• No categories

Politics Blog

Newsom’s telling tantrum

5

By Steven T. Jones
379-cover.web.jpg
In today’s Chronicle, Mayor Gavin Newsom wonderfully illustrates some of the main points I made in this week’s cover story, playing petulant political games instead of trying to honestly work with the Board of Supervisors.

At issue is the board’s effort to prevent deep cuts in the social safety net and public health system by asking the police, fire, and sheriff’s departments – whose budgets Newsom proposes to increase while cutting everything else – to share some of the fiscal pain. Newsom used the disagreement to claim that it’s prevented him from being able to reach a contract with the new police chief.

“This board acted without my understanding of their intent,” he told the Chron. “It’s a very dangerous game. I don’t know what they’re trying to do. I am stunned. Thank God we have a mayor.”

Unfortunately, we have a mayor who disingenuously promised – twice — to work closely with the supervisors on budget revisions, but couldn’t manage to walk down the hall or pick up a phone to learn “their intent” and “what they’re to do.” Instead, he simply lashes out and tacks on the ridiculously pompous self-praise.

But thank God we have progressive supervisors who resist getting sucked into this transparent ploy to pander to cops and firefighters and play to people’s fears. “I’m surprised at the mayor’s emotional reaction to a legitimate, genuine policy debate,” board President David Chiu told the Chron. “When he calms down, I look forward to working with him to develop a budget that reflects our shared policy priorities.”

The Chron misquotes Campos

5

By Tim Redmond

Sup. David Campos, who has been not only a solid progressive vote but a strong leader on city budget issues, is getting slammed today for his comments about white men — comments that were misquoted and taken out of context by the Chronicle.

Campos and Sups. Chris Daly and John Avalos have been pushing back — hard — against the bad priorities and brutal cuts in Mayor Gavin Newsom’s budget.

In fact, in a stunning political move that sets the tone for what will be a contentious budget debate, the supervisors Budget Committee yesterday sought to shift some $80 million from law-enforcement to social services. The move came during debate on what’s usually a routine issue — approving an interim budget to keep the city going for a few weeks, between the time the supervisors start discussing the budget and the time they finally approve it.

On a 3-2 vote, the committee declined to sign off on the mayor’s interim plan and instead set very different priorities. That won’t have any immediate impact (Newsom won’t have to cut police and fire spending in July) but it sent a message that this board isn’t going to simply tinker with the budget. There’s going to be a complete overhaul.

In the process, Campos blasted Newsom’s claim that the budget was nearly “pefect,” saying that “It’s a perfect budget only if you’re a wealthy, straight white man from Pacific Heights.” That’s possibly a bit of hyperbole, but it’s generally accurate — the budget is fine if you don’t want to pay more taxes and you don’t need the sort of city services that working-class and poor people rely on.

But the Chron got the quote completely wrong. In the edition that hit the streets this morning, Marisa Lagos quoted Campos as saying the budget was perfect “if you’re a straight, white male.” That, obviously, made the comment far more inflammatory — there are, as Campos well knows, plenty of poor people who are straight, white and male. “I’ve been getting hate emails, nasty calls, people calling me a racist,” Campos told us.

BeyondChron busted the Chron this morning for getting the quote wrong, and it’s corrected now in the online version. Campos isn’t backing down: “I stand by what I said. We are devastating services for poor people and people of color,” he said.

So the budget battle begins, with a bang. Good for Campos, Avalos and David Chiu, who voted to shift the budget priorities; they realize, as does anyone who goes beyond political soundbites and stops to think about it, that cutting health and human services leads to more crime, and that paying more for cops isn’t the only — or even the best — way to keep the public safe.

Prison report will return

0

By Tim Redmond

Just A Guy, our prison correspondent, has a court date and won’t be writing today’s column, but he’ll be back shortly.

‘Budget Justice’ rally rocks City Hall

2

By Rebecca Bowe

therapy RESIZED.JPG

Hundreds marched from Hallidie Plaza to San Francisco City Hall yesterday afternoon to protest Mayor Gavin Newsom’s proposed city budget, which contains deep cuts to address a looming $438 million general fund deficit.

