant communities by reestablishing a relationship based on trust and therefore increasing public safety,” “lessen the risk that the city will be liable for racial profiling, unlawful detention and mistaken referrals of U.S. citizens and lawful immigrants for deportation,” and “bring the city’s juvenile probation practices into compliance with state confidentiality laws for youth.”

And as today’s brief further explains, the Campos proposal won’t prevent referral to ICE of youth who have sustained felony charges and won’t put the sanctuary ordinance at risk.

“The sanctuary ordinance has stood strong for twenty years, and the proposed amendment strengthens the ordinance by taking steps to bring the city’s practices more into compliance with state juvenile justice law,” states the civil rights brief, which was prepared by the Asian Law Caucus, Legal Services for Children, Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, Immigrant Legal Resource Center, San Francisco Immigrant Legal & Education Network, and the San Francisco Immigrant Rights Defense Committee.

“In short, the legislation is a measured step in the right direction that will help restore accountability and fairness in the City’s treatment of immigrant youth.”

And as Campos told reporters today, his proposed amendment, “ is something we drafted very carefully in close consultation with the City Attorney’s office.”

Stop the pot fires!

0

By Tim Redmond

So the Fire Department is worried about pot farms in the Sunset catching on fire. That’s valid — a lot of underground growers patch into the electrical grid illegally and don’t exactly follow the highest fire-safety standards. And we know the stuff burns nice.

But why does this have to be a problem? Why can’t the city simply legalize pot farms by allowing that use under city planning and building inspection codes? We already have legal nurseries in the city; I don’t think it would be a huge step to issue permits for indoor nurseries, set fire standards, require safety inspections (before the seeds are planted but after the electricity, plumbing and lights are hooked up), mandate on-site security and then take a don’t ask-don’t tell approach to the whole scene?

We’d get a better class of growers (people who operate legally don’t tend to have big caches of nasty weapons), we’d get some tax revenue — and most important, we’d be able to prevent fires. Once there was a legal way to do this, the underground operators would be forced out and the Sunset would be safe and secure once again.

Who wants to take this one on?

More on sea-level rise in the San Francisco Bay

1

By Rebecca Bowe

whole Bay Area rise.jpg
In this image of the Bay Area, the light blue shows areas that would be inundated with a 16-inch sea-level rise, and the dark blue shows areas impacted by a 55-inch sea-level rise.

When it comes to San Francisco Bay waterfront development, sea-level rise is a long-term threat that policymakers, developers, and coastal communities are just beginning to consider seriously. As we report in today’s Green City, water levels in the Bay are projected to rise as high as 16 inches by the middle of this century, and 55 inches by 2100, in worst-case scenarios, as a consequence of climate change.

San Francisco Bay: Preparing for the Next Level, a report issued by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and a trio of Dutch research and engineering firms, begins to lay out the possible implications of sea-level rise and offer possible mitigation strategies.

Here are a few images from that report depicting not just what may loom ahead, but how engineers from the Netherlands have suggested we deal with it.

Judge sides with SF club in ABC crackdown

1

By Steven T. Jones
prohibition.jpg
The state crackdown on SF clubs has Prohibition Era echoes, but this time it’s using arcane rules to mask its moral concerns.

In the wake of a judge’s ruling that state officials were improperly enforcing arbitrary rules in cracking down on the Great American Music Hall and other San Francisco venues, the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control has dropped its case against GAMH.

The decision comes after a Guardian report in June about how the ABC was using strange and irrelevant legal technicalities to go after such venerable San Francisco nightlife hotspots at GAMH, Slim’s, Bottom of the Hill, DNA Lounge, and other assorted nightclubs.

Unfortunately, the ABC is expressing defiance as it continues what some believe is a moral crusade by conservative bureaucrats hostile to San Francisco values. The agency wrote in a press release: “The Administrative Law Judge held that while Great American Music Hall had in fact changed its operation, the regulation relied upon by the ABC was ambiguous. While ABC does not agree with the Administrative Law Judge’s ruling, and has not accepted the proposed decision, it has decided to dismiss the action against the Great American Music Hall.”

But GAMH attorney John Hinman told the San Francisco Chronicle that he hopes the ruling will encourage the agency to back off of the other clubs as well: “There’s no reason to move them forward.”

Mayor Gavin Newsom directs wind power energy to the Guardian!

