• No categories

Politics Blog

We’re peaking

-
0

Oh, how I wish that the SF Public Utilities Commission meetings brought me to such a brink…

Not so much. But as far as the peaker power plants are concerned there were some interesting developments today. Mayor Gavin Newsom is definitely playing the white knight in this scenario, and he’s now brokering a deal in which the city fronts all the money to build the power plant, skirting the public-private partnership deal that’s been floated to date. According to Jesse Blout, from the Mayor’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development, the city will now be issuing debt to finance the peaker plants and own them outright, rather than have the private company, JPower, act like they own them for 13 years and then hand them over to the city.

In this new deal JPower still operates and manages the three combustion turbines that will be sited in the city. (The airport CT will still be built, owned, and operated by JPower for 30 years before it’s turned over to the city, in order for them to make some $$$) The diff is that the city will own the Potrero plants straight-up, bypassing any sketchy loss of control or assets through the convolutions of a public-private partnership.

The PUC unanimously passed a really wordy resolution on all of this, and also asked Blout to check in with them every couple weeks to make sure all is on track. Blout, meanwhile, promised us a signing ceremony on an agreement that Mirant will shutter as soon as their contract is pulled and given to the city’s power plant instead.

Anti-war movement is back

-
0

05-protest1.web.jpg
Guardian photo by Neil Motteram
Apparently, most people aren’t buying the inevitability of the endless Iraq War or the defeatist fatalism expressed by the major political parties and the mainstream media, if Saturday’s massive anti-war march in San Francisco was any indicator. Tens of thousands sent the clear message that we need a new Iraq strategy, one that ends the provocative occupation by American troops as soon as possible. The ANSWER Coalition, which sponsored the event, is trying to marshal the anti-war forces moving toward the next major event in March, when there are calls for a general strike.

Campaign debts hide donors’ identities

-
0

By Sarah Phelan

Moments after this week’s edition of the Guardian went to press, I got through to “notorious campaign attorney Jim Sutton,” as we describe him in this week’s article about campaign finance.

I’d been playing phone tag with Sutton since last week, wanting to ask him about all the accrued funds, or outstanding debts in this year’s election, and their role in hiding the identity of donators from the voting public, until after the election.

A master of the ins and outs of campaign law, Sutton, came across as charming and witty, as he told me about the Sutton Law Firm and its role in political campaigns:

jimsutton.jpg
Jim Sutton

“We are a law firm. We bill for our services—and we fully expect our clients to pay in a prompt way,” said Sutton, pointing to the fact that the City law had been amended, so that candidates have to pay off their debts within 180 days of the election.”

But the amended rule that Sutton refers to does not apply to ballot measure committees—groups that raise and spend money in support of or opposition to specific measures on the ballot.

Mayor moving on peaker deal

-
0

The Board of Supervisors had a little shake-up today in the middle of a conversation on the city’s deal to build a new peaker power plant.

One of the biggest selling points from proponents of the $230 million natural gas fired power plant has been that it will receive the “Reliability Must Run” contract from CA-ISO, the state energy agency that dishes out those kinds of things. Right now the Mirant Potrero plant has that RMR, and city officials and activists have been trying for several years to get that plant to close down because it spews more filth into the air than a newer one would. Without an RMR, which essentially pays the power plant owner to NOT run unless needed during peak energy hours, it becomes financially dicey to keep the lights on, but Mirant has never definitively said they’d pull the plug if the city built its own power plant. Some folks, including us, have expressed concern that we could end up with two power plants.

Supervisor Tom Ammiano was intending to slap a couple of amendments onto the resolution the board heard today regarding the peaker plant, one of which would have urged the PUC to get an iron-clad guarantee from Mirant that they’d shut down. In the middle of the supes grilling the PUC on the peaker contract, Sup. Aaron Peskin interjected with the late-breaking news that Mayor Gavin Newsom was at that very moment negotiating with Mirant for a signed agreement that the plant would shutter for good if their RMR is removed.

Some of the supes seemed a little surprised by the news, if not miffed. (Gav’s got a bit of a thing for trumping.) Rumors outside the chamber were that the Mayor’s office has been working on this for awhile, and part of the negotiation may have to do with some city assistance with cleaning-up of the old power plant site and maybe a little fast-tracking of the permitting process for Mirant to put it to some other, more lucrative use. (Condos, anyone? Anyone around here need another $2 million condo?)