Organized by a coalition called Budget Justice, which includes Coleman Advocates, the Coalition on Homelessness, SEIU and others, the rally and march brought out a wide cross-section of people whose lives would be directly affected by cuts to the city’s health and human services programs. Homeless people, veterans, the elderly, AIDS patients, organizations that aid victims of violence and sexual abuse, people in need of mental-health therapy or programs for recovery from substance abuse, and single room occupancy residents were all represented.

Sups. John Avalos and Chris Daly delivered rousing speeches and hurled scathing criticism at Newsom’s proposed budget. They called for sharing the pain more equitably, and a number of speakers advocated for progressive revenue measures that could help stave off the worst of the bloodshed.

Newsom’s fund raid get worse

3

By Steven T. Jones

It turns out that Mayor Gavin Newsom’s secret raid on the public financing fund was even worse than I wrote about yesterday. As the electoral reform advocates discovered yesterday afternoon, and the Chronicle reported this morning, Newsom took $2.3 million from the fund without indicating so in his budget or letting the Board of Supervisors know.

So right now, according Ethics Department officials that administer the fund, it contains just $500,000. And that fund is supposed to pay for public financing in both next year’s Board of Supervisors races and the 2011 mayor’s race, which are expected to total more than $5 million, possibly much more.

Newsom proposes to put $1.9 million into the fund in the coming fiscal year and Ethics officials say he has promised them another $1.9 million the next year, leaving it short of where it would need to be if the supervisorial candidates qualify for more than last year’s $1.3 million and more than a couple mayoral candidates opt for public financing. Then again, Newsom opposed the program from the beginning, so maybe that’s just part of his plan.

The Catholics and the Nazis

2

By Tim Redmond

The radical right wing of the Catholic Church really has no business using the image of Nazi Germany to discredit critics. The history books (and the doctrine of glass houses) suggest a few problems with that game.

But the Thomas More Law Center, which represents the Catholic League (that group of wingos who don’t like the Folsom Street Fair) is up in arms over the fact that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has concluded that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors “>had the right to criticize Church positions.

And the openly anti-gay bigots dared to say this:

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center remarked, “It is not a stretch to compare the San Francisco Board’s actions to that of the Nazi Germany policy of Gleichschaltung: vilifying Jews as an auxiliary to and laying the groundwork for more repressive policies, including the final solution of extermination. The policy of San Francisco is one of totalitarian intolerance of Christians of all denominations who oppose homosexual conduct. My concern is that if this ruling is allowed to stand, it will further embolden anti-Christian attacks.

The whole episode is kind of silly — the supervisors simply called on William (“Darth”) Levada to back off on his position that guy familes shouldn’t be allowed to adopt kids. (Which is, by the way, about the most anti-Christian position imaginable.)

The Catholics (who are happy to get tax exemptions, put biblical messages in public places, allow prayer in public schools, cheat the city out of transfer taxes and park in the middle of the Goddamn street) say the resolution was a violation of the separation of church and state.

As they say in New York, yagattabekiddin.

State budget secrets: $2.5 billion in tax giveaways

0

By Megan Rawlins

There’s no building-sized rock in Sacramento hiding 264 tons of cash – the approximate weight of the state’s budget deficit measured in $100 bills. But groups like the California Budget Project and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees have published reports arguing there are smaller rocks, $100-million rocks, $1-billion rocks that can save services for some of the state’s most vulnerable populations.

In fact, according to a report CPB released June 3, the state Legislature quietly added three new corporate tax breaks in the last round of budget cuts — and just closing those loopholes could save the state up to $2.5 billion a year. The tax-law changes provide multi-million dollar tax breaks to a small nadful of the state’s largest corporations.

“Why,” Jean Ross, executive director of CBP, asked, “is the state giving away money?”

Pink Saturday is on

0

By Megan Rawlins
pinksat.jpg
Photo of Pink Saturday by Kevin Goebel

After weeks of debates about its fate, Pink Saturday is on for Saturday, June 27. Late last week, an agreement was reached between the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, who host the event, and city officials.

In the end, as always, it comes down to money. The city argued it couldn’t afford to foot the bill for the police officers needed to patrol the event. Unlike many other events in the city that are required to pay for all costs associated with policing them, Sgt. Mark Solomon of San Francisco Police Department’s field operations unit said the city will again “absorb” the cost of the officers. Pink Saturday is one of just a handful of longtime events that were grandfathered in before “full cost recovery” became the official city policy.

