By Steven T. Jones
When I criticized Mayor Gavin Newsom’s latest budget plan as bad economics that will do more harm than good to San Francisco, Newsom spokesperson Nate Ballard said I (and the sources I relied on, from Moody’s to congressional Democrats to President Obama) didn’t know what I was talking about.
“OK, so you think he’s wrong. The City’s chief economist Ted Egan thinks he’s right. So does the Mayor’s chief economic advisor, Michael Cohen. I think the Mayor is probably going to go with Ted and Mike!” Ballard wrote (later referring me to this article, as if it proved his point).
Maybe Ballard or Newsom should have actually talked to Egan, who didn’t review Newsom’s plan and doesn’t agree with its premise. Egan told me, “We were in no way saying you should cut taxes to stimulate the economy, particularly if it means reducing government spending.”
- No categories
Politics Blog
SF’s economist agrees that Newsom is wrong
Downtown marshals its forces
By Tim Redmond
The folks who got their collective asses kicked in last fall’s elections also got the message — that their politics, their candidates and their messages aren’t working — and they’re quietly meeting to map out a new strategy to try to take back some seats on the Board of Supervisors in 2010.
A meeting earlier this week, convened by former SFSOS staffer Ryan Chamberlain, drew representatives of the Chamber of Commerce, the Committee on JOBS and candidates like Scott Wiener, a Democratic County Central Committee member who is planning to run in District 8.
“What we’re doing isn’t working,” Chamberlain told us. “The progressives are winning.”
So downtown is looking to build grassroots operations — and the message right now is “quality of life.” That means cracking down on homeless people, cleaning up the streets, more cops, probably a move toward allowing more condo conversions (homeowners tend to vote more moderate than renters, so these folks love the idea of having more owners and fewer renters in town).
Chamberlain wouldn’t give us a list of who attended, but one source familiar with the meeting told us the Chamber and JOBS were well represented. Wiener confirmed that he was there, but wouldn’t say anything else about the meeting. Sup. Sean Elsbernd told us he was invited, but couldn’t make it.
So let’s remember: The progressive victories last November were hard-fought. This is still a battle for the soul of the city, and the other side isn’t anywhere near ready to concede. In fact, the downtown guys have plenty of money and sophisticated political strategists and they’re lining up candidates.
“Don’t do it, Gavin”
By Steven T. Jones
At a time when even Mayor Gavin Newsom’s allies are complaining that he’s disengaged with running the city at this crucial time, largely because of his gubernatorial ambitions, it seemed like an odd time for the Newsom campaign to send out a campaign plea called “Don’t do it, Gavin” that began like this:
“When I first started talking to friends and family about running for Governor, I was excited at how much enthusiasm there was for the idea. It’s not a decision I’m going to take lightly – but of course it’s nice to hear friends say they support the concept.
“That’s why I was a little taken aback when I asked my father what he thought. Without hesitation the man whose opinion I value most came out and said it: “Don’t do it Gavin.”
“I think my father must have seen my face – because he immediately said – “Of course I think you would do a great job – it’s just that nobody is going to be able to solve the state’s problems. I don’t want to see you fail in a job that’s impossible to do right now.”
Then he goes on, like the petulant son he is, to explain that he just wants to do it anyway, without ever really articulating why or explaining why he’d be a good governor (you can read the whole letter on the jump if you don’t trust my conclusion).
Take your dad’s advice, Gavin. Don’t do it. Honor your hollow promise to work with the Board of Supervisors on finding a way out of this budget mess. Do your job.
P.S. In my e-mail exchange with Newsom flak Nathan Ballard for my last post about the mayor’s avoidance of budget realities, he went on to explain that Newsom will indeed offer a budget plan: “Rest assured that the Mayor will deliver a balanced budget, as he always does, on June 1.” So, while everyone else works to solve an immediate problem, Newsom is going to sit it out for the next four months. Unbelievable!
Watchdog calls for major reform of the Ethics Commission
Editor’s Note: Joe Lynn served on the Ethics Commission staff (1998-2003) and later as a commissioner (2003-2006), and has since been a knowledgeable watchdog of the agency.