No one from the Mayor’s office got up to speak about it (nor the Mayor himself, though it was his day to shine in front of the supervisors. More on that after Prop E passes.) They haven’t issued a press release yet, and I swung by the press office but no one there knew anything about it. Supes Mirkarimi, Daly, and Alioto-Pier voted still voted against the resolution.

UPDATE:

Sup. Ross Mirkarimi tells us we got it wrong — he introduced the resolution amendments, not Tom Ammiano. Sorry about that — we missed the beginning of the hearing, and got the amendments through a fax from Ammiano’s office. The hearing isn’t up on SFGTV yet, so we’ll take Mirkarimi’s word that the amendments are part of the resolution.

They urge the SFPUC to do two things:
1. secure the closure of Mirant as a condition before operating the peakers. (Mayor’s on that one.)

2. “…stipulate a controlled operating regimen that reduces the usage of the CT’s as renewable in-city generation capacity comes on-line consequent to implementation of City’s renewable energy plan under Community Choice Aggregation and other renewable power sources.” (So, essentially, curb the peakers as we put up the solar panels.)

Also, here are some PDFs which prove the point commenter Eric Brooks makes below that the peakers will spit out about the same amount of pollution as Mirant does now:

Testimony of Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s engineer Barry Young at 10/23 SFPUC hearing

Images that quantify the testimony

PG&E dropping the dime

-
1

IMG00101.jpg
Last bus to Oakland! The cell phone photographer who sent us this shot said the driver of the rented vans had been hired by PG&E to bus people to City Hall from the East Bay to speak against the peaker power plants

Who got a robo-call last night about the city’s plan for new power plants? Was there something about three new fossil fuel power plants “right in the middle of the city” on your answering machine when you got home?

There was on ours:

“These new plants will further reliance of fossil fuels, add to global warming, and cost up to $500 million. And they aren’t even needed because there’s a green alternative. If you would like to join our efforts to stop the SFPUC, please press 1 or if you’d like more information please press 2. This call was paid for by the Close It Coalition with the proud sponsorship of PG&E. Find out more on closeitcoalition.org.”

PG&E…you’re so tricky. Your press office never has time to return our calls for comment but you’re dialing up half the city as part of your bogus campaign for clean energy.

The SFPUC will be discussing the peakers tomorrow — Wednesday Oct. 31 — at 2:30 in Room 400 at City Hall. Maybe PG&E will bus in some more people to speak against the peakers like they did for the last PUC hearing on Oct. 23.

Our source for that tidbit said he asked the driver of the rented Enterprise vans who had hired him and the response was PG&E and the A. Philip Randolph Institute. We asked APRI’s executive director Guillermo Rodriguez if they bought the vans. He denied it, and said he has complete control over APRI’s two credit cards and neither had been employed for such a task.

Up until two years ago, Rodriguez was Senior Director of Public Affairs for….Holy shit! PG&E. Last year, APRI received $85,000 in grants from PG&E. I wonder what they’re doing with all that money?

Good-bye Peakers, Hello Wi-Fi!

-
0

This is brilliant. A tech company in Mississippi has bred wi-fi technology with electricity meters, and Burbank, CA, which has a power grid owned by the city is using the technology to cut down usage during peak times.

Why can’t San Francisco put $60 million toward this instead of bringing another fossil fuel power plant into the world?

As Naomi Graychase reports in this article, “An example of the immediate effect of this sort of load control,” says Fletcher, “ would be to send a signal to a grocery store that would turn down lights and turn down the A/C, so we can regulate power when there’s a shortage of power in the grid.”

Hmm…big power plant that runs on gas we have to buy from PG&E and puffs nasty smoke to an already smoky neighborhood…or…better switches and control of the power we use? This is a no-brainer: fossil fuels are so 20th century. WiFi is so 21. The kids love it. We could hip out the city’s Community Choice Aggregation plan with some of these, especially if we can get the Mayor to cut some sketchy back room deal to make them free!