The new agreement reduced the number of beer stations from eight to five, easing some of the demand – and thus cost – on the PD. Beer stations are new to Pink Saturday and are an attempt by the Sisters to raise more money from the event. Much of the money raised is given to non-profit organizations that support the LGBT community.

It was the initial addition of beer stations that got the permitting process all snarled up. “When you shift from non-alcohol to alcohol event, the whole equation changes,” Solomon said. But the final answer remains the same: We’ll see you in the Castro on the 27th.

SF8 case postponed; Supervisors consider support

0

By C. Nellie Nelson

Most people wouldn’t think to start the workweek with a dance party in the chilly morning fog, the Brass Liberation Orchestra had the crowd gathered at the Hall of Justice jumpin’ at 8 a.m. Monday. A couple hundred people sang along to “Drop the charges,” distributed papers with case details, and carried “Free the SF8” signs.

They were calling for the charges against the San Francisco 8 to be dismissed. The eight are a group of black community leaders charged in a 37-year-old killing of a police officer. Inside, the group had their day in court, with a preliminary hearing to determine whether they’ll face trial, although it was postponed to July 6.

Meanwhile, the Board of Supervisors Government Audits and Oversight Committee will tomorrow consider a resolution supporting the SF8 and asking the case be dropped because its evidence was tainted by torture.

Village Voice Media sues East Bay Express owners

2

By Tim Redmond

The newspaper chain that owns SF Weekly is suing the independent owners of the East Bay Express for $500,000 in a case that, ironically, shows how the big media outfit is trying to duck its own debts.

The lawsuit comes out of the 2007 deal under which Steve Buel, Hal Brody and a few other investors bought the Express from Village Voice Media, the national alternative press chain that owns the Weekly and 14 other papers.

As part of the deal, the local owners put up an undisclosed amount in cash and agreed to pay VVM $500,000 two years later. Buel, the longtime editor of the Express, and Brody, who formerly owned a weekly in Kansas City, had to guarantee the half-million-dollar note with their personal assets.

The sales agreement was a bit complicated. VVM owned both the SF Weekly and the Express, and the two papers had been selling joint ad buys to clients. So divorcing that partnership, and allowing the newly independed Express to compete effectively in the market, required some unusual terms. Among other things, VVM agreed not to use its position as the former owner of the Express, with full access to account records and sales contacts to poach Express clients.

However, Brody told us, the big chain started to violate that agreement almost immediately. “We have massive claims against them for violating those terms,” he said.

“The SF Weekly is not supposed to solicit our advertisers in Alameda and Contra Costa, and they’ve been doing it, over and over.”

PE credit for JROTC up tonight

11

Editors note: The San Francisco School Board will vote tonight on a convoluted plan to allow physical education credit for JROTC. Since the military-recruitment program doesn’t meet state standards for PE, the board is trying a runaround — students would get “independent study” gym credit if they sign up for JROTC.

Marc Norton, who has been in the forefront of the opposition to JROTC, sent us this commentary:

by Marc Norton

Right-wing Chronicle columnist Debra Saunders jumped into the JROTC end-game with an opinion piece on Sunday. In April, Saunders, who endorsed John McCain for President, opined that “In Obamaland… the left chants, ‘torture doesn’t work…’ But common sense tells you that techniques like sleep deprivation [and] waterboarding… work, at least some times.”

In her latest rant, Saunders recounts the pro-JROTC mythology at length, but her real play is to torture the truth with the claim that the California Board of Education has “said local school districts have the authority to offer PE [physical education] credits for JROTC.”

What the California Board of Education actually did was revise its Physical Education Framework to say that JROTC classes “may not” meet PE standards, instead of “do not” meet PE standards. But, “if a district desires to award physical education credit for courses such as JROTC, marching band, cheerleading, and drill, it is the responsibility of the district to determine how each particular course, as conducted in its district, supports a course of study for grades nine through twelve… and substantially meets the objectives and criteria” for state PE curriculum and credentialing requirements.