5

By Rebecca Bowe

Newsom wind.jpg
Photo courtesy Luke Thomas, Fog City Journal

Here’s the scoop: The San Francisco Bay Guardian will get 50 megawatts of wind power, courtesy of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom.

Don’t get excited — the mayor was only kidding. Newsom’s witty remark came in response to a question by local journalist and blogger Luke Thomas, when he asked the mayor who would own the energy being generated by the municipal wind turbines that are envisioned throughout the city in a report unveiled today.

Newsom’s response: “I hope it’s the Bay Guardian.”

SFBG publisher Bruce B. Brugmann was delighted by the news, and immediately emailed a San Francisco Chronicle City Hall reporter to say he was available for comment on how he plans to use the power.

The press conference was held to announce the recommendations of San Francisco’s Urban Wind Power Task Force, a group convened to study possibilities for small urban wind projects in the city. The vision involves siting turbines at famous city landmarks, mapping micro-climates to figure out how best to harness wind energy potential, and making it easier for small urban wind projects to be permitted.

“Wind needs to be part of the urban mix,” Newsom said. “There are still a lot of questions, but nonetheless there’s a lot of enthusiasm.” Wind-power demonstration sites could include the Civic Center Plaza, The W Hotel, a new San Francisco Public Utilities Commission headquarters on Golden Gate Ave., and Treasure Island, Newsom said.

My question for Newsom was whether the city’s Community Choice Aggregation effort, which has a stated goal of supplying publicly owned power generated by 51 percent renewable energy by 2017, would be integrated into the bold new wind-development plans. The overarching vision of the Wind Power Task Force report is to develop 50 megawatts of wind power over the next few decades, a much longer time line than the initial 2017 target established by CCA. Newsom replied, “It certainly could be. I haven’t gotten that far along.”

To which we’d like to respond: Did you have a nice time on that PG&E-funded trip to Mexico?

Tax reform plan goes nowhere

2

By Tim Redmond

The governor’s tax-reform commission released its report today, and it probably won’t amount to much, because nobody seems to like it.

But the report shows how badly skewed the whole notion of “tax reform” has been warped in this state. The central premise of the report is that the top income tax rate — the rate that the very rich pay — should be reduced, and the overall income tax structure flattened. The argument: Since the income of the richest Californians changes with the economy, flattening out the tax structure will give us more budget stability.

But that’s an utter crock. As Lenny Goldberg, the director of the California Tax Reform Association, notes:

1. The top personal income tax rate should not be lowered, since figures presented to the Commission demonstrate clearly that the volatility problem is a function of the distribution of income, not a steeply progressive tax. In fact, the tax is relatively flat, assessing the same marginal rate on the upper-middle class (90k +) as the very rich, with a very quick ride through the brackets. If anything, the bracket structure should reflect the federal structure, which has increasing brackets and rates at $137,000, $208,000, and $372,000.

As Phil Spilberg’s presentation on March 16 pointed out, the top 1% take an extraordinary share of income (25%), nearly doubling since the early 1990’s. Their tax burden moves consistently with their share of income, so their disproportionate share of taxes is a function of their disproportionate share of income. That fact alone is what leads to volatility, but lowering their tax burden only exacerbates the mal-distribution of income. And any tax cuts share income with the federal government at a marginal rate of 35%, likely to become 39.6%, so are effectively a capital outflow.

In other words, the reason that tax receipts drop off so much during recessions is that the very rich have too much of the state’s total income. If anything, the tax rate is too flat now.

I’m somewhat intrigued by the new business tax proposals, which amount to what the Europeans call a “value added tax.” You take the total sales of a business, subtract its total costs, and tax the net proceeds, which are supposed to represent the value added during production. It’s a little trickier when you apply that to services, but I don’t think any sane person watching the state’s tax system disagrees with the concept that services ought to be taxed.

But overall, the tax reform commission has offered a very limited perspective — which is too bad, because California’s tax system is a mess and badly needs a comprehensive overhaul.

The national parks: A radical idea

1

By Tim Redmond

I have two kids (with piano, gymnastics, tae kwon do, PTA and assorted play dates and sleepovers), a busy job, a dog to walk, dirty dishes to wash … you know the drill. So I haven’t been able to watch every minute of every episode of Ken Burns magnum opus on the national park system. I don’t think I know anyone who has that kind of time these days.