Leno vs. Migden: A meditation

-
0

By Tim Redmond

The Harvey Milk LGBT Club is all tied in knots over this race. A lot of progressives are arguing that it’s split the community. A lot of people don’t even know how to approach it – two queer community leaders with progressive politics are fighting it out, and in the end, we all have to pick sides (or at least vote for one of them and not the other).

It’s tough: Both have been right sometimes and wrong sometimes. Leno used to be more associated with the moderate side of queer politics, and Migden with the more progressive side, but that’s not entirely accurate today: Leno has moved to the left (in part, no doubt, because that’s easier to do in Sacramento) and has become one of the most accessible, hard-working politicians in town. He’s proven himself trustworthy (although his political consulting firm, BMWL, is involved in some of the worst and sleaziest pro-downtown stuff in the city.

Migden, meanwhile, endorsed the more conservative Steve Westly over the more liberal Phil Angelides for governor. She’s done a few truly embarrassing things, like promoting for state school board a downtown Republican who wants to privatize public schools.
A lot of people say there’s no ideological difference between the two today, that the race is all about style (Migden brash, confrontive, an insider deal-making pol; Leno friendly, conciliatory, able to work well with others). Some say the criticisms of Migden’s style are sexist.

Over the next few months, as this gets more and more competitive and (I fear) ugly, there will be lots of trash talked about both of them. The two candidates will talk about history, records, and (maybe) positions on the few issues on which they don’t agree. They’ll both argue – and they can both make a case – that they will be more effective in Sacramento, better advocates for progressive causes and the city’s needs.

I’d like to offer a different lens.

Newsom’s interests vs. San Francisco’s

-
1

gavin_newsom.jpg
I was writing a story about the long-term damage that Prop. H — which will entitle every land owner to build new parking lots, regardless of their traffic-inducing impacts or the desires of certain neighborhoods to limit parking — could do to San Francisco when Mayor Gavin Newsom called me. Actually, it was just Newsom’s voice in a robo-call urging me and others to vote against Prop. E, the mayoral question time measure, arguing that it won’t fill any potholes or put more cops on the street. Although Newsom is on record supporting the muni reform measure Prop. A and against Prop. H, the campaigns are frustrated that Newsom has done nothing to fundraise or campaign for them. “I think he’s focused on his own race and also question time. That’s where he’s spending his resources,” Newsom spokesperson Nathan Ballard told me when I asked about it.
So, there are two important measures on the ballot which will have a long term impact on quality of life in San Francisco. And there’s a measure that only affects Newsom personally, and perhaps his long term political ambitious if question time shows he can’t handle real unscripted debate. And Newsom ignores the big measures to focus on the small. If there was ever a telling testament to Newsom’s priorities — placing his own interests above San Francisco’s — this is it.

P.S. The Examiner had an interesting interview with London Mayor Ken Livingstone, who has a monthly question time with that city’s legislators that it tough but ultimately good for him and for democracy. “It keeps me in touch with the people.” One more reason Newsom should embrace it instead of fighting it.

Don Fisher’s child-labor fortune

-
0

Why does GOP bigwig and GAP founder Don Fisher have so much money to pour into the campaign to defeat sound planning in San Francisco? Gee, maybe the fact that his company’s clothes are made by child slaves might have something to do with it.

I love the Onion’s hit on this.

Obama in the House?

-
0

The organizers and speakers from Hip Hop 4 Obama make Chris DeMento wonder: Can Obama really do it?

By Chris DeMento

Barack Obama’s been making the biggest grassroots push since JFK’s presidential campaign, but will it take? I spoke and listened to three very intelligent and spirited Obama supporters at a recent Hip Hop 4 Obama event at Berkeley’s Ashkenaz, all of whom were filled with information and the will to help their man beat a Clinton in a primary. One small problem: nobody showed.

obamaphoto@mx_150@my_150.jpeg
Annemarie Stephens, founder of Hip Hop 4 Obama

SF Weekly loses a big one

-
0

SF Weekly loses a big one

It’s no news to most of you that the Guardian has sued the SF Weekly and its parent company for predatory pricing. We’re arguing that the Weekly, owned by Village Voice Media (which used to be New Times), has been selling ads below cost for the purpose of injuring the locally owned competitor.