By Joe Lynn
“The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works…Those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account — to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day — because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government. (Obama Inaugural Address.)
When San Francisco voters formed the Ethics Commission in 1993, there were high hopes for an agency that could provide proactive enforcement of our good government laws. Today a budget crisis commands us to examine the Commission’s record in enforcing those laws.
If it hasn’t worked, we shouldn’t be asked to pay any more for this part of the experiment to continue. There should be no surprise if this portion of the experiment has failed, and based on its record over the last few years, I think we can conclude that the Ethics Commission has failed to be an effective and trustworthy enforcer of this city’s campaign finance laws.
The state budget deal
By Tim Redmond
The state Legislature is scheduled to vote Friday on a budget deal that nobody likes.. I’m told that labor groups will urge Democratic legislators to oppose the deal; it’s not even clear that Republicans — whose leaders helped negotiate it — will vote for the proposal.
The GOP members still insist, for the most part, that they won’t accept new taxes, and this plan has $14.3 billion in new taxes, some of which are pretty good. It calls for a 12-cent increase in the gas tax, which is a great way to raise money and should be higher, and a slight increase in the car tax (ditto). I don’t like the 1-cent sales tax hike, and while I’m all for raising income taxes on the rich, a 2.5-percent across-the-board surtax isn’t even remotely fair (esp. since the higher earners, who tend to itemize deductions, will wind up deducting the higher tax from the federal income taxes, while the average person won’t get that benefit.) Still: at least some of the budget gap will be addressed with new revenues (which the mayor of San Francisco can’t seem to accept as a solution back home.)
The cuts are awful. The schools will get hammered . According to the Sacramento Bee
Welfare recipients and low-income disabled, blind and elderly individuals would not receive cost-of-living increases
which is awfully harsh.
And it goes downhill from there — among other things, the budget would eliminate state support for local transit systems, which is going to be a brutal hit for San Francisco.
So the more liberal Dems are going to get pressure to say no, and even the Republican leaders who worked on the deal won’t promise to vote for it. But as state Sen. Mark Leno told me:
“Given the nature of the $42 billion deficit, our budget resolution is by definition painful all around. And we have to move forward to get the state off life support.”
Newsom still MIA
By Tim Redmond
You know the mayor is in serious trouble when his business allies say he’s missing in action. From the Chron this morning:
Scott Hauge, a San Francisco business owner who is president of the advocacy group Small Business California, said the meetings that Chiu organized this week were the first occasions small business has been brought into City Hall talks since budget negotiations started heating up several weeks ago.
“The mayor has not brought us to the table, which is very frustrating because we are the major employers in San Francisco and we are really hurting right now,” said Hague, adding that he’s worked with every mayor since Dianne Feinstein and that it is unprecedented to have a board president, not the mayor, convene these types of discussions.
While nobody who has been attending Board President David Chiu’s meetings will talk about the details, I’m getting the clear impression that business (including the Chamber of Commerce and the Committee on JOBS) and labor (particularly SEIU Local 1021) are actually making progress toward a July special election that could help prevent a total meltdown in city services.
And Newsom didn’t even send a representative to the meetings.
My favorite comment from the mayor:
“But I guess the question is, what more can I do? I can make things up to do today in order not to go down there (to San Jose)
Newsom has to “make things up to do today?” How about talking to the key stakeholders and trying to arrange a deal on a budget that everyone can live with?
Nathan Ballard, the mayor’s press flak, told us that
The mayor has been meeting with labor, business and the supervisors to work together on solutions.
But nobody in business or labor or on the board of supervisors seems aware of that.
Bizarro Gavin’s alternate universe
By Steven T. Jones
What kind of alternate universe does Mayor Gavin Newsom live in? Apparently, it’s one where you can write your own reality and ignore inconvenient fiscal and political realities.
The last example of Newsom’s tenuous connection to the real world is his announcement today of a “local economic stimulus package” that cuts the payroll and property taxes paid by the business community and offers local businesses $23 million in no-interest loans.
Governor attacks the schools
By Tim Redmond
Just for the record, according to the California Budget Project, the proposed budget that the guv is putting forward would cut $39 million from the SF public schools.