Those who have followed the JROTC story know that bipartisan efforts in the state Legislature have tightened up PE standards in recent years because of the crisis of physical fitness among our youth, particularly low-income youth and youth of color. That is why PE credit has been withdrawn from JROTC programs all over the state, including San Francisco.

In fact, a recent report from San Diego compared physical fitness records of students who took PE and those who did not. Fitnessgram results for JROTC students actually declined during the same period that results for students in PE increased. The Fitnessgram is the test students generally take in the 9th or 10th grade to show their progress in physical education.

If Manheimer is SF’s next top cop, will Newsom push Villa-Lobos in D6?

4

frt_chief_manheimer.jpg
Is this the face of San Francisco’s next top cop?

Text by Sarah Phelan

Back in February, I asked mayoral spokesperson Nathan Ballard if San Mateo police chief Susan Manheimer was Newsom’s top pick to replace SFPD Chief Heather Fong.

I asked because the Community Leadership Alliance was promoting Manheimer hard and seems to have the insider edge within Camp Newsom.
(CLA lists the Chamber of Commerce’s Rob Black—Newsom’s unsuccessful pick to replace D6 Sup. Chris Daly in 2006—as honorary Chair, Scott Caroen as Chair, Troy Hammer, David Muhammad, Christopher Rosas and Joseph Alioto Veronese and Angela Alioto as advisers, and David James Villa-Lobos as director.)

Ballard’s reply, which I included in the Guardian’s story about San Francisco’s dysfunctional public safety system, was that, “It would be wildly premature to comment on the Mayor’s preference for police chief at this time. “

This was of course before Fong demoted veteran police office Greg Suhr to captain, before the domestic violence victim whose case was used to demote Suhr claimed that Suhr’s actions saved her life, various other candidates had their names leaked to the press, and before the Examiner’s Ken Garcia accused Fong of trying to burn down the whole department.

But now the Chronicle is claiming that Manheimer could very well be SF’s next top cop, because she spent 16 years in the SFPD before heading to San Mateo, the powerful SF Police Officers Association feels it can work with her, and the choice will allow Newsom to appear to be choosing a department outsider.

Suhr, Deputy Chief Kevin Cashman, and Pasadena Police Chief Bernard Melekian, are reportedly still in the running.

Meanwhile, I’m left wondering if Newsom is going to back CLA director Villa-Lobos for D6 in 2010, becausethe two are photographed posing together on CLA’s website and the group seems to have its finger on Newsom’s pulse.
david__gavin_3.7201807.jpg
David James Villa-Lobos poses with MGN

Newsom’s shell game, Part I: Public financing

0

By Steven T. Jones
369-newsom.web.jpg
Newsom and Avalos at the mayor’s budget unveiling. Photo by Luke Thomas.

Board of Supervisors budget analyst Harvey Rose is still busy researching Mayor Gavin Newsom’s city budget proposal in advance of the Budget Committee’s first hearing on it on June 17. But some advocates have already started to unearth deceptive budgetary shell games by the mayor.

Electoral reform advocates Rob Arnow and Steven Hill have discovered that Newsom has once again raided the public financing for mayoral candidates fund, but sought to disguise the move by including a $1.9 million contribution to the fund in his published budget, then draining $1.4 million from a fund transfer that wasn’t highlighted. And that doesn’t even count the $5 million “loan” that Newsom last year took from the fund – which he opposed the creation of — promising he’d pay it back this year.

“For the last three years, the mayor has been trying hard to bankrupt the public campaign financing fund, well before the budget crisis began. While he’s claiming now that it’s only a response to the budget crisis, the reality is far different. Despite his carefully crafted media image, he’s backed by big business interests who can’t stand the idea of regular citizens taking back the reins of our democracy,” said Arnow of the group San Franciscans for Voter Owned Elections.

Shell and Chevron: a tale of two oil companies

0

Text by Sarah Phelan

Shell has decided to pay $15.5 million to settle with the family of Ken Saro-Wiwa and the relations of other activists killed in Nigeria.

Brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of Saro-Wiwa’s family and others in 1996, the New York-based lawsuit accused Shell’s Nigerian subsidiary of complicity in the writer’s 1995 hanging and the killings or persecution of other environmental activists in the Niger Delta.