But I tuned in for a while last night, to Episode Two, which tracks John Muir, Teddy Roosevelt, the Antiquities Act etc., and I walked away with a very clear message:

This is a series about what government does right.

In the segment I saw, the feds were the good guys — Congress was saving wild areas, and when the western ranchers and developers tried to commercialize the Grand Canyon (in the name of private enterprise), Roosevelt used his authority to block them, infuriating the states-rights and anti-government Westerners but (of course) preserving what everyone know agrees is a national treasure.

There was a fabulous quote from environmental journalist Juanita Green.

“In other parts of the world,” she says, “there are places that are wild because some nobleman decreed it. In the United States, we don’t need a nobleman. … that’s democracy.”

At a time when the mayor of San Francisco is lauding the death of a billionaire who believed just the opposite — that the private sector should decide what gets saved and that private philanthropy (from fortunes built on tax cuts) is a better solution than public spending (fueled by taxes on the wealthy), we all ought to think about that a little.

If the national parks are “America’s best idea,” as Burns dubs his documentary, then the best thing this nation has ever done is exerted government supremacy over the private sector when it comes to the use of land. It’s sad to think how radical that sounds today.

UC chief’s glib NYT interview raises ire

7

By Steven T. Jones
yudof.jpg
While reading the Sunday New York Times, I was surprised to see the magazine’s Q&A with UC President Mark Yudof – and dismayed by the timing and glib tone that he took.

Just days after UC faculty, employees, and students took to the streets in protest of Yudof’s anti-democratic approach to making deep cuts and huge tuition hikes, here he is playing the cutesy wannabe celebrity who jokes about his lack of commitment to and qualifications for this important job.

And when given the chance to criticize Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger – which would seem a natural, given that he’s been blaming state government for his own destructive decisions – he dutifully plays the good company man and says of the dangerous defunding of higher education, “This is a long-term secular trend across the entire country. Higher education is being squeezed out. It’s systemic.”

WTF? So the head of the UC is fine with just giving up on the public university system? And apparently I’m not the only one bothered by this interview, which Sen. Leland Yee – who has rightfully been hard on the UC in recent years – and others savage in the following press release that he just sent out.

Mainstream journalists defensive about start-up

2

By Steven T. Jones

Reactions by many mainstream media journalists to the formation of the Bay Area News Project – a nonprofit news operation supported by KQED, the UC Berkeley School of Journalism, California Newspaper Guild, financier Warren Hellman, and possibly The New York Times – have been hostile, petty, dismissive, self-serving, and misleading.

It’s no wonder the public has turned away from big newspapers and is clamoring for media reform. Rather than focusing on the public benefits of more journalism, mainstream media journalists seem to have adopted the media consolidation mindset of their corporate masters.

A central theme of the criticism has been wariness of competition. The SF Appeal today reports on a memo to San Francisco Chronicle staff written by Metro Editor Audrey Cooper in which she vows “to smash whomever is naive enough to poke their noses in our market.”

Friday’s Chronicle story on the news, which was buried back in the business section and written by James Temple, frets, “some believe it could also threaten the remaining local news industry.” That trope was also sounded in an East Bay Express blog post by Robert Gammon (formerly of the Oakland Tribune, which is part of the anti-competitive MediaNews empire) entitled “UC Berkeley Threatens Bay Area Journalism.”

Yet there’s a rather obvious central flaw to their arguments: the nonprofit project won’t be competing for advertising revenue, so it won’t force “Bay Area news organizations to make further cuts to stay competitive,” as Gammon claims. Journalists competing to do better and better work is the kind of healthy competition that benefits everyone and shouldn’t cost anyone their jobs.

LAFCo and SFPUC joint meeting: The clock is ticking

0

By Rebecca Bowe

tide clock.jpg

In the next few years, San Francisco residents will have the opportunity to switch to electricity that is publicly owned, more environmentally friendly, and either the same price or cheaper than power supplied by Pacific Gas & Electric Co. — if all goes according to plan.

That’s turning into a big “if.”

At a joint meeting held between the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) and San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) last Friday, LAFCo chair Sup. Ross Mirkarimi tried his best to start a fire under everyone’s rear. Clean Power SF, a public power program that will supplant PG&E in the city, had better get into gear without any foot-dragging or hesitation, Mirkarimi warned.

What’s the hurry? A proposed, PG&E-backed statewide ballot measure has cast a pall over Clean Power SF and other municipalities’ efforts at crafting public power alternatives, or Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) programs.