And although the city’s Rainy Day Fund (thanks to Tom Ammiano) might — might — be able to provide $24 million, it’s still going to be a year of ugly, ugly cuts.
Latest “Death of Fun” casualty: Bay to Breakers
Photo by NileGuide
By Steven T. Jones
The Chronicle reports that the sponsors of Bay to Breakers — which have been under pressure from city officials (and the Chronicle) to crackdown on partying at the event — have banned alcohol and unauthorized floats at the popular, 97-year-old event. What the hell is happening to this town?!?!
As we’ve reported (over and over and over and over and over again), the very events that make San Francisco such a fun and dynamic place to live are under attack by party-poopers, nervous nellies, and the forces of intolerance and conservatism, people whose goal (as our friends at the SF Party Party like to say) is the “suburbanization of San Francisco.”
Already, there are movements forming to boycott Bay to Breakers and/or engage in some creative and alcohol-fueled civil disobedience. Hmm, maybe this is going to be a fun B2B after all.
Photo by Atrayu
Board overrides mayor, June election on table
“Colleagues, the mayor’s veto is overturned.”
So said Board President David Chiu, as the Board of Supervisors overturned Mayor Gavin Newsom’s February 6 veto of legislation that former Board President Aaron Peskin introduced as his going away gift to San Francisco voters–a gift that involved declaring a fiscal emergency so that a June 2 special election would be possible.
Overturning Newsom’s veto allows the Board to keep this June 2 special election on the table. And they still have until March 3 before they need to decide whether to pull the plug on that plan. If they do, Chiu has also proposed
legislation that would open the door to an August election, if the Board decides that would work better.
Newsom vetoed the Board’s June special election legislation late last Friday afternoon, and he has stated that he prefers to wait until November.
But most folks on the Board (especially now that they have seen the depth and horror of the cuts that the City faces) aren’t buying the mayor’s wait-another-nine-months-and-see plan.
Boycott Kelloggs!
By Tim Redmond
I don’t eat that shit anyway, but my kids do,and I’m not going to buy it any more. I’m supporting the Kellogg’s boycott. Drunk driving’s okay but a bong hit isn’t?
Besides, everyone knows it’s better to eat at Subway.
American Apparel makes amends with the Mission
By Steven T. Jones
When Mission residents mounted an opposition campaign to an American Apparel opening a store on Valencia Street, the chain didn’t respond very well and ended up being denied by the Planning Commission last week. But it has now chosen to respond to that defeat in a way that’s smart, classy, and respectful of the Mission hipsters that are its core demographic.
As reported on the blog Mission Mission, American Apparel has posted a conciliatory note on the vacant storefront it’s leasing, saying it has learned an important lesson about how to properly approach neighborhoods like the Mission and offering all Mission residents a 25 percent discount at its other San Francisco stores.
In the righteous battle against corporate homogenization, the case against American Apparel was always what attorneys call “a wobbler.” Opponents raised valid concerns, but this company was never the devil. And now that it followed up in stand-up fashion, we can all still wear our AA undies with pride.
[Ed Note: and fear?]
Why we’re broke
By Tim Redmond
State Sen. Mark Leno explained to me a few days ago that, despite the GOP’s claim that California has “a spending problem,” when you actually look at how state spending has increased over the past 20 years, you get a very different picture. Actually, after accounting for inflation and population growth, state spending would have been relatively flat — save for the insane prison expansion and the governor’s car-tax cut.
There’s an interesting analysis of all this at Calitics, which looks at the Monterey Herald’s story on Where the Money Went. Bottom line: The state’s problem — as I keep saying — is that Californians want all kinds of services — good education, parks, roads, transportation systems and yes, sadly, prisons — but nobody wants to pay for them. It’s expensive to run the world’s eighth-largest economy, a state with more people than most countries and a wide range of social problems. And there is plenty of money floating around — even in this economy, California is a very wealthy state.
But as long as we aren’t willing to raise taxes on the wealthy and look at issues like Prop. 13, these budget problems aren’t going to go away.
Free the prisoners!