Shell was fighting the lawsuit until last week, when a federal appellate court ruled that the plaintiffs could see the company’s Nigerian subsidiary in American courts. That ruling overturned a March decision in the company’s favor.

According to CNN, Shell said it had “no part in the violence that took place,” and called the $15.5 million settlement, “a humanitarian gesture to set up a trust fund to benefit the Ogoni people.”

Saro-Wiwa’s son, Ken Saro-Wiwa Jr. told CNN that, “It enables us to draw a line under the past and actually face the future with something tangible, some hope that this is the beginning of a better engagement between all the stakeholders in this issue.”

Shell’s settlement coincides with a California judge’s decision to throw out a key environmental report on Chevron Corp.’s contentious renovation of its Richmond refinery.

Judge Barbara Zuniga of the Contra Costa County Superior Court ruled that the report was too vague on the question of whether the project will allow the 107-year-old refinery to process heavier grades of crude oil than it currently does. Zuniga also faulted the report for not analyzing the project’s new hydrogen pipelines, and criticized Richmond for giving Chevron a permit before the company submitted a plan for limiting greenhouse gases after the upgrade.The judge’s ruling did not say whether work on the project, which Chevron began in September, after winning the City Council’s approval in July, must stop.

Will Shell’s decision to settle save it from the “Chevwrong” subvertisement campaign that Chevron has been bombarded with this summer—and the need to hire ex-reporters to make itself look good? Only time will tell.

Guardian wins four awards

3

Three Bay Guardian stories won awards from the Peninsula Press Club, it was announced June 6. The paper’s staff was also honored for general excellence.

“Dirty secrets under the big top,” an investigation into the Ringling Brothers circus by Steven T. Jones, won first place in the Business Story category. Jones was also honored with a second-place award for analysis for his story on the anti-war movement, “Resistance is futile — or is it?.”

The award for Best Editorial in the non-daily category went to Tim Redmond for a piece calling for an economic locavore policy.

The Guardian won third place in the General Excellence category for non-daily papers.

Prison report: What should government do?

3

By Just A Guy

The debate rages around the “early” releases of 19,000 non-violent/non-serious offenders and turning over to the custody of the Feds another 19,000 illegal immigrants, for a total of 38,000 releases. There have been myriad articles and opinion pieces written around this, but not too many represent our — that is, the inmates’ — side of the story, nor are many inmate voices being heard around this issue. So I happily volunteer mine.

There is an editorial in the Marysville Appeals-Democrat that I find very interesting and that I agree with to some degree, but there are areas in this editorial which need to be addressed because it seems as if editorials like this are legitimized and not thought through by the general reader.

The editorial claims that the state government has many purposes, one of the more legitimate purposes is to protect its people from criminals. It states, “Government has no inherent duty to medicate, educate, nurture or provide recreation for its citizens. But it is legitimately charged with protecting their rights to life, liberty and property.”

Is it just me or is the writer being a bit contradictory? To say that it’s government’s inherent duty to protect our right to life, but not an inherent duty to “medicate” is to say it’s only government’s inherent duty to use force to protect life and not medicine. Basically this writer is saying that government’s only duty is to keep people from hurting each other and taking one another’s property — that it’s not governmental responsibility to make sure someone who can’t afford life-saving medicine receives that medicine even if it’s protecting that life.

I am no proponent of big government and think that government is far too deeply inserted into our lives and everything we do, but to make a statement like that just bothers me. Someone will read it, not think about it beyond the first layer and next thing you know that statement has become a component of their belief system and they’re protesting in front of abortion clinics during the day and by night they’re protesting the anti-death penalty protesters.
The editorial also states:

“Whether criminals should be released before completing their sentences, or into federal custody to be deported, should not be determined by finances.”

Huh?

How can the writer possibly say this in the same editorial that says:

“Nevertheless, the state has run California’s prison system badly, with little regard for costs imposed on those supposedly being served, but with great concern for those paid to do the job.”

Best Sunday Streets ever

7

By Steven T. Jones
sundaystreets.jpg
The streets of the Mission District came alive for a few hours yesterday, transformed into vibrant public spaces filled with bicyclists, children, skaters, dancers, walkers, yoginis, and neighborhood residents and merchants – pretty much everything except the motorists that usually dominate the roadways.