The PG&E-backed ballot measure would require 66 percent of voter approval before any local government could spend so much as a dime establishing a CCA, effectively creating an insurmountable hurdle. If successful, the ballot measure would snuff out any PG&E competition before it even caught on. The utility is poised to spend millions collecting signatures and pushing it through, and it has until Dec. 21 to gather the 694,354 signatures needed to place it on the ballot next year.

Why health-care reform is depressing

8

By Tim Redmond

Here’s why:

Because the Senate is ready to kill the public option, because the deal is already done, and Obama has already decided that he doesn’t want to fight the insurance industry.

I keep wondering: How did the likes of Obama and Rahm Emmanuel get rolled by the insurers? How did a Democratic president with solid majorities in both houses let this get so screwed up? Why has the best chance for real reform in decades gone down the tubes?

Robert Reich thinks that the deal was cut a long time ago.

Last January, the White House made a Faustian bargain with Big Pharma and Big Insurance, essentially scuttling both of these profit-squeezing mechanisms in return for these industries’ agreement not to oppose healthcare legislation with platoons of lobbyists and millions of dollars of TV ads, and Pharma’s willingness to cut drug prices by some $80 billion over the next ten years. The White House promised these industries they’d come out way ahead — getting tens of millions of new customers who’d be buying private health insurance policies and thereby paying for an almost endless supply of new drugs. Healthcare reform would be, in short, a bonanza

.

I knew that, sorta. I know people who were watching last spring, and they told me that the Bad Guys were at the table from the first day. I just don’t see how Obama and his team figured they could get any meaningful reform done without insurance industry opposition — and I don’t see how they could actually believe that the industry wouldn’t do exactly what it’s done, which is to fuck with the president’s modest agenda and spend millions to be sure that nothing worthwhile happens.

Sometimes, you can’t negotiate with terrorists. It’s a hard lesson for Obama, and the country, to learn right now.

Prison report: Why guards like violence

4

By Tim Redmond


Editors note: Just a Guy is an inmate in a California state prison. His dispatches run twice a week.

By Just A Guy

An officer and I had a discussion a couple of weeks ago. I asked him a question; I don’t remember exactly what it was. But what I remember about the conversation is interesting. He told me he hated working here, that this place has the worst morale of all the prisons in California, that the administration has the corrections officers concentrating on all kinds of pettiness in order to keep them occupied — and that there is so little violence and need to watch one another’s back that there is no unity among the COs as there is at prisons with more problems.

To me it’s very discouraging that a lack of violence and other problems endemic to prison life would be a catalyst for enmity between officers, that it would cause a lack of unity and lack of respect among the staff.

I would think it would be the goal of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to create prisons with no violence , no racial divide and prison politics and mechanism that make prison a recidivist machine.

But, as it turns out, a prison with less violence, racial division and those other mechanisms is considered an awful place to work because it creates a divide between the people running the prison.

This, my friends, is irony.

Remembering Don Fisher

21

By Steven T. Jones

It’s rude to speak ill of the recently deceased, but as I read the laudatory obituary of Don Fisher in today’s San Francisco Chronicle, it seems appropriate for us to say a few words about the legacy of a man long criticized by the Guardian for his sponsorship of right-wing and corporatist causes.

Most of what Fisher is now being praised for is how he spent his vast fortune, accumulated through The Gap clothing chain he created. Some of those expenditures (such as children’s programs and buying great art, which he arranged days before his death to have SFMOMA display) were good and many of those expenditures we opposed.

But the point to consider now is why US tax policy has allowed the Don Fishers of the world to keep so much of the wealth they accumulated – in this particular case, largely through exploitive sweatshop labor around the world — and to use it to attack the public sector and empower corporations.

As we praise the philanthropy and generosity of Don Fisher, it’s worth asking whether the billions of dollars that he was allowed to keep (money the federal government would have appropriated for public use up until the late ‘70s, when the tax rate on top earners was as high as 90 percent) might have been better spent by our elected leaders.

William Safire — an appreciation (of sorts)

1

By Tim Redmond

William Safire was wrong about Vietnam. He was wrong about Watergate. He was right about poor Bert Lance, but wrong about Jimmy Carter. He was very, very wrong about Saddam Hussein, 9/11 and the Iraq War. He was, as the Telegraph of London says, “tall, dishevelled, slouching and dour.”

But Lord, what a good writer.