Back in July, SF Weekly managing editor Will Harper wrote a long, rather nasty story that sought to portray the suit as groundless. He called the suit “light on witnesses and evidence,” quoted his boss, Mike Lacey, at length, and laid out, in detail, the Weekly’s motion for summary judgment — in essence, a motion to dismiss the suit because of a lack of evidence.

Well: this Wednesday and Thursday, Judge Richard Kramer heard arguments on that motion (actually, three different motions). One of the things that the Weekly’s lawyers argued was that the VVM managers couldn’t possibly have intended to harm the Guardian; after all, the lawyers argued, VVM CEO Jim Larkin denied any such plan.

That’s right: The lawyers said their client couldn’t have done anything wrong, because he (imagine this) said he didn’t do it.

Shortly before noon yeterday, Judge Kramer denied all three motions. In essence, the judge said, just saying you didn’t do it won’t fly; there’s plenty of evidence to take this case to trial, and a jury will have to decide who’s telling the truth and what’s really going on.

The folks at the SFW, of course, are spinning the ruling as just more evidence of our “looney lawsuit”. That’s their opinion, and they’re welcome to it. But in this particular matter, the opinion that counts is the opinion of the Hon. Richard Kramer — and he didn’t see it the SF Weekly’s way.

Trial is scheduled for early January.

Meet the Candidates: Michael Powers

-
0

The Bay Guardian is profiling the candidates for the 2007 elections. We’ll be updating this entry as more information comes in. Post your thoughts or comments below.

Mayoral candidate Michael Powers

michael_powers.jpg

www.powersforthepeople.com

“As a candidate for Mayor it is my intent to accomplish the following tasks for my fellow residents. I will:

*make Muni free and introduce a community bicycle program with 10,000 bikes
as in Paris.

*protect our city’s skyline through slow growth rather than our present program
of Manhattanization.

*lower our crime rate by increasing the number of police officers we have on our
streets by use of Lateral Transfer hiring and insisting that sworn personnel are not
wasted on administrative duties.

*use our bike program to allow the homeless to become its supervised labor pool
in bike maintenance, thus teaching them a trade.

*encourage the promotion of Harvey Milk’s birthday as a national holiday.”

Visit the Guardian 2007 Election Center for updates, more interviews, and 2007 election news.

When Clear Channel Attacks Prop. K…

-
1

…they do it dirty and big time

A bunch of huge billboards and fliers popped up all over San Francisco yesterday, like some kind of overnight pox, trying to persuade people to vote against Prop. K

Prop. K is an advisory measure on this Novermber’s ballot that adopts a policy of restricting advertising on street furniture and City buildings.

Badflyer.jpg

But until yesterday, when I drove past one of this monster billboards while stuck in traffic, I had never heard of the No on K-Citizens to Protect Muni Services Committee.

What caught my eye, other than the enormous ad, was the line that said “Major Funding by Clear Channel Outdoor and Outdoor Advertisers.”

Clear Channel numbers, of course, among the folk who would lose big time if ads such as these were restricted, so their opposition is predictable.

Clear Channel are also the folks who want to place ads on all the City’s bus shelters, in return for fixing the shelters up and installing new ones.

These are also the folks who argued that they don’t have to tell us their projected profits from coating our shelters with signs, because they are “renting” City space, rather than using it for free.

Curious, I called the Ethics Commission this morning to find out why I had never seen this Committee’s name before.
tThe guy on the other end of the line had never heard of them either, and it took an hour before someone got back to me and said, ‘Wow, How did you find out about them? They only filed with us today. Which is in violation of Ethics’s own rules.”

Turns out that this mystery committee already has $100,000 to play with, so expect to see more of the above ads all over, and expect that Clear Channel isn’t worried about having to pay some piddling, to their mind, fine to Ethics, later on.

PS The treasurer for No on K is Bill Hooper, President/General Manager of Clear Channel Outdoor, Nothern California Region.

American Journalism Review decries Chronicle as vile cesspool of incomplete chores

-
0

Remember last year when Business Week, in a cover story about Digg.com, described our offices as “grungy,” and several major arteries located in the neck of our boss, Bruce Bruggman, nearly exploded? They also hilariously misidentified us as the SF Weekly.