The occasion was Sunday Streets, the car-free events created by a partnership of progressive groups and the Mayor’s Office. And this was by far the best of the five Sunday Streets events that San Francisco has staged, mostly because it was in a dense, lively neighborhood rather than along the sterile Embarcadero where previous events have been.

Mission dwellers used the occasion to haul out barbecues or sound systems, to set up garage sales or lemonade stands, or simply to sit on their porches or driveways and enjoy the street life. “Aren’t you my neighbor? Hello, good to see you again,” a friendly young hipster on a bike said to an older Latina at one point, a warm exchange that seemed emblematic of the event’s community-building potential.

Wine-by-the-glass battle: half full, half empty

1

By Cécile Lepage

As expected, the Planning Commission granted the national franchise WineStyles a conditional use permit June 4 to add a wine bar to its premises on West Portal.

But the panel limited the hours and size of the bar beyond what the planning staff had recommended. (To stream the video of the hearing, click on item 8.)

WineStyles lined up impressive community support. Not only did the outfit’s backers submit 458 signatures and 58 letters in their favor, but 15 aficionados actually came in person to City Hall to rave about the wine store owners’ friendliness and their role in the community.

But the commissioners were also sympathetic to argument by supporters of a locally owned wine bar, Que Syrah, who fear that the big chain will drive the locals out of business.

Although the CEO of the Winestyles chain, Robert Spuck, told the New York Times in 2007 that blurring the line between a bar and a retail store was part of the company’s mission, the local WineStyles attorney, Tuija Catalano, argued that the establishment wants to remain primarily a liquor store. So the commissioners decided that sales of wine by the glass will have to cease at 8 p.m. daily instead of 10 p.m. The number of seats will be limited to 8 instead of 15.

Both WineStyles owner James Robinson and Que Syrah owner Stephanie McCardell declined to comment.

Newsom’s winning the budget spin

3

By Tim Redmond

The mayor is winning the spin battle over the city budget. The Chron’s first-day story tells the tale:

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom unveiled a $6.6 billion budget Monday for the 2009-10 fiscal year that he said “does a lot of extraordinary things” including bridging a half-billion-dollar deficit without raising taxes or laying off police officers, firefighters or teachers.

“It’s not perfect, but it’s as close to perfect, under the circumstances, as we could make it,” he said. “We did this without the devastation some had predicted.”

The Chron editorial the next day parrots the Newsom line:

San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom acknowledges the obvious about next year’s budget: “It’s not perfect.” But his spending plan bridges a nearly half-billion dollar gap that existed three months ago and leaves basic services and schools in good shape.

Actually, that’s completely untrue — the devastation is going to be pretty serious. And basic services won’t be in good shape, they’ll be shredded.

But the progressives on the Board of Supervisors haven’t made that case yet — and it’s time to get started.

If we wait until the budget hearings, in a couple of weeks, the board will be on the defensive. It’s taken everyone a couple of days to figure out what’s in and out of the budget, but we know enough to understand the impacts — and we know enought to be able to argue that without some serious new revenue, the city’s going to be in horrible shape.

The mayor has, of course, dumped the budget off and fled for a fundraiser in New York . The leaders of the progressive wing on the board ought to be planning a press conference — soon — to tell the other side of the story, and they ought to be presenting an alternative fact sheet showing what Newsom really has in mind for the city.

The supervisors typically change just a tiny fraction of the budget, but this year’s going to be different. It will be — it almost has to be — a major battle over public priorities. And if the mayor sets the agenda and controls the public debate, the outcome won’t be pretty.

Finally, some justice for John “J.J.” Tennison

2

35.16cover_web.jpgresized.jpg

Text by Sarah Phelan
As the Chronicle reports today, the city has agreed to pay $4.5 million to John “J.J.” Tennison, who spent almost 14 years in prison for a crime he didn’t commit.

What the Chronicle doesn’t mention is the work of former Bay Guardian investigative reporter A.C. Thompson, whose award-winning series on the case went a long way in helping to reverse the conviction of Tennison and his alleged accomplice Antoine Goff, who were sentenced to life for the execution of Roderick “Cooley” Shannon in a lonely Vis Valley parking lot in August 1989.