His conservative columns sparkled with style and wit — and often, with intelligence (that factor so utterly missing from the right wing of American politics today). I read him regularly, not just his language columns (which got more dreary as he aged), but his political commentary, which was sharp up until the day he retired from the New York Times op-ed page.

And while he was often horrendously wrong and politically awful, he was pretty consistent. After complaining repeatedly about the climate of secrecy in the Bush Sr. administration, he made it very clear in 1992 that a president who refused to accept sunshine in the White House was unacceptable and that “this lifelong Republican” was going to vote for Bill Clinton.

(He later chided Barbara Streisand for refusing to take his phone calls. “She told me if I voted for Bill Clinton, she’d [grant an interview.} I did; she didn’t.”) And, of course, he famously turned on the Clintons, referring to Hillary as a “congenital liar.”

And unlike a lot of conservatives of his era, he was willing to change with the times. By the late 1990s, he had become pro-choice on abortion, and once commented on a rally to save Roe v. Wade: “Nothing warms the heart of an old conservative as much as seeing thousands of protestors stare decisively at the Supreme Court and demonstrate in support of the status quo.”

Back in 2003, he opened the door to conservatives accepting same-sex marriage (“I’m a ‘libcon.’ To that small slice of the political spectrum called libertarian conservative, personal freedom is central,” and if he were still writing today, I’m pretty sure he’d be out front on that issue (and on allowing gays in the military).

So I’ll miss the crusty old right-winger. He did a lot of damage, and when he first started writing his column in 1973, as a former Nixon speechwriter, he was an apologist for an administration that was pretty much indefensible. But he was thoughtful and somewhat open-minded and sharp and funny and creative. There are no conservative writers who come even close today.

Health care reform, in simple terms

3

By Tim Redmond

My old friend Dan Roam, a former Guardian associate art director and the author of The Back of the Napkin: Solving Problems and Selling Ideas With Pictures, has taken on health-care reform.

He’s done it the Dan Roam way — by outlining the issue and the various problems and proposals with colored markers on napkins. It’s a fun and useful demonstration — although he doesn’t explain why a single-payer option would make so much more sense than everything else that’s on the table.

Remarkably enough, Fox News has given him a platform to explain his ideas — and on the air, he makes a very good point. This isn’t about health-care reform; it’s about insurance reform. And maybe if Obama had started off saying that the issue was insurance companies instead of letting the right wing drag doctors and death panels into this, we’d all be a lot better off.

Will Arnie’s ‘park closure solution’ save Candlestick Point?

3

Text and photo by Sarah Phelan

Monsterskies0925.JPG
Does San Francisco really need to sell Candlestick Point park for Lennar condos?

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has unveiled a plan to allow for all state parks to remain open without increasing Parks and Recreation budget appropriation. Does this mean the Bayview’s only major park can be saved? Developers are arguing that if the state sells a chunk of the waterfront property for $50 million, the rest of the park can be saved. But environmentalists disagree, noting that Lennar simply wants the land for luxury condos.

“Working closely with my Departments of Finance and Parks and Recreation, we have successfully found a way to avoid closing parks this year,” Schwarzenegger said in a press release today. “This is fantastic news for all Californians.”

But does this mean that Sen. Mark Leno’s SB 792 is no longer necessary?

Leno’s bill would allow the state to sell a chunk of Candlestick Point State Recreation Area for $50 million, so that developer Lennar, which has entered into a nebulous public-private partnership with the city of San Francisco, can build luxury condos on this waterfront parkland.

Leno’s bill, which the Assembly and the Senate have approved, is sitting on Arnie’s desk awaiting the governor’s signature. But it has faced stiff opposition from environmental groups in recent months.

And their neutrality was only recently secured, based on the spurious argument that, without the bill’s approval, Candlestick Point SRA would have to closed in its entirerity.

But now the Governor is proposing to reduce ongoing maintenance for the remainder of 2009-10, eliminate all major equipment purchases, and reduce hours and/or days of operation at most State Park units, expenditures on seasonal staff, and staffing and operations at State Parks headquarters.

According to Arnie’s proposal, some facilities could close weekdays and be open on weekends and holidays, or portions of a unit could be closed, such as the back loop of a campground. For a park with multiple campgrounds, one whole campground or day use facility could be closed while the rest of the park remains open, while parks that already close due to seasonal conditions could see longer closures.