The lack of imagination in American journalism makes for strange bedfellows, it turns out. In their August/September issue, the American Journalism Review described the Chronicle‘s offices downtown off of Fifth and Mission streets the same way, actually using the word “grungy.”

Christ, assholes, do we really come off as that unkempt? Phil Bronstein didn’t make his bed this morning, and I forgot to shave down south. Perhaps the glossies could teach us all out here on the Left Coast a thing or two about obsessive compulsion.

Or, they can loosen their ties and get a life. Either way, if they saw how neatly organized my cubicle was, they’d find a better adjective. My filing system would give even Jann Wenner an erection.

Milk Club tonight — Leno and Migden

-
0

The harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club meets tonight to consider a parliamentary procedure that could lead to an an early endorsement for state Sen. Carole Migden, who faces a challenge in next June’s primary from Assemblymember Mark Leno. Not surprisingly, the sleaze is flying

We haven’t endorsed in this race, and we won’t until next spring, but I have said, repeatedly, that both sides ought to play fair and keep it clean and try to avoid doing long-term damage to the progressive community. If Migden manages to disenfrancise Leno supporters at Milk, it will be one of those ugly moves that hurts the club’s credibility.

Everyone tries to pack club endorsements. The Milk Club rules are designed to block that, and this may be an unintended consequence. But there are plenty of people who are clearly legit, long-term members of the Milk Club, and if there’s any question about who gets to vote, it ought to be decided in a way that is as democratic as possible.

Migden’s a former club president, and has a lot of strong Milk allies. She’s been a Milk person for years, and Leno has been much more closely allied with the more moderate Alice B. Toklas Club. Migden doesn’t need to play any games here; Leno’s the underdog for this endorsement anyway.

By the way, perhaps the Milk Club members could ask Sen. Migden why she’s so fond of Republican Don Fisher,, and whether she will take the $7,200 he’s given her campaign and turn it over to the Yes on A/ No on H campaign.

And to keep the debate lively, they can ask Assemblymember Leno why he’s so supportive of Mayor Gavin Newsom.

Why Vancouver sucks

-
5

vancouver-skyline-w.jpg
Look at all the pretty condos

I’m sick of hearing San Francisco planners, the folks at SPUR and SF Weekly columnists talk about how wonderful Vancouver is, what with all of the slender downtown condo towers that provide walkable neighborhoods, bike paths and a “new urbanist” approach to housing.

Here’s a bit of reality: The New York Times reports that housing costs in Vancouver are soaring. Guess what? All those condos haven’t brought down housing costs, or even stabilized them. The more condos, the higher the prices.

And guess what? Many of those rich condo buyers aren’t from Vancouver:

Fueling the high-end market are foreign and second-home buyers, [Helmut Pastrick, the chief economist for the Credit Union Central of British Columbia] said, though not necessarily from the United States. The weak American dollar, which for the first time in decades is worth less than the Canadian dollar, has been making real estate in Canada more expensive for Americans.

Other foreign buyers make up a significant percentage of the market, according to Ian Gillespie, the president of Westbank Projects. The company is building several residential towers downtown, including the 60-story Living Shangri-La, which will be Vancouver’s tallest building after it is completed in 2009.

“This is a very multicultural city,” said Mr. Gillespie, who cited as an example a pharmaceutical executive from the Middle East, who recently bought a 1,700-square-foot $3.65 million condo at the Fairmont Pacific Rim.

And:

To make room for some projects, hundreds of single-room-occupancy hotel rooms for low-income residents have been lost, said David Eby, a lawyer with the Pivot Legal Society, a legal advocacy group. High prices are pushing out middle-income renters and buyers, he added.

Gee, might there be a different kind of lesson here for San Francisco?