“After my journalistic probe, I felt fairly certain that a terrible injustice had been done, that Tennison and Goff had not killed Shannon, that police and prosecutors had engaged in dubious behavior-and that the real executioner was walking the streets,” wrote Thompson in September 2003, shortly after Tennison’s life sentence was overturned.

And while it’s a triumph of sorts that the city has agreed to compensate Tennison, whoever executed the 18-year-old Shannon almost 20 years ago, “with shotgun blasts to the shoulder and head,” as Thompson’ reported in 2001 in his kick-off piece “The Hardest Time,“is still at large.

When Thompson started digging into the case in 2001, he found that “police linked Shannon’s murder to a raging war between hoodsters from Vis Valley and Hunter’s Point. Young people-mostly African American-in the two housing project-heavy districts were waging a bloody battle for control of the drug trade, a battle that had escalated into a string of life-for-life revenge killings.”

Both Tennison and Goff had alibis, but even as Thompson dug deep and masterfully laid out at the weaknesses, flaws and inconsistencies in the so-called evidence against them, he wasn’t holding his breath that justice would be served.

“Still, I never expected the two men to go free,” Thompson admitted in 2003. “The criminal justice system is stacked against convicts who assert their innocence.”

But after another judge freed Tennison’s codefendant, Antoine Goff, who was serving 27 years to life, and a Superior Court judge declared both men innocent, Tennison and Goff sued in federal court, saying the city had violated their civil rights.

Last month, the city attorney’s office reached a proposed settlement with Tennison. Goff’s case will go on trial later this year.

But to date, former Chief of Police of San Francisco, Earl Sanders, Detective Napoleon Hendrix, and other police officers associated with the CRUSH violent crimes unit, which was involved in investigating the case, and prosecutor George Butterworth, have walked away unscathed, even though Thompson dug up all kinds of evidence that suggested that the police had engaged in misconduct in helping to put Tennison and Goff behind bars.

As Thompson’s articles revealed, witnesses were coached to lie that Tennison and Goff committed the murder. The existence of witnesses who said that the men were innocent and that another had done the killing were hidden from the defense. And when someone confessed to the crime, they didn’t tell the defense.

This malpractice of the law and malfesance lead to Tennison and Goff rotting behind bars for thirteen years. But after Thompson’s initial cover story on Tennison, The Hardest Time, came out in 2001, Tennison’s brother, who worked in a parking lot near the offices of noted defense lawyer John Keker, put copies of the article on the windshield of every car, hoping some lawyer would read it and offer to help. And that’s what happened.

Two of Keker’s associates Ethan Balogh and Elliot Peters picked up on the case and helped Public Defender Jeff Adachi and a team of lawyers win Tennison’s freedom, work ing their asses off for three years pro bono.

Thompson has previously stated that he’d like to write a book when the whole saga plays itself out, called A Black on Black Crime, “because the two homicide detectives were famous African-American detectives, and the two dudes who were framed were innocent average black dudes from the hood.”
He couldn’t be reached for comment today, but here’s hoping he’s polishing the final chapters, right about now.

Prison report: The bogus politics of early release

13

By Just A Guy

Editors Note: Just A Guy is an inmate in a California state prison. His reports run Mondays and Thursdays. He tries to respond to all comments and answer all questions, but communicating from prison can be difficult, so be patient. You can read his last column, and links to previous columns, here.

What is it with these politicians and the public and early releases of prisoners and the hysteria surrounding all of it? I just don’t get it.

Now, maybe I’m not the most objective fellow about the whole thing, but I would like to think that I’m pragmatic to some extent. And while I believe myself to be relatively intelligent, and even sensible, at times I start to question my own sanity because I see the choices California is making as insane — yet the state is making them anyway. If I were making those same choices I would be thrown in jail … shit, I’m already here. Doh!

Like, wow, if my elderly Alzheimer’s-ridden family member lived with me and I just stopped feeding, bathing, and taking care of him or her I would be arrested and charged with felony neglect, elderly abuse or some such thing. Why should it be any different if the state of California does that same thing?

In the case of an individual, protective services would come out, check out the home, make a report, give recommendations and all sorts of bureaucratic bullshit would happen as paperwork flowed and rubber stamps pressed down on forms written in incomprehensible legalese that Johnny Fucking Cochran wouldn’t be able to decode without an Enigma machine and an army of junior lawyers bringing up the rear as support services.