By Steven T. Jones
For all the outrage and political posturing around federal judges ordering California to reduce the state’s prison population, this has been foreseeable for more than a decade and it’s something that our elected leaders should embrace as both humane and a partial solution to our budget woes.
The bottom line is our prisons are shamefully overcrowded, thanks largely to legislators pushing tough-on-crime and no-new-taxes measures for decades. But politicians from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to Attorney General Jerry Brown have vowed to fight the order all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“It seems like everyone’s on the same page with this as far as elected officials,” Ronn Owens said on KGO radio this morning, where Lt. Gov. (and gubernatorial candidate) John Garamendi sounded a little more reasonable than other politicians who have been tripping all over themselves to sound tough and indignant, lest someone call them soft on crime.
“We’ve known this is coming. This is not something new,” Garamendi said. “The problem is failed leadership.” He called for more creative incarceration solutions such as more conservation camps (not the best idea) and more aggressive efforts to lower recidivism rates (a better idea). But he shied away from more radical and effective solutions such as ending the war on drugs.
Brown, after taking a courageous stand in favor of judicial independence in December, should be ashamed of himself. Instead of beating his chest, he should be talking about the kinds of obvious solutions that he’s advocated in his previous iterations, such as ending the war on drugs, parole reform, and freeing most nonviolent offenders.
We can no longer afford to have some of the world’s highest incarceration rates and lowest tax rates, it’s just that simple.
Bipartisan stimulus puke
By Tim Redmond
The version of the stimulus bill that just passed — with some of the much-vaunted “bipartisan support” — has serious problems. And Wall Street isn’t too thrilled either.
The response of the public is more complicated, but I think Randy Shaw is right: We need a major political push right now, focused on Rep. Nancy Pelosi, to turn this thing around before it’s too late.
A-Rod and other types of stimulus
By Tim Redmond
Can you believe that in the middle of a press conference on the meltdown of the world’s largest economy some joker from the Washington Post asked President Obama about A-Rod?
Overall, a decent press conference, but the prez looked a little shaky at times. You can see the stress of trying to save us from another Great Depression with the bipartisan Republicans refusing to help.
Tomorrow’s Supes meeting: next round on special election
By Rebecca Bowe
As expected, Mayor Gavin Newsom has vetoed an ordinance approved on Jan. 27 by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors modifying regular election procedures in order to pave the way for a special election to be held on June 2. The election would give voters an opportunity to decide on a number of tax measures that could raise city revenues in the face of a looming $576 million city budget deficit for the 2009-10 fiscal year.
“I understand the argument that revenue measures passed in June will bring in funding sooner than measures passed in November,” the mayor wrote in a letter explaining his decision. “However, if new tax and revenue measures put on the ballot in June do not pass due to a lack of unified support and planning, not only will the City incur the significant expense of a $3.5 million election, it will also critically damage our chances for success in November.”
SEIU preaches unity while trying to divide and conquer CNA
By Steven T. Jones
Service Employees International Union is caught in the position of decrying efforts by breakaway leaders of the new National Union of Healthcare Workers to steal away SEIU members during a critical moment for the labor movement, while at the same time SEIU is meddling in the internal affairs of another union, California Nurses Association.
On Thursday, CNA blasted SEIU for “impersonating nurses in a multimillion dollar campaign” to topple current CNA leaders and replace them with candidates closer to SEIU and its incremental approach to health care reform. The charges echoed those by Sal Rosselli and other NUHW leaders, who say SEIU under President Andy Stern has sacrificed member interests and rights in its drive become a national powerhouse that works closely with elected officials and large corporate employers.
SEIU spokesperson Michelle Ringuette responded dismissively: “CNA has made wild and untrue charges against SEIU members before. This release is more of the same…It is true that there are CNA members that are unhappy with the direction their union is taking. We have spoken with a number of them, and we support the CNA nurses who want to hold their union’s leaders accountable.”
But the next day, after the Guardian identified SEIU members from other states who have been contacting CNA members in an aggressive campaign to unseat CNA leadership, Ringuette admitted to the campaign, defiantly saying SEIU would do everything in its power to protect its interests.