Halloween Specials

-
0

specials.jpg
Well, ain’t this special!
A Special Report from the Controller and the Legislative Analyst is recommending the establishment of an Office of Special Events.
The impetus for this special study came, says the report, from Sup. Bevan Dufty in the wake of Mayor Gavin Newsom’s decision to cancel a City-sponsored Halloween this year.
The report is already getting activists nervous.
That’s because one of its main thrusts is reviewing “whether the Entertainment Commission’s unfulfilled responsibility to attract and support special events (including those without sponsors) should officially be transferred to some other unit.”
That unit would most likely be contained within the Mayor’s Office.
Now, Piss-poor communication between the Mayor’s Office and the Entertainment Commission over Halloween 2007 became an open secret this year, after a public records request unearthed emails in which commissioners complained that the Mayor’s Office has been trying to avoid meeting with them to discuss plans to shift the event to the waterfront.
This may be why the Special Report recommends that the two be required to communicate in future, or it could be because, as the Special Report notes, a recent Civil Grand Jury found that “communication between the Entertainment Commission and the Mayor’s Office has not been sufficiently good to allow such efforts [promoting the development of a vibrant entertainment and late-night entertainment industry] to move forward.
Either way, it’s an interesting development ten days before this year’s non-event looms, and a tacit admission that no one in Room 200 is expecting to be able to kill Halloween 2008, which occurs on a Friday.
The report, which reviews the role of all the City’s major special events, not just Halloween, finds that San Francisco could benefit economically and culturally from additional special events, but that no city agency is currently focused on “attracting, creating and promoting” such events.
It suggests that the Convention and Visitors Bureau, which receives 56 percent of its $14 million budget from the City’s hotel tax to promote SF as a tourist destination, or another non-profit such as SF’s Grants For Arts, could play a larger role.
It also recommends that “ unsponsored events like Halloween are likely best managed by the Mayor’s Office in cooperation with a Private event producer.”
Stay tuned.

Free speech in Phoenix

-
0

I’ve had, to say the least, some fights with the company that publishes the SF Weekly. We’re suing the bastards for predatory pricing. I’ve made a few critical comments on the big chain in my time.

But I’m also the First Amendment chair of the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies, and we are strongly supporting the chain’s flagship paper, the Phoenix New Times, and its top executives, Mike Lacey and Jim Larkin, in their battle against a local sheriff and prosecutor in Arizona.

Clear Channel loses a big one

-
0

The San Francisco Board of Appeals did the right thing last week and blocked Clear Channel from using its corporate power to shake down small property owners. The board sided with Cheon Hool Lee, a retired Korean immigrant dentist who owns a building on Market Street, who lost a billboard because Clear Channel yanked it down when he demanded fair rent.

The legal issues were tricky, but the principle wasn’t: The giant conglomerate was acting like the mob. It had to be stopped.

And yet, the Board of Supervisors, usually far more progressive than the Board of Appeals, went along with Clear Channel and gave the evil media barons a twenty — that’s 20 — year contract to sell ads on bus shelters in the city. Only Ross Mirkarimi voted no.

I know it was a tough one for progressives — somehow, Muni management, which wants the money from the bus shelters, convinced the union for the bus drivers to lobby for the contract. And I realize that the estimated $15 million a year Muni will get out of the deal isn’t peanuts.

But I have to ask: How much is Clear Channel making? The company won’t say. All we know is that the contract is very lucrative, because the media barons went to great lengths to get it. Which means the city could have built the shelters itself, brought in even more money for Muni, hired even more bus drivers … and sent a message to Clear Channel.

Nope. DIdn’t happen.

Sutter’s assault on the Mission

-
0

So as some of us expected, Sutter Health now wants to effectively shut down St. Luke’s hospital in the Mission and turn it into an abulatory clinic.

That’s terrible news for the southeast neighborhoods; St. Luke’s is the only hospital other than SF General in the Mission area, and when St. Luke’s stops taking patients, they’ll all be shuttled to the already overcrowded public hospital.

Sutter is supposed to be a nonprofit, but it acts like a greedy corporation. The problem with St. Lukes is that it gets a lot of uninsured and Medi-Cal patients; Sutter only likes rich patients with good health plans.

Let’s hope the supervisors remember this when the assholes from Sutter come along and ask for permission to build a giant new hospital on Van Ness.