And that brings me to Support Services. In prison, Support Services are programs that often employ the lower-security inmates at lower-security institutions, who support the maintenance and running of higher-security prisons where all the really “bad” guys are. Oh, Support Services also supports various elements of the California government like the California Department of Forestry, where a bunch of us hardened criminals fight California’s fires. The majority of people in lower-security institutions and in fire camps run by CDF are non-violent/non-serious offenders, a good portion of whom have less than a year left on their sentences — and therefore, will be eligible for early release according to Arnold’s plan to commute the sentences of non-violent/non-serious offenders with less than a year left.

Dirty diesel ban at Port of Oakland does not win approval

2

By Rebecca Bowe

clean and safe ports_--_For_Website.jpg
Photo courtesy Coalition for Clean & Safe Ports

Around 100 environmental and social justice activists crammed into yesterday’s Oakland Port Commission meeting in support of a program that, among other things, would have banned polluting diesel trucks from the Port of Oakland.

New air-quality regulations that come into effect in January 2010 will require trucks to meet more stringent emissions standards, and the proposed measure would have barred noncompliant trucks from entering the port. Instead of approving the program, known as the Comprehensive Truck Management Plan, Commissioners voted to revisit it on June 16, the next scheduled meeting.

Port spokeswoman Marilyn Sandifur explained that the proposed ban emerged as the contentious aspect of the program, leading commissioners to determine that they needed more information before approving the whole package.

Is this really our only choice?

22

By Tim Redmond

603newsom.jpg 603brown.jpg

Now that Antonio Villaraigosa appears not to be running for governor, the most populous state in the nation, the world’s eighth-largest economy, is headed for a very ugly choice. The Democratic Party has exactly two prominent candidates to run California — Jerry Brown, who has become a conservative with his no-new-taxes pledge and his tough-on-crime stuff, and Gavin Newsom, who has been a pretty awful mayor of San Francisco.

Is this the best that the state can do?

It might be — and here’s the problem. In a state this big, with more than 36 million people, a race for governor is all about image. It’s about television ads and media hype — and most people don’t pay attention to the details. Brown is ahead in the polls almost entirely because of name recognition; he’s the attorney general, has been govenor before, his dad was governor, he’s run for president — people have heard of him. Liberal Democrats who are older and remember when he was the dynamic young, progressive leader think back fondly to those days. Democrats who are more moderate look at his hard-ass love-developers-and-cops tenure as mayor of Oakland. Nobody has any idea how he would fix the state’s economy; I don’t think he knows himself.

Newsom is catching up, and will make this a close race, because he’s the new young face — and because he’s got a team of consultants and producers who are experts at creating false images. He’ll run as the “green mayor,” although he’s opposed the most important environmental measures in the city. He’ll run as a sensible leader who balanced a budget with no borrowing or taxes (although he’s doing it by destroying the local safety net). What most voters won’t see is the arrogant, petulant guy who has surrounded himself with fawning accolytes and nasty hit men. They won’t see a person who is way over his head in his current job, and has no business moving on to a much bigger one.

And that’s what we’ve got.

I wasn’t kidding last week when we talked about splitting up the state. It sounds like a radical idea, but think about it: If we were electing a governor of the coastal counties between Sonoma and Los Angeles, Jerry Brown wouldn’t even be a factor — and a lot of smart, experienced progressives would have a shot at the job. We wouldn’t be facing this ugly choice of finding someone either bland or conservative enough to appeal to the Central Valley. The voting population would be much smaller, and thus the vast sums of money that candidates have to raise would be significantly reduced.

We might even get a good governor.

In the meantime, we have to do better than this. Is there nobody else out there, no real change candidate who might actually be able to take on the serious problems facing California?

Gavin Newsom’s furlough

1

By Tim Redmond

Okay, I know this is silly and it’s not much money, but: Since the mayor is cutting the work weeks of some city employees, maybe he ought to help out by taking his own furloughs. The mayor is out of town all the time these days, running for governor instead of running the city. How about he agrees to stop collecting pay for all the days he’s on the campaign trail?

Seems fair.