“Service reductions will be planned to minimize disruptions to visitors, achieve cost savings and maintain park fee revenues,” the memo says.

Hmm. Seems like Arnie’s memo just gave Candlestick Point park supporters more ammo in their ongoing quest to challenge Lennar’s plan to take 23 acres of Candlestick Point SRA.

Lennar never spelled out this plan to take a chunk of the Bayview’s only major park, when they asked voters to approve Prop. G in 2008.

Instead, Prop. G was billed as a way to clean-up the abandoned Hunters Point shipyard and “create” hundreds of new acres of parkland.

It wasn’t until after Prop. G passed, that Lennar began publicly arguing that they would need 42 acres of the existing parkland, if the rest of their plan, which involves building 10,500 housing units on 770 acres of former industrial/ military land, is to pencil out. As for the new acres of parkland, that turned out to be acres of polluted shipyard that Lennar was proposing to cap with a cement cover and convert into a park.

Understandably angered, park advocates beat Lennar down to 23 acres, this fall, during the most recent round of the “parks for condos” battle.

Now, in light of Arnie’s plan and the soon-to-be released environmental impact report for Lennar’s massive redevelopment plan, those battlelines are perhaps, once again about to be redrawn. Only this time in favor of the park.

Stay tuned.

Prison report: Who are the bad people?

8

By Just A Guy


Editors note: Just A Guy is an inmate in a California state prison. His dispatches appear twice a week.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Poizner was recently quoted in the Sacramento Bee saying: “You have to be a really bad person to get into state prison. So I’m opposed to releasing people who are dangerous, absolutely opposed. That’ s no way to balance the budget.”

I’m curious to know what Poizner thinks everyone is in prison for. Does he even realize that at least 18 percent of the population is in prison for drug crimes? If so, then is he saying that all people in prison for drugs are “really bad people?”

As if the stigma of being an addict and in prison isn’t enough.

I wonder if Poizner thinks alcoholics are “really bad people” — or just people who need a 12-step program.

What is a “really bad person” anyway? Are the many of you who have done some stupid things in your past but just didn’t get caught “really bad people” too? Or does the stereotype apply only to people in prison?

I’m opposed to the early releases of people who are dangerous, also. But how does one determine who’s dangerous? Is the 80-year-old infirm man in a wheelchair a danger? Let’s be honest — who doesn’t have the capacity to be dangerous? Prisoner or not?

Poizner says this is no way to balance the budget. But what about the consequences of cutting even more money from other services? (See my most recent blog here.
Has he considered that the industrialization of prisons in California with the three strikes, archaic laws and sentencing, is no way to create jobs?

The other Republican gubernatorial candidate, Meg Whitman, said “the most important role government has is public safety. It’s very important to be consistent.” She’s also opposed to early releases and prison reform. Odd that the former CEO of Ebay is so short sighted about the long-term effects of the current budget and prison situation. Isn’t this a women who had to please stockholders and a board of directors and had to have insightful long-term visions planning Ebay strategy — which she did quite successfully? I guess your strategy changes drastically when you’re selling a service as opposed to selling fear.

The only things consistent about California prison policy are lock-em-up-and-throw-away-the-key strategies. Most politicians are also consistently spouting tough-on-crime policy against their better judgment because they are consistently afraid of the Willie Horton syndrome.

A couple of gubernatorial candidates from the Democratic side are, amazingly, looking at prison reform as a way to alleviate some of California’s budget problems.

The biggest threat to public safety is not the people in prison or their releases (most of them are going to get out anyway). It’s consistently cutting money for health care, education, welfare and myriad other programs that help to create a brighter future for Californians. Public safety also means maintaining roads and bridges, supplying water, educating citizens etc. The best way to have public safety is to have an environment that creates hope, not antipathy.

Finally, the Canadian government is considering creating a prison system similar to California’s — and a rather scathing indictment came out from opponents who say doing so is a bad idea.

The majority of first world countries see California and its prison policies as insane — why can’t we see that for ourselves? It’s like we have “prison addiction.”

I wonder if people with prison addiction should be consistently labeled “really bad people.” The rest of the world seems to think so.

Energy efficiency gets a boost, but foxes still guard the hen house

2

By Rebecca Bowe

electric meter.jpg

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approved a $3.1 billion budget yesterday for statewide energy efficiency programs that will be in place until 2012. California’s powerful investor-owned utilities — Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas and Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company — are in charge of implementing the programs, while the funding is derived from ratepayers.