Fisher and his powerful friends

-
0

hummer limo.jpg
Why does Republican billionaire Don Fisher have such influence in San Francisco? Why does Mayor Gavin Newsom subvert good planning simply because Fisher tells him to, then sit on the sidelines while Fisher tries to fool voters into creating gridlock in our downtown? Why would Senator Carole Migden want Fisher — who wants to subvert the public education system with vouchers and charter schools — to serve on the State Board of Education, let alone sing his praises in public while appointing him? Why does anyone still listen to the Fisher-sponsored SFSOS, which still draws elected officials to its luncheons? Is our political system so thoroughly corrupted by money that self-proclaimed liberal Democrats are willing to crawl in bed with such an ideological Neanderthal?
At the Yes on A, No on H rally in front of the Gap yesterday, near where they had parked the rented white Hummer (which H deems a “low-emission vehicle,” exempt from parking restrictions), Board of Supervisors president Aaron Peskin framed the issue for those of us who don’t want or need Fisher’s money: “San Franciscans have a clear choice. We can either pursue the Republican policies of the last century and continue to clog our roads and pollute our cities and poison our air, or we can move into the 21st Century.”

Jerry Brown gives City green light to sue Jew

-
0

Jewsmall.jpg
Photo by Charles Russo

The sun may be shining, but it’s raining legal cats and dogs for suspended Sup. Ed Jew.

On the eve of a preliminary hearing by the City’s Ethics Commission into charges of official misconduct by Supervisor Jew, California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. has granted City Attorney Dennis Herrera’s application for leave to sue in quo warranto to remove Jew from the Board of Supervisors for failure to comply with the City Charter’s residency requirements .

The ruling comes a little more than three weeks after Mayor Gavin Newsom initiated official misconduct proceedings against Jew and suspended the District 4 supervisor, replacing him, at least for now, with political rookie Carmen Chu.

City Attorney Herrera says that in llight of the Ethics Commission’s preliminary hearing tomorrow, he intends, “to carefully evaluate” the legal options.
“In the coming days, I will decide how best to represent the City’s interest in concluding a crisis that has clouded the legitimacy of San Francisco’s representative government for too long,” Herrera said in a press release.

Tomorrow’s preliminary Ethics Commission hearing takes place at 1:30 p.m. in Room 416, City Hall.

More parking = more cars = gridlock

-
2

trafficsqueeze.jpg
I attended a Transportation Authority workshop last night on its new Mobility, Access, and Pricing Study (which, among other things, might recommend a fee to drive downtown, just like London, Rome, and Stockholm have) — and I came away more convinced than ever that San Francisco is screwed if downtown greedheads fool people into approving Prop. H and defeating Prop. A.
Ours is one of five U.S. cities selected to collectively receive almost $1 billion in federal money to study and implement ways of reducing traffic congestion. Why? Because we’re the second most congested downtown in the country after Los Angeles. Preliminary studies show traffic congestion cost San Francisco $2.3 billion in 2005 (in delays, fuel, health impacts, and slowed commerce), congestion consistently ranks as people’s top concern in surveys, traffic has slowed our transit system to a crawl, congestion roughly doubles travel times, and half our city’s greenhouse gas emissions come from cars. And if Prop. H is approved, there will be unfettered new parking construction, putting up to 20,000 new cars on our clogged roads, according to the Planning Department. This is madness!
I’m baffled why the Chamber of Commerce supports this because the evidence is clear it will hurt business (perhaps they’re just blinded to reality by their slavishly doctrinaire devotion free markets and hatred of all things government). Study after study shows that more parking draws more cars, and in our built-out city, where there’s no room for creating more lanes, that means more traffic congestion. And therefore slower Muni, which will cause more people to want to drive or ride bikes, which will cause even more congestion — a feedback loop that leads to gridlock. C’mon everybody, think about this stuff for a second because it isn’t rocket science. You can support more traffic or better transit, your choice.

The late great Jim Rivaldo

-
0

Jim Rivaldo, who was Harvey Milk’s first campaign manager and was involved in progressive politics in San Francisco for more than 30 years, died last night. He was a remarkable guy, a rare political consultant who had high ethics, a real sense of progressive political ideology, and a sweet personality. He never had a mean word to say about anyone.

There’s a good story about him here. I’ll have a lot more this week. Meanwhile, his many friends all over San Francisco miss him.

1...223224225...258Page 224 of 258

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