CNA’s leaders say SEIU’s campaign is illegal. And it certainly belies claims that SEIU leaders have made about the NUHW situation, in which Ringuette and others have repeatedly said union infighting now is major distraction from efforts to pass the landmark Employee Free Choice Act and stave off deep cuts threatened by the dire budget situation in California and its cities and counties.
Parents and youth advocates up in arms over budget cuts
By Rebecca Bowe
Representatives from a host of youth-services organizations gathered on the steps of San Francisco city hall Thursday afternoon to sound off on proposed budget cuts to the Department of Children, Youth and their Families. DCYF faces a proposed $11 million in cuts for the 2009-10 fiscal year, according to NTanya Lee, executive director of Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth. Add to that cuts to juvenile probation and Human Services Agency programs, and the total annual reductions to youth-related causes could be some $15 million, Lee estimates.
“This is the worst we’ve seen it in our entire organization’s history,” said Lee, whose nonprofit organization has been speaking up for kids on budget issues for 30 years. DCYF is hardly the only city department facing funding reductions: To address a staggering $576 million budget deficit for the 2009-10 fiscal year, the mayor has asked all city departments to find ways to dramatically reduce spending. But in the case of DCYF, the announcement of funding reductions came as a second blow. Mayor Gavin Newsom’s firing of former DCYF Director Margaret Brodkin, who was widely respected for expanding the department’s services to reach more kids and especially disadvantaged children, recently drew the ire of youth advocates.
A 20-foot high controversy
By Rebecca Bowe
At the Feb. 3 Board of Supervisors meeting, District 6 Supervisor Chris Daly expressed disgust at what he called “pay-to-play politics” and charged that Mayor Gavin Newsom had insisted upon a 20-foot height extension for the proposed redevelopment of the New Mission Theater as a favor to a developer who’d given him a political boost.
“At the very least, there is a massive and unprecedented appearance of impropriety and I think ethical malfeasance,” Daly told his colleagues. Before the meeting, he handed out photocopies of a blog post he’d written to back up his argument.
Nathan Ballard, Mayor Newsom’s press secretary, refuted Daly’s claim. “If the legislation had gone forward, the project would have been killed,” Ballard wrote in an email to the Guardian. “We reject Supervisor Daly’s false allegations. The Mayor made his decision, as he always does, on the merits alone.”
American Apparel denied store on Valencia
American Apparel, which is known for sexy ads and fairly progressive labor practices, failed to convince San Franciscans to let them open a fourth store here.
By Ben Terrall
Yesterday, after a long afternoon of statements from a few supporters and many opponents of American Apparel opening a new store at 988 Valencia Street, the San Francisco Planning Commission voted 7-0 to deny the Los Angeles-based chain the permit they needed to open.
The Commission Chambers at City Hall were packed to capacity as the Planning Commission began its regular meeting. The extra attendees, many of them organized by the hastily-formed “Stop American Apparel” campaign, were moved to two rooms with video monitors which broadcast the meeting.
It was strong show of force by grassroots organizers, one that forced a vote that few thought would be so decisive.
Yet another example of VVM ethics (or lack thereof)
Did VVM hire these people to game Digg?
By Steven T. Jones
SF Weekly parent company Village Voice Media has been exposed for predatory financial practices, undermining good journalists and practicing unethical journalism, and secretly using a social networking tool in a sleazy way to promote its advertisers.
Now, a detailed investigation by thedeets.com shows how VVM has been gaming Digg.com (which is a tenant of ours in the Guardian Building) to inflate the number of page views on its websites, apparently hoping to fool advertisers and the public into thinking they have more readers than they really do.
VVM spokesperson Andy Van De Voorde refused to comment on the substance of the allegation, instead offering only taunts and insults and writing by e-mail, “Now here we go again with the obligatory request for comment, all under the guise of fair reporting.”
Digg spokesperson Beth Murphy told the Guardian, “We don’t really talk specifics with regards to individual Diggers, sites or media outlets in order to protect their privacy and ensure a level playing field. What I can tell you is that various sites can perform better on Digg based on social media tools and the breadth and diversity of their audience. For sites or individuals that attempt to game or spam Digg, as always, we’ve developed the back-end systems and algorithms to flag and detect gaming.”