While the decision marks the creation of the largest energy-efficiency program in the country, some question the wisdom of the colossal investment, because it relies on utility companies to implement dramatic reductions in energy use.

It’s the greatest financial contribution the state utility commission has ever pledged toward energy efficiency. According to the CPUC, the potential energy savings will negate the need for three new 500-megawatt power plants, and avoid 3 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions. The funding from this decision could create between 15,000 and 18,000 green jobs, the CPUC estimates.

The decision will provide $260 million for local efforts such as municipal building retrofits. It also requires utilities to track progress toward goals and strategies established in a long-term statewide plan for reducing energy use. Included in the effort is an ambitious home-retrofit program, which sets a goal of 20 percent energy savings for up to 130,000 homes.

“This investment in California’s clean energy economy is just what we need to create new jobs for our communities and fight global warming pollution,” said Lara Ettenson, director of California Energy Efficiency Policy at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a prominent environmental organization.

Not everyone shares NRDC’s optimism, however.

The Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA), an independent consumer advocacy division of the CPUC, warned that the powerful utility companies should be closely monitored to see how they make use of such a tremendous sum.

In a statement released this morning, the DRA highlighted “a continuing need for stronger mechanisms to ensure transparency and accountability in the utilities’ use of the billions of dollars of ratepayer money.” Utility giant PG&E has been criticized in the past for misuse of energy-efficiency funds.

Solidarity shown during UC walkout

2

Story and photos by Sarah Morrison
uc-4.jpg
“No cuts, no fees, education should be free,” chanted thousands of UC Berkeley faculty, staff, workers and students as they protested in Sproul Plaza against state budget cuts, increased fees, lay-offs, and poor management of the UC system during yesterday’s campus-wide walkout.

While the protests began at 7.15 am yesterday with strikes initiated by the University Professional and Technical Employees union (UPTE) and the Coalition of University Employees (CUE) throwing up a picket line at the campus, by midday the plaza was crammed full with an estimated 5000 protestors in a scene reminiscent of the Free Speech Movement of the 1960s.

Outlining how budget cuts have led to staff shortages, reduced pay, and a lack of vital university services, UC Berkeley professor of art history Timothy Clark, who has taught at the university for more than 21 years, stressed how the Berkeley community felt they had been let down by the UC Board of Regents and the California Legislature.

“The UC won’t wear us down and if they think we won’t fight back then they are mistaken,” he said. “The crisis is real but from crises comes choices. The fight is begun and the fight will continue.”
uc-1.jpg

Media reformers welcome new SF voice

13

By Steven T. Jones

The Bay Area News Project – a new media collaboration that will be formally announced tomorrow, but which we wrote about earlier today – is already generating excitement from San Franciscans who have long been concerned about the journalism industry’s decline.

“I very much like the idea of another locally owned and edited news voice in San Francisco. The Guardian and I wish them well,” Bay Guardian Editor and Publisher Bruce B. Brugmann said.

While principal investor Warren Hellman discussed the project with the Guardian, none of the other local partners – KQED, UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism, the Media Workers Guild, and the consulting firm McKinsey & Company, which is handling the managing editor hiring process – returned our calls or were willing to discuss the project before its formal announcement in the morning.

Yet the long-rumored news was greeted warmly by local media innovators, including some who have been closely watching the scene and waiting to see what Hellman and company would do. “I’m absolutely thrilled that significant resources are being put into an alternative business model for the local media because it’s sorely needed,” said Michael Stoll, project director for The Public Press, a noncommercial news outlet that launched earlier this year after years in development. “It represents the first hopeful sign in a long time that watchdog journalism is on the rebound.”

Hellman and partners to launch Bay Area newsroom

7

By Steven T. Jones
hellman.jpg
Warren Hellman was featured in the Guardian two years ago.

San Francisco financier Warren Hellman – in partnership with KQED, the UC Berkeley School of Journalism, and perhaps even the New York Times – is about to launch a nonprofit, locally focused, online news organization with a medium-sized newsroom of full-time journalists, Hellman has confirmed to the Guardian.

Hellman says he will provide $5 million in seed money for the Bay Area News Project, which is about half the annual budget for a projected staff of about two-dozen journalists, and he expects to get foundation funding and perhaps even government grants for the rest. They are currently interviewing for a managing editor, which they hope to hire in the next month or so, and expect to go live sometime next year.

“We’re forming a new media news center. Basically, it will be a not-for-profit 501c3 that will be source of Bay Area news,” Hellman said. “It will focus on local news events, including politics and the arts, the kind of thing that is just dying at the Chronicle.”

The mayor’s race begins

9

By Tim Redmond

So now it’s official: Just when San Francisco political junkies needed something other than the generally dull November election to talk about, Bevan Dufty has done us all a favor and fired the opening gun in the 2011 mayor’s race.

It’s no surprise, really — everyone knew that Dufty was running. Just as everyone knows that City Attorney Dennis Herrera and state Senator Leland Yee will be in the race, and that Assessor Phil Ting is looking at it, and that Sup. Ross Mirkarimi and Public Defender Jeff Adachi are mulling their prospects.

With public financing in place, and ranked-choice voting, the race will be fascinating. Dufty has never run citywide, but he’s a nice guy who can be funny and charming and he’s built a reputation as a nuts-and-bolts supervisor who takes government seriously. “Ross Magowan [of KTVU] asked me what my biggest single issue was, and I said Muni,” Dufty told me today. “He said that Muni was getting better, but hey — crime is down 30 percent citywide and still up on Muni.”

Fixing Muni is a Dufty kind of thing — not a grand civic vision, but a basic public service that people use that has problems. (A classic Dufty story: When the city got rid of the crossing guard at the school my kids go to a couple of years ago, which is in Dufty’s district, the principal called Dufty, and the guard was back the next day. He loves that sort of thing.)

“What I try to be is a collaborator,” he said. “I’ve never had the luxury of knowing I had six votes on the board, so I’ve had to reach out to people.”

He also promised that Mayor Dufty would always show up for question time at the board. He joked that “it’s easy for me to promise that because Chris Daly will be off the board by them” but in the next breath told me how much he likes and respects Daly, who he called “incredibly talented.” (Again, classic Dufty.)

It’s going to be a challenge for him to stand out in this race. He’s not going to get a lot of progressive support; he simply hasn’t been there on a lot of progressive votes and issues. It’s rare to see him defy Mayor Newsom and he’s been on the wrong side of many of the key battles of the past ten years.

He has a lot of support in his district, and among the more centrist parts of the gay community. But he’s not a big downtown guy, not a prodigious fundraiser and won’t be the next Newsom, who ran the first time with the unwavering support of the big-business community and all the money he could ever need.

And Herrera and Yee — both with a proven track record of raising money, both with citywide name recognition — will also be sitting in that political center. Neither of them can claim the support of the majority of the progressive supervisors (although Herrera will no doubt have former Board President Aaron Peskin on his team).

If Mirkarimi or Adachi runs, they’ll take the left flank. Yee will be the more conservative candidate, especially when he’s working the west side of town. I don’t see how Dufty finds his niche.

He doesn’t either, right now — except to say that “I’m not running for anything else. I have no desire to go to Sacramento or Washington. I’m humble and I’m going to run a grassroots campaign.”

What he has, clearly, done is given a kind of shit-or-get-off-the-pot push to the other candidates. The race is a long way away, but with Dufty out there, raising money and seeking endorsements, Mirkarimi is going to have to decide if he’s serious, and if not, the progressives are going to have to decide if Adachi is their man, and the race is going to start firming up. There won’t be a Matt Gonzalez late entry this time around. What you see is what you get, and the late-comers will be at a disadvantage.

UC walkout could ignite a larger movement

1

By Sarah Morrison
strike-on.jpg
UPTE’s logo for tomorrow’s UC walkout.

While UC Berkeley might have a long history of noisy protests and student activism, tomorrow’s UC-wide faculty and student walkout and worker strike seems unprecedented even within its own tumultuous history.

As a coalition of faculty, staff, students and workers across all of the UC campuses arrange to walk out of scheduled classes first thing tomorrow and protest against state cuts in funding, fee hikes, and changes to the traditional UC system of shared governance, the Berkeley community is expecting thousands to congregate in Sproul Plaza, the university’s traditional hub of student activity.

“The walkout tomorrow is just one milestone on what is likely to be a pretty long road to recovery,” said UC Berkeley professor of theatre, dance and performance studies, Catherine Cole. “It’s a moment to make visible the cuts and changes that are happening in our University – changes that are of profound importance and not yet necessarily made visible to